Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
An Ecology of Everyday Violence: Russian Telegram Discourse and War Atrocities in Ukraine Cover

An Ecology of Everyday Violence: Russian Telegram Discourse and War Atrocities in Ukraine

By:   
Open Access
|Mar 2026

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Top 250 Posts Over Time (Daily Counts)

Table 1:

Summary of Meta-Frame Prevalence Across Incidents

Meta-FrameBucha (n)Irpin (n)Mariupol (n)Total
B1. Denial and Deflection11085344932135
B2. Moral Justification and Legitimation6365057951936
B3. Dehumanization and Eliminationism60117383560
B4. Heroism and Glorification150280522952
B5. Escalation and Retribution16421472
Total197014782207

[i] Note: The totals represent the sum of all coded instances per meta-frame across posts; multiple codes may co-occur in a single post.

Figure 2:

Thematic Map of Meta-Frames

Note: Thicker lines indicate more frequent co-occurrence of themes; darker red stronger association.

Table 2:

Coding Results (Detailed Breakdown)

Meta-Frame/CodeLabel/Operational DefinitionBucha (n, %)Irpin (n, %)Mariupol (n, %)
A. General Coding Variables
A1Explicit violence – Mentions or descriptions of violent acts, casualties, or destruction.128 (51.2%)187 (74.8%)133 (53.2%)
A2Stance – Evaluative tone towards the described violence (approving, condemning, neutral).236 (94.4%)250 (100.0%)250 (100.0%)
A3Primary target – Identifies who or what is targeted (civilians, military, infrastructure, etc.).227 (90.8%)250 (100.0%)250 (100.0%)
B1. Denial and Deflection – Total1108534493
B1aLiteral denial – Direct rejection of allegations (“feik,” “ne bylo,” “not true”).142 (56.8%)52 (20.8%)32 (12.8%)
B1bInterpretive denial – Reframing events (“special operation”, “cleansing”, “liberation”).152 (60.8%)55 (22.0%)51 (20.4%)
B1cImplicatory denial – Acknowledges harm but minimizes its moral or political significance.114 (45.6%)41 (16.4%)35 (14.0%)
B1dDenial of injury – Claims that no civilians or innocents were harmed.85 (34.0%)56 (22.4%)30 (12.0%)
B1eDenial of responsibility – Blames Ukraine, NATO, or legitimate orders for harm.185 (74.0%)76 (30.4%)91 (36.4%)
B1fCondemning the condemners – Attacks critics as biased (“Western propaganda”, “fake news”).170 (68.0%)87 (34.8%)54 (21.6%)
B1gPerpetrator other – Depicts Ukraine or the West as the true aggressor, Nazi, or terrorist.171 (68.4%)121 (48.4%)187 (74.8%)
B1hProvocation/false-flag – Claims events were staged or fabricated by Ukraine or the West.169 (67.6%)46 (18.4%)13 (5.2%)
B2. Moral Justification and Legitimation–Total636505795
B2aDeserving victim – Portrays victims as deserving harm (“Nazis”, “terrorists”).122 (48.8%)71 (28.4%)163 (65.2%)
B2bMoral justification – Violence as righteous self-defence or restoration of justice.41 (16.4%)105 (42.0%)166 (66.4%)
B2cEuphemistic labeling — Sanitized language for violence (“denazification”, “zachistka”, “operation”).110 (44.0%)115 (46.0%)185 (74.0%)
B2dAdvantageous comparison – Compares Russia’s actions favourably to Western wars.49 (19.6%)67 (26.8%)164 (65.6%)
B2eDisplacement/diffusion of responsibility – Assigns accountability to collective entities (“the army”, “orders from command”).131 (52.4%)81 (32.4%)39 (15.6%)
B2fMinimization of consequences – Downplays severity of violence (“precision strikes”, “limited casualties”).95 (38.0%)66 (26.4%)78 (31.2%)
B3. Dehumanization and Eliminationism – Total60117383
B3aDehumanization – Compares Ukrainians to vermin, beasts, pests, machines, or objects.43 (17.2%)86 (34.4%)130 (52.0%)
B3b“Liberation”/re-education – Imagines violence as curing or rehabilitating Ukraine (“de-Ukrainization”, “spiritual cleansing”).8 (3.2%)12 (4.8%)113 (45.2%)
B3cExterminationism/eliminationism – Advocates or celebrates total destruction (“wipe off the face of the earth”, “no mercy”).2 (0.8%)10 (4.0%)66 (26.4%)
B3dPurification metaphors – Portrays violence as moral or spiritual cleansing.7 (2.8%)9 (3.6%)74 (29.6%)
B4. Heroism and Glorification – Total150280522
B4aHeroic self – Describes Russian soldiers as “liberators”, “defenders”, or “heroes.”49 (19.6%)97 (38.8%)174 (69.6%)
B4bHigher loyalties – Violence framed as patriotic or sacred duty.47 (18.8%)127 (50.8%)183 (73.2%)
B4cReconstruction/humanitarian – Frames rebuilding and aid as moral renewal, proof of Russian virtue.54 (21.6%)56 (22.4%)165 (66.0%)
B5. Escalation and Retribution – Total164214
B5aCollective punishment/retribution – Frames violence as revenge for earlier attacks.8 (3.2%)11 (4.4%)4 (1.6%)
B5bHeavier/wider strikes – Calls for escalation (“strike decision centres”, “hit harder”).8 (3.2%)31 (12.4%)10 (4.0%)

[i] Notes: Percentages are calculated using 250 posts per incident as the denominator. Totals represent the sum of all coded instances per meta-frame across posts; multiple codes may co-occur in a single post.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/cmc-2026-0004 | Journal eISSN: 2463-9575 | Journal ISSN: 2232-2825
Language: English, Slovenian
Page range: 29 - 52
Published on: Mar 31, 2026
Published by: General Staff of the Slovenian Armed Forces
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2026 Ian Garner, published by General Staff of the Slovenian Armed Forces
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.