Multi-Domain Deterrence: Coherence Under Pressure
By Magda Maszczynska, Deterrence Center
Foreword:
Deterrence is still often spoken about as if it is a given shield coming from defence capabilities- projected outwards by our presence, history, alliances, and posture. Almost a compounding effect. Well. It is no longer, as our threats circumvent defence capabilities and attack information, civilian, economic and infrastructure targets- which are often beyond military remits. Therefore, in practice, deterrence is fragmented across domains, unevenly understood, and inconsistently applied. We now have more deterrence tools than ever before - military, economic, informational, technological - but less clarity about how they cohere under pressure. Alliances possess a strong language of unity. Yet that unity does not always translate into operational alignment across domains or across time. Deterrence today is increasingly multi-domain in practice. Signals are not simply received - they are interpreted, refracted, and sometimes actively exploited. As a result, functional coherence can no longer be assumed. It has become something that must be visibly maintained, repeatedly demonstrated, and actively sustained.
Deterrence often begins in fear, but it is sustained through perception. At its most effective, deterrence is not merely the projection of power, but the coherent alignment of capability, intent, signalling, and strategic resolve across those who exercise it. In its classical form, deterrence rested on the clarity of consequence, a binary logic of action and retaliation shaped in the nuclear age. These days, that clarity has fractured. Deterrence operates across physical, digital, and cognitive domains, where signals are contested, intentions obscured, and thresholds deliberately blurred. In such an environment, deterrence can no longer rely on isolated strength. It depends on something more fragile, and more demanding: coherence across domains. Both internal- within a state, and external- across alliances and coalitions. Yet coherence under pressure is not a given. It must be constructed, demonstrated, and continuously maintained. Without it, deterrence does not disappear. It distorts.
At its core, deterrence is an exercise in shaping choice. Whether direct or extended, general or specific, its purpose remains to influence an adversary’s calculus by imposing doubt, risk, and restraint. States and alliances seek to deter not only attacks, but behaviours, campaigns, and even the conditions, or environments that enable conflict to emerge, persist or seize. Thus, the expansion of deterrence beyond the state-to-state paradigm has complicated this task - deterrence now has to encompass not only for fellow states, but also by non-state actors, proxies and individuals, not only within one domain, but many. This expansion introduces a fundamental tension. The broader the scope of deterrence, the greater the demand for coherence across instruments, actors, domains and also coherence within alliances. Military posture alone no longer suffices. Economic pressure, cyber capabilities, legal frameworks, intelligence sharing, and societal resilience - all contribute to deterrent effect. The question is no longer simply what capabilities are available, but whether they are aligned in purpose and communicated with clarity.
This is where coherence becomes the central organising principle of modern deterrence. Internally, it requires an integrated cross-domain deterrence architecture, that reflects the modern risk environment, and enables the synchronisation of military, government departments and agencies, industry, and society into a shared deterrence ecosystem - one in which fragmentation no longer creates exploitable seams. Externally, it requires alliances to move beyond declaratory solidarity towards operationally demonstrated coherence sustained over time. The credibility of extended deterrence, in particular, rests on this alignment. It is not enough to promise collective defence. It must be made visible through presence, exercised through repetition, and reinforced through political will. Where unity is weak, adversaries probe. Where it is inconsistent, they calculate. Where it fractures, deterrence fails not through absence, but through misinterpretation.
And yet, unity in deterrence carries its own risks. What begins as shared resolve can drift into shared compulsion, where alignment suppresses necessary debate, and signalling becomes performative rather than strategic. Where general deterrence is being compounded into uselessness, rather than strategically deployed. In a security environment shaped by hybrid tactics and persistent competition, the challenge is not simply to act together, but to think together under pressure - without surrendering strategic judgement. Unity, therefore, is not uniformity of power, nor is it unanimity of perspective. It is coherence of purpose under pressure. Modern deterrence is, fundamentally, a coherence project: one that must integrate domains within states, align allies across regions, and ensure that existing capabilities translate into credible, unified deterrent effect. Only by doing so can deterrence move from a reactive posture to a stabilising force, capable not only of preventing aggression, but of shaping the conditions in which it becomes unnecessary.
Unity nevertheless remains central to deterrence credibility. In a multi-domain environment shaped by persistent competition, adversaries increasingly probe not only military strength, but the coherence of relationships between allies, institutions, and societies under pressure. What matters is not absolute unanimity, but whether differences remain manageable, signalling remains interpretable, and collective intent remains strategically credible when tested. Unity, in this context, is not symbolic. It is operational: a visible expression of whether deterrence systems can maintain coherence under stress.
This paper advances a central argument: in contemporary competition, deterrence effectiveness depends less on the possession of isolated capabilities than on the ability to maintain coherence across systems, domains, and actors under pressure. The challenge is no longer simply generating power, but ensuring that power remains aligned, interpretable, and strategically credible across an increasingly fragmented operational environment. Multi-Domain Deterrence emerges from this condition - not as an expansion of traditional deterrence theory, but as a necessary adaptation to the realities of systemic interdependence and continuous competition.
This is intellectually significant because prevailing frameworks remain fragmented. Strategic studies privilege military force and state rationality; political science isolates alliance behaviour; security studies treat hybrid threats as peripheral extensions. In practice, however, these are not discrete domains but interdependent components of a single deterrence environment. The challenge, therefore, is not to strengthen each in isolation, but to ensure they function together as a coherent whole. Without that coherence, deterrence does not fail through absence- it fails through disconnection between domains, actors, and the threat environment they seek to influence.
Introduction:
Unity is often invoked as a political aspiration, yet it precedes politics. It is older than alliances, deeper than institutions, and more resilient than the crises that periodically threaten to fracture it. Across history, societies have returned - sometimes reluctantly, sometimes with urgency - to a simple recognition: that despite divergence in power, culture, and worldview, the fundamental drivers of human behaviour remain shared. Security, dignity, continuity, and the avoidance of catastrophic loss are not Western constructs, nor Eastern doctrines, nor the property of any alliance system. They are universal constants.
In this sense, deterrence- frequently framed in the language of power rivalry- rests paradoxically on a foundation of commonality. Deterrence works not because adversaries are different, but because they are alike enough to fear consequences, calibrate risk, and ultimately choose restraint when the cost becomes too high (Clausewitz, 1832; Schelling, 1966). Most deterrence practices are designed to manipulate adversaries, the environment; but not human nature in which the fear commences. Fear and anxiety that instigate restraint- are universal- whether on a micro, meso or macro scale. This shared rationality, however imperfect, is the quiet architecture of stability. Decision-makers are systematically more motivated by the fear of loss than by equivalent potential gains, a dynamic that shapes how deterrence threats land and why some vulnerabilities anchor restraint whilst others invite testing (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Jervis, Lebow and Stein, 1985).
Political leadership, particularly in moments of crisis, has repeatedly returned to the necessity of unity- not as idealism, but as strategy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1941) framed collective security as essential to future stability, while Winston Churchill (1940) underscored the discipline required to act together under existential threat. This logic persists across time. Hannah Arendt (1951), reflecting on the aftermath of global conflict, warned that the erosion of shared reality - not merely competing interests- poses the greatest risk to collective stability. At the height of nuclear confrontation, John F. Kennedy (1963) reminded audiences that shared vulnerability- not shared ideology- anchors restraint. Even King Charles III (2026), during his recent visit to the United States, emphasised that unity must extend beyond symbolism and assumption, and be sustained in moments of strain. Unity is not what we declare in common, but what we are able to do together when it is tested.
These are not rhetorical flourishes; they reflect an enduring strategic truth. Capacity for cooperation, even among competitors, has historically prevented escalation at critical junctures. For example during the Cuban Missile Crisis, restraint emerged not from trust, but from mutual recognition of shared vulnerability (Schelling, 1966; Allison and Zelikow, 1999). In that moment, unity existed not as alignment, but as convergence in understanding the cost of failure.
While some vulnerabilities induce restraint; others define the terrain on which deterrence is tested- particularly where consequences are uncertain, diffuse, or not yet fully understood. Moreover, differences in state vulnerabilities have always shaped how influence is applied within international systems. This recognition has driven states toward alliances, built on the principle that shared exposure reduces individual vulnerability and risk through collective resilience. Yet many existing alliances were not designed as multi-domain systems of deterrence; some were constructed for trade integration, others for collective defence, others for normative or institutional purposes. As a result, contemporary threats are increasingly deployed across the seams, between these structures. Targeting political, economic, informational, and societal vulnerabilities outside traditional military frameworks can weaken states internally, fragment coordination, and, in extreme cases, destabilise cohesion within alliances themselves. Deterrence, therefore, operates in a demanding environment that now extends across domains beyond the scope of its original architecture.
Moreover, in an increasingly interconnected global system, the stability of one state increasingly depends on the stability of others. In this sense, what was once understood as an environment, now behaves more like an ecosystem. Multi-domain instabilities, conflicts, and wars in one region can propagate into internal political, economic, and societal instability elsewhere, blurring the distinction between external and internal security. Whether framed through “communities of shared future” (Xi Jinping, 2018), which emphasises managed interconnection across economic, trade and supply chains domains, or through broader strategic recognition of interdependence; contemporary global order reflects a condition in which no state is structurally isolated from systemic shocks.
Nevertheless, states interpret and operationalise this global interdependence differently. While some frameworks emphasise stability through structured connectivity, others adopt a more adversarial reading of the same system. Russian strategic discourse, for example, while more holistic and adversarial in tone and practice, still reflects an implicit recognition of mutual vulnerability and a contested “common future” (Putin, 2022). In this context, Russian strategic practice can be understood as operating both within and against the global system: embedded within certain domains of interdependence, yet simultaneously leveraging asymmetric tools, including proxy actors and deniable networks, to exploit its openness and uncertainty thresholds. This produces a form of strategic hybridity in which integration into global systems coexists with efforts to manipulate their structural vulnerabilities.
In the absence of stable shared deterrence mechanisms that invoke restraint, contemporary behaviour of Russia has at times resembled earlier Soviet-era strategic logic, often attributed to Lenin: “You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw.” In practice, this manifests as calibrated probing where resistance is uncertain. Attribution is often difficult. Such modus operandi not only deceives, but also reveals underlying vulnerabilities within the targeted system -especially when deployed across informational and societal domains (Maszczynska, 2025b), exposing fault lines in societal cohesion and therefore deterrence credibility.
These dynamics underscore a broader shift: deterrence can no longer be treated as domain-specific or episodic, but must instead be understood as a unified, multi-domain system in which coherence under pressure becomes the central condition of effectiveness. Deterrence is no longer confined to military domains alone. Modern deterrence by denial can be described as a multi-domain system outcome; unity is grounded in shared values and purpose, while coherence refers to its functional execution through cross-domain alignment under conditions of stress. It requires a multi-domain approach, combining resilience, strategic signalling, and the shaping of adversary decision-making across all domains, effectively turning entire states and alliances into both shields and signals within the deterrence equation. Unity, in this sense, is the conduit of purpose, understanding, and practice - internally within states, collectively within alliances, and externally in the projection of deterrence itself.
Collectively, these insights point to a deeper challenge: unity is not merely institutional or political, but fundamentally cognitive. It requires alignment of understanding, perception, and expectations across actors - politicians, government agencies, military commands, and alliance structures alike - including shared awareness of both individual and collective vulnerabilities. In today's high-pressure global ecosystem, this cognitive alignment must translate into practical interoperability: coordinated capabilities, cross-domain trust, and the institutional capacity to absorb hybrid threats without spillover. Cognitive alignment cannot be assumed; it must be actively built through sustained intelligence sharing, joint threat assessment, and early warning mechanisms, placing intelligence at the centre of alliance coherence rather than treating it as a supporting function. Deterrence, in this sense, becomes a multi-agency, cross-government duty - a form of statecraft rather than merely a military strategy (Maszczynska, 2026).
Yet interoperability alone is insufficient without a shared recognition of what makes it necessary. Beneath these institutional differences lies a shared condition- what connects states is not agreement on values, but exposure to the same structural pressures: technological acceleration, economic interdependence, and the persistent possibility of escalation across domains. These forces do not respect borders or ideologies. They reinforce a simple, inescapable condition: that security, once destabilised, rarely returns to the status quo.
The absence of war no longer equates to peace. In a continuously contested environment, security is not a resting state - it must be actively maintained across domains and institutions. This requires recognising deterrence as a collective duty, extending beyond military remit into government agencies, industry, and society. Whether framed as deterrence by resilience or resilience as a component of deterrence by denial, the logic is the same: build sufficient absorptive capacity so that attacks cannot achieve their intended effect. This denies adversaries the benefits they seek, degrades the incentive to strike, and - where attacks do land - enables rapid recovery to baseline stability.
