Authors

Discussion

Since 2014, Ukraine has faced sustained hybrid threats from Russia that extend beyond the battlefield into the realms of law, diplomacy, and information warfare. A central tool in this strategy has been the manipulation of human rights narratives, most notably claims of protecting Russian speakers, to legitimise aggression. This paper examines Ukraine’s response to such weaponisation of human rights through the lens of securitisation theory. Methodologically, it combines qualitative case study analysis with quantitative automated sentiment analysis of UN, OHCHR, and OSCE documents (2014–2025).

The study highlights two dimensions of Ukraine’s strategy. Domestically, Ukraine has pursued reforms in minority rights, language policy, religious freedom, and media regulation, seeking to balance national security imperatives with human rights obligations under conditions of war. While some measures, such as language quotas, restrictions on pro-Russian Orthodox Church religious institutions, and media bans, drew criticism from international bodies, they illustrate a pragmatic effort to block Russian influence while preserving core democratic values. Internationally, Ukraine has invested heavily in public diplomacy and engagement with international institutions, aiming to consolidate its recognitional legitimacy and challenge Russian narratives in global forums.

The findings suggest that Ukraine’s approach reflects a form of “strategic pragmatism”: selectively compromising on rights to safeguard sovereignty, while maintaining credibility through transparency and sustained international engagement. The sentiment analysis demonstrates that Ukraine has largely preserved positive recognition in political and diplomatic arenas, even as monitoring bodies adopt a more critical stance on implementation.

By tracing how Ukraine adapted its domestic policies and international advocacy in response to hybrid threats, this paper contributes to scholarship on resilience to hybrid threats and the protection of human rights in conflict environments. The Ukrainian case provides useful lessons for other states in Central and Eastern Europe on how to defend sovereignty and legitimacy under sustained hybrid assault while navigating the difficult trade-offs between security imperatives and democratic values.