Modern Deterrence: From Strategy to Statecraft
By: Magda Maszczynska, Deterrence Center
Sovereignty, once defined by borders, is now measured by resilience.
Recently we have been told to prepare for war, bolster resilience, increase military spending, introduce conscription, and learn how to survive without food and power; all amidst “civilizational erasure” (Walker, 2024; Barrons, 2025; Ellwood, 2026; US National Security Strategy, 2025). Russia, for example, has been identified as an acute threat by the Head of the UK Secret Intelligence Service (Metreweli, 2025), and China “remains a ‘threat’ - but one worth doing business with” (Edwards, 2026). We read statements such as: “There remains little evidence that the UK has a plan to fight a war lasting more than a few weeks” (Mundell, 2025); “People should be in no doubt of the new threats facing the UK and our allies under the sea” (Healey, 2025); and “We’re seeing an increasing number of […] ‘proxies’ being recruited by foreign intelligence services” (Murphy, 2025).
Naming threats and issuing public proclamations are important, yet their impact can be dimmed by individuals’ daily experiences of threats coming from elsewhere: misinformation, manipulation, AI-driven content, and subtle polarisation, all amplified by the irresistible, dopamine-driven pull of algorithms. What receives far less attention is the reassurance that, although the state and its citizens are exposed to unprecedented hybrid manipulations, often accompanied by the subtle weaponisation of grievances and vulnerabilities, the state possesses the capability not only to respond and prevent such threats, but also to deter them.
On an industrial scale, malware attacks, phishing campaigns, and AI-driven intrusions continue to rise. Google Threat Intelligence Group (2026) highlights that adversaries increasingly leverage artificial intelligence to accelerate attacks across reconnaissance, social engineering, and malware development, using techniques such as model extraction and knowledge distillation to replicate AI capabilities for coercive purposes and integrate them into hybrid campaigns that exploit technical, informational, and cognitive vulnerabilities. Volz and McMillan (2025) note that state-sponsored actors from China and Iran are deploying advanced AI tools to identify and exploit weaknesses at unprecedented speed and scale. Deepfakes and synthetic identity fraud are also surging; iProov (2024) reported that 47% of organisations have experienced deepfake attacks, while IBM (2025) finds that the global average cost of a data breach surpassed $4.88 million in 2024. Beyond financial losses, cyber incidents erode trust, undermining reputation and long-term societal and institutional resilience.
At an individual level, hybrid operations also take place on an unprecedented scale. Hybrid indicates a changing state: something may begin online yet produce measurable offline effects. Cyber information manipulation has tangible real-world consequences. For example: mis- and disinformation, exploitation of AI and deepfakes, online fraud, and coercion place the civilian population at the receiving end of strategic competition. At present, there are limited counter-narratives or trusted authorities that can consistently be relied upon. ChatGPT, amongst other AI systems, becomes an authority for some; nevertheless, such systems cannot absorb or deter the real-life impact on behalf of citizens.
Moreover, the weaponisation of grievances is now an observable phenomenon. Social media posts, amplified by algorithms and reinforced within echo chambers, can instigate protests on the streets, contribute to tragic outcomes among young people, including suicide, and cause severe real-world effects for vulnerable populations. Reality is blurring. “Nearly 90% of people aged between 18 and 34 have witnessed or received harmful content online at least once” (The Alan Turing Institute, 2023). Harm can create vulnerability; vulnerability may develop into grievances; grievances can now be weaponised against the state. A weaker state is a state more prone to influence.
Recent media coverage and research outputs consistently point to rising tensions. Here, at the Deterrence Center, sticking our head in the sand would not be sensible. This article therefore focuses on the capabilities to deter adversaries from seeking to harm us and offers a strategically adapted approach to deterrence, designed not only to withstand pressure but to influence outcomes. It argues that in the modern threat ecosystem, deterrence, when understood primarily as a defence contribution, centred predominantly on missile defence systems and military alliances is insufficient to address hostile activities targeting the population and civilian infrastructure, including sabotage, disinformation, and the weaponisation of vulnerability and grievance.
While conventional military power and legal authority remain territorially bounded, contemporary threats frequently are not. They operate across borders, across domains, and across civilian and military spaces simultaneously. Grey-zone operations, cyber intrusions affecting organisations, information operations targeting citizens, sabotage, and assaults on critical national infrastructure (CNI) sit below the traditional threshold of war, yet they test security, sovereignty, and resolve. Deterrence, in this sense, begins at the level of domestic resilience, cohesion, and strategic communication. The everyday signals sent by leaders and the wider state apparatus, and how they are portrayed by journalists, editors, content creators, and algorithms, matter. Deterrence now begins at login, not mobilisation - attacks on cognition, identity, infrastructure, systems, and trust often precede and/or replace kinetic confrontation.
Therefore, in an era where the absence of war does not necessarily equate to peace, disinformation, hybrid attacks, and rapid technological and informational developments blur the lines between security and veracity. Deterrence cannot remain a siloed, single-agency project. Increasingly, modern adversarial actions are directed not only at defence departments or security services, but at individuals, national health services, politicians, public agencies, critical national infrastructure, and supply chains. Deterrence of such a wide range of targets extends beyond the traditional remit and established methodologies of departments of defence, security services, and law enforcement.
Modern deterrence, like mycorrhizal networks, operates within complex and interdependent systems. State institutions were designed for efficiency in stable environments and optimal operational performance, not for continuous disruption or adaptive threat landscapes. Yet contemporary adversaries probe the internal and external status quo, exploiting small vulnerabilities that can cascade if systems remain inflexible. Therefore, this article approaches deterrence not merely as strategic coercion, but as an ethical architecture for ensuring safety and security.
Deterrence
From its modern emergence in the nuclear age, deterrence has been predominantly understood as a military capability - the prevention of war through the manipulation of risk, credibility, and consequence. Bernard Brodie famously argued in The Absolute Weapon (1946) that the central purpose of military power had shifted from winning wars to averting them, anchoring deterrence in the threat of unacceptable retaliation. Thomas Schelling (1960, 1966) reframed strategy as bargaining under interdependence, where signalling, credibility, and escalation risk could be weaponised, with “the power to hurt” constituting bargaining power. Glenn Snyder (1961) distinguished deterrence by punishment from deterrence by denial and highlighted the fragility of credibility within alliances.
These insights shaped Cold War nuclear strategy, where deterrence relied on survivable forces, second-strike capability, and rational calculation of adversaries. Yet even at its height, deterrence was never purely military. It relied on perception, communication, alliance cohesion, and political will; its effectiveness was as psychological as it was material.
In the post-Cold War environment, deterrence diversified. Contemporary Western doctrine defines it as an integrated effort designed to shape an adversary’s cost–benefit calculus through denial, resilience, and credible response. NATO’s deterrence and defence concept, the United States’ ‘integrated deterrence’, and the United Kingdom’s whole-of-society approaches all reflect an understanding that military power must be synchronised with diplomacy, economic leverage, cyber capabilities, and societal resilience. The objective is not merely to threaten retaliation, but to reduce vulnerabilities, complicate adversary planning, and strengthen collective resolve.
Across these perspectives, a common evolution emerges. Both engagement and conflict have diversified. Deterrence is no longer defined solely by nuclear arsenals, force posture, or the success of clandestine operations. It now operates across cyber networks, space assets, supply chains, energy systems, information ecosystems, and public opinion. Civilian infrastructure and societal cohesion are central to deterrent credibility. Strategic competition increasingly targets populations, economic dependencies, and political stability-areas traditionally considered outside the military remit.
This shift highlights a deeper transformation: deterrence as a loosely defined military strategy is insufficient for the contemporary security environment. While conventional military power and legal authority remain territorially bounded, contemporary threats frequently are not. They operate across borders, across domains, and across civilian and military spaces simultaneously. The line between war and peace has blurred; coercion often unfolds incrementally, through hybrid tactics, disinformation, economic pressure, and technological disruption. Preventing conflict therefore requires resilience, adaptability, and strategic coherence across government and society.
Deterrence is often defined as preventing an unwanted action by convincing the adversary that the consequences outweigh any potential benefit: “If you do this, something worse will happen to you”. It works by creating fear of punishment, cost, or retaliation so that an actor decides not to act.
It is commonly applied in military and foreign policy, law enforcement, parenting, and business competition. In global politics, deterrence is most often associated with preventing war, particularly nuclear war. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union built large nuclear arsenals to discourage attacks, a strategy called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The principle was simple: if one country launched nuclear weapons, the other would retaliate, guaranteeing destruction and preventing either side from attacking.
Deterrence can be achieved by punishment- threatening severe retaliation, or by denial-making success impossible or very difficult, for example through missile defence systems or strong security. For deterrence to function, three conditions must be met: capability, credibility, and communication. Failure in any of these risks deterrence collapsing.
Currently, deterrence is both a strategy and a doctrine. As a strategy, it is a practical plan to prevent unwanted action by threatening consequences. As a doctrine, it is a long-term principle guiding national policy or military planning. In practice, strategies often become institutionalised as doctrine. For example, the UK Joint Doctrine Note 1/19, Deterrence: the Defence Contribution (MoD, 2019), relies on influencing potential adversaries to prevent hostile actions, primarily through multi-domain military capabilities.
Modern deterrence must address behaviours that undermine safety, stability, and systemic integrity- from cyber attacks, sabotage, and disinformation to deniable paramilitary incursions, exploitation of societal vulnerabilities, AI-driven manipulation, and assaults on public perception. Adversaries include state and non-state actors- ranging from proxy forces and state-sponsored enterprises to transnational criminal organisations, ideologically motivated groups, private military companies, insider threats, and independent actors-targeting not only immediate security but also alliances, norms, and technological or economic systems. Effective deterrence relies on predictable consequences, rapid attribution, and coordinated, resilient responses across political, economic, technological, informational, and environmental domains. It depends on clear signalling, whole-of-society resilience, strategic continuity, and integrated capabilities that deny adversaries coercive advantage, sustain credibility, and preserve the status quo amid evolving threats.
The Strategic Reality of Continuous Competition
A further challenge comes from the complexity of adversarial actions. Modern threats are hybrid, multi-domain, and often below the threshold of conventional military retaliation. Cyberattacks, disinformation, and proxy operations may be deliberate, retaliatory, fishing expeditions, or innovative attempts to influence. It is possible that our adversaries deploy multi-domain threats not only to achieve effect, but also to instil fear and thereby deter us from acting. Misreading adversary intent or focusing resources on a single domain invites exploitation. For instance, fortifying a ‘hearts and minds’ campaign may push adversaries to shift efforts to other contested issues, or even manufacture new vulnerabilities via media manipulation, coercion, or cyber operations.
The challenge is compounded when adversarial actions intersect with pre-existing societal grievances. A disinformation campaign may be amplified and redirected by individuals or groups who feel injustice, resentment, or hate. Modern threats often begin online, yet their effects are tangible and, at times, kinetic. Social media misinformation can spill into the physical domain, provoking and escalating national protests. Algorithmically amplified emotive narratives can trigger rapid public mobilisation, often outpacing the response capacity of law enforcement and government agencies.
Deterrence is no longer straightforward - and perhaps it never truly was. It now spans ethical, strategic, societal, and technical dimensions. Democratic commitments such as freedom of speech and expression, while foundational, can be exploited by adversaries operating below the threshold of war. Sovereignty, increasingly expressed through control of digital, informational, and societal systems rather than solely territorial borders, adds further layers of complexity- particularly where internal fragmentation exists. Societies with significant numbers of disenfranchised individuals are more vulnerable to external influence. Adversaries exploit societal divisions, polarising debates and reshaping perceptions of who is friend or foe. This creates an especially layered challenge in highly developed states that seek to promote diversity and pluralism while maintaining cohesion. Ultimately, traditional legal and policy frameworks struggle to keep pace with threats operating across cyber, space, financial, and informational domains.
In this environment, deterrence is as much about building internal unity and resilience as projecting external power. It requires synchronising military, cyber, economic, informational, and societal responses, while fostering social cohesion and shared understanding of threats. Internal coherence across government, civil society, and public-private sectors ensures credibility, interoperability, and consistent messaging. Interoperability, in this context, should be understood as: the ability of diverse actors, institutions, and systems to operate together effectively across domains in order to prevent, withstand, and respond to complex hybrid threats. Multi-domain, multi-agency interoperability amplifies deterrence, but only when practiced through joint training, exercises, and coordinated responses. Moreover, global partnerships extend this ecosystem, narrowing gaps that adversaries might exploit and creating shared cost, resources, responsibilities, and accountability.
True modern deterrence is a joint project: uniting domains within states, coordinating allies across regions, and aligning shared understandings of threat, adversary intent, and operational priorities. In this sense, deterrence acts as a guardian, preventing the transformation of systemic vulnerabilities into security liabilities- instability that would otherwise allow external powers or internal actors to advance their agendas at the expense of national sovereignty.
