Category: public diplomacy

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Western democracies have “fallen asleep at the wheel,” in response to Russian disinformation and propaganda, Ben O’Loughlin argued.

Through misinformation campaigns that capitalize on a more fragmented and competitive media environment, “authoritarian regimes are taking the initiative,” to distort truth and advance their national interests.

In a global “marketplace for loyalties,” where no one power can completely control the public’s perception, information warfare is taking on a new level of strategic significance in advancing a state’s national interest – and Russia is aggressively leading the charge into this brave new world.

Ben O’Loughlin, professor of international relations at Royal Holloway, University of London was amongst others who spoke on Russian disinformation at a talk in Washington last March. Along with professor Alistair Miskimmon from the same department, both explained the role these strategic narratives are playing in forging a new world and their leverage in the Ukraine crisis.

Competing for Legitimacy

Violating its sovereignty and prolonging a conflict that has left thousands dead, Russia painted itself as the savior of oppressed people in Ukraine, fighting for democratic values against Western imperialism.

By depicting the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine as an anti-Russian, Western-backed, neo-Nazi junta, Russian elites stirred domestic support for Putin’s annexation of Crimea, while radicalizing Russian sympathizers within Ukraine. Through international coverage of these strategic narratives and an extensive direct and indirect network of pro-Russia NGOs, influencers and media like RT, Russia worked to discredit Europe’s foreign policy narrative, while stocking international groups critical of the West with narrative ammunition against it.

“The EU is still struggling to define its own foreign policy narrative,” Miskimmon said and has yet to truly grasp its capacity to shape perception amongst its own and neighboring states, leaving it vulnerable to Russia’s salacious and conspiratorial counter-narratives.

While NATO defines its narrative through commitments to territorial integrity and promoting freedom, its inability to coordinate a consistent narrative with the EU against Russian propaganda leaves both institutions more vulnerable, he argued.

A War Without Blood

Arguing on behalf of a more aggressive response, Alina Polyakovich, deputy director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center and Christopher Walker, vice president for studies and analysis at the National Endowment for Democracy argued that Western inaction has empowered Russian propaganda and demands a more coordinated retaliation.

From the Ukraine to the United States, this narrative warfare operates with a “multifaceted, but unitary purpose,” Walker argued, creating a new form of interstate competition that is characteristically different from the information battles of the Cold War.

In contrast to the Soviet’s unified communist narrative, Walker and Polyakova explained how Western societies now face the challenge of countering disinformation campaigns with far less regard for the truth and no singular, cohesive story.

Around the world, Russian propaganda unites disparate communities and fringe ideas whose only common purpose is to foster hostility and mistrust towards the Western liberal order, they argued.

Across the panel, recommendations for retaliation included a mixture of offensive and defensive strategies as well as efforts to understand where Russian and Western narratives can find common ground and tell a more collaborative, mutually beneficial story about their role in the world.

“Politics, warfare and war can be narrated out and some alignment can be found,” Miskimmon claimed. Through a more collaborative definition of a polycentric world order, based on international law and territorial sovereignty, Russia and the West could begin to work towards a common vision and a more robust and durable set of agreements.

Instead of thinking only about narrative contestation, he believes we need to think just as much about convergence.

Finding the right balance in-between inaction and panic is difficult McLoughlin said. It’s easy for governments to get lost in the rat race of chasing every dubious claim back to its source and get distracted from the more important work of shaping the larger narratives around a developing world order.

However, wars are won through smaller battles and as Polyakova pointed out, “we need a little bit of panic to start a broader, more strategic effort” if we intend to win this “war without blood.”  Like Walker, in contrast to the two academics who argued for a more measured response, Polyakova pressed the demand for aggressive action against these “attacks on our societies.”

In the meantime, Walker argues governments should push for a media literacy updated for the 21st-century media landscape, capable of weeding out fact from fiction to build resiliency against misinformation, especially amongst Russia’s neighboring and most heavily bombarded states.

Though it’s comforting to believe the truth will always out, the reality of politics can be quite different. An audience’s attention belongs to the best storytellers and those who are most active and capable of fighting for the opportunity to tell the world a narrative to believe in.

Truth may be the weight of history but it is never consistently the force that shapes it.

Terrorist organizations know no boundaries. This becomes especially evident in the recruitment of children. Deemed “cubs of the caliphate,” child soldiers are integrated into the same military ranks as adults. Their recruitment happens with and without parent involvement, but frequently ends in an untimely death. As seen in Malaysia, ISIS utilizes social media to persuade young children to join their jihadi movement in acts that include suicide bombing missions and targeted attacks. ISIS appeals to the utopian fantasies of young people and offers an escape from Western frustrations, but also from the turmoil of the Middle East, meaning that they have multiple narratives that need to be countered.

One program designed to counter violent extremism is Peer to Peer (P2P).  P2P is a partnership supported by the Department of State which seeks to encourage young people to become actively involved in the global CVE effort. P2P is structured as a competition between student groups from universities and colleges around the world. The program’s key strength lies in its flexibility in providing the student groups loose guidelines, but allowing creativity to direct the CVE initiatives. The program partners, EdVenture and Facebook, each supply an initial grant to help initiate the campaigns. All projects are 100% driven and created by passionate students. The winners receive additional grant money to continue their campaign, though all participants are encouraged to develop their campaigns beyond the P2P program. The participants measure the varying success of the outreach by documenting participant actions and noting how many people are drawn to their websites, social media platforms, and other digital medium. Because college students are the ones developing the outreach and media campaigns, their target audiences are generally their peers or adults with whom they can relate as opposed to younger generations who also need greater exposure to CVE messaging. . Where P2P needs further cultivation, is in the appeals and focus on young children in elementary through high schools.

One P2P program did develop a counter terrorism curriculum for use in elementary school classrooms. A team from MSU, created a united campaign encouraging multi-ethnic collaboration within Generation Z to fight terrorism. The team noticed that even young children were susceptible to targeting by extremist groups and responded to the need for CVE education in the classroom. The campaign included lessons, games, and videos which seek to educate youth on the dangers of terrorism and how to be safe online. The brand is known as One95 and has continued to be developed after the initial P2P success. The Center Extremism Project has adopted the One95 brand and is continuing and modifying the brand in addition to the original platforms which are still operational.

Possibly one of the best examples of a campaign aimed at children that counters the alluring images and narratives created by terrorist organizations, is Burka Avenger. Burka Avenger is a Pakistani television program created to direct children away from becoming radical terrorists, by pointing out the hypocrisies and dangers of terrorism. The protagonist is introduced as having suffered through a terrorist attack in which she lost her family—the reason for her current campaign against terrorism. Burka Avenger fights with books, and pens, symbolizing the way that education is the key to combatting terrorism, and the alter ego of the hero is a female school teacher. The terrorists are portrayed as foolish, stupid, and corrupt, and the societal issues mentioned in the show, such as the role of women and attacks on girl’s schools are very blatant. These types of images, along with the cultural norms presented, resonate with the Pakistani community who face these issues every day. To reinforce the importance of all members of society in the CVE effort, the show has a very diverse cast. The overall message of faith and hope are very uplifting and can speak to the larger CVE narrative of simply staying hopeful and not turning to terrorism. The very first episode ends with a powerful message about how education is the best defense against adversity, regardless of whether you are a boy or a girl. To support the messages of the show, there are various Burka Avenger apps, games, and apparel.

Prevention is an important defense measure against terrorism and one of the best ways to implement a prevention strategy, is to protect the young generations from the messaging that will seek to corrupt them. Following in the example of One95 and Burka Avenger, CVE education for children should teach safe practices online and on social media to keep children out of the clutches of violent extremists. Moreover, there should be a greater push to expose children to programs like Burka Avenger and start a dialogue regarding the content. Teachers and parents should lead discussions on the ways in which a young person can avoid being misled, how they can stay safe, and what the alternatives are. By elucidating the dangers and hypocrisies of terrorism like Burka Avenger, youth CVE messaging can counter the false narratives put forth by organizations like ISIS. CVE messaging also needs to follow the example of The Truth anti-smoking campaign which produces and disseminates images created by young people for their peers. The Best Buddies alliance program is perhaps an ideal model for a school based advocacy program that involves students lead campaigns directed at high school students.

Several weeks after 9/11, the world, once again, watched in horror as a series of anthrax-tainted packages mailed to two U.S. Democratic Senators killed five civilians. Since the deadly attacks, numerous U.S. government efforts such as the Joint FBI-CDC Criminal and Epidemiological Investigations have been established to predict and prevent incidences of bioterrorism. While the U.S. government has established protocols for the ‘weaponization’ of bio agents, there has been little consideration to use health diplomacy as a tool to prevent violent extremism.

 Former Secretary of State, John Kerry, at White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism (on usa.gov)

According to Wallin, part of being credible in U.S. public diplomacy (PD) is matching actions to words. Ironically, U.S. diplomats have previously addressed the importance of global health initiatives, but they appear to have fallen short on matching deeds to rhetoric. In 2009, Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones confirmed the explicit connection between global health and extremism. She revealed, “ better global health promotes stability and growth, which can deter the spread of extremism”. However, eight years have passed since that declaration, and little has been done to turn those words into practical diplomatic programs.

In our increasingly globalized world, infectious diseases ignore the Westphalia system of order: mosquitoes are not required to show their passports and American Exceptionalism is nullified. Currently, the U.S. government’s diplomatic programs do not mimic the shift in global health from this-is-your-country’s-problem to a global human security issue.

What is Global Health Diplomacy?

The Science and Diplomacy Report, “ Bridging Public Health and Foreign Affairs” loosely defines global health diplomacy (GHD) as “a political activity that meets the dual goals of improving public health infrastructures and strengthening relations among nation states”.

The definition of GHD highlights Nye’s concept of soft power diplomacy. In contrast to hard power, which is rooted in coercion and force, soft power is the ability to co-opt countries and set the agenda through attraction to shared values. A 2015 report by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism argued that soft power initiatives are more effective at deterring terrorism than hard power ones as the programs are designed to understand the reasons behind extremism. If executed with respective cultural sensitivities in mind, GHD’s soft power approach could engage developing nations, rather than alienate them.

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Global Health Security Campaign (usa.gov)

 The Connection Between Violence and Epidemics:

One reason to explain why GHD has been overlooked is because the explicit connection between extremism and epidemics has not been extensively examined.

A recent Foreign Policy article: “ The Ebola Rape Epidemic No One’s Talking About” captures this grave oversight. Once the World Health Organization declared that the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was contained, the region saw an immediate surge in gender-based violence. Monica Onyango, professor of global health at Boston University, claims that epidemics create permissible conditions for internal hostility. She states: “you have a loss of governance; you have chaos and instability”- the state of the post-epidemic environment leaves the population vulnerable to violence.

While NGOs and other nonprofits may be constrained by funding and have to vacate the area once the epidemic is declared to be ‘contained’, GHD could have an immediate impact on diminishing the rise in violence that occurs in a post-epidemic setting.

Why the Global Health Diplomacy Framework is Different:

Georgetown University recently published one of the first explicit reports on countering violent extremism through the use of the public health model. A significant finding: the GHD Framework is different because it uses both a multi-sector and non-discriminatory approaches to counter violent extremism (CVE). Moreover, the report found that violent extremists are often drug users. Applying the public health model to CVE addresses structural social issues for violent extremism. Additionally, public health models aim to mitigate immediate risks such as rehabilitating drug users.

The Build Resistance Against Violent Extremism (BRAVE) public health model in Maryland uses both a multi-sector and non-discriminatory approach to CVE. This framework goes beyond profiling specific individuals and focuses on multiple risk factors including specialized treatment plans for drug abusers, health education, poverty, literacy, and social inclusion. Contrary to the targeted U.S. Homeland Security initiatives to CVE, BRAVE allows anyone to participate in the program regardless of their race and religious backgrounds. This inclusive approach mitigates threats that do not fit a standard profile. The Georgetown Report concludes that the BRAVE model had a “positive effect on 12 of 14 CVE-related indicators in individuals”.

Although BRAVE is only a case study, it demonstrates that there is a potential place for GHD in CVE.

 Recommendations:

U.S. Global Health Diplomats exist, but they are few and far between. Dr. Deborah L. Birx, is the current U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and U.S. Special Representative for Global Health Diplomacy.

Dr. Deborah L. Birx, current U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and U.S. Special Representative for Global Health Diplomacy with Former Secretary of State, John Kerry (usa.gov).

Her esteemed diplomatic status of Ambassador-at-Large could indicate that the State Department has an appreciation of GHD. However, from an operational perspective, the State Department offices do not always have the necessary expertise to converge global health and diplomacy: the expert epidemiologists are not always aware of the tools that are at their disposal.

In order for GHD to counter violent extremism:

• More high-ranking Global Health Diplomats are required, specifically, more joint collaboration between U.S. Security Departments and Health Departments need to be established.
• More GHD attachés are needed to coordinate the large sums of funds from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
• In order to counter violent extremism through GHD, more coordination between the World Health Organization, nongovernmental organizations and the State Department is needed.

A priority for the new U.S. government is to deter violent extremism both at home and abroad. Before Congress approves the budget to cut the funding for the U.S. Agency for international Development’s health programs, they should reconsider these development projects as they may have the potential to thwart violent extremism.

Caveat: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

The use of technology and social media has become a valuable, quick, and convenient way for people to view both information and news at any given moment. Placing news on the Internet instead of just print has made reading easier because people can frequently check news stories and their developments. Russia Today (RT) is a prime example of a news organization that solely uses the Internet.

RT’s overall goal is to denigrate the West. Headlines and articles may be exaggerated and stretch the truth in order to achieve this goal, and a classic example of propaganda is in the Internet. Russia’s communication strategy narrative is based upon the idea that the US is trying to rule the world, and that only Russia is brave enough to stop it. The goal of their propaganda is not to persuade anyone, but to keep the viewer hooked and distracted- to disrupt Western narratives rather than simply provide a counter-narrative.

RT has used their website and visuals to their advantage to “frame” their messaging to other countries, including the United States, as opposed to their home audience of Russia. RT’s goal of denigrating the West is clearly displayed through the articles that are chosen to be presented on the front page.

To study how Russia and RT’s communication strategy is displayed through the RT website, I analyzed the website over a period of several weeks to compare and contrast the format and types of stories that were presented to the Western news site CNN. The RT and CNN pages from March 30 which I examine below provide a good example of my findings.

The ways in which RT effectively presents their propaganda messaging is through the use of strategically selecting eye-catching headlines with complementing visuals. Each headline selected places the United States in a negative light, creating a false impression of those societies to its Russian audience. The headlines on the front page are about the Senate hearings on Russian hacking. The headline on CNN’s website is informative and appealing because it reveals that Russian hacking is not only connected to the election. The headline on RT’s website, though, takes a different approach by mentioning the Cold War tensions between Russia and the US, drawing a connection between an accusatory and high-tension time and creating a negative connotation towards the US. The wording of the headlines are designed to invoke an emotional response because research shows that stories that invoke such a response have a higher retention and reading rate. The headlines and complementing visuals emphasize the various problems facing each country with little to no stories that reflect a positive image.

In this example, both RT and CNN have a front page dedicated to the Senate hearings about Russian hacking. Although the topic is the same, the visuals depict a different message. Both photos of the Senate hearing have an upward facing camera angle, demonstrating the power of the Senators on the panel. The difference between the two visuals, though, is the connotation. CNN’s visual reveals authority from the upward facing camera angle and that the hearing is discussion-based. The visual on RT’s website, however, has a negative connotation. The image is taken from the perspective of someone in the “hot seat.” There is finger pointing and distressed-looking panelists, demonstrating to the viewer that the Senators on the panel are threatening and interrogating the person on the other side.

The  “power” of these images are its ability to trigger certain responses from its audience, creating the effect of RT emphasizing the negatives of a certain country or region which will indirectly present Russia in a positive way.

After analyzing the front page of both websites, I then analyzed the specific article that was presented on the front pages of  RT and CNN.

The difference in visuals and content continues into the articles themselves. Both articles have one main image and, like the front page, each image reveals a different type of message. The image on CNN’s website is of an interview with a Senator on the Intelligence Committee. The image for RT’s article is of a large bronze statue looking like it is gliding through the night sky with the moon shining bright in the background. The difference between the selection of images is about messaging. CNN’s image is consistent with their message of reporting the news and providing as much information as is available. RT’s message of portraying Russia as a strong and brave country able to stop the US from taking over the world is clearly identified through the selection of this image. This image does not relate to Senate hearings about Russian hacking in any way, yet it is the largest image throughout the article and the only image used besides screenshots of tweets.

RT and CNN reflect both Russia’s and the United States’ foreign policy and communication goals. The news websites offer a perspective of that society and other societies that are reported, which gives the global audience a unique opportunity to form impressions. The features and presentations of RT and CNN have become increasingly important in this regard as it is a vital tool for Russia and the United States to present their narratives to their global audience with continuous updates to reinforce their narrative.

Caveat: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.

It’s easy to scroll past social media posts, barely reading what the words say. Even while trying to be attentive, the massive amounts of existing information make it hard for people to tell which information is worth paying attention to. This influx of information makes it more important than ever for the government to be creating engaging content. There needs to be something separating the information the government is providing from the sea of social media content, so that the public is motivated to get their news directly from the source.

There are many ways to create engaging content. For example, statistics show that people are 18% more likely to click on tweets with images than without images. Another way to create engaging content is to simply add a hashtag, so that social media users can track what others are saying about the topic, as well as participate in the dialogue.

Here, we see President Barack Obama tweeting.

To create more long term effects, however, the government should be creating more social media movements that people can participate in over time. These movements are meant to be means of achieving government initiatives, as they provide people an easy way to be a part of whatever the government is talking about, rather than simply discussing the information. Below are three examples of successful social media movements.

1. Find Your Park

This campaign was created to encourage more people to visit the national parks in the United States. The website allows users to search the national parks they can visit, links to get involved through volunteering or donating, a store, and a #FindYourPark link where the posts of the hashtag are all proudly displayed for the site users to see. The website itself is extremely engaging, and has links to many videos encouraging people to be a part of the initiative. Here is an example of one of those videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ykvO8UN3g0

2. #ReachHigher

The Reach Higher initiative was created to encourage students to pursue higher education degrees. To be a part of this movement, students share a photo wearing their new school shirt or colors using the hashtag #ReachHigher, as the promotional video of First Lady Michelle Obama explains. The twitter for the page can be found here, and it features #ReachHigher hashtags as well as the hashtag #CollegeSigningDay. Both are meant to celebrate students’ pursuit of higher education. There are videos available to watch as well, such as this one.  Finally, to expand this initiative, the Reach Higher career app challenge was created. This was a part of the initiative to support career and technical educations, recognizing that the typical college experience is not right for everyone. The app challenge provided $225K to the winner who designed the best app.

3.  Government Challenges, Your Solutions

This is a website that allows citizens to solve the problems that the government is working on. Participants create a challenge.gov account, and from there, can participate in whichever challenges they want. There is also a way for agencies to list what challenges they are having to then be posted on the website, allowing the users to work on the issue. People compete for the best solution, which awards them a monetary prize. This connects people who normally wouldn’t be connected to create results.

Now, it’s important for these domestic social media successes to lay the framework for international examples of similar things. The public diplomacy field should be creating similarly engaging social media movements that will create long term, trackable results, and that people will enjoy being a part of. Below are three examples of potential international social media movements.

1. #GiveLove

One of the objectives of the state department is to provide humanitarian responses to reduce the costs of displacement, natural disasters, and conflict. To involve everyday citizens in such initiatives, a website could be created in which people have easy access to different organizations supporting different causes around the world. In a format similar to the UNICEF website, people would be able to learn about different causes around the world and choose which causes and organizations they want to donate to. This could include any event the state department recognizes as needing humanitarian response, such as raising money for materials for refugee camps and sending aid to areas struck by natural disaster. After donating, the website could encourage people to share their involvement online through the use of the hashtag #GiveLove. The idea would encourage people to feed into positive interactions as an opposition to the negative nature of today’s news.

2. #OurKitchen

To increase positive outlooks on cultures around the world, a website could be created in which people submit their favorite recipes. The website would include countries all over the world, and would be available in different languages. There can be a section for community discussion if people have questions about the recipe, tips about how to make the dish, or thoughts on how it was after making it. As a subsection of this, social media accounts such as Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter would be created. Here, users would find images from people trying out the different recipes. Pictures would be found by the people in charge of those accounts by looking through the OurKitchen hashtag. This brings light to new cultural experiences while connecting people to one another.

Above is a picture of a meal from the Philippines.

3. Alternative Energy Contest

In an effort to achieve the United Nations’ goal of creating a world with more clean and sustainable energy, a worldwide contest could be created to see who can come up with the best idea and design for an alternative energy source to be put into place in different cities around the world. Not only does this work to better the health of the planet, but it fosters the connection of the scientific community, as well as supporting up and coming entrepreneurs in their ideas. These ideas could all be submitted to a website, where there will be different rounds of the competition, until a winner is chosen.

Social media campaigns like these real and hypothetical ones provide global connections, solutions to problems, and potential positive attitude changes that encourage people to be hopeful about the future of the world, while taking part in the shaping of it.

In October of 2016, I found myself in Thessaloniki, Greece for an academic conference and was doing some sightseeing around the city with a Greek friend before it began. To visit the historical Ano Poli (“Upper City”), we had to take a taxi when I had the pleasure of practicing my Greek with our driver, who was an older man. As we talked about mundane usual topics, the US election and the two front-running candidates had eventually come up. Unsurprisingly, the taxi driver began to tell us about his shock that, out of all people in the country, the best that Americans could choose were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I had to do a double-take as he then began to say how Vladimir Putin didn’t seem like that bad of a guy and was a strong leader. Initially I thought this was probably just an isolated opinion; however, when we took a taxi back to the conference hall, a younger man than our other driver began to talk to us about US politics again. His words were eerily similar to our first driver, expressing dismay about the two candidates and expressing an equal affection for Putin. We walked around the city again later that night, and I couldn’t help but notice Russian and Greek crossed flags or Cyrillic writing in several locations. Finally, my interest was fully peaked – why does Russia have such an influence in this city, and does this extend to the rest of Greece?

Post-World War II, Winston Churchill had agreed with Joseph Stalin on how much influence the West would have versus the Soviet Union in certain countries. It is surprising, then, that Greece, a country that Churchill fought to keep in the Western orbit, has such a strong pro-Russian, anti-EU sentiment today – with 63% of Greeks favoring Russia and only 23% holding a positive view of the EU, in a poll highlighted in the BBC in 2015. In addition, Russian names are still very popular names for parents to give their children in Greece.

Both sides of the political spectrum had and still have reasons to like Russia. Greece fostered a popular left-wing sentiment after being suppressed by the British once Churchill had gained this influence in the country, while right-wing politicians identify with the shared Orthodox heritage between the two countries. A secondary reason that could be just as important is that Greeks have a long history of immigration to Russia and the former Soviet Union, resulting in a now sizeable population of ethnic Russian-born Greeks currently living in the Russian Federation. These facts serve as a fairly solid base for understanding why Russia might now have effective tactics for public diplomacy in Greece today.

