Authors: Ishika Batra, Andressa Viana, Vanshika Bhardwaj, Mridula Gupta, Het Jani and Thompson Alexious

ABSTRACT

Understanding why some conflicts sustain global attention while others fade requires examining how legitimacy is constructed through narratives, making this study essential for analysing contemporary international responses to war. This study compares the Russia- Ukraine conflict (2022-2024) and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan (2019- 2021) to analyse how media and institutional narratives shape perceptions of legitimacy, responsibility, and moral urgency. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of over 70 secondary textual sources- including global and regional media coverage and official statements from international organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, and the European Union- the study employs a deductive coding framework centred on legitimacy, agency, moral framing, temporal framing, civilian portrayal, and the role of external actors. The findings reflect that while the Ukraine conflict is portrayed as an active sovereign resisting an aggressor generating sustained international support, the Afghanistan conflict is framed as concluded resulting in diminished external engagement reducing it to a humanitarian issue, highlighting how discourse, rather than material conditions alone, structures international political responses. By revealing how narratives shape divergent global responses to similar conflicts, the study contributes to post structural and constructivist theories in international relations highlighting the role of discourse in framing war legitimacy and determining which wars remain morally urgent and which fade into the aftermath.