I disagree with your definition of soft power. What you talk about are consequences of a country using soft power and has nothing to do with how it is defined. We see plenty of examples in history where the use of  soft power by US resulted in, first, attraction and then repulsion; their bait looked great but when they switched it became pretty obvious that the part that attracted was a composition of lies.  In fact, Russia is an example of that. When in the nineties people realized that the promise of capitalism, democracy, freedom and individualism really meant privatization of the means of production,  ability to lobby one's way as long as one had enough money and the destruction of centuries long values and traditions via promotion of  all sorts of perversion and deviance under disguise of individual expression they instinctively rejected it. Putin saw that and used it to his advantage quite successfully.