TRANSFORMATION OF FOREIGN-POLICY COMMUNICATION OF THE EU, GERMANY, AND UKRAINE

Authors

  • Nataliia Pipchenko Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29038/2524-2679-2022-02-91-101

Keywords:

foreign-policy communication, asymmetry communication, the EU, Germany, Ukraine

Abstract

The study’s purpose is to critically analyse approaches to international communi- cation in the global environment and clarify the specifics of processes that char- acterize the asymmetry of foreign-policy communication because the contem- porary communication tools allow forming both a positive perception of foreign policy initiatives and a negative attitude of politicians or the world community toward foreign-policy actions. As a result, the research focuses on studying the transformation of the EU foreign-policy communication tools; analysing the practice of foreign-policy communications of Germany and Ukraine; detecting the impact of destructive communications on the image of the EU, Germany, and Ukraine in the international information space. The main conclusions of the research are such statements: the aggravation of Ukrainian-Russian relations has demonstrated an imbalance in the existing for- eign-policy orientations; the EU leaders rethought the political impact of supra- national formation on the contemporary system of international relations; Ger- many’s practice in foreign-policy communication concerns the preservation of the position as a world leader that is able to influence the solution of complex international political and security issues.

References

Rana, Kishan S. (2011). 21st Century Diplomacy: A Practitioner’s Guide. Continu- um, 392 p.

RAND (2013). Internet Freedom and Political Space. / O. Tkacheva, L. H. Schwartz,

M. C. Libicki, J. E. Taylor, J. Martini, C. Baxter. URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/ rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR295/ RAND_RR295.sum.pdf

Zernetska, O. (2016). Cybersecurity on US social networks. American history and politics: academic journal, № 1, p. 207–214. DOI: http://doi.org/10.17721/2521- 1706.2016.01.207-214

Pipchenko, N., Makarenko, I., Ryzhkov, M., & Zaitseva, M. (2021). The policy of European and Euro-Atlantic integration as a key factor for Ukraine’s transformation. Eu- ropean Spatial Research and Policy, 28(1), 265–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1231- 1952.28.1.14

Shuliak, A., Shuliak, N. (2020). Praktyki Wdrażania i Wsparcia Polityki Bezpieczeństwa Informacyjnego. Inskrypcje. Półrocznik, R. VIII, z. 2 (15), p. 149–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32017/ip2020.2.12

Kenna, M. (2011). Social media: following EU public diplomacy and friending MENA. European Policy Centre: Policy Brief. URL: http://www.epc.eu/documents/up- loads/pub_1320_social_media.pdf

Türkan, A. (2012). Digital Diplomacy – Der Wandel der Außenpolitik im digitalen Zeitalter. Stuttgart: Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen e. V. (ifa), 20 s.

GESIS (2022). Flash Eurobarometer – 1992-2019. URL: https://dbk.gesis.org/ dbksearch/GDESC2.asp?no=0002&search=&search2=&DB=e&tab=0&notabs=&nf=1&af

=&ll=10

CES (2022). Extension: The European Union Constitution and the Lisbon Trea- ty. Carleton University Center for European Studies. URL: https://carleton.ca/ces/ eulearning/?p=635

European Commission (2022). Standard Eurobarometer 96 – Winter 2021–2022. URL: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2553

European Commission (2022). Flash Eurobarometer 506 – EU’s response to the war in Ukraine. URL: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2553

Published

2022-06-28