Support us
Words matter when a head of state steps behind a podium. Every adjective, every reference, every omission reflects choices about how a nation wants to be understood. The Free Press Foundation supports a project doing detailed linguistic scrutiny of Ukrainian presidential rhetoric because speeches are not ceremonial texts. They are instruments of governance, signalling, and soft power that shape foreign policy and daily life.
Ukraine's presidency has sat at the centre of public life for three decades, navigating post-Soviet transition, democratic backsliding, popular revolution, and full-scale war. Rhetoric reveals priorities and blind spots in ways press releases rarely do. Examining speeches systematically lets scholars and journalists track continuity and rupture, identify framing strategies, and equip civil society with the vocabulary to push back against manipulation.
Australians may wonder why a foundation based so far from Ukraine is interested in such a granular project. The answer lies in porous information ecosystems. Local readers encounter Ukrainian voices through SBS World News, ABC radio, and long-form pieces in The Conversation, and they deserve reporting grounded in evidence rather than rumour. A speech-language project produces a public good that travels easily across borders.
The project also reflects our broader commitment to journalism that treats language as data. We have already explained why we back a history of Russian imperialism project covering the Black Sea region, and the same conviction drives our speech-analysis work.
Presidential rhetoric is one of the clearest mirrors of a country's political mood. In Melbourne's café culture, where intellectuals debate world affairs over flat whites, the idea that leaders' word choices reveal unspoken agendas resonates strongly. Ukrainian presidents must speak to a population that has experienced both authoritarianism and democratic awakening, and their words carry the weight of that history.
Speeches also create permanent records. Unlike off-the-cuff remarks, prepared addresses are vetted and approved by staff, meaning the resulting text represents a collective voice. Researchers can treat these documents as primary sources comparable to budget papers. The dynamic echoes what Australians see in parliamentary broadcasts on ABC News 24.
When a president repeatedly invokes certain framings, analysts can flag them. A sustained corpus-based approach lets readers see how a vocabulary evolves, which is critical for forecasting policy shifts and democratic resilience.
The team uses a mixed-methods approach, combining computational text analysis with close reading by trained linguists. Every address is tagged for theme, sentiment, named entities, and historical references. Corpus tools identify recurring collocations, while human reviewers evaluate context, irony, and diplomatic hedging.
This hybrid methodology addresses a known limitation of automated work. Algorithms struggle with the literary register of Ukrainian political oratory, where allusions to Shevchenko, metaphors drawn from the chornozem, and references to Cossack heritage carry emotional freight a bag-of-words model cannot capture.
The project also relies on academic partners. Our work in this area complements the kind of media-ethics curriculum we have built with universities. Without rigorous training in discourse analysis, the raw corpus would simply gather digital dust.
Early findings reveal striking shifts in presidential priorities. Wartime speeches deploy words linked to resilience, sovereignty, and partnership at much higher rates than their pre-2014 counterparts. References to European integration cluster with mentions of energy security, suggesting tight coupling of foreign and economic policy framing. Earlier governments used regional identity and post-Soviet neutrality vocabulary that would be politically untenable today.
| Rhetorical theme | Pre-2014 focus | Post-2022 focus |
|---|---|---|
| History the address references | Imperial legacy, Orange Revolution | World War II memory, Holodomor, Euromaidan |
| Geographic vocabulary | Donbas, Crimea, EU neighbours | Black Sea, NATO partners, Global South |
| Security references | Border war, separatist conflict | Sovereignty, NATO framework, drone warfare |
| Russia framing | Strategic partner, difficult partner | Aggressor state, occupier |
| Civil society role | Voters, electorate | Volunteers, diaspora, civil resistance |
The contrast above documents how language travels alongside policy. Compare these findings with discourse analyses elsewhere, such as the Namibian food-security debate, and political vocabulary clearly adapts to shifting strategic realities.
Australia is home to one of the largest Ukrainian diasporas in the Asia-Pacific, with strong communities in Melbourne's inner north, Sydney's western suburbs, and parts of Brisbane and Adelaide. Ukrainian-language churches, cultural festivals, and Saturday schools keep the language and memory of Ukraine alive in suburbs from Footscray to Lidcombe.
Many Australians rely on diaspora media, where the Free Press Foundation's work on podcasts in the diaspora has shown that audio formats reach audiences print cannot. Speech analysis helps producers and editors verify claims and avoid amplifying Kremlin talking points that circulate in Russian-language broadcasts carried by some Australian pay-TV operators.
For Australian media researchers at the University of Melbourne or ANU, the corpus offers a teaching resource. Students of discourse or political communication can use the dataset for theses and policy briefs that speak directly to Australian debates about the Indo-Pacific and European security.
Our work has always privileged journalism that goes beneath the surface. The history-of-imperialism series explained long-running regional tensions, and the speech project extends the same logic to contemporary governance. Both projects aim to give readers, especially those without specialist training, the tools to read power.
Supporting independent media in Ukraine also serves Australians directly. Ukraine's grain exports affect global food markets that Australian farmers and consumers navigate daily, and Western Australian wheat producers understand the stakes. Clear-eyed reporting on Kyiv's political direction helps commodity analysts, diplomats, and humanitarian NGOs make better decisions.
In this sense, the project is part of a wider ecosystem of transparency tools, including fact-checking networks, open-data journalism, and cross-border investigative collaborations, all of which strengthen democratic accountability across continents.
The project is designed for openness. Researchers and journalists can use the corpus, code, and teaching kits without charge, provided they follow standard attribution rules. Readers who wish to dig deeper can pursue several practical avenues.
Each contribution ripples outward through classrooms, newsrooms, and community halls across Australia and the wider Ukrainian-speaking world.
