Doctoral Defence: Sanshiro Hosaka “Nothing but Politics? Explaining the Reproduction of Russian Narratives About the Events in Ukraine Among Japanese Scholars and Intellectuals 2014–2019”

On 11 April at 13:00 Sanshiro Hosaka will defend his doctoral dissertation “Nothing but Politics? Explaining the Reproduction of Russian Narratives About the Events in Ukraine Among Japanese Scholars and Intellectuals 2014–2019” for obtaining the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (in Political Science).

Supervisor:
Professor Andrey Makarychev, University of Tartu

Opponent:
Dr. Joanna Szostek, University of Glasgow (UK)

Summary:
How were Russia’s narratives on the so-called “Ukraine crisis” reproduced and normalized in liberal democracies? The case of Japan demonstrates the remarkable role scholars and intellectuals play in conveying Moscow’s strategic narratives to national audiences. A content analysis of 460 texts published between 2014 and 2019 elucidated how the reproduction of Russia’s narratives on the events in Ukraine is associated with various factors, including authors’ affiliations with area studies, participation in the Kremlin-sponsored Valdai Discussion Club, and their adoption of overarching narratives concerning international affairs, Russia’s identity, and Japan’s relations with Russia. Contrary to expectations, affiliation with Russian studies was not a useful gauge for the reproduction of Russian narratives, while Valdai Club participation was. Skepticism toward mainstream discourse and the perception of Russia as defensive and victimized also played major roles, alongside the endorsement of the Russian historical narrative of “fraternal nations.”

Discourse analysis revealed three dimensions of narratives on Ukraine. First, a Russocentric ontology diminishes Ukraine’s agency in international politics. Scholars normalized Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea by citing Russia’s alleged ontological security, which relies on Russian historical narratives and disregards Ukraine’s perspective. Second, an anti-Western counterhegemonic stance that interprets Western actions as Russophobic sought alternative explanations for Putin’s aggressive policies. Third, the ill-preparedness to detect the Kremlin’s manipulation of academics led to serious methodological bias, notably in cases of fieldwork in the “Donetsk People’s Republic.” These narratives shaped Tokyo’s foreign policy. A cohort of Valdai experts and former diplomats, labeling Ukrainians as “neo-Nazis,” argued that Tokyo should prioritize resolving the Northern Territories issue with Moscow and not be distracted by Ukraine. A purported “Sino-Russia alliance” was instrumentalized as a scarecrow to persuade decision-makers to maintain business as usual with Russia and decouple it from China—Tokyo’s primary security concern. Only Russia’s full-scale invasion has disillusioned the Japanese leadership and public.