ROLES Insights Number 2023-4 October 6, 2023

ROLES INSIGHTSROLES Insights is a commentary series written by our staff and project members on pressing issues relating
to politics, security, religion, and society. Views expressed in the analyses are those of the authors and do not
represent the official position of ROLES, nor necessarily the author’s affiliations. The commentaries may be
reproduced electronically or in print with prior permission from ROLES, but with due recognition to theauthor/s and ROLES. Please email: office@me.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp

The Problematic Nature of the Naming of the “Ukraine War”
Number2023-4

October 6, 2023

By Pavlo Ferdorchenko-Kutuyev and Hideaki Shinoda

The Problem of the Phrase “Ukraine War”
War is the continuation of politics by other means, a famous saying goes. In the second sectionof this piece, we examined the complexities surrounding the term ‘Ukraine War’ from bothinternational law and international relations perspectives. If we look at Russian aggression against
Ukraine through the lens of realpolitik, addressing the issue of public opinion becomes essential.
Winning on the battlefield is essential for the Ukraine’s survival, both politically and physically,
given the genocidal nature of Russian aggression. However, the war is a multifaceted undertaking,and it is taking place within political context. Consequently, it is critical for Ukraine’s defense
strategy to secure political victories, which necessitates garnering support in the court of public
opinion. Mass media plays important role in informing the public and public opinion in both sensesof the word “inform” — providing information (facts, data, etc.) and influencing/shaping the
public’s views and opinions.
Thus, the choice of words/terms to describe Russian invasion of Ukraine is extremely

RCAST Open Laboratory for Emergence Strategies
Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Tokyo
4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904 JAPANhttps://roles.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en
office@me.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp

ROLES Insights Number 2023-4 October 6, 2023

significant and consequential. Although reputable media outlets use precise terms like “RussiaUkraine War,” they also deem it acceptable to use the shorthand “Ukraine War” in their titles. Thisis a major problem, as the latter expression obscures the nature Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
The situation is worsened by Russia’s aggressive, adept, and lavishly funded global propaganda
machine which disseminates false narratives about Ukraine. Key messages from this propaganda
include claims questioning the illegitimacy of the Ukrainian government after Maidan revolutionthat ousted Russian puppet Yanukovch, assertions about the artificial nature of the Ukrainian nation,
and allegations of a Nazi presence in Ukrainian politics. Russian propaganda adeptly engages withthe paranoid rhetoric of populist demagogues in liberal democracies—such as the Trumpist
movement—in an attempt to legitimize and sanitize its war against Ukraine. It’s worth noting that
the Russian state also actively leverages the Orthodox Church to advance its agenda on a global
scale. Given the sheer scale of atrocities committed by Russians against Ukrainians during thisphase of war against Ukraine, it is imperative for Ukraine to disseminate accurate information about
the Russian-Ukrainian war. The key element of this strategy is calling a spade a spade. The Russian
war on Ukraine should be accurately portrayed and understood for what it is — an unprovoked andunlawful act of aggression. Ukrainian academics and diplomatic missions should take a central rolein spreading accurate information about this war, in order to win public opinion and secure support
from as many national governments as possible, with the aim of ending the war on terms favorable
to Ukraine.

Reflections on the Use of the Phrase “Ukraine War”

Governments throughout the world officially do not use the phrases “Ukrainian War” or“Ukraine War”. As a result, international organizations like the UN likewise do not use such naming
conventions for the conflict. Many states and IGOs are more precise in their references to the war,
describing it as a “full-scale invasion of Russia” or “aggression of Russia” to accurately convey thelegal context of the situation. These entities are also apparently aware of the problematic nature of
the phrase, “Ukrainian War”. In order to avoid the political connotations, governments and

RCAST Open Laboratory for Emergence Strategies
Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Tokyo
4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904 JAPANhttps://roles.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en
office@me.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp

ROLES Insights Number 2023-4 October 6, 2023

international organizations simply avoid using the phrase. Despite the political sensitivity, however,journalists and even scholars so often carelessly use the phrase; the reason being that it is simple
and an editor can reduce the number of words in titles. However, the choice of phrasing may
inadvertently reflect a political stance, which those using the phrase may or may not intend. The
phrase may be chosen for its journalistic impact to quickly catch the reader’s attention. Beyond thiscommercial rationale, there also seem to be some conventional reasons behind the scenes, whichcarry sensitive political implications. In order to identify the problematic nature of the expression,
let us explore three major patterns of the way we name wars.
First, the traditional manner of naming a war is to use the names of the two warring states.
This custom became prevalent around the 19th century during the times of great power politics andafter the establishment of international law based upon the concept of state sovereignty. For
instance, when Japan waged war against Russia in 1904, the war was called “Russo-Japanese War”.
In this way, many scholars are now using the expression “Russo-Ukraine War” to describe theongoing war between Russia and Ukraine as objectively as possible.
Second, when the number of warring parties are so numerous that mentioning of only a few
would be misleading, the task of naming the war becomes problematic. Typical examples are the“First World War” or the “Thirty Years War”, etc. Similarly, a series of wars may be described using
various terms, such as the war known in Israel as the “Yom Kippur War, which is referred to in the
Arab World as the “October War”. This approach to naming has not been applied to the ongoing
war between Russia and Ukraine. Although NATO member states are currently offering strong
support to Ukraine, they are not actually parties to the conflict. Therefore, the warring parties are
only the two states: Russia and Ukraine. In addition, there is no clear consensus on any culturally
symbolic or period-descriptive characteristics of the war that inform how it is so referred.
Third, a war sometimes carries the name of a particular geographical area especially when
the geographical location is related to the vital war agenda. Classic examples would include the“Crimean War” or “Falkland Islands War (Conflict)”. Since the end of WWII in 1945, the majorityof armed conflicts have been intra-state wars. As a result, it has become increasingly common toname wars after the specific geographical regions where the armed conflicts take place, such as the

RCAST Open Laboratory for Emergence Strategies
Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Tokyo
4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904 JAPANhttps://roles.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en
office@me.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp

ROLES Insights Number 2023-4 October 6, 2023

“Biafran War” or the “Tigray Conflict”. This naming convention is also seen inter-state wars,
particularly when the conflict arises from a territorial dispute, as in the cases of the “Kashmir
Conflict” or the “Cyprus Conflict”. When a civil war encompasses nearly the entire geographicalterritory of a sovereign state, the conflict is often named after the state itself, as in examples like the“Sierra Leone Civil War” or the “Liberian Civil War”.
When the United States labeled its 2001 military campaign against the Taliban in
Afghanistan the “Afghanistan War”, and its 2003 invasion of Iraq as the “Iraq War”, it was
employing the third pattern of war naming. They named the war after the name of the state where
the war took place geographically. After 1945, the United States has consistently used thisgeographical naming pattern in its 20th-century military engagements, as seen in conflicts like the“Korean War” and the “Vietnam War”. Yet, these wars had the structure of the confrontation
between the same national groups before active U.S. involvement. It can be said that the U.S. onlyintervened in wars between the same national groups, even if its intervention may have intensified
the wars significantly. The “Bosnian Conflict” and the “Kosovo Conflict” involved U.S.
intervention in civil wars via NATO, either with the backing or under scrutiny of the UN Security
Council. In the case of the 2001 Afghanistan War, it is important to note that a civil war had alreadybeen ongoing in Afghanistan prior to the U.S. invasion. However, we typically make a distinction
between the civil war in Afghanistan before 2001 and the conflict initiated by the U.S. in 2001. In
the case of the “Iraq War” of 2003, it was more clearly the case that the U.S. started the war byinvading Iraq. There had been no substantively continuous civil war in Iraq before the US invasion.
The George W. Bush administration liked to use the phrase, the “Global War on Terror(GWOT)”, which served as a sweeping, rhetorical characterization of global conflict under the Bush
Doctrine’s “you’re either with us or without us” stance. Yet if the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
were geographically confined wars in the larger GWOT, it could have been possible that the twowars were treated as territorial wars of a larger war, rather than just wars between sovereign states.
Nevertheless, the GWOT was in the end such an abstract war that the argument would not soundsufficiently plausible. In fact, most international lawyers today consider the “Iraq War” or the “US

