Suchergebnisse

From the Editor

Nuo redakcijos.

The aim of the article: Despite the fact that everything we know in Polish history about the emergence of Solidarity [Polish: Solidarność], Polish trade unions, in 1980-1981, and the conflict with the communist totalitarian regime is described in sources as 'the Polish Crisis', the question remains open about the contemporaneous deepening communication crisis of the communist government in Lithuania, whose history had long – until the middle of the 20th century – been very closely linked to the development of Poland. From 1951 to 1989, Lithuania was separated from Poland by a double barbed-wire Soviet border barrier without any border crossing points. Nevertheless, the author proposes delving into what type of information control measures the Soviet regime used in influencing the Lithuanian people by undermining their interest in the workers' strikes and the expanding trade union movement in Poland 40 years ago, trying to set Lithuanians against Polish society, and also how the media in the West helped renew the dialogue between Lithuanian and Polish diaspora organisations. Research methods: The author performed a content analysis of KGB documents in the Lithuanian Special Archives and examined the content of the Lithuanian SSR mass media and the mass media of the Lithuanian diaspora in the United States. Results and conclusions: The Soviet concept of security that was implemented by the repressive structure of the KGB was largely associated with the restriction of information, censorship and self-censorship of the population. However, it was also associated with the recruitment of Lithuanian citizens into ongoing cooperation with the secret service to collect data about Polish people who were 'disloyal' to the regime and transfer information to the security service of communist Poland, so the content of these reports must be disclosed. Cognitive value: Thus, the article provides the broader context, in which the content of the propaganda press is only one element of the system that controlled the public space.

The aim of the article: Despite the fact that everything we know in Polish history about the emergence of Solidarity [Polish: Solidarność], Polish trade unions, in 1980-1981, and the confl ict with the communist totalitarian regime is described in sources as 'the Polish Crisis', the question remains open about the contemporaneous deepening communication crisis of the communist government in Lithuania, whose history had long – until the middle of the 20th century – been very closely linked to the development of Poland. From 1951 to 1989, Lithuania was separated from Poland by a double barbed-wire Soviet border barrier without any border crossing points. Nevertheless, the author proposes delving into what type of information control measures the Soviet regime used in infl uencing the Lithuanian people by undermining their interest in the workers' strikes and the expanding trade union movement in Poland 40 years ago, trying to set Lithuanians against Polish society, and also how the media in the West helped renew the dialogue between Lithuanian and Polish diaspora organisations. Research methods: The author performed a content analysis of KGB documents in the Lithuanian Special Archives and examined the content of the Lithuanian SSR mass media and the mass media of the Lithuanian diaspora in the United States. Results and conclusions: The Soviet concept of security that was implemented by the repressive structure of the KGB was largely associated with the restriction of information, censorship and self-censorship of the population. However, it was also associated with the recruitment of Lithuanian citizens into ongoing cooperation with the secret service to collect data about Polish people who were 'disloyal' to the regime and transfer information to the security service of communist Poland, so the content of these reports must be disclosed. Cognitive value: Thus, the article provides the broader context, in which the content of the propaganda press is only one element of the system that controlled the public space.

The aim of the article: Despite the fact that everything we know in Polish history about the emergence of Solidarity [Polish: Solidarność], Polish trade unions, in 1980-1981, and the confl ict with the communist totalitarian regime is described in sources as 'the Polish Crisis', the question remains open about the contemporaneous deepening communication crisis of the communist government in Lithuania, whose history had long – until the middle of the 20th century – been very closely linked to the development of Poland. From 1951 to 1989, Lithuania was separated from Poland by a double barbed-wire Soviet border barrier without any border crossing points. Nevertheless, the author proposes delving into what type of information control measures the Soviet regime used in infl uencing the Lithuanian people by undermining their interest in the workers' strikes and the expanding trade union movement in Poland 40 years ago, trying to set Lithuanians against Polish society, and also how the media in the West helped renew the dialogue between Lithuanian and Polish diaspora organisations. Research methods: The author performed a content analysis of KGB documents in the Lithuanian Special Archives and examined the content of the Lithuanian SSR mass media and the mass media of the Lithuanian diaspora in the United States. Results and conclusions: The Soviet concept of security that was implemented by the repressive structure of the KGB was largely associated with the restriction of information, censorship and self-censorship of the population. However, it was also associated with the recruitment of Lithuanian citizens into ongoing cooperation with the secret service to collect data about Polish people who were 'disloyal' to the regime and transfer information to the security service of communist Poland, so the content of these reports must be disclosed. Cognitive value: Thus, the article provides the broader context, in which the content of the propaganda press is only one element of the system that controlled the public space.

