The modern world regards public diplomacy as a process of communication with the public pursued by a foreign state, using both state and non-state actors with a view to indirectly shaping public opinion and foreign policy decision-making in that state. Public diplomacy methods and techniques have been used in foreign policy for centuries, but it wasn’t until the twentieth century that they started acquiring a serious role in the national strategy underpinned by a solid research, legislative and resource base. Throughout centuries, the term “diplomacy” mainly implied negotiations, official state-to-state relations and formal communications (notes, letters and other instruments), and these elements haven’t ceased to constitute the backbone of traditional diplomacy, which can be defined as “the management of international relations by negotiation; the method by which these relations are adjusted by ambassadors and envoys; the business or art of the diplomatist” (Nicolson, 1941, p. 1).
With the advent of the information age, traditional diplomacy started to increasingly go hand in hand with public diplomacy, also known as people’s diplomacy. The term was introduced by Edmund Gullion,1 Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, in 1965. Public diplomacy deals with the influence that public opinion exerts on the development and implementation of foreign policy of a state.2 The emergence of public diplomacy was caused by several interconnected factors: globalisation, the development of communication technology, as well as an increased role and participation of societies in the international affairs of states. Today, besides states and diplomats, public diplomacy is conducted by individual people, groups, institutions that participate in intercultural exchange and international communication, which enriches bilateral and multilateral international relations. Individual citizens, non-governmental organisations (NGOs ) and multinationals are getting increasingly involved in the debate on international relations issues.
Public diplomacy is by no means to replace the traditional one; it is an effective supplement to it, helpful in creating a political environment conducive to promoting the foreign policy agenda (Lukin, 2013). Public diplomacy is regarded as an instrument of soft power; its underlying mechanism is persuasion aimed at shaping a positive image of a country based on its ideological, cultural and institutional appeal.
In recent years, the field of public diplomacy has been burgeoning in Russia due to open borders and emerging civil society. Moreover, international politics has seen an increasing role of the so-called soft power,3 which emphasises an international leverage a state and society are provided by their cultural, historical and political values rather than the military and economic power of national and administrative units of the world. At the same time, Russian social and political life has seen a rise of public diplomacy with main actors being Russian citizens interested in the country’s development, that is, an active part of society, as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that significantly contribute to promoting Russia’s foreign policy goals (Dolinsky, 2008).
It is worth noting that in this context, new institutions of public diplomacy have emerged in Russia, for instance, the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund4 and the Russian International Affairs Council,5 both being established in 2010 by the then President Dmitry Medvedev. Along with this, organisations that developed from similar USSR institutions in the early 1990s continue to work as instruments of public diplomacy. The experience of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries can be rather relative in the conditions of growing international confrontation and tension. Although not applied to the full scale, it should be scrupulously studied and analysed, in order to avoid the mistakes made by the Soviet Union and to implement its best practices.
Public Diplomacy in the USSR
In its early stages, the USSR, which was established in 1922, found itself in international isolation as the Western governments disapproved of the country’s new foreign policy and ideology. As a result, in the early 1920s, the USSR’s cultural contacts with other countries still lacked an institutional framework and were discrete. It was mainly the domain of civic organisations; individual representatives of the Russian cultural community, however, played the most significant role, acting mostly on their own initiative.6
Meanwhile, in the mid-1920s, the USSR established diplomatic relations with some European states, China, Mexico and Japan; in 1933 with the United States; and in 1934 the country joined the League of Nations. Thus, having become a full-fledged actor of international relations, the USSR started fostering cultural engagement with the rest of the world. That period of nascent Soviet public diplomacy saw the foundation of the All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries (VOKS) in 1925 (Rossotrudnichestvo: 90 Years of Public Diplomacy, 2019), renamed the Union of Soviet Societies for Friendship (SSOD) and Cultural Contacts in 1958, aimed at “raising the awareness of the Soviet public about foreign cultures and that of the foreign publics about the national cultures in the Soviet Union”,7 which “promoted and strengthened friendship and understanding between the USSR and other countries”.8 With social and political upheavals having largely severed cultural ties with the world, a legitimate item on the agenda was to enhance and foster cultural engagement.