RCAST Open Laboratory for Emergence Strategies
Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Tokyo
4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904 JAPANhttps://roles.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en
office@me.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp

ROLES Insights Number 2023-4 October 6, 2023

invasion in Iraq” as an unlawful act of aggression. The choice between the two possible names forthe same event is inherently tied to our assessment of the legality of the U.S. action in 2003.
It is here that the very problematic nature of the phrasing of the “Ukrainian War” appears. If
we refer to the U.S. action in 2003 the “Iraq War”, rather than the “U.S. aggression in Iraq” or eventhe “U.S.-Iraq War”, it opens the door for accepting Russia’s argument that their “special military
operation” is a fight against “oppression by the Neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv” and the “imperial
expansion of NATO.” This argument is used to justify protecting the “Russian speaking
population’s “war of independence” in parts of Ukraine (originally limited to Donetsk, Luhansk,
and Crimea, but now also including Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, which Russia eventually aims toannex). The vast majority of countries globally avoid using the term “Ukrainian War”, at least
officially. This is because approximately three-quarters of UN General Assembly members voted infavor of a resolution recognizing Russia’s actions as “aggression”, which is inherently illegal underinternational law and violates the UN Charter. Notably, those who use the phrase, the “Ukrainian
War” or “Ukraine War”, are challenging this subtle yet significant standpoint in favor of Russia tothe detriment of Ukraine.
The phrase, “Ukrainian War”, is truly problematic legally and politically. The U.S., which is
responsible for the invasion in Iraq in 2003, is now a major supporter of Ukraine. The U.S.
government, however, is cautious in its terminology, deliberately avoiding the use of the phrases“Ukrainian War” or “Ukraine War”, to highlight the illegality of Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Nonetheless, many Americans, including journalists and scholars, freely use the terms “Ukrainian
War” or “Ukraine War”, seemingly without questioning the implications of such naming, as they
did with the “Iraq War”. Those hesitant to challenge popular American sentiment may avoid
questioning the problematic nature of the phrases, the “Ukrainian War” as well as the “Iraq War”. In
doing so, they inadvertently align with President Vladimir Putin’s narrative, which frames Russia’s
actions as a “special military operation” in Ukraine’s so-called war of independence.
Should proponents of the “Global South” against the “Global North” or those with anti-USor anti-Western ideologies begin to argue for replacing the term “Iraq War” with somethingequivalent to the “U.S. full-scale invasion of Iraq”, many Americans may find themselves

RCAST Open Laboratory for Emergence Strategies
Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Tokyo
4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904 JAPANhttps://roles.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en
office@me.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp

ROLES Insights Number 2023-4 October 6, 2023

perplexed. The problematic nature of the phrase “Ukrainian War” and not something moreequivalent to “Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine” in this way really entails highly controversial
and deeply political issues. One may find it intimidating to discuss the issue. Nevertheless, aheightened academic awareness is essential for a more nuanced analysis of the nature of theongoing war and its broader context.
***********************************************

Dr. Pavlo Ferdorchenko-Kutuyev is Professor of Sociology and Chair at the Sociology Department, Igor
Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute.

Dr. Hideaki Shinoda is Professor at the Institute of Global Studies of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
He is concurrently a Visiting Senior Research Fellow of RCAST of the University of Tokyo.

RCAST Open Laboratory for Emergence Strategies
Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, the University of Tokyo
4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8904 JAPANhttps://roles.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en
office@me.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp