The Russian Way of Deterrence

Online Description

Selected among Foreign Affairs’s “Best of Books 2024” From a globally renowned expert on Russian military strategy and national security, The Russian Way of Deterrence investigates Russia’s approach to coercion (both deterrence and compellence), comparing and contrasting it with the Western conceptualization of this strategy. Strategic deterrence, or what Dmitry (Dima) Adamsky calls deterrence à la Russe, is one of the main tools of Russian statecraft. Adamsky deftly describes the genealogy of the Russian approach to coercion and highlights the cultural, ideational, and historical factors that have shaped it in the nuclear, conventional, and informational domains. Drawing on extensive research on Russian strategic culture, Adamsky highlights several empirical and theoretical peculiarities of the Russian coercion strategy, including how this strategy relates to the war in Ukraine. Exploring the evolution of strategic deterrence, along with its sources and prospective avenues of development, Adamsky provides a comprehensive intellectual history that makes it possible to understand the deep mechanics of this Russian stratagem, the current and prospective patterns of the Kremlin’s coercive conduct, and the implications for policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic.

📘 Key Terms & Definitions

Strategic culture

Definition: A “set of shared values, norms, beliefs, assumptions, and narratives” that “shape and sometimes determine” a strategic community’s identity, instincts, and modus operandi in peace and war.

Role in author’s argument: Strategic culture is the explanatory engine for why Russian “deterrence” (strategic deterrence / deterrence à la Russe) looks conceptually and operationally different from Western coercion models.

Analytical notes:

What it does: Bridges “area studies” and deterrence/coercion theory by treating culture as shaping the initiator’s coercive style, not merely as a variable the coercer must “tailor” to.
Relation to coercion/deterrence models: A cultural-cognitive corrective to “universal logic” assumptions; foregrounds perception, ideology, and institutional/intelligence traditions in how threats and limited force are designed and interpreted.
Operationalization / measurement: Defined and “measured” through discourse and institutional analysis of the Russian strategic community (doctrine, professional military writing, policy narratives), then stress-tested through crisis/war behavior (Ukraine).

Comparison to other theorists:
Versus Schelling-style rationalism: Less “threat communication = bargaining” and more “action itself + cognitive manipulation = coercive shaping.”
Versus some strategic-culture readings (Johnston-style): Adamsky tries to use culture not only to predict preferences but to explain a distinct coercion mechanism (lexicon, logic, and operational repertoire).

Strategic community

Definition: An umbrella term for the institutions that shape national security policy—usually the military, intelligence, executives/legislatures, defense industry, and affiliated experts/think tanks.

Role in author’s argument: The unit of analysis for “shared meanings” (lexicon, norms, traditions) that generate deterrence à la Russe; explains why the same English terms get different Russian cultural readings.

Analytical notes:

Relation to coercion models: Signals, credibility, and resolve are not purely “state” properties; they are produced by a strategic community’s mental models, bureaucratic incentives, and intelligence traditions.
Operationalization / measurement: Adamsky reads the community’s doctrine and professional discourse as evidence of how Russia conceives coercion across domains.

Comparison to other theorists: Similar to “strategic community” usage in strategic-culture and civil-military scholarship, but here explicitly tied to coercion operations design and lexicon formation.

Coercion

Definition: “A strategy of preventing unwanted behavior through influencing adversarial cost-benefit considerations by threats.”

Role in author’s argument: The umbrella category that includes deterrence and compellence; Adamsky’s chapters integrate all three—coercion/deterrence/compellence—because Russian discourse historically tended not to separate them cleanly.

Analytical notes:

Relation to models: Starts from rationalist cost-benefit logic but argues Russian practice embeds that logic in culturally shaped meanings (action-centered signaling, reflexive control, cross-domain integration).
Operationalization / measurement: Traced as (1) concepts/terminology (genealogy) and (2) operational patterns across nuclear, conventional, informational domains.

Comparison to other theorists: Close to classic coercion theory (deterrence + compellence), but Adamsky argues Russia treats the full coercion spectrum as “strategic deterrence” and sometimes calls it “deterrence” in English translation.

Deterrence

Definition: A subcategory of coercion “to preserve the status quo.”