The goal, as stated in the VOKS Charter, being “to cooperate in the establishment and development of scientific and cultural relations between institutions, public organisations and individual cultural workers in the USSR and those of other countries”,9 the organisation pursued active interaction with its foreign partners, sought greater information exchange on cultural events, encouraged publications, as well as their dissemination, about cultural development of the country, Soviet science and life of the Soviet people. Besides, the organisation laid great emphasis on promoting the Russian language abroad, encouraging scientific exchange, sponsoring exhibitions, tours and trips of prominent figures of foreign science and culture to the USSR. Through the active efforts of this organisation, outstanding scholars and public figures of the time visited the Soviet Union, among them were Paul Langevin, Romain Rolland, Rabindranath Tagore and many others.
Thus, VOKS became the first organisation to deal with expanding and fostering international cultural ties of the Soviet state. VOKS pursued a most important goal, that is, cultivating a positive perception of the Soviet Union in capitalist countries, which can arguably be regarded as an essential component of soft power. The so-called societies for cultural relations with the USSR were established for “fieldwork” in foreign countries. Their efforts were coordinated by VOKS and focused on shaping positive attitudes towards the Soviet foreign policy strategy abroad. VOKS did not suspend its activities even during the harsh wartime years. The emphasis was shifted to expanding the international humanitarian mission, which involved raising funds for the army, purchasing equipment and supplies for medical institutions, as well as enlisting the support of world cultural luminaries for fighting fascism. For instance, thanks to the organisation’s active involvement, Dmitri Shostakovich’s famous Leningrad Symphony was performed in Great Britain.10 With the end of the Second World War, a new era was ushered in.
With the Second World War over, a new Yalta-Potsdam system emerged, and in the context of the transformed world order, the Soviet Union had to adjust its foreign policy, including cultural ties, to the new frame of reference. The old cultural ties were destroyed in the wartime years. However, VOKS’s active efforts abroad helped to retain the established contacts, and struggle against fascism led to the emergence of new societies of friends of the USSR. Eventually, in 1958, they were reorganised into the Union of Soviet Societies for Friendship (SSOD), a single entity that became VOKS’s successor. In effect, the Union brought together different communities whose structures and activities were largely contingent on the countries of operation. The SSOD enjoyed a status of a civic organisation and operated in partnership with overseas entities. It was established as a move away from the overwhelming reliance on propaganda methods typically employed by VOKS.
During the period from 1954 through 1989, Soviet Union was very active in its humanitarian aid to foreign countries: it had spent US$144.3 billion. This consisted of the construction of 3575 objects (schools, hospitals, infrastructural objects). For instance, the Soviet Union funded the Tehri Dam in India, the Aswan dam in Egypt, the Salang Tunnel in Afghanistan and the Gelora Bung Karno Stadium in Indonesia. It was the price to pay for other countries to choose socialist orientation.11 These activities can be classified within the context of international aid diplomacy as a means to win the hearts and minds of publics in the developing world.
A new problem emerged with the disintegration of the USSR and emergence of independent states in its place in 1991, which posed a new challenge to the development of Russia’s public diplomacy. The collapse of the old system of international relations and changing geopolitical priorities made the Russian Federation revisit the fundamental principles, agenda and tools of its public diplomacy. The SSOD and Soviet friendship societies had to undergo massive change.
The Development of Russian Public Diplomacy in the 1990s
In addition, against the backdrop of political change, in 1994, the SSOD was transformed into the Russian Centre for International Scientific and Cultural Cooperation under the Government of the Russian Federation, Roszarubezhcenter. It is noteworthy that VOKS and SSOD were non-governmental organisations, whereas their successor Roszarubezhcenter is a state body operating under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The change in status, however, did not affect the nature of the organisation’s activities in the sphere of cultural and scientific cooperation with foreign countries.
The structural upheavals in the country and society have seriously affected the Ministry’s infrastructure. The economic crisis severely undercut the funding. It triggered the closure of Russian centres for science and culture in a host of countries; Russia’s presence abroad was waning. Nevertheless, Roszarubezhcenter continued working on a series of effective and rewarding projects, the most successful of which were Russian language centres—they did not close after the collapse of the USSR. Those who witnessed these processes noted that the then Roszarubezhcenter’s head—the first woman in space—Valentina Tereshkova and the entire team of the organisation not only succeeded in preserving what little remained but also gave impetus for further development. That difficult period saw a launch of another ten cultural centres, in particular, in the USA, France, Belgium, Vietnam and Kazakhstan.
