Rhetorical Analysis of Vladimir Putin’s National Address by NICOLE PENDELTON
Rhetorical Method
Defining Pathos: Argument of Emotion
Aristotle outlined key definitions in his work on the methods of argument. As expressed by Rapp (2022), the argumentative method of pathos relies on appealing to the emotions of the listener (Section 5.2, para. 1). As listeners are expected to make a judgement of the rhetoric spoken by the rhetor, the judgement desired by the rhetor can be influenced through the listeners’ emotions. This is because emotions hold sway over human judgement and choices; thus, using arguments of pathos can create an advantage for the rhetor’s attempts to persuade. Anger, fear, joy, grief, and even love can influence highly the types of choices people make on what they are to think.
Defining Fallacies of Pathos
When rhetoric is used, there exists the possibility that the arguments are constructed on fallacies. They contain levels of faulty reasoning and, as expressed by Lunsford & Ruszkiewicz (2021), are “arguments that are flawed by their very nature or structure” (p. 74). Fallacies can be used accidentally or on purpose in order to persuade others or argue a point, even though the foundations are irrational. Thus, it is important to analyse rhetoric for such fallacies. There are different types of fallacies in Aristotle's three methods of argument. For arguments of emotion, there are five subtypes: Scare tactics, either-or choices, slippery slope fallacies, overly sentimental appeals, and bandwagon appeals (Lunsford & Ruszkiewicz, 2021, p. 75-78). Putin’s National Address contains an example of every single one of those fallacies. Scare tactics exaggerate danger and instigate fear to persuade and motivate listeners; it has the effect of halting critical thinking as fear is not conducive to rational choice. Either-or choices simplify an argument, especially complex arguments, into just two options with only one option being good. It can be used to ignore alternative options in favour of the two options expressed by the rhetor, with the only good option being the one they desire. A slippery slope fallacy is an exaggerated chain of events, with one small event leading to the most catastrophic outcomes quickly. Rhetors can evoke slippery slope fallacies in order to produce fear and, thus, a slippery slope is also a type of scare tactic. Meanwhile, overly sentimental appeals attempt to distract listeners with sentiment. “Often, such appeals are highly personal and individual and often focus attention on heartwarming or heartwrenching situations” (Lunsford & Ruszkiewicz, 2021, p. 77).
This, like previously expressed fallacies, uses emotion to prevent clear thought as the individuality of the fallacy makes it more personal, closer. Finally, bandwagon appeals are fallacies arguing: Because “everyone else” is doing something, the listener should also do that thing. Large-scale movements can rely on such a tactic and can do so successfully, especially when the rhetor is discussing something that affects the population of an entire nation—as the rhetoric in Putin’s speech does.
Rhetorical Analysis
The subject of Putin’s National Address is the partial mobilisation of the Russian Federation’s military in response to the ongoing war for Ukraine. This address was given September 21, 2022. In the address, the President of Russia (2022) speaks to the people of Russia, which in itself is an overly sentimental appeal:
Today I am addressing you – all citizens of our country, people of different generations, ages and ethnicities, the people of our great Motherland, all who are united by the great historical Russia, soldiers, officers and volunteers who are fighting on the frontline and doing their combat duty, our brothers and sisters in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions and other areas that have been liberated from the neo-Nazi regime. (para. 2)
As an overly sentimental appeal, this paragraph not only aims at the people of Russia directly, but wraps them together as brothers and sisters, community members. It draws attention to the struggle of soldiers in the war, and serves to draw an individual into that which affects the nation and beyond. By making this personal, pathos is put into and used in the rhetoric from the start. Furthermore, a bandwagon appeal appears as the President of Russia (2022) mentions, “Fighting side by side with [military personnel] are volunteer units – people of different ethnicities, professions and ages who are real patriots. They answered the call of their hearts to rise up in defence of Russia” (para. 10). As a bandwagon appeal seeks to make it sound like everyone is doing something, here it is expressed that people of all types—and those who are true patriots—have all joined the cause. This suggests that audience members, too, should feel comfortable in joining the fight for their brothers and sisters.
While making arguments of emotion with an overly sentimental appeal and the bandwagon fallacy, Putin proceeds to use the first of many scare tactics. He explains how partial military mobilisation is necessary as the West seeks to “weaken, divide and ultimately destroy our country” (President of Russia, 2022, para. 4). The danger is exaggerated as he binds “the West” into a large threat seeking to “destroy” Russia; that “the West” seeks the destruction of Russia is a powerful phrasing to instigate fear of this threat. Further appeals to emotion in scare tactics continue as Putin paints a picture of what the Western countries have done, whether true or false: “They turned the Ukrainian people into cannon fodder and pushed them into a war with Russia ... They used the army against civilians and organised a genocide, blockade and terror” (President of Russia, 2022, para 5). Strong language with extreme, exaggerated circumstances are used. These ideas are continued through the address as the President of Russia (2022) claims civilians have been beaten, taken hostage, tortured, used as human shields, and suffer the bombing of their schools and hospitals. As these scare tactics are used through the address, the inherent picture painted is thus one of a violent West keen on death and destruction only. While the threat to Russia is expressed through scare tactics, Putin also supports
Russia’s partial military mobilisation with an either-or choice and a slippery slope fallacy. The President of Russia (2022) claims, “the decision to start a pre-emptive military operation was necessary and the only option” (para. 7). The other option is expressed inherently through the scare tactics of civilian deaths and genocide; these two options express how, if Russia does not begin pre-emptive violence, it will lead to the destruction of Russia. This simplifies the complex situation in Ukraine and the world, where more is at play and other options such as peace talks or non-mobilisation could be considered. Peace talks, however, are never mentioned as a viable option in the National Address, leaving the either-or choice between one violence or another violence. It is through the expressions of violence that slippery slope fallacies are added. As the language is exaggerated to evoke fear of the West to justify Russia’s partial military mobilization, the slippery slope exaggerates what will occur otherwise. “It is ... the destiny of our nation to stop those who are keen on global domination and threaten to split up and enslave our Motherland” (President of Russia, 2022, para. 36). This is the end of the address Putin leaves with the viewers, evoking a slope into the enslavement of Russia. Though Putin attempts to make the slope less steep through scare tactics, this exaggeration of the enslavement of Russia leaves out the many steps and circumstances required for slavery.
Considerations
Exaggerations are formed from the bending of truths. As texts such as Putin’s National Address on the Partial Military Mobilisation of Russia are explored, rhetorical analysis is important for discerning upon what grounds arguments are made. Putin’s address uses many emotional arguments, especially scare tactics, which can blind the audience to thinking critically about the situation from other viewpoints. This would be true of any rhetoric seeking to persuade others of the rhetor's constructed truth. Finding fallacies in rhetoric is helpful for deciding what we should and should not believe, as a sound argument without fallacy would be more believable than rhetoric founded with fallacy. As politicians use rhetoric to obtain power by persuading populations, looking at political rhetoric through the lens of rhetorical analysis allows one to make more educated choices.
References
Address by the president of the Russian federation (2022, September 21). President of Russia. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/69390
Lunsford, A. A., & Ruszkiewicz, J. J. (2021). Fallacies of Argument. Everything's an argument. (pp. 74-78). Bedford/St. Martin's.
Rapp, C. (2022, March 15). Aristotle's rhetoric. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
NICOLE PENDLETON is a senior pursuing a degree in Art with a minor in Creative Writing. Selected by Jennifer Stone.