Soft power, what is it? A term that is increasingly present on the public scene. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “soft power” is defined as: “power (by a nation, state, alliance, etc.) exercised through economic and cultural influence rather than coercion or military power; this concept becomes popular since the second half of the eighties”.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, it is defined as “the use of cultural and economic influence of one country to persuade other countries to do something, rather than the use of military power”.

The creator of this concept is Joseph Samuel Nye, who worked as the director of the Center for Science and International Relations of the John F. Kennedy School of Public Administration at Harvard University (USA) from 1985 to 1990 and as the assistant director for international relations of the Harvard University from 1989 to 1992. Therefore, the concept as such not only arose on scientific grounds, but was also elaborated as a practice of international politics in the countries of the Western Hemisphere.

Soft power denotes economic aid; investing in the intellectual potential of other nations; donations and preferential treatment in trade and business in the public, social and private sectors; as well as investing in social institutions and development programs.

Ronald Reagan’s administration implemented this concept very quickly in the last years of the Cold War, and thus won the majority of the population of Eastern Europe for the concept of the European Union and NATO, which was realized a few decades later, during the administration of Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. On the other hand, Russia recognizes this concept exclusively as a term of propaganda, whose task is to offer Potemkin villages and then use the concept of hard power i.e. military expansion. This concept has been worked on for more than a century in the corridors of the Kremlin, where the Comintern, after the Bolshevik Revolution, developed its concept of an iron fist for world revolution.

Soft power, as a concept of a carefully planned attack, implies economic assistance; investing in the intellectual potential of other nations; donations and preferential treatment in trade and business in the public, social and private sectors; as well as investing in social institutions and development programs. The impact of soft power is felt by all layers of society in a country and it is intended for development, self[1]sustainability and broad accumulation of capital across the entire social ladder. By the nature of things, it is expected that with the expansion of the economic results of soft influence, the base of support for the political concept offered by Western influence, which is, in our case, the accession to the EU and NATO, as frameworks for economic prosperity and security, will increase.

The impact of soft power is felt by all layers of society in a country and it is intended for development, self-sustainability and broad accumulation of capital across the entire social ladder

On the other hand, as the Kremlin’s concept of propaganda, it implies emotional manipulation of the masses, relying on fear and the spread of panic as the main motive of the narrative in a society; as well as the development of divisions in society itself, in order to lead to its polarization and bringing it to the border of conflict. The reason for this is the creation of an environment favorable for the easier work of subversive agents that have been created in one society, in order to bring about a state in which the use of hard power is acceptable and perceived as desirable. Precisely for this reason, the latest developments in Africa show the growing influence of the “Wagner” group, which emerges in countries where military coups have taken place. Russia does not have the economic capacity to SOFT POWER VS. KREMLIN’S COOKING Soft power, European Union, NATO, Russia, Kremlin, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, West, Western Balkans KEYWORDS www.ipese.rs September 5th, 2023 Soft power denotes economic aid; investing in the intellectual potential of other nations; donations and preferential treatment in trade and business in the public, social and private sectors; as well as investing in social institutions and development programs. ” The impact of soft power is felt by all layers of society in a country and it is intended for development, self[1]sustainability and broad accumulation of capital across the entire social ladder. ” IPESE ANALYSIS invest in development projects in Africa, nor in educational, health or communal infrastructure. Nor does it have enough money to invest in the resource base of African countries and to buy mines or resources from Africa. What we can observe is an investment in mercenary societies, such as the “Wagner” group, who, through corruption, threats and force, get to the mines in Africa for free and then use those resources and labor in them to get capital, which they can use to corrupt the military leaders in African countries and buy services from them. In return, those corrupt military leaders, when they take power in their country, get promotion through the channels of the Russian propaganda machine and appear on the international stage as promoters of Russia’s political ties with Africa. In this way, the spiral of Kremlin propaganda manipulations is fed, while African societies gain in return: instability, military dictatorships, violence against the weak and even greater exploitation of their labor force.

The examples of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in comparison to Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina best demonstrate the differences between the influence of Western soft power and Kremlin’s propaganda.

Observing the Czech Republic and Slovakia in comparison to Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina is the best example of the difference between the influence of Western soft power and Kremlin propaganda. After 1991, the soft power of the West offered the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as Romania and Hungary, a series of development projects, investments in the economy and assistance in the modernization of the armed forces, so that these societies could go through the transition from the Soviet model to the concept of a liberal capitalist economy as easily as possible. The results are quite visible today and these countries are far ahead of the countries of the former Yugoslavia, which they were lagging behind in 1991.

Former Yugoslavia received the same offer during the visit of Secretary of State James Baker on June 24, 1991, just before the declaration of independence of Croatia and Slovenia. On that occasion, the American Secretary of State offered five billion dollars in aid for economic reforms, in order to continue Yugoslavia’s membership in the European Economic Community at the time and to prevent further inter-ethnic conflicts, and thus to ensure the survival of Yugoslavia. This is also the time of the last days of the USSR, which then tried hard to finally implement the long-standing plan of the Comintern to overthrow Yugoslavia, as a creation of Versailles and, as they called it, the dungeon of the people. The agents of the USSR made a wholehearted effort to, thanks to the collaborators of their network in Yugoslavia, inflame the old animosities between Serbs and Croats with propaganda, to help the HDZ come to power, to lead to the formation of paramilitary formations through their work with extreme Croatian emigration and Croatian service then via Hungary they arm those same formations in Croatia with Kalashnikovs from the Red Army warehouses. Yugoslavia proved to be a training ground for the clash of two concepts, the soft power of the West and the hard approach cooked in the kitchen of the Kremlin.

The events in the region of the former Yugoslavia show that the Russian concept of soft power is in fact propaganda cooked in their kitchen, the goal of which is to lead exclusively to the use of hard power.

As it was in 1991, it is the same today. The concept of the Kremlin to play on emotions, arouse animosities and create a training ground for its hard kitchen is again, more than ever before, present in the Balkans. That concept is best demonstrated today in Ukraine, but it has been applied in Georgia, in Transnistria, and now across Africa. It could soon reach its culmination on the Belarusian-Polish border. These polygons of Russian hard cuisine are the best indicator that Russia in its doctrine and conception of geopolitics does not have soft power as a concept of work. Russia does not invest in destinations where it wants to exert its influence.

Russia does not have the money to invest in both defensive and offensive assets at the same time. By investing only in offensive assets, they are dissuading the enemy from war with Russia

There is an opinion that Russia in Ukraine failed to capitalize on the activities of its soft power and thus win over Ukraine to its camp. All this under the assumption that Russia generally recognizes the concept of soft power as defined by its founder, from the beginning of the story. What we can conclude by analyzing the events on www.ipese.rs The examples of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in comparison to Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina best demonstrate the differences between the influence of Western soft power and Kremlin’s propaganda. ” The events in the region of the former Yugoslavia show that the Russian concept of soft power is in fact propaganda cooked in their kitchen, the goal of which is to lead exclusively to the use of hard power. ” the territory of the former Yugoslavia is that the concept of Russian soft power is in fact a hard propaganda, whose goal is to lead exclusively to the use of hard power. The best examples of this are, in addition to Yugoslavia, Transnistria and Georgia, but also now Ukraine. In his interview with Oliver Stone, President Putin explained this approach as follows, regarding the development of missile systems of the Russian army: “Russia does not have the money to invest in both defensive and offensive assets at the same time. By investing only in offensive assets and bringing them to the highest level of technological development, we obtain assets that deter the enemy from ever going to war with Russia.” This sentence best illustrates the strategy according to which Russia’s hard approach is just another offensive tool for creating crises, in order to prevent the crisis from coming to the soil of Russia. It is for this reason that propaganda, as part of Russia’s hard kitchen arsenal, should not be taken lightly, because it is part of Russia’s offensive weapon for creating crises, in the zones it defines as zones of its interest.