On February 6, 2002, President Vladimir Putin signed a decree establishing the Russian Centre for International Scientific and Cultural Cooperation under the Government of the Russian Federation.16 It sought to empower the Foreign Ministry to coordinate the implementation of the single national foreign policy strategy and develop Russia’s economic, scientific and cultural cooperation with other countries. Thus, Roszarubezhcenter under the Government was transferred within the remit of the Foreign Ministry. In September 2008, President Dmitry Medvedev’s decree dissolved Roszarubezhcenter and transferred its functions to the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation17—in short Rossotrudnichestvo. This organisation operates through its representative offices in 73 countries of the world. In March 2012, Konstantin Kosachev was appointed Head of Rossotrudnichestvo, to be succeeded by Eleonora Mitrofanova in 2018.
Rossotrudnichestvo maintains effective cooperation with such NGOs as the Russkiy Mir Foundation,18 the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation,19 the Foundation of Saint Andrew the First-Called,20 the Alexander Solzhenitsyn Centre of Russian Émigré Studies,21 the Russian Culture Fund,22 the International Council of Russian Compatriots,23 the Union of Theatre Workers of the Russian Federation,24 the International Council of Museums,25 Twin Cities International Association26 and many others.
One of the Agency’s major partners is the Russian Association for International Cooperation (RAMS). At present, Rossotrudnichestvo is working towards establishing the Russian Union of Friendship Societies (RSOD) and facilitating the resumption of activities by the House of Friendship with Peoples of Foreign Countries in Moscow. In order to fulfil the objective of engaging Russian NGOs in foreign policy, there are plans to increase the number of joint activities to be conducted in partnership with friendship societies and other NGOs, in particular, on the premises of Russian centres for science and culture (RCSCs) in the CIS countries and other states (conferences, round-table discussions, forums, exhibitions, etc.).
Rossotrudnichestvo also actively supports elements of public diplomacy such as interaction between twin cities and territories. International events arranged by twin cities provide an opportunity for openness to the world and contribute to the development of exchange activities and cooperation between the country and the world in economy, culture, education, science and technology, urban development and many other spheres.
Modern Russia does not have a state agency systematically managing public diplomacy efforts: although there are institutions such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Regional Development, the Civic Chamber, Rossotrudnichestvo, RIA Novosti, Russia Today (RT) and others, they lack a strategic body that would coordinate all of their combined activities. Thus, public diplomacy is managed by the highest-ranking officials of the country, with orders given by the heads of the press services of the national leaders. This structure has some advantages; however, there are clearly certain limitations to it. First, it is difficult for the holders of these posts to manage public diplomacy on a regular basis, owing to the sheer number of their responsibilities. Second, the structure has a strictly vertical nature, hindering bottom-up initiatives and horizontal cooperation. This structure does not suit the goals of coordinating public diplomacy on a regular basis. However, some constituents of this structure do have extensive experience in cooperation among each other (e.g. the Foreign Ministry and Rossotrudnichestvo).
The Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States—Rossotrudnichestvo—plays a very important role in this field. In a sense, it was founded to respond to the urgent need for a new integrated approach to the key areas of Russia’s international activity. As a federal executive body operating within the remit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Agency actively participates in addressing various practical challenges, in particular, improving the relations with the Post-soviet states, primarily the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) partners, implementing programmes for compatriots and enhancing the humanitarian and cultural dimension of our international relations.