Deterrence as Statecraft
Modern adversarial behaviours are increasingly targeting non-combatant populations, health services, critical national infrastructure, and supply chains- in a way we have not seen before. Deterrence efforts must therefore increase internal capabilities, enable cooperation, resilience, and readiness to respond to hybrid attacks, which so far, fall below the threshold of war. Adversaries also weaponise grievances, turning individuals and groups into vectors of influence, and deterrence efforts must address this directly.
Modern threats are not limited to one domain, or one government department. Adversaries are capable to orchestrate and deploy attacks and probes into corners which are not well secured, where independence, vulnerability, and cognition take place everyday, without lack of militaristic, defensive measures. Deterrence is no longer confined to the battlefield. In the twentieth century, it was defined largely by military capability - divisions, fleets, and nuclear arsenals poised in visible readiness. Today, deterrence must operate across a far broader spectrum. It lives not only in force posture, but in supply chains, energy grids, digital networks, economic alliances, and political cohesion. Modern deterrence has evolved from a narrowly strategic doctrine into a comprehensive practice of statecraft.
Nevertheless, deterrence doctrine remains disproportionately framed through military paradigms, even as the strategic environment has expanded beyond the military domain(s). Military institutions are trained to think in terms of: capability, force posture, escalation control, operational readiness. They are generally less institutionally focused on: economic coercion, information manipulation, societal resilience, industrial policy, and long-term technological competition. When deterrence becomes truly multi-domain, the military cannot be the sole architect. Therefore the challenge is not that deterrence is shaped by military personnel - but that modern deterrence requires expertise beyond the military profession.
Governments are structured in silos: for example: defence, finance, technology, energy, education, and communications are separated bureaucratically. Sharing capabilities, trust, and operational realities across those domains is difficult. Modern deterrence requires not only sharing some capabilities, but also interoperability across agencies - and many states are still learning how to do that.
Statecraft refers to the tools a state uses to pursue its national interests, including diplomacy, military power, economic leverage, alliances, intelligence, and communication. When a state builds resilience, signals resolve, and positions its capabilities to influence behaviour without resorting to war, it is practising statecraft. This involves clear signalling, maintaining credibility, managing escalation risks, and integrating multi-domain instruments. In this sense, deterrence is not separate from statecraft. It is one of its core instruments. It runs in the background- just like the mycorrhizal network- an underground, symbiotic web, that acts as a communication system or support network- allowing resources to be shared.
Deterrence as statecraft recognises that national power must be orchestrated holistically. Military capability remains foundational, but it must also be interoperable with other state capabilities, in order to reach the whole spectrum of threats- affecting state on a micro, meso and macro levels. Credibility derives not only from firepower, but from political unity, institutional interoperability, and the demonstrated capacity to withstand disruption. A resilient society capable of absorbing shocks, countering misinformation, and maintaining continuity of governance strengthens deterrence by denial.
Moreover, deterrence as statecraft shifts the focus from episodic crises to sustained resilience and credibility. It is continuous rather than reactive. It requires shaping the strategic environment in ways that discourage coercion, reduce incentives for escalation, and maintain stability. This includes reinforcing alliances, protecting critical infrastructure, safeguarding democratic processes, securing supply chains, strengthening civil resilience, countering disinformation, protecting financial stability, and investing in emerging technologies that preserve strategic advantage.
In this sense, modern deterrence is less about threatening catastrophic retaliation and more about managing strategic relationships over time. Modern deterrence requires that government agencies not only work together, but also be interoperable, share capabilities, absorb shocks together, and recover together. Expertise from one department must be able to support another. To keep the country safe and secure, modern deterrence integrates hard and soft power, visible capabilities and latent potential, military readiness and civil preparedness. It operates simultaneously at the level of perception and capability, signalling and substance.
The evolution from strategy to statecraft does not abandon classical deterrence theory- rather, it extends it. Brodie’s emphasis on prevention, Schelling’s focus on credibility and risk manipulation, and Snyder’s insights into alliance dynamics remain foundational. What changes is not the logic of deterrence, but its scope and application. Integrated and whole-of-society approaches are developed beyond policy constructs into an embedded architecture of national power, designed for resilience, interoperability, and endurance in sustained strategic competition.
Deterrence rests on belief, not assertion. Capability without demonstration, or will without consistency, rarely deters. When done correctly, it can influence what an adversary repeatedly observes, experiences, and infers over time. Whole-of-society power becomes visible and therefore deterrent. Deterrence today is not just about weapons, military posture, or kinetic action. It is also about prevention of weaponisation of our hearts and minds- shaping behaviour, perception, societal resilience, and alliances.
