Strategic Cultures of China, India and Russia in the Context of BRICS Strategic Communication

Although strategic culture and strategic communication are closely related concepts, their relationship has remained largely unexplored. While their interaction can be productive, the gap between symbolic discourse and strategic behavior can negatively impact strategic communication, which implies synchronization between narratives and actions, especially within such a culturally heterogeneous association as BRICS. Another problem is the weak theorization of strategic culture, which can lead to essentialization (both demonization and idealization), which becomes an obstacle to the search for elements within cultures that can be employed in intercultural dialogue. Finally, strategic culture can be weaponized to legitimize certain forms of interaction with other actors. An analysis of three strategic cultures of BRICS (Russia, India, and China), based on a combination of psychological and narrative approaches, demonstrates that in each case, there are cultural factors that negatively impact these actors' strategic communication. Russia tends to employ a coercive communication model and is highly suspicious of actions within its sphere of interest. China is often conceptualized as a dualistic actor, preferring indirect influence, and attempts by Chinese scholars to idealize Chinese strategic culture prove ineffective amid the pervasiveness of Western narratives about China's creeping expansion. The effectiveness of India's strategic communication is questionable given its current retreat from the strategic cultural principle of ahimsa and the rise of nationalist sentiments within the country. To coordinate these diverse strategic cultures and create a common BRICS strategic culture as a broad set of strategic tools, it is advisable to use methods of intercultural philosophy.