Role in author’s argument: A Western analytic category that does not map neatly onto Russian usage: Russian “deterrence” often spans wartime and includes compellence-like aims (shape environment, de-escalate, change status quo).

Analytical notes:

Relation to models: In the Russian frame, deterrence is not confined to peacetime signaling; it can be a continuous process across phases of conflict.
Operationalization: Adamsky treats Russian “deterrence” claims as data to decode—then maps to deterrence/compellence functions.

Comparison to other theorists: Diverges from “deterrence = preserve status quo via threatened punishment/denial” as in standard Schelling-era framing by explicitly adding “action itself” as a shaping condition.

Compellence

Definition: A subcategory of coercion “to force unwanted behavior,” i.e., “to change the status quo.”

Role in author’s argument: Compellence is analytically present even when Russian texts label activities “deterrence”; that labeling matters for how Russia designs coercion and how outsiders interpret it.

Analytical notes:

Russian term: prinuzhdenie.
Operationalization: Demonstrated via episodes where Russia used force to compel outcomes (e.g., Georgia 2008 as “deterrence by punishment” and coercion).

Comparison to other theorists: Very Schelling-consistent in function, but Adamsky’s point is about terminology-to-operation linkage: Russian compellence can be executed under the banner of “deterrence/strategic deterrence.”

Deterrence à la Russe

Definition: Has “a much broader meaning” than Western usage: employing threats (sometimes with limited force) to “maintain the status quo, change it, shape the strategic environment… prevent escalation, or de-escalate”; spans all phases of war; and is “not so much about rhetorical threats as… action itself.”

Role in author’s argument: The dependent variable—Russia’s distinctive coercion style—to be explained by strategic culture, ideational factors, and historical legacies.

Analytical notes:

Relation to coercion models: A “competition-continuum” coercion logic: deterrence/compellence across peace-crisis-war; action-forward signaling; cross-domain integration; cognitive manipulation.
Operationalization: Adamsky reconstructs the concept’s genealogy (Soviet → post-Soviet → contemporary) and then tests via Ukraine’s war dynamics.

Comparison to other theorists:
Versus “deterrence = fear via threatened punishment”: Adds “shaping” and “de-escalation through action,” not just restraint through fear.
Versus coercive diplomacy traditions: Converges on using limited force for bargaining, but Adamsky emphasizes culturally rooted lexicon + mechanism rather than only bargaining structure.

sderzhivanie

Definition: The usual Russian translation for “deterrence,” but with different etymology: it “does not derive from the word fear.”

Role in author’s argument: Etymology is not “just semantics”; it helps explain different strategic philosophies and operational variations between Russia and the West.

Analytical notes:

Mechanism implication: “Hold back/contain” logic can favor proactive action and manipulation of the environment, not just threatened retaliation.
Operationalization: Adamsky traces how translation and local meaning shape doctrine, thresholds, and signaling practices.

Comparison to other theorists: Contrasts with Schelling-era emphasis on terror/fear as key rationale.

ustrashenie

Definition: A Russian term meaning deterrence by frightening—used as a nearer analog to Western fear-based deterrence.

Role in author’s argument: Shows that Russian discourse can distinguish “fright-based” deterrence (ustrashenie) from broader sderzhivanie/strategic deterrence.

Analytical notes: Helps map Russian texts onto Western “punishment” models when appropriate, without assuming all Russian “deterrence” is fear-based.

Comparison to other theorists: Aligns closely with punishment-based deterrence in classic Western frameworks.

Strategic deterrence

Definition: The “official Russian term for the host of coercion activities in various operational domains.”

Role in author’s argument: The doctrinal-lexical umbrella that ties together nuclear, conventional, and informational coercion—often merging deterrence and compellence in practice.

Analytical notes:

Relation to models: A whole-of-state coercion construct, including threats and sometimes limited use of force, plus nonmilitary means; designed to influence competitor decision-making and shape the environment.
Operationalization: Adamsky treats “strategic deterrence” as the Russian label whose content must be decomposed into Western analytic categories (deterrence/compellence, denial/punishment, etc.).

Comparison to other theorists: More expansive than many Western doctrinal uses of “strategic deterrence” (often nuclear-centric); closer to integrated statecraft coercion.