Unity, communities of shared future, common future - do not signal consensus but coexistence within shared systems of risk, perception, and consequence, where the actions of one actor inevitably shape the choices of another. This is the modern strategic reality: one in which some behaviours can be accommodated, and others must be deterred. Coherence under pressure is not only a deterrence signal. It is deterrence itself.
Deterrence Pluralism: From Conceptual Convergence to Operational Divergence
For the purpose of this research - to assess whether there is unity in deterrence across formal strategic documents - thematic analysis was undertaken. The section begins with a comparative examination of how deterrence is articulated across NATO member states and alliance-level texts, before extending the analysis to broader state and institutional practices, in order to assess whether conceptual convergence translates into coherent understanding and application in practice.
A comparative thematic analysis of national security strategies, defence doctrines, white papers, and official speeches across all thirty-two NATO member states, alongside Alliance-level strategic texts, reveals that the Alliance possesses a shared grammar of deterrence but not a shared semantics. Every member state endorses the foundational logic that deterrence works by manipulating an adversary's cost-benefit calculation, and every member state frames its deterrence posture, to a greater or lesser degree, within the institutional architecture of NATO. Yet beneath this surface consensus, the documents reveal significant conceptual divergence in how deterrence is understood and theorised at the national level.
The nuclear states - most strikingly France - articulate deterrence in sovereign, self-referential terms that are structurally distinct from the collective; denial-oriented deterrence thinking of eastern flank states such as Poland, Estonia and the Czech Republic. The United States has moved toward a sophisticated whole-of-government concept of integrated deterrence that most other allies have not fully adopted. Several western European members still employ deterrence in primarily declaratory terms, while the states bearing the greatest geographic exposure to Russian aggression increasingly frame deterrence as an operational military imperative requiring specific forces, specific readiness levels, and a genuine capacity to fight and win. Meanwhile, Greece and Turkey represent a structural anomaly that the Alliance's collective deterrence narrative consistently obscures: at least two member states maintain deterrence postures that are, in part, directed toward one another rather than exclusively outward.
The analysis further identifies a consequential gap between what NATO articulates as its deterrence concept and what the aggregate of thirty-two national postures actually delivers. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 functions as a near-universal inflection point across the corpus, forcing member states to confront the difference between deterrence as political commitment and deterrence as military reality - between saying the right things and being genuinely capable of executing them. The post-2022 documents are, with varying degrees of frankness, documents of reckoning. Spending commitments have increased, deterrence language has sharpened, and several states have formally reoriented their force development priorities toward territorial defence and modern warfighting. Yet the adjustment remains uneven and incomplete.
Nuclear deterrence continues to be institutionally delegated to three states and is barely theorised in the national documents of the remaining twenty-nine. Societal resilience - now recognised by NATO itself as an instrument of deterrence by denial - is systematically underdeveloped outside a small number of leading entities. And the mechanisms of deterrence, punishment versus denial, are not consistently agreed across the Alliance. The evidence, taken as a whole, supports a conclusion that is at once reassuring and sobering: NATO member states share a commitment to deterrence that is genuine, Alliance-wide, and increasingly substantiated by investment. Whether that commitment yet constitutes a unified deterrence posture in the operational sense: coherent in theory, consistent in capability, and credible to adversaries, remains, on the evidence of the documents themselves, an open question.
These disparities are not merely descriptive; they reflect underlying institutional and political constraints that shape how deterrence is generated, coordinated, and signalled within democratic alliances. In practice, Western deterrence is both blessed by democracy and, at the same time, constrained by consensus requirements, institutional fragmentation, and signalling latency. Deterrence decision-making across democratic alliances may initially introduce friction, as the separation of multi-domain tools often results in deterrence being applied sequentially rather than synchronously.
Developing coherence across thirty-two sovereign states - each with distinct civil-military relationships, institutional cultures, and threat perceptions - is among the most demanding challenges facing the Alliance. This reflects what systems theorists describe as a system of systems dynamic, in which strategic outcomes emerge from interactions between interconnected actors rather than from any single component (Maier, 1998; Cebrowski and Garstka, 1998, Dahmann, 2013). Yet it is precisely this challenge that the framework proposed in this paper seeks to address; not by eliminating difference, but by building the shared understanding and coordinated practice that allow difference to coexist with coherent deterrent effect.
The more meaningful dividing line across the global deterrence landscape is not geographic, but conceptual: between rules-based, declaratory deterrence predominant in Western systems, and often continuous, coercive, and often opaque deterrence more characteristic of revisionist or authoritarian actors. These divergences are not merely doctrinal. They reflect deep differences in strategic culture: the historically formed values, assumptions, and patterns of behaviour that shape how states understand and practise deterrence. Strategic culture theory (Snyder, 1977; Johnston, 1995; Adamsky, 2010; Lantis, 2002) helps explain why convergence on shared understanding is structurally difficult, and why aligning deterrence practice across alliances requires more than doctrinal harmonisation. Moreover, Gray (1999) argues explicitly that strategic culture shapes how states interpret threats and signals, making genuine convergence across different cultural contexts structurally resistant rather than merely politically difficult. Western approaches conceptualise deterrence as a stabilising, largely defensive instrument, embedded within legal norms and alliance structures - episodic, activated in response to crises, and communicated through declaratory policy, force posture, exercises, and signalling. Its adversaries practice different modi operandi.
For example, Russia’s integrated system of state response to threats frames strategic deterrence as the coordinated use of military means alongside political, diplomatic, economic, informational, and other instruments of state policy (National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, 2021). The Russian concept of strategicheskoe sderzhivanie i preduprezhdenie (strategic deterrence and prevention) extends beyond nuclear deterrence and reflects a broader, more elastic understanding of deterrence that integrates military and non-military instruments within a unified strategic continuum. It incorporates strategic containment of adversaries and increasingly non-military means of strategic pressure (Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, 2014; Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, 2016; 2023). Traditional nuclear logic of assured retaliation coexist with a continuous, multi-domain activity below the threshold of armed conflict.
Within this framework, intelligence services such as the GRU operate not only as information-gathering bodies but as instruments of coercion and compellence, enabled through a distributed ecosystem of deniable actors including cyber units, intermediaries, and criminal-adjacent networks, allowing coercive activity to be externalised and extended across domains (US DOJ, 2018; 2020; UK NCSC, 2024; EU Council, 2020–2024; Microsoft Threat Intelligence, 2022-2024; NATO StratCom COE, 2025). This produces a model of persistent engagement based on ambiguity and controlled instability, more accurately understood as a continuum of pressure across domains rather than discrete hybrid warfare activity (Gerasimov, 2013; Adamsky, 2015), facilitated by centralised structures in which civil- military boundaries function less as constraints than as instruments.
China presents a more calibrated but equally strategic approach. Its doctrine of ‘active defence’ (State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China, 2019), frames deterrence as inherently defensive, yet its practical application emphasises long-term strategic shaping through national and global capability development, economic leverage, and incremental actions. Unlike Russia, China’s approach tends to emphasise measured signalling and long-term strategic shaping through economic, technological, and institutional influence, alongside episodic overt demonstrations of military power and calibrated grey-zone activity in contested domains such as the South China Sea. This is evident in its integration of military modernisation with civil-military fusion policies, expanding technological self-reliance, and the use of economic interdependence as a strategic instrument, as reflected in both official doctrine and analysis of Chinese strategic behaviour (International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2024; U.S. Department of Defence, 2024). The result is deterrence that is less visibly coercive but structurally influential in certain domains: producing cumulative strategic pressure rather than a series of provocations.
Iran operates differently. Its model is networked, asymmetric, and deliberately deniable - relying on proxy networks, cyber capabilities, and regional influence to impose costs while maintaining plausible deniability (Eisenstadt, 2011; Ostovar, 2021; Knights, 2021; 2023). Capabilities are dispersed across actors and domains, complicating attribution and limiting the effectiveness of conventional responses (Tabatabai, 2020; Bassiri Tabrizi, 2022). Central to this approach is strategic patience combined with active environment shaping: sustaining pressure over time, integrating political, military, and informational tools, and calibrating psychological and reputational signalling to reinforce credibility while carefully managing escalation thresholds (Ostovar, 2016; Tabatabai, 2020; Knights, 2023). The result is deterrence that is persistent, distributed, and deliberately calibrated - operating largely below casus belli, while sustaining continuous strategic pressure.
North Korea, by contrast, embraces visibility. It relies on nuclear brinkmanship and strategic unpredictability, using overt signalling and demonstrated capability to deter through risk imposition, in the nuclear domain, rather than systemic integration (Narang, 2014; Panda, 2020; Bennett, 2022). Where Iran obscures, North Korea amplifies. Both, however, achieve continuous deterrence pressure - through opposite methods.
What must be noted is that actions perceived as deterrent by the originating actor may be experienced as coercive by the receiving end. This reflects a broader challenge within contemporary deterrence environments: the interpretation of deterrent behaviour is rarely uniform across actors, domains, or strategic cultures. Effects generated in one domain or region may propagate across interconnected political, economic, informational, and institutional systems, producing secondary pressures and responses beyond the original point of interaction. As a result, deterrence increasingly operates not through isolated signals alone, but through chains of interpretation and reaction across interconnected systems. This broader dynamic becomes particularly important in Multi-Domain Deterrence, discussed later in this manuscript.
Beyond the actors presented above, states such as Brazil, South Africa, and Argentina tend to articulate deterrence in more restrained and defensive terms, reflecting differing strategic contexts and levels of doctrinal development. In Brazil, “dissuasão” refers directly to deterrence within national defence strategy, combining denial and punitive capability with an emphasis on sovereignty protection and territorial integrity (Ministério da Defesa do Brasil, 2025). South African strategic documents place greater weight on prevention, regional stability, and cooperative security frameworks, with deterrence framed alongside broader conflict-avoidance objectives (Department of Defence of the Republic of South Africa, 2015). Argentina similarly employs “disuasión” as a standard deterrence concept within Spanish-language strategic discourse, particularly in relation to sovereignty and territorial defence, without implying a departure from conventional deterrence logic (Ministerio de Defensa de la República Argentina, 2023).
Deterrence is best understood as a universal feature of inter-state relations, but one that is uneven in its doctrinal expression and institutional sophistication. Every state engages in deterrence at some level because all states must, in some form, shape the incentives of potential adversaries and manage the risk of attack. This ranges from explicitly articulated doctrines in major military powers to more implicit or capability-based forms of strategic signalling in smaller or less militarised states. However, not all deterrence is the same. In nuclear-armed and nuclear-adjacent strategic communities in particular, deterrence is highly developed as theory and practice, with explicit doctrines centred on credibility, escalation control, and second-strike assurance. Within this category, states such as the United States, Russia, China, and France, alongside NATO as an alliance structure, design deterrence as a central organising principle of strategy, integrating military posture, signalling, and alliance commitments into coherent deterrence frameworks.
A critical and often overlooked dimension is institutional fragmentation within states themselves. Defence ministries, foreign ministries, law-enforcement agencies, and international organisations each employ distinct dialects of deterrence. Military doctrines emphasise capability and warfighting credibility; diplomatic frameworks prioritise signalling and alliance cohesion; law-enforcement agencies frame deterrence in terms of attribution and prosecution. As a result, there is rarely a single, unified national concept of deterrence, but rather a plurality of overlapping and sometimes competing interpretations. This divergence is most pronounced in the role of covert and intelligence activities. In some systems, covert action constitutes deterrence; in others, it merely supports it. Western states, despite possessing advanced intelligence capabilities, generally do not conceptualise covert action, beyond certain military domains, as a primary instrument of deterrence in peacetime - a structural asymmetry their adversaries actively exploit.
The consequence is a deeper divide between episodic and continuous deterrence. Long-standing collective security guarantees and institutionalised defence commitments have contributed to shaping both the culture and operational rhythm of deterrence within many Western states, often reinforcing an episodic logic anchored in collective defence and crisis response. By contrast, actors operating outside such extended security architectures may place greater emphasis on more continuous and adaptive forms of deterrence competition across multiple domains and theatres over time, rather than relying primarily on discrete crisis-driven signalling. This often involves both the expansion of deterrence activity across a broader range of instruments and campaigns, and the continual calibration of thresholds, signalling, and escalation dynamics within individual domains.
These divergences reveal a broader problem: deterrence is often discussed in the language of unity, yet in practice its effectiveness depends less on unity itself than on coherence across actors, domains, and institutions. Political alignment may exist at the declaratory level, whilst operational and conceptual interpretations of deterrence remain uneven. The challenge, therefore, is not the absence of shared language, but the absence of shared understanding. The result is not simply a capability gap, but a conceptual one. Achieving effective deterrence requires more than aligning instruments of power; it demands greater convergence in how deterrence itself is understood, operationalised, and sustained across the full spectrum of competition.
