The article presents a comparison of the results of a study of Russia’s perception by its citizens of different periods, implemented at the Sociology and Psychology of Politics Programme, Department of Political Science, Lomonosov Moscow State University. The research methodology included focused semi-standardized interviews and projective tests. Qualitative methods with elements of quantitative ones were used for data interpretation: i.e. methods of coding and scaling answers to open questions and statistical analysis. The sample included respondents from 11 regions in 2017–2018 and 7 regions in spring-summer of 2022. The main attention was paid to the key structural elements of the country image: territory, people, power, political leaders and the geopolitical role of the country, as well as their representations of the past, present and future of the country. The study made it possible to reveal the transformation and peculiarities of the perception of Russia under the influence of the context change. Thus, three main conclusions were made. First, the recent changes in the domestic and foreign political context have changed not only current moods, but also the deeper layers of people’s minds. Second, individual components of the image of one’s country have changed unevenly under the influence of political context. Third, transformation affected not only the content of Russia’s image but also optics of the county’s perception.

The article presents the results of a study of the communicative image of two constituent entities of the Russian Federation (Moscow and Primorsky Krai), as well as the images of their heads in the mass consciousness of residents. The results were obtained in the course of an analysis of federal and regional media, as well as a survey of citizens. The communicative image of each region was described according to the developed model by the following indicators: improving the living environment, organizing points of attraction for citizens, infrastructure; attractiveness for investments, large companies, brands; the strategic importance of the region for the State; adequate availability of jobs and employment. The same indicators were used as the basis for the developed questionnaire.
The study revealed that the subject’s communicative image is not always a key factor in the perception of its head. In the case when the communicative image of the region is built in relation to the leader, the latter experiences his positive influence, while the negative aspects of the leader’s perception do not affect the image of the region (Moscow case). In the case when the policy of forming the communicative image of the subject and its leader are not connected with each other, the regional factor practically has no effect, and the negative aspects of the leader’s perception reduce the level of attractiveness of the image of the region (the case of Primorsky Krai).