As Russian missiles pound Ukrainian cities, and as Ukrainians fight to defend their country, some avowed realists might say: “So much for soft power.”
Such a response betrays a shallow analysis. Power is the ability to affect others to get the outcomes you want. A smart realist understands that you can do this in three ways: by coercion, by payment or by attraction — in other words, the proverbial “sticks, carrots and honey.”
In the short run, sticks are more effective than honey, and hard power trumps soft power. If I want to steal your money using hard power, I can threaten to shoot you and take your wallet. It does not matter what you think, and I get your money right away. To take your money using soft power, I would need to persuade you to give me your money. That takes time, and it does not always work. Everything depends on what you think, but if I can attract you, soft power might prove a far less costly way to get your money. In the long term, honey sometimes trumps sticks.
Likewise, in international politics, the effects of soft power tend to be slow and indirect. The effects of bombs and bullets can be seen right away, whereas the attraction of values and culture might be visible only in the long run. However, to ignore or neglect these effects would be a serious mistake. Smart political leaders have long understood that values can create power. If I could get you to want what I want, I would not have to force you to do what you do not want to do. If a country represents values that others find attractive, it can economize on the use of sticks and carrots.
The war in Ukraine is bearing out these lessons. The short-run battle has of course been dominated by hard military power. Russian troops swept into the country from Belarus in the north and from Crimea in the south. Ukraine’s ability to protect its capital, Kyiv, and to thwart the invasion from the north was determined by its military effectiveness and by the invader’s mistakes.
RUSSIAN PIPELINE
Russia is now seeking to take Ukraine’s south and east, and it remains to be seen how events might play out in this phase of the war. In the near term, the outcome will be determined by military force — including the equipment being supplied by the US and other NATO countries — and by the exercise of hard, coercive economic power.
While threats of trade and financial sanctions did not dissuade Russian President Vladimir Putin from launching his military invasion, the sanctions that have been imposed have had a damaging impact on the Russian economy, and the threat of secondary sanctions has deterred countries such as China from assisting Russia militarily.
More to the point, soft power, too, has already played a role in the conflict. For years, US officials had pressed Germany to abandon the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, warning that it would make Europe more dependent on Russian natural gas, and that its route under the Baltic Sea would weaken Ukraine. Germany refused, but then came the shock of the Russian invasion. Atrocities against civilians have made Russia so unattractive to German public opinion that the government suspended the pipeline.
Similarly, the US had long pressed Germany to honor a NATO commitment to increase its annual defense expenditures to 2 percent of GDP. Again, Germany had been dragging its heels until the invasion, which forced it to reverse its position almost overnight.
Moreover, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has proven especially adept at wielding soft power. When the US offered to spirit him out of the country, he famously replied that he needed ammunition, not a ride.
AN ACTOR’S CHARM
Zelenskiy’s prior experience as a television actor has served him well. With his informal attire and constant communication with Western media and parliaments, he has succeeded in representing Ukraine as an attractive and heroic country. The result was not just Western sympathy, but a substantial increase in deliveries of the military equipment that Ukraine needed for the hard-power task at hand.
In addition, the disclosure of Russian atrocities against civilians in places such as Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv, has reduced Russia’s soft power and reinforced Western sympathies for Ukraine. The longer-term effects on Russian soft power remain to be seen. UN member states have already voted to condemn Russia’s actions and to expel it from the UN Human Rights Council, although nearly one-third — including many African countries — abstained.
Notably, India, the world’s most populous democracy, has refrained from criticizing Russia. It does not want to jeopardize its supply of Russian military equipment, nor does it want to reinforce Russia’s ties with China, which it sees as a major geopolitical threat. As for China, while it abstained from the UN vote condemning the invasion, it voted against Russia’s removal from the Human Rights Council, and it has lent its formidable media resources to supporting Russia’s propaganda campaign.
How this plays out in the long term depends in part on the outcome of the war. Sometimes, memories are short. For now, however, Russia and China seem to have suffered a loss of soft power.
In the months prior to the invasion, the two countries solidified their axis of authoritarianism, and China proclaimed that the East Wind was prevailing over the West Wind. Today, that slogan has become much less attractive.
Joseph Nye is a professor at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS