Russia's Public Diplomacy

Evolution and Practice

Anna A. Velikaya, Greg Simons, Anna A. Velikaya, Greg Simons

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9783030128739
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030128746
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Diplomacy & Treaties
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Russian public diplomacy attracts growing attention in the current global climate of tension and competition. However, it is often not understood or is misunderstood. Although some articles and book chapters exist, there are almost no books on Russian public diplomacy neither in Russian, nor in English. This edited collection is an in-depth and broad analysis of Russian public diplomacy in its conceptual understanding and its pragmatic aims and practice. Various aspects of Russian public diplomacy – from cultural to business practices – will interest professors, students and practitioners from various countries. Written by a diverse collection of the most prominent and capable scholars, from academia to international organizations, with a wealth of knowledge and objective experience, this book covers the vital topics and thoroughly analyzes the best practices and mistakes within the broad understanding of public diplomacy conducted by the Russian Federation.

© The Author(s) 2020

A. A. Velikaya, G. Simons (eds.)Russia's Public DiplomacyStudies in Diplomacy and International Relationshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12874-6_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Anna A. Velikaya^{1, 2} and Greg Simons^{3, 4}

(1)

The Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Foundation, Moscow, Russia

(2)

Scientific Council of Rossotrudnichestvo Federal Agency, Moscow, Russia

(3)

Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

(4)

Department of Communication Sciences, Turiba University, Riga, Latvia

Anna A. Velikaya (Corresponding author)

Greg Simons

Keywords

Russian public diplomacyForeign policyInstrumentsCountry’s image

End Abstract

Motivation and the Idea Behind This Book

Approximately two years ago, the idea behind this book was hatched at a conference held in Moscow at the Diplomatic Academy. This was prompted by observing the increasing popular and academic interest being shown in Russian foreign policy and public diplomacy, which produced a flurry of publications on these issues. There has been, at times, highly heated debates on Russian foreign policy, including public diplomacy, where very wide spectra of opinions and views have been expressed by an equally wide variety of academics, journalists, practitioners, policy makers and others. As such, we perceived the need to produce a systematic study of Russian public diplomacy as a concept and as a practice by a team of experienced authors with the requisite knowledge and experience to address several underlying avenues of inquiry.

There are a series of questions behind the logic of the chapters and the larger picture that the sum of the chapters seeks to address. What is Russian public diplomacy exactly? There have been many suppositions and projections by a wide variety of sources, from think tanks to government reports, from media reports to academic research. Some of these publications and assumptions seem to have little to do with the reality on the ground. Many foreign and Russian scholars have researched and published on aspects of Russian public diplomacy, mostly in the form of journal articles or reports. But there has been no definitive book-length volume researched and written by Russian scholars and practitioners to date. Therefore, there is a need for a systematic approach to address the issue comprehensively and broadly.

The next logical question concerns the measure of activity question. What does Russian public diplomacy look like, historically and contemporarily? As noted with the above-mentioned question, there seems to be a lot of guesswork, conjecture and projection as to how Russian public diplomacy manifests itself; it is far from being a homogenous set of activities and measures. In addition, given the current state of international relations that are at the current low ebb, in what some have come to characterise as being a New Cold War. This gives rise to the temptation to demonise or mischaracterise what is not understood or is “feared.” The conflation of Russian public diplomacy as only and simply “propaganda” misses the point of the exercise and purpose of those communications through a system of name calling that is intended to discredit Russian public diplomacy without addressing the questions raised in a systematic and objective manner.

A third and final line of inquiry is the one that is leading to the question on the measure of influence. Just how effective are Russia’s numerous public diplomacy programmes and efforts? This is the hardest question to conclusively and convincingly answer. The task is made more difficult by the presumed “mighty” powers of Russian communications, which have been associated deliberately at times with the communications of the Islamic State (Simons & Sillanpaa, 2016). This has the effect of creating a myth, but one that is based on shaky intellectual and academic grounds. One of the mistakes often made is to equate the measure of activity as being the measure of effect of an information and communication campaign. Because an information operation or an influence activity is conducted, it does not automatically translate into influence and persuasive effect.

The Current State of International Relations

Currently, there is a global crisis in terms of diverging interests in international relations and geopolitical issues, which has witnessed an increase in political tensions around the world as a result of increased competition and conflict between countries and blocks of countries. The reasons given for the development of the current situation vary considerably. The use of a specific story narrative seems to take place, which makes use of very specific norms and values, as well as a dialectic struggle between two extremely opposed political and ideological forces. A result of the situational context is that communications can be used to shut down dialogue and interaction, rather than to promote or encourage it, where emotion-laden values and norms are used in place of “cold” and logical “facts.” The result seems to be these messages are communicated to influence and not to inform global audiences. In addition, the present situation is often juxtaposed against the familiar past. A point of view is that the United States treated the end of the Cold War more as a victory rather than an opportunity.

