Conspiracy Theories as a Russian Public
Diplomacy Tool: The Case of Russia Today (RT)
Ilya Yablokov
University of Leeds
This article explores the use of conspiracy theories by the Russian international television channel Russia Today
(RT). Based on Mark Fenster’s definition of conspiracy theory as a populist theory of power, the article studies
the process of how various conspiratorial notions in programmes broadcast by RT legitimise Russian domestic
and foreign policies and, in turn, delegitimise policies of the American government. It argues that the
conspiratorial component of RT’s broadcasting appears as a political instrument in the context of the post-Cold
War world and is applied to attract various global audiences with different political views.
Keywords: conspiracy theories; Russia Today (RT); public diplomacy; Russian foreign policy
Introduction
The Guardian newspaper has described Russia Today (RT) – an international television channel
sponsored by the Russian government – as ‘a view of the world, from conspiracy theories to
other, more worrying beliefs, that should give cause for concern’ (Bloomfield, 2014). Since
being established in 2005, the channel has gained a reputation for serving as the Kremlin’s
‘propaganda machine’, a repository of conspiracy theories and the source of news neglected
by the global media juggernauts, such as CNN or BBC World News.
RT’s image as the ‘mouthpiece’ of the Kremlin and its readiness to promote various conspiracy
theorists has enabled scholars to overlook its potential as a tool of foreign policy of
the Russian government. It has thus far attracted largely journalistic attention (Bidder,
2013; Bullough, 2013; Pomerantsev and Weiss, 2014), with little academic analysis
(Strukov, 2014). In an attempt to fill this gap, this article outlines the political agenda
behind the channel and pays particular attention to the conspiratorial aspect of RT’s programmes
in order to decipher the most controversial aspect of its broadcasting. The article
interprets the conspiracy theories that figure within RT’s news agenda as a specific tool of
Russian public diplomacy aimed at undermining the policies of the US government and, in
turn, defending Russia’s actions.
The first part of the article will outline a theoretical framework for analysing conspiracy
theories. The article will then briefly consider the international broadcasting component of
public diplomacy. It will then look at the history of RT and its news agenda, particularly
focusing on the political ideas produced by the pro-Putin intellectuals in the 2000s. The final
part will be devoted to an analysis of the conspiracy theories voiced in RT’s programmes and
the channel’s effectiveness as a public diplomacy tool.
bs_bs_banner
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4), 301–315
doi: 10.1111/1467-9256.12097
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
Understanding conspiracy theories
After decades of debates about the nature of conspiracy theories, scholars have concluded that
they are more than just a product of a ‘paranoid style’ of political thinking (Hofstadter, 1996).
The new approach, developed by Mark Fenster (2008), suggests that conspiracy theories can
become an important device for the reallocation of power between different political actors
and an efficient element in political strategies; they can expose the inequities of a political,
economic and social order. Since conspiracy theories are usually disseminated on a political
level through populist rhetoric, Fenster (2008, pp. 84–90) has concluded that a conspiracy
theory is a ‘populist theory of power’. Conspiracy theories possess an important communicative
function by helping to unite the audience as ‘the people’ against the imagined ‘Other’,
represented as a secretive ‘power bloc’.
Fenster’s argument is built on the broad interpretation of populism introduced by Francisco
Panizza and Ernesto Laclau who suggest that populism is ‘a mode of identification available
to any actor operating in a discursive field in which the notion of the sovereignty of the people
and its inevitable corollary, the conflict between the powerful and the powerless, are core
elements of its political imaginary’ (Panizza, 2005, p. 4). The important feature of this concept
is its antagonistic division of the social into two camps: between the ‘people’ and the ‘Other’
(Laclau, 2005a, pp. 83 and 224). ‘The people’, united on the basis of popular demand, oppose
the ‘Other’, the power bloc; this represents the typical – for conspiracy theories – juxtaposition
of ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’. In Laclau’s (2005b, pp. 37–38) words, the social is divided into two
camps: ‘the power’ and ‘the underdog’. The latter’s appeal is based on popular demands and
its role is to challenge the social order and gain power, thereby fulfilling popular demands.
Populism performs the function of gathering different elements of the social into a new
identity (Laclau, 2005a, pp. 93–101). Accordingly, this reading of populism does not deny its
presence in a democratic society; on the contrary, it can manifest a necessary challenge to the
existing democratic order when the it fails to address certain cutting-edge issues.
This reading of populism could be applied to the analysis of how conspiracy theories operate
on the public level. The invention of ‘the people’ requires a persuasive image of the ‘Other’
that can be provided by the conspiratorial narrative through the generation of a fear of
subversion. In addition, such discourses address concerns about the inequities of a social
system and occasionally pose a positive challenge to the existing social order (Fenster, 2008,
pp. 89–90). Hence, the usage of conspiracy theories on the political level helps the actor who
disseminates these theories undermine the position and reputation of another actor – the
powerful ‘Other’ who purportedly benefits from conspiring against ‘the people’.
In the Russian case, the ultimate ‘Other’, historically, has often been the West, imagined as ‘a
single undifferentiated entity ... regarded either as a positive model for Russia to emulate or
as a negative example to be rejected’, that has served to define the borders of national identity
and its place in world history (Tolz, 2001, p. 70). In this context, fears expressed through
anti-Western conspiracy in Russia arise as a part of the so-called ‘ressentiment’ that was born
from the recognition of the discrepancy between Russia and its ideal, the ‘West’, and which
operated to demonstrate Russia’s equality or superiority to it (Greenfield, 1992, p. 234). In the
mind of a Russian nationalist with anti-Western views, the West appears as an ultimate and
insidious ‘Other’ seeking to undermine the progress of the Russian nation towards its glorious
future.
