From an old Political Psychology textbook of mine:
When decision makers hold the so-called colonial image of another country, they consider that country and its people to be inferior in terms of culture and capabilities. They also assume that the people are incompetent and childlike, and are ruled by a small elite who are generally not a threat and who are often corrupt.
When an enemy image is held, that country is seen as equal in capability and culture and threatening in intentions. The enemy is ruled by a small elite, but one that can cleverly strategize policies that will attempt to hurt the perceivers country. The tactics used in responding to such a state are global in focus, competitive, and noncompromising, because you cannot trust such a country.
An ally image is perceived as equal in terms of capability and culture, but also very similar to your country in values. Intentions of an ally are believed to be good.
A country with a barbarian image are regarded as superior in capability and inferior in culture. They are also aggressive in intentions, which makes them very frightening.
A country with an imperialist imagine is perceived to be superior in culture and capability but its intentions can be either harmful or benevolent. Either way, imperialists are a dominant people, and resisting them would be very difficult.
A country with a rogue image is deemed to be inferior in capability and culture but also very harmful in its intentions.
Lastly, there is the country with the degenerate image, which may be powerful and culturally advanced, but also weak-willed, undisciplined, and lacking the will to follow through on expressed goals and plans of action.
I'd say that last is how we are generally viewed by the Putins, the Assads, the Khameini's, etc. of the world.