Beyond major military powers and formal alliance deterrence structures, deterrence becomes more varied in form and less consistently doctrinal, particularly in domains increasingly exposed to persistent and non-kinetic forms of conflict. US Cyber Command represents one of the clearest operationalisations of deterrence in the cyber domain, framing its approach around persistent engagement below the threshold of armed conflict, in which continuous interaction with adversary cyber activity is intended to disrupt operations, impose costs, and shape behaviour through sustained contestation of digital space (United States Cyber Command, 2018 & 2023). By contrast, the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) focuses on resilience, risk reduction, active cyber defence, and the disruption of malicious activity. Within this framework, deterrence appears primarily in indirect form, articulated through the objective of reducing the likelihood and impact of successful cyber attacks by strengthening defensive systems and response capacity across government and critical infrastructure (UK Government, 2022; National Cyber Security Centre, 2024 & 2025).
Alongside these explicitly doctrinal or alliance-based models, there are institutions that generate deterrent effects without being deterrence actors in a strict doctrinal sense. Interpol, Europol and similar law enforcement bodies contribute through attribution, disruption, and prosecution, which increase the expected costs and reduce the benefits of malicious activity - especially useful in hybrid scenario disruptions. The United Nations system, by contrast, does not conceptualise itself as a deterrence institution, yet deterrent effects emerge structurally through its architecture. The Security Council’s permanent members possess veto power, which shapes expectations of authorisation, sanctions, and collective response, thereby influencing state calculations about the risks of aggression. In addition, the Council’s ability to authorise force, constrain its use, and legitimise collective action generates deterrent pressure through anticipation of international reaction rather than through direct enforcement capacity. Sanctions regimes, whether UN-led or P5-coordinated outside the UN framework, similarly impose collective costs designed to alter behaviour without recourse to war. In this sense, deterrence is not declared as an institutional objective within the UN system, but is structurally embedded in how legitimacy, enforcement, and escalation are politically mediated.
What we see here is deterrence pluralism - there is no single deterrence model, but multiple overlapping deterrence logics. Across the contemporary strategic environment, deterrence is understood variously as doctrine, behavioural practice, and systemic effect. These are not discrete categories into which actors neatly fall, but overlapping dimensions through which deterrence is expressed. Deterrence is therefore universal as a strategic behaviour, but uneven in its conceptualisation and execution. It is only explicitly theorised and systematically operationalised by a limited number of major military powers and alliance structures. Other states and institutions engage in deterrence implicitly, through capability development, signalling, legal constraint, and resilience-building, without necessarily framing their actions within formal deterrence doctrine. Only a limited set of actors consciously design deterrence as a strategic logic, while many others contribute to deterrent outcomes indirectly, without framing their activity in adversarial or coercive terms. The argument advanced in this paper is that coherence, rather than unity alone, is the critical condition through which such convergence becomes possible.
Unity in Deterrence < Coherence Under Pressure
The preceding analysis suggests that the challenge facing contemporary deterrence is not the absence of concepts, capabilities, or experience, but the absence of coherence across them. Deterrence is widely invoked, but unevenly understood, inconsistently operationalised, and often fragmented across domains, institutions, and levels of strategy. While a range of theories, frameworks, and practices exists - some highly developed, others implicit or only partially articulated - they do not consistently combine to produce credible deterrent effect across the full spectrum of contemporary threats. This reflects both the legacy of frameworks developed for a more bounded strategic environment and the difficulty of adapting them to a multi-domain context characterised by continuous competition, ambiguity, and institutional dispersion. The task, therefore, is not to invent deterrence anew, but to recalibrate it: to align concepts, capabilities, and practices in a way that produces coherence under pressure.
What the Literature Tells Us: Alliances, Signalling, and the Limits of Existing Frameworks
Deterrence within alliances has long been understood as a function of shared commitment rather than individual capability. Classical deterrence theory emphasises that credibility is not derived solely from the possession of power, but from the adversary's belief that such power will be used, if necessary, in a coordinated and consistent manner (Schelling, 1966; Snyder, 1997). Alliances strengthen this credibility by pooling commitments, effectively raising the political and strategic costs of inaction for each member, and thereby reducing the likelihood that any one state will defect under pressure (Fearon, 1997). In this sense, unity operates not only as a political condition but as a mechanism that reshapes the adversary's cost-benefit calculus (Waltz, 1979; Mazarr, 2018). As NATO itself reiterates, an attack against one Ally is considered an attack against all Allies (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, Article 5), a principle that continues to underpin the Alliance's deterrence posture.
Yet alliance unity is never automatic. Alliances behave like public goods problems: members are incentivised to ‘free ride’ on the security contributions of others because benefits are non-excludable (Olson, 1965). At the same time, alliances are also driven by enlargement and development; as the collective seeks to expand by admitting new members in exchange for concrete strategic, geographic, or material advantages they bring. Alliances are shaped by two simultaneous and competing risks: abandonment - the fear of being left alone, and entrapment - the fear of being dragged into unwanted conflict. Alliance unity is therefore always politically conditional, not structurally guaranteed (Snyder, 1997).
This tension is most consequential in two scenarios. The first is when Article 5 is invoked but collective will is dispersed - whether through prior engagement elsewhere, adversarially induced volatility in decision-making, or the prioritisation of self-interest over alliance commitment. The second, and less discussed, is when an attack occurs in domains where the Alliance has limited comfort, experience, or agreed thresholds - civilian infrastructure, information environments, economic systems- all of which beyond military domains. Both scenarios risk spillover across domains and underscore why wargaming these contingencies is not optional but essential. They also necessitate the development of Multi-Domain Deterrence.
Alliance commitments are also shaped by domestic political incentives and signalling constraints, not purely external threat logic (Snyder, 1991; Christensen, 1996). Leaders incur domestic political costs if they issue threats internationally and then fail to follow through. Democratic institutions enhance the credibility of foreign policy threats because opposition parties, and media, can punish leaders for inconsistency, strengthening signalling power (Schultz, 2001) - essentially doing the work for the adversaries themselves. Credibility in deterrence arises from commitment mechanisms that constrain future choices; in this sense alliances function as costly signals of resolve (Schelling, 1960). Alliance commitments are sustained through repeated signalling, reputation effects, and institutionalised expectations of reciprocity (Wolford, 2015; Cha, 2016). This produces a foundational tension that the existing literature has not resolved: Alliance politics assumes unity is structurally fragile. Deterrence theory assumes unity is strategically necessary.
Deterrence credibility in alliances is not simply aggregated strength - it is the visible and sustained alignment of will. And whilst the traditional military capabilities of NATO are not seriously questioned, what is increasingly tested are the more modern domains: some within NATO's remit, many beyond it - civilian systems, public cognition, technology, information environments, and critical national infrastructure. These are precisely where deterrence is weakest and where the power of unity in multi-domain ecosystem barely exists. This is the core problem this paper addresses.
Deterrence Beyond Its Intended Targets
The capacity for cooperation across domains is not simply desirable - it is structurally necessary. Over centuries, human capability development has clustered into what we now call domains: space, cyber, information, technology, economic systems, and more. What began as cooperative development - sometimes across states, sometimes internally - moved through periods of competition and, fuelled by globalisation, has become a landscape in which capabilities within each domain are increasingly weaponised and tested across the global ecosystem. Domains beyond the military scope frequently lack the safeguards and protective architectures of their military equivalents, making them more vulnerable to penetration and exploitation. Adversarial developments across these domains have not yet reached a critical threshold of perceived danger - either for governments or for adversaries themselves. That gap in perception is itself a vulnerability.
Whilst interdependence can deter conflict by raising the costs of disruption, it can also create vulnerabilities that can be exploited through economic coercion, supply chain pressure, and energy dependency (Farrell and Newman, 2019). Liberal institutionalist perspectives suggest that dense economic ties increase the costs of conflict, thereby discouraging aggression (Keohane, 1984). Complex interdependence demonstrates that power operates through asymmetric dependencies across economic and institutional networks (Keohane and Nye, 1977). Interdependence, therefore, functions simultaneously as a constraint and a source of leverage: while it raises the cost of disruption, it also creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited. States increasingly weaponise interdependence by leveraging control over financial systems, supply chains, and technological networks to exert coercive pressure without crossing traditional military thresholds (Farrell and Newman, 2019). Therefore developing coherence and multi-domain interoperability in itself can function as deterrence by denial- by raising the cost of disruption, and, at the same time, allowing for other domain to retaliate- providing deterrence by punishment.
What has to be noted is that interdependence and multi-domain deterrence can generate effects beyond its intended targets. This paper introduces the concept of Collateral Deterrence Pressure - the systemic vulnerabilities and instabilities produced in third-party states as unintended consequences of deterrence actions between primary actors. Where deterrence operates within an interconnected global ecosystem rather than a bilateral exchange, pressure applied at one node inevitably propagates across others, generating new vulnerabilities, shifting alliance calculations, and occasionally producing the very instability deterrence was designed to prevent. Recent events illustrate this dynamic: coercive and deterrence actions between major actors have produced economic, political, and security pressures felt far beyond the immediate parties involved. Collateral Deterrence Pressure therefore introduces a third variable into deterrence calculus alongside denial and punishment - systemic externality.
Effective deterrence must account not only for what it prevents, but for what it produces. Resilience theory frames the absorptive dimension of this formally: resilience is the capacity to absorb disruption, adapt under stress, and recover baseline function without fundamental loss of purpose (Folke, 2006; Walker and Salt, 2006; NATO, 2022 & 2023; UK Government, 2023 & 2025). In this paper's framework, resilience is not a passive condition. It is an active deterrence signal: a demonstrably resilient society tells adversaries not only that attacks will fail, but that attempting them is strategically futile.
These dynamics feed directly into hybrid warfare - the blending of conventional and non-conventional instruments of power to achieve strategic objectives while remaining below the threshold of traditional armed conflict (Hoffman, 2007; NATO post-2014 doctrine). Conflict is no longer linear or purely military. States and non-state actors combine military, cyber, economic, informational, and political tools simultaneously, with ambiguity - rather than decisive engagement - as an increasingly frequent objective. Strategic communications has emerged as the counter-framework: NATO's StratCom Centre of Excellence, UK Ministry of Defence information strategy doctrine, and EU hybrid threat resilience frameworks all treat the information environment as integral to deterrence operations, requiring coordinated messaging, rapid attribution, and integrated and synchronised responses across governmental, military, and informational instruments (UK Ministry of Defence, 2021; 2023; European Commission, 2016; European Union External Action, 2022; 2023; 2025).
The relationship between the two is essentially one of action and reaction: hybrid warfare exploits ambiguity, fragmentation, and attribution difficulty; strategic communications attempts to restore coherence, attribution, and credibility. Yet despite this conceptual expansion, the literature remains functionally segmented - military deterrence, informational consistency, economic resilience, and societal stability are treated as parallel rather than interdependent, interoperable domains. The result is a conceptual gap between the recognition of multi-domain coercion and the absence of a unifying logic capable of integrating responses across those domains. It is within this gap that coherence in deterrence becomes not merely analytically useful, but operationally necessary.
Deterrence, when applied without strategic coordination, does not simply fail; it either accumulates without strategic effect or becomes distorted, weakening its signalling power and deterrent credibility. Uncalibrated across domains and actors, in moments of heightened pressure to act fast; it can produce compulsion rather than restraint, narrowing the adversary's choices until conflict becomes less a decision than a consequence. This dynamic is not confined to adversaries. Deterrers themselves can become trapped in momentum - where sustained pressure, domestic political incentives, and alliance expectations combine to constrain the very strategic judgement that effective deterrence requires. This is a further argument for unity: not as collective strength, but as collective discipline - a check on unilateral impulse and a mechanism for maintaining calibration under pressure.
Signalling, Consistency, and the Structured Unpredictability Framework
Deterrence credibility is highly sensitive to consistency of signalling. Signals were considered costly, strategic, and meant to shape beliefs under uncertainty (Spence, 1973). Signals used to be premeditated and coordinated for maximum impact - that assumption can no longer be taken for granted. Yet disruption in signalling should not be mistaken for the erosion of the underlying system. Alliances founded on values and sustained by interests have repeatedly proven more durable than the crises threatening to fracture them. The storm and the climate are not the same thing.
Inconsistent or contradictory signals introduce ambiguity into the adversary's assessment, increasing the likelihood of miscalculation rather than restraint (George and Smoke, 1974). Credibility is accumulated through patterns of behaviour, where past actions inform expectations of future responses (Fearon, 1997). When responses vary across similar situations, deterrence may lose coherence and weakening its persuasive effect. As Schelling observed, the power to hurt is bargaining power (Schelling, 1966) - but only when perceived as usable and consistently applied. Deterrence failures often stem not from insufficient capability, but from uncertainty about whether threats will be executed as signalled (Mazarr, 2018; Freedman, 2020).
Inconsistency does not merely dilute deterrence - it actively creates opportunities for adversaries to test boundaries. Operating in conditions of apparent chaos, adversaries conduct reconnaissance and probe for weakness; such conditions are, in effect, provided to them as a strategic opportunity. The emerging argument of this paper is more precise than the standard formulation, however: the choice is not simply between consistency and inconsistency. Structured unpredictability can coexist with strategic consistency - and when properly designed, it strengthens deterrence rather than undermining it.
Classical deterrence theory recognised the value of calibrated uncertainty. Strategic ambiguity can enhance deterrence by denying adversaries clarity about thresholds and responses (Schelling, 1966). The Madman Theory - associated with Nixon and later analysed by Ellsberg (2017) - pushed this logic to its extreme: convincing adversaries of potential irrationality to deter through perceived instability. Yet coherence is difficult to preserve in such conditions, both internally and externally. The utility of unpredictability is not unlimited. When inconsistency becomes indistinguishable from incoherence, deterrence signals lose their interpretability, increasing the risk of miscalculation rather than reinforcing restraint (Freedman, 2004). Adversaries are not deterred because outcomes are unclear - they are deterred because outcomes are dangerously unclear. When that distinction collapses, deterrence degrades into noise.
Alliances can harness unpredictability as a deliberate deterrence tool without sacrificing coherence- let’s call it the Structured Unpredictability Framework. Providing three conditions are met. First, core commitments remain fixed and publicly legible - adversaries must never doubt that the state or the alliance will respond, only how. Second, ambiguity is deliberately preserved across the form, timing, and domain of response - denying adversaries the ability to calculate acceptable risk. Third, internal pre-agreement governs the boundary between the two - states and alliances cannot project credible external ambiguity without prior internal clarity on what remains non-negotiable. Unlike authoritarian systems, which generate unpredictability cheaply through centralised decision-making, democratic alliances must earn it through disciplined coordination. Structured unpredictability is therefore not chaos managed - it is coherence expressed selectively.
What has to be taken into consideration is that underlying both consistency and unpredictability is the question of thresholds. Escalation ladder theory proposed that conflict moves through recognisable stages, and that deterrence functions partly by making adversaries reluctant to cross visible thresholds (Kahn, 1965; Schelling, 1966). In a multi-domain environment, however, adversaries increasingly exploit threshold ambiguity, deliberately blurring red lines to probe resistance without triggering response (Freedman, 2004; Mazarr, 2018). This is not accidental. Domains evolve much faster than their safeguards. It is a feature of continuous deterrence competition. The Structured Unpredictability Framework addresses this directly: by preserving ambiguity in response whilst maintaining clarity in commitment, it denies adversaries the ability to calculate precisely where thresholds lie, turning their own tactic against them.
Tempo, Decision Advantage, and the Speed of Coherence
Strategic superiority increasingly derives from the ability to observe, orient, decide, and act faster and more effectively than an adversary - shaping the operational environment before the opponent can respond. Tempo is not linear speed. It is cognitive dominance over time: the rate and rhythm of operations through which initiative is seized, maintained, and denied to others.
Early information-age thinkers highlighted the accelerating relationship between information processing and conflict dynamics, and that networked, decentralised command structures generate superior adaptability in complex operational environments (Toffler and Toffler, 1993; Alberts and Hayes, 2003). Boyd's OODA loop model - Observe, Orient, Decide, Act - conceptualises conflict as a continuous cycle in which advantage is achieved by operating within the adversary's decision rhythm (Boyd, 1987). Orientation is the decisive element: not just speed, but cognitive adaptation under pressure (Osinga, 2007). NATO doctrine similarly emphasises initiative, operational tempo, and decision superiority as central components of modern joint operations (NATO, 2022; 2023; 2025).
Recent operational analysis from Ukraine illustrates this dynamic in practice. Ukrainian forces have developed a phased concept of combined arms manoeuvre explicitly designed to cycle through observation, isolation, degradation, and assault faster than adversaries can adapt - using electronic warfare to introduce latency into enemy targeting and fixing operations to freeze adversary decision processes during the assault phase (Watling, 2025). The side that controls tempo does not merely act faster; it denies the adversary the cognitive space to respond coherently.
Control of tempo shapes escalation, initiative, and adaptability. The side that cycles faster creates disorientation and collapse of the opponent's decision process. This is one of the defining factors of coherence under pressure. It must also be acknowledged that authoritarian adversaries are structurally capable of making decisions faster than democratic ones - unconstrained by the deliberative processes that democratic accountability requires. This asymmetry is real and must be designed around rather than ignored.
Our threats are evolving faster than our capabilities to deter them. The tools and frameworks exist - but they have not been calibrated for this environment, and they are not producing sufficient deterrent effect. Under conditions of sustained, multi-domain competition, deterrent pressure accumulates over time. When it does, deterrence risks becoming inertial - where the space for deliberate choice narrows and responses become increasingly reactive rather than strategic. Achieving coherence under pressure therefore requires not only aligning capabilities, but aligning judgement, intelligence, and timing - anticipating how sustained pressures interact with adversaries' decision-making before momentum replaces choice. This is the condition the paradigm shift must address.
The Paradigm Shift
The framework proposed in this paper extends beyond classical deterrence. Several of the mechanisms described here, particularly the continuous shaping of adversary decision environments and the design of conditions under which hostile action becomes structurally unattractive, operate across both logics - deterrence and compellence. In a continuously contested, multi-domain environment, the boundary between the two becomes a terrain of competition in its own right. Effective modern deterrence must therefore be capable of operating across both, recognising that actions intended as deterrence in one domain may be perceived by an adversary as compellent when projected through another. The originality of this research does not lie in the invention of entirely new concepts, but in their structured recombination into a single analytical architecture of deterrence under contemporary conditions.
This paper demonstrates that in today’s strategic environment, it is not that domain boundaries have become blurred, but that there is an increasing need for cross-domain - and therefore amongst military domains, cross-agency and public–private sector - collaboration driven by the operational demands of contemporary security challenges. The operational reach and effects of adversarial activity are increasingly extending across domains that remain structurally distinct, with the evolution of threats often outpacing the adaptation of corresponding capabilities. Safeguarding functions, once confined to specific institutional remits, now routinely require coordinated responses. Effective deterrence therefore depends on the development of coherent, flexible, and interoperable capabilities that are available not only in response to emerging threats, but that also contribute to resilience in advance, reducing the likelihood that threats can take hold, propagate, or cascade across domains.
We must also be mindful of existing frameworks and responses that preserve the status quo. Cognitive and professional dissonance and reluctance in the application of strategic recommendations may arise not simply from treating domains as separate, but from institutional and structural constraints that have not fully adapted to the need for flexible capabilities able to operate across domains when required. In this context, building coherence involves the development of adaptable and interoperable capabilities that can function across domain boundaries rather than their conceptual blending. Coherence is therefore not structural fusion, but coordinated operation across interacting layers of a single ecosystem, in which capabilities are shared, aligned, and, when necessary, applied across domains - both within states and across alliances.
Developing resilience across a whole-of-government and whole-of-society framework is therefore a necessary first step toward achieving deterrence that remains coherent under pressure. This reflects a broader shift: from guarded information-sharing to integrated collaboration, where participation is not optional but foundational. In such an environment, deterrence is no longer something delivered by isolated actors, but something collectively sustained.
Thus, multi-domain deterrence requires multi-disciplinary understanding. The range and complexity of contemporary threats require the integration of diverse forms of experience and expertise into capability development, rather than their confinement within single institutional or operational environments. Effective deterrence therefore depends on combining knowledge across domains to address threats that cut across institutional and operational boundaries. Coherence depends not only on collaboration, but on a shift in information-sharing culture - from “dare to share” to “sharing is caring”.
Finally, rather than treating deterrence as a static posture or domain-specific function, this paper reframes it as a dynamic process operating across multiple domains through interaction between state and non-state actors, alliance structures, and societal systems. This produces a conceptual shift: from deterrence as strategy to deterrence as multi-layered interaction under systemic pressure.
Why this matters:
The existing literature individually recognises fragments of what is necessary for modern multi-domain deterrence. Deterrence theory explains coercion, credibility, and signalling dynamics (Schelling, 1966; Jervis, 1979; Fearon, 1997). Complexity and systems theory provide insight into interaction dynamics within interconnected environments (Holland, 1995; Bar-Yam, 2003; Miller and Page, 2007). Resilience literature and policy frameworks address the capacity of societies and infrastructures to absorb, adapt to, and recover from disruption (Holling, 1973; Folke, 2006; Walker and Salt, 2006; UK Government Resilience Framework, 2023; UK Government Resilience Action Plan, 2025).
However, none of these frameworks, in isolation, explain how state or alliance structures function as the connective mechanism that binds these domains into a coherent deterrence posture. Nor do they adequately account for how deterrence emerges from the interaction between military capability, societal resilience, and systemic dynamics operating simultaneously across multiple domains. Contemporary deterrence, therefore, cannot be understood through a single analytical lens, but requires the integration of these previously separate intellectual traditions into a unified analytical field.
This paper argues that contemporary deterrence increasingly depends on coherence across military capability, societal resilience, and systemic interaction dynamics, and on the extent to which that coherence is shared across state, alliance, and societal levels. Crucially, this coherence should not be understood as uniformity, but as alignment across interacting layers of a shared system, in which effects propagate across domains and disruption in one layer generates consequences in others. The implications of this systemic understanding of coherence are developed further in the sections below.
Moreover, traditional deterrence theory is primarily structured around a state-to-state model of interaction, rooted in classical strategic studies. In this framework, deterrence operates through rational calculation between sovereign actors, typically mediated by military capability, political resolve, and signalling behaviour. This model remains foundational in deterrence scholarship (e.g., Schelling, Jervis, classical nuclear deterrence theory), but it is increasingly insufficient for describing contemporary security environments.
This paper presents an intervention as a level-of-analysis shift, moving from a dyadic model of interstate relations to a multi-actor deterrence ecosystem. While the term ecosystem is used to reflect the distributed and interconnected character of the contemporary strategic environment, the analysis that follows conceptualises this environment as a multi-domain system of interacting actors, capabilities, and effects. Within this framework, deterrent effects emerge from interactions across heterogeneous participants operating across institutional, material, and cognitive layers of the system:
Institutional and governing actors
• States (sovereign actors responsible for policy, military posture, strategic signalling, and coordination of instruments of power)
• Sub-state public institutions (ministries/departments, agencies, regulators, intelligence services, and regional authorities that operationalise strategy and generate internal coherence within the state)
• International organisations and multilateral frameworks (institutions that coordinate state behaviour, shape norms, distribute burden-sharing, and influence alignment conditions across systems)
• Regulatory, legal, and normative systems (laws, standards, sanctions regimes, governance frameworks, and institutional rules that structure permissible action and strategic constraint)
Material and infrastructural systems
• Private-sector actors and firms (defence, technology, finance, and supply chain actors whose infrastructure, data, and economic functions shape strategic capacity and constraint)
• Critical infrastructure systems and operators (energy, telecommunications, transport, logistics, and digital infrastructure underpinning societal and state resilience)
• Technological systems and AI-enabled infrastructures (decision-support systems, algorithmic platforms, cyber capabilities, and information-processing architectures that shape speed, interpretation, and escalation dynamics)
Cognitive, social, and informational systems
• Societies and social systems (public trust, cohesion, legitimacy, resilience, and collective capacity to absorb and respond to pressure)
• Information environments, including counter-narratives (contested spaces of communication, perception, influence, and meaning-making in which strategic narratives are constructed and destabilised)
Within this framework, deterrence does not emerge from any single actor, capability, or domain in isolation, but from the degree of coherence generated across interactions between these layers of the system. Military posture, institutional coordination, technological capability, societal resilience, information environments, and regulatory structures do not operate independently; they continuously shape and condition one another. Multi-domain deterrence therefore depends not simply on the possession of capabilities, but on the extent to which these capabilities remain aligned, interoperable, and mutually reinforcing under conditions of pressure, uncertainty, and strategic competition. In this sense, deterrence becomes an emergent property of systemic interaction rather than the product of discrete state action alone.
What is crucial to note is that the effects of an adversary’s actions within one domain may become embedded in system dynamics and continue to generate downstream consequences even without continued input from the original actor. There are three well-known mechanisms:
(1) Path dependenceOnce a system is pushed into a certain state, it tends to evolve along that trajectory (David, 1985; North, 1990, Page, 2006).
(2) Feedback loopsInitial inputs can be amplified or dampened by system responses (media cycles, markets, escalation dynamics, etc.) (Meadows, 2008, Jervis, 1997).
