Hard Power (HP) has been in decline ever since the end of the Cold War. This is not to say that Soft Power (SP) did not exist before 1991 but the importance, which we attach to HP, was predominant over other instruments of state persuasion. The secondary role of SP was emphasised by state's inclination to turn to propaganda rather than to open and inclusive dialogue. Again, this is not to say that HP is a dying species. Far from it: a chain of civil wars in Yugoslavia, NATO's bombing of Serbia, wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Georgia, the spread of WMD, the rocketing military spending of many non-European countries, first of all the USA, – all these and many other examples epitomize the fact that although HP was considerably redressed by SP, it was not supplanted by it.

The more the military understand the importance of SP the better. But it is dubious that the military should be considered or be expected to be agents of SP including PD. The military by default is about HP. There are no soft bombs or soft bullets (although there are rubber bullets it would be quite an exaggeration to call them soft). What the military should be really good at is effective PR. To promote PD is to ask too much from them.

There was another shift in the 90s that was much more clear cut – from propaganda to what since 1960s has been called Public Diplomacy (PD) as one of the elements of SP. Although the goal basically stays the same – to influence in a positive ways the perceptions about a certain country or a group of states – a means of achieving it has become more subtle.

Is PD just a euphemism for propaganda? How to delimitate them? Propaganda by default is manipulative and implies information warfare. On the contrary, PD depends on trust and dialogue. Propaganda is associated with showcase, SP – with harnessing genuine resources. From this point of view PD is a mechanism of projecting these resources in a friendly and cooperative way beyond the boarders of a nation-state or a group of states.

Public diplomacy is quite a complex phenomenon. There are cultural, sport, political, corporate, religious and diplomatic PD. On the one hand it is easy to overestimate the meaning of PD to a point when it is so broad that gets meaningless. On the other, it seems equally wrong to try to fit it in the Procrustean bed of a too narrow interpretation. PD can be both inward and outward looking depending on which audience the state wants to inform and to influence – domestic or foreign. Sometimes domestic PD is also called Public Affairs.

But in both cases functions of PD are the same: to propagate one's countries achievements, to banish negative stereotypes and cliche, to spread and enhance one's knowledge and awareness about the past and the present of a certain country and culture. And the principles are the same: creativity, openness, tolerance, networking, readiness to listen, to learn and to adapt.

There are several variants of PD. The Old PD (that does not mean it is necessarily obsolete, is a part of a wider state diplomatic strategy. This is a domain of the state. It is macro, top-down, governmental PD, which includes PR, charm offensives and other methods. In other words it is an extension of a traditional state-to-state diplomacy, the public face of conventional diplomacy. But there are certain differences between them: traditional diplomacy deals mostly with issues whereas PD – often with values.

Wilton Park and Ditchley Park are good examples of top-down PD. In 2010 a similar structure has been set up in Russia by the Presidential order at the Ministery of Foreign Relations – the Foundation for the Support of PD named after Prince Gorchakov. Another example of successful top-down PD projects are: Russia Today TV channel, Valdai Club, Petersburg Dialogue between Russia and Germany.

Another variant of PD is new micro, bottom up, non-state PD, which is sometimes called people's diplomacy. This is a domain of the public. It can as overlap with the Old PD as have its own logic and purpose. For instance, the aid flotilla, which tried to break the blockade of Gaza, is a good example of non-state PD, or the International Public Forum "Dialogue of Civilizations" based in Vienna (co-chaired in Russia by Vladimir Yakunin), or Baltic Forum in Yurmala, Latvia (co-chaired in Russia by Igor Yurgens).

At last there is an integrated new PD when the state and civil society unite their efforts in using mechanisms of Soft Power including PD. For example, Cool Britain project, Eurovision Song Contest, British Council, Russkiy Mir Foundation or the European Economic and Social Committee are good examples of integrated approach to PD. One more recent example – the creation of the Russian Council of Foreign Affairs to intensify dialogue between Russian and foreign experts in security, political studies and practices.

We can demarcate different varieties of PD by defining who are its agents (the state, NGOs or both) and also we can say what unite these activities: firstly, at the receiving end of PD is always the general public, and, secondly, agents of PD are expected to look for partnerships, for understanding, for sharing and cooperation. The power of partnerships is the bedrock, the foundation, the most distinct feature of PD.

PD is one of the embodiments of Soft Power and the latter is about making your country, its system of values, your culture and aspirations likable, acceptable and attractive in the world. Unlike traditional diplomacy PD is not about state-to-state communication but about state-to-society or society-to-state interaction. This kind of communication is a two way street. It implies not so much projection of what you think but rather a quest for a proper place for your ideas in the world.