Rhetorical depictions of conflict as inevitable or in response to aggression create the conditions for war --- quantitative studies prove.

Studies of war speeches by world leaders have described the power of language to frame situations (emergency or war) and defined in terms of its influence on frames, images, narratives, metaphors, and emotions (see Gross & Ni Aolain, ). In their study of the rhetoric and legality of war, Gross and Ni Aolain () link the functions of language with the complexity of decision-making for American policy makers following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2002, and concludes that ‘the adoption and adaptation of the language of emergency and war by presidents’ is ‘a significant political and legal tool’ (p. 244). Campbell and Jamieson () describe a President as a ‘choice architect’, and ‘skillful presidents not only adapt to their audiences; they engage in a process of transforming those who hear them into the audiences they desire’ (p. 244). The study further argues that ‘the language used in the framing of the relevant events and issues is not only shaped and informed by reality, but also, in itself, constitutive of what that reality may be … ’ Thus, ‘meaning is not discovered in situations, but created by rhetors … the president being the chief storyteller … ’ (p. 245). Literature in rhetorical studies has further established the character of war rhetoric especially those that describe the features of American presidential speeches. For example, Rzepecka () analyzing the ‘continuity and shifts in war messages of George H. W. Bush in 1991 and George W. Bush in 2002’, identifies some characteristics of presidential war speeches such as thoughtful consideration, narration of events, and a call to unanimity and dedication. According to Benjamin ( cited in Rzepecka, , pp. 226–7), presidential war messages perform two basic functions; firstly, they give the historical outline of the justification for war, and secondly, they offer a description of the president’s aims and objectives. Lordan () suggests six predictable discursive features of presidential war rhetoric as follows: (i) the enunciation of self-protection (ii) the representation of the enemy as the aggressor (iii) the just war theory (iv) the moral superiority of the war option (v) the inevitability of conflict and (vi) the guarantee of victory. Indeed, while these features are common in presidential speeches and also exist in the Putin-Zelensky rhetoric, our study identifies other features that perhaps may have responded to the peculiar situation of the Ukrainian war and those that belong to the war of words or linguistic violence. Some persuasive strategies of war messages identified by Rzepecka (, p. 227) include the argument structure, fear tactics, techniques used to reinforce the good intentions and morality of the message, simplification (of message content in certain situations) and a shift in emphasis. Gross and Ni Aolain () further adds that presidential rhetoric addresses two socially constructed target populations (i.e. ‘us’ and ‘them’) – ‘us’ who need protection and the ‘dangerous others’ who threaten us (p.250). Thus, war rhetoric recognizes the ‘united community of patriots’ and identifies and names the enemy (see also Oddo, ) Galtung () argues that there is a link between language and war and that it is almost obvious to identify what words stand for at the semantic level even though some remain in euphemism. However, the internal structures of war texts usually betray hidden messages tilted in favor of war or peace. During the war, non-palatable truths are distorted and suppressed through language in order to protect the sensibilities of the war or rationalize and justify acts of war such as pride, hatred, self-esteem or contempt for others. Elgin () further adds that often, violence exerted by individuals or nations is preceded by some form of violent language (see also Chiluwa & Ajiboye, ).