Journal of Public Diplomacy

The Korean Association for Public Diplomacy (한국공공외교학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Constructivist Approach to Understanding Russian's Public Diplomacy through Humanitarian Aid during COVID-19

  • Received : 2021.02.12
  • Accepted : 2021.12.15
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Applying discourse analysis of Russia's narrative on humanitarian aid and its perception by the Western collective identity at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study identifies several challenges that constructivism poses to the current understanding of public diplomacy (PD). In contrast to the mainstream positivist tendency to evaluate the effectiveness of PD through models, this article expands the PD narrative by inquiring about the role of power, intersubjective knowledge, and collective identities in public diplomacy. In particular, it examines the PD questions often ignored by researchers regarding how collective identities can exercise discursive power to interpret incoming narratives, which challenge domestic intersubjective knowledge. It also argues that, because the Russian political elite failed to ensure a coherent story and provide informational support for its humanitarian aid, the Western intersubjective knowledge on Russia negatively contributed to the perception of PD narratives. Thus, the article underscores the importance for PD practitioners to understand how the socially constructed nature of knowledge can improve or harm PD strategies.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to Dr. Timur Dadabaev (University of Tsukuba, Japan) for his valuable constructivist overview of the issues discussed, and to Dr. Gregory Simons (Uppsala University, Sweden) for his contribution to the discussion of the Russia's approach to public diplomacy.

References

  1. Adler, E. (2013). Constructivism in international relations: Sources, contributions, and debates. In W. Carlsneas, Th. Risse, & B. Simons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 112-145). SAGE
  2. Adler, E. (2019). World ordering: A social theory of cognitive evolution. Cambridge University Press
  3. Adler-Nissen, R. (2016). Diplomatic agency. In C. Constantinou, C.M., P. Ker, & P. Sharp (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of diplomacy (pp. 92-103). SAGE
  4. Atkinson, C. (2010). Does soft power matter? A comparative analysis of student exchange programs 1980-2006. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2009.00099.x
  5. Balch, A. (2009). Labour and epistemic communities: The case of "managed migration" in the UK. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(4), 613-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856x.2009.00384.x
  6. Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Cornell University Press
  7. Baumann, M. (2020). 'Propaganda Fights' and 'Disinformation Campaigns': The discourse on information warfare in Russia-West relations. Contemporary Politics, 26(3), 288-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2020.1728612
  8. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, Th. (1967). The social construction of reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin Books
  9. Bjola, C., & Kornprobst, M. (2018). Understanding international diplomacy: Theory, practice and ethics. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
  10. Bratsky, Y. (2020, March 24). 'Spasibo ot vsego naroda': Smenivshij flag ES na rossijskij trikolor v P'emonte ital'janec ob. jasnil svoj postupok ['Thank you from all the people': The Italian who changed the EU flag to the Russian tricolor in Piedmont explained his act]. Zvezda. Retrieved October 17, 2021, from https://tvzvezda.ru/news/20203241827-yOZHy.html
  11. Braw, E. (2020, March 14). The EU is abandoning Italy in its hour of need. Foreign Policy. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/14/coronaviruseu-abandoning-italy-china-aid/
  12. Buzan, B., Waever, O., & De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Lynne Reinner
  13. Carter, E. B., & Carter, B. L. (2021). Questioning more: RT, outward-facing propaganda, and the Post-West world order. Security Studies, 30(1), 49-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2021.1885730
  14. Checkel, J. T. (2001). Why comply? Social learning and European identity change. International Organization, 55(3), 553-588. http://doi.org/10.1162/00208180152507551
  15. Chehabi, H. E. (2001). Sport diplomacy between the United States and Iran. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12(1), 89-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290108406190
  16. Chwieroth, J. M. (2007). Testing and measuring the role of ideas: The case of neoliberalism in the International Monetary Fund. International Studies Quarterly, 51(1), 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00437.x
  17. Coronavirus: Russia brings army doctors home from Italy (2020, May 6). BBC. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52557426
  18. Coronavirus: What does "from Russia with love" really mean? (2020, April 3). BBC News Russia. Retrieved April 7, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe52137908
  19. Cull, N. (2009). Public diplomacy: Lessons from the past. CPD perspectives on public diplomacy, from http://kamudiplomasisi.org/pdf/kitaplar/PDPerspectivesLessons.pdf
  20. Dreher, J. (2016). The social construction of power: Reflections beyond Berger/Luckmann and Bourdieu. Cultural Sociology, 10(1), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975515615623
  21. Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2006). U.S. public diplomacy in the Middle East. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 30(2), 102-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859905285286
