Historical factors (n=17).

The included studies identify historical factors primarily as past wars, conflicts, colonial legacies, unresolved historical issues, collective memory, and state-led narrative framing of these histories (e.g., [53,62,69,70]). Our synthesis reveals that historical factors as foundational yet contested elements shaping wartime global image through four interconnected mechanisms. Synthesis across 17 studies demonstrates these mechanisms operate within specific contextual constraints, generating both enduring legacies and strategic opportunities:

1. (1) Providing Cognitive Frameworks. Historical events supply potent analogies and reference points that structure global media and public interpretation of current conflicts. These frameworks actively shape perceptual lenses, making certain interpretations more salient. For instance: China’s reconstruction of Anti-Japanese War imagery provided a ready-made framework for understanding contemporary geopolitical stances [53]. Comparisons of Russian actions in Ukraine to Nazi aggression leveraged World War II symbolism to frame current events within a widely understood narrative of unprovoked aggression [26]. The effectiveness of historical analogies depends on their recognizability and perceived relevance to the international audience [70]. Overly reductive or contested analogies can backfire or polarize.
2. (2) Triggering Affective & Moral Responses. Specific historical traumas or triumphs evoke powerful emotions (sympathy, fear, resentment, admiration) that anchor moral evaluations of conflict actors. These responses often bypass rational deliberation. References to Spain’s colonial losses or the suffering during the Spanish Civil War continue to evoke national pathos, impacting external perceptions [62]. Ukraine’s mobilization of narratives centered on historical resistance (e.g., Cossack heritage, Holodomor) fostered international sympathy by framing the current conflict as another chapter in a long struggle for survival [69]. The emotional potency of history is amplified in conflicts with deep historical roots (e.g., Israel-Palestine [41]), where contemporary violence reactivates collective trauma.
3. (3) Enabling Intent & Credibility Assessments. Past behavioral patterns become heuristics for judging a state’s current reliability, intentions, and likely adherence to norms during war. Research on reputations (e.g., for resolve or treaty adherence [50,51,54]) shows how past actions influence calculations of alliance trustworthiness and deterrence efficacy. A state perceived as historically unreliable faces greater skepticism. Germany’s post-WWII commitment to pacifism and multilateralism, built over decades, initially shaped expectations (and criticisms) of its response to the Ukraine invasion [33].
4. (4) Serving Legitimization/Delegitimization. Historical narratives are actively weaponized by warring parties to justify their own actions and discredit adversaries. States deliberately invoke or reconstruct history: Ukraine framed its resistance as defending “European values” against a recurring Russian imperial threat [26], while Russia portrayed its actions as correcting historical injustices or resisting NATO encroachment (framed as a continuation of Western hostility) [69,72,76]. Embedding adversaries within negative historical analogies (e.g., Nazi comparisons [26], colonial oppressors) is a common delegitimization tactic [45,53]. This is a contested terrain. Multiple actors (states, media, diaspora, civil society) actively reinterpret the past. Spain’s strategic “taming” of Civil War memory demonstrates state efforts to manage sensitive history for contemporary image goals [62].

We conclude that historical factors function as a dynamic interpretive battleground rather than a static backdrop. Their influence stems from the interplay between deeply ingrained collective memories/emotions and the strategic agency of actors who selectively mobilize, reframe, or suppress aspects of the past. While historical legacies create path dependencies shaping perceptions of intent and moral standing, their impact is contingent on the strategic skill with which narratives are constructed and disseminated, their resonance with pre-existing international understandings, and the specific historical depth of the conflict context. History’s potency lies in its dual role: providing seemingly objective frameworks for understanding present chaos while simultaneously serving as a highly subjective tool for wartime justification and condemnation. Successfully navigating this terrain requires states to acknowledge the weight of history while strategically managing its narrative to align with contemporary image goals, mindful of the risks of oversimplification and the contested nature of historical memory itself.

Diplomatic factors (n=16).