The aim of the article: Despite the fact that everything we know in Polish history about the emergence of Solidarity [Polish: Solidarność], Polish trade unions, in 1980-1981, and the confl ict with the communist totalitarian regime is described in sources as 'the Polish Crisis', the question remains open about the contemporaneous deepening communication crisis of the communist government in Lithuania, whose history had long – until the middle of the 20th century – been very closely linked to the development of Poland. From 1951 to 1989, Lithuania was separated from Poland by a double barbed-wire Soviet border barrier without any border crossing points. Nevertheless, the author proposes delving into what type of information control measures the Soviet regime used in infl uencing the Lithuanian people by undermining their interest in the workers' strikes and the expanding trade union movement in Poland 40 years ago, trying to set Lithuanians against Polish society, and also how the media in the West helped renew the dialogue between Lithuanian and Polish diaspora organisations. Research methods: The author performed a content analysis of KGB documents in the Lithuanian Special Archives and examined the content of the Lithuanian SSR mass media and the mass media of the Lithuanian diaspora in the United States. Results and conclusions: The Soviet concept of security that was implemented by the repressive structure of the KGB was largely associated with the restriction of information, censorship and self-censorship of the population. However, it was also associated with the recruitment of Lithuanian citizens into ongoing cooperation with the secret service to collect data about Polish people who were 'disloyal' to the regime and transfer information to the security service of communist Poland, so the content of these reports must be disclosed. Cognitive value: Thus, the article provides the broader context, in which the content of the propaganda press is only one element of the system that controlled the public space.

The aim of the article: Despite the fact that everything we know in Polish history about the emergence of Solidarity [Polish: Solidarność], Polish trade unions, in 1980-1981, and the confl ict with the communist totalitarian regime is described in sources as 'the Polish Crisis', the question remains open about the contemporaneous deepening communication crisis of the communist government in Lithuania, whose history had long – until the middle of the 20th century – been very closely linked to the development of Poland. From 1951 to 1989, Lithuania was separated from Poland by a double barbed-wire Soviet border barrier without any border crossing points. Nevertheless, the author proposes delving into what type of information control measures the Soviet regime used in infl uencing the Lithuanian people by undermining their interest in the workers' strikes and the expanding trade union movement in Poland 40 years ago, trying to set Lithuanians against Polish society, and also how the media in the West helped renew the dialogue between Lithuanian and Polish diaspora organisations. Research methods: The author performed a content analysis of KGB documents in the Lithuanian Special Archives and examined the content of the Lithuanian SSR mass media and the mass media of the Lithuanian diaspora in the United States. Results and conclusions: The Soviet concept of security that was implemented by the repressive structure of the KGB was largely associated with the restriction of information, censorship and self-censorship of the population. However, it was also associated with the recruitment of Lithuanian citizens into ongoing cooperation with the secret service to collect data about Polish people who were 'disloyal' to the regime and transfer information to the security service of communist Poland, so the content of these reports must be disclosed. Cognitive value: Thus, the article provides the broader context, in which the content of the propaganda press is only one element of the system that controlled the public space.