Systemic Logic of Modern Deterrence
To absorb modern threats, states must address vulnerabilities at all levels of society and government, from individuals and communities to institutions and national systems. This must be done without triggering spillover effects such as civil unrest, loss of trust, or societal destabilisation. Multiple agencies must contribute their expertise and specialist capabilities to deterrence, resilience, recovery, and readiness.
Deterrence is a dynamic process, shaping perception and behaviour across multiple domains, both internal and external. Correctly applied, it communicates to adversaries that attempts to harm the state or society will not succeed. It is best understood and practised as a core instrument of statecraft. In a world where the absence of war does not necessarily equate to peace, the objective is to maintain national security and stability and to create favourable conditions for national development.
Global projection and credibility cannot be achieved without control over one’s own country. Modern deterrence extends beyond classical military models. It requires a society-wide, resilience-centred approach that integrates all instruments of national power with civil capacity. Countries such as Sweden, Finland, and Singapore have developed practices that approximate this model, including crisis resilience, public-private cooperation, hybrid threat readiness, continuity of governance, economic preparedness, and psychological resilience. The UK Resilience Action Plan, reflected in the Strategic Defence Review (UK Government, 2025), similarly emphasises civilian-military integration, with local authorities, emergency services, and community organisations working alongside the Armed Forces. While welcome, this initiative rarely frame resilience explicitly as deterrence and risk becoming box-ticking exercises if organisational cultures clash, leading to underutilised capabilities, limited sharing, and insufficient interoperability.
What is described here is a whole-of-society, multi-agency deterrent capability. It focuses on resilience, recovery, shock absorption, and continuity without public spillover. Deterrence shifts from punishment to denial: adversaries may strike, but they cannot destabilise, paralyse, or coerce the state or society. Deterrence therefore becomes systemic, operating across society, beyond military strategy, and embedded in statecraft.
Effect-denial deterrence is central: the goal is not merely to prevent attack, but to ensure that adversaries cannot achieve political or strategic objectives. The protection of sovereign decision-making, social cohesion, and institutional integrity is fundamental. Multi-domain coordination is required, with military, cyber, economic, and informational tools integrated to sustain deterrence, resilience, and strategic continuity.
Modern deterrence operates at multiple levels. It protects against the weaponisation of vulnerabilities, the exploitation of mistrust and polarisation, and the potential for societal fracture. It is concerned not only with preventing external attack, but with preventing societal disintegration and erosion of belonging. Deterrence is a form of power that compels restraint before force is applied. If defence is kinetic muscle, deterrence is the will, the unseen network, the chill before the storm, shaping behaviour across the state and society.
At its core, modern deterrence safeguards freedoms, sovereignty, and societal integrity by preventing adversaries from exploiting vulnerabilities at any level. Fragmented or polarised societies are easier to influence and coerce, threatening democratic institutions and national resilience. In this context, deterrence demonstrates to adversaries that aggression is unwinnable, unrewarding, and self-defeating. It is how a state wins without fighting.
Strategic Recommendations
A vulnerable state is a coercible state. Modern deterrence, as statecraft, requires that systems adapt, capabilities are fit-for-purpose, interoperability is operational, and information ecosystems are treated as strategic levers. Deterrence is systemic, multi-domain, and continuous. Trust is strategic capital; fragmentation is a target. The recommendations below translate this logic into actionable measures, ensuring that national power is resilient, credible, and capable of deterring both traditional and hybrid threats.
1. Adaptive Systems: Deterrence Requires Flexibility
Modern deterrence operates within complex, interdependent systems. State institutions were designed for efficiency in stable environments, not for continuous disruption. Yet contemporary adversaries exploit small vulnerabilities that can cascade if systems are inflexible. Credible deterrence therefore requires adaptive systems capable of absorbing shocks without allowing disruption to spread. Agencies must improve their capabilities to to operate under uncertainty. Compensation across systems when one entry point is penetrated, combined with ongoing learning and recalibration, ensures. Change is not optional; it is foundational to sustaining deterrent credibility.
2. Fit-for-Purpose Capabilities: Relevance over Legacy
Legacy defence models alone cannot address hybrid threats, cyber operations, economic coercion, information manipulation, or the weaponisation of grievances. Possessing resources is not enough; they must contribute to capabilities that are fit for purpose- and that purpose is be clearly defined. Capabilities must be sustainable and credible, because adversaries judge what can be applied, not what exists on paper.
