The аxiology of the coloronym green in a modern politician’s Telegram channel

The article, drawing on messages posted in the Telegram channel of the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, D. A. Medvedev, examines the axiological use of the coloronym green, which refers to the persona of Russia’s political and military adversary. To determine the linguistic and axiological potential of the coloronym green in D. Medvedev’s posts, the study employs methods of semantic, definitional, etymological, diachronic, contextual, lingua-pragmatic, and lingua-axiological analysis. The study identifies and analyzes various strategies of opponent discreditation, including: the use of the opponent’s name in combination with lexemes and metaphorical expressions carrying negative evaluative connotations; the use of the name with a lowercase initial letter; the reduction of the name to a colloquial, derogatory form; metonymic substitutions of the name by the designation of an item of habitual clothing; and periphrastic substitutions referencing the coloronym green. The analysis focuses primarily on the lingua-pragmatic and lingua-axiological features of the coloronym green, whose use is motivated, first, by the etymologization of the political opponent’s name, which enables the speaker to refer to the target in a derogatory manner without direct nomination; second, by implicatures that diminish the politician’s authority and are embedded in ironic remarks alluding to real-world facts (the opponent’s appearance, behavioral traits, and condition); and third, by the need to convey the meaning of the politician’s professional immaturity, lack of experience, and dependence in making decisions of strategic importance for the country. The study identifies the types of metaphors accompanying the designation of the Ukrainian politician through the coloronym green, which contribute to constructing his negative image: anthropomorphic (morbial), naturamorphic (zoomorphic), and sociomorphic (theatrical, circus-related, criminal, military). It is noted that a personal Telegram channel enables an official representative of the state to articulate personal attitudes toward events, political opponents, and their actions in “non-diplomatic” terms that cannot be employed, for ethical reasons, within institutional discourse. In this way, the Telegram channel functions as a kind of digital “speech double” of the contemporary politician.