302 ILYA YABLOKOV
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
This brief description of the theoretical approach to conspiracy theories enables us to abandon
traditional readings of conspiracy theories and explore their potential as a tool of foreign
policy. As Richard Sakwa (2012) has demonstrated, conspiracy theories could become a
‘distinctive mode of engagement’ in foreign policies. According to Sakwa (2012, pp. 581 and
590), the inability of Russia’s policy makers to efficiently embed conspiracy theories into
Russia’s foreign policy can explain its inefficiency in the post-Cold War era and especially
during the Russo-Georgia War in 2008. The conflict in Georgia indeed became a watershed in
Russian foreign policy and triggered rethinking of the country’s foreign policy, putting a
particular emphasis on international broadcasting as a way of influencing public attitudes on
the global scale.
International broadcasting as a public diplomacy tool
Defined as the international actor’s attempt to manage the international environment
through engagement with foreign publics, ‘public diplomacy’ includes several key components
that together help gather feedback, explain policy and increase the attractiveness of
a country among foreign publics (Cull, 2009). Public diplomacy is a way of engaging
foreign individuals, communities and governments in support of national objectives and
foreign policies of an international actor stimulated by the development of global communication
(Show, 2009, p. 6). It helps increase awareness of the policies of the international
actor, establishing a positive image among international communities and thus increasing
its global influence in the world (see, e.g. Carter, 2005). Scholars at the Edward R. Murrow
Center (a leading American institute for the study of public diplomacy) see public diplomacy
as an integral part of a foreign policy strategy that seeks to communicate with foreign
communities, individuals and governments through governmental and NGOs and so influence
their opinions.1
As an integral element of public diplomacy, international broadcasting plays a crucial role in
promoting a country’s interests among international audiences. It helps deliver messages and
images about the country through various mediums, which increases trust and confidence in
an international actor (Gass and Seiter, 2009, pp. 154–165). The creation of a favourable news
agenda largely underlies public diplomacy strategies. It allows news events to be tailored to
the country’s strategic goals, creates news messages that reinforce the country’s agenda and
helps build links with foreign audiences (Leonard, Stead and Smewing, 2002, pp. 10–11).
The Cold War terrain provided multiple chances for the two opposing ideological blocs to
master their public diplomacy instruments. The British and American governments have been
long-term players in this field, promoting their cultures through such mediators as the BBC
World Service and the US Information Agency (Cull, 2009; Webb, 2012; 2014). Soviet public
diplomacy actively promoted the communist ideology through a number of international
news agencies, such as TASS (Telegrafnoe agentstvo Sovetskogo Soiuza) and APN (Agentstsvo pechati
Novosti) (Shultz and Godson, 1984). However, the Soviet collapse and the rise of the 24-hour
international channel CNN in 1991 – an iconic example of an international broadcaster
capable of influencing the opinions of international audiences – signaled the rapidly changing
nature of international relations and the place international broadcasting occupies within it.
Growing powers, like Japan, China and Qatar, launched media outlets to promote their ‘point
of view’ on global events and compete with established actors.
The Russian political establishment’s turn to active usage of international broadcasting as an
instrument of public diplomacy took place in the 2000s. The Doctrine of Information Security
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AS A RUSSIAN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY TOOL 303
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
adopted in September 2000 by the Kremlin defined the main objectives for Russia’s foreign
policy and emphasised the necessity of promoting a new image of Russia abroad.2
As Greg
Simons (2014) suggests, the Doctrine paved the way for a number of international broadcasting
outlets that ‘were intended to stem flow of negative and “non-objective” information
about Russia in the global information space’.
The goal of these media outlets developed in the 2000s was to counterbalance Western
dominance of the media. For this purpose, the Kremlin, with the support of allied intellectuals,
developed a conceptual foundation that served to gain people’s favour around the
world by spreading news critical of Western governments’ policies. The next part of the article
will be devoted to an analysis of the ideas coined by the pro-Kremlin intellectuals that
contributed to shaping of RT’s news agenda.
Russia as a global ‘underdog’
In the mid-2000s, the Putin administration opted for representation of the US as Russia’s
ultimate opponent. This representation became a dominant political instrument used to
justify semi-authoritarian changes in the country. Defined by the then deputy head of the
Presidential Administration, Vladislav Surkov, as a sovereign democracy, Russia, in official
discourse, started to be juxtaposed to ‘the West’. In the view of prominent pro-Kremlin
intellectuals (like Gleb Pavlovskii and Nataliia Narochnitskaia), Russia’s greatness and the
country’s history of determining the agenda of global politics were constantly challenged by
the West.
The concept of ‘sovereign democracy’ provided the Russian establishment with a conceptual
framework that defined the country’s place in global politics and relations with the West. It
should particularly be stressed that Surkov’s conception defined the West as Russia’s competitor,
rather than its enemy. In an interview with Der Spiegel, he said: ‘The people have
attained a new sense of sobriety. The romantic days are gone. We no longer have the feeling
of being surrounded by enemies, but rather by competitors’ (Klussmann and Mayr, 2005).
This rhetorical shift from the notion of a besieged nation, traditional in Russian antiWesternism,
to Surkov’s version of political pragmatism in relations with ‘the West’ helped
relocate anti-Western conspiracy theories from the margins of Russian political discourse to its
centre. From now on, the idea of economic and political competition with ‘the West’ could be
used by mainstream politicians and supported by factual evidence taken, at times selectively,
from the global political agenda. With that reconceptualisation of Russia-West relations, the
language of anti-Western conspiracy became an inherent part of mainstream political discourse
in Russia and lost its marginal character.
While bilateral relations with European countries were more diverse and sophisticated,
Surkov’s version of the Russia-West relationship emphasised the dominance of the US in
global politics. American dominance has been presented as evidence of an anti-Russian
conspiracy and the major threat to global peace; this became particularly manifest in American
international policies after the Cold War.
Together with developing a clear anti-American stance, pro-Kremlin intellectuals attempted
to attach global significance to Putin by stressing his importance in resisting American global
hegemony. In 2007, Gleb Pavlovskii (2007), a long-time advisor to the Putin administration,
contended that the Russian global mission was not the ‘return to former greatness’, but a
successful containment of the US, which only Putin was able to achieve:
304 ILYA YABLOKOV
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
You cannot invent a global mission, but you can choose it out of a short list of real, eagerly
sought goals. Putin did it. In the world of the simultaneously destructive and utopian ‘Bush
doctrine’ the demand for resistance to the US is impossible. However, there is a global
demand for this resistance. ... The containment of the US is Russia’s function for the
subsequent years. The majority of humankind, including its Western part, will tacitly
support all Russian actions in this sphere even without openly expressing public support.