  22. 80% of Russia's coronavirus aid to Italy "useless" - La Stampa (2020, March 26). The Moscow Times. Retrieved April 8, 2020, from https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/26/80-of-russias-coronavirus-aid-to-italy-useless-la-stampa-a69756
  23. Emmott, R., & Osborn, A. (2020, March 26). Russian aid to Italy leaves EU exposed. Reuters. Retrieved October, 17, 2021, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-russia-eu-idUSKBN21D28K
  24. Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading activation: Contesting the White House's frame after 9/11. Political Communication, 20(4), 415-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390244176
  25. Feklyunina, V. (2016). Soft power and identity: Russia, Ukraine and the "Russian World(s)". European Journal of International Relations, 22(4), 773-796. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115601200
  26. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 391-416. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.391
  27. Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). US public diplomacy in a post-9/11 world: From messaging to mutuality. CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, from https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/scpublicdiplomacy.org/files/legacy/publications/perspectives/CPDPerspectives_Mutuality.pdf
  28. Foucault, M. (1977). The political function of the intellectual. Radical Philosophy, 17(13), 126-133. Retrieved December 14, 2021, from https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/the-political-function-of-the-intellectual
  29. Gerber, T. P., & Zavisca, J. (2016). Does Russian propaganda work? The Washington Quarterly, 39(2), 79-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660x.2016.1204398
  30. Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312142
  31. Giles, K. (2020, March 27). Beware Russian and Chinese positioning for after the pandemic. The Chatman House. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/04/beware-russian-and-chinese-positioning-after-pandemic
  32. Giuffrida, A., & Roth, A. (2020, April 27). Moscow's motives questioned over coronavirus aid shipment to Italy. The Guardian. Retrieved October 17, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/27/moscow-motives-questioned-over-coronavirus-aid-shipment-to-italy
  33. Golan, G. J., & Yang, S. U. (2013). Diplomat in chief? Assessing the influence of presidential evaluations on public diplomacy outcomes among foreign publics. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(9), 1277-1292. https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/0002764213487735
  34. Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (Eds.) (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: An analytical framework. In Ideas and foreign policy beliefs, institutions, and political change (pp. 3-30). Cornell University Press
  35. Goncharenko, R. (2020, April 2). Kak v Germanii ocenivajut rossijskuju pomoshh' SShA v bor'be s koronavirusom [How Germany assesses US Russian assistance in the fight against coronavirus]. DW. Retrieved October 17, 2021, from https://www.dw.com/ru/как-в-германии-оценивают-российскую-помощь-сша-в-борьбе-с-коронавирусом/a-52998269
  36. Graham, S. E. (2014). Emotion and public diplomacy: Dispositions in international communications, dialogue, and persuasion. International Studies Review, 16(4), 522-539. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12156
  37. Groulier, C., & Tordjman, S. (2020). Intergovernmental organizations. In T. Balzacq, F. Charillon, & F. Ramel (Eds.), Global diplomacy: An introduction to theory and practice (pp. 139-153). Palgrave Macmillan
  38. Haacke, J. (2003). ASEANs diplomatic and security culture: A constructivist assessment. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 3(1), 57-87. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/3.1.57
  39. Haas, P. M. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization, 43(3), 377-403. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300032975
  40. Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. SAGE
  41. Hayden, C. (2011). Beyond the "Obama Effect": Refining the instruments of engagement through U. S. Public Diplomacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(6), 784-802. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211400571
  42. Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171-200. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.23.1.171
  43. Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171-200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267
  44. Horn, D. (2020, March 22). How America can avoid Italy's ventilator crisis. The New York Times. Retrieved October 18, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/opinion/health/ventilator-shortage-coronavirus-solution.html
  45. Huang, C. (2020, December 16). Views of Russian and Putin remain negative across 14 Nations. Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/12/16/views-of-russia-and-putin-remain-negative-across-14-nations/
  46. Huijgh, E., & Byrne, C. (2012). Opening the windows on diplomacy: A comparison of the domestic dimension of public diplomacy in Canada and Australia. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7(4), 395-420. https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191x-12341239
  47. Hutchings, S. (2018, April 4). We must rethink Russia's propaganda machine in order to reset the dynamic that drives it. British Politics and Policy at LSE. Retrieved July 3, 2021, from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/we-must-rethink-russian-propaganda/