(3) Structural embeddingChanges in infrastructure, institutions, or information environments can persist after the initiating action ends (March and Olsen, 1984; Hall, 1993; Pierson, 2000, Streeck and Thelen, 2005).
What may persist is:
• altered incentives
• changed perception environments
• institutional or infrastructural shifts
• informational distortions
• trust degradation or reinforcement
• new equilibrium conditions
The system “remembers” in a structural sense, not a hostile or intentional one. It becomes a system with altered dynamics that may continue to produce outcomes originally aligned with adversarial objectives, especially when concurrent adversarial actions across multiple domains generate cascading and mutually reinforcing effects. The implication is that adversaries do not need continuous control if they successfully modify system conditions in ways that continue to produce strategic advantage. In other words; strategic actors may therefore not need to maintain continuous influence within a domain once initial perturbations have been introduced. Examples may include electoral interference capable of shaping political trajectories beyond the original intervention, or disinformation campaigns that, once absorbed and reproduced by the public, evolve into broader misinformation dynamics capable of influencing societal perceptions over extended periods of time (Maszczynska, 2025b). In complex systems, early interventions can alter incentives, perceptions, and feedback structures in ways that persist beyond the initiating action, producing self-reinforcing or path-dependent effects that continue to shape outcomes over time.
Key shift in logic
This produces a fundamental reorientation: from linear deterrence (A deters B) to networked deterrence, in which deterrence emerges from system-wide interactions across domains, actors, and intervening or proxy participants within a common strategic environment. In this sense, deterrence is no longer only something states do, but something that is co-produced across a distributed multi-domain system.
At the military multi-domain level, the US Multi-Domain Operations doctrine represents one of the most developed and operationalised approaches to achieving the simultaneous convergence of effects across domains, rather than their sequential application (US Army, 2021 & 2025; Wright, 2024). It conceptualises how adversaries- particularly China and Russia- can be challenged through the integrated use of capabilities across air, land, maritime, space, and cyberspace; generating multiple, concurrent dilemmas that complicate adversary decision-making (IISS, 2022). Comparable efforts can be observed in NATO’s evolving multi-domain tactics and operations, the UK’s Integrated Operating Concept (UK MoD, 2021), and broader US initiatives such as Joint All-Domain Command and Control (DoD, 2021; with updated implementation efforts through 2023-2024). However, these frameworks remain primarily focused on the integration of military capabilities within defence domains. This paper extends that logic by treating such integration not as an operational end state, but as one component within a broader multi-domain system condition of deterrence, in which coherence across civilian, informational, economic, societal and tech systems becomes equally determinative.
Moreover, contemporary deterrence is likely to evolve further toward a multi-actor ecosystem model, in which outcomes emerge from interactions between states, societies, technologies, and informational systems. In such an environment, influence accrues to those able to operate effectively under conditions that may otherwise appear chaotic. This reinforces a broader analytical shift: from focusing on discrete actions, toward shaping the conditions under which actions become likely or unlikely in the first place. Deterrence, in this sense, is not only about preventing attack, but about structuring the informational, political, economic, and societal environments in which decisions are formed, with instability, uncertainty, and cross-domain misalignment becoming central variables.
Deterrence therefore rests on internal coherence projected outward, military capability, and resilience across interconnected domains and the broader system. Whilst specific deterrence operations will still focus on the question “How do we stop […] from happening?”, the broader analytical question of general deterrence becomes: “What kind of environment makes […] unlikely to emerge as a viable option at all?”. This shift has three major consequences. First, deterrence moves from discrete to continuous: it is no longer tied to crisis moments or red-line thresholds, but operates persistently across political, informational, and economic domains. Second, the focus shifts from behaviour to architecture, moving from influencing individual decisions to shaping the decision architecture within which choices are made. Third, deterrence evolves from reaction to design, becoming less about responding to threats and more about structuring the strategic environment in advance.
Given the interdependent nature of the contemporary strategic environment, deterrence may also be understood as the continuous shaping of an adversary’s decision environment so that hostile action becomes structurally unattractive, unstable, or difficult to sustain. While elements of this thinking appear in hybrid warfare and counter-narratives scholarship, particularly in analyses of modern Russian doctrine (Hoffman, 2007; Galeotti, 2014; Giles, 2016; Renz, 2016), as well as in resilience and societal security literature and studies of strategic ambiguity and grey-zone conflict, the contribution here is to synthesise these strands into a unified deterrence logic rather than treating them as adjacent or separate domains. Deterrence is thus reconceptualised as environmental shaping rather than act prevention per se. The objective is not only to stop aggression, but to structure the conditions under which aggression becomes strategically incoherent, costly, or self-defeating before it is ever executed - both through deterrence by denial operating within systems of execution, and deterrence by punishment operating across interacting domains.
The analytical move advanced here replaces force-centric explanations with a focus on systemic coherence as the primary determinant of deterrence credibility. Coherence across allied actors and capabilities becomes the key variable; alignment of messaging, policy, and response matters more than raw capability alone; and stability under stress is treated as the real test of deterrence effectiveness. In this model, deterrence is less about how much power exists and more about how effectively and consistently that power is expressed, coordinated, and maintained across domains and actors. This produces a significant inversion. Instead of a linear relationship in which power → deterrence effect, the argument advanced here is that coherence of power expression → deterrence effect. Capability without alignment is strategically discounted, while even imperfect capability can be highly effective if it is consistently and credibly coordinated.
Coherence is not a soft or descriptive term; it functions as an analytical variable capturing alignment of strategic intent across actors, consistency of signalling over time, multi-domain integration, and resilience of coordination under pressure or crisis conditions. This shifts the explanatory core of deterrence away from traditional variables such as capability asymmetry, credibility, or resolve alone, toward the degree to which these elements remain aligned and mutually reinforcing across time, actors, and domains.
Deterrence is a system condition emerging from the coordinated interaction of multi-domain capabilities across a distributed actor environment under conditions of strategic pressure. While this framework may intersect with capabilities traditionally associated with compellence, its analytical focus remains on how systemic coordination and cross-domain alignment condition the viability of hostile action within the system itself, rather than explicitly directing adversary decision-making. While elements of this perspective appear in alliance cohesion studies, signalling theory, resilience and systems literature, and discussions of NATO interoperability, this paper argues that coherence is not merely a supporting condition but the central determinant of deterrence effectiveness. In this sense, traditional deterrence logic is inverted: deterrence credibility depends less on the magnitude of power and more on the degree to which that power is expressed through sustained alignment, operational consistency, and systemic stability under conditions of pressure across a multi-actor, multi-domain system.
Multi-Domain Deterrence (MDD) – Conceptual Framework
1. Definition of deterrence
Deterrence is a system condition emerging from the coordinated interaction of multi-domain capabilities across a distributed actor environment under conditions of strategic pressure.
2. System structure
Multi-Domain Deterrence operates within a distributed system composed of heterogeneous actors, capabilities, and domains. Interactions across these layers generate cascading effects through feedback loops, structural embedding, and cross-domain interdependence.
3. Mechanism of emergence
Deterrence does not arise from isolated actions or linear cause-effect relationships. It emerges from system-wide interaction dynamics that determine whether adversarial activity can stabilise, propagate, or generate sustained systemic effects across domains.
4. Central variable
Coherence is the primary determinant of deterrence effectiveness.
Coherence refers to:
- sustained alignment of intent across actors
- coordinated expression of capability across domains
- stability of system response under conditions of pressure
5. Core inversion
Traditional logic: power → deterrence effect
Reframed logic: coordinated multi-domain system condition → deterrence effect
6. Analytical shift
Multi-Domain Deterrence is understood as:
- a system condition rather than a discrete strategic act
- an emergent property of interaction rather than designed output
- a function of distributed alignment rather than centralised control
7. Outcome condition
Deterrence exists when hostile action becomes:
- structurally non-viable within the system
- unable to propagate across interconnected domains
- unable to generate sustained reinforcing effects under pressure
Multi-Domain Deterrence: Intellectual Contribution
The following propositions do not seek to replace classical deterrence theory, nor do they operate as minor extensions of it. Rather, they reflect a shift in how deterrence is understood and experienced under contemporary conditions. Taken together, they point toward a reconfiguration of deterrence- from a stable, state-centric construct to a dynamic, multi-domain condition shaped by interaction, perception, and coherence across actors and systems.
A. Deterrence as a continuously tuned adaptive process
Traditional deterrence theory has largely treated deterrence as a relatively stable strategic posture: a doctrine-based equilibrium maintained through credible signalling, capability, and resolve. Once established, deterrence is assumed to endure, requiring only periodic adjustment in response to changes in capability or threat perception. This paper departs from that assumption by framing deterrence as an ongoing process of calibration. Rather than something designed once and maintained, deterrence is calibrated through interaction across domains. It operates simultaneously across military, informational, economic, and societal spaces, where stability is not given but actively produced. While elements of this thinking appear in resilience and complex systems literature, they are often confined to specific domains. Here, adaptive logic is applied to deterrence as a whole-of-government, whole-of-alliance, and increasingly whole-of-system practice, suggesting that deterrence posture is not a fixed strategic structure, but a continuously sustained condition and signal generated through coherence, conditioning, and resilience under conditions of strategic pressure.
B. Deterrence as interaction stability, not adversary control
Classical deterrence theory is fundamentally adversary-centric, focusing on shaping an opponent’s incentives through the manipulation of costs and risks. Deterrence is reframed as the stabilisation of cross-domain interaction dynamics in which multiple actors signal, interpret, and respond under conditions of uncertainty. The central risk is no longer limited to deliberate aggression, but includes misperception, escalation, and unintended consequences emerging from complex interactions. While Cold War scholarship engaged with escalation control, it remained largely within dyadic and military frameworks. The present approach extends this logic into a multi-actor, multi-domain environment, where deterrence depends not only on influencing adversarial calculation, but on sustaining coherent interaction dynamics across the wider strategic system within which adversarial choices are made.
C. Coherence as performance, signal, and systemic variable
This paper repositions coherence as an externally observable phenomenon. What matters is not only whether actors share identical positions, but whether their actions remain externally legible, coordinated, and credible under conditions of pressure. Coherence, in this sense, becomes part of the signalling environment itself. It must be actively produced, demonstrated, and maintained under conditions of uncertainty and stress. This reframing draws on signalling theory but shifts its emphasis: coherence is not merely the condition enabling credible signalling; it is itself a signal. Consequently, internal cohesion is insufficient if it is not expressed in coordinated and timely action, while limited internal disagreement does not necessarily undermine deterrence if external behaviour remains coherent.
D. Error as a central variable in deterrence
Concerns about miscalculation are not new to deterrence theory, particularly in the context of nuclear strategy. However, this paper elevates error from a background risk to a central explanatory variable. In contemporary environments characterised by information saturation, compressed decision cycles, and cross-domain signalling ambiguity, deterrence failure is increasingly likely to result from misinterpretation rather than deliberate intent. This risk is amplified in multi-domain environments where signals, responses, and effects propagate simultaneously across military, informational, technological, economic, and societal layers. This shifts analytical emphasis away from traditional variables such as capability or resolve, and toward the conditions under which actors interpret signals and make decisions. The novelty here lies not in identifying error, but in prioritising it as a defining feature of deterrence dynamics.
E. Fragmentation as the primary attack surface
Existing literature on hybrid and information warfare recognises the importance of societal and informational vulnerabilities. This paper advances that insight by treating fragmentation not simply as a domain of competition, but as a structural condition of deterrence itself. Adversaries increasingly exploit divisions within and between societies- political, informational, and narrative- rather than confronting military capabilities directly. As a result, the effectiveness of deterrence is closely tied to the degree of coherence that can be maintained within societies and across alliances under conditions of pressure. The “front line” of deterrence is no longer confined to physical borders, but extends into domestic discourse, critical national infrastructure, informational environments, and other interconnected civilian and technological domains. This represents a shift from viewing fragmentation as an operational tactic to understanding it as a central vulnerability within deterrence systems. The effectiveness of deterrence therefore depends on the degree to which coherence can be maintained across political, informational, and societal subsystems under pressure.
F. Deterrence expanding into civilian life and societal systems
Deterrence is no longer confined to clearly bounded military domains. It now operates through financial systems, technological infrastructures, supply chains, and information environments, blurring the boundary between security and everyday life. While this expansion is acknowledged in discussions of hybrid and grey-zone activities, it is often treated as an extension of existing frameworks. This paper instead suggests a deeper shift: deterrence is becoming increasingly embedded within societal systems and infrastructures themselves. This raises both strategic and ethical questions, as civilian domains become integral to deterrence while remaining outside traditional security and military structures. The implication is that deterrence can no longer be understood solely through military or state-centric lenses, but must account for its broader societal embedding. This does not imply that all civilian activity becomes deterrence, but that civilian systems increasingly constitute part of the environment within which deterrence operates.