But the Cold War as an ideological struggle disappeared only in part, despite Communism’s implosion. On the American side, not so much had changed on that day (dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991). The Cold War was over, and the United States had won it. But most Americans still believed that they could only be safe if the world looked more like their own country and of the world’s governments abided by the will of the United States.¹

According to the author of the New York Times opinion piece, the United States sought to capitalise on its advantage offered by the Soviet collapse and impose its will upon other countries in a manner that stressed power projection, territorial control and regime change. However, a number of challenges have begun to emerge in the twenty-first century, not least of which is the gradual rise of military and economic power in the East and its decline in Europe. Various challengers to the United States’ role as the global hegemonic power have emerged, such as radical Islam, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Then Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director, Mike Pompeo, publicly stated that the main threats to US national security and national interests were international terrorism (namely al-Qaeda and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—ISIS); North Korea; a resurgent Iran; Russia; and other state and non-state actors that use information to subvert democracies (naming Wikileaks and hostile non-state actor intelligence services).² However, opinion does diverge on the issue of the assumed and perceived risks, such as the Russian threat, for example, which is matched on the opposing geopolitical side.

There is also the issue of threat perception and opinion from countries other than those found in the European Union (EU) and the United States. A Pew Poll conducted across nearly 42,000 respondents from 38 different countries around the globe on perceived threats to their country during February–May 2017 presents a different picture. The most widely perceived threats were from the Islamic State (62%) and global climate change (61%). Threats emanating from countries saw a global average ranked US power and influence (35%), Russian power and influence (31%) and Chinese power and influence (31%) as the three lowest ranked threats.³ Similar polls are conducted in Russia as to perceived threats and enemies of Russia and Russians. A poll conducted by the Levada Centre established these perceptions for 2017:

Identifying the top enemies of Russia, the poll picks on the US, specifically President Donald Trump for the top spot, with Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Germany occupying the big ‘foes’ spaces. […]. Interestingly, the average Russian identified radical Islamism and Islamic extremism as an important threat/enemy. They consider Trump, Ukraine, Europe, Islamic State terror group and corruption to be the greatest threats to Russia.⁴

The global information environment is becoming less free and more constrained in the resulting struggle for legitimacy versus demonisation, giving wind to such contemporary fads as “fake” news and supposed actions to fight this projected menace. In this increasing tense geopolitical environment, a number of initiatives have been launched by actors to try and discredit the negative reportage on them from foreign sources. For example, the European Union’s East StratCom and Disinformation Review (https://​euvsdisinfo.​eu/​) and the corresponding initiatives in countries such as China and Russia.⁵ This has come at a time when public trust and confidence in the mainstream media have been falling.⁶ In such an increasingly toxic environment, it is difficult to source reliable and accurate news at a point in time when it is needed the most.

A similar trend is observed in Russia and other countries that seek to create a narrative of an official national enemy in order to prime and mobilise their publics. There is a rapidly spiralling decline in relations between Russia and the West in terms of official state-to-state level relations too. Observers on the different geopolitical sides are increasingly warning of the unpredictable direction of the current global crisis. The tit-for-tat sanctions between the United States and EU versus Russia have caused both sides to become increasingly fatigued with each other at a time when the channels of communication between them are becoming increasingly restricted, and political calls for a tougher stance on the other are gaining pace.

If there is one thing that the overwhelming majority of policymakers and experts in Moscow and Washington now agree on is that the current crisis is that the current crisis in US-Russia relations is spiralling in its character, systemic in its nature and lingering in its resolution prospects. The rest of the discourse is ripped between narra...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Russian Public Diplomacy: Historical Aspects
• 3. Russian Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding
• 4. Development Diplomacy of the Russian Federation
• 5. Russia’s Policy and International Cooperation: The Challenges and Opportunities of Soft Power
• 6. Russian Digital Diplomacy: A Rising Cyber Soft Power?
• 7. Russian Public Diplomacy Through Higher Education
• 8. Russian Science Diplomacy
• 9. The Role of Civil Society in Russian Public Diplomacy
• 10. Multiple Facets of Russian Public Diplomacy in International Organizations: A Case Study
• 11. Russian Business Diplomacy in Southeast Asia
• 12. The Baltic Sea Region: Cooperation in Human Dimension
• 13. Strategic Communication of Russia in Latin America
• 14. Russia’s Public Diplomacy in the Middle East
• 15. Conclusion
• Back Matter