Introduction

Visual art and political communication are fundamentally interconnected, serving as a powerful medium for the expression of political thoughts, values, and convictions throughout history and in contemporary society. This form of artistic expression not only encourages critical reflection but also raises awareness and informs audiences about urgent social, cultural, and political issues, including armed conflicts, global crises, and political oppression. Artists decisively engage with these challenges, making their perspectives clear through their work. Political cartoons are particularly significant in modern culture, creating a unique framework of meanings that can profoundly influence the political landscape. As a distinctive convergence of art and politics, political cartoons deliver incisive commentary on individuals, nations, and events from a strong partisan viewpoint. This partiality is especially pronounced in the context of military and political conflicts, where opposing factions employ humor as a potent means of mockery. While some cartoonists aspire to depict armed conflict with neutrality, their underlying attitudes towards war are inevitably subjective, manifesting through various expressive styles. This paper will analyze the use of impartial humor in both global and national cartoons that address the Russian-Ukrainian war. We will evaluate the level of impartiality (high and low) in the researched corpus, concentrating on two key dimensions: a) the cartoonist’s stance on the war and its repercussions, and b) the author’s perspective on the involved parties. To this end, we will address the following research questions:

RQ 1.1. How do the interrelations between rhetorical devices (setting) in the impartial cartoons function rhetorically to negotiate the cartoonist’s stance in highly polarized conflict discourse?

RQ 1.2. To what extent do quantitative analyses reveal differences or similarities in the deployment of visual rhetoric strategies across impartial cartoons?

RQ 2. In what ways does humor possess an inherent political bias?

Political Humor vs. Political Satire

The relationship between humor and politics is multifaceted. Research has explored the connections between specific styles of humor and political orientations, as well as the links between humor appreciation and political engagement. Additionally, studies have examined how political ideologies can influence one’s ability to both appreciate and create humor in daily life (Kfrerer et al., 2021). Such publications are often supported by psychological research that investigates how value systems and personality traits correlate with political ideologies, thus helping to clarify various political orientations. The exploration of political humor, which has become a unique academic discipline, began to develop in the early 2000s. Research in this field has primarily focused on the political humor climate as it existed during that period.

Nevertheless, although many insights drawn from these initial studies are still applicable, the contexts of both politics and humor have changed considerably in recent times. A standard method for defining political humor considers it a broad category that includes all comedic works relating to political matters, figures, events, processes, or institutions (Young, 2017). In a similar vein, political humor can be characterized as a form of humorous communication delivered through any medium that refers to aspects of the political sphere (Baumgartner, 2021). These definitions are based on two key assumptions: first, that different types of political humor can provoke political transformation, and second, that exposure to political humor influences our comprehension of political dynamics.

Two critical points emerge from this body of work regarding the relationship between personality traits and political perspectives. First, research indicates that personality characteristics profoundly influence political outlooks, with studies demonstrating that qualities such as openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness can significantly shape an individual’s political values and ideologies. For instance, individuals with high levels of transparency are often more progressive and tolerant, as highlighted by the findings of Furnham and Fenton-O’Creevy (2018) and Fatke (2019), which suggest that personality traits influence established value systems and personal histories, ultimately shaping political preferences. Second, while a correlation between specific personality traits and political attitudes has been observed, it is essential to understand that this relationship does not necessarily imply a causal link. Verhulst and Hatemi (2016) caution against interpreting this correlation as evidence of direct influence, noting that external factors, such as socioeconomic conditions and cultural influences, can also play significant roles in shaping one’s political stance.

Therefore, while personality may play a crucial role in shaping political views, the complexity of this interaction necessitates caution. Political humor is inherently context-dependent and subjective, making it essential to acknowledge how different cultures profoundly influence its content and characteristics, leading to varied individual interpretations. While political humor often elicits laughter, it can occasionally lead to unintended and uncomfortable reactions, such as nervousness and embarrassment, when it offends or disturbs. Acknowledging this dual nature is crucial. The intricate nature of political humor is shaped by shared experiences and stereotypes that are key in forming our identities and perceptions of ourselves and others.

Additionally, the dynamics of humor are significantly shaped by the culture, language, history, norms, values, and beliefs of specific societies or ethnic groups, as well as the nation’s overarching political culture (Feldman, 2024). It is essential to understand that humor, particularly political humor, does not exist independently; instead, it has evolved through ongoing interactions between individuals and their environments. In this sense, political humor acts as a form of persuasive discourse that can influence views and attitudes, often in opposition to the “other.” Understanding this connection can enhance our insight into political humor and its role in political and armed conflicts. Furthermore, political humor is used, perceived, and interpreted in diverse ways, depending on context. Humor serves a significant role in facilitating the dissemination of political information, thereby enhancing individuals’ retention and recall of such information. Research indicates that humor activates certain brain regions involved in understanding others’ mental states, suggesting that it may aid individuals in considering different perspectives—such as predicting reactions to shared political information (Coronel et al., 2021).

