How Should Russia Leverage the Shift from Balance of Power to Balance of Threat

Whether after the next election or before, the relationship between Russia and the United States is likely to remain tense at least. Considering the geopolitical influence of the Western bloc, Russia should continue to build a network of alliances and agreements in the Global South.

The total military spending of NATO exceeds 130 billion U.S. dollars, setting a new historical record, with almost all of this expenditure borne by the United States. This is undoubtedly a signal that concerns countries in the Global South — they have already expressed their views on this quickly. However, the growth in defense spending is an inevitable fact, and militarism is an inherent feature of the American political process, with its economic foundation. The concerns or potential concerns that other countries may have are precisely the good material that Russia needs to take advantage of.

In international relations theory, the concept of "balance of power" is quite solid — political actors strive to enhance their own strength or form alliances to counterbalance another powerful actor. The balance of power is a state of equilibrium in the international system, where the risk of open conflict is far lower than when the balance is broken.

American realists oppose NATO's eastward expansion and more so the inclusion of Ukraine into the Western geopolitical orbit. This is precisely because they understand that these actions will break the balance of power, and Russia will eventually restore this balance through force.

However, new research by international relations theorists allows us to look at this issue more carefully. In his work, Harvard professor Stephen Walt points out that it is not "balance of power," but "balance of threat" that is important. Some may think such political science research is a waste of paper, but it contains a very important idea — governments around the world form alliances not primarily against the most powerful actor in the international system, but against the actor that poses the greatest threat to them.

For example, imperial China was the strongest power in East Asia for centuries and openly regarded other countries as its vassals, yet the governments of the region did not try to form an anti-Chinese alliance. This is partly related to the imbalance of resources (even if united, their strength would be weaker), but also because China was seen as a "benign hegemon," and cooperation with China brought considerable benefits. Indeed, sometimes one must participate in diplomatic rituals that even neighboring countries might not fully understand, but it is worth it.

When another country begins to be seen as a threat to itself, the situation changes fundamentally — at this point, alliances are formed rapidly. Therefore, in the context of geopolitical tension, fear becomes the most important "currency" in diplomacy.

This reminds one of a less prominent historical example and a ruler who is usually not highly evaluated by Russian historians. I am referring to Alexander I and the role he played in forming a series of alliances against Napoleon's France (a powerful country that sought to become the hegemon of Europe). The St. Petersburg authorities had already realized the threat posed by this ambitious military leader and later monarch as early as 1812 and launched large-scale information campaigns aimed at uniting Europe.

Russian diplomats, along with a wide network of European public figures and political commentators, began to construct two main narratives: "Napoleon stifles freedom and democracy" and "Napoleon is an atheist, a threat to Christian monarchs." In a secret directive, Alexander I personally wrote to his close associates that Napoleon possessed the most powerful weapon — the perception that the French were "acting for the freedom and well-being of the people," and the key task was to seize this weapon and turn it against Paris.

In short, apart from the actual war with Napoleon, the Russian Empire also won a large-scale information war at that time. History textbooks mention this little — perhaps because the concept of "propaganda" is still improperly viewed as derogatory, and those involved in the information war did exactly this.

This example shows that it is crucial for any major power to leverage the fears of other countries. The rise of Napoleon sparked fear among European countries — the Russian Empire government skillfully exploited this. The ever-expanding military budget of the United States and its NATO allies has also triggered fear among countries in the Global South — considering the history of Western colonialism, and simply looking at who has been the main initiator of global military interventions over the past 40 years, this fear is largely justified. Russia should be brave and skilled in exploiting this fear — fortunately, it only requires regularly giving history classes to the elites of friendly countries.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7533908890975584804/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author and others. Please express your opinion by clicking on the 【top/down】 buttons below.