The global geopolitical balance of power is rapidly transforming in the 21st century, swinging away from the Global North towards the Global South. This is affecting international relations and foreign policy as there are increasing different visions and perspectives that move away from established Western-oriented theory and practice. The result is a need to rethink such key concepts and their application as soft power, which has evolved in practice rather differently than envisioned by Nye. Using online materials in Russia and Turkey, a qualitative analysis is conducted on the quality of relations and interactions of the two countries and whether this constitutes soft power and/or strategic pragmatism. A rather nuanced result suggests that although strategic pragmatism is at the forefront of their relationship, soft power has not been forgotten and plays a complementary role in supporting a functioning relationship in difficult times.

The aim of this article is to analyze communications from the presidential and security council websites on the interpretations and representations of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War to understand how people, places, and events were interpreted and represented in terms of realism and constructivism in the geopolitics of the conflict to global audiences. Critical discourse analysis is used as a methodology for highlighting and making sense of texts in terms of the intangible elements of power relations, reputation and brand of the actors, relative balance of ethics and morality of the belligerents, value judgements, and predictions of the war’s outcome. There is a clear tendency to engage in what Sun Tsu and von Clausewitz characterize as the politics of war using brand and reputation management to global audiences of a good and virtuous self-image versus a projected ruthless opponent lacking virtue. This is an exploratory paper with an indicative result, and several apparent trends emerge. One observation suggests that the actor that is militarily weaker tends to communicate more often to shape the political variables that influence the conduct of war. The role of constructivist rhetoric is being used to justify and legitimize realist-oriented policy and practice in war.

In the late 20th century, geopolitics was considered by some to be dead and redundant, with the Western-centric world emerging triumphant from the Cold War with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union. However, the era of the transforming global order has brought geopolitics and geostrategy very much back to the forefront of international relations. Increasingly in the 21st century, international observers and analysts from the Western and non-Western worlds have been noting, tracking, and analysing a massive transformation that is currently underway in the global geopolitical order. This transformation that is occurring is an evolution away from a Western-centric United States unipolar order towards a non-Western-centric and multipolar configuration. The Western world is experiencing various systematic crises, many of which have been self-induced, and the United States is not prepared to abandon its dreams of continued global hegemony. This was openly stated by Joseph Biden in his presidential election campaign in 2020 when it was publicly announced that the United States sought to reclaim its position as a 'global leader.' China is one of the leading countries among the ascending non-Western-centric multipolar order, hence a target in the geostrategic aims of the United States and its quest to retain its global hegemonic position. The United States is seemingly falling back upon the geopolitical and geostrategic orthodoxy that is enshrined in the works of Mackinder and Brzezinski as a means of shaping and informing their foreign and security policy strategy and agenda. This chapter shall employ a qualitative analysis of academic literature by Chinese researchers after the US Pivot to Asia declaration, making use of a constructivist paradigm. This shall be used to resolve the research question, what challenges in terms of threats and opportunities do US geostrategic imperatives in Eurasia pose for China and the realisation of a Multipolar World Order 2.0?

Chapter three concerns the role and influence of politics and other intangible elements in modern warfare. This is taken from a historical perspective with the philosophy of great military strategy thinkers such as Sun Tzu, Niccolo Macchiavelli and Carl von Clausewitz, and the influence of their ideas on the contemporary information war battlefield that runs parallel to physical wars.

The Conclusion summarises the sum of the individual parts of the knowledge contained across the ten chapters of this book. This is done by answering the three research questions that were posed in the Introduction of the book.

Armed conflict not only concerns kinetic elements in a physical contest, but also a parallel competition for information dominance to influence and persuade audiences. Information Operations and Influence Activity are used to motivate and justify military operations, because warfare is a highly political and politicised activity that requires representation and interpretation to justify beginning or continuing wars.