Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 5, Number 1, Spring / Summer 2020 | Page 74

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
policy that emphasized Russian “wisdom
to understand—ahead of the United
States—the important truth that polyarchy
is the form of governance that
rules the world ... that the conflict in the
world politics is the sign of a new era
and ... conflict was caused by an overall
decline of the influence of the West and
opposition to the global rearrangement
of power by the United States” (Beak
2009, 459).
With past discourse, Putin declared
“to the United States and the
West that the U.S.-centered unipolar
model in which only ‘one master’ and
‘one sovereign’ exist is not only unacceptable
but also impossible in today’s
world, that a new ‘architecture of global
security’ has to be established, and that
Russia is not merely a counter-hegemonic
state, as it is a leading designer
of the new order” (Beak 2009, 458).
With a muddled American foreign policy
in flux between a Pacific pivot and
an enduring Middle East commitment,
Russia’s leadership and ruling elite remain
determined as ever to reshape the
outcomes of and the conclusions drawn
from the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Putin and his sculpted security
apparatus keenly understand the realities
of the post- Soviet security psyche.
Struggling to compete with the United
States and sustain a worldwide power
projection image and conventional arsenal,
the Russian leadership recognizes
the benefits of cultivating and exploiting
other types of power, including political,
social, and informational ones,
in an attempt to bridge the gap between
the new Russia and the West. Putin and
his governmental apparatus deploy deliberate
propaganda against not only
foreigners, but also target their efforts
against a manipulable domestic mass.
Against a Russian psyche, Putin propagates
“the idea that Russia is not worse
than Western countries, also, to give the
impression that Russia is prepared for
war” (Raţiu and Munteanu 2018, 193).
In this study, “propaganda” encompasses
the entire spectrum of possible
influence operations, political warfare
techniques, active measures, and soft
power approaches. For the purposes of
this study, the term “propaganda” describes
public or covert influence operations
that intentionally “aim to affect
cognitive, physiological, motivational,
ideational, ideological, and moral characteristics
of a target audience” (Larson
2009, 3).
This study intends to build on
the foundation set by Lebow (2009), A
Cultural Theory of International Relations.
Similar to Lebow’s work, this alternative
framework of psychological
constructivism breaks away from the
predictable realist and neoliberal camps
and provides ample evidence of combinations
of psychological theories that
affect the international arena and specific
foreign policies. Building on the
most “spirit-based world concept,” Lebow
declares:
... international systems were actors
are driven not by fear and
security dilemma but instead by
the desire to bolster pride and
self-esteem in their individual
and collective identities. In such
systems, honor and standing are
60