  48. Inkster, N. (2016). Information warfare and the US presidential election. Survival, 58(5), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2016.1231527
  49. Keating, V. C., & Kaczmarska, K. (2019). Conservative soft power: Liberal soft power bias and the "hidden" attraction of Russia. Journal of International Relations and Development, 22(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0100-6
  50. Kharitonova, E., & Prokhorenko, I. (2020). Russian science diplomacy. In A. Velikaya, & G. Simons (Eds.), Russia's public diplomacy: Evolution and practice (pp. 133-146). Palgrave Macmillan
  51. Kreml' zayavil o priznatel'nosti Trampa za pomoshch' v bor'be s virusom v SSHA [Kremlin acknowledges Trump's gratitude for helping US fight virus] (2020, March 31). RBC. Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://www.rbc.ru/politics/31/03/2020/5e8388629a79477d5ab17e8b
  52. Krylo pomoshchi: Rossiya otpravila v SSHA gumanitarnyj gruz dlya bor'by s koronavirusom [Aid Wing: Russia Sent Humanitarian Aid to the United States to Fight Coronavirus] (2020, April 2). Sputnik. Retrieved October 16, 2021, from https://sputnik-abkhazia.ru/20200402/Ruka-pomoschi-Rossiya-otpravila-v-SShA-gumanitarnyy-gruz-dlya-borbys-koronavirusom-1029812286.html
  53. Lebow, R. N. (2007). Coercion, cooperation, and ethics in international relations. Routledge
  54. Lebow, R. N. (2008). A cultural theory of international relations. Cambridge University Press "Druz'ya poznayutsya v bede". Ital'yancy menyayut flagi ES na rossijskij trikolor - Video ["A friend in need is a friend indeed". Italians change EU flags to Russian tricolor - Video] (2020, March 24). Life. Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://life.ru/p/1314571
  55. Lukin, A. (2013). Publichnaja diplomatija [Public diplomacy]. Mezhdunarodnaja zhizn. International Affairs, 3, 69-87. https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/material/831
  56. Made, van der J (2020, April 4). Russia and China "exploit Covid-19 crisis" to discredit European Union. Radio Free Internationale. Retrieved April 7, 2020, from http://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20200405-russia-and-china-exploit-covid-19-crisis-to-discrediteuropean-union%E2%80%93-analyst
  57. Mankoff, J. (2020, April 10). Russia's response to Covid-19. hCenter for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-response-covid-19
  58. Mattern, J. B. (2001). The power politics of identity. European Journal of International Relations, 7(3), 349-397, from https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/1354066101007003003
  59. Mattern, J. B. (2005). Ordering international politics. Routledge
  60. Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The new public diplomacy (pp. 3-27). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554931_1
  61. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia (2020, April 2). Briefing by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova. Retrieved October 17, 2021, from https://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4094236?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_cKNonkJE02Bw&_101_INSTANCE_cKNonkJE02Bw_languageId=en_GB
  62. Neumann, I. B. (2002). Returning practice to the linguistic turn: The case of diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 627-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031201
  63. Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy, 80(80), 153-171. https://doi.org/10.2307/1148580
  64. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs
  65. Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power: Its changing nature and use in the 21st century. Public Affairs
  66. O'Hagan, J. (2002). Conceptualizing the west in international relations: From Spengler to Said. Palgrave
  67. Onuf, N. G. (1989). World of our making: Rules and rule in social theory and international relations. University of South Carolina Press
  68. Osipova, Y. (2014). Russia's public diplomacy. In search of recognition. USC Center for Public Diplomacy. Retrieved July 3, 2021, from https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/russia%E2%80%99s-public-diplomacy-search-recognition-part-1
  69. Pew Research Center (2020, July 24). "Chapter 1. Attitudes toward the United States. Pew Research Center's global attitudes project, from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2013/07/18/chapter-1-attitudes-toward-the-united-states/
  70. Pouliot, V. (2010). International security in practice: The politics of NATO-Russia diplomacy. Cambridge University Press
  71. Price, R. (2008). Moral limit and possibility in world politics. International Organization, 62(2), 191-220. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40071865 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080132
  72. Rawnsley, G. D. (2015). To know us is to love us: Public diplomacy and international broadcasting in contemporary Russia and China. Politics, 35(3-4), 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.12104
  73. Regnier, Ph. (2011). The emerging concept of humanitarian diplomacy: Identification of a community of practice and prospects for international recognition. International Review of the Red Cross, 93(884), 1211-1237. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383112000574
  74. Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the coronavirus Task Force in press briefing' (2020, April 2). The White House. Retrieved April 7, 2020, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vicepresident-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-17/
  75. Reus-Smit, Ch. (2005). Constructivism. In S. Burchill, A. Linklater, R. Devetak, J. Donnelly, & M. Paterson, Ch. Reus-Smit, & True, J. (Eds.). Theories of international relations (pp. 188-212). Palgrave.