Overall, Rossotrudnichestvo is a unique instrument of Russia’s soft power, building up the country’s capacity to influence partners through public opinion and fostering Russia’s appeal in terms of culture and education, humanitarian dimension and foreign policy. Today, it has representative offices in 75 countries (86 offices). Public diplomacy programmes involve numerous NGOs, representatives of business and academic circles, people of culture and art. The motivation for encouraging NGOs to participate in these programmes can be explained by the emphasis placed on public opinion in the modern world (Dolinsky, 2012). A special role individuals and non-state institutions play in Russia’s foreign policy is underpinned by the fact that they tend to maintain relations with foreign partners regardless of the official relations between the states. Today, constructing a favourable international image of a country is one of the most urgent and important challenges. Cultivating a positive attitude towards a country’s foreign and domestic policies among foreign constituencies makes part of public diplomacy.
Nowadays, Russian higher education is seeking to educate and train the contemporary generation of experts, both academic and practitioner, through the development of knowledge and practice on elements and aspects of international relations, such as soft power and public diplomacy. This is to be found in such institutions as MGIMO, the Diplomatic Academy and many others. At first, this was a rather ad hoc undertaking, but is becoming increasingly more systematic. Russia Today had to develop its own on-the-job training programme from scratch, but even today, several years on, the company constantly experiences a shortage of sufficiently qualified staff. The situation is more difficult for other institutions; unlike the above-mentioned company, they have no training system whatsoever. By contrast, many leading American international relations schools have centres for public diplomacy and specialist training programmes; besides, British diplomats admit that a successful career requires some work experience in public diplomacy. Russian schools and departments of international journalism and international relations offer academic programmes in diplomacy or journalism complemented by foreign language learning.
One of the major activities in public diplomacy is international broadcasting. Freedom of ideas is a hallmark of today’s world. Many states of different political and cultural backgrounds have recently witnessed a renewed interest in international broadcasting. Following Al-Jazeera, a Qatari channel, the CCTV in China, France 24 in France, Press TV in Iran and Russia Today (RT) in Russia came into existence. All these quite expensive projects27 were designed to shape public opinion in the key states. In recent years, many countries developed similar institutions, so the new Russian broadcaster is now facing competition which is tougher than was initially expected. Many critics argue that in terms of audience numbers, the RT is lagging behind not only well-established giants such as CNN and BBC but also quite new companies, for example, Al-Jazeera English. Accepting this criticism as reasonable and valid, it has to be admitted that the channel was created completely from scratch and over the years has seen some success. Another concern is to enlarge the audience, reaching the public both through satellite packages and cable networks and an extensive use of the Internet, namely blogs, wikis and social networks.
Russian politics and culture attract the foreign audience’s interest, which largely explains why until recently Russian public diplomacy has laid special emphasis on cultural exchange. Exhibitions, cultural presentations, artists’ tours, bilateral years and Russian language conferences have been the main activities conducted by Rossotrudnichestvo. With all due respect to these efforts, it should be noted, however, that they only indirectly contribute to raising awareness about Russia as a political entity since these efforts are undertaken without coordination with the whole system of public diplomacy. Changing this will involve an in-depth analysis of the role of cultural exchange: besides promoting Russian culture and values, which are important pillars of soft power, it can be instrumental in drawing attention to other areas. Educational programmes, international broadcasting, tourism to Russia or business cooperation with Russian companies are only some of the most obvious topics that should be covered by Rossotrudnichestvo in its activities.
For a long time now, the challenge of improving the country’s image abroad had not been taken seriously in Russia. It was first addressed in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation approved by the President on June 28, 2000.28 The Concept prioritised the task of conveying to the broad international community objective and accurate information about Russia’s stance on key international problems, its foreign policy initiatives and Russia’s actions and achievements in the spheres of culture, science and intellectual creation. President Putin’s speech at a plenary session of the meeting of ambassadors and permanent representatives of Russia on July 12, 2004, may be said to have spurred efforts to improve Russia’s image. The president stated that the perceptions of Russia in the world were divorced from reality, that there were frequent “planned campaigns to discredit this country”, and tasked Russian diplomats with promoting a favourable image of Russia abroad.29
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is one of the key institutions engaged in shaping, projecting and then subsequently monitoring Russia’s international image. This responsibility arises from the Russian legal framework governing the activities of the Ministry. According to the Regulation on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation approved by Presidential Decree No. 865 of July 11, 2004, the main objectives of the Russian Foreign Ministry are: to develop the general strategy for Russian foreign policy, implement the foreign policy and coordinate international activities.30 This document also sets forth one of the core missions of the Ministry, that is, to coordinate and disseminate abroad information about Russia’s foreign and domestic policies, social and economic, cultural and spiritual life of the country. At the same time, it is an integral part of the information security of the state and an important prerequisite for improving the country’s international image.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has been proactive in encouraging the participation of civil society institutions and expert community in the foreign policy process. The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation approved by Dmitry Medvedev on July 12, 200831 highlights an extensive participation of civil society in the foreign policy process as being in line with Russia’s domestic development trends, the goal of fostering national agreement on foreign policy and facilitating its successful implementation. So in February 2010, Dmitry Medvedev signed two orders, one creating the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund32 and the other establishing a non-profit partnership, the Russian Council for International Affairs.33 In the modern context, an increasing emphasis is placed on foreign policy advocacy and awareness-raising about all the intricacies of both planned and pursued policies. This involves both foreign and domestic policies, since these fields are closely interconnected.
