Wartime Rhetoric in Ukraine: From Pluralism to Mobilisation

The Transformation of the Cognitive Paradigm

Martial law in a democratic country transforms the prevailing cognitive paradigm from one that is open and pluralistic to one that is closed and homogenised. War does not always accommodate multidimensional thinking or critical inquiry — it pulls us towards cohesion around political and military authority in order to repel an external enemy.

These new realities permeate state policy, social media communication, and everyday interaction. Communication becomes binary. As communication changes, so does thought.

The Paradox of Democracy Confronting Authoritarianism

War — as an act of aggression — is itself a manifestation of authoritarianism. To respond to authoritarianism with democratic principles and pluralistic values is an extraordinarily difficult undertaking. How does a pluralistic system resist a dictatorship that mobilises around a single individual and suppresses all dissenting voices?

It is for this reason that Ukraine's wartime rhetoric has assumed an authoritarian form — in both official and media communication. Since war does not allow for a broad spectrum of emotions and viewpoints but instead demands binary, emotionally charged thinking, political and media rhetoric becomes saturated with excess emotion, categorical assertion, and hyperbole.

This is most strikingly evident in media rhetoric. Bloggers and commentators frequently amplify news, advancing inflated assessments and expectations, with a corrosive effect on public sentiment. Society absorbs this information emotionally and may subsequently fall into disillusionment — particularly given that Ukraine is not a closed country and its citizens retain access to international sources.

Polarisation and the Cultivation of Cognitive Rigidity

Wartime rhetoric is often polarised rhetoric. It is anti-democratic and authoritarian in form — it does not accommodate the opposing viewpoint, let alone a plurality of viewpoints. Pluralistic thinking becomes an impossibility.

Such rhetoric inevitably degrades the quality of thought. Thinking becomes excessively emotional and diminished in its critical capacity. The fundamental condition for survival under a wartime regime is polarisation and unidirectional thinking, focused entirely on the preservation of life.

Yet unidirectionality breeds rigidity — an inability to respond flexibly to new circumstances, to revise one's position, to acknowledge the complexity of a situation. Cognitive rigidity is cultivated as a survival mechanism: any ambivalence, any doubt, any alternative viewpoint comes to be perceived as weakness or even treacherous. The consequence is that society loses its capacity for internal dialogue — not only with the aggressor, but among its own constituent groups.

This dynamic gives rise to a profound mutual incomprehension between Ukraine's political elites and those of Europe and America. An analogous rift exists between Ukrainians living under martial law within Ukraine and those living abroad. The result is mounting tension between these groups, each retreating further into its own information environment and mode of thought.

Inclusive Communication with Military Personnel

It is precisely this emotional climate of polarisation, excess emotion, rigidity, and binary thinking that made it urgent to establish clear guidelines for communicating with members of the armed forces.

The rhetoric of engagement with military personnel — as it has taken shape during the ongoing period of martial law — deserves careful consideration in its own right. It represents a distinct mode of communication, oriented towards avoiding the triggering of distressing emotions or memories in people who have undergone combat experience or survived captivity.

What NOT to do:

• Do not ask about the details of time spent in captivity
• Do not ask whether they have killed anyone
• Do not ask: "How can I help you?"
• Do not offer help without being asked
• Do not single this person out as belonging to a special category
• Do not treat them as a victim
• Do not be overly familiar or presumptuous
• Do not compare your own experience — whether as a volunteer or a medic — with that of frontline serviceperson; these are incommensurable things
• Do not justify your own non-participation in military operations
• Do not avert your gaze on the street
• Do not express gratitude out loud in an excessively emotional manner
• Do not withdraw or create distance
• Do not say to someone close to you: "You weren't like this before" — particularly in a reproachful tone

What TO do:

• Engage with them as you would with any civilian
• Give them the space they need — do not impose yourself
• If you are unsure whether a topic might be sensitive, ask: "May I ask about this? Is this something you find difficult to talk about?"
• Always establish a bridge of communication to understand where personal boundaries lie
• Avoid sudden movements — military personnel are trained to monitor abrupt gestures and will be heightened in their alertness
• Avoid sharp, sweeping, or emphatic gestures
• Do not breach personal boundaries — do not touch their hands or clap them on the shoulder
• Do not be condescending in gesture or brusque in manner
• Make the person feel that they are the same as everyone else
• Do not apply emotional pressure
• Show respect — not pity
• Remember that every soldier, like every person, is different
• If someone wishes to speak and initiates the conversation themselves — feel free to engage
• If a person shows no desire to speak — do not press them

The guiding principle is this: treat a serviceperson as a human being — as an equal, as you would treat any other civilian — a person who has the right to peace, to safety, to self-realisation; who may do as they wish, say what they wish, and be who they wish to be; who is valued, respected, and loved.

Respect and gratitude are expressed precisely in this way.

Silence and the Crisis of Trust

The suppression of urgent and painful questions within public life — the absence of open, honest dialogue about taboo subjects such as the problems of the war itself, mobilisation, and wartime corruption — only deepens the pervasive sense of danger. Dialogue is absent: between different groups within society, between government and citizens, between branches of power, and within the political elite itself.

This drives individual citizens inward, amplifying their sense of isolation and threat. The absence of dialogue renders objective sociological research impossible and strips it of its relevance. Distorted responses produce distorted assessments of public sentiment — assessments that can then be manipulated by political elites and media alike. This constitutes a grave threat to democratic order.

The Price of Wartime Rhetoric

War is incompatible with democracy, freedom, and development. Wartime rhetoric produces regression across every dimension of public life:

• The ethical foundations of society
• Rhetorical culture
• The capacity for dialogue
• Critical thinking
• National development

In mobilising the most active social energies against the enemy, war exhausts society not only physically but intellectually and morally. The cognitive rigidity cultivated as a survival mechanism may yet become an obstacle to post-war reconstruction — not merely of infrastructure, but of democratic institutions.

Perspective

The paradox is this: democracy, to survive, is sometimes compelled to temporarily curtail its own principles. The question is whether, after the war, society will prove capable of restoring pluralistic thinking, critical inquiry, and dialogue — or whether authoritarian rhetorical forms and cognitive rigidity will take deep root.

The recognition of this paradox is the first step towards overcoming it. The understanding that wartime rhetoric is a compelled but temporary form — an exception, not a model — may help preserve the memory of democratic values even in the darkest of times.

Wartime rhetoric is not the new normal. It is an exception that must never become the rule.