Putin found a unique niche of unarticulated global demand for particular policies and
occupied it.
After his departure from the Kremlin in 2011, following a disagreement with Putin’s decision
to return to the presidency, Pavlovskii openly admitted that as early as the end of the 1990s,
one of the Kremlin’s team strategies was juxtaposing Russia to the US. The Kremlin’s
ideologues aimed at conveying Russia as a ‘speaker’ on behalf of the third-world nations
excluded from the US-led ‘New World Order’ (Pavlovskii, 2014).
The emergence of RT as Russia’s public diplomacy tool at that time and the corpus of ideas
behind its agenda are directly connected with the will of the Russian political establishment
to challenge US dominance in the world. Here, the division of the world into the ‘majority’
of nations led by Russia against the nations of the so-called ‘New World Order’ led by the US
sheds light on the application of conspiracy theories in RT’s programmes. In order to situate
carefully anti-American conspiracy theories in RT’s broadcasting, we need to look closely at
the channel and its news agenda.
RT: Russia’s ‘ministry of information defence’
RT was launched in 2005 as a part of the large state-funded programme to promote Russia
abroad. In contrast to traditional public diplomacy assets aimed at promoting the country’s
culture, RT soon downplayed its straightforward affiliation with Russia by changing the logo
‘Russia today’ to the more neutral ‘RT’ (von Twickel, 2010). According to RT’s editor-in-chief
Margarita Simonyan, this was done to attract as large an audience as possible (Sobchak zhiv’em,
2013). It appears that American and European media coverage of the war in Georgia and its
criticism of Russia encouraged RT’s management to retune its task. Dropping its initial goal –
promoting Russian culture around the world – RT was turned into a political tool to undermine
the American position in global politics when it proved unable to provide a satisfactory
‘Russian’ interpretation of the conflict in Georgia.
RT’s news agenda is aimed at counterbalancing the ‘information monopoly’ of Western media
(Simonyan, 2013). The main goal of its journalists and presenters is to find the news that
would be ignored by the so-called ‘mainstream media’ and bring it to viewers’ attention, thus
increasing RT’s international popularity (Rossiia na eksport, 2012). According to Simonyan,
the channel’s audience consists of ‘people who understand that the whole truth cannot be
told by Anglo-Saxon television channels’ (Gabuev, 2012). The belief that the so-called
‘Anglo-Saxon media’ never tell the truth lies at the heart of RT’s agenda and frames the
conspiratorial dimension of its programmes. Simonyan’s description of RT’s editorial policy is
the following:
Everybody wants to know what is happening in their backyards. ... We decided that we are
going to look for stories that are on the one hand extremely interesting, that can be
breathtaking, fascinating for our audience, and on the other hand that have not been
reported or hugely underreported in the mainstream media (Kramer, 2010).
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AS A RUSSIAN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY TOOL 305
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
As a result, RT occupied a specific place in the media reporting on lesser-known news items
and international scandals involving the US government. The intellectual underpinning of
RT’s anti-Americanism is a peculiar case. Whereas Soviet anti-American propaganda was
based on a rigid ideological divide between capitalism and socialism, Putin’s semiauthoritarian
regime has not developed a unified ideological platform (Krastev, 2011, p. 11).
The ambiguity and heterogeneity of the ideological foundation of the current Russian political
regime makes anti-Americanism the only constant element of RT’s agenda.
The intellectual underpinnings of Surkov’s ideas allowed RT to avoid marginalisation as a
mouthpiece of the Kremlin by delivering to viewers alternative, but nevertheless meaningful,
news. On the other hand, these ideas helped to carefully shape the news agenda such that it
would challenge the American and the European governments. A simultaneous adoption of
arguments of left- and right-wing critics of the US gives RT leeway to adapt its narratives in
relation to different audiences, thereby expanding its global influence. Moreover, the Kremlin’s
links to both right- and left-wing intellectuals in Europe and the US supplies RT with
a range of public figures ready to justify Russia’s policies to foreign audiences (Orenstein,
2014).
An open stance against the ‘mainstream media’ allegedly controlled by Western policy makers
and business elites helps RT to present itself as an ‘underdog’ demanding that the truth be
revealed. This idea is reiterated by Simonyan regularly and became more popular after the
conflict in Ukraine erupted in winter 2013/2014. After RT was criticised for biased coverage
of the Ukrainian conflict, Simonyan (2014) posted a statement on her blog that stressed the
underdog character of the channel:
Every single day, every single hour the guys who work for us are told, ‘You are liars, you
are no journalists, you are the Kremlin propaganda mouthpiece, you’ve sold yourselves to
the Russians, it’s time you quit your job’, and everybody is laughing at you, so change your
mind before it’s too late. ... I can see very clearly why I continue to work for a channel that
stands alone (!) face to face with thousands and tens of thousands of Western news outlets,
showing everybody the other side of the story, under daily attacks from the media that it is
hardly managing to fight back.
This approach to news reporting, which is distinctively different from that of the majority of
international media outlets, has become RT’s recipe for promoting ‘Russian’ views abroad. In
this context, conspiracy theories aimed at exposing the corrupt and elitist policies of the
American government appear to be an instrument for spoiling the US’s image in the world.
Therefore, the next part of this article is devoted to a closer look at conspiracy theories in RT’s
programmes and their role as a tool of Russian public diplomacy.
The ‘truthseeker’: conspiracy narratives in RT’s programmes
In 2010, RT launched RT America, which, according to the channel’s officials, is specifically
tailored to the American audience (Rossiia na eksport, 2012). It is revealing that one of the
first reports released by RT in the US was entitled ‘911 Reasons Why 9/11 was (Probably) an
Inside Job’ (Bridge, 2010). This was an eye-catching way to start a promotion campaign,
falling perfectly in line with the aim of finding fascinating stories ‘in the backyard’ of the US.