  76. Risse, Th. (2000). 'Let's argue!': Communicative action in world politics'. International Organization, 54(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551109
  77. Rossiya napravila pomoshch' SSHA dlya bor'by s koronavirusom [Russia sends US aid to fight coronavirus] (2020, April 1). TASS. Retrieved October 16, 2021, from https://tass.ru/obschestvo/8131019
  78. Rothman, S. B. (2011). Revising the soft power concept: What are the means and mechanisms of soft power? Journal of Political Power, 4(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.556346
  79. RT (2020, April 2). Russian humanitarian aid arrives in NYC [Video file]. Youtube. Retrieved October 16, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgqt4MYQ6-Y
  80. Russia sends 600 medical ventilators to Italy - Ambassador (2020, March 26). TASS. Retrieved April 7, 2020, from https://tass.com/world/1135593
  81. Sasikumar, K. (2017). Branding India: Constructing a reputation for responsibility in the nuclear order. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 13(3), 242-254. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-016-0038-2
  82. Sears, N. A. (2020, March 25). The securitization of COVID-19: Three political dilemmas. The Global Policy. Retrieved October 16, 2021, from https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/25/03/2020/securitization-covid-19-three-political-dilemmas, 11(2), 255-266 https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12800
  83. Sevin, E. (2015). Pathways of connection: An analytical approach to the impacts of public diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 562-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.003
  84. Sevin, E. (2017). A multilayered approach to public diplomacy evaluation: Pathways of connection. Politics and Policy, 45(5), 879-901. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12227
  85. Shakirov, O., Petrosyan, M., & Solovyev, D. (2020). Gumanitarnaja pomoshh' protiv koronavirusa. Komu i kak pomogala Rossija vo vremja pandemii COVID-19? [Humanitarian aid against coronavirus. Who and how did Russia help during the COVID-19 pandemic?]. Retrieved October 15, 2021, from https://cpur.ru/research_pdf/russian-anti-covid-aid2020.pdf
  86. Sharp, P. (2005). Revolutionary states, outlaw regimes and the techniques of public diplomacy. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The new public diplomacy (pp. 106-123). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554931_6
  87. Siddiqui, S. (2019, August 31). Washington's great mystery: Trump's affinity for put in and populists baffles experts. The Guardian. Retrieved September 21, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/31/trump-russia-putin-dictators-populists-us-foreign-policy
  88. Simons, G. (2011). Attempting to re-brand the branded: Russia's international image in the 21st century. Russian Journal of Communication, 4(3-4), 322-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409419.2011.10756816
  89. Simons, G. (2014). Russian public diplomacy in the 21st century: Structure, means and message. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 440-449 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.03.002
  90. Simons, G. (2020). The corona virus pandemic and global transformations: Making or breaking international orders? Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law, 13(5), 20-37. https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2020-13-5-2
  91. Snegovaya, M. (2015). Put in's information warfare in Ukraine. Institute for the Study of War, from http://www.understandingwar.org/report/putins-information-warfare-ukrainesoviet-origins-russias-hybrid-warfare
  92. Stein, J. S. (2002). Psychological explanation of international conflict. In W. Carlsneas, Th. Risse, & B. Simons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 292-308). SAGE
  93. Taylor, M., & Stolyarov, G. (2020, May 23). Exclusive: Russian ventilators reached U.S. states without FDA oversight. Reuters. Retrieved May 25, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-ventilators-ex/exclusive-russian-ventilators-reached-u-s-states-without-fda-oversight-idUSKBN22Y2F4
  94. Troianovski, A. (2020, April 2). Turning the tables, Russia sends virus aid to U.S. The New York Times. Retrieved April 8, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/world/europe/coronavirus-us-russia-aid.html
  95. Tsygankov, A. (2019). Russia and America: The asymmetric rivalry. Polity Press
  96. U.S. confirms arrival of Russian Plane with purchased virus supplies (2020, April 2). Radio Free Europe. Retrieved October 17, 2021, from https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-confirmsarrival-of-medical-supplies-purchased-from-russia/30524702.html
  97. Usher, N., Man, Y. M. M., & Ng, M. (2020). Sharing knowledge and "microbubbles": Epistemic communities and insularity in US political journalism. Social Media + Society, 6(2), April-June, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120926639