This interaction between humor and politics highlights the significance of humor not only as a source of entertainment but also as a vital tool for engaging with and navigating the intricacies of the political arena. Nieuwenhuis and Zijp (2022) state that since 9/11 and the rise of hyper-politics, humor has been ‘re-politicized’. What was once seen as mere entertainment is now a site of conflict over identity, inclusion, and exclusion, particularly in Western nations. They examine the rhetorical and aesthetic operations of humor, which can foreground specific interpretations, making the meaning of comic statements less uncertain than is often claimed. While a joke or a cartoon might seem open to interpretation, its structure can subtly guide the audience toward a particular political conclusion. Accordingly, humor both contributes to and challenges existing power dynamics. When examining the impact of political humor, it is crucial to acknowledge its different subtypes, as they produce varying effects on audiences. Holbert et al. (2011) distinguish between Juvenalian satire and Horatian satire. Young (2017) further distinguishes between political comedy and political satire, noting that the primary goal of political comedy is to entertain, even when it centers on a political figure or issue.

In contrast, political satire aims to convey a political message through humor. This form can employ various humorous techniques, including exaggeration, contradiction, and parody. We align with Baumgartner’s (2021) classification, which divides satire into simple and complex categories. Simple satire conveys a clear message that is easily understood (for example, in political comedy shows), while complex satire, often referred to as ironic satire, encompasses both explicit (direct) and implicit (indirect) messages.

Political humor serves as a persuasive tool that can influence opinions and attitudes, often targeting perceived adversaries. Understanding this dynamic enhances our comprehension of the role of political humor in political and military conflicts. Moreover, the way political humor is used, perceived, and interpreted varies significantly across different cultural contexts, encompassing both Western and non-Western societies, including those in Asia and the Middle East. Humor serves as a powerful tool for challenging societal norms, questioning established beliefs, and fostering reflective thinking. It enables individuals to consider alternative perspectives and expand their understanding. The social acceptability of political humor is a multifaceted issue that invites critical examination and discussion. It raises significant questions regarding the targets of such humor—whether they focus on individuals, political parties, social movements, or specific ideologies—and what society deems appropriate or inappropriate in political cartoons and memes.

Key considerations include the underlying intent of the creator: is the humor meant to provoke thoughtful discourse, challenge the status quo, or entertain? Additionally, the audience’s reaction plays a vital role; perceptions can vary widely based on cultural context, personal values, and political affiliations (Nabi et al., 2007). Moreover, the characteristics of the content itself (use of satire, irony, or exaggeration) can also influence its reception and perceived moral standing. An examination of these dynamics prompts us to delve deeper into the contexts in which political humor is employed, highlighting the ideological stances of both creators and audiences (Leon, 2024). Understanding these elements can illuminate how political humor not only reflects but also shapes societal attitudes towards governance, authority, and community values.

Political Cartoons as a Form of Visual Rhetoric

The study of political cartoons as a form of visual rhetoric has garnered significant scholarly attention, highlighting how images convey complex political and social messages that extend beyond verbal language. Visual rhetoric is a term referring to a) the communicative artifact itself, and b) to the scholarly perspective to study it (Foss, 2017). Visual rhetoric is defined as the use of images to convey meaning through communication. Those images should be connected to the idea they symbolize, using color, form, size, and medium to convey a specific message, targeting a particular audience, and serving a clear purpose. Foss also uses the term to describe a critical-analytical tool or a way of approaching and analyzing visual data. This perspective involves analyzing an image based on its nature, function, and evaluation, shifting the focus to a rhetorical understanding of how an image persuades, informs, or influences an audience. Political cartoons, in particular, function as a hybrid of visual rhetoric and political satire, where humor and critique intersect. Greenberg (2002) explores how political cartoons, as a form of visual journalism, use two key elements: framing and temporality. He argues that cartoons serve as rhetorical artifacts that frame political discourse, intentionally emphasizing certain aspects while downplaying others to shape public perception. Temporality describes how political cartoons engage with time, referring to current events, but also linking them to broader historical narratives. The role of non-verbal visual language can be effectively realized and highlighted through the interaction between different elements of the cartoons, such as symbolism, metaphor, labeling, irony, analogy, and color, to convey specific intended messages (Abdullah et al., 2018).