Forceful vs nonforceful deterrence

Definition: Russian discourse often uses a forceful/nonforceful distinction: “deterrence by punishment (sderzhivanie ustrasheniem)” is treated as “forceful deterrence” (silovoe sderzhivanie).

Role in author’s argument: Demonstrates a Russian categorization that can incorporate nonmilitary means under “deterrence,” complicating Western domain-based parsing.

Analytical notes: Operationalization is interpretive: identify which measures are treated as “force” vs “nonforce” and how that maps onto denial/punishment and coercive diplomacy.

Comparison to other theorists: Compatible with denial/punishment frameworks, but Russian “nonforceful” can still be coercive and escalatory (e.g., informational).

Cross-domain coercion

Definition: Strategic deterrence is framed as cross-domain: a “threatening, or actual use, of nonnuclear and nuclear force as well as nonmilitary means” to influence competitor behavior in crises and wars.

Role in author’s argument: A defining peculiarity of deterrence à la Russe: integrating capabilities across domains to calibrate pressure, manage escalation, and shape perception.

Analytical notes:

Relation to coercion models: Operationalizes “instrument mixing” and “risk manipulation” across domains; increases signaling bandwidth but also confusion/misperception risk.
Operationalization: Traced through doctrinal evolution and observed behavior (e.g., informational + kinetic linkages).

Comparison to other theorists: Converges with modern deterrence’s “cross-domain” trend (Adamsky explicitly notes convergence), but differs in being action-forward and culturally shaped.

Tailored deterrence

Definition: Not a single definition term, but Adamsky explicitly frames Russian-Western convergence on being both “cross-domain” and “tailored,” and highlights Russia’s “sophistication in… calibration of damage” and effort “to tailor… to the adversarial strategic culture.”

Role in author’s argument: Tailoring is a mechanism for making coercion effective (choose pressures that resonate with the adversary’s values, thresholds, and culture).

Analytical notes: Operationalized via “deterring damage criteria” and intelligence-driven diagnostics; risks “false precision” if diagnosis is wrong.

Comparison to other theorists: Similar to Western “tailored deterrence” but nested in a distinct Russian cognitive/intelligence tradition (reflexive control, strategic gestures).

Deterring damage criteria

Definition: “Deterring damage criteria” (sderzhivaiuschii ushcherb) links to “unacceptable damage” and later to “assigned damage” and “dosed damage.”

Role in author’s argument: Provides the calibration logic for Russian coercion: how much pain/risk is “enough” to change the opponent’s calculus while managing escalation.

Analytical notes: Operationalization is qualitative: infer target values and thresholds; select means across domains; communicate resolve through gestures/actions.

Comparison to other theorists: Connects to Schelling/Kahn ideas of “unacceptable damage,” but Adamsky shows Russian discourse diversifies the concept into graded, targetable damage.

Reasonable sufficiency

Definition: “Reasonable sufficiency… implies lower (than Western) ‘unacceptable damage’ benchmarks” and broadens targets beyond cities/industry to include state/military infrastructure; also expands effects beyond physical (political, morale, psychological).

Role in author’s argument: A historical legacy shaping Russian views of thresholds and acceptable force—supporting “limited” and “calibrated” coercion logic.

Analytical notes: Links directly to escalation management, “de-escalate,” and cross-domain coercion by widening what counts as “deterring damage.”

Comparison to other theorists: Diverges from MAD-style “assured destruction”; aligns more with limited-war and flexible response traditions.

Informational deterrence

Definition: “Threat, or limited employment, of digital-technological and cognitive-psychological forms of influence against the adversary to attain the political goals.”

Role in author’s argument: Demonstrates that Russia treats the informational realm as a core deterrence/compellence arena and uses it holistically and in cross-domain form.

Analytical notes:

Relation to models: Moves deterrence beyond material punishment/denial into perception management and infrastructure disruption; blurs coercion vs warfare in the informational sphere.
Operationalization: Tracked via doctrine/discourse; includes both “pure” informational coercion and informational threats used to shape kinetic conflict.

Comparison to other theorists: Departs from Western efforts to separate “peacetime competition” from “wartime”; Russia frequently blurs these boundaries.

Cognitive-psychological influence (CP)

Definition: CP includes “propaganda, disinformation, persuasion, intimidation, etc.”