Individually, these propositions draw on strands already present in the literature- unity, signalling, resilience, and interdependence. Their significance lies in how they are brought together. The contribution of this paper is not the introduction of entirely new components, but the reconfiguration of deterrence around a different centre of gravity. Rather than an adversary-focused model grounded in capability and control, deterrence is reframed as a problem of coherence across actors, domains, and time. This involves a shift in both the unit of analysis and the definition of success: from influencing discrete decisions to sustaining alignment under conditions of uncertainty. In this sense, deterrence becomes less about what actors possess, and more about how consistently and coherently they are able to act together when it matters most.
Strategic Recommendations:
Multi-Domain Deterrence (MDD): From Declared Unity to Operational Coherence
Toward Coherence Under Pressure
Coherence matters more than unanimity
Deterrence depends on sufficient coherence under pressure, not perfect unity across actors and domains.
Deterrence is becoming continuous
It now operates as a persistent system condition shaped by ongoing interaction and feedback across domains.
Resilience is becoming a deterrent signal
Systemic and societal resilience communicates absorptive capacity and strategic endurance to adversaries.
Fragmentation is the new vulnerability
Political, societal, and informational divisions are increasingly exploited as primary vectors of deterrence erosion.
The challenge is coordination, not capability
The central problem is no longer power generation, but the sustained alignment of that power under pressure across interconnected systems.
Translating Principles into Practice:
The following considerations outline how Multi-Domain Deterrence (MDD) may be developed in practice. They are deliberately framed at a high level of abstraction. As this is an unclassified conceptual document, specifics are necessarily left broad. The intent is to define the conditions under which adaptation and operationalisation can occur across different institutional and allied contexts.
1. Coherence as the Primary Determinant of Deterrence Effectiveness
Deterrence should be understood as an emergent property of system-wide coherence rather than isolated capability. The long-term preservation of security will depend less on the concentration of power within any single domain than on the collective expression of power, resilience, and strategic alignment across domains, articulated in a coordinated, consistent, and credible manner across actors and systems. In an increasingly interconnected security environment, deterrence effectiveness depends on the ability to maintain coherence across domains and instruments of power within a unified strategic posture. Coherence, by contrast, amplifies even asymmetrical or uneven capabilities by reducing ambiguity and reinforcing expectations of coordinated response under pressure.
2. Unity as a Spectrum of Coherence Under Stress
Alliances and coalitions operate along a spectrum of coherence rather than a binary of unity or disunity. Managed diversity is not destabilising; what matters is whether divergence remains contained, predictable, and non-paralysing in escalation. Deterrence is weakened not by disagreement itself, but by visible fragmentation that alters adversary perception of decisiveness. The requirement is therefore not unanimity, but sustained functional alignment in crisis conditions.
3. Institutionalisation of Continuous Deterrence as a System Condition
Deterrence can no longer be treated as a crisis posture. It must operate continuously, sustained through permanent cross-domain coordination, shared assumptions, and pre-established response architectures. This requires shared capabilities architecture across domains, ensuring consistency not only in intent but in execution over time.
4. Reinforcement of Systemic Resilience Against Fragmentation
Fragmentation is now the principal vulnerability in deterrence systems. Adversaries increasingly exploit political polarisation, information disorder, and perceived inconsistency without direct confrontation. Deterrence therefore depends on reinforcing resilience across interconnected military, political, societal, technological, economic, and informational systems. Internal coherence has become a strategic front line, as perception instability translates directly into external credibility loss.
5. From Red Lines to Cross-Domain Escalation Management
Red-line deterrence models are increasingly insufficient in multi-domain environments defined by ambiguity and gradual escalation. Deterrence must instead function through calibrated cross-domain pressure, in which regulatory, financial, technological, informational, diplomatic, cyber, and military instruments reinforce one another through coordinated signalling, escalation management, and strategic pacing. Deterrence increasingly depends on the ability to coordinate thresholds, signalling, and escalation pathways across domains, ensuring that pressure applied in one domain can generate credible strategic consequences across others. The effect is cumulative: persistent limitation of adversary opportunity rather than discrete response.
6. Strategic Management of Systemic Interdependence
Systemic interdependence now functions as both a source of stability and a vector of coercion in strategic competition. Effective deterrence therefore requires selective resilience: protecting critical dependencies across infrastructure, energy, finance, technology, supply chains, communications, and information systems, while allowing controlled interdependence in areas that support broader stability. The objective is not full decoupling, but managing asymmetry of vulnerability - limiting adversary leverage while maintaining essential connectivity. Moreover, in highly interconnected systems, pressure applied in one domain may propagate across others, amplifying both deterrent effect and systemic risk.
7. Technological Integration as a Deterrence Function
Technological systems now shape deterrence credibility directly. AI, cyber capabilities, data infrastructures, and digital governance frameworks determine the speed, scale, and interpretability of action. States and alliances must therefore function as integrated technological ecosystems with shared standards, interoperability, and aligned governance. Technological coherence is no longer supporting - it is constitutive of deterrence.
8. Narrative Coherence as a Strategic Aspect of Deterrence
Deterrence is shaped as much by perception as capability. Adversaries actively probe narrative fragmentation, exploiting inconsistencies in messaging, legitimacy, and resolve. Narrative coherence is therefore a strategic capability. It requires alignment between internal communication and external signalling, consistency over time, and pre-crisis framing to reduce interpretive ambiguity under pressure while strengthening informational trust and credibility.
9. Tempo Control as a Strategic Instrument
In interconnected environments, control of tempo matters more than speed. Unmanaged acceleration increases error propagation; excessive delay erodes credibility. Deterrence therefore requires institutionalised tempo control: the ability to accelerate when clarity exists, and to introduce deliberate friction when uncertainty rises. Tempo becomes a mechanism of both credibility and stability.
10. Structured Unpredictability Within Strategic Consistency
Deterrence depends on balancing predictability and adaptability. Strategic consistency is essential, but controlled flexibility introduces uncertainty that complicates adversary planning. Unpredictability is effective only when it remains interpretable within a coherent framework. Otherwise, it becomes strategically unreadable and undermines deterrence credibility. The requirement is structured unpredictability: variability in execution bounded by stable intent.
11. Ethical Constraint and Collateral Deterrence Pressure
As adversarial actions extend into civilian systems- ethical constraints become integral to deterrence architecture. Excessive collateral impact risks eroding systemic trust and reducing the predictability of escalation pathways, thereby weakening the stability on which deterrence depends. Ethical constraint is therefore not external to design, but constitutive of long-term stability.
This includes an emerging responsibility threshold toward third actors across the wider deterrence ecosystem- other states, institutions, and interconnected systems affected by collateral deterrence pressure- where spill-over effects can propagate across domains and generate reciprocal strategic, institutional, and systemic costs.
12. Error Management as a Core Deterrence Function
The principal systemic risk is not intent but miscalculation under uncertainty, amplified by information saturation, compressed decision cycles, and interdependence within a multi-domain ecosystem. Deterrence systems must prioritise error management through cross-domain coordination, cross-validation of threat interpretation, multi-domain intelligence sharing, escalation buffers, and structured verification of signals across agencies and domains. The aim is not only to deter adversaries, but to prevent self-generated instability.
13. Deterrence as an Ecosystem of Coherent Systems Interaction Under Pressure
Future deterrence architectures will be defined less by fixed organisational structures than by sustained coherence across interconnected systems - state, alliance, institutional, infrastructural, technological, economic, societal, and cognitive-informational domains - under conditions of pressure. Deterrence effectiveness will depend on whether distributed actors across domains can align perception, interpretation, and response in real time, despite structural separation, functional diversity, and institutional fragmentation. This includes governments, agencies, private infrastructure operators, and cross-border partners operating within shared situational understanding and coordinated escalation logic, without requiring institutional convergence.
Deterrence is therefore no longer located within individual organisations, domains, or alliances. It emerges from the quality of interaction across an entire ecosystem of interdependent systems, where coherence is continuously produced rather than formally declared. Institutional continuity remains relevant, but credibility is now equally determined by cross-domain interpretability and the stability of coordination under stress.
The decisive shift is from structured blocs or static networks to ecosystemic coherence under pressure - a condition in which deterrence is not delivered by participation, but revealed through performance. In this environment, deterrence does not reside in structure. It resides in how coherently the system holds when it is tested.
The central challenge of Multi-Domain Deterrence (MDD) is no longer capability competition in isolation, but the ability to ensure that capabilities function as part of a coherent, system-wide deterrence posture, especially under conditions of uncertainty, acceleration, and interdependence. In this environment, strategic advantage derives less from individual systems of force than from the coordinated expression of capability across the wider ecosystem of state, allied, and infrastructural domains.
The framework advanced in this paper is presented at the level of strategic and doctrinal architecture rather than operational prescription. Its purpose is to inform the evolution of deterrence thinking across national and allied frameworks, rather than to specify implementation pathways within any single institutional setting. Operationalisation of these principles will require incremental adaptation within existing command structures, planning processes, and capability development frameworks across participating actors. The intent is not structural replacement, but improved alignment of existing mechanisms with the realities of cross-domain interdependence in deterrence planning and execution.
Conclusion
Modern deterrence has shifted from a predominantly military construct to a multi-domain, whole-of-society framework. Security in the XXI century has increasingly come to be shaped by the deterrent effect of escalation risk and by resilience that constrains an adversary’s ability to generate destabilising effects. Deterrence is no longer about threatening destruction - it is about denying success and strengthening the systems that make free societies worth defending. The adversary does not probe strength alone. It probes coherence. Fragmentation invites testing. Cohesion raises thresholds. Coherence, therefore, is not an outcome of deterrence. It is both its precondition and its signal.
The shift advanced in this paper is not cosmetic. It is architectural. Deterrence has long been understood as something states project - a posture, a threat, a signal sent outward. This paper has argued something different: that deterrence is not just projected but also produced, emerging from the coherence of interactions across military, civilian, informational, economic, and societal systems simultaneously. It cannot be assessed by counting capabilities or measuring resolve. It must be assessed by examining the degree to which those capabilities remain aligned, interoperable, and mutually reinforcing under pressure. A state or alliance that possesses overwhelming force but cannot coordinate its expression across domains is less deterrent than one with imperfect capability that acts with coherence and consistency.
This paper has identified three shifts that define modern deterrence. From discrete to continuous: deterrence no longer waits for crises but operates persistently across all domains. From behaviour to architecture: the focus moves from influencing individual decisions to shaping the environment in which decisions are formed. From reaction to design: deterrence becomes less about responding to threats and more about structuring the conditions under which hostile action becomes strategically incoherent before it is ever executed. These are not aspirational. They describe what effective adversaries are already doing. Russia does not wait for crises to practise deterrence. China does not confine its strategic shaping to military domains. Iran does not require attribution to generate pressure. The question is not whether Western alliances will face a multi-domain deterrence environment. They already are. The question is whether they will organise themselves to operate effectively within it.
Three contributions of this paper deserve a particular note. The coherence over power inversion - replacing force as the primary explanatory variable with the consistency and alignment of how power is expressed across a multi-actor system - reframes how deterrence effectiveness should be measured and designed. Collateral Deterrence Pressure - the systemic vulnerabilities generated in third-party actors, as unintended consequences of deterrence actions between primary actors - introduces a new variable into deterrence calculus, one the field has not yet adequately named or addressed. The Structured Unpredictability Framework - which proposes that democratic alliances can harness unpredictability as a deliberate deterrence tool without sacrificing coherence, provided core commitments remain fixed while ambiguity is preserved across the form, timing, and domain of response - offers practitioners a workable architecture for navigating the tension between consistency and strategic flexibility.
Implications for theory and practice
For deterrence theory, the central implication is a level-of-analysis shift: from dyadic state interaction to multi-actor systemic coherence. Deterrence is reconceptualised as an emergent property of distributed interaction rather than a designed output of state calculation. Error, not intent, becomes the dominant failure mode. Fragmentation, not capability deficit, becomes the primary vulnerability. And coherence, not single domain power, becomes the central explanatory variable.
For practitioners, the implications are immediate. Deterrence must be institutionalised as a continuous system condition rather than a crisis response. Intelligence must be placed at the centre of cognitive alignment rather than treated as a supporting function. Resilience must be understood as an active deterrence signal rather than a passive attribute. And narrative coherence must be treated as an operational domain rather than a communications afterthought. Not everything requires reinvention. What is required is recalibration - aligning what already exists into a system capable of producing coherent deterrent effect across the full spectrum of competition.