In other words, political cartoons offer a crucial perspective that can lead to significant political changes and have a profound influence on society. In addition, cartoons serve as a tool for peaceful protest by using visual language and symbolism to express dissent that would be censored in written form. This indirect communication allows cartoonists to critique governments and political issues without facing direct punishment (Borjabad, 2018). The role of visual rhetoric in conflict zones and war representation was explored in several publications. Chouliaraki and Stolic (2017) highlight the ethical dimensions of portraying refugees. They argue that images mediate moral and emotional responses, shaping how viewers interpret and engage with distant tragedies. In wartime, cartoons offer a unique and valuable insight into the unspoken beliefs, latent fears, and public opinions that fuel a conflict. They function as a kind of seismograph reflecting shifts in public mood (Danjoux, 2018). In protracted ethnic conflicts, visual art, and political cartoons in particular, develop into a routinized and durable mode of visual securitization. This form of art both supports and is supported by deeply established perceptions of threats and others. Cartoons are frequently used to remind the audience who or what is a threat, rather than to highlight a political development (Adamides, 2016). Political cartoons are analyzed through various disciplines, including cultural studies, media studies, linguistics, and political science. As a result, a multitude of interpretations of these phenomena exist, leading to diverse research methodologies. Despite these varied approaches, political cartoons share transdisciplinary characteristics defined by Knieper (2002). These features are topicality, criticism, partiality, alienation, and satirical stance. They underscore the complex nature of political cartoons, positioning them as potent tools for political communication and commentary that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries. Topicality highlights that the impact and relevance of political cartoons are closely tied to their ability to engage with the current political landscape. A core function of political cartoons is criticism, as they provide critical commentary on power, policies, and politicians. Partiality suggests that political cartoons are often biased, as they typically take a clear stance and aim to persuade the audience to adopt a specific perspective. Alienation refers to how cartoons can create distance or offer a critical view of reality, often through exaggeration, distortion, or symbolic language. This form of alienation can help viewers perceive familiar political situations in a new light. The satirical stance of political cartoons enables them to communicate serious messages in an accessible and often subversive way. These features are interconnected through the cartoon’s dynamic interplay of verbal and nonverbal elements. Political knowledge, beliefs, and psychological traits influence the recipient’s cognitive contribution. The interplay between these components is essential: cartoons are incomplete until the viewer interacts with them. Cartoonists are frequently regarded as voices representing citizens in the public sphere. They function at the crossroads of the artist as a societal critic and the journalist as a social commentator or reporter, balancing the high intellectual culture with the mass culture of their newspaper’s audience. Cartoonists are often perceived as traditional intellectuals who view themselves as independent and detached from the prevailing social group, challenging its values and beliefs. Furthermore, cartoonists view their fundamental roles as scrutinizing governments, analyzing complex issues, discussing national policies, and interpreting international affairs (Roe, 2004; Phiddian, 2008; Mackay, 2016).

Impartial, Unbiased, and Neutral Humor: Distinctions

These concepts (impartial, unbiased, and neutral humor) are often used interchangeably, but they have subtle distinctions rooted in their application and philosophical meaning. While all three terms refer to a state of objectivity, their nuances define how humor is delivered and received. Academic research, although not always employing these specific terms in the context of comedy, frequently explores related concepts such as objectivity, bias, and persuasion. Impartial humor shows no favor toward one side or the other in a conflict or debate. This type of humor might satirize both sides of an issue equally, highlighting the absurdities of each without taking a stance. An impartial joke might mock both a political party’s platform and the opposing party’s critique of it. The key is to be fair in the distribution of criticism, ensuring no party is treated as inherently right or wrong. Becker and Anderson (2019) describe message discounting as a difficulty of maintaining objectivity when using humor as a persuasive tool, where the audience enjoys the joke but dismisses its underlying message. Unbiased humor is free from a comedian’s prejudices or preconceived notions. It is an internal state of mind rather than an external action. While a comedian may try to be impartial, their inherent biases can still influence their perspective, the topics they choose, and the jokes they write. An audience’s trust in a comedian is essential for humor to succeed, both in terms of form (recognizing it as a joke) and content. The perceived impartiality of a comedian is critical, as a biased or untrustworthy comedian may fail to elicit the desired response from their audience (Abrahams, 2020). Neutral humor is a more passive concept. It refers to humor that does not take a position. While impartiality can be an active choice to balance criticism, neutrality is often a deliberate avoidance of controversial or polarizing topics. This type of humor might focus on universal human experiences or observations that are unlikely to offend or alienate any specific group. It does not take a side because it operates outside the realm of conflict. However, even seemingly ‘neutral’ humor can create an in-group/out-group dynamic, implicitly challenging the notion of complete neutrality (Yanovski, 2023).

