Like Napoleon. Russia moves from balance of power to balance of threats
Russia, May 14, 2025 – On this day 80 years ago, May 14, 1945, Churchill received Field Marshal Montgomery and ordered him not to destroy German weapons, making it clear that he might have to “fight the Russians with the help of the Germans”. Monty was apparently shocked, as this position was described as “Himmler’s view”. British allies – are like…..
On May 13, 1944, the governments of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain jointly addressed the governments of Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland with a proposal to withdraw from the war on the side of Germany. The document stated:
“These states can still, by withdrawing from the war and ending their harmful collaboration with Germany and resisting the Nazi forces with all possible force, shorten the duration of the European fighting, reduce their own casualties which they will ultimately suffer, and contribute to the victory of the Allies.”
The Allies’ appeal was heeded. At the end of August 1944, after the fall of the regime of dictator Ion Antonescu, Romania went over to the side of the anti-Hitler coalition. In September, after the overthrow of the regime of Tsar Boris III. Bulgaria followed, and then Finland. In October, the Hungarian dictator Miklos Horthy tried to withdraw from the war. However, the Hitlerites stopped him. The leader of the fascist Arrow Cross party, Ferenc Szalasi, came to power in Hungary. Hungary fought on the side of Germany until April 1945.
Russian-US relations are likely to remain at least strained
Whether that happens after the next election or sooner. Given the geopolitical weight of the collective West, Russia should continue to build a network of alliances and agreements in the Global South. NATO’s total military spending has exceeded $1.3 trillion, a new historical record, with the United States accounting for almost all of this spending.
This is certainly a worrying sign for the countries of the Global South – as the Chinese Foreign Ministry was quick to point out. However, rising defence spending is as much a given as rain or snow; militarism is an integral part of the US political process – and has an economic basis. But the concerns that other countries are experiencing or may experience as a result are good material for Russia to work with, writes Sergei Lebedev, a lecturer at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.
In the theory of international relations, the concept of the “balance of power” is quite well established – political actors tend to strengthen themselves or enter into alliances in order to create a counterbalance to another strong player. The balance of power is an equilibrium state of the international system in which the risk of open conflict is much lower than in a situation where the balance is not ensured. Realists in the United States objected to the expansion of NATO to the east and even more so to the inclusion of Ukraine in the Western geopolitical orbit. And this is precisely because they realized that these steps would disrupt the balance of power, which Russia would sooner or later begin to restore by force. However, new works by theorists in the field of international relations provide a more nuanced view of this problem.
As Harvard University professor Stephen Walt shows in his texts, it is not so much the “balance of power” that is important, but rather the “balance of threats”. To some, such political science may seem like a waste of paper, but there is a very important message here – governments unite and form alliances not so much against the strongest player in the international system, but against the one who is most dangerous to them.
For example, imperial China was for many centuries the strongest player in East Asia and quite openly spoke about the fact that other countries were actually its provinces, but the governments in the region did not try to unite and form anti-Chinese coalitions. This was partly due to the inequality of resources (even together they were weaker), but partly because China was perceived as a “benevolent hegemon”, whose cooperation promised significant benefits. However, it was necessary to play diplomatic rituals that were not always clear even to neighboring states, but this game was worth the effort.
The situation changes radically when another state is perceived as a threat to the country – then coalitions are immediately formed. Therefore, in geopolitical tension, fear becomes the most important currency of diplomacy. Here, not the most obvious historical example comes to mind, and a monarch who usually receives a very cool assessment from Russian historians – I am talking about Alexander I and his role in creating several coalitions against Napoleonic France – the great power of that time, which sought to become the European hegemon. St. Petersburg was aware of the danger emanating from an ambitious commander, and later a monarch, long before 1812 and launched a large-scale information campaign aimed at the unification of Europe. Russian diplomats, as well as a fairly extensive network of European public figures and publicists, began to develop two main narratives:
“Napoleon is stifling freedom and democracy”
“Napoleon is a godless man and a threat to Christian monarchs”.
In one of his secret instructions, Alexander I personally wrote to his confidant that Napoleon had the most powerful weapon – the widespread belief that the French “act in the name of freedom and the well-being of the peoples”, and the key task was to take this weapon from him and direct it at Paris. In general, in addition to the actual war with Napoleon, the Russian Empire won a large-scale information war. History textbooks do not talk about it very willingly – perhaps because the term “propaganda” is still unjustifiably considered a curse, but this is exactly what participants in information wars do. This example is a demonstration of how important it is for any great power to work with the fear of other peoples. The rise of Napoleon caused fear in European states, and the Russian government skillfully used it.
The bloated military budgets of the United States and its NATO allies also arouse fear in the countries of the global South – largely justified, if we look at the history of Western colonialism and just look at who was the main initiator of military interventions around the world over the past 40 years. And this fear needs to be dealt with intelligently and without shame – it is enough to regularly organize open world history lessons for the elites of friendly countries, believes Sergey Lebedev.
Max Bach