3. Interoperability: Coherence Across Agencies
Deterrence fails if agencies operate in isolation. Military organisations think in terms of force, posture, and escalation, while civilian and governmental agencies often remain siloed. Modern deterrence requires collective action: agencies must learn from each other, help each other, become interoperable. The concept of the theatre must extend beyond the military domain to encompass all national actors contributing to resilience and security. Interoperability is not administrative; it is strategic, tactical and operational. It ensures that systems absorb shocks, respond coherently, and sustain operational continuity under pressure.
4. Information Ecosystems: Shaping Perception as Power
Public perception and societal cohesion are central to deterrence. Adversaries issue disinformation, exploit divisions, insecurities, and algorithmic amplification to weaken trust in institutions. State must engage actively with information environments through strategic communication, public education, media literacy, and transparent messaging. The ability to control perception is as critical as projecting force. Deterrence depends on what adversaries observe and infer over time, not merely on declarations.
5. Whole-of-Society Legibility: Demonstrating Resilience and Continuity
Modern competition tests societies long before militaries. Societal resilience, political unity, and institutional coherence must be observable. Energy diversification, rapid infrastructure repair, and continuity-of-government planning signal denial: coercion will not produce strategic effect. Cross-party agreement on security commitments, consistent messaging across government, and sustained support for allies communicate long-term resolve. Civil preparedness exercises, coordinated public-private responses, and integrated crisis management demonstrate operational interoperability. Investment in domestic industrial capacity and the protection of critical technologies signal economic and technological endurance. When societies absorb pressure, maintain function, and uphold institutional integrity, coercion becomes strategically futile.
6. Will: Demonstrating Commitment Under Pressure
Adversaries assess not what a state declares, but what it sustains under risk, inconvenience, or political cost. Predictable, proportionate responses to hostile actions, rigorous enforcement of sanctions, and continued support to allies communicate credibility. Endurance over time - signals resolve. Strategic composure, calibrated responses, and avoidance of overreaction demonstrate confidence, competence, and credibility. Will is structural, not personal, when it persists through electoral cycles, cabinet reshuffles, and leadership transitions. Cohesion within the state is inseparable from deterrent effect.
7. Unity: Transforming Resolve into Credibility
Unity transforms resolve into credibility and constrains adversary calculation. Pre-committed alliance mechanisms, integrated command structures, fast consultation processes, and forward-deployed multinational forces signal that response pathways are institutional rather than improvised. Public, collective attribution of cyberattacks and coordinated sanctions magnify costs for adversaries, while shared logistics, intelligence fusion, and civil interoperability reinforce predictability. Domestic cohesion ensures that adversaries cannot exploit internal divisions. Unity is therefore a structural source of deterrent power; it removes the belief that time, ambiguity, or political pressure will fracture response.
8. Resilience: Denying Strategic Effect
Hybrid campaigns increasingly target societies as much as, or alongside, military assets, seeking cumulative erosion of trust, functionality, and confidence. Resilience deters by denying effect: when coercive action fails to generate leverage, escalation becomes unprofitable. Continuity of critical infrastructure, rapid recovery from cyberattacks or sabotage, secure and diversified supply chains, and information resilience transform vulnerability into deterrent credibility. Societal cohesion itself becomes a capability: a society that maintains confidence in governance and in one another denies adversaries the strategic leverage of grievances or polarisation. Visible, tested, and sustained resilience communicates clearly that coercion is ineffective and that any attempt to destabilise the state will fail.
Conclusion:
Modern deterrence is no longer about tanks or missiles alone; it is statecraft in motion, a whole-of-society capacity that makes aggression unwinnable, unrewarding, and self-defeating. It integrates military power, societal resilience, institutional cohesion, and strategic communication so that threats fail before they land. Denial, credible cost, and visible resilience operate together: hybrid attacks, disinformation, and attempts to fracture society fail to land…or take off. Unity, trust, and interoperable institutions transform will into structural deterrence, signalling to adversaries that coercion will never succeed. Sovereignty, once measured by borders, is now measured by resilience, by the speed of recovery, the steadfastness of governance, and the confidence of citizens. Leadership that inspires, acts with integrity, and sustains capability under pressure becomes a force multiplier itself. This is deterrence as statecraft - ethical, multi-domain, and enduring - and it is how states win without fighting.