Deterrence rests on a sufficient degree of shared strategic logic: adversaries do not need to be identical, but they must remain predictable enough to fear consequences and rational enough to moderate behaviour. That condition persists, but the environment in which it operates has fundamentally changed - becoming more interconnected, more contested, more vulnerable to fragmentation, and more dependent on coherence than any previous strategic era. The central risk is no longer deliberate escalation alone, but miscalculation, misinterpretation, and systemic drift across interconnected domains. Restraint is not always hesitation; it can reflect an understanding that deterrence by denial is structurally strong. It functions as both an intended and emergent strategic condition - a means of controlling tempo, limiting error, and sustaining the conditions under which stability remains possible.
The greatest risk to deterrence today is not the adversary's capability. It is the alliance's fragmentation. And when allies, through misalignment and incoherence, begin to deter each other rather than their adversaries, deterrence has not merely weakened. It has inverted.
The answer lies not in power alone, but in the coherence with which that power is expressed - sustained across domains, institutions, and alliances, under pressure and over time.
If we do it well - deterrence by denial becomes, in itself, deterrence by punishment.
Bibliography
Adamsky, D. (2010) The Culture of Military Innovation: The Impact of Cultural Factors on the Revolution in Military Affairs in Russia, the US, and Israel. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Adamsky, D. (2015) Cross-Domain Coercion: The Current Russian Art of Strategy. Proliferation Papers 54. Paris: Institut Français des Relations Internationales. Available at: https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/pp54adamsky.pdf
Alberts, D.S. and Hayes, R.E. (2003) Power to the Edge: Command and Control in the Information Age. Washington, DC: CCRP Publication Series. Available at: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_Power.pdf
Allison, G. and Zelikow, P. (1999) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2nd edn. New York: Longman. Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/0061-1999-Allison-b-RRW.pdf
Althuis, J., Bolt, N., Haiden, L. and Stolze, M. (2023) Understanding Strategic Communications: NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence Terminology Working Group Publication No. 3. Riga: NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Available at: https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/understanding-strategic-communications-nato-strategic-communications-centre-of-excellence-terminology-working-group-publication-no-3/285
Arendt, H. (1951) The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Art, R.J. and Cronin, P.M. (eds.) (2003) The United States and Coercive Diplomacy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Axelrod, R. and Cohen, M.D. (2000) Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York: Basic Books.
Backley, M. (2015) The myth of entangling alliances', International Security, 39(4) (Spring 2015), pp. 7–48. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00197
Baines, G., Morley-Davies, J. and Thomas, J. (2025) Russian Information Operations Outside of the Western Information Environment (Revised version). Riga: NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Available at: https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/russian-information-operations-outside-of-the-western-information-environment-revised-version/316
Bar-Yam, Y. (2003) Dynamics of Complex Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Available at: https://fernandonogueiracosta.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/yaneer-bar-yam-dynamics-of-complex-systems.pdf
Bassiri Tabrizi, A. (2022) Iran's Regional Strategy and Hybrid Warfare. London: Royal United Services Institute.
Bennett, B.W. (2022) Countering the Risks of North Korean Nuclear Weapons. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA1015-1.html
Blight, J.G. and Welch, D.A. (1990) On the Brink: Americans and Soviets Reexamine the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Noonday Press.
Booth, K. (1990) The concept of strategic culture affirmed, in Jacobsen, C.G. (ed.) Strategic Power: USA/USSR. London: Macmillan, pp. 121–128. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-20574-5_8
Boyd, J.R. (1987) A Discourse on Winning and Losing. Maxwell Air Force Base: US Air Force. Available at: https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0151_BOYD_DISCOURSE_WINNING_LOSING.PDF
Brands, H. and Feaver, P. (2017) 'What are America's alliances good for?', Parameters, 47(2), pp. 15–30. Available at: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2928&context=parameters
Buchanan, B. (2020) The Hacker and the State: Cyber Attacks and the New Normal of Geopolitics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392622180_Ben_BUCHANAN_The_Hacker_and_the_State_Cyber_Attacks_and_the_New_Normal_of_Geopolitics_Cambridge_Harvard_University_Press_2020
Cebrowski, A.K. and Garstka, J.J. (1998) 'Network-centric warfare: its origin and future', Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, 124(1), pp. 28–35. Available at: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998/january/network-centric-warfare-its-origin-and-future
Cha, V. (2016) Powerplay: The Origins of the American Alliance System in Asia. Princeton University Press.
Christensen, T.J. (1996) Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and Sino-American Conflict, 1947–1958. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Churchill, W. (1940) 'We shall fight on the beaches', Speech to the House of Commons, 4 June. Available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1940-06-04/debates/a3a03bb3-db0f-4fd4-b5e1-e1b51e986fc1/WeShallFightOnTheBeaches
Clausewitz, C. von (1832) On War. Translated by Howard, M. and Paret, P. (1976). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Available at: https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/TOC.htm
Council of the European Union (2020–2024) EU Cyber Sanctions: Designations Related to Cyber-Attacks. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/cyber-diplomacy/
Dahmann, J. S. (2013) Systems of Systems Characterization and Types. NATO STO Publication. Available at: https://publications.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Educational%20Notes/STO-EN-SCI-276/EN-SCI-276-01.pdf
David, P.A. (1985) 'Clio and the economics of QWERTY', American Economic Review, 75(2), pp. 332–337. Available at: https://fbaum.unc.edu/teaching/articles/David_AER_1985.pdf
Department of Defence of the Republic of South Africa (2015) South African Defence Review 2015. Pretoria: Department of Defence. Available at: https://static.pmg.org.za/191016defencereview.pdf
Dickson, J., Ghoorhoo, H. and Harding, E. (2023) Seeking Legitimacy: Considerations for Strategic Communications in the Digital Age. Riga: NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Available at: https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/seeking-legitimacy-considerations-for-strategic-communications-in-the-digital-age/289
Eisenstadt, M. (2011) The Strategic Culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Operational and Policy Implications. Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Available at: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/strategic-culture-islamic-republic-iran-operational-and-policy-implications
Ellsberg, D. (2017) The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. New York: Bloomsbury.
European Commission (2016) Joint Framework on Countering Hybrid Threats: A European Union Response. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016JC0018
European Union External Action (2022) A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence. Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/strategic_compass_en3_web.pdf
European Union External Action (2023) Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) Framework. Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/information-integrity-and-countering-foreign-information-manipulation-interference-fimi_en
European Union External Action (2025) Inside the infrastructure of Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) operations. Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/inside-infrastructure-foreign-information-manipulation-and-interference-fimi-operations_en
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (2023) EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2023. The Hague: Europol. Available at: https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-events/main-reports/eu-serious-and-organised-crime-threat-assessment
Farrell, H. and Newman, A.L. (2019) Weaponized interdependence: how global economic networks shape state coercion, International Security, 44(1), pp. 42–79. Available at: https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/44/1/42/12237/Weaponized-Interdependence-How-Global-Economic
Fearon, J.D. (1994) Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes, American Political Science Review, 88(3), pp. 577–592. Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/group/fearon-research/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Domestic-Political-Audiences-and-the-Escalation-of-International-Disputes.pdf
Fearon, J.D. (1997) Signaling foreign policy interests: tying hands versus sinking costs, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), pp. 68–90. Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/group/fearon-research/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Signaling-Foreign-Policy-Interests-Tying-Hands-versus-Sinking-Costs.pdf
Fisher, S., Klein, G.R., Pupcenoks, J., and Codjo, J. (2025) ‘China, DIME, and innovative deterrence methodology: How authoritarian states react to deterrence activities through information, European Journal of International Security, pp. 1–34. doi:10.1017/eis.2025.10021
Folke, C. (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses, Global Environmental Change, 16(3), pp. 253–267. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378006000379
Forrester, J.W. (1961) Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Available at: http://www.laprospective.fr/dyn/francais/memoire/autres_textes_de_la_prospective/autres_ouvrages_numerises/industrial-dynamics-forrester-1961.pdf
Freedman, L. (2004) Deterrence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Freedman, L. (2013) Strategy: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freedman, L. (2023) Command: The Politics of Military Operations from Korea to Ukraine. London: Allen Lane.
Galeotti, M. (2014) The "Gerasimov doctrine” and Russian non-linear war, In Moscow's Shadows [Blog]. Available at: https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/the-gerasimov-doctrine-and-russian-non-linear-war/
Galeotti, M. (2022) The Weaponisation of Everything: A Field Guide to the New Way of War. New Haven: Yale University Press.
George, A.L. (1991) Avoiding War: Problems of Crisis Management. Boulder: Westview Press.
George, A.L. and Smoke, R. (1974) Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice. New York: Columbia University Press. Available at: https://scispace.com/pdf/deterrence-in-american-foreign-policy-theory-and-practice-3r8jk6sfno.pdf
Gerasimov, V. (2013) 'The value of science in prediction', Military-Industrial Courier, 27 February. Available at: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/Gerasimov-2013.pdf
Giles, K. (2016) Russia's 'New' Tools for Confronting the West: Continuity and Innovation in Moscow's Exercise of Power. London: Chatham House. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/2016-03-russia-new-tools-giles.pdf
Gorbachev, M. (1987) Speech at the United Nations General Assembly, 7 December. Available at: https://media.un.org/photo/en/asset/oun7/oun7574803
Gray, C.S. (1999) 'Strategic culture as context: the first generation of theory strikes back', Review of International Studies, 25(1), pp. 49–69. Available at: https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/14965922.pdf
Gray, C.S. (2010) The Strategy Bridge: Theory for Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, P.A. (1993) 'Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain', Comparative Politics, 25(3), pp. 275–296. Available at: https://www.cooperative-individualism.org/hall-peter_policy-paradigms-social-learning-1993-apr.pdf
Hoffman, F.G. (2007) Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. Available at: https://www.potomacinstitute.org/images/stories/publications/potomac_hybridwar_0108.pdf
Holland, J.H. (1995) Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Holling, C.S. (1973) 'Resilience and stability of ecological systems', Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, pp. 1–23. Available at: https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/26/1/RP-73-003.pdf
International Crisis Group (2023) Iran's Escalation Management in the Middle East. Available at: https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iran
International Institute for Strategic Studies (2022) 'The US Army's multi-domain operations doctrine', Strategic Comments, 28(8), pp. i–ii. Available at: https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/2022/the-us-armys-multi-domain-operations-doctrine/
International Institute for Strategic Studies (2023) The Military Balance 2023. Available at: https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance/the-military-balance-2023/
International Institute for Strategic Studies (2024) The Military Balance 2024. Available at: https://securesustain.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/The-Military-Balance-2024_compressed.pdf
Jackson, N. (2023) Deterrence and Disinformation: Communicating Deterrence in a Non-Linear Media Environment. Defence Strategic Communications, 13 (Autumn), pp. 95–130. Riga: NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Available at: https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/download/DSC_NATO_journal_V13_all_new.pdf
Jervis, R. (1979) 'Deterrence theory revisited', World Politics, 31(2), pp. 289–324. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2009945
Jervis, R. (1997) System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jervis, R. (2017) How Statesmen Think: The Psychology of International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jervis, R., Lebow, R.N. and Stein, J.G. (1985) Psychology and Deterrence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Available at: https://scispace.com/pdf/psychology-and-deterrence-23zn2v5qu6.pdf
Johnston, A.I. (1995) Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kahn, H. (1965) On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios. New York: Praeger. Available at: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781351502214_A30457138/preview-9781351502214_A30457138.pdf
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) 'Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk', Econometrica, 47(2), pp. 263–291. Available at: https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Behavioral_Decision_Theory/Kahneman_Tversky_1979_Prospect_theory.pdf
Kaldor, M., Ossa, H. and Vincent, S. (2025) From Nuclear Deterrence to Democratic Resilience: Towards a 21st Century Security Paradigm. London: Conflict and Civicness Research Group, LSE IDEAS. Available at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/projects/conflict-and-civicness-research-group/assets/Assets/Publications/Research-Reports/Non-Nuclear-Deterrence-Report-Final.pdf
Kennedy, J.F. (1963) Commencement Address at American University, 10 June. Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-university-19630610
Keohane, R.O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 4-6 available at: http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/ps240/05%20Cooperation%20with%20States%20as%20Unitary%20Actors/Keohane%20-%20After%20Hegemony%20%5BCh%204-6%5D.pdf
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J.S. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
King Charles III (2026) Address to the United States Congress, Washington, DC, 28 April. Available at: https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2026-04-28/the-kings-address-to-the-joint-meeting-of-congress-in-washington
Knights, M. (2021) Iran's Expanding Militia Network in Iraq and Syria. Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Available at: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/irans-expanding-militia-network-iraq-and-syria
Knights, M. (2023) Iran's Militia Network and Escalation Strategy. Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Available at: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis
Kovrig, M. and Nadjibulla, V. (2026) ‘Countering state-perpetrated arbitrary detention: a strategic framework for democratic response’, Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 21(2), pp. 234–256. doi: 10.1080/18335330.2026.2642795.
