Logotyp: till Försvarshögskolans hemsida

In September 2010 and February 2011, the Canterbury region was rocked by a series of earthquakes. The success or otherwise, of a recovery from a crisis can be found in the perceptions of stakeholders. Many different stakeholders exist, including different levels of Government, bureaucratic institutions and state institutions, private enterprise, non-governmental organisations and the public. In this article, the public are the focus and their perception of the recovery is collected. An online survey was conducted, and it demonstrates a significant gap between the Government’s perception and the perception of residents of Christchurch. How do publics react when they feel as though they have been marginalised by the authorities charged with the crisis event recovery? The Government’s account of success is not shared by the majority of respondents, who have mobilised politically using social media platforms. There are implications for Governments and authorities that are seen to fail segments of the public in the age of social media, where crisis management and public relations meet and political mobilisation against officials and official bodies takes place.

There has been a lot of research done on "Western'' politicians and political systems with regard to political marketing. But what about other countries, especially those that possess a different political standard? This article seeks to address one particular Russian politician: Vladimir Putin. He rose from obscurity to become Russia's second president (after Boris Yeltsin). Two presidential elections form the focus of attention, 2000 and 2012. The aim is to discover the consistencies and breaks in the manufacturing of Putin's political image and reputation. A number of breaks and continuities were discovered in terms of how Putin is marketed. This seems to be a reflection of the changes taking places in Russia's political environment, which then needs to be taken into consideration when political marketing is conducted.

This paper seeks to explore and analyse the different means and mechanisms of influence employed by Russia on the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). By influence, it means the attempt to try and get another country to behave in a manner that benefits the influencer's policy and/or interests. As such, this can entail exerting one of two forms of power, hard or soft (as defined by Nye, 2004) to bring about the compliance. The current paper restricts its focus to those mechanisms related to shaping opinion and perception, such as public diplomacy (in its various forms).

To begin with the paper shall define the various concepts used – influence, power and public diplomacy. It shall then shift to the different Russian institutions that have been created to shape and manage influence, such as Russky Mir or Rossotrudnichestvo. Plus there are those other elements that exist in the region – Russian compatriots and Russian language media (both local and external to the Baltic States). Then the paper shall deal with relations between Russia and the Baltic States, with a focus upon recent history. Sources shall not be limited to academic literature and mass media resources, but will also include interviews for an ‘insider’ perspective on the issue. The responses shall be used to address the following question: How do people in the Baltic States perceive Russian soft power and influence?

An underlying motive of the paper is to explore the question, is censorship a means or an end? The initial point is that there is a wide understanding and definition of censorship, with many various forms and means. A contradiction that emerges is by law censorship is forbidden in Russia, but there are ways and means of trying to muzzle media and journalists. Something that does emerge is the picture of the perceived importance of media in shaping the attitudes, morals and values of society. This is seen as being particularly important during times of social and political conflict, which is currently being experienced.

Russia and China have become significant players in terms of their activity within public diplomacy (PD), in a relatively short space of time. This article seeks to address the way these two countries manage the concept and practice of PD in an online communication environment (namely, Websites and social media). Cases will be used to illustrate how this is managed in practice. The case of the South China Seas dispute and the Ukrainian crisis will be used to demonstrate how these difficult issues are managed. There are a number of similarities between the two countries, but also some significant differences. Russia tends to express communication in terms of competing sets of norms and values, whereas the values and ideological concepts are more rigidly defined within the Chinese case.