The way in which public opinion represents a war conflict is never neutral and, therefore, is given by the journalistic handling of such a problematic situation by the social media, always conditioned by the interests of its political agenda, so that the written press is also one of the privileged theaters of operations where the war conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine takes place. The objective of the research was to analyze the representations, this is (what is said, when it is said and how it is said) that certain Latin American written press of wide dissemination makes about the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Methodologically, dialectical hermeneutics and critical analysis of political discourse were used to describe the scope and meaning of the journalistic narrative on this conflict that acquires unpredictable consequences for the current world order. It is concluded that the war conflict between the aforementioned countries occupies a prominent place in the international politics section of the Latin American press. In general, support for Ukraine's resistance and Russia's condemnation of Russia as dangerous to the security of Europe and the Western world prevail in these media.

Modern man, community, and humanity as a whole have become apprehensive about their future. Globally, there is a particular concern about the paradoxical tying of the Gordian knot, which is essentially triggered by contradictions caused by antagonistic problems in the fields of ecology, demography and economics. There are several ways to overcome the challenge that the world and man face. Firstly, radical, when one of the spheres is given in for the sake of one or two others. Secondly, the systematic distraction of the masses from critical issues. Thirdly, alternative, the shift of attention from popular methods and means of solving the current critical problems in favor of non-linear ones, i.e. those related to unconventional views on a given problem and approaches to its solution. Understanding of the human situation can lead to some encouraging results by means of focusing attention of the significant majority of the humankind represented by the so-called leaders of public opinion. Basically, under given circumstances, the principle, according to which real change starts with the people themselves, their intention to change, will be effective. In this case, in contrast to violence, coercion, manipulation, bribery and blackmail, the modus operandi of maintaining social interaction will be responsibility, meaningfulness, respect, a sense of proportion and tact.

No abstract

From a dialectical hermeneutic methodology that discusses different ideological texts produced in particular political contexts of power, the objective of the article lies in defining a critical line that points out inconsistencies and contradictions before what generically can be defined without much conceptual precision as progressive discourse, that is: a discursive formation that brings together different social movements, civil organizations and political parties --in theory-- of frank counter-hegemonic character. It is concluded that morally the progressive discourse is not by itself bad, good, or neutral, everything will depend, ultimately, on the tastes and preferences of each person built by their cultural biases and, more specifically, in the heat of the processes of political socialization by which they have been conditioned ontologically. Therefore, rather than a critique of the historically existing progressive discourse, a review must be made of the tendentious way in which certain political actors use this discourse to validate their hegemonic interests in their context of action. In addition, in many verifiable respects this discourse can mean the justification of authoritarian practices that contravene the enjoyment and enjoyment of fundamental rights, which does not mean that the authors bet on conservative political and ideological positions.