Lanoszka, A. (2018) Atomic Assurance: The Alliance Politics of Nuclear Deterrence. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lantis, J.S. (2002) Strategic culture and national security policy, International Studies Review, 4(3), pp. 87–113. Available at: https://www.fb03.uni-frankfurt.de/45431305/Lantis-2002%2013Strategic-Culture-and-National-Security-Policy.pdf
Maier, M.W. (1998) Architecting principles for systems of systems, Systems Engineering, 1(4), pp. 267–284. Available at: https://asymmetricleadership.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/architectingprinciplesofsystemofsystemsMAIER.pdf
Google Cloud (2024) Unearthing APT44: Russia’s Notorious Cyber Sabotage Unit Sandworm. Threat Intelligence. Written by Roncone et al. Available at: https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/apt44-unearthing-sandworm
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1984) The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life, American Political Science Review, 78(3), pp. 734–749. Available at: https://www.rochelleterman.com/ComparativeExam/sites/default/files/Bibliography%20and%20Summaries/March%20and%20Olson%201984.pdf
Maszczynska, M. (2025b) Beyond Espionage: How Foreign State Disinformation Fuels Radicalisation — and How to Counter It. Deterrence Center. Available at: https://www.deterrencecenter.com/publications/beyond-espionage-how-foreign-state-disinformation-fuels-radicalisation-and-how-to-counter-it
Maszczynska, M. (2026) Modern Deterrence: From Strategy to Statecraft. Deterrence Center. Available at: https://www.deterrencecenter.com/publications/modern-deterrence-from-strategy-to-statecraft
Mazarr, M.J. (2018) Understanding Deterrence. RAND Perspective PE-295-RC. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE295.html
Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Microsoft Threat Intelligence (2022) Digital Defense Report 2022. Redmond, WA: Microsoft. Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/business/microsoft-digital-defense-report
Microsoft Threat Intelligence (2023) Cyber Signals: Nation-State Threat Activity and Hybrid Threat Ecosystems. Redmond, WA: Microsoft. Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/business/microsoft-digital-defense-report
Microsoft Threat Intelligence (2024) Digital Defense Report 2024. Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/security-insider/threat-landscape/microsoft-digital-defense-report-2024
Miller, J.H. and Page, S.E. (2007) Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ministério da Defesa do Brasil (2025) Política Nacional de Defesa e Estratégia Nacional de Defesa. Brasília: Ministério da Defesa. Available at: https://www.gov.br/defesa/pt-br/assuntos/copy_of_estado-e-defesa/pnd_end_congresso_.pdf
Ministerio de Defensa de la República Argentina (2023) Libro Blanco de la Defensa 2023. Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Defensa. Available at: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2021/11/libroblancodeladefensa2023_.pdf
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (2020) Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence. Moscow: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://rusmilsec.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/nucdet_rf_2020_eng.pdf
Narang, V. (2014) Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
NATO (1949) The North Atlantic Treaty. Washington, DC, 4 April. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
NATO (2010) Active Engagement, Modern Defence: Strategic Concept. Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_68580.htm
NATO (2014) Wales Summit Declaration. Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm
NATO (2016) Warsaw Summit Communiqué. Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm
NATO (2022) Allied Joint Doctrine (AJP-01), Edition F Version 1. Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available at: https://www.coemed.org/files/stanags/01_AJP/AJP-01_EDF_V1_E_(1)_2437.pdf
NATO (2022) NATO 2022 Strategic Concept. Madrid: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/strategic-concepts/nato-2022-strategic-concept
NATO (2022) Madrid Summit Communiqué. Madrid: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_196951.htm
NATO (2022) NATO Warfighting Capstone Concept. Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/strategic-concepts/nato-2022-strategic-concept
NATO (2023) Vilnius Summit Communiqué. Vilnius: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_217320.htm
NATO (2024) Washington Summit Declaration. Washington, DC: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm
NATO (2025) Allied Joint Doctrine for the Conduct of Operations (AJP-3). Brussels: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6964e72799fbdc498faecce2/AJP_3_Ed_D_V1-O.pdf
North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Cyber Security Centre (2018) Joint Statement on Malicious Cyber Activity Carried Out by the Russian Government. London: NCSC. Available at: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/news/joint-us-uk-statement-malicious-cyber-activity-carried-out-russian-government
National Cyber Security Centre (2024) NCSC Annual Review 2024. London: NCSC. Available at: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/ncsc-annual-review-2024
National Cyber Security Centre (2025) NCSC Annual Review 2025. London: NCSC. Available at: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/ncsc-annual-review-2025
Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Available at: https://users.ssc.wisc.edu/~peoliver/SOC924/Articles/olsonlogic.pdf
Olson, M. and Zeckhauser, R. (1966) An economic theory of alliances, Review of Economics and Statistics, 48(3), pp. 266–279. Available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2007/RM4297.pdf
Osinga, F. (2007) Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd. London: Routledge.
Ostovar, A. (2016) Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Page, S.E. (2006) 'Path dependence', Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(1), pp. 87–115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00000006
Pamment, J. and Sörensen, S. (2024) Operationalising the Framework for Evaluating Capability Against Information Influence Operations: A Case Study of the Psychological Defence Agency's Courses. Riga: NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence. Available at: https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/operationalising-the-framework-for-evaluating-capability-against-information-influence-operations-a-case-study-of-the-psychological-defence-agencys-courses/295
Panda, A. (2020) Kim Jong Un and the Bomb: Survival and Deterrence in North Korea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pierson, P. (2000) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics, American Political Science Review, 94(2), pp. 251–267. Available at: https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/pierson.pdf
Pomerantsev, P. (2019) This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality. London: Faber and Faber.
Putin, V. (2022) Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly, 21 February. Moscow: The Kremlin. Available at: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828
Ratcliffe, J. (2008) Intelligence-Led Policing. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Reagan, R. (1987) Ronald Reagan: Brandenburg Gate Speech. Delivered 12 June 1987, West Berlin, Germany. Available at: https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Ronald%20Reagan%20Brandenburg%20Gate%20Speech.pdf
Renz, B. (2016) 'Russia and "hybrid warfare"', Contemporary Politics, 22(3), pp. 283–300. Available at: https://ir101.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/renz-2016-russia-and-hybrid-warfare.pdf
Renz, B. (2020) Russia's Military Revival. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Leonardson, J.E. (2020) Intelligence in Public Media, Studies in Intelligence, 64(1), pp. 49–52. Central Intelligence Agency. Available at:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/active-measures-and-information-wars.pdf
Roosevelt, F.D. (1941) Annual Message to Congress (Four Freedoms Speech), 6 January. Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.fdrlibrary.org/four-freedoms
Russian Federation (2014) Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation. Presidential Decree No. 683, 25 December. Moscow: The Kremlin. Available at: https://rusmilsec.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/mildoc_rf_2014_eng.pdf
Russian Federation (2016) Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. Presidential Decree No. 640, 30 November. Moscow: The Kremlin. Available at: https://www.russiamatters.org/sites/default/files/media/files/Foreign%20Policy%20Concept%20of%20the%20Russian%20Federation%20%28approved%20by%20President%20of%20the%20Russian%20Federation%20Vladimir%20Putin%20on%20November%2030%2C%202016%29%20-%20Asset%20Publisher%20-%20The%20Ministry%20of%20Foreign%20Affairs%20of%20the%20Russian%20Federation.pdf
Russian Federation (2021) National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation. Presidential Decree No. 400, 2 July. Moscow: Security Council of the Russian Federation. Available at: https://rusmilsec.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/nss_rf_2021_eng_.pdf
Russian Federation (2023) Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. Presidential Decree No. 229, 31 March. Moscow: The Kremlin. Available at: https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/fundamental_documents/1860586/
Schelling, T.C. (1960) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schelling, T.C. (1966) Arms and Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schultz, K.A. (2001) Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smeets, M. (2022) No Shortcuts: Why States Struggle to Develop a Military Cyber-Force. London: Hurst.
Snyder, G.H. (1997) Alliance Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Snyder, J. (1977) The Soviet Strategic Culture: Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2154.html
Spence, A.M. (1973) Job market signaling, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), pp. 355–374. Available at: https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/Spence.pdf
State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China (2019) China's National Defense in the New Era. Beijing: State Council Information Office. Available at: http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper/201907/24/content_WS5d3941ddc6d08408f502283d.html
Streeck, W. and Thelen, K. (eds.) (2005) Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-194981
Sun Tzu (c. 5th century BCE) The Art of War. Translated by Giles, L. (1910). Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/132
Tabatabai, A.M. (2020) No Conquest, No Defeat: Iran's National Security Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toffler, A. and Toffler, H. (1993) War and Anti-War: Survival at the Dawn of the 21st Century. New York: Little, Brown. Available at: https://ia800502.us.archive.org/28/items/WarAndAntiWar-Toffler/War-And-Anti-War_-_Toffler.pdf
UK Ministry of Defence (2019) Joint Doctrine Note 1/19: Deterrence — The Defence Contribution. London: Ministry of Defence. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/deterrence-the-defence-contribution-jdn-119
UK Ministry of Defence (2021) Defence in a Competitive Age. London: Ministry of Defence. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-in-a-competitive-age
UK Ministry of Defence (2021) The Integrated Operating Concept 2025. London: Ministry of Defence. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-integrated-operating-concept-2025
UK Ministry of Defence (2023) Defence Command Paper Refresh: Defence's Response to a More Contested and Volatile World. London: Ministry of Defence. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64b55dd30ea2cb000d15e3fe/Defence_Command_Paper_2023_Defence_s_response_to_a_more_contested_and_volatile_world.pdf
UK Government (2022) National Cyber Strategy 2022. London: Cabinet Office. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-cyber-strategy-2022
UK Government (2022) UK Government Resilience Framework. London: Cabinet Office. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uk-government-resilience-framework
UK Government (2023) UK Government Resilience Framework: Implementation Update. London: Cabinet Office. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-resilience-framework-2023-implementation-update
UK Government (2025) UK Government Resilience Action Plan. London: Cabinet Office. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-government-resilience-action-plan
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2018) Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/disarmament/sg-agenda/en/
United States Army (2025) Field Manual FM 3-0: Operations. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Available at: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN43326-FM_3-0-000-WEB-1.pdf
United States Army (2021) The US Army in Multi-Domain Operations 2028, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1. Fort Eustis: US Army Training and Doctrine Command. Available at: https://www.army.mil/article/243754/the_u_s_army_in_multi_domain_operations_2028
United States Cyber Command (2018) Achieve and Maintain Cyberspace Superiority: Command Vision for US Cyber Command. Fort Meade: US Cyber Command. Available at: https://www.cybercom.mil/Portals/56/Documents/USCYBERCOM%20Vision%20April%202018.pdf
United States Department of Defense (2021) Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) Strategy. Washington, DC: Department of Defense. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.PDF
United States Department of Defense (2022) 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC: Department of Defense. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF
United States Department of Defense (2024) Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China. Washington, DC: Department of Defense. Available at: https://www.defense.gov/CMPR/
United States Department of War (2026) 2026 National Defense Strategy. Washington, DC. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF
United States Department of Justice (2018) Grand Jury Indicts 12 Russian Intelligence Officers for Hacking Offenses Related to the 2016 Election. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, 13 July. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election
United States Department of Justice (2020) Six Russian GRU Officers Charged in Connection with Worldwide Deployment of Destructive Malware. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, 19 October. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/six-russian-gru-officers-charged-connection-worldwide-deployment-destructive-malware-and
Walker, B. and Salt, D. (2006) Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Available at: http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/ps240/03%20Anarchy,%20Hierarchy,%20and%20Sovereignty/Waltz%20-%20Theory%20of%20International%20Politics%20(Ch%205-8).pdf
Watling, J. (2025) Emergent Approaches to Combined Arms Manoeuvre in Ukraine. London: Royal United Services Institute. Available at: https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/insights-papers/emergent-approaches-combined-arms-manoeuvre-ukraine
Wigell, M. (2021) Democratic Deterrence: How to Dissuade Hybrid Interference, The Washington Quarterly, 44(1), pp. 49–67. doi: 10.1080/0163660X.2021.1893027.
Wolford, S. (2015) The Politics of Military Coalitions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://assets.cambridge.org/97811071/00657/frontmatter/9781107100657_frontmatter.pdf
Wright, R. (2024) Multidomain Dominance. US Army. Available at: https://www.army.mil/article/279765/multidomain_dominance
Xi, J. (2017) Report to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, 18 October. Beijing: Xinhua. Available at: https://www.xinhuanet.com/english/special/2017-11/03/c_136725942.htm
Xi, J. (2018) Speech on the Community of Shared Future for Mankind. Beijing. Available at: https://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-09/03/c_129946189.htm