Developing its information policy both for the domestic and international audiences, Russia generally relies on the assumption that at this stage there is no viable alternative to a multipolar international system that could take into consideration all the facets of the modern world. Multipolarity of the world, however, implies a multitude of information poles. Russia is well positioned to increase its political and information leverage in the world. However, achieving this foreign policy objective requires taking into consideration not only the urgency of the pending task but its very essence as well as a commitment to implement it. At present, a foreign policy initiative cannot be successful without considerable public support. The institution of diplomacy, in its modern conception, has a multitude of forms and features, and a vivid example of this is an ever-increasing role of public diplomacy, which, like traditional diplomacy, employs its own mechanisms in promoting state interests, foreign policy objectives and a positive image of the country.
organising and providing information support for foreign policy of the Russian Federation, providing updated information about foreign policy activities to the Russian and foreign press, cultivating a positive public image of the Russian authorities by elucidating the main points and objectives of relevant initiatives and particular steps of the Russian leadership;
analysing international issues affecting information security and ensuring that Russia fully participates in their resolution; and
accrediting foreign media representatives in the Russian Federation and assisting them in their professional duty.
In pursuit of these functions, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs disseminates official information on a range of foreign policy issues, holds news conferences and press briefings,34 organises public statements and speeches of high-ranking Russian officials, participates in information support for state visits to Russia, as well as high- and highest-level visits abroad of the Russian statesmen and delegations, holds bi- and multilateral consultations with foreign partners, participates in elaboration of international treaties and agreements in the information sphere, publishes the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Information Bulletin, Diplomatic Journal, as well as provides information for the Ministry’s website on the Internet.35 Information support for Russian foreign and domestic policies is provided internationally in coordination with the Press Service of the President of Russia, Department of Government Information and press services of other federal agencies.
Information support for foreign and domestic policies prioritises conveying to the broad international community objective and accurate information about Russia’s stance on international problems, foreign policy initiatives of the Russian authorities, as well as appropriate and timely coverage by the foreign mass media of positive trends in the social and economic life of the country.36 No less important for cultivating a positive attitude towards Russia is the need to work with compatriots (Executive Order on Measures to Implement the Russian Federation Foreign Policy Signed by V. Putin, 2012). The leaders of the Russian Federation have repeatedly emphasised that one of the core tasks of the Foreign Ministry is “to provide protection of legitimate rights of our compatriots, ensure comprehensive protection of their interests, and preserve ethnic, cultural and other identities of the Russian diaspora abroad”.37 According to some estimates, approximately 25 million Russians live abroad. They can be regarded as a certain “bridge” in the relations between the Russian Federation and the country they live in. So the Foreign Ministry and its foreign missions seek to maintain contacts with Russians living abroad (in particular, with young people who are either second or third generation of migrants) in order to preserve the Russian language and enlarge its influence outside Russia.