Role in author’s argument: CP is one half of informational deterrence and a cultural fit for Russian emphasis on psychological-cognitive factors in coercion.

Analytical notes: Operationalization via IO campaigns, narrative shaping, legitimacy delegitimization, intimidation of publics/elites.

Comparison to other theorists: Resonates with Jervis and psychological approaches; diverges from purely rationalist signaling assumptions.

Digital-technological capabilities (DT)

Definition: DT includes “radio-electronic battle (REB), cyber warfare,” and methods to influence “informational infrastructure, systems, and data.”

Role in author’s argument: DT provides coercive leverage through infrastructure disruption, cyber-EW effects, and support to kinetic operations; central to Russia’s cross-domain logic.

Analytical notes: Operationalization includes cyber friction episodes, REB demonstrations, and combined “informational strikes.”

Comparison to other theorists: Similar tools as Western cyber/EW, but conceptually fused with CP and treated as continuous (cumulative coercion).

Informational war (IW) / informational struggle

Definition: Used as an umbrella; in narrow sense includes CP+DT; in broader sense includes methods/instruments to gain information superiority, inflict damage, and weaken morale.

Role in author’s argument: Shows conceptual fusion in Russian discourse: coercion and war can become indistinguishable in the informational realm.

Analytical notes: Operationalization via military discourse and doctrine; supports the “competition continuum” logic (peacetime crisis war blur).

Comparison to other theorists: Diverges from Western segmentation of IO vs war and offense vs defense.

Cumulative coercion

Definition: “Constant low-intensity engagement of the adversary” that produces “deterring potential,” which can be leveraged later.

Role in author’s argument: Best captures the Russian informational modus operandi: persistent “use of limited force” (psychological and technological) because informational damage is more tolerable, enabling repeated application.

Analytical notes:

Operationalization: Examples include Syria’s repeated creation/exploitation of favorable “informational background” and DT probing/learning episodes.
Relation to coercion models: Adds a temporal logic (persistent friction) to crisis-bargaining models.

Comparison to other theorists: Similar family resemblance to “persistent engagement” and “gray zone” logics, but framed inside deterrence/compellence rather than “below threshold” competition.

Deterring potential (sderzhivaiuschii potentsial)

Definition: The generic coercive potential generated by cumulative coercion and later exploited in specific crises.

Role in author’s argument: An intermediate objective: build latent leverage (credibility + access + narrative positioning) rather than only communicate episodic threats.

Analytical notes: Command/control can be decentralized during “potential building” and become more centralized when coercion turns into a concrete mission.

Comparison to other theorists: Similar to general deterrence vs specific deterrence distinction, but Adamsky notes these categories can be “commingled” in the Russian case.

Reflexive control

Definition: Convey “specially prepared information” to incline an opponent “to voluntarily make a predetermined decision.”

Role in author’s argument: A signature ideational/intelligence tradition supporting action-forward coercion and perception manipulation.

Analytical notes:

Relation to signaling: Not just “send signal—opponent interprets,” but “structure the opponent’s choice architecture.”
Operationalization: Information operations, deception, narrative shaping.

Comparison to other theorists: Moves beyond rationalist signaling and commitment problems; overlaps with cognitive warfare frameworks more than classic deterrence theory.

Military cunningness (voennaia khitrost’) / deception

Definition: “Aimed at misleading the adversary (disinformation, concealment, imitation, etc.).”

Role in author’s argument: Connects strategic culture and intelligence traditions to coercion style (ambiguity, surprise, misdirection).

Analytical notes: Can increase coercive efficacy but also raise misperception and inadvertent escalation risk (signals become ambiguous).

Comparison to other theorists: Challenges the “clear signaling” ideal in much deterrence theory; aligns with Jervis-style misperception risks.

Holistic-dialectical cognitive style

Definition: Holistic thinkers emphasize context and interconnections; dialectical thinkers tolerate contradiction and expect change; overall cognitive style is “less linear and analytical.”

Role in author’s argument: A cultural-cognitive source of Russia’s integrated, cross-domain, and sometimes contradictory coercion logic.

Analytical notes:

Operationalization: Used as interpretive lens for why Russian doctrine/practice blurs categories and shifts benchmarks.
Limits: Adamsky flags that holistic theories in Russia can be “either inadequate… or… prescriptive wishful thinking.”