Bibliography
Academy of Military Sciences (2020) Science of Military Strategy. Beijing: Military Science Press. Available at: https://interpret.csis.org/translations/science-of-military-strategy-2020-ed-chapter-8-strategic-deterrence/
Adamsky, D. (2017) From Moscow with Coercion: Russian deterrence theory and strategic culture. Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 41, Issue 1-2. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402390.2017.1347872
Alan Turing Institute (2023) Tracking experiences of online harms and attitudes towards online safety interventions. March 2023. Available at: https://www.turing.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-03/tracking_experiences_of_online_harms_and_attitudes_report_final.pdf
Barrons, R. (2025) I wrote the UK defence review: Britain must accelerate reform if it is to help guarantee Ukraine’s security. Chatham House. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/09/i-wrote-uk-defence-review-britain-must-accelerate-reform-if-it-help-guarantee-ukraines
Beaufre, A. (1963) Introduction à la stratégie. Paris: Armand Colin. Introduction available at: https://theatrum-belli.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/BEAUFRE.pdf
Beaufre, A. (1965) Deterrence and Strategy. Translated by R.H. Barry. London: Faber & Faber.
Brodie, B. (1946) ‘The Absolute Weapon’, in Brodie, B. ed., The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16380564-wvLB09/16380564.pdf
Brodie, B. (1965) General Andre Beaufre on Strategy: A Review of Two Books. June 1965. Available via RAND: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P3157.pdf
Charap, S. (2020) Strategic Sderzhivanie: Understanding Contemporary Russian Approaches to “Deterrence”. The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. Available at: https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/security-insights/strategic-sderzhivanie-understanding-contemporary-russian-approaches-deterrence-0?utm_source=chatgpt.com
China Aerospace Studies Institute (2020) In Their Own Words: The Science of Military Strategy. Available at: https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Translations/2022-01-26%202020%20Science%20of%20Military%20Strategy.pdf
Davis, M. R. (2015) Deterrence. in The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Available at: https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/embed/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-war-social-science-perspectives/chpt/deterrence
Defence Committee (2025) The UK contribution to European Security. House of Commons committee report. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmdfence/520/report.html
Edwards, C. (2026) For Britain, China remains a ‘threat’ – but one worth doing business with. CNN World. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/27/uk/uk-china-relations-starmer-visit-intl
Ellwood, T. (2025) Defence Spending. Available at: https://newsletter.tobiasellwood.org/tag/defence-spending/
Fortinet (2025) Cybersecurity Statistics 2025: Rising Threats and Industry Impact. Available at: https://www.fortinet.com/uk/resources/cyberglossary/cybersecurity-statistics
Google’s Threat Intelligence Group (2026) GTIG AI Threat Tracker: Distillation, Experimentation, and (Continued) Integration of AI for Adversarial Use. Available at: https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/distillation-experimentation-integration-ai-adversarial-use
Kukkola, J.(2020) Digital Soviet Union. The Russian national segment of the Internet as a closed national network shaped by strategic cultural ideas. Academic Dissertation. National Defence University, Helsinki, Series 1, Research Publication No. 40. Available at: https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/177157/Kukkola_Digital%20Soviet%20Union_finalnet.pdf
Healey, J. (2025) UK unveils new undersea warfare technology to counter threat from Russia. Press release. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-unveils-new-undersea-warfare-technology-to-counter-threat-from-russia
IBM (2025) Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025. Available at: https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach
iProov (2024) Global Study Highlights Biometrics as the Solution of Choice to Counter Escalating Deepfake Risk. Available at: https://www.iproov.com/press/global-study-highlights-biometrics-solution-escalating-deepfake-risk
iProov (2024) The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; A Global Study on the Threat of AI and Deepfakes. Available at: https://www.iproov.com/reports/good-bad-the-ugly-ai-deepfake-threat-study
London School of Economics and Political Science (2025) From Nuclear Deterrence to Democratic Resilience: Towards a 21st Century Security Paradigm. Conflict and Civicness Research Group. Available at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/projects/conflict-and-civicness-research-group/research/investigating-non-nuclear-deterrence
Long, A. (2008) Deterrence--From Cold War to Long War: Lessons from Six Decades of RAND Research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG636.html
