The article deals with the study of the anti-soft power. The concept of soft power has taken over modern political discourse. The opportunities to counteract such power have not been considered properly so far. The proponents of the liberal para­digm, trapped in the ideology of its exclusiveness, have failed to study this issue. Thus, the present article aims to answer the question of whether there exists an anti-soft power, both as ideology and practice, which could be sufficiently effective for the state to protect itself from the impact of external informational and cultural influence. The theory of soft power is based on the idea that its object accepts normative subordina­tion. Consequently, such an object should not pursue major political ambitions, should be ready to collaborate within the established world order and, above all, agree with superiority of the world leaders and the rules they impose. Anti-soft power is different. The core idea is that its holder is not willing to comply with the opponent’s superiority or its rules of the game. The subject of anti-soft power is politically ambitious and never recognizes its dependence or inferiority. Regardless of being strong or weak, it will not admit its junior or secondary position in a community. A few such subjects emerged during the era of globalization. However, the globalization crisis may change the situ­ation and thus give rise to a new political trend, the resurgence of anti-soft power. This article states that anti-soft power has repeatedly blocked the attempts of one country to influence another country. In the course of history, we can single out three main types of policy: 1) the policy based on supremacism, or chauvinism; 2) the policy based on ideological alternatives; 3) the policy based on segment restrictions of the oppo­nent’s soft power. Each of these, though, can bring its subjects both political benefits and unwanted costs.