Impartial Humor in Times of Conflict

The question of whether a political cartoon can be impartial is a complex one, and the consensus among scholars is that it is both complicated and, in some cases, impossible. Political cartoons are, by their very nature, a form of critical commentary, opinion, and satire. Their primary purpose is to criticize, ridicule, and persuade, not to present a balanced or neutral view. Humor can strive to be impartial, though achieving actual impartiality is challenging. Impartial humor aims to critique or satirize political figures, events, or policies, without favoring any particular party, ideology, or individual. Although a cartoon reflects a cartoonist’s point of view and the visual commentary often exaggerates circumstances, responsible editorial standards do not allow the cartoonist to alter facts. During the process of rendering opinions into such a visual form, many artistic decisions regarding symbols, metaphors, allegories, techniques, etc. must be made. This means that the envisaged political person of action (target) is depicted by a generally known and familiar means (setting) but remains recognizable in this setting. Even when striving for impartiality, the cartoonist’s work is driven by a larger philosophical or moral perspective. Some cartoonists choose to satirize broader or even universal topics (such as life and death, war and peace, and human rights) rather than individual politicians, parties, or countries. This approach can be seen as more impartial because it critiques the system of values or attitudes as a whole, rather than taking a side within it. Impartial implies an active choice to be fair.

The concept of impartiality can be further explored by examining the role of humor in times of conflict, particularly through the lens of political cartoons. In World War I, political cartoons played a vital role in shaping public opinion and providing insightful commentary on the war and its participants. They often highlighted the ridiculousness of war and the traits of political leaders, helping both soldiers and civilians cope with the grim realities of global warfare. While not entirely neutral, this type of political humor provided an essential means of coping with the emotional strain amid widespread destruction and chaos. This use of political humor persisted into World War II, when political cartoons became even more significant as tools for propaganda. These illustrations reflected the charged political and social atmosphere of the time, often addressing public anxieties, societal shifts, and the pressing need for wartime enthusiasm. They engaged with topics such as national identity, propaganda, and the moral challenges of combat, using humor to resonate powerfully with the audience. In a similar vein, during the American Civil War, a new generation of comic writers emerged, shifting their focus from in-depth character studies to playful language and clever puns. This change allowed their work to appeal to a broader audience across different regions of the United States. Among the prominent figures from this time were Charles Farrar Browne, known for creating the character Artemus Ward, who was characterized by his charmingly clumsy demeanor and Yankee common sense, and Edgar Wilson Nye, a key humorist and the founder and editor of the Laramie Boomerang newspaper. Their contributions wove a rich tapestry of humor that reflected the complexities and unique traits of American society during a period of significant national upheaval (Johnson, 1906).

Recent armed conflicts (i.e., the Russian full-scale aggression in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war) have signaled an increased proliferation of visuality and humorous genres (cartoons and memes) shared widely via social media (Góra and Moczoł, 2023; Rakityanskaya, 2023). On the other hand, impartial humor during wartime can temporarily escape the harsh realities of war, provide stress relief, and build psychological resilience (Menéndez-Aller et al., 2020). Political cartoons effectively utilize satire to illuminate the absurdities and contradictions inherent in wartime scenarios. Impartial humor can serve as a bridge between opposing groups by emphasizing shared human experiences and emotions. By employing incisive wit and clever imagery, political cartoons reveal the futility and irrationality of specific actions without necessitating direct criticism. Impartial humor during wartime fulfills three primary roles: a) it serves as a coping mechanism, b) it acts as a form of social commentary, and c) it facilitates the overcoming of differences (Tavory, 2014).

In addition to these roles, humor provides comic relief and entertainment, while also serving as a platform for addressing complex social and political issues. Although humor may not consistently maintain impartiality, it certainly reflects the multifaceted nature of human experiences during conflict, characterized by complexity and contradiction. These complexities, however, pose significant challenges to achieving impartiality in humor. The first challenge arises from the inherently subjective nature of humor; what may be perceived as amusing by one individual could be deemed offensive or biased by another. This variability complicates the interpretation of humor as universally impartial. The second challenge stems from the cultural and social contexts in which political humor is produced. These contexts significantly influence the target, themes, and presentation of the humor, often resulting in perceived bias. As humor is frequently embedded within specific cultural and national frameworks, it is inherently shaped by the perspectives they encompass (Jiang, 2019).