The Foreign Ministry commissioned a web portal Russkiy Vek (“Russian Century”) aimed at the Russian diaspora abroad. It was designed to inform the broad public, diaspora organisations, Russian and foreign state bodies about Russia’s activities in support of compatriots living abroad, in particular, about the implementation of the State programme to assist the voluntary resettlement to the Russian Federation of compatriots living abroad.38 In future, supporting Russian compatriots abroad will also be highly relevant, as is seen from President Putin’s speech: “Respect for one’s country is rooted, among other things, in its ability to protect the rights of its citizens abroad… I would like to stress that the Foreign Ministry and all diplomatic and consular agencies must be prepared to provide real support to our citizens around the clock”.39
In the context of globalisation, international relations are characterised by a most intense inter-state competition for influence over public opinion and its support, which implies cultivating a foreign policy image that meets the interests of one’s nation. A state cannot successfully withstand external challenges without public support. According to an American scholar Glen Fisher, it is not enough to ensure that your foreign colleagues’ diplomats understand the policy of your country. It should be explained to the public, whose opinion is taken into consideration in the Foreign Ministry policies (Fisher, 1972: 4). Any efforts made by a country, including Russia, in the sphere of public diplomacy are targeted at shaping public opinion abroad in order to garner full support for the foreign policy (Fisher, 1972: 5). Public diplomacy has vast capacities and is aimed at maintaining an open dialogue, comparing positions and creating an environment conducive to fostering international exchange (Fisher, 1972: 6).
Modern Russia actively participates in fundamental and dynamic changes that affect, directly or indirectly, all the actors, including Russia itself. The country is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, in possession of vast capacities and resources in all spheres; it maintains dynamic relations with virtually all international actors; therefore, the Russian Federation is bound to exert certain influence on the shape of the new world order.
International relations have changed since the end of the Cold War and the scope of international cooperation had expanded considerably until around 2008. From the moment of the Georgian-Russian War, a marked decline in the relations of the West with Russia have been observed, and especially in the wake of events in Ukraine in 2014. A new time has come for the country, but this change should not be viewed solely from a temporal perspective. Besides the tasks of adjusting to a new environment and rules of conduct in the international arena, where changes are so dynamic that they may often go unnoticed, the state has to address a host of national imperatives, which completely overshadows challenges on the political agenda.
Conclusion
Public diplomacy, as a form of communication that involves a government seeking to communicate and interact with foreign publics, has long been a tool of managing and regulating international relations by the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation. When strained periods in state-to-state relations evolve, historically and contemporarily, official diplomacy can fail as a result or be not as effective in realising national goals and interests. This can provide additional impetus for a state actor to seek public diplomacy as a means of navigating the constraints of traditional diplomacy. Historical and contemporary influences on the nature and direction of Russian public diplomacy include the development of new communication technologies, the development and direction of domestic politics and the nature of international relations and the balance of power.
The Soviet Union was established in 1922 and immediately faced international isolation on the part of the international community, which made the prospect of employing traditional methods of diplomacy rather difficult and likely ineffectual. First and foremost though, the foreign policy and therefore public diplomacy was guided by the political ideology of Marxism-Leninism rather than by a public diplomacy with an emphasis placed on classical arts and culture, which is non-political, but still remains a good means of projecting a positive image at the popular level. Gradually, the Soviet Union developed its public diplomacy toolkit as the foreign policy and international relations developed. This occurred at the political, institutional and practical levels as the conditions of the global environment transformed and evolved. After the Second World War, the Soviet Union has developed to become one of the two super powers in a bipolar global order, competing for influence with the US-led Western Bloc. Although the primary focus was on armed conflict (Korean War and Vietnam War), there was the aspect and element of soft power too, which was demonstrated by the approach of humanitarian diplomacy in the Third World. However, much of the capability and will was lost in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Russian Federation reeled for some years in the early 1990s in terms of political will and suffering from a severe lack of resources in defining a clear foreign policy approach and direction. The guiding ideology of the Soviet Union was discredited and lost, and a new search was embarked upon in order to regain international influence through active engagement with foreign publics. This new approach has been guided by pragmatic interests and goals rather than ideology (Simons, 2014). The development of new information communication technologies have enabled more proactive and engaging means of communication and interaction with the growth of NGOs and digital diplomacy being employed. Innovation and creativity in approaching public diplomacy solutions have been further driven by the current strains in Russia’s relations with the governments of Western states. As a result, we are witnessing yet another round of a global battle for the hearts and minds of global publics amid growing competition and rivalry in international relations.