For a brief period following the end of the Cold War, it appeared plausible that military power would gradually lose its primacy in international politics. The expansion of multilateral institutions, the deepening of economic interdependence, and the growing normative appeal of liberal governance fostered the belief that influence would increasingly be exercised through diplomacy, culture, and rules rather than coercion. Security, it was widely assumed, could be managed through institutional frameworks and cooperative mechanisms, relegating the use of force to the margins of statecraft.
That moment has passed. The contemporary international environment is defined less by convergence than by fragmentation: competing power centres, contested norms, and declining confidence in the capacity of global institutions to regulate strategic rivalry. In this evolving context, hard power has reasserted itself not as an ideological preference but as a structural necessity. Military capability, economic coercion, and deterrence credibility continue to shape how states calculate risk, signal resolve, and safeguard their strategic autonomy.
The return of hard power reflects a deeper reconfiguration of the global order. Geopolitical fragmentation is intensifying, driven by resurgent nationalism, sharpening great-power competition, and persistent conflicts in regions such as Europe and the Middle East. As a result, the post–Cold War emphasis on soft power and institutional governance has steadily eroded. In its place, the material foundations of power have regained salience. States are increasingly compelled to rely on tangible capabilities rather than normative assurances, recalibrating their strategies for an international system that is less predictable and more openly contested. For countries such as India, this shift necessitates a careful synthesis of traditional diplomatic engagement with enhanced defence preparedness and strategic assertiveness, aimed at securing national interests amid heightened uncertainty.
From a theoretical perspective, this evolution should not be surprising. Classical realist scholarship has long cautioned against assuming that changes in norms or institutions could fundamentally transform the anarchic structure of international politics. Power politics, far from being a historical aberration, constitutes a persistent feature of global affairs. The absence of a central authority capable of enforcing rules continues to compel states to prioritise self- help and relative advantage, particularly when confidence in collective restraint weakens.
Fragmentation and Strategic Uncertainty
At the systemic level, the present international order is characterised by the diffusion of power without the emergence of a stabilising equilibrium. The relative decline of unipolar dominance has not produced a coherent multipolar framework governed by shared rules. Instead, it has resulted in overlapping spheres of influence, selective adherence to norms, and heightened strategic ambiguity.
Structural realism offers a parsimonious explanation for this condition. In an anarchic system, institutions may facilitate coordination, but they cannot eliminate uncertainty or substitute for material capability. As perceptions of threat intensify, states revert to balancing behaviour, reassessing alliances, force posture, and strategic priorities. These dynamics are visible across regions, though they manifest differently depending on historical experience and regional security architectures.
In Europe, renewed emphasis on territorial defence and alliance cohesion reflects concerns over deterrence credibility rather than ideological confrontation. In the Indo-Pacific, maritime security, technological competition, and strategic alignment dominate defence planning. South Asia, meanwhile, presents a complex deterrence environment shaped by asymmetry, unresolved political disputes, and domestic constraints, underscoring how global fragmentation translates into region-specific security dilemmas.
Military Capability and Strategic Credibility
Military capability remains the most tangible expression of national power. It underwrites sovereignty, anchors deterrence, and confers credibility upon diplomatic engagement. In an international environment where intentions are increasingly opaque and commitments less reliable, credibility depends less on declaratory policy than on demonstrable capability.
This renewed emphasis on military power is not confined to major powers. Middle powers and states across the Global South are investing in defence modernisation primarily to preserve strategic autonomy. For many, military preparedness functions less as an instrument of expansion than as a safeguard against coercion, protecting political decision-making space rather than extending influence.
Strategic thinking in South Asia has long reflected this logic. Military strength has traditionally been viewed as instrumental; valuable insofar as it enables independent diplomacy and credible deterrence. The underlying assumption is realist: diplomacy unsupported by power lacks leverage, while power exercised without restraint undermines legitimacy. Effective statecraft lies in managing this balance rather than denying its necessity.
Deterrence in a Multi-Domain Environment
Deterrence has returned to the centre of contemporary security policy, albeit in a far more complex form than during the Cold War. While nuclear deterrence remains relevant, it now operates alongside conventional, cyber, space, and economic instruments. The strategic environment is no longer defined by stable dyadic rivalry, but by multiple actors, overlapping domains, and blurred thresholds.
The fundamental logic of deterrence, shaping an adversary’s expectations of cost, remains intact. What has changed is the emphasis on denial, resilience, and escalation management. States seek not only to threaten punishment, but to prevent adversaries from achieving objectives through incremental or ambiguous actions that exploit normative and institutional gaps.
The weakening of arms control regimes and confidence-building mechanisms has further complicated deterrence stability. In the absence of shared interpretive frameworks, the risk of misperception increases. Deterrence, under such conditions, depends as much on political judgement and communication as on material capability.
Coercive Diplomacy and Strategic Signalling
Between routine diplomacy and open conflict lies a wide spectrum of coercive practices. Military exercises, forward deployments, and limited demonstrations of force increasingly serve communicative purposes, signalling resolve and clarifying red lines without crossing the threshold into sustained violence.
In the Indo-Pacific, for instance, maritime patrols and freedom-of-navigation operations function as instruments of strategic signalling. Their value lies less in immediate tactical effect than in the political messages they convey regarding presence, commitment, and limits. Such practices illustrate how military power is employed not solely for combat but as a tool of calibrated influence.
Yet coercive diplomacy remains inherently uncertain. Its effectiveness depends on proportionality, credibility, and accurate assessment of adversary perceptions. Absent shared understandings, even carefully calibrated actions risk misinterpretation. Consequently, the use of force short of war demands not only capability, but restraint and diplomatic skill.
Hard Power and the Limits of Soft Power
The resurgence of hard power does not render soft power irrelevant, but it does expose its limitations. Normative influence and institutional leadership are most effective when supported by credible security capabilities. In contested environments, appeals to rules that lack enforcement capacity often fail to shape outcomes.
Hard and soft power are therefore best understood as complementary rather than substitutive. Material capability establishes the conditions under which norms can matter. From a broader Asian strategic perspective, power remains central not because states seek confrontation, but because influence without leverage is difficult to sustain.
Conclusion
The return of hard power should not be interpreted as a regression to militarism. Rather, it reflects a recalibration of state behaviour in response to a more fragmented and uncertain international system. Military capability, deterrence, and coercive diplomacy have regained prominence because the conditions that once appeared to constrain them have weakened.
Power remains central to international politics, yet its utility is bounded. Strength without restraint is destabilising; restraint without strength is ineffective. In a world marked by strategic competition and eroding consensus, the challenge for contemporary diplomacy lies not in resisting the return of hard power, but in disciplining it, embedding capability within a framework of prudence, communication, and political judgement.
Leave a Reply