Geopolitics

Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Limits of Military Power
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Net Edition | Date : 02 Mar , 2022

On the ‘WhatsApp University’ in India, some time back a ‘fauji’ (in Hindi anything related to the military) article was in circulation that compared the national level mourning on death of Lata Mangeshkar with the absence of similar honour not being bestowed on Field Marshal SFJ Manekshaw. There is no argument that Manekshaw was treated shabbily in later life and on his death, but to equate the kind of impact Lata Mangeshkar had with achievements of Manekshaw betrayed a lack of understanding of ‘soft power’. This issue has again come to fore as Russia has used hard military power to achieve its political objective of stopping Ukraine from getting closer to West. The Russian failure to keep Ukraine friendly is due to its lack of ‘soft power’. On a forum like the Indian Defence Review, populated by and catering to military audiences, some clarity on relationship of ‘soft power’ with hard power and importance of former is timely as far too many ‘faujis’ tend to scoff at it. Its relevance to India is obvious as we seem to be losing out some of our reservoir of soft power of late.

In a generic sense, what Russia is doing in Ukraine today is a repeat of what it did in Georgia in 2008. This author spent two weeks in Georgia in October 2019 and travelled extensively in the that beautiful country. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, parts of Georgia where ethnic Russians are in majority, were occupied by Russia in 2008. Like in Ukraine, there is fair presence of ethnic Russians in rest of Georgia as well and like Ukraine, Georgia has a long history of being a part of Tzarist Russia and a mainstay of USSR. The longest ruling leader of USSR, Stalin, was a Georgian. Georgia, like Russia, is a follower of the Orthodox Church and Russian is the second language in Georgia.

Yet, everywhere we went and interacted with ordinary Georgians, their aspiration was to join the European Union (EU). This is despite the fact that Georgia has no direct land link with EU and under the current rules cannot realistically hope to join EU or NATO. As a sign of this European influence, we found the EU flags flying alongside Georgian at many places. Common people are making strenuous efforts to learn English and do away with Russian.

One can make an educated guess that the situation is not very different in Ukraine. The seduction by West is due to the economic factors in large measure. Russia, even after thirty years of market reforms is 43 out of 45 European countries in terms of per capita GDP. It is 25% of Italy, itself not the shining economy of the EU. On purely economic terms, the erstwhile republics of the Soviet Union, have no attraction for Russia. The open society of Western Europe combined with their economic prosperity makes for a heady brew (that it is ill-gotten through centuries of brutal colonization by every European nation is a different matter). A Russia under autocratic rule and relatively poor is not a magnet of attraction.

One must hasten to add that situation of Georgia and Ukraine are dissimilar in many ways. Georgia is predominantly rural and agricultural country with very little industry while Ukraine is highly industrialized and urbanized country. In addition Georgia has no direct land border with NATO/European Union countries while Ukraine has land link with Poland, Hungary and Romania. In trying to replicate its actions in Georgia in Ukraine, Russia has made serious miscalculation.

The greatest Russian tragedy is that despite its long association and large sized economy vis a vis these smaller countries, it has close to zero ‘soft power’. It is this lack of soft power that Russia has failed to develop under the two-decade long rule of Vladimir Putin. Thus, to secure its legitimate national interest of security, the only option for Russia is to use its hard power.

Historically, India soft-power had great influence and attraction over most of East, South East and even West Asia. India would do well to nurture its ‘soft power’ and not fall in the trap of losing its edge in regional politics. The Indian ruling elites ought to show a better understanding of our culture of tolerance and open ness and our military leaders and thinkers must alert them to the perils of doing otherwise.

Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Col Anil Athale

former Joint Director War History Division, Min of Defence. Currently co-ordinator of Pune based think tank 'Inpad' that is affiliated with Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.  Also military historian and Kashmir watcher for last 28 years. He has authored book ‘Let the Jhelum Smile Again’ and ‘Nuclear Menace the Satyagraha Approach’ published in 1996, and ‘Quest for Peace: Studies in Insurgencies and Counterinsurgencies' as a Chatrapati Shivaji fellow of the USI.

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left

One thought on “Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Limits of Military Power

  1. “The Indian ruling elites ought to show a better understanding of our culture of tolerance and open ness and our military leaders and thinkers must alert them to the perils of doing otherwise.”

    Nehruvian democracy was merely “window-dressing”. Nehru and Gandhi were true symbols of Soft power- which lasted us for more than half a century. But they were essentially English educated “Englishmen”, who merely dressed as “Indians”. So English ideals of tolerance came to them easily. They may have spoken stuttering Hindustani, but they thought and conversed in English. So concepts of chivalry, democracy, social justice (European enlightenment thoughts) were deeply ingrained in them, particularly in Pt. Nehru… which is why India remained democratic , despite the rest of Asia becoming a dictatorial shit-hole.

    Politicians are a reflection of society.
    So a simple question:
    While the Nehruvian-age (secularism, liberal democracy, openness, scientific temperament et al) was merely a window dressing- ie the high ideals that the Indian society ought to have aimed for – can the the current “leaders” be considered as being merely a reflection of what the Indian society actually is – Intolerant, violent, minority-hating, small-minded, bigots ?

    Is it not appropriate that after half a century of Nehruvian/Gandhian soft-power protective shadow (eg: lessons of tolerance and compassion that Nehru and Gandhi tried to teach us undeserving Indians with love, leniency and patience) , this shadow is being stripped by the same violent, thuggish gang that grabbed power through Nazi means- with the common people cheering shamelessly (eg: Nehru-baiting and Nehur-censorship) – and is now about to be severely punished for its foreign policy positions, after the current world events?

    Nature’s justice is harsh. I sense that the minority-hating, Nehru/Gandhi-hating bigoted Indian society – who never understood/accepted what Nehru and Gandhi stood for – are about to learn these harsh lessons.

More Comments Loader Loading Comments