Furthermore, the diverse reactions of various audiences underscore the challenge of maintaining neutrality, particularly during wartime. What may be received as humorous or comforting by one demographic can be perceived as inappropriate or offensive by another (Carli, 2023). A joke or cartoon intended to be impartial may be interpreted as biased by individuals who feel that it critiques their beliefs or political affiliations. This inherent variability substantially influences the perceived impartiality of humor and its capacity to bridge divides effectively. Recognizing one’s own biases and the potential for bias can help humorists approach their work with greater objectivity. Transparency regarding the intent behind the humor can also help maintain impartiality. By creating humor that is inclusive and considers multiple perspectives, humorists can adopt a more balanced approach. Consequently, humor in wartime is complex and multifaceted, with its impartiality contingent upon the context, audience, and intent behind the humor. While achieving complete impartiality in political humor may prove challenging, humorists can take proactive measures to minimize bias by a) concentrating on universal themes, b) exercising self-awareness and transparency, and c) producing inclusive humor. Through the emphasis on universal themes such as human suffering, famine, the value of human life, and accountability for crimes, humorists can create content that resonates effectively across diverse cultures and societies. Transparency about the intent behind the humor can also aid in maintaining impartiality. Creating humor that is inclusive and considers multiple perspectives can help in achieving a more balanced approach. Although a cartoon reflects a cartoonist’s point of view and the visual commentary often exaggerates circumstances, responsible editorial standards do not allow the cartoonist to alter facts.

Despite this growing body of research, there remains limited exploration of how impartial humor specifically operates through visual rhetoric in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War. This study aims to fill that gap by analyzing cartoons that negotiate political impartiality while engaging audiences in critical reflection, thereby contributing to the scholarship on visual political communication, humor studies, and the representation of conflict.

Data Set and Methodology

The data set presented in this paper is a fragment of the larger corpus containing 3,780 political cartoons from Europe (26 countries), Asia (21 countries), North America (three countries), South America (nine countries), Africa (five countries), and Australia, assigned to six document groups. The corpus was collected in the period from 24 February 2022 to 24 February 2024 using the web galleries Cartoon Movement (60–100 cartoons daily from over 220 freelance cartoonists in 80 countries, https://www.cartoonmovement.com), ToonPool (3,441 artists from 120 countries, https://www.toonpool.comand), and Cagle Cartoons Inc, the syndication service for newspaper editors, distributing political cartoons and columns to over 500 subscribing newspapers (https://caglecartoons.com). The data collection was based on the search terms ‘Russian-Ukrainian war’, ‘War in Ukraine’, ‘Ukraine’, and ‘Russian invasion of Ukraine’.

The collected corpus is a part of the research project ‘Laughter during the War: Russian Aggression in Ukraine in Political Cartoons and Memes’, co-funded by the National Science Center and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement. The initial analysis highlighted two primary categories of humor: subversive and supportive. It also found that within the project corpus of 3,780 documents, there are 303 cartoons (8%) that display impartial humor (Figure 1). This type of humor occurs in all document groups. The code ‘impartial humor’ was assigned to the cartoons, whose setting does not explicitly reveal the cartoonist’s opinion on the conflict parties (Russia and Ukraine) and/or on the war’s global meaning. Images containing no direct visual or textual references to the Russo-Ukrainian war were included because they were published during the period selected for the study.

Figure 1

Types of humor.

In stage two, we established a final dataset comprising 16 political cartoons from 13 countries. The selection was guided by frequency analysis of impartial humor’s share in cartoons from various regions of the world. These two calculations (the distribution of different types of humor in the project corpus and the share of impartial humor in different countries relative to the total number of cartoons in each document group) have been made via quantitative computer-based content analysis (MAXQDA 2024). MAXQDA is a software program designed for computer-assisted qualitative and mixed methods data, text, and multimedia analysis. It helps researchers organize, analyze, and visualize various types of data: text documents, PDF files, audio and video files, images, survey data, social media data, and bibliographical data. It is used globally by researchers across various disciplines.

Figure 2 shows the countries with a significant share of impartial humor. The highest percentage of impartial humor contains cartoons from Asia, represented by Taiwan (36.8%), Iran (33.3%), and Qatar (33.3%), followed by Europe with Italy (32.7%) and Greece (27%), and by South America, with Argentina (26.1 %) and Brazil (22.4%). African impartial humor is represented by Morocco (28.6%) and Algeria (14.3%). The lowest share of impartial humor feature cartoons comes from the USA (6.9%) and Australia (4.5%).

Figure 2

Countries with the largest share of impartial humor.

