Abstract

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and the escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict following the events of October 7, 2023, Moscow has consistently linked the two conflicts in its diplomatic discourse, accusing Western governments of applying a double standard: condemning Russian actions in Ukraine while tolerating or supporting Israeli military operations in Gaza. This article examines whether this rhetorical linkage reflects a genuinely principled position rooted in Russia’s long-standing support for Palestinian statehood, or whether it functions primarily as an instrumental strategy to deflect criticism of Russia’s own conduct in Ukraine and to erode the normative authority of the West in the Global South. When conducting its research, this paper drew on existing achievements from several completely distinct fields, covering three areas: Russian Middle East policies, soft balancing theory, and strategic narrative studies on the war in Ukraine. Beyond sorting out prior research, it also applied the qualitative discourse analysis research method, with the specific analysis targets being various speeches publicly delivered by Russian officials between 2022 and 2026, to extract Russia’s discursive logic from these statements. It deconstructed and analyzed all of Russia’s public statements within a broader context: Russia has long sought to reshape the international order that formed after the end of the Cold War, and to cement its status as a global power, yet this great power status of Russia itself has remained internationally controversial, and cannot be recognized by all parties. The core judgment reached by this research is that the two prior narratives used to explain Russia’s discourse are not contradictory, and can hold true simultaneously. That is to say, the rhetoric Russia employs externally is, on the one hand, indeed rooted in its own actual historical stance, and not fabricated out of thin air; on the other hand, it has also undergone targeted adjustment and amplification, with all content skewed toward directions that help it achieve its strategic goals, repackaging the original historical stance to be more functional. The paper terms this model, which adheres to its inherent principles while constantly seizing opportunities to strategize, "principled opportunism". In addition, this paper supplements new perspectives for three categories of related discussions, which can help advance research in these fields. These three categories of discussions are: debates related to Russia’s diplomatic discourse, narrative studies on the discrepancy between great powers’ words and deeds, and explorations of the instrumentalization of the Palestinian question in inter-state gaming.

Keywords

Russia; Palestine; Ukraine War; double standards; rhetoric related to foreign policy; Middle East; anti-Westernism; soft balancing; Global South.