Previously throughout history, the norm regarding the proper conduct of war began with aformal declaration of war, however since the end of the Second World War the usage of wardeclarations have decreased, and in its place the legitimacy of countries' actions have garneredmore attention. The study of legitimacy within the larger field of peace- and war studies haverecently evolved from the previous theory dominating the field, classical legitimacy theory,and today new perspectives regarding legitimacy are emerging. This study makes use of onesaid perspective, with its three areas of development in regards to classical legitimacy theory:audiences for legitimacy, legitimacy sources and legitimation. These areas of development areanalyzed in combination with political discourse analysis on one statement and two addressesby the President of the Russian Federation. The study’s findings concur in some respect withthe conclusions presented by von Billerbeck and Gippert; which stipulate that there are moreaudiences for legitimation than previously believed; the use of procedural legitimacy is morein use than out-put legitimacy; and the use of force with regards to the three empirical cases oflegitimation demonstrate the dual nature of force within the context of conflict. The findingsin this study does not constitute a complete understanding of legitimacy, but rather illustratesthe way countries use legitimacy in order to fortify their own actions.

The aim of the work is to analyze the hybrid strategy of Russia against Ukraine. The thesis works with the notion of the socio-cultural concept of the Russian world in the context of a hybrid war. Information campaigns and narratives based on identity change can be used for military purposes. Propaganda and historical paradigms are used in planning hybrid operations. During the military operation in Crimea and the war in Donbass, certain parts of society are radicalized and used in the active part of the conflict.