We consider political cartoons as a genre of complex political satire that serves ideological, epistemological, cognitive-emotional, identificational, and constructive functions. They effectively challenge the current political and social order by highlighting the stark contrast between the flawed reality and the ideals of what could or should be. This questioning is determined by target, focus, social acceptability, and presentation (Paletz, 1990). The interaction of these elements shapes the spectrum of political humor from subversive to supportive. Political cartoons can be defined by a) goals, b) frame of reference, and c) means. The corresponding parameters (goal-target, frame of reference-focus, and means-presentation) provide an analytical framework for this paper, enabling a comprehensive exploration of the topic. To better analyze the impartial humor, we introduced two additional criteria: a) the cartoonist’s viewpoint on the war and its consequences, and b) the cartoonist’s perspective on the conflict parties (Ukraine and Russia). These criteria were selected for specific reasons. Cartoonists play a crucial role as social commentators, sharing their insights on the conflicts and the involved parties. They challenge existing views, prompting audiences to reflect critically on the narratives they encounter. By transforming complex issues into engaging visuals, cartoonists encourage essential discussions and contemplation. Their perspectives stimulate thought, making their views on the conflicting parties vital for comprehending the dynamics of contemporary armed conflicts. Moreover, political cartoons often showcase bias. Therefore, an author’s attitude toward the war or the involved parties is usually quite pronounced in their representations of military conflicts. If a cartoon suggests the creator’s position on a) the war and its global implications or b) the parties in conflict, this indicates a low level of impartiality. Conversely, if the cartoon depicts the situation without revealing the creator’s stance on the war or its parties, it suggests a high level of impartiality (see Table 1).

Research Results

The dataset collectively presents a notable proportion of impartial humor from 13 countries, including Ukraine and Russia, which are parties to the conflict. It highlights various topics: the global food crisis, protracted warfare, war crimes, and the geopolitical tensions between the USA and Russia. Some of the cartoons also advocate for peace and dialogue without depicting specific events or addressing the conflict parties directly.

Cartoons by (Chen, 2023; Philip, 2022; Divandari, 2022) represent the Asia document group. Chen (2023) employs a biblical motif (i.e., Christ’s birth), depicting a missile resembling the Star of Bethlehem flying over an empty manger. The cartoon exhibits a low level of impartiality, highlighting the absurdity of war that leads to a Christmas without the presence of Christ. The cartoon by Philip (2022) demonstrates a high level of impartiality, as the cartoonist uses the metaphor (UKRAINE=BOUNCER) to depict Ukraine as a battleground for the competition between the USA and Russia. This portrayal is neither subversive nor supportive; it simply presents the current situation, but there are no direct indications of who is responsible or of support for any of the parties. The cartoon by Divandary (2022) contains the verbal element ‘Stop the war in Ukraine’. The setting of the cartoon suggests a low level of impartiality. The visual implication that the war is bad, primarily for Ukraine, is clearly expressed, but there are no direct indications of who has to stop this war.

The European cartoons have a distinct target or focus, mostly without text. The cartoon by Papageorgiou (2022) depicts a loaf of bread on the edge of the sword hovering over a black woman with a baby (i.e., allusions to the sword of Damocles). It portrays the threat of hunger in the countries of the global South. Another cartoon’s setting (De Angelis, 2022) illustrates the author’s anti-war stance: the dove, a symbol of peace, is significantly larger than the tank, a symbol of war, and it holds the muzzle tightly, blocking the fire. The level of impartiality in both cartoons is low, as the cartoonists exhibit a strictly negative attitude toward the war and its consequences. However, the cartoons do not specify which war is being depicted or who is responsible for the resulting consequences.

The most frequent topics in cartoons from the South America document group are rapid price increases and nuclear threats. These topics are depicted in a figurative manner using military symbols: uniforms, rockets, guns, and tanks (Souza, 2023; Elmer, 2023).

Both cartoons exhibit a high level of impartiality because the cartoonist’s attitude towards the topics depicted is not expressed in any way (in terms of ethical principles), and there are no markers indicating who or what caused the price growth or who is responsible for the nuclear danger. The cartoons present the current situation without being subversive or supportive. Some cartoons in this document group (Souza, 2022; Lucas, 2023) contain anti-war appeals that utilize peace symbols and verbal elements. There is no indication of who is responsible for this terrible war and the subsequent peacebuilding efforts. However, the setting of both cartoons reveals their anti-war stance: war is represented as a bloody danger to peace, accompanied by a hope for peace. Accordingly, the level of impartiality in both cartons is low.

Cartoons in the Africa document group utilize military symbols (e.g., tanks, military aircraft, soldiers, helmets) accompanied by verbal elements (e.g., war inserts) to convey that the war poses a global threat (Cherradi, 2022). Another danger from which protection is needed is the food crisis (Benaji, 2023). The level of impartiality in both cartoons is low because the cartoonist’s attitude to the war and its consequences is expressed (strictly negative), even though there are no markers of what war is depicted and who is responsible for its consequences. The cartoon by L’ Andalou (2022) uses Ukrainian national colors as a background and depicts the man who turned his back, unwilling to see a missile protruding from the ground. The image alludes to the cartoon character Mr. Linea (i.e., a character from an Italian animated series, originally broadcast on the Italian channel RAI between 1971 and 1986). It is a man drawn as a single outline around his silhouette, walking on an infinite line of which he is a part. The character encounters obstacles and often turns to the cartoonist, represented by a live-action hand holding a white grease pencil, to draw him a solution, with various degrees of success. The focus and setting of this cartoon display high impartiality by simply recording the state of affairs, which is an endless and unpredictable war, without revealing any personal attitude towards it.