This text is about one of the longest processes of political communication, which, decades on, influences politicians of various generations of the Central, Eastern and Western Europe, contents of media and self-awareness of the audience. The process isn't over yet, this is obvious not only from the document adopted by the EP but also from an international political rhetoric. Analysis of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed on 1939 in media (D'39Pact) and related national and international decisions is the axis of information conflict between the East and the West concerning thousands of fates. Those thousands of people had and still have different historical narratives – some people justified the Pact and implemented it, others were fighting for the elimination of its consequences, yet others fell victims to it, with a death toll estimated in the millions. But not everybody's narratives are based on true arguments.Let's look at the way the system of propaganda collapsed and the public opinion was transformed in countries of Central and Eastern Europe in 1988-1989. Moving from a lie to (hopefully) the historical truth. Review of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the main axis of such transformation (protection of environmental and cultural valuables, choice of one's viewpoint, legislative requirements and other rights were contextual aspects of this axis). During this period in the previously mentioned region the control of public space was on the decline.This view will be based on a single thematic discourse: the provision of consequences of the 1939 Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and criticism in communist model media of Lithuania and neighbouring countries. It may be called D'39Pact.D'39Pact in general has several narratives (it may also be seen from the EP Resolution), but taking into consideration the interpretation of Jurgen Habermas's Communicative Action, the analysis of transformation of 1988-1989 two of them would suffice, one of which is that of the authorities of the USSR and the other one – that of its opponents. Let's call opponents USSR dissidents, protestors, underground press (samizdat) and press of public movements which was published legally.Narrative of the USSR authorities: the treaty was the inevitable and no annexes (secret protocols) exist.Narrative of the opponents: based on secret protocols of the treaty, the USSR and Nazi Germany divided the countries and destroyed their political, military, cultural elite and finally – their population of various social layers.Medias, as the main participant of the public space, most clearly disclose the collision of such narratives and transformation in D'39Pact. The purpose of the article is to discuss the circumstances of transformation of MMPT from the historical perspective and of the public space and come across the factors, which influenced the strongest role of MMPT interpretative accomplishments. Considering the way out of the "labyrinth" regarding the D'39 Pact, we see some similarities with the situation that now exists in Russia.

This text is about one of the longest processes of political communication, which, decades on, influences politicians of various generations of the Central, Eastern and Western Europe, contents of media and self-awareness of the audience. The process isn't over yet, this is obvious not only from the document adopted by the EP but also from an international political rhetoric. Analysis of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed on 1939 in media (D'39Pact) and related national and international decisions is the axis of information conflict between the East and the West concerning thousands of fates. Those thousands of people had and still have different historical narratives – some people justified the Pact and implemented it, others were fighting for the elimination of its consequences, yet others fell victims to it, with a death toll estimated in the millions. But not everybody's narratives are based on true arguments.Let's look at the way the system of propaganda collapsed and the public opinion was transformed in countries of Central and Eastern Europe in 1988-1989. Moving from a lie to (hopefully) the historical truth. Review of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the main axis of such transformation (protection of envi-ronmental and cultural valuables, choice of one's viewpoint, legislative requirements and other rights were contextual aspects of this axis). During this period in the previously mentioned region the control of public space was on the decline. This view will be based on a single thematic discourse: the provision of consequences of the 1939 Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and criticism in communist model media of Lithuania and neighbouring countries. It may be called D'39Pact. D'39Pact in general has several narratives (it may also be seen from the EP Resolution), but taking into consideration the interpretation of Jurgen Habermas's Communicative Action, the analysis of transformation of 1988-1989 two of them would suffice, one of which is that of the authorities of the USSR and the other one– that of its opponents. Let's call opponents USSR dissidents, protestors, underground press (samizdat) and press of public movements which was published legally.Narrative of the USSR authorities: the treaty was the inevitable and no annexes (secret protocols) exist. Narrative of the opponents: based on secret protocols of the treaty, the USSR and Nazi Germany divided the countries and destroyed their political, military, cultural elite and finally – their population of various social layers. Medias, as the main participant of the public space, most clearly disclose the collision of such narratives and transformation in D'39Pact. The purpose of the article is to discuss the circumstances of transformation of MMPT from the historical perspective and of the public space and come across the factors, which influenced the strongest role of MMPT interpretative accomplishments. Considering the way out of the "labyrinth" regarding the D'39 Pact, we see some similarities with the situation that now exists in Russia.