Diplomatic Factors—encompassing strategic communication, alliance building, public diplomacy, and crisis management—prove instrumental in shaping wartime global images. States actively deploy narrative framing to dominate conflict interpretations, exemplified by Qatar’s leveraging of Al Jazeera during the Gulf crisis [59]. Concurrently, alliance signaling serves as a legitimacy anchor, with Ukraine’s NATO aspirations [63] and Qatar’s trilateral cooperation with Western powers [59] demonstrating how multilateral endorsements amplify perceived credibility. Soft power initiatives further buffer negative perceptions: Germany’s cultural diplomacy is a key tool for dispelling historical stigma [33], while Turkey’s humanitarian response to Syrian refugees reframed its regional role [44].

Our critical analysis reveals four key tensions: (1) Alliance Building and Signaling as Legitimacy Anchors. Forming, maintaining, and signaling alliances is a critical diplomatic tool for wartime image management. Multilateral endorsements and cooperation serve as powerful signals of legitimacy and credibility. Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership and Western support became central to its image as a victim defending democratic values against aggression, garnering significant international sympathy and aid [63]. Qatar’s trilateral cooperation with the US, France, and Turkey during the Gulf Crisis provided tangible diplomatic backing that bolstered its global image and resilience [59]. Conversely, Russia’s diplomatic isolation following its invasion of Ukraine served to severely damage its international reputation [52].

1. (2) Soft Power and Humanitarian Diplomacy as Buffers. Diplomatic efforts extend beyond immediate conflict justification to include soft power initiatives and humanitarian actions that can mitigate negative perceptions or reframe a country’s role. Turkey’s humanitarian response to Syrian refugees, framed through diplomatic channels and international news agencies, played a role in reshaping its regional image during the Syrian crisis [44]. Germany’s sustained post-war cultural diplomacy has been instrumental in dispelling historical stigma and rebuilding trust, demonstrating the long-term image value of soft power [33]. However, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s experience highlights the limitations of soft power/branding efforts when underlying political and ethnic tensions remain unresolved, hindering effective post-conflict image rehabilitation [30].
2. (3) Crisis Communication and Responsiveness. The ability to manage diplomatic communications swiftly and effectively during rapidly evolving crises is paramount. This involves addressing accusations, providing updates, and managing international expectations. Studies on real-time digital diplomacy (e.g., Ukraine, Israel-Palestine) emphasize the importance of agility and responsiveness in this domain [39,50,52,63].
3. (4) Strategic Narrative Framing and Information Dominance. States actively deploy diplomatic communication to construct and disseminate narratives framing the conflict, their role, and their adversary’s actions. This aims to dominate the international interpretation of events. For instance: Qatar leveraged Al Jazeera during the Gulf Crisis to project its narrative and counter regional rivals, significantly influencing its international standing [59]. Israel’s “digital hasbara” strategy utilizes social media for real-time rebuttals and narrative control in asymmetric conflicts [39,50]. Russia employed sophisticated communication strategies, often through state-aligned media like RT Arabic, to justify its actions in Syria and Ukraine, attempting to shape perceptions particularly in specific regional audiences [35,56].

We argue that diplomatic efforts function as a complex ecosystem of influence where narrative construction, alliance politics, credibility management, and soft power leverage interact dynamically to shape wartime perceptions. Success is fundamentally contingent on the strategic alignment of rhetoric, action, and identity: narratives must resonate authentically with target audiences and be substantiated by observable state behavior and policy choices. While digital tools offer unprecedented reach and speed, they amplify the risks of the credibility-audience paradox. Crucially, diplomacy’s efficacy is not uniform; smaller states or those under sanctions can exploit niche strategies or counter-narratives, but all actors operate within the constraining force of international scrutiny. Effective wartime diplomacy thus requires navigating a tension between immediate narrative control and the long-term cultivation of credibility through consistent, values-aligned actions that reinforce the state’s projected identity on the global stage.