The USA cartoons containing impartial humor always have a clear target and focus, with or without verbal elements. The cartoon by Nath (2023) includes both nonverbal and verbal elements (truck with the insert ‘international peacekeeping mechanisms’ stuck in the wall with the insert ‘Ukraine war’ and speech bubble ‘Any end in sight?’. The level of impartiality is high because the cartoon accurately portrays the current state of affairs (i.e., a protracted war) without being either supportive or subversive.

Australian cartoon by Kreiner (2023) uses Ukrainian national colors, which interact with another symbol (a maze). The maze, as an intricate network of multicourse paths, symbolizes disorientation. The cartoon contains only nonverbal elements. The cartoonist records the situation (i.e., endless and unpredictable war) without showing his attitude toward this war. Accordingly, we define the high level of impartiality.

To obtain the whole picture, the analysis in six document groups was supplemented by an examination of impartial humor in Ukrainian and Russian cartoons. This type of humor in Ukrainian cartoons accounts for 1.5%, while in Russian cartoons, it is at 4%.

The main topics of Ukrainian impartial cartoons are the protracted nature of the war, media war and propaganda, and refugees.

The focus of Ukrainian cartoon by Holub (2024) is the protracted character of the Russian-Ukrainian war. The cartoon’s setting reveals the cartoonist’s negative attitude towards the situation, highlighting the ongoing escalation. The neutral grey background contrasts sharply, reinforcing the severity of the red. The anthropomorphic globe, measuring the rising red level, dramatizes the idea of a protracted war. The cartoon features low impartiality because the cartoonist’s stance is clearly expressed. The main topics of Russian impartial cartoons are negotiations, the grain deal, and calls for peace. Depicting these topics, Russian cartoonists use symbols (e.g., soldiers, tanks, round tables, bread loaves, guns, angels). The focus of the Russian cartoon by Khakhanov (2022) is food security (represented by a bread loaf) affected by the war (depicted by a tank). However, one of the most striking features of this cartoon is its setting. The cartoon lacks markers (flags or other symbols) that would enable the identification of the aggressor (the tank) and the victim (the bread). The level of impartiality is high because the cartoon’s setting reveals its focus in a very abstract way. The absence of markers could be interpreted as creating a false equivalence between the aggressor and the victim. In war, especially in a case as clear-cut as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, equivalence between the two sides can be a dangerous narrative. The image, by leaving the tank and the bread unmarked, may suggest that both parties share equal responsibility or blame in the conflict, which is misleading. By removing the direct association between Ukraine as the victim and Russia as the aggressor, the image’s ambiguity may downplay the central role of Ukraine in the narrative surrounding the grain deal.

The difference is a matter of degree and intent. While both low impartiality and supportive/subversive cartoons demonstrate a lack of objectivity, the latter two terms are specific categories describing how that lack of impartiality is expressed and what action the creator is advocating.

To summarize the results of this study, we want to ask: what sets cartoons with low impartiality apart from subversive or supportive political cartoons? We propose that the analytical framework used in this study defines low impartiality as a broad condition that includes various forms of partiality or bias. This bias is shown through the cartoonist’s clear attitude toward the war or its involved parties. Any straightforward expression of judgment, approval, disapproval, or emotional attachment to one side of the conflict places the cartoon within the low impartiality category. Supportive and subversive are specific directions or goals that a low impartiality cartoon might take. They represent the ultimate aim of that bias. In short, low impartiality is the necessary condition (the cartoon is evidently biased), and supportive or subversive describes the type of bias (the purpose behind that bias). A cartoon must exhibit low impartiality to be classified as either supportive or subversive.

Conclusions

This paper examined how impartial humor operates through visual rhetoric in political cartoons on the Russo-Ukrainian War. By examining this genre, we gained a deeper understanding of the complex perspectives on this war in various regions of the World, including Ukraine and Russia, as conflict parties. The partiality of political cartoons is especially noticeable during military and political conflicts. Political cartoons address these conflicts by illustrating the cartoonist’s stance and making explicit statements about the people and countries involved. At the same time, cartoonists depicting armed conflicts can demonstrate a lack of favoritism toward one side or another (impartiality). However, their attitudes toward the war are generally influenced by their perspective and can be expressed in various ways. By analyzing a dataset of 16 cartoons from 13 countries, we sought to understand how cartoonists negotiate impartiality, the strategies they employ, and whether humor inherently carries political inclinations. The analytical framework is based on the correlation of parameters describing cartoons as a distinct genre of political satire: target/goal, focus/frame of reference, and setting/ means. To analyze the level of impartiality in the research corpus, two more criteria have been considered: a) the cartoonist’s stance on the war in general and its consequences, and b) the cartoonist’s attitude toward the conflict parties. These additions helped us assess the level of impartiality in the research corpus. We have identified two levels of impartiality. The cartoon exhibits a high level of impartiality, as its setting does not reveal the cartoonist’s attitude toward the war and its consequences in general/or toward the conflict parties. These ‘high impartiality’ cartoons are less frequent; they have a focus (a particular topic, e.g., nuclear threat or price jump), but no target, and simply present the current situation without any assessment. The level of impartiality is to be considered low when the cartoonist’s stance is reflected in the cartoon’s setting (even if the cartoon’s target is not labeled or only the focus is marked). This stance can relate to the evaluation of war and its consequences in general, to the conflict parties, or to both.

