自2020年新冠疫情爆发，全球各国已经走过与疾病共生的三年，当下正处于重构秩序与联结的复原过程之中。与此同时，伴随着“乌卡时代”的到来，变局之中的不稳定性、不确定性、复杂性和模糊性完美呼应了乌尔里希·贝克所预言的“全球风险社会”图景，风险事件的“全球性”在多重因素所催化的复杂语境与关系结构中被不断放大。2022年2月爆发的俄乌冲突事件无疑加剧了全球格局的流变性与脆弱性。作为该政治事件中少数采取中立立场的国家，中国同时面对外部舆论压力及内部稳定需求。基于此，本研究尝试提出以下三个研究问题：（1）中国媒体针对俄乌冲突的对内、对外报道分别呈现出了怎样的风险建构话语策略？（2）相关报道分别旨在塑造何种安全共识？（3）若相关报道存在风险建构与安全共识塑造方面的差异，其具体策略意图为何？整体反映出何种国家角色意识与身份认同？为回应上述问题，本研究考察了2022年2月14日至3月30日内《人民日报》与China Daily就俄乌冲突进行的相关报道，以梵·迪克提出的“话语-认识-社会”三维架构为理论支撑，对相关报道文本进行批判性话语分析，同时辅以内容分析法，从微观具体到宏观抽象，剖析中国媒体在俄乌冲突发展过程中以何种话语策略引导何种风险与安全共识，并最终导向何种身份认同。在话语层面，研究借助质性软件NVivo12对新闻语篇材料进行了主题聚类、高频词分析等处理，并发现《人民日报》与China Daily在对俄乌冲突事件进行追踪报道时呈现出了差异较为明显的风险建构话语策略。基于相异的话语策略，在认识层面，本研究进一步考察了所选择报道样本的话语秩序与信息选择，并发现在报道实践中，两家媒体同样尝试引导其目标受众形成不同的风险共识。在此基础之上，在社会层面，本文从全球权力格局、中国国家身份认同等新闻话语生产的根源影响维度展开分析与解读，尝试从学理视角对上述媒体间话语策略与共识塑造的差异性所反映的策略意图进行阐述。研究发现，《人民日报》与China Daily对俄乌冲突事件的报道在一定程度上受到当前全球安全格局与中国式全球安全观的影响，新冠疫情带来的不确定性与流变性一定程度上弱化了全球人民的情感联结与身份认同，中国始终坚持在“人类命运共同体”的理念指导下重塑全球身份认同，建立各国共同生存、发展、进步的共同目标与统一战线。

After three years of living with the disease since the outbreak of the covid-19 in 2020, countries around the world are now in the process of reordering and reconnecting. At the same time, human society has reached a turning point in its development: with the advent of the “VUCA” era, the instability, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity of change perfectly echo the picture of a “global risk society” predicted by Ulrich Beck. The global nature of risk events is amplified in a complex context and relational structure catalyzed by multiple factors.In the midst of this turmoil, the Russia-Ukraine conflict that erupted in February 2022 undoubtedly exacerbated the fluidity and fragility of the global landscape. As one of the few countries that took a neutral stance during this political event, China faced both external public pressure and the need for internal stability. Based on this, this study attempts to ask and answer the following three research questions: (1) What are the risk-constructing discourse strategies of Chinese media’s internal and external coverage of the Russia-Ukraine conflict? (2) What kind of security consensus do Chinese media reports on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict aim to shape? (3) If there are differences in the risk construction and security consensus building between Chinese media’s internal and external reports on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, what are their specific strategic intentions? What kind of national roles and identities are reflected in the overall coverage? By responding to these questions, this study attempts to unpack the risk communication paths adopted by China as an international actor in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.This study examines the coverage of the Russia-Ukraine conflict by People’s Daily and China Daily from February 14 to March 30, 2022, and adopts the three-dimensional analysis framework of “discourse-perception-society” proposed by Van Dijk to conduct a critical discourse analysis, supplemented by a content analysis method, from micro-concrete to macro. The study analyzes the discursive strategies used by the Chinese media in the development of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict to guide what kind of risk consensus and, ultimately, what kind of identity.At the discourse level, the study uses the qualitative software NVivo12 to process the news articles by thematic clustering and high-frequency word analysis, and finds that People’s Daily and China Daily present different risk-constructing discourse strategies in their coverage of the Russia-Ukraine conflict: the former focuses on the explanation and interpretation of the Chinese position, response and specific measures, and is accompanied by the explanation and interpretation of the unconstitutional information disseminated by the Western media. The former focuses on explaining and explaining China’s position, response and concrete measures, and denying and refuting the inaccurate statements spread by Western media, while the choice of emotion words and action words is generally positive; the latter covers more information about the current situation and international developments, and its reports are mostly based on global contexts and contexts, such as history, politics and economy, with a neutral language style that is less emotional.Based on their different discourse strategies, this study further examines the discourse order and information selection of the selected coverage samples at the cognitive level, and finds that in the reporting practice, the two media also try to lead their target audiences to form different risk consensus: In the content production process, People’s Daily focuses on strengthening the audience‘s identification with China‘s position, thus conveying the security signal that the current existing crisis and potential risks are under reasonable control. In contrast, China Daily, in its specific reports, puts more emphasis on the possible long-term risk impact of the incident on a global scale and interprets the future development of the incident in the light of the historical depth and the current world situation, presenting a more intuitive picture of the existing crisis and potential risks. The overall presentation of the existing crisis and potential risks is more intuitive and sharper, which may lead the public to further face the risks of the event and take corresponding measures.On this basis, at the social level, this paper analyzes and interprets the root influences of news discourse production in terms of global power patterns and Chinese national identity and tries to elaborate the strategic intentions reflected by the differences in discourse strategies and consensus building among the above media from a theoretical perspective. The study finds that the coverage of the Russia-Ukraine conflict by People’s Daily and China Daily is to a certain extent influenced by the current global security pattern and the Chinese global security concept, and that the uncertainty and fluidity brought by the new crown epidemic have to a certain extent weakened the emotional ties and identity of people around the world, while China has always insisted on reshaping its discourse under the concept of “community of human destiny” and establishing a common goal and united front for the common survival, development and progress of all countries.