  98. Van Ham, P. (2002). Branding territory: Inside the wonderful worlds of PR and IR theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(2), 249-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310020101
  99. Van Ham, P. (2008). Place branding: The state of the art. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 126149. https://doi:10.1177/0002716207312274
  100. Van Ham, P. (2010). Social power in international politics. Routledge
  101. Van Ham, P. V. (2002). Branding territory: Inside the wonderful worlds of PR and IR theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(2), 249-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310020101
  102. Vanc, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2016). Scope and status of public diplomacy research by public relations scholars, 1990-2014. Public Relations Review, 42(3), 432-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.012
  103. Velikaya, A. The Russian approach to public diplomacy and humanitarian cooperation. Rising Powers Quarterly, 3(3), 39-61, from https://risingpowersproject.com/the-russianapproach-to-public-diplomacy-and-humanitarian-cooperation/
  104. Velikaya, A., & Simons, G. (Eds.). Russia's public diplomacy: Evolution and practice. Palgrave Macmillan
  105. Vershinin, I. (2021). Russia and Japan in 2012-2020: The deadlock of collective identities. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 9(2), 255-277. https://doi.org/10.18588/202110.00a193
  106. Villanueva, C. R. (2007). Representing cultural diplomacy: Soft power, cosmopolitan constructivism and nation branding in Mexico and Sweden. Vaxjo University Press
  107. Watanabe, K. (2018, August). Conspiracist propaganda: How Russia promotes anti-establishment sentiment online? ECPR General Conference 2018, Hamburg, Germany. Retrieved December 16, 2021, from https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/56301432-fdec4081-a777-90ac49609aa5.pdf
  108. Wei, C. (2016). The efficiency of China's public diplomacy. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 9(4), 399-434. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pow012
  109. Weldes, J. (1998). Bureaucratic politics: A critical constructivist assessment. Mershon International Studies Review, 42(2), 216-225. https://doi.org/10.2307/254413
  110. Weldes, J. (1999). Constructing national interests the United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. University of Minnesota Press
  111. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what States make of it: The social construction of power politic. International Theory, 46(2), 129-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23773-9_7
  112. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. University Press
  113. Wiener, A. (2006). Constructivism and sociological institutionalism. In M. Cini, & A. K. Bourne (Eds.), Palgrave advances in European Union studies (pp. 35-55). Palgrave Macmillan
  114. Yablokov, I. (2015). Conspiracy theories as a Russian public diplomacy tool: The case of Russia Today (RT). Politics, 35(3-4), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.12097
  115. Yang, A., Klyueva, A., & Taylor, M. (2012). Beyond a dyadic approach to public diplomacy: Understanding relationships in multipolar world. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 652-664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.07.005
  116. Yun, S. N. (2006). Toward public relations theory-based study of public diplomacy: Testing the applicability of the excellence study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1804_1
  117. Zakharov, A., & Soshnikov, A. (2020, March 31). V Italii. rossiyskiy gimn, veshayut "tricolor" i Pupo poet po-Russki. Chto s etim ne tak? [In Italy - the Russian anthem, hang up the "tricolor" and Pupo sings in Russian. What's wrong with it?]. BBC. Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-52100274
  118. Zhang, J. (2010). Exploring rhetoric of public diplomacy in the mixed-motive situation: Using the case of president Obamas "Nuclear-Free World" speech in Prague. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(4), 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2010.31
  119. Zhang, J. (2020). Compassion versus manipulation; Narratives versus rational arguments: A PD radar to chart the terrain of public diplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 16(3), 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-019-00146-2
  120. Zhiteli Italii snimayut flagi ES. chtobyi na ih mesto ustanovit rossiyskiy flag [Residents of Italy remove EU flags to replace them with the Russian flag] (2020, March 24). Gosnovosti. Retrieved December 13, 2021, from https://politikus.ru/events/127262-zhiteli-italii-snimayut-flagi-es-chtoby-na-ih-mesto-ustanovit-rossiyskiy-trikolor.html