Matreweli, B. (2025) ‘Front Line Is Everywhere’. Cited in Lander, M. U.K. Spy Chief Warns of Acute Russia Threat: The ‘Front Line Is Everywhere’. New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/15/world/europe/uk-mi6-russia-chaos.html
Mazarr, M.J. (2018) Understanding Deterrence. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE295.html
McCallion, K. (2025) Grand strategy: Deterrence. Washington, DC: Defense Priorities. Available at: https://www.defensepriorities.org/explainers/deterrence
Melvin, N. and Solar, C. (2026) Episode 116: Is the Trump Administration's 'Donroe' Doctrine Transforming Relations with Latin America? RUSI Global Security Briefing Podcast. Available at: https://www.rusi.org/podcasts/global-security-briefing/episode-116-trump-administrations-donroe-doctrine-transforming-relations-latin-america
Ministry of Defence (2019) UK Joint Doctrine Note 1/19, Deterrence: the Defence Contribution. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/deterrence-the-defence-contribution-jdn-119
Murphy, D. (2025) UK police arrest three on suspicion of Russia-related spying. Cited in Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-police-arrest-three-suspicion-russia-related-spying-2025-10-23/
National Defense University 中国人民解放军国防大学 (2020) Science of Military Strategy (2020 Ed.) Chapter 8: Strategic Deterrence. Beijing: National Defense University Press. Available at: https://interpret.csis.org/translations/science-of-military-strategy-2020-ed-chapter-8-strategic-deterrence/
NATO (2022) NATO 2022 Strategic Concept. Available at: https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/publications-and-reports/strategic-concepts/2022/290622-strategic-concept.pdf
NATO (2025) Deterrence and Defence. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterrence-and-defence/deterrence-and-defence
NATO Allied Command Transformation (2025) What is Deterrence?. Norfolk, VA: NATO ACT. Available at: https://www.act.nato.int/activities/deterrence/
Neuberger, A. (2023) Digital Press Briefing with Anne Neuberger, Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technologies. Available at: https://2021-2025.state.gov/digital-press-briefing-with-anne-neuberger-deputy-national-security-advisor-for-cyber-and-emerging-technologies/
Pietkiewicz, M. (2018) Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation. Polish Political Science Yearbook, vol. 47(3) (2018), pp. 505–520. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330109811_The_Military_Doctrine_of_the_Russian_Federation
President of the Russian Federation (2024) Executive Order Approving the Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence. Moscow: The Kremlin. Available at: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75598
Russian Federation (2014) Военная доктрина Российской Федерации, Moscow, December 30, 2014. Available at: https://rg.ru/2014/12/30/doktrina-dok.html
Russian Federation (2015) Стратегия национальной безопасности Российской Федерации, Moscow, December 31, 2015. Available at: https://rg.ru/2015/12/31/nac-bezopasnost-site-dok.html
Schelling, T.C. (1960) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Available at: https://www.sackett.net/Strategy-of-Conflict.pdf
Schelling, T.C. (1966) Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sisson, M. (2024) What Is Deterrence and What Is Its Role in U.S. National Defense? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-deterrence-and-what-is-its-role-in-u-s-national-defense/
Snyder, G.H. (1961) Deterrence and Defense: Toward a Theory of National Security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
The White House (2025) National Security Strategy. Washington, D.C.: The White House. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
UK Delegation to OSCE (2025) Resilience through Comprehensive Security: UK statement to the OSCE. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/resilience-through-comprehensive-security-uk-statement-to-the-osce
UK Government (2025) Resilience Action Plan. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-government-resilience-action-plan
UK Government (2025) Strategic Defence Review 2025 – Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad/
US Department of Defense, (2022) 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF
Ven Bruusgaard, K. (2016). Russian Strategic Deterrence. Survival, 58(4), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2016.1207945
Vinjamuri, L.; Aydın-Düzgit, S.; Bajpaee, C.; Cooley, A.; de Hoop Scheffer, A.; Emmers, R.; Fravel, M.T.; Lind, J.; Nasr, V.; Quencez, M.; Stelzenmüller, C.; Stuenkel, O.D.C.; Vakil, S.; Zarakol, A. (2025) Competing visions of international order: Responses to US power in a fracturing world. Chatham House. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/2025-03-27-competing-visions-international-order-vinjamuri-et-al.pdf
Volz, D. and McMillan, R. (2025) Chinese and Iranian Hackers Are Using U.S. AI Products to Bolster Cyberattacks. Wall Street Journal. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/chinese-and-iranian-hackers-are-using-u-s-ai-products-to-bolster-cyberattacks-ff3c5884
Walker, R. (2024) UK must be ready to fight war in three years, says Army head. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c035d05je2jo