This study explores how presidential candidates during the 2020 American election were tied to external others, taking the shape of China and Russia. The study argues that an identity perspective becomes fruitful for addressing the research problem, as it becomes a matter of who "we" as a nation are. In general, identity studies tend to focus on the external other, while this study aims to contribute with an understanding of how the internal and external other can be interconnected.  American exceptionalism - the notion that the US has a unique role to play on the world stage - is a prominent part of American political identity. Nonetheless, the concept of exceptionalism also implies that being an American is an act of choice and not exclusively a birthright, thus individuals and values can be labeled as "un-American". Drawing on and combining the theoretical insights from Michel Foucault, Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, and Ty Solomon, politics in itself becomes a narrative war to fill nodal points with a hegemonic substance based on a wish for identity-fulfillment. The study finds that the other candidate is separated from the idea of what constitutes the US by reference to foreign and threatening powers. The other candidate is framed as unfit to be president, and since he does not correspond with the identity of the nation itself, he can not lead and personify the US. Thus, the other candidate is narratively constructed as unable to grant the wish for national identity fulfillment. The substance of the nodal points also does not exhibit a value in themselves but has to be contrasted against something or someone - in this case, an Other.

Following the 2008 Georgian war, Russia identified major deficiencies in its warfare capability, which lead to an extensive reformation and modernization of Russian forces. The reformation was accompanied by a Russian theoretical discussion concerning the wars of tomorrow. Several eminent Russian theorists emphasized the growing importance of non-kinetic means and methods, of which psychological warfare was considered as one of the most primary. Western scholars also emphasized an increased Russian focus on psychological warfare. Despite the identified increased significance on the subject, there is a palpable lack of research on contemporary Russian psychological warfare. This study aims to decrease this lack of research on the subject. Using a theory consuming approach, Russian psychological warfare is analyzed from two cases, Georgia 2008 and Crimea 2014. The study is based on a qualitative text analysis of open sources. By combining two theories on psychological warfare, an analytical tool is developed which is then used in the analysis of the two cases. The theories that form the study´s theoretical base derives from Martin Libicki and Ron Schleifer. The two cases are analyzed and then followed by a comparative analysis of the cases. The study’s result shows that psychological warfare is an important component in Russian warfare, especially in the case of Crimea. Furthermore the study indicates that psychological warfare was a main component in the Crimea case, whereas it was a mere supportive component in the Georgian case.   The results show that Russian psychological warfare is used above all to create a favorable strategic context, where the Russian society and neutrals appears to be the most important target audiences to influence. The results also indicates that psychological warfare contributes in misleading the opponent and could thereby also contribute with obvious operational and tactical advantages for Russian warfare.

The characteristics of the Russian military operations during the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 and again in the Crimean Crisis 2014, were “rude awakenings” to a shift in the strategic behaviour of Russia, not refraining from military aggression as means to political aims. In the aftermath of these “strategic shocks”, the scholarly debate on how to interpret and understand these limited wars, has several ongoing discussions, among which is whether this modern Russian style of warfare, as demonstrated in Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere, really is a novel concept or plainly “old wine in a new bottle”. This thesis is part taking in that debate through the theoretical framework of three Soviet era warfare methods from the psychological dimension: Deception – Maskirovka, Information Warfare – Reflexive Control, and Subversion – Active Measures. Within the framework, an analytical tool for qualitative text analysis is designed and then applied for the case studies of the Russo-Georgian War, as it compares to the Crimean Crisis, collecting indicators for the apparent presence of traditional methods in these cases. The study concludes that the Soviet era warfare concepts of Maskirovka, Reflexive Control and Active Measures, are relevant as explanators for a facet of the modern day Russian warfare style, in alignment with the general argument on the Russian warfare doctrine as evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, vis-a-vis the strategic practices of the Soviet era.