The flagship shows of RT America, such as Breaking the Set or The Truthseeker, regularly cover
topics that are framed within conspiratorial narratives or openly endorse them. Hence, RT
challenges an elitist aspect of American politics through populist ideas vocalised by experts
306 ILYA YABLOKOV
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
and show hosts. Thus RT has successfully tapped into a rich and extensive body of American
conspiracy theories that has been circulating for decades. RT hosts and correspondents
endorse different types of conspiracy theories, both bizarre and well-grounded in actual
evidence of governmental cover-up operations. This adoption of conspiratorial narratives,
which Peter Knight (2000) defines as a ‘conspiracy culture’, allows RT to infuse the current
social and economic inequalities of American society with conspiratorial allegations,
thereby generating a distinctly anti-elitist message and winning the attention of domestic
audiences.
Among the conspiratorial ideas that feature in RT’s broadcasts, two types are of particular
interest: the first includes genuinely American conspiracy theories; and the second includes
ideas of conspiracy in relations between the US and Russia. The analysis of these two types of
conspiracy theories offers an opportunity to explore how they are employed to undermine US
domestic and foreign policies. At the same time, it provides an understanding of how these
theories support the Russian government’s actions, helping Russia’s leadership to become a
‘spokesperson’ on the side of the global community of ‘the people’ against the global ‘Other’
– the US.
American conspiracy theories
In an episode of Breaking the Set from 11 December 2013, the show’s host, Abby Martin,
recalled the Iran-Contra Affair, when the American government approved an arms sale to
Iran, despite an international embargo, and funded the Nicaraguan Contras (National Security
Archive, 2006). The investigation of Gary Webb, a journalist for the San Jose Mercury News, in
1996 revealed more hard-hitting details of this affair. Cooperation with the Central Intelligence
Agency allowed a number of individuals affiliated with the Contras to smuggle drugs
into the US, which likely triggered the influx of crack into African-American neighbourhoods
(Webb, 1998). The possible involvement of the CIA in drug trafficking became a hallmark of
American conspiracy culture. As a CIA internal investigation showed, several of its employees
indeed turned a blind eye to the drug trafficking of Contra affiliates.3
However, the mainstream
American press first ignored Webb’s investigation, and, later accused him of spreading
false allegations and conspiracy theories (Schou, 2006, pp. 126–148).
In her report, Martin briefly narrated this story, but the conclusions she drew were not
directly connected to the aforementioned cases and, more importantly, were not backed by
the facts presented:
[I]f you just can’t comprehend that the same government, which is fighting a multi-billion
dollar drug war, is partially responsible for spreading the drugs, one has to look at the
cultivation of protection that the US military supplying for opium in Afghanistan. The
war-torn country had nearly eradicated the crop prior the occupation and now 90 per cent
of the world’s heroin comes from Afghanistan. So, the next time you hear something
dismissed as just a conspiracy theory, maybe take a second to dig a little deeper at what is
presented, because you might be surprised at what you find.4
This quote exemplifies RT’s approach to making use of conspiracy theories. Real governmentbacked
conspiracies of the past allow Martin to shape the criticism of American involvement
in the war in Afghanistan within a conspiratorial narrative.
In response to those critics who dismiss RT’s news as conspiracy theories, the channel’s hosts
and experts explain that public criticism of conspiracy theories is unjust. First, the political
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AS A RUSSIAN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY TOOL 307
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
establishment uses the libel of conspiracy theories to destroy the reputations of those who
want to know the truth behind official information.5
Second, in the past, mainstream media
and government officials dismissed those who tried to question the official accounts of
controversial and dramatic events; the actions of authorities were aimed at covering up illegal
activities and at promoting the interests of political and business elites.
This argument is based on the abundant and controversial history of US governmental
cover-up operations that provides a basis for current conspiracy fears. As Kathryn Olmsted
(2010) has argued, real conspiracies in which the US government was involved have helped
conspiracy theories become popular in American society and establish a place in mainstream
culture. Conspiracy theories have gained sufficient credibility to be turned into a legitimate
trope of explanation because government officials have promoted their own conspiracies,
covered-up real plots and suppressed dissent voices (Olmsted, 2010, p. 234). The grounding
of governmental conspiracies in more widely accepted facts allows RT to express opinions that
undermine current actions or statements of US officials, hence attracting the attention of
those audiences who mistrust the American government.
The episode of Breaking the Set on 22 October 2013 is a case in point of this strategy. It
featured a report on the alleged cover-up by the World Health Organisation of birth defects
linked to the use of depleted uranium by the occupying forces in Iraq. This story was
followed by commentaries from the host on a new government programme that purportedly
scans the tweets of people who display signs of mental illnesses. Perhaps in order to bolster
the impact of previous stories, these reports were followed by a discussion of five
government-led conspiracies that eventually turned out to be true.6
It is noteworthy that
several of these conspiracies involved tests on human subjects and their disclosures led to
accusations of human rights violations by US officials. This link between real conspiracies of
the past and current events, which have not received an ample investigation, are aimed at
the creation of negative attitudes towards the American government both within the US and
globally.
Apart from theories that are well-grounded in historical facts, RT gives a voice to American
conspiracy theorists. An example is its active coverage of the Bilderberg Club conference – an
annual meeting of political, business and media elites that was established in 1954 for
cooperation between Western European countries and the US. The Bilderberg conference,
whose participants gather behind closed doors to ‘speak candidly without worrying how their
words might play in tomorrow’s headlines’ leads to fears of conspiracy.7
Accordingly, the
Bilderberg conspiracy became one of the major theories that attacks the elitist aspect of the
global political and financial establishment. As Alex Jones, one of the proponents of this
theory, claimed on RT, the Bilderberg group builds a ‘one world corporate fascist government’
to exercise global control.8
According to conspiracy theories surrounding the club, Bilderberg
allegedly controls governments, handpicks state leaders, and defines global economic and
political agendas (Estulin, 2007). RT’s reports on the Bilderberg conferences feature interviews
with activists who, apart from conspiratorial claims, contend that security measures for
the Bilderberg meetings are funded from taxpayers’ money while the world undergoes a
severe economic crisis.9
Another report on the Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly in May 2012
featured images of anti-Bilderberg protesters who called the participants of the conference
‘Criminal Bankers’, ‘War Profiteers’ and ‘Fat Cats’.10
This distinctly populist appeal to ordinary
people suffering economically has been integral to the American conspiracy tradition for
decades, helping reinforcing anti-elitism and nurturing a sense of ‘people-hood’ within the
308 ILYA YABLOKOV
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
country (Goldberg, 2001, p. 20). In this case, the anti-Bilderberg protesters’ demand that the
power of businessmen and corporations be limited, and given to ‘the people’, is wrapped into
conspiracy theory. Following Fenster’s (2008) concept, the anti-Bilderberg conspiracy theories
express concern about the excessive concentration of power in the hands of the business
and political elites.
It is perhaps the clearly anti-elitist character of the notions spread by the anti-Bilderberg
conspiracy theories that explain RT’s active coverage of the event. The constant reiteration of
the fact that these meetings are not covered by the mainstream press – but should be, as they
gather together the most powerful people of the Western world – helps RT establish its image
as the only media source able to bring meaningful information to its audience. These reports
and guest experts, who are rarely invited onto other channels, help RT promote itself as a
place where people can share their ideas freely, as opposed to the ‘mainstream media’.
The fears of the all-powerful Bilderbergers and governmental organisations in control of the
US could be understood as an anxious manifestation of ordinary Americans about the
representation of individuals in current political and social life. Timothy Melley (2001, p. 65)
defined this anxiety as ‘agency panic’ – the unease of individuals about changes in communication
and the ways in which modern society operates. The images of omnipotent financial
tycoons and faceless governmental corporations reflect the powerlessness of the individual to
resist institutions. The aforementioned conspiracy theories sprout from this context and
become a ‘weapon of the weak’ in attempts to delegitimise the current social and political
system. RT provides a stage for vocalising these theories in the public space, thus using them
instrumentally in order to damage the image of the US.
Anti-Russian conspiracy theories
A significant part of RT’s broadcast is devoted to coverage of the Russian news or news that
affects Russia. This coverage is delivered from a distinctly ‘Russian’ perspective, which
prompts criticism from foreign journalists and politicians as well as accusations of propaganda
(Rothman, 2014). In turn, RT’s management explains the peculiar angle of its coverage in
terms of the necessity to provide an alternative view of Russia amid the dominant and
extremely biased narrative of the Western media (Bullough, 2013).
The conspiratorial narratives in RT’s reports and programmes regarding Russia serve as an
explanatory tool for depicting the threat of American world dominance. US officials, as well
as governmental and NGOs, are depicted as elements of the global machine of control;
Russia’s policies, in turn, help provide a balance in international relations and justify the
Kremlin’s disagreement with the US. In addition, the conspiratorial interpretation of American
activities in the post-Soviet world might serve as a justification for future actions of the
Russian government.
An exemplary case is RT’s coverage of the Ukrainian conflict in 2013/2014 where anti-US
conspiratorial discourse played a pivotal role in explaining Russia’s actions. The official
Russian narrative of events in Ukraine has been based on the assumption that the US
provoked the revolution and toppled president Yanukovich. In February 2014, a recording of
an alleged conversation between Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State of the Department
for Europe, and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoff Pyatt was leaked onto the internet.
The recording was of a telephone call between the two high-ranking US officials discussing
the Ukrainian opposition leaders and their capability to lead the country.11
RT quickly picked
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AS A RUSSIAN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY TOOL 309
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
up the story and interpreted it as evidence of American ‘scheming’ to oust a democratically
elected president. In a newscast broadcast on 7 February 2014, RT’s reporter described the
conversation as the two officials ‘playing a game with the opposition leaders as if they were
pieces on a chessboard’12
– a metaphor that presented the image of an omnipotent power
capable of manipulating politicians from behind the scenes.
The leaked conversation contributed to a framing of the events favourable to Russian officials,
who stated that the US was causing the unrest in Ukraine.13
The fact that US officials did not
deny the authenticity of the recording reinforced the conspiratorial narratives in the story and
legitimised the use of conspiracy theories for analysis of the situation in Ukraine.14
The
instrumental conspiratorial interpretation thus helped connect the images of the US as a
malignant power in pursuit of regime change and justified Russia’s actions in Ukraine as a
legitimate act of resistance to American intervention.
The image of the US as a ‘puppet master’ that overthrows dissenting regimes was further
developed in an episode of the investigative-reporting-style programme The Truthseeker. Its
broadcast on 9 March 2014 described prominent NGOs as an ‘arm’ of the American government.
The National Endowment for Democracy and Amnesty International were accused of
forging evidence to legitimate the US invasions during the conflicts in Libya and Afghanistan.
According to the programme’s expert on the post-Cold Wra era, NGOs operate as subversive
agents in states that resist Washington’s agenda of globalisation. One of the experts, reportedly
involved in the work of NGOs in the past, suggested that all American-affiliated NGOs
should be expelled because ‘you can’t have agents of foreign governments running around
promoting coup d’états and things of that nature’.15
At the end of the programme, the
presenter tied together the allegations made during the programme with the Ukrainian crisis
and concluded: ‘If history is any guide NGOs will do everything to turn Ukraine into
international war. When the organizations tasked with preventing conflict are the ones
provoking it, the world is in a dangerous place.’16
This conspiratorial reading of US policies towards Ukraine likely aims at a twofold goal. On the
one hand, a dissemination of ideas about the US as a global force conspiring against other
nations contributes to the formation of anti-American attitudes in the world and hence
undermines public support for US policies. On the other hand, the conspiratorial allegations
of RT provide reasons for further attacks against civil society in Russia. If the Russian
government decides to suppress NGOs within the country in the future, the explanation of the
‘true’ nature of American-based NGOs will serve to counter international criticism.
Measuring the success
Conspiracy theories are indeed an attractive and powerful way to grab people’s attention.
However, two key questions require investigation: how powerful and accurate can this
instrument of public diplomacy be, and who is its target audience?