Addressing RQ 1.1. How do the interrelations between rhetorical devices (setting) in the impartial cartoons function rhetorically to negotiate the cartoonist’s stance in highly polarized conflict discourse? We state that impartial cartoons often rely on universal symbols (e.g., bread, doves, tanks, mazes) and metaphors detached from explicit party markers. By avoiding direct references to aggressor or victim, cartoonists create rhetorical distance. This rhetorical strategy negotiates impartiality by shifting the focus from assigning blame to highlighting shared consequences such as famine, nuclear risk, or prolonged uncertainty. However, this abstraction sometimes risks producing a ‘false equivalence’ between the parties involved, which can dilute moral clarity in highly polarized contexts.

The RQ 1.1 leads us to RQ 1.2. To what extent do quantitative analyses reveal differences or similarities in the deployment of visual rhetoric strategies across impartial cartoons?

The quantitative content analysis reveals regional variations in the prevalence of impartial humor. Cartoons from Asia, Europe, and South America display the highest shares of impartial cartoons, while the USA cartoons and Australian cartoons show significantly lower levels. The qualitative differences in the level of impartiality are based on the topics and the countries represented in the corpus. Most anti-war cartoons in the corpus (Brazil, Morocco, Greece, Iran, Italy, Taiwan) display low impartiality, focusing on the dangerous consequences of the war (e.g., war crimes, food crises, famine, price rise) using symbols and metaphors (setting), sometimes supported by the text that most clearly convey the cartoonist’s attitude. Some South American cartoons with high impartiality depict the consequences of the war (e.g., price rises) or the nuclear threat (as seen in Argentina and Brazil). Cartoons focusing on the protracted character of the Russian-Ukrainian war (Australia, Algeria, the USA), food insecurity (Russia), and the geopolitical struggle between the USA and Russia (Qatar) have mostly a high level of impartiality (Ukrainian cartoons have a low level of impartiality), even if the conflict parties (target) are explicitly marked or not. Their authors describe the impossibility of predicting options for ending the war and Ukraine as a battleground for the USA and Russia. The setting of the cartoon is tailored to convey the cartoonist’s vision accurately.

Despite these differences, the visual rhetorical strategies remain broadly consistent across regions: cartoonists often employ symbolism, metaphor, and allegory without direct textual markers of blame. This similarity suggests that impartial humor tends to rely on a universal visual rhetoric strategy: (missiles, tanks, bread, peace doves) capable of transcending cultural boundaries. The frequency of impartial humor, however, depends on national contexts, with societies closer to the conflict (Ukraine and Russia) producing far fewer impartial cartoons.

Addressing RQ 2: In what ways does humor possess an inherent political bias? We acknowledge that humor can have an intrinsic political bias, although it is not inherently political in nature. The political orientation of humor is shaped by various factors, including cultural context, the creator’s viewpoint, the subject of the humor, and how audiences interpret it. Countries differ in their political values, which affects what types of humor are deemed acceptable. Cartoonists often convey their political views, either overtly or subtly, through their work. The choice of individuals or nations depicted in a cartoon, and the way they are portrayed, can reveal the cartoonist’s political perspective. This influences the selection of targets, themes, and settings within the cartoon. Depending on the cartoonist’s perspective, their portrayal of politicians or events may be either supportive or critical of them. Audience interpretation also plays a significant role in perceiving political bias; a cartoon intended as neutral or impartial may be seen through the filter of different political beliefs or life experiences. Even if a cartoonist refrains from overtly siding with a particular party in a conflict, complete impartiality is challenging to achieve, and their attitude toward war and its consequences inevitably emerges, often framing war as a universal evil that transcends borders. Thus, humor is not inherently politically neutral; instead, it functions as a flexible rhetorical tool that can either sharpen political critique or soften partisanship through abstraction.

Competing Interests

The author is also an editor for this Special Collection and has been kept entirely separate from the peer review process for their article.