Media har en väldigt betydande roll i hur vi uppfattar det som sker runt om i världen. Uppfattningen vi får utifrån en händelse beror till stor del av hur media rapporterar kring den händelsen. Ryssland anses vara ett land som idag kan väcka en del känslor i olika sammanhang, allt från utrikespolitik till idrottsvärlden. I början av 2014 skrevs det mycket om Ryssland i samband med Ukraina konflikten. En konflikt som FN och västvärlden fördömt Ryssland för. Studien syftar till att förstå hur rysktalande och svenska medborgare upplever medierapporteringen kring Ryssland. Målet har varit att ta reda på om media kan ha påverkat människors uppfattning om Ryssland beroende på hur rapporteringen sett ut men även hur relationen mellan Sverige och Ryssland upplevts. Den metod som valdes för studien var kvalitativ intervju där intervjupersonerna var både rysktalande samt svenska medborgare. Resultatet har visat att samtliga respondenter upplevt att medierapporteringen kring Ryssland har varit negativ. Anledningarna till att rapporteringen upplevts negativ har varit olika både bland rysktalande och svenska medborgare. Samtliga respondenter menar även att nyhetsrapporteringen i media kan påverka ens uppfattning om Ryssland på så sätt att läsaren antingen inte är insatt i ämnet eller inte kritiskt granskat informationen som tagits del av och bildat sin uppfattning utifrån det media valt att framhäva. Vidare menar respondenterna att media med all rätt kan ifrågasätta den ryska politiken men menar samtidigt att det inte rättvist att svartmåla Ryssland. Den dåliga relationen mellan Sverige och Ryssland beror säkerligen på staternas olika ideologier, värderingar och intressen som varit en stor påverkan för hur relationen ser ut men även en förklaring till varför medierapporteringen ser ut som den gör. / The media has a significant impact on how we perceive the things that occur around the globe. The perception we receive about a specific incident has a lot to do with the way media reports about that significant incident. Russia is a nation that stirs up emotions in different contexts, it can be anything between politics and sports. In the beginning of 2014, there were a lot of reports about Russia concerning the Crimea crisis and the Ukrainian conflict which ended up with the west and USA condemning Russia. The purpose of this study is to give an insight on how the Russian speaking community and Swedish citizens experience the way the media reports on Russia. The goal is to figure out whether the media has an impact on people’s opinions because of the reports and because of the unstable relations between Sweden and Russia. The method that was used was a qualitative interview with Russian speaking Swedish citizens. The results has shown that all respondents agreed that the media reporting about russia has been negative. The Russian speaking community and the Swedish citizens have different reasons behind those feelings. All the respondents have also indicated that the news reporting in the media can affect a persons perception about russia, especially individuals who hasn’t done their own research because they will form their own opinion from the medias reporting.The respondents feel like the media has a right to question the politics in Russia but it’s not fair to put Russia in a bad light because of that. The bad relations between Russia and Sweden exists because of the different ideologies, values and interests of the two nations, which has had a huge impact on the relationship and it’s also an explanation to why the media reports on russia they way it does.

Detta arbete är en studie i hållbar gestaltning, där de många teoretiska principer appliceras på tre mycket olika platser på jorden. Tre ekologiskt hållbara enfamiljshus projekteras i Sibirien, i sydöstra Spanien, och i Stockholms inre skärgård. Husen är helt olika. Vitruvius sade: "Vi måste börja med att beakta de länder och de klimat som hus skall byggas i, för att gestalta byggnaderna rätt. En typ av hus är lämplig för Egypten, en annan för Spanien, och ytterligare en för Rom. Detta för att en del av jorden ligger rakt under solens bana, en annan långt borta från den, medan den tredje ligger emellan de två. "

After a period of political unrest in Ukraine in late 2013 and the beginning of 2014, the so called Euromaidan movement, Russia decided to invade and late annex the Crimea. The act changed the conception of both European and world security and has opened up for scholarly debate on why Russia chose to make this move. The purpose of this study is to bring a new perspective on the underlying reasons behind the invasion with the help of Van Evera’s window theory. The theory’s hypothesis states that war is more likely if and when the relative power between states fluctuates sharply and the theory aims to examine if and how windows caused by this fluctuation are the causes of war. The result shows that a shift in power has taken place between Russia and the west and that different types of windows has forced Russia into a state where they saw preventive war as the only choice if they wanted to keep their control over the Crimea. The window theory has given a new perspective on the underlying reasons for Russia’s invasion and the purpose of this study is therefor considered to be fulfilled.