This text is about one of the longest processes of political communication, which, decades on, influences politicians of various generations of the Central, Eastern and Western Europe, contents of media and self-awareness of the audience. The process isn't over yet, this is obvious not only from the document adopted by the EP but also from an international political rhetoric. Analysis of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed on 1939 in media (D'39Pact) and related national and international decisions is the axis of information conflict between the East and the West concerning thousands of fates. Those thousands of people had and still have different historical narratives – some people justified the Pact and implemented it, others were fighting for the elimination of its consequences, yet others fell victims to it, with a death toll estimated in the millions. But not everybody's narratives are based on true arguments.Let's look at the way the system of propaganda collapsed and the public opinion was transformed in countries of Central and Eastern Europe in 1988-1989. Moving from a lie to (hopefully) the historical truth. Review of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the main axis of such transformation (protection of environmental and cultural valuables, choice of one's viewpoint, legislative requirements and other rights were contextual aspects of this axis). During this period in the previously mentioned region the control of public space was on the decline.This view will be based on a single thematic discourse: the provision of consequences of the 1939 Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and criticism in communist model media of Lithuania and neighbouring countries. It may be called D'39Pact.D'39Pact in general has several narratives (it may also be seen from the EP Resolution), but taking into consideration the interpretation of Jurgen Habermas's Communicative Action, the analysis of transformation of 1988-1989 two of them would suffice, one of which is that of the authorities of the USSR and the other one– that of its opponents. Let's call opponents USSR dissidents, protestors, underground press (samizdat) and press of public movements which was published legally.Narrative of the USSR authorities: the treaty was the inevitable and no annexes (secret protocols) exist.Narrative of the opponents: based on secret protocols of the treaty, the USSR and Nazi Germany divided the countries and destroyed their political, military, cultural elite and finally – their population of various social layers.Medias, as the main participant of the public space, most clearly disclose the collision of such narratives and transformation in D'39Pact. The purpose of the article is to discuss the circumstances of transformation of MMPT from the historical perspective and of the public space and come across the factors, which influenced the strongest role of MMPT interpretative accomplishments. Considering the way out of the "labyrinth" regarding the D'39 Pact, we see some similarities with the situation that now exists in Russia. ; Straipsnyje išnagrinėjama Ribentropo-Molotovo pakto (1939) pasekmių diskurso istorinė patirtis išeinant iš ,,labirinto" (pagal U.Eco) ir sudaroma galimybė pamatyti, kokiame labirinte pagal tą patį SSRS sukonstruotą naratyvą yra dabartinė oficialioji Rusija.

This text is about one of the longest processes of political communication, which, decades on, influences politicians of various generations of the Central, Eastern and Western Europe, contents of media and self-awareness of the audience. The process isn't over yet, this is obvious not only from the document adopted by the EP but also from an international political rhetoric. Analysis of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed on 1939 in media (D'39Pact) and related national and international decisions is the axis of information conflict between the East and the West concerning thousands of fates. Those thousands of people had and still have different historical narratives – some people justified the Pact and implemented it, others were fighting for the elimination of its consequences, yet others fell victims to it, with a death toll estimated in the millions. But not everybody's narratives are based on true arguments.Let's look at the way the system of propaganda collapsed and the public opinion was transformed in countries of Central and Eastern Europe in 1988-1989. Moving from a lie to (hopefully) the historical truth. Review of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the main axis of such transformation (protection of envi-ronmental and cultural valuables, choice of one's viewpoint, legislative requirements and other rights were contextual aspects of this axis). During this period in the previously mentioned region the control of public space was on the decline. This view will be based on a single thematic discourse: the provision of consequences of the 1939 Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and criticism in communist model media of Lithuania and neighbouring countries. It may be called D'39Pact. D'39Pact in general has several narratives (it may also be seen from the EP Resolution), but taking into consideration the interpretation of Jurgen Habermas's Communicative Action, the analysis of transformation of 1988-1989 two of them would suffice, one of which is that of the authorities of the USSR and the other one– that of its opponents. Let's call opponents USSR dissidents, protestors, underground press (samizdat) and press of public movements which was published legally.Narrative of the USSR authorities: the treaty was the inevitable and no annexes (secret protocols) exist. Narrative of the opponents: based on secret protocols of the treaty, the USSR and Nazi Germany divided the countries and destroyed their political, military, cultural elite and finally – their population of various social layers. Medias, as the main participant of the public space, most clearly disclose the collision of such narratives and transformation in D'39Pact. The purpose of the article is to discuss the circumstances of transformation of MMPT from the historical perspective and of the public space and come across the factors, which influenced the strongest role of MMPT interpretative accomplishments. Considering the way out of the "labyrinth" regarding the D'39 Pact, we see some similarities with the situation that now exists in Russia.

This text is about one of the longest processes of political communication, which, decades on, influences politicians of various generations of the Central, Eastern and Western Europe, contents of media and self-awareness of the audience. The process isn't over yet, this is obvious not only from the document adopted by the EP but also from an international political rhetoric. Analysis of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed on 1939 in media (D'39Pact) and related national and international decisions is the axis of information conflict between the East and the West concerning thousands of fates. Those thousands of people had and still have different historical narratives – some people justified the Pact and implemented it, others were fighting for the elimination of its consequences, yet others fell victims to it, with a death toll estimated in the millions. But not everybody's narratives are based on true arguments.Let's look at the way the system of propaganda collapsed and the public opinion was transformed in countries of Central and Eastern Europe in 1988-1989. Moving from a lie to (hopefully) the historical truth. Review of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the main axis of such transformation (protection of envi-ronmental and cultural valuables, choice of one's viewpoint, legislative requirements and other rights were contextual aspects of this axis). During this period in the previously mentioned region the control of public space was on the decline. This view will be based on a single thematic discourse: the provision of consequences of the 1939 Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and criticism in communist model media of Lithuania and neighbouring countries. It may be called D'39Pact. D'39Pact in general has several narratives (it may also be seen from the EP Resolution), but taking into consideration the interpretation of Jurgen Habermas's Communicative Action, the analysis of transformation of 1988-1989 two of them would suffice, one of which is that of the authorities of the USSR and the other one– that of its opponents. Let's call opponents USSR dissidents, protestors, underground press (samizdat) and press of public movements which was published legally.Narrative of the USSR authorities: the treaty was the inevitable and no annexes (secret protocols) exist. Narrative of the opponents: based on secret protocols of the treaty, the USSR and Nazi Germany divided the countries and destroyed their political, military, cultural elite and finally – their population of various social layers. Medias, as the main participant of the public space, most clearly disclose the collision of such narratives and transformation in D'39Pact. The purpose of the article is to discuss the circumstances of transformation of MMPT from the historical perspective and of the public space and come across the factors, which influenced the strongest role of MMPT interpretative accomplishments. Considering the way out of the "labyrinth" regarding the D'39 Pact, we see some similarities with the situation that now exists in Russia.

This text is about one of the longest processes of political communication, which, decades on, influences politicians of various generations of the Central, Eastern and Western Europe, contents of media and self-awareness of the audience. The process isn't over yet, this is obvious not only from the document adopted by the EP but also from an international political rhetoric. Analysis of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed on 1939 in media (D'39Pact) and related national and international decisions is the axis of information conflict between the East and the West concerning thousands of fates. Those thousands of people had and still have different historical narratives – some people justified the Pact and implemented it, others were fighting for the elimination of its consequences, yet others fell victims to it, with a death toll estimated in the millions. But not everybody's narratives are based on true arguments.Let's look at the way the system of propaganda collapsed and the public opinion was transformed in countries of Central and Eastern Europe in 1988-1989. Moving from a lie to (hopefully) the historical truth. Review of consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was the main axis of such transformation (protection of envi-ronmental and cultural valuables, choice of one's viewpoint, legislative requirements and other rights were contextual aspects of this axis). During this period in the previously mentioned region the control of public space was on the decline. This view will be based on a single thematic discourse: the provision of consequences of the 1939 Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and criticism in communist model media of Lithuania and neighbouring countries. It may be called D'39Pact. D'39Pact in general has several narratives (it may also be seen from the EP Resolution), but taking into consideration the interpretation of Jurgen Habermas's Communicative Action, the analysis of transformation of 1988-1989 two of them would suffice, one of which is that of the authorities of the USSR and the other one– that of its opponents. Let's call opponents USSR dissidents, protestors, underground press (samizdat) and press of public movements which was published legally.Narrative of the USSR authorities: the treaty was the inevitable and no annexes (secret protocols) exist. Narrative of the opponents: based on secret protocols of the treaty, the USSR and Nazi Germany divided the countries and destroyed their political, military, cultural elite and finally – their population of various social layers. Medias, as the main participant of the public space, most clearly disclose the collision of such narratives and transformation in D'39Pact. The purpose of the article is to discuss the circumstances of transformation of MMPT from the historical perspective and of the public space and come across the factors, which influenced the strongest role of MMPT interpretative accomplishments. Considering the way out of the "labyrinth" regarding the D'39 Pact, we see some similarities with the situation that now exists in Russia.