Comparison to other theorists: Contrasts with many Western “linear-analytic” modeling assumptions; complements cross-cultural decisionmaking research (a 5th-wave deterrence theme).

Correlation of forces and means (COFM)

Definition: A multidimensional evaluation approach: judge the “correlation of forces and means” by integrating traditional and “nontraditional parameters.”

Role in author’s argument: Explains Russia’s evaluative/planning instincts for coercion—net assessment beyond order-of-battle toward qualitative and contextual factors.

Analytical notes: Operationalization is qualitative and comparative; ties to tailoring and escalation management; shapes planning-stage assumptions.

Comparison to other theorists: Parallels “net assessment” but with a distinctive Russian conceptual vocabulary and cultural embedding.

Art of strategic gesture

Definition: “Strategic gestures are coercive signals aimed at deterring and compelling,” including both military demonstrations and nonmilitary actions.

Role in author’s argument: Captures Russia’s preference for action-based signaling: coercion is “action itself” as much as rhetoric.

Analytical notes: Gestures can create ambiguity, demonstrate resolve, and shape environment; they can also be misread (key Ukraine-war problem).

Comparison to other theorists: Related to Schelling’s manipulation of risk and “tacit bargaining,” but with heavier emphasis on demonstrative acts as the signal.

Political zugzwang

Definition: A strategic gesture that creates a situation where “any response… worsens the competitor’s position.”

Role in author’s argument: A way to conceptualize compellence under “deterrence” language: force the opponent into a deteriorating choice set.

Analytical notes: Strongly linked to alliance assurance dynamics (pressuring alliance cohesion) and escalation thresholds (responses can be costly).

Comparison to other theorists: Equivalent to coercion-by-dilemma creation in bargaining models; notable for Russia’s chess/stratagem idiom.

Coercion operations

Definition: Adamsky uses a generic model: planning, execution, evaluation; coercion can require “repeated cycles” and has a “culmination point.”

Role in author’s argument: Provides an operational lens to diagnose Russian strengths/weaknesses—especially signaling and evaluation challenges in prolonged coercion campaigns.

Analytical notes: Operationalization is conceptual/analytic; used to interpret Ukraine as a coercion operation with shifting benchmarks and escalation risks.

Comparison to other theorists: Adds Clausewitzian operational logic and “culmination” dynamics to crisis-bargaining models.

Culmination point of coercion

Definition: “A point beyond which either coercive demands must be reduced or escalation must follow.”

Role in author’s argument: Explains why repeated coercive signaling may lose efficacy and force escalation decisions—central to his critique and to Ukraine’s nuclear signaling trajectory.

Analytical notes: Tracks limits on credibility and diminishing returns; connects to escalation thresholds and theory-of-victory constraints.

Comparison to other theorists: More operationally grounded than many deterrence accounts; reminiscent of Clausewitzian culmination logic.

False precision

Definition: In Ukraine, Russian coercion rested on “false precision… based on erroneous assumptions, wishful thinking, and cognitive-conceptual fixations.”

Role in author’s argument: A key diagnosis of coercion failure: tailoring and planning can fail catastrophically when beliefs are wrong.

Analytical notes: Strong tie to perception/intelligence; shows cultural and organizational biases can degrade coercion effectiveness.

Comparison to other theorists: Reinforces Jervis-style misperception and intelligence failure critiques; challenges rationalist “correct beliefs” assumptions.

Cordon sanitaire (nuclear umbrella effect)

Definition: Nuclear threats and the accompanying coercive logic created a “cordon sanitaire around Ukraine” to prevent escalation into direct NATO-Russia war.

Role in author’s argument: A concrete measure of Russian coercion success: deterring direct NATO involvement while failing in other coercive aims.

Analytical notes: Links to extended deterrence, alliance assurance, and escalation management (what NATO will/won’t do).

Comparison to other theorists: Resonates with classic escalation/extended deterrence concerns, but framed as an operational bubble around a theater.

International informational security (IIS) / digital sovereignty / “Sovereign Runet”

Definition: Russia treats shaping norms and domestic regulation in the information sphere as part of informational deterrence/denial; “Law of the Sovereign Runet” aims to keep Russian internet functioning even if disconnected from the WWW.

