The role of force diplomacy in the Russian special operation in Ukraine
Russia's conduct of a special military operation in Ukraine has brought back to the agenda the discussion about the role of force in international relations, which has long been known to experts in the field of foreign policy and diplomacy.
THE CONCEPT OF POWER AND ITS MODERN INTERPRETATION
According to the views of the American political scientist Hans Morgenthau, force should be understood as the ability of the state to protect its interests and realize its goals in the international arena with the help of appropriate means.
Claims about the possibility of using force in our time arose as a result of the appearance of nuclear weapons. However, already in the second half of the 1950s in the United States, such a well-known theorist as Henry Kissinger came to the conclusion that it is impossible to solve foreign policy problems with the help of force.
This was confirmed by further events. The defeats of the United States in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the problems in the Big East and in the Asia-Pacific region, seemed to have finally dispelled the illusions about the possibility of using American military force as an effective means of foreign policy in local conflicts.
At the same time, the ongoing processes of devaluation of force did not mean a revision of the US attitude to military force as a whole. It was about making war a "used political tool" after all. In addition to "atomic diplomacy" and "gunboat diplomacy", the doctrine of limited ("small") war, the idea of "metered" use of military means in conflicts, was born.
In the mid-1970s, US politicians concluded that war would remain an acceptable instrument of national policy of states at the level of international subsystems, that is, in various regions. In their opinion, the strength of a major power is capable of exerting an effective psychological influence on how often such conflicts will arise and what their outcome will be.
The material expression of the power of the state is the geopolitical, economic, military and scientific and technical potential (power) of the state. According to the theory of Joseph Nye, the power of any state is based mainly on "soft" and "hard" force. The category of "hard power" (diplomacy of force) includes military power and part of economic power (sanctions, blockades, embargoes, quarantines, etc.). The category of "soft power" (forces of diplomacy) includes political and diplomatic actions, part of economic power (most favored nation regime in trade, trade and economic cooperation, investment, loans, etc.), informational and cultural impact. The components of "soft power" have their own specific power. Their use can improve the external image of a country abroad, increase the number of its allies, influence the international situation in general, etc.
The symbiosis of "hard and "soft" power is military-technical cooperation, which includes arms trade, cooperation in the development and production of certain types of military equipment and weapons, arms supplies, etc. At one time, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger noted that the arms trade is a fundamental element of the overall structure of the foreign policy of the United States. The global arms trade market is a clear indicator of the strategic situation in the world, since it allows exporting states not only to earn profits, but also to significantly influence the geopolitical alignment and the military-political situation in specific regions.
SOFT BEDDING ON A HARD BED
The separation of "soft" and "hard" forces is to some extent conditional, since in real international relations the boundaries between them are very mobile. Almost no type of foreign policy influence is feasible in its pure form. The result is, as a rule, a complex, cumulative application of "soft" and "hard" force.
But when it comes to "soft power", it must be remembered that these funds are used against the background of the use of military force, and sometimes in interaction with it. At the same time, the effectiveness of "hard power" in solving foreign policy tasks is largely determined by the components of "soft power".
In the process of using both "hard" and "soft" forces, quite a lot of different configurations can appear. The most typical of which are the following:
1. The dominance of "hard power" in the form of economic sanctions, blockade, quarantine, etc., with the secondary role of "soft" power. This condition is characterized by the widespread use of sanctions and trade wars used to achieve political goals. Negotiations for the purpose of a political solution to interstate disputes have limited use.
2. The dominance of "hard power" with the use of military power. In this case, the widespread spread of wars and armed conflicts used to achieve political goals and suppress the enemy is characteristic. Negotiations for the purpose of resolving interstate disputes before the end of an armed conflict are significantly complicated, and sometimes excluded altogether.
3. "Soft" and "hard" force have a relatively equal value. There are wars and armed conflicts on the world stage, as well as the settlement of disputes through negotiations. In comparison with the first and second states, the number of wars and armed conflicts is decreasing and the number of problems regulated by political means is increasing.
4. The predominant use of "soft power" with limited use of "hard". Subjects of international relations are increasingly aware of the need to abandon the use of force diplomacy as a means of achieving political chains, and are focused on solving problems by peaceful, political means.
The configurations discussed above are rather conditional in nature, since they may differ depending on specific actors and geopolitical regions, as well as change in relatively short periods of time. At the same time, it is also important to pay attention to what means the subject States and object States use to resolve an international dispute.
It should be recognized that in the conditions of the aggravation of the international situation in peacetime, the use of the economic component of "hard power" is the most effective in order to influence other States. This is due to the growth of economic integration and internationalization of the world economy, the emergence of energy and environmental problems, etc.
THE POWER FACTOR
But only another component of "hard power" - military power – can really influence the change in the balance of power.
Its use is possible in various forms: the adoption of offensive military doctrines; the creation and strengthening of military-political blocs; the approval of offensive military programs, the adoption of new types of military equipment and weapons; the increase in the number of armed forces and weapons; the growth of military spending; the increase in the number and scale of military maneuvers and exercises; the opening of new and strengthening existing military bases and facilities abroad; providing military assistance to other states; threats of the use of armed forces; concentration of armed forces on the border with another state; shelling or bombing of objects on the territory of another state, violation of airspace, sea or land borders; landing troops to capture or destroy various objects on the territory of another state; invasion of armed forces on the territory of another state, etc.
It is important to emphasize here that over the past three to five years, Russia has significantly strengthened its military power and ability to adequately respond to challenges and threats to its national interests.
The militias of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics are actively using Western weapons abandoned by the Ukrainian military. Photo by Reuters
"We [Russia] managed to solve a number of problems in the field of ensuring national security unilaterally. The new look of our Armed Forces, including the latest high–tech weapons systems announced by President Vladimir Putin on March 1, 2018, radically changed the power balance in favor of balance and ensured the preservation of the strategic stability equation, fending off the threat of the US global missile defense," says Rector of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry Alexander Yakovenko in the article "The World of Facts is a stubborn thing in diplomacy", published in the journal "International Life" on August 4, 2021.
We are also talking about obtaining the latest models of weapons and military equipment, some of which have no world analogues. And also about the number and content of the exercises, which differ in the scale and number of personnel involved. For example, over the past few years it has become a good tradition to conduct strategic maneuvers in which tens of thousands of military personnel, thousands of weapons and military equipment, ships and aircraft take part. During the exercises, defensive and offensive actions are practiced "in the field", that is, in conditions as close as possible to combat.
Modern weapons and military equipment include the S-500 Prometheus anti-aircraft missile system, the Sarmat and Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Avangard hypersonic missile system, Kalibr cruise missiles, the Poseidon underwater drone, the Dagger air-launched missile system, and the sea-based missile system "Zircon", a cruise missile with an unlimited nuclear engine "Burevestnik" and many others.
MILITARY POWER AND BALANCE OF POWER
In general, it is possible to fully judge the strength of the state only by comparing it with the corresponding power potential (power) of other states. In other words, "force" can only be a category of systemic relations, which, in turn, can be considered as power relations. Power relations inevitably and necessarily generate such a phenomenon of international politics as the balance of power.
The balance of power, emphasizes Hans Morgenthau, is truly an eternal element of all pluralist communities. Where States have been involved in the struggle for power and influence, relations between them have always been based on the principle of balance of power.
Any individual State, if it does not encounter any obstacles, naturally seeks to expand its power and influence over as large a territory as it is able to capture and which it is able to effectively manage. In practice, however, obstacles necessarily arise. These are mainly other states that also seek to expand their influence or counteract the influence of others. The consequence of this is a clash of different interests and aspirations, in which the power of the state plays a decisive role.
Since the power of a state is a comparative value, any addition of the power of one state or group of states leads to a relative decrease in the power of its rivals. An example of an obvious violation of the balance of power in favor of NATO and to the detriment of Russia can be extracted from the speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin at an expanded meeting of the board of the Russian Foreign Ministry on November 18, 2021: "Strategic bombers fly at a distance of 20 kilometers from our state border, and they, as you know, carry very serious weapons. We constantly express our concerns about this, we talk about "red lines", but, of course, we understand that our partners are very peculiar and so – how to put it mildly – they are very superficial about all our warnings and conversations about "red lines".
In the context of preventing violations of the "red lines", the ability of the state to use "decisive force" is also important, the concept of which was announced in 2017 by the US non-profit foundation "National Endowment for Democracy". In their report "Sharp Power", the authors stated about the growing geopolitical influence of Russia and China, about their promotion of quiet but effective propaganda abroad in order to increase their influence. According to the report, "illiberal regimes are trying to interfere in the life of democratic countries, using in their favor new tools offered by globalization: manipulation of news, pressure on political and economic actors, cyber attacks." In the article "How Sharp Power Threats Soft Power", published in January 2018, the founder of the power model, Joseph Nye, called "decisive force" a kind of "hard".
An example of the successful use of decisive force in Russia's diplomatic practice is the verdict on the indefinite closure of its permanent mission to NATO in Brussels and two alliance structures in Moscow – the military mission and the information bureau. Which means the actual severance of relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
NATO ENLARGEMENT: BROKEN COMMITMENTS
At one time, our country clearly outlined the "red line" in connection with attempts to integrate Ukraine into NATO. And she repeatedly and unequivocally warned that if this line is violated, she will take active actions, that is, she will use "hard force".
In response to this, the United States and NATO have been fueling anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine for a long time, considering it as a tool to deter Moscow and turning it into anti-Russia. One of the components of this policy was the reckless expansion of NATO to the east, despite the commitments not to expand the alliance.
In the West, they have been trying to convince us for a long time that such obligations are not fixed anywhere. But according to the German publication Spiegel, a 1991 document was found in the National Archives of Great Britain, in which Western countries declared the unacceptability of NATO expansion to the east.
The document marked "secret", which was discovered by Boston University professor Joshua Shifrinson, contains the minutes of a meeting on March 6, 1991 of representatives of the Foreign Ministries of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany in Bonn on the topic of security in Central and Eastern Europe. "We made it clear at the 2+4 talks (on a settlement with Germany with the participation of Germany, the GDR, the USA, the USSR, Great Britain and France. – V.V.) that we are not expanding NATO beyond the Elbe. Therefore, we cannot offer Poland and others membership in NATO," German representative Jurgen Hrobog said in a statement. In turn, American diplomats made similar promises: "NATO should not expand to the east, either formally or informally," the publication quotes the words of US representative Raymond Seitz.
But the other day, the head of the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Alliance, Robert Bauer, agreed to the point that the agreement with Russia has not yet been "killed", but can no longer serve as an obstacle to the expansion of the military bloc in Eastern Europe.
"As you know, these promises remained empty words. All these years, the NATO infrastructure has been moving closer to the Russian borders," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, recalling that Washington and Brussels rejected Russia's initiatives on security guarantees.
On January 26, 2022, Russia received written responses from the United States and NATO to the draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees and the agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and NATO member States sent to them on December 15, 2021. The answers are essentially negative.
But we are talking about the fact that in addition to the Washington Treaty of April 4, 1949, the NATO member countries also have obligations regarding the indivisibility of security in the Euro–Atlantic region, throughout the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
This principle was first declared in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. And then it was confirmed and strengthened in the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, which emphasizes: "The security of everyone is inextricably linked with the security of everyone else." In addition, in 1999, at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul, the Charter of European Security was adopted, which states that the participating states "will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states."
All these documents were signed by the top leaders of the OSCE participating states, including all NATO countries. However, in violation of the principle of indivisibility of security – as well as in violation of the promises made to the Soviet leadership – all these years, NATO has consistently moved eastward, ignoring Moscow's concerns about its security.
FORCES AND SITUATION IN UKRAINE
All this forced Russia to show its determination again. This time in the form of a special military operation in Ukraine, the purpose of which is the denazification and demilitarization of the neighboring state.
It is well known that ending wars is much more difficult than starting. This fully applies to the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Today in the West they call different scenarios of its end. From Russia's decisive military defeat and the establishment of an order that meets its own interests, to a military impasse and increased pressure in favor of a diplomatic settlement.
Without doubting the reality of the first option, we can partially agree with the second one, which provides for the prolongation of the conflict with the subsequent ceasefire through negotiations and peaceful settlement. However, this should happen only after the goals of the military special operation are achieved. For this option to come to life, it requires skillful diplomacy on the part of NATO, Russia and Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the desire to use the power of diplomacy today shows only one Russia. In a telephone conversation with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron on May 3, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared his readiness to continue the dialogue with Ukraine, despite the inconsistency and unwillingness of Kiev to serious work.
At the same time, the Ambassador of Ukraine to the UK, Vadim Prystaiko, in an interview with the ITV channel, states that the time for negotiations between Moscow and Kiev has passed. Moreover, the Ukrainian diplomat believes that society in Ukraine now demands victory or at least the return of the lost territories by military means. And although the ambassador himself admits that he does not understand how this can be achieved, he nevertheless believes that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have a chance to stop the Russian army in the east of the country, which may be a reason to start a new stage of negotiations.
The threat of further expansion of NATO to the east, the creation of new permanent combat groups of the united armed forces of the bloc in Southeastern Europe, pumping Ukraine with weapons and military equipment, as well as the statement of the EU's chief diplomat Josep Borrel that "this war must be won on the battlefield" clearly indicate the increasing role of force in relations between the West and Russia.
At the same time, NATO member countries are doing everything to prevent the completion of the Russian special operation by reaching agreements between Moscow and Kiev at the negotiating table. They intend to fight Russia "to the last Ukrainian", they are indifferent to the fate of Ukraine itself.
In turn, the Ukrainian side does not show interest in using negotiations as the most optimal way to resolve the conflict. This means that in the current situation around Ukraine, we are dealing with the diplomacy of force rather than the force of diplomacy.
Therefore, there is only one way out: the continuation of a special military operation until the unconditional and complete solution of the tasks set. And the realization by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and his entourage that they have no other choice but to accept defeat. The diplomacy of force should sound like classical music performed by a symphony orchestra.
Vladimir Vinokurov
Vladimir Ivanovich Vinokurov – Professor of the Department of Diplomacy and Consular Service of the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Head of the Center for Military-Diplomatic Analysis and Assessments, Doctor of Historical Sciences.
