Breum, Sophie-Helena
(2025)
Comparative Analysis of the Danish Government’s Response to the Invasions of Ukraine and Gaza.
Master thesis, Master Religion Conflict and Globalisation.
Abstract
In this study, I investigate how the Danish government has publicly reacted to and framed Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and Israel’s invasion of Gaza in 2023. To answer the study’s main
question, I have formulated two sub-questions, shedding light on: how the Danish government framed
and legitimized the initial narratives surrounding the invasions, focusing on aggression, self-defense,
and victimhood, as well as similarities and differences when analyzing the Danish government’s
response to alleged violations of international law. The study’s epistemological positioning is critical
theory, while critical discourse analysis (CDA) is used as the methodological tool. The theoretical
framework consists of William Cavanaugh’s theory of the myth of religious violence and Judith
Butler’s notion of grievability. The qualitative study is based on primary empirical data, including
statements made by the Danish Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of
Defense at the time. In the analysis related to the first sub-question I conclude that, despite the
invasions of Ukraine and Gaza being illegal, Russia and Hamas are framed as the sole aggressors. In
contrast, Ukraine and Israel are framed as the victims, legitimizing their right to self-defense. Despite
Gaza also being subjected to an illegal invasion, Palestinians are not recognized as victims entitled to
the right of self-defense. In the analysis of the second sub-question, I conclude that this framing of
social reality influences the Danish government’s response to allegations of violations of international
law. The government condemns alleged violations committed by Russia, endorsing the need for
President Vladimir Putin and his government to be held accountable while neglecting to do the same
regarding Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the study, I conclude that the Danish
government legitimizes violence carried out by actors it perceives as aligned with Western ideology,
framing it as necessary to ensure global stability while de-legitimizing the actions of non-democratic
and non-secular actors, framing them as fanatical. This reinforces an existing hierarchy of grievability
in which the lives of non-democratic and non-secular actors are less recognized and, therefore, framed
as legitimate targets. The findings and theoretical framework hold significance within a broader
context as they can be applied to understanding how other Western countries frame global conflicts,
uncovering harmful biases and power structures. This prompts a critical reassessment of Western
values and legitimization of past and future warfare.
| Type: |
Thesis
(Master)
|
| Supervisors (RUG): |
| Supervisor | E-mail | Tutor organization | Tutor email |
|---|
| Martinez-Arino, J. | | Faculteit GGW, Vergelijkende Religiewetenschap | J.Martinez.Arino@rug.nl | | Kovac, U. | | Faculteit GGW, Faculteit Religie, Cultuur en Maatschappij | u.kovac@rug.nl |
|
| Degree programme: |
Master Religion Conflict and Globalisation |
| Academic year: |
2024-2025 |
| Date of delivery: |
03 Feb 2026 10:50 |
| Last modified: |
03 Feb 2026 10:50 |
| URI: |
https://rcs.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/id/eprint/882 |
Actions (requires login)
 |
View Item |