One of the central issues in public diplomacy is how to measure impact and if audiences ‘buy’
the messages being presented. The question of how to trace causality between public diplomacy
efforts and changes in attitudes in the targeted country occupies the minds of academics,
practitioners and politicians (see Brown, 2011; Johnson, 2006; Wilding, 2007). Lack of
credible information regarding the audience and the impact of actions may give rise to
obstacles in strategic planning for further implementation of policies as well as for financial
reports to sponsors. As scholars note, when it comes to assessing the impact of information on
310 ILYA YABLOKOV
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
people and the effects it has, it gets even more difficult to measure the influence. Existing
methodology (such as framing analysis and measuring interest by counting posts, readership,
etc.) can indeed provide some data; however, it is almost impossible to trace the causal links
between policies and their effects (Jones, 2011).
Given these methodological obstacles and the lack of open data about the popularity of RT, it
is virtually impossible to measure the channel’s success and influence. Currently, it is only
possible to make assumptions based on the information provided by the channel itself.
Another way of gauging the success of RT could be through the ever-growing government
investment in the channel. This could be interpreted as a sign of the Kremlin’s approval of
RT’s work (Kurilenko, 2014). However, the absence of credible information about the process
of decision making in the Kremlin does not allow this proxy to be accepted as a sufficient
measuring instrument.
Just as it is difficult to measure the channel’s popularity, so too is it hard to define its audience
and the efficiency of its message. Anti-American and, in general, anti-Western stories attract
a certain audience around the world. By going behind the scenes of American politics and
challenging statements made by White House officials, RT most probably targets left- and
right-wing audiences. RT’s motto ‘Question more’ primarily appeals to those who distrust the
American government, especially since the release of the Wikileaks cables and revelations
about the National Security Agency’s global espionage programmes. However, as a public
diplomacy instrument, RT struggles to make its message compelling to an audience wider than
these groups, or to provide one that would be able to influence the agenda of Western
governments. For instance, several rounds of economic sanctions imposed by the EU and the
US have not been prevented; neither have they generated criticism among Europeans and
American citizens. These failures to influence key audiences illustrate the limits of the chosen
foreign policy tactic.
Perhaps, approaching groups who share anti-US attitudes could be an efficient ‘entry strategy’
that would allow RT to become the leading alternative news channel. However, its capacity as
a public diplomacy tool to advocate for the policies of the Russian state and the difficulties it
faces in providing balanced news coverage undermines its reputation among wider audiences.
Conclusion
As Richard Sakwa (2012, p. 607) has noted, the post-Cold War order of international relations
is a rich terrain generating myths and discourses of competition between former superpowers,
thus providing fruitful ground for the development of various conspiracy theories. Within this
terrain, Russia’s active development of public diplomacy instruments has been tidily connected
with the need to counterbalance criticism from foreign countries and international
organisations. The global media campaign criticising Russian military involvement in Georgia
in 2008 stimulated the Russian authorities to take action and tailor one of its instruments to
a specific need: counterbalancing American global dominance. Hence, RT could be defined as
a peculiar instrument of Russian public diplomacy called upon to erode a positive image of the
US in the world and thus challenge the US’s own political potential.
The analysis of the conspiratorial component of RT’s news agenda allows us to draw several
conclusions about the use of conspiracy theories as Russia’s public diplomacy tool. First,
conspiracy theories work to sap the positions of the American government, both from within
the US and globally. The populist, anti-elitist claim of conspiracy theorists in RT’s programmes
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AS A RUSSIAN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY TOOL 311
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
aims at uniting the imagined global community of ‘the people’ against the dangerous ‘Other’,
represented by the US establishment. Interpreted as one element within a broader array of
political strategies aimed at exposing the inequities of the political and economic order,
conspiracy theories shed light on the socio-economic problems of the US and challenge the
dominant representation of the ‘American dream’. Second, criticism of the US government
backed by facts of real conspiracies in the past helps diminish possible criticism of Russia and
reallocate legitimacy from the US to Russia in the global arena. RT exposes American
involvement in world conflicts and depicts it as a major international threat. Thus, these
reports justify Russian government policies and create an image of Russia as the leader of
global resistance to the US.
As Sinikukka Saari (2014, p. 63) has noted, the post-Soviet Russian approach to public
diplomacy significantly differed from the Soviet approach. The key difference is the lack of any
ideological component, values or responsibilities to help achieve short-term goals. The deliberate
lack of clear ideological principles to guide the news agenda of the channel, which is
compensated for by a clear anti-American stance and an instrumental engagement with
conspiratorial discourses, enables the Kremlin to benefit from disagreements with Western
governments and foster critical views of American politics among sub-national communities
within Western societies. RT is able to reach the domestic audience of its counterpart, thereby
transforming international broadcasting into a phenomenon affecting the American domestic
scene. RT’s emergence, even though it should not be exaggerated, nevertheless suggests that
the spatial order of the post-Cold War world is undergoing a crucial reconfiguration through
the means of global media. Therefore, further careful scrutiny of conspiracy theories as a tool
of foreign politics will facilitate our comprehension of the political potential of Russia’s foreign
policy strategies more generally.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Stephen Hutchings and Valentina Feklyunina for very useful
comments during the writing of this article.
Notes
1 ‘Definitions of Public Diplomacy’ (2015) Edward R. Murrow Center of Public Diplomacy. [online]. Available from:
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/Murrow/Diplomacy/Definitions [Accessed 10 March 2015].
2 Doktrina informatsionnoi bezopasnosti. Available from: http://www.rg.ru/oficial/doc/min_and_vedom/mim_bezop/
doctr.shtm [Accessed 10 September 2014].
3 ‘Report of Investigation Concerning Allegations of Connections Between CIA and The Contras in Cocaine Trafficking
to the United States (96-0143-IG)’ (1998) CIA [online], 29 January. Available from: https://www.cia.gov/
library/reports/general-reports-1/cocaine/overview-of-report-of-investigation-2.html [Accessed 10 March 2015].
4 ‘Obama Lied on Syria, Corporate Espionage Tactics, GMO Heroes and Villains’, RT.com [online], 11 December 2013.