Russo-Greek relations are currently overwhelmingly positive and have forged cooperation on many different issues. Thessaloniki is particularly attractive due to its railway system and its port, Greece is flirting with Russia for potential help with its debt crisis, and more recently the two countries have been in talks about energy cooperation. The most striking feature of Russia’s popularity with Greece, however, is their command of public diplomacy. Already earning respect among the Greek left-leaning Syriza party, Russian diplomats such as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov make frequent visits to Greece and put their host country in a positive light, emphasizing the importance of civil society and bilateral cooperation. One can see these tactics as part of Russia’s overall PD goal with Greece, as the Russian Embassy often posts praising summaries of events such as the Greek Civil Society Forum. Likewise, the language used in the Greek Foreign Ministry’s descriptions of history with Russia is affectionate and innocent. Because of the shared Orthodox heritage, the Greek Orthodox Church is a powerhouse for diplomacy and has more influence than many non-governmental institutions in the region, establishing connections and influencing foreign audiences in what is known as “Church Diplomacy.” Russia uses similar tactics and plays on their faith to gain additional favor from the Greek public and government.

Russia’s real motivations are nevertheless underhanded: prying Greece away from the EU. Unlike much of the rest of Europe, thanks to Syriza, Greece’s tone towards Russia is much more amicable, which makes them more prone to be Russia’s ally against NATO and EU influence, a Russian objective. This also helps Russia economically, as Greece, with the backing of its citizens, would be an open advocate within the EU for lowering sanctions against Russia. Vladimir Putin, through appeals to civil society, common identity by immigration and religion, and a friendly façade by flirtation with the idea of easing Greece’s economic burden, has made his country appear to be the strongman who fights for the security and sovereignty of his country, unlike the consequently weak US and Europe. This is significant for the West because it could lead to an EU-member state fighting against sanctions on Russia and supporting Russian military expansion as was seen with the annexation of Crimea, which puts the NATO Alliance at risk of losing crucial influence.

There is a slight, recent caveat: the changing nature of Greek domestic politics. Very recently the Syriza party has been gradually overtaken in popular opinion by the right-leaning New Democracy party and its President, Kyriakos Mitsotakis. As Prime Minister Tsipras’ popularity falls, this could mean a possible change in the future after Greece’s next election and a different course being taken with Russia. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that Greek public opinion is still on Russia’s side compared to the rest of Europe. Only in July 2016 by the organization ProjectEU, it was shown that 71% of Greeks disapproved of continuing sanctions of Russia, and 65% disapproved of using military action to stop Russia in Ukraine. Likewise, in a poll researched by Pew Research Center in July 2016, 69% of Greeks had an unfavorable opinion of NATO compared to 19%-35% in other EU nations.

What is left for the US and EU to do in response to Russia’s successful public diplomacy strategy and winning over the hearts and minds of the Greek public? A useful first step would be for the State Department and foreign ministries of Europe to understand the reasons why those taxi drivers in Thessaloniki feel the way that they do about the US versus Russia and how they can be brought out of Russia’s sphere. In order to counter the seemingly natural bonds that Russia and Greece have established with each other, the West will need to continue pushing with their own brand of public diplomacy involving a relational framework of cultural exchange and partnership to push common goals and mutual interests in such a way that can outweigh the potential benefits of moving closer to Russia. For example, the US has had a long history of Greek involvement in programs such as the Fulbright Scholarship and the Transatlantic Innovation Leaders Initiative (YTIL).  Moreover, the high number of Greek Americans currently living in the US may serve to push a narrative of success stories and support for American interests, which could then rival the similar influence that Russia has in Greece. The goals that current American PD is aiming to reach can also be achieved in tandem with other means such as the economic – sweetening the partnership with perks that Russia perhaps cannot provide with its sanctioned state, such as when the US themselves contributed in the negotiations of Greece’s debt crisis. If the West cannot continue on this path and even increase their efforts, then they must ask themselves what is worth more: a pro-Russian anti-NATO advocate in the EU or extra leverage against Russian interests in Europe.

Caveat: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.