Leadership factors (n=14).

Our analysis of the 14 articles reveals leadership as a dynamic and multifaceted factor shaping wartime global image through three primary mechanisms: symbolic representation, strategic communication, and crisis decision-making. Synthesis across studies indicates these mechanisms operate within specific contextual constraints and generate distinct perceptual outcomes. Its symbolic representation is that of a leader who embodies the Nation.

1. (1) Symbolic representation. Studies converge on leaders becoming potent symbolic anchors during conflict, personifying national resolve, values, and victimhood/perpetrator status. Volodymyr Zelensky’s transformation into a global symbol of democratic resistance exemplifies this [66,73,74]. His ubiquitous media presence, military attire, and direct appeals fostered international identification with Ukraine as the “underdog.” Conversely, leadership symbolism can also reinforce negative images. Analysis of Russian leadership communication framed actions within narratives of historical grievance and national restoration, which resonated domestically but solidified perceptions of aggression abroad [56].
2. (2) strategic communication. Strategic communication mainly manifests itself in Controlling the Narrative. Leadership directly shapes image through deliberate media engagement and message control. Studies document leaders and elites using platforms (traditional media, social media) to frame conflicts, justify actions, demonize opponents, and appeal for support (“digital hasbara,” strategic wartime tweets) [29,73,74]. President Biden’s discursive strategies regarding the Russo-Ukrainian War, employing legitimization frames (e.g., democracy vs. autocracy), were identified as instrumental in rallying Western support and shaping perceptions of US leadership [43]. The credibility of leadership communication is paramount. Studies highlight a tension: while real-time, direct communication (e.g., Zelensky’s social media) can build empathy and bypass traditional media gatekeepers [73], overly controlled propaganda or messages contradicted by evidence can backfire, damaging international trust [29,43,50,73].
3. (3) Crisis decision-making. Crisis Decision-Making and Action is Demonstrating Resolve and Values. Leaders’ concrete actions during war significantly impact the image. Decisions regarding military strategy, humanitarian conduct, alliance management, and adherence to international norms are scrutinized globally. Perceived resolve and competence are critical dimensions. Research on reputational costs suggests that leaders perceived as vacillating or ineffective can damage their nation’s image and embolden adversaries [50]. Conversely, decisive actions aligned with stated values (e.g., organizing refugee aid [71]) bolster positive perceptions. Leadership transitions introduce significant uncertainty. Leadership changes can disrupt established reputations for resolve or diplomatic postures, impacting how allies and adversaries perceive the nation’s commitment and predictability [50].

We conclude that leadership is not a monolithic factor but operates through interconnected symbolic, communicative, and behavioral channels. Its impact on global image is highly contingent on the perceived consistency between rhetoric and action, the leader’s ability to project authenticity and resolve that resonates with target audiences, and the specific context of the conflict (e.g., perceived legitimacy of the cause, democratic vs. authoritarian setting). While charismatic leadership can provide a powerful national image boost (e.g., Zelensky), it cannot fully offset the reputational damage caused by actions widely condemned by the international community.

Military factors (n=9).

Military factors encompass a state’s actual military conduct, strategic execution, and its direct impact on its global image. Our comprehensive analysis reveals that military factors significantly shape a country’s image through the following mechanisms.

1. (1) Operational Effectiveness and Tactical Execution. Military successes or failures directly signal national strength and resolve. For instance, Ukraine’s successful defense in the early stages of the 2022 war (e.g., the Battle of Kyiv) rapidly enhanced its image as a “resilient underdog” [26]. Conversely, military setbacks or retreats may be interpreted as weakness or strategic failure, as seen in Russia’s struggles in certain Ukrainian campaigns, which damaged its reputation as a military power [65].
2. (2) Compliance with International Humanitarian Law and Conduct. Adherence to the laws of war (e.g., distinguishing military from civilian targets, treating prisoners of war) serves as a key basis for moral judgment. Violations of international law (e.g., attacks on civilian infrastructure) trigger strong international condemnation and reputational damage [65], while restrained and professional military behavior may garner respect or even sympathy.