Available from: http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/obama-syria-espionage-tactics-043/ [Accessed 10
June 2014].
5 ‘False Flags, Media Censorship, Aaron Swartz’s Legacy’, RT.com [online], 16 January 2013. Available from:
http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/false-flags-media-aaron/ [Accessed 10 June 2014].
6 ‘Govt Spies on Depressed Tweeters’, Obama’s Koch Problem’, RT.com [online], 22 October 2013. Available from:
http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/usa-tweeter-obama-pipeline-531/ [Accessed 10 June 2014].
7 ‘The World’s Water-Coolers’, The Economist [online], 20 January 2011. Available from: http://www.economist.com/
node/17928993 [Accessed 10 June 2014].
8 RT America (2012) ‘Alex Jones Calls for Occupy Bildelberg’ [video online]. Available from: http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IWWjaUZMoQ [Accessed 10 March 2015].
312 ILYA YABLOKOV
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
9 ‘Knocking on Bilderberg’s Closed Doors’, RT.com [online], 11 June 2011. Available from: http://rt.com/news/
bilderberg-switzerland-closed-media/ [Accessed 10 June 2014].
10 RT America (2012) ‘Bildelberg Behind the New World Order’ [video online]. Availbale from: http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgxR5a_JH2s [Accessed 10 March 2015].
11 ‘Ukraine Crisis: Transcript of Leaked Nuland-Pyatt Call’, BBC News [online], 7 February 2014. Available from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957 [Accessed 10 June 2014].
12 ‘ “F**k the EU”: Snr US State Dept. Official Caught in Alleged Phone Chat on Ukraine’, RT.com [online], 6 February
2014. Available from: http://rt.com/news/nuland-phone-chat-ukraine-927/ [Accessed 10 June 2014].
13 Helloskiable (2014) ‘Lavrov to RT: Americans are “running the show” in Ukraine’ [video online]. Available from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED8MignQRMY [Accessed 10 March 2015].
14 ‘Nuland’s Cookies’, RT.com [online], 12 February 2014. Available from: http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/nuland-leak
-ukraine-eu-659/ [Accessed 10 June 2014].
15 ‘NGO Documents Plan Ukraine War’, RT.com [online], 9 March 2014. Available from: http://rt.com/shows/the
-truthseeker/ukraine-war-ngo-documents-726/ [Accessed 10 June 2014].
16 ‘NGO Documents Plan Ukraine War’, RT.com, 9 March 2014.
References
Bidder, B. (2013) ‘Russia Today: Putin’s Weapon in the War of Images’, Spiegel Online [online], 13 August. Available
from: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/putin-fights-war-of-images-and-propaganda-with-russia
-today-channel-a-916162.html [Accessed 14 April 2014].
Bloomfield, S. (2014) ‘Ofcom Should be Looking Again at Putin’s TV News Channel’, The Guardian [online], 24 April.
Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/24/ukraine-russia-putin-news-reporting
[Accessed 10 June 2014].
Bridge, R. (2010) ‘911 Reasons Why 9/11 was (Probably) an Inside Job’, RT.com [online], 28 June. Available from:
http://rt.com/usa/911-attack-job/ [Accessed 10 June 2014].
Brown, R. (2011) ‘Measurement and Evaluation in Public Diplomacy’, Public Diplomacy, Networks and Influence
[online]. Available from: http://pdnetworks.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/measurement-and-evaluation-in-public
-diplomacy/ [Accessed 24 september 2014].
Bullough, O. (2013) ‘Inside Russia Today: Counterweight to the Mainstream Media, or Putin’s Mouthpiece’, New
Statesman [online], 10 May. Available from: http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/world-affairs/2013/05/
inside-russia-today-counterweight-mainstream-media-or-putins-mou [Accessed on 14 April, 2014].
Carter, P. (2005) Public Diplomacy Review, London: HMSO.
Cull, N.J. (2009) The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy,
1945–1989, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Estulin, D. (2007) The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, Walterville, OR: Trine Day
Fenster, M. (2008) Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Gabuev, A. (2012) ‘Net Nikakoi Ob’ektivnosti’, Kommersant-Vlast’ [online], 7 April. Available from: http://
kommersant.ru/Doc/1911336 [Accessed 10 June 2014].
Gass, R.H. and Seiter, J.S. (2009) ‘Credibility and Public Diplomacy’ in N. Snow and P.M. Taylor (eds.), Routledge
Handbook of Public Diplomacy, New York: Routledge, pp. 154–165.
Goldberg, R.A. (2001) Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Greenfield, L. (1992) Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hofstadter, R. (1996) The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, J. (2006) ‘How Does Public Diplomacy Measure Up?’, Foreign Service Journal, October, pp. 44–52.
Jones, H. (2011) ‘A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Policy Influence’, ODI Background Notes [online], February.
Available from: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6453.pdf [Accessed
1 February 2015].
Klussmann, U. and Mayr, W. (2005) ‘Interview with Kremlin Boss Vladislav Surkov: “The West Doesn’t Have to Love
Us” ’ Der Spiegel [online]. Available from: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with
-kremlin-boss-vladislav-surkov-the-west-doesn-t-have-to-love-us-a-361236.html [Accessed 10 June 2014].
Knight, P. (2000) Conspiracy Culture: American Paranoia from the Kennedy Assassination to The X-Files, London:
Routledge.
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AS A RUSSIAN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY TOOL 313
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
Kramer, A.E. (2010) ‘Russian Cable Station Plays to US’, New York Times [online], 23 August. Available from: http://
www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/business/media/23russiatoday.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 [Accessed 10 June
2014].
Krastev, I. (2011) ‘Paradoxes of the New Authoritarianism’, Journal of Democracy 22(2), pp. 5–16.
Kurilenko, N. (2014) ‘V 2015 Godu Russia Today Poluchit Na 41% Bol’she Subsidii’, RBC [online], 23 September.
Available from: http://top.rbc.ru/politics/23/09/2014/950629.shtml [Accessed 24 September 2014].
Laclau, E. (2005a) On Populist Reason, London: Verso.
