https://www.ilfoglio.it/il-foglio-ai/2025/05/20/news/il-sermone-putiniano-di-lavrov-7741718
Note: we analyzed Il Foglio AI with several articles, which you can find linked at the bottom of this page. But you can also read them alltogether in a nice Flipbook, which you can find here: https://eumove.it/speciale-il-foglio-ai/
The article from Il Foglio AI entitled « Il sermone putiniano di Lavrov » presents a strong editorial stance against Russian foreign policy and its ideological foundation, « Putinism. » It opts for a range of discursive strategies, oscillating between sarcasm, binary opposition, emotionally charged language, and delegitimising rhetoric, to construct a sharply polarised view of the geopolitical landscape, aligning explicitly with Western democratic values and against the Russian narrative. Below is an analysis based on key discourse features:
1. Title and Tone: Sarcasm
The term “sermon” in the title operates as a vehicle of sarcasm. Rather than portraying Sergei Lavrov’s speech as a diplomatic or a political communication, it is rebranded as a self-righteous lecture—a monologue that pretends to reveal truth but instead delivers ideological fiction. This sarcastic framing diminishes the seriousness of Lavrov’s discourse from the outset, framing it as pretentious and dishonest. It evokes a sense of ironic detachment, typical of polemical journalism aiming not merely to inform, but to ridicule and delegitimise.
2. Emotional Evaluation and Imperialism
Additionally, the article includes emotionally loaded terms such as “vittimismo imperiale” (imperial victimhood) to characterise Russia’s stance. By combining the notions of victimhood and imperialism, the article presents the Russian government not only as aggressively expansionist, but also manipulative, seeking to justify its actions through a revisionist narrative of past Western flaws. This frames Russia as emotionally dishonest—using past grievances as tools for current domination—a classic discursive strategy to evoke moral disgust and political caution.
3. “Idiots”: Bias, Attack, and Delegitimisation
The phrase “utili idioti del XXI secolo” (useful idiots of the 21st century) is one of the most rhetorically charged in the piece. It directly attacks those in Europe who sympathise with or justify Russia’s actions, especially on the far right and far left. Rather than engaging critically with their arguments, the article dismisses them outright through insult. This name-calling strategy reveals an explicit bias, portraying pro-Russian voices as mindless and irrational. It reflects a lack of pluralism in interpretation and frames the debate as one-sided, allowing no room for a nuanced representation.
4. Lies and Demoralisation: Constructing Russian Discourse as Deceptive
The article, also, labels Lavrov’s statements as a “florilegio di menzogne storiche” (a bouquet of historical lies). This metaphor not only asserts that Russia lies but embellishes those lies with rhetorical flair, suggesting an intentional strategy of misinformation. This language is aimed at eroding the credibility of any Russian diplomatic narrative, painting it as inherently fraudulent and manipulative. It functions as a discursive tool of demoralisation, emptying Russian arguments of legitimacy, even before they are analysed on merit.
5. Imagery : Putinism as an Ideological Threat
The text constructs “Putinism” as more than a political regime—it is framed as a dangerous ideology. Through phrases such as “il potere giustifica tutto” (power justifies everything) and « elefante nella stanza » (the elephant in the room) and the suggestion that Russia seeks to expand under the guise of defense, the article portrays Putinism as an existential threat to global peace and European values. The ideology is said to demand belief, echoing religious fanaticism. This demonises both Putin and his followers, casting them not just as political opponents but as enemies of freedom, truth, and modern civilisation.
6. Binary Oppositions: Russia vs. The West
In fact, the entire narrative is underpinned by binary oppositions:
- Russia vs. the West
- Lies vs. Truth
- Imperialism vs. Freedom
- Manipulation vs. Democracy
In this dichotomy, Russia is associated with authoritarianism, imperialism, and wars, while Europe and the West are associated with peace, freedom, and moral superiority. This black-and-white construction simplifies complex geopolitical tensions, reinforcing a moral hierarchy that favours the West and rejects any form of Russian legitimacy.
Conclusion: Explicit Ideological Bias in Line with Il Foglio’s Editorial Position
The article displays an explicit bias aligned with Il Foglio’s anti-Russian editorial line. Through emotionally charged language, delegitimising metaphors, sarcasm, and the systematic othering of Russia and its sympathisers, it constructs a narrative of moral clarity in which Putinism is the central threat to Western values. The discursive strategy aims not only to criticise Russia but to mobilise the reader ideologically, encouraging a binary moral alignment with the West. Implicitly, the article evokes sentiments of guilt within the pro-Russian reader which are not based on a profound understanding of the geopolitical dynamics but rather on an emotionally romanticised depiction of realities.