The ability to use electronic warfare and conduct operations within the electromagnetic spectrum has since the 20th century gained a prominent role in modern warfare and is today largely viewed as a vital part of it. This view though is based on a field of research which mainly consists of studies lacking a problematizing or critical standpoint. This study therefore undertakes the task to question the consensus of electronic warfare as a vital part of the modern battlefield, to gain an understanding whether this view is only based on theoretical suggestions or due to it also being successful when applied in conflicts. This is done by investigating two cases: The Gulf War and Russia’s war in Georgia, by a qualitative research from a theoretical standpoint off Antoine Bousquet’s theory of military technology and its creation of perception.  The result show that electronic warfare has been mostly successful when applied in conflicts, while demanding to apply with great success. The study opens to a broader field for future studies with questions which remains unanswered. Was its successfulness due to technical developments, tactical applications or an enemy who lacks experience and education to effectively handle it?

With a world than is becoming more and more urbanized and with more importance being placed on cities the likelihood that our urban centers will be the focus of future warfare increases. This study will examine how Alice Hills theory can explain success in urban warfare in a comparative case study. The purpose of this study is to affect the validity of Hills theory. This method used in this study is a theory testing case to examine to what extent Hills´s theory can explain the failure during the first battle of Grozny and the success during the second battle of Grozny and by doing so increasing the validity of hills Theory. The two cases have similar background variables, which allows for a structured comparison of the two cases. The analysis is based on Hills’s success factors in urban warfare.  The results show the importance of morale and skill in urban combat.

Studies have shown that the Russian operations in Georgia and Crimea have been described as both examples of failed and successful operations. Both conflicts had hybrid elements to them, especially the Russian annexation of Crimea which jumpstarted the western debate into the subject.  This study aims to analyse the difference in Russian methodology and differences between the two conflicts, this is done based on a theoretical framework of ‘effective hybrid warfare’. The goal of this study is to discern to what extent these two cases can be described as effective hybrid warfare operations. This is done thru the method of comparative studies.  The results showed that the operation on Crimea to a greater extent could be considered effective hybrid warfare, more specifically, the weaker aspects of the Russian operation in Georgia seemed to have been corrected and were less present in the Crimean operation. This indicates that the Russian staff learned from its mistakes and the weak points of the Crimean operation is not likely to be present in their next campaign.

The fact that interventions take place on dubious grounds is not a new phenomenon, but it isan area that is constantly interesting to study as the forms of foreign and security policy areconstantly changing. The Russian intervention in Georgia in 2008 is a formative crossroad forRussia's foreign and security policy. Since then, Russia motivates the Russian interventions,in other sovereign states, by referring to the protection of its own citizens. This studydemonstrates how Russia uses securitization theory as part of its foreign and security policy.By referring to the protection of its own citizens in the intervened state, Russia seekslegitimacy for the Russian interventions. Russia is constructing a threat to Russian citizens,which aims to legitimize Russian action to the international community. The study analyzesthe UN Security Council's meeting records from the Georgia War 2008 and the CrimeanCrisis 2014 based on the Copenhagen School's securitization theory. The analysis examineshow Russia argues that there is a threat to the Russian population in Georgia and Ukraine,during their statements in the Security Council. The study also examines how Russia justifiesits actions and how the other states in the Security Council perceive the stated threat and theRussian measures. The results of the analysis clearly sheds light on how Russia construct athreat, how Russia repeatedly justifies its actions and how the member states of the SecurityCouncil criticize the Russian actions. The Russian action is not perceived as legitimate by theSecurity Council, which is required for the securitization to be considered successful, butthere are clear signs that Russia has conducted a security attempt in both Georgia in 2008 andUkraine in 2014. Because of the many similarities between the cases, the study also shows atrend over time, which justifies the conclusion that Russia uses securitization as part of its foreign and security policy.