In the literature on policy advice and analytical communities in democratic settings, think tanks are often assumed to be carriers of new ideas that serve as an informed and independent voice in policy debates. However, how much intellectual independence do think tanks have in authoritarian environments? This article tackles this question in a case study of Russian think tanks' discursive responses to two protracted crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. The study employs a combination of deductive and inductive techniques to identify the discursive strategies used by think tank experts in their publications covering the crises. The findings suggest that there are differences in how think tanks communicate crises, which can be attributed to their institutional structures and position vis-à-vis the state. In some cases, the think tanks resort to polarization and discreditation of Western governments' crisis response, while openly endorsing the Russian state. In other cases, they engage in rationalization and more neutral analyses of the pandemic and climate change. However, regardless of these differences, they rarely concentrate on domestic challenges. Instead, they geopoliticize the crises, overemphasizing problematic developments elsewhere in the world, thus shifting attention in the public discourse away from domestic emergencies.

中文翻译：

---

应对独裁环境中的危机：介于政策评估与国家认可之间的俄罗斯智库

在民主环境下的政策建议和分析团体的文献中，智库通常被认为是新思想的载体，在政策辩论中充当知情和独立的声音。然而，在专制环境下，智库的思想独立性有多大？本文通过俄罗斯智库对两个旷日持久的危机（即 COVID-19 大流行和气候变化）的话语反应的案例研究来解决这个问题。该研究采用演绎和归纳技术相结合的方式来确定智库专家在其涉及危机的出版物中使用的话语策略。研究结果表明，智库沟通危机的方式存在差异，这可以归因于它们的制度结构和相对于国家的立场。在某些情况下，智库对西方政府的危机应对措施进行两极分化和抹黑，同时公开支持俄罗斯政府。在其他情况下，他们对流感大流行和气候变化进行合理化和更中立的分析。然而，尽管存在这些差异，他们却很少关注国内挑战。相反，他们将危机政治化，过分强调世界其他地方的问题发展，从而将公共话语的注意力从国内紧急情况转移开。