Laclau, E. (2005b) ‘Populism: What’s in the Name?’ in F. Panizza (ed.), Populism and the Mirror of Democracy, London:
Verso, pp. 32–49.
Leonard, M., Stead, C. and Smewing, C. (2002) Public Diplomacy, London: Foreign Policy Centre.
Melley, T. (2001) ‘Agency Panic and the Culture of Conspiracy’ in P. Knight (ed.), Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of
Paranoia in Postwar America, New York: New York University Press, pp. 57–81.
National Security Archive (2006) The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On, Washington, DC: National Security Archive,
Available from: http://www2.gwu.edu/∼nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/ [Accessed 10 June 2014].
Olmsted, K.S. (2010) Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Orenstein, M.A. (2014) ‘Putin’s Western Allies’, Foreign Affairs [online], 25 March. Available from: http://www
.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141067/mitchell-a-orenstein/putins-western-allies [Accessed 23 September 2014].
Panizza, F. (2005) ‘Introduction: Populism and the Mirror of Democracy’ in F. Panizza (ed.), Populism and the Mirror of
Democracy, London: Verso, pp. 1–31.
Pavlovskii, G. (2007) ‘Rol’ Putina i Dal’she Budet Igrat’ Putin’, Moskovskie novosti [online], 14 September. Available
from: http://www.kreml.org/opinions/160260828 [Accessed 10 June 2014].
Pavlovskii, G. (2014) ‘Kreml’: Ot Konservativnoi Politiki – K Revolutsii’, Russkii zhurnal [online], 5 June. Available
from: http://russ.ru/Mirovaya-povestka/Kreml-ot-konservativnoj-politiki-k-revolyucii [Accessed 10 June
2014].
Pomerantsev, P. and Weiss, M. (2014) The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money,
New York: Institute of Modern Russia [online], Available from: http://www.interpretermag.com/wp-content/
uploads/2014/11/The_Menace_of_Unreality_Final.pdf [Accessed 7 December 2014].
Rossiia na eksport (2012) ‘Kto smotrit, Slushaet I Chitaet Russkie SMI Za Granitsei’, Afisha [online], 2 April. Available
from: http://gorod.afisha.ru/archive/russian-export-media/ [Accessed 10 June 2014].
Rothman, N. (2014) ‘John Kerry Calls Out “Propaganda Bullhorn” RT’, Mediaite [online], 24 April. Available from:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-kerry-calls-out-propaganda-bullhorn-russia-today/ [Accessed 10 June 2014].
Saari, S. (2014) ‘Russia’s Post-Orange Revolution Strategies to Increase Its Influence in Former Soviet Republics: Public
Diplomacy Po Russki’, Europe-Asia Studies 66(1), pp. 50–66.
Sakwa, R. (2012) ‘Conspiracy Narratives as a Mode of Engagement in International Politics: The Case of the 2008
Russo-Georgian War’, Russian Review 71(4), pp. 581–609.
Schou, N. (2006) Kill the Messenger: How the CIA’s Crack-Cocaine Controversy Destroyed Journalist Gary Webb. New York:
Nation Books.
Show, N. (2009) ‘Rethinking Public Diplomacy’ in N. Show and P.M. Taylor (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public
Diplomacy, New York: Routledge, pp. 3–11.
Shultz, R. and Godson, R. (1984) Dezinformatsiya: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy, McLean, VA: Pergamon-Brassey’s.
Simons, G. (2014) ‘Russian Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century: Structure, Means and Message’, Public Relations
Review 40, pp. 440–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.03.002.
Simonyan, M. (2013) ‘Smertel’noe Oruzhie v Efire’, Rossiiskaia gazeta [online], 3 July. Available from: http://
www.rg.ru/2013/07/03/simonian.html [Accessed 10 June 2014].
Simonyan, M. (2014) ‘About Abby Martin, Liz Wahl and Media Wars’, RT.com [online], 6 March, Available from:
http://rt.com/op-edge/about-liz-wahl-media-wars-126/ [Accessed 24 September 2014].
Sobchak zhiv’em (2013) ‘[TV programme] Dozhd’, 30 October. Available from: http://tvrain.ru/articles/margarita
_simonjan_ja_ne_voruju_deneg_sejchas_ja_poluchaju_menshe_chem_mne_platili_na_ntv-355676/ [Accessed 10
June 2014].
Strukov, V.V. (2014) ‘Problema Natsional’noi Samoreprezentatsii Transnatsional’nogo Telekanala (Na Primere Russa
Today)’ in V. Strukov and V. Zvereva (eds.), From Central to Digital: Television in Russia, Voronezh: Voronezh State
Pedagogical University, pp. 231–265.
Tolz, V. (2001) Russia, London: Arnold.
314 ILYA YABLOKOV
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)
von Twickel, N. (2010) ‘Russia Today Courts Viewers With Controversy’. The Moscow Times [online], 17 March.
Available from: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-today-courts-viewers-with-controversy/
401888.html [Accessed 10 March 2015].
Webb, G. (1998) Dark Alliance: CIA, the Contras and the Crack Cocaine Explosion. New York: Seven Stories Press.
Webb, A. (2012) ‘Cold War Radio and the Hungarian Uprising, 1956’, Cold War History 13(2), pp. 221–238.
Webb, A. (2014) Britain, the BBC World Service and the Cold War, London: Bloomsbury.
Wilding, C.M. (2007) ‘Measuring the Effectiveness of Public Diplomacy: The UK Approach’, Centre for Global Communication
Studies [online], 1 November. Available from: http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/fileLibrary/PDFs/
wilding.pdf [Accessed 24 September 2014].
About the author
Ilya Yablokov is a Teaching Fellow in Russian Studies at the University of Leeds. He holds an MA in Nationalism
Studies from Central European University and a PhD in Russian Studies from the University of Manchester. Ilya
Yablokov, School of Languages, Cultures and Societies, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. E-mail: i.yablokov@
leeds.ac.uk
CONSPIRACY THEORIES AS A RUSSIAN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY TOOL 315
© 2015 The Author. Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL 35(3-4)