This thesis studies how securitization differs between the war in Ukraine and the war in Syria. It does so by comparing conclusions, statements and speeches published by the European Council in order to understand the perceived differences in crisis management according to their initial reactions. The aim is thus to compare the two crises to understand the European Union's different crisis management. Furthermore, this study uses a discursive analysis to investigate the European Council's reactions through securitization theory, which identifies how a political issue becomes a security threat. The findings suggest that the two crises illustrate different perceptions of the security threat and what to protect, highlighted in the diverse management. In turn, this means that the crises have been securitized differently, and the results have contributed to providing an explanation of the different management and understanding of the crises. Future research is encouraged regarding the effects of securitization and further exploring how the cases' differences affect the results to understand the two crises better.

Die Zeitenwende, die der deutsche Kanzler ausrief, bedeutet weit mehr als einen abrupten Politikwechsel: Zum einen haben eingespielte Wahrnehmungs- und Bewältigungsroutinen politischer Konfliktlagen ihre Wirksamkeit verloren. Zum anderen wird demokratische Führungsfähigkeit, ein gleichermaßen entschiedenes wie legitimierbares Krisenhandeln unter den Bedingungen von Ungewissheit, in dramatischer Zuspitzung herausgefordert. Das setzt Demokratien unter Druck, die Gleichzeitigkeit von Krieg und Krisenbewältigung bringt sie an die Grenzen ihrer Belastung. Auch befindet sich die Demokratie seit geraumer Zeit in einem fundamentalen Transformationsprozess. Autokratische Umbrüche und (rechts‑)populistische Regierungen auf der einen, Volatilität demokratischer Öffentlichkeit und Integrationsverlust intermediärer Assoziationen auf der anderen Seite lassen die Frage aufkommen, ob die liberal-repräsentative Demokratie, wie sie sich nach 1945 herausgebildet und konsolidiert hat, zu ihrem Ende gekommen ist. So ist nicht nur die Zeitenwende eine Herausforderung für die Demokratie, auch die Demokratie befindet sich in der Zeitenwende. / The watershed moment proclaimed by the German chancellor means much more than an abrupt change in policies: On the one hand, well-established routines for perceiving and managing political conflicts have lost their validity. On the other hand, the ability to lead democracies, to act decisively and legitimately in crises under conditions of uncertainty, is being challenged to a dramatic degree. This puts democracies under pressure; the simultaneity of war and crisis management brings them to the limits of their capacity. Democracy has also been undergoing a fundamental transformation for some time. Autocratic upheavals and (right-wing) populist governments on the one hand, and the volatility of the democratic public sphere and the loss of integration of intermediary associations on the other raise the question of whether liberal-representative democracy, as it emerged and consolidated after 1945, has come to its end. Thus, not only is the turn of the times a challenge for democracy, democracy is also in the turn of the times.

The amount of open-source information – that is, data, images, and footage that is openly available to the public - is growing exponentially. With it, so is the number of citizens analysing this data to form open-source intelligence (OSINT). Using the 2022 invasion of Ukraine as a case study, this study highlights the motivations behind the citizen OSINT analysts who are uncovering events on the frontline and verifying significant amounts of data from such events. Through interviews with 10 citizen OSINT analysts – all voluntarily contributing to OSINT in relation to the invasion of Ukraine, as well as other major OSINT projects – this study demonstrates the motivations behind this growing community. The findings reflect a new era of participation and advocacy and are a demonstration of self-determination theory. The findings demonstrate citizens’ sceptic views towards traditional media but also, that with a more analytical approach, with improved transparency and collaboration there is reason to be optimistic about the future of journalism and audience engagement.