The author examines how intensive Russian propa­ganda (both recognisable and unrecognisable) can expand any theoretical model of communication. Over the past 15 years, in the context of open military and democratic conflicts where Russia fights against Ukraine and over Ukraine, or over influence in the Middle East by bombarding Syrian cities, and where the European Union is breaking apart after the Brexit vote, informational politics has emerged as one of the most significant factors. The author claims that the National Security Concept of the Russian Federation, adopted in 2000, served as a stimulus to the current expansion of the official propaganda of Russia. The document in ques­tion has to be described as the start of Russian politics built on disinformation. The concept claims that, allegedly, Russia is threatened by the other nations' desire "to dominate on the global information space" and "push Russia out of the international and domestic information market"; the concept further claims that foreign states are supposedly developing "the concepts of information warfare that provide for measures of dangerous impact on the information areas of other nations around the world". If one wished to apply a communication model to the document in question, one would have to opt for the simplest, i.e. linear (sender – message – recipi­ent), model as there is no data implying that anyone had interpreted the content of the document as a set of symbols of inverted meaning, or had anticipated that Russia will itself start constructing information operations to justify its propagandistic politics. Russia embarked on the path of political warfare at the beginning of the 21st century, reclaiming its role of an influential state, though in places where it is unable to exercise direct censorship of the media yet can make use of the activities of foreign authorities and organ­isations, or discussions in the social media, it breaks down the relationships as opposed to building them. After a review of research papers on propaganda by various authors one is forced to agree that the most effective way to recognise Russian propaganda would be the application of the communication model developed by Garth S. Jowett and Victoria J. O'Donnell; however, as claimed by the author, if one was to look for propaganda organization, as suggested by Jowett and O'Donnell, one would be mistaken in their hopes to find just one (contrary to the political system of the former Soviet Union when all media was "directed" by the Communist Party divisions at the appropriate structural level by territo­rial units and party leadership levels). Seeing that in this age Russian politics have turned into the instiga­tion of a physical war (in the case of Ukraine) and its propaganda, one has to bear in mind that information operations that turn into propaganda messages and information warfare are carried out by various gov­ernmental institutions, municipalities and so called non-governmental organisations domestically and abroad. Consequently, a "systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct be­haviour" is not a sufficient characteristic to describe Russia's actions: by describing the phenomenon as an "attempt" one implies that propaganda, even though systematic, is just a short-term "creative exercise". The author concludes that Russian propaganda is an institutionalised form of state informational politics aimed to expand information spaces globally and to maintain informational influence in shaping a persuasive opinion justifying Russia's claims and predatory actions. Here information space is under­stood as a coverage beyond national borders where audiences have the technical means to accept and do accept messages transmitted over various channels. It also denotes informational state of the country: if, due to cultural or economic circumstances, there are factors in a society that make it possible to accept both useful and harmful (misleading) messages, these can be used to expand the information space. Over the period of 15 years Russia has developed political warfare by turning propaganda into a form and a tool of state politics. Stages of Russian political warfare (2000–2015): the development of guidelines and opinion control domestically (I); propaganda expansion (II); and information warfare on the global information space (III).The author believes that Russian propaganda techniques modify the theoretical model of commu­nication: the key role is played not by the "sender" in general, but by the organiser and the roles of both the sender and recipient may be switched at organiser's will; the role of the organiser itself is hidden. The switching of these roles is a method of Russian pro­paganda: those Western audiences that respect demo­cratic values and get information prepared in their language (content consistent with their concepts) may get involved as participants on the Russian informa­tion space (while being recipients they may, in fact, be turned into information senders). The "anti-American" sentiment is one of the particulars of the criticism of democracy (not just a political theory) that is used to switch the participants of the communication process. ; .