Military factors do not operate in isolation, their impact on the image highly depends on diplomatic narratives (e.g., whether military actions are successfully justified) and leadership symbolism (e.g., whether leaders personally visit frontline troops). Moreover, the visual representation of military actions (e.g., drone footage, war correspondent reports) amplifies these effects through digital platforms, further strengthening or undermining image projection [36].

Cultural factors (n=7).

Cultural factors indirectly shape how the international community interprets a country’s wartime actions through soft power, cultural affinity, and value-based communication.

1. (1) Cultural Affinity and Narrative Resonance. Culturally similar countries or regions more easily understand and accept certain narratives. For example, Western media coverage of the Iraq War was significantly influenced by cultural values—U.S. media emphasized a “liberation” narrative, while Arab media focused more on civilian casualties and resistance [47].
2. (2) Cultural Diplomacy and Nation Branding. Long-term cultural outreach (e.g., language promotion, artistic exchanges, educational cooperation) helps build a “reservoir of credibility” that can mitigate negative perceptions during crises. Germany, through sustained cultural exchange and historical reflection, successfully reshaped its post-war image, allowing it to act as a “mediator” rather than an “aggressor” during the Ukraine crisis [33].

The influence of cultural factors tends to be delayed and long-term. While their effect may be less immediate than diplomatic or military factors during intense warfare, they play a crucial role in post-conflict reconstruction and long-term image rehabilitation.

Governmental factors (n=7).

Governmental factors relate to a state’s political system, governance efficacy, and domestic political coherence, providing the background against which the international community assesses its credibility and legitimacy.

1. (1) Political System and Democratic Credibility. Democratic countries are generally perceived as more transparent and accountable, making their wartime actions more likely to gain international trust. Research indicates that democratic states more easily maintain their reputations during crises [34]. In contrast, authoritarian regimes often face skepticism regarding their intentions, as seen in Russia’s portrayal in Western media as an “unpredictable aggressor” [60].
2. (2) Domestic Political Coherence and Stability. Internal political divisions or policy inconsistency can undermine international confidence in a country’s wartime commitments. For example, delays in U.S. aid to Ukraine amid bipartisan disputes were interpreted as “commitment uncertainty”, affecting its image as a reliable ally [34].

Governmental factors provide “background credibility” for diplomatic and military behavior. Their influence, though indirect, is profound—especially in prolonged conflicts and post-war phases.

Geopolitical factors (n=6).

Geopolitical factors involve a state’s position in the international system, its alliance relationships, and strategic interests, which precondition how the international community interprets its actions.

1. (1) Alliance and Bloc Affiliation. A country’s membership in alliance systems (e.g., NATO, CSTO, Non-Aligned Movement) directly influences its image positioning. Ukraine’s status as a “NATO candidate” naturally garnered sympathy and support from Western blocs [63], while Russia’s antagonistic geopolitical stance toward the West placed it within an “adversarial” narrative [65,70,72,78].
2. (2) Historical Geopolitical Rivalries and Memory. Historical geopolitical rivalries (e.g., Russo-Ukrainian relations, Middle Eastern conflicts) persistently influence contemporary image judgments. For example, Poland’s historical fear of Russia made it one of the most vocal critics of Moscow during the Ukraine war [70].

Geopolitical factors essentially act as “structural filters”, determining which historical narratives are activated, which diplomatic signals are trusted, and which leadership behaviors are amplified or ignored.

Digital Technology (n=1).

Digital technology fundamentally reconfigures the very battlefield of image formation. It is not merely a communication channel but an environment that shapes how narratives are constructed, disseminated, and consumed in near real-time. Blaagaard et al. [36]highlight how digital images contribute to globalized conflict perception, creating immediate and visceral connections to distant wars. This factor underpins the modern context in which all other factors (e.g., diplomatic communication, leadership symbolism) are amplified and contested.

Affective Investments (n=1).

This factor moves beyond rational or ideological persuasion to focus on the deliberate cultivation of emotional responses to shape moral alignment and audience allegiance. Crilley & Chatterje-Doody [40], demonstrate how Russia’s RT used visual narratives of the Syria conflict to make deliberate affective investments, eliciting emotions like sympathy (for civilians) or outrage (against perceived aggressors) that shape audience alignment and moral evaluation of conflict parties beyond rational analysis.

Subliminal Priming (n=1).

This factor operates at a subconscious level, suggesting that image formation is influenced by cues that audiences are not actively aware of, revealing a psychological depth to image perception. Castano et al. [46] provide experimental evidence that subliminal primes of national image attributes (e.g., “modern” vs. “traditional”) can directly shape individuals’ foreign policy preferences. This indicates that a country’s image operates as a cognitive schema—a network of associated attributes—that can be activated automatically. Unlike overt propaganda, subliminal priming works by subtly activating these schemas, thereby influencing how subsequent information about the country is interpreted. This makes it a powerful tool for reinforcing existing perceptions or gently nudging attitudes without triggering counter-arguing. This mechanism suggests that the effectiveness of diplomatic messages, leadership symbolism, or historical analogies may be partly dependent on the pre-existing, often subconsciously held, image schemas they activate in the target audience.

Diversity of Information Sources (n=1).

The fragmentation of the media landscape challenges state-centric image management and creates a more complex environment for narrative control. Sacco & Bossio [75] discuss how the use of social media in war reportage diversifies the information ecosystem. Citizens, soldiers, and NGOs become direct sources of information, creating a polyvocal environment that can challenge official state narratives (e.g., user-generated content contradicting claims of military precision). This diversity presents both an opportunity and a challenge. While it allows for a multiplicity of perspectives, it also creates a saturated environment where misinformation thrives and the veracity of information becomes a central battleground, impacting the credibility of all actors. This factor highlights the increased agency of audiences in curating their own information diets, meaning states must compete for attention and credibility within a much wider and more decentralized field of sources.

Visual Tropes (n=1).

The strategic use of recurring visual themes is a key mechanism for simplifying complex conflicts and solidifying narratives through memorable and emotionally charged imagery. Grigor & Pantti [76] analyze how Russia’s Channel One employed specific visual tropes—such as images of humanitarian aid delivery (shaping Russia as a helper) or the spectacle of military precision (shaping it as strong)—as “affective anchors” for its strategic narratives on Syria and Ukraine. Visual tropes are highly effective because they are easily processed, remembered, and shared. They reduce complexity to a single, powerful frame (e.g., the “heroic defender,” the “brutal aggressor,” the “innocent victim”). The power of visual tropes is immensely amplified by digital platforms, which facilitate their rapid viral spread. A single powerful image or video clip can become an iconic representation of the entire conflict, defining a country’s image for a global audience.

These emerging factors collectively depict a shift in the ontology of wartime image formation. The process is no longer dominated solely by slow-moving, state-driven diplomacy and traditional media. Instead, image is increasingly formed in a dynamic, digital, and affective battleground characterized by: (1) Narratives can be launched and challenged instantaneously (Speed and Volatility). (2) States compete with non-state actors and even individuals for narrative control (Multi-Actor Participation). (3) Appeals to emotion are as important as appeals to reason or fact (Emotional Resonance). (4) Image cues operate both consciously and subconsciously (Psychological Depth). (5) The visual register is a primary site of contestation (Visual Primacy).

While less frequently emphasized than Historical, Diplomatic, and Leadership factors within the reviewed literature, these additional elements contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the multifaceted forces shaping global image during conflict. Their identification is critical for a comprehensive scoping review, as they point to evolving mechanisms of image formation—particularly digital, affective, and psychological—that are likely to grow in importance. Future research should focus on expanding the empirical investigation of these factors.