Role in author’s argument: Shows deterrence instruments extend beyond kinetic and cyber tools into governance/legal control and infrastructure resilience.

Analytical notes: Operationalization via laws, doctrine, infrastructure, and organizational changes; part of “denial” in cyber/information.

Comparison to other theorists: Similar to resilience-as-deterrence (denial) logic in Western discussions, but embedded in a broader coercion approach and framed through sovereignty narratives.

⸻

🔫 Author Background

Adamsky is a strategic studies scholar focused on Russian military strategy, strategic culture, and nuclear affairs; he has worked as an academic and policy consultant and has been affiliated with institutions including Harvard’s Belfer Center (Managing the Atom) and Reichman University.
His book-length work includes The Culture of Military Innovation (Stanford UP, 2010) and Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy (Stanford UP, 2019), alongside The Russian Way of Deterrence (Stanford UP, 2023).
An earlier bio (2018) describes him as a professor at IDC Herzliya’s School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy, with research interests in international security, cultural approaches to IR, modern military thought, and U.S./Russian/Israeli security policy.

⸻

🔍 Author’s Main Issue / Thesis

Adamsky argues that “deterrence à la Russe” is conceptually and operationally distinct from Western deterrence because Russian strategic culture (plus ideational/intelligence traditions and historical legacies) shapes a broader, more action-centered coercion strategy that fuses deterrence and compellence across domains and across phases of conflict.

⸻

🧭 One-Paragraph Overview

The Russian Way of Deterrence reconstructs the intellectual history of Russia’s “strategic deterrence” and argues that Russian coercion is best understood as a culturally shaped, cross-domain, action-oriented strategy rather than a narrow “threat to punish/deny” tool confined to peacetime. Adamsky shows how Russian discourse often uses “deterrence” as an umbrella for coercion (including compellence), spanning all phases of war and relying heavily on strategic gestures and informational forms of influence. He explains this approach through strategic culture and related ideational/historical factors, then uses the Ukraine war as a preliminary testbed highlighting both effectiveness (e.g., deterring direct NATO intervention) and limits (e.g., false precision, signaling/interpretation gaps, and potential coercion culmination).

⸻

🎯 Course Themes Tracker

Coercion, compellence, deterrence: Russia historically blurred these categories; Adamsky insists the analyst must re-separate them to understand Russian behavior.
Credibility & resolve: “Action itself” and strategic gestures serve as credibility production mechanisms; coercion is not only declaratory threats.
Signaling & perception: Reflexive control, deception traditions, and the signaling challenge (misread gestures/redlines) are central.
Rational vs. emotional vs. cultural logics: Cultural-cognitive style (holistic/dialectical) and psychological-cognitive emphasis condition coercion design and interpretation.
Theories of victory: Coercion aims to shape environment, control escalation, and compel outcomes without “classical war”—yet Ukraine shows limits when assumptions fail.
Escalation dynamics & thresholds: “Deterring damage” calibration, reasonable sufficiency, and coercion culmination point frame escalation management.
Alliance assurance & extended deterrence: Nuclear signaling created a “cordon sanitaire” limiting NATO direct engagement, while still allowing indirect support.
Cost-balancing & risk manipulation: Threats + limited force + cross-domain mixing seek to shift adversary cost-benefit and risk calculus.
Instruments of coercion: Nuclear, conventional, and informational; informational coercion includes CP and DT tools and governance/digital sovereignty measures.
Competition continuum: Deterrence spans peace-crisis-war; informational “cumulative coercion” blurs coercion and fighting.

⸻

🔑 Top Takeaways

Russian “deterrence” ≠ Western “deterrence.” It is broader, spans all phases of conflict, and can aim to maintain, change, shape, de-escalate—often through action, not just rhetoric.
Terminology is operationally consequential. Different etymology (sderzhivanie not fear-derived) underpins different strategic philosophies and practices.
Strategic deterrence is the umbrella Russian coercion strategy. It integrates military and nonmilitary means across domains to influence decision-making.
Cross-domain and tailoring are shared aspirations across Russia and the West—yet Russia gives them a distinct cultural reading.
Informational deterrence is central and conceptually “holistic.” Russia uses CP+DT tools in both pure and cross-domain forms, including to shape kinetic outcomes.
Russia practices “cumulative coercion” in information space. Constