Table 3-1.
Core data sources
| Type of Material | Sources |
|---|---|
| Academic Literature | Representative studies: Freelon & Lokot (2020) on network analysis of information warfare in Ukraine; Helmus et al. (2023) systematic review of Russian disinformation. |
| Think Tank Reports | Analyses from institutions like the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (NATO StratCom COE). |
| Technical Audits & Open-Source Investigations | Technical forensics from organizations such as the Stanford Internet Observatory, Graphika, and Bellingcat. |
| Platform Transparency Reports | Periodic reports from Meta, Twitter/X, Google, Tik-Tok, etc., regarding the removal of disinformation networks and state-sponsored manipulation. |
| Investigative Journalism | In-depth reporting from media outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, and The Guardian. |
Table 3-2.
Narrative Framework during 2014 Crimea
| Narrative Framework | Key Elements | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Protection Narrative | Framing: The new Ukrainian government portrayed as “Nazis” and “fascists” threatening Russian-speaking populations Evidence Construction: Repeatedly broadcasting footage of far-right groups at Kyiv protests Emotional Appeal: Historical trauma (Great Patriotic War), duty of ethnic protection | Szostek’s (2017) discourse analysis showed this narrative appeared in Russian domestic media 20-30 times daily |
| Historical Justice Narrative | Framing: Crimea “has always belonged” to Russia; Khrushchev’s 1954 “transfer” was a historical mistake Symbolic Mobilization: Citing Catherine the Great’s 1783 annexation, symbolic significance of Sevastopol as “Hero City” Legal Argumentation: Emphasizing Crimean people’s “right to self-determination” | Putin dedicated significant portions of his March 18 speech to elaborating this historical narrative (Putin, 2014) |
| Western Hypocrisy Narrative | Framing: The West supported Kosovo’s independence, but opposed Crimea’s, exposing double standards Strategy: Drawing analogy between Crimea and Kosovo, questioning “rules-based international order” Goal: Not to persuade the West, but to undermine its moral authority | Lanoszka (2016) noted this narrative created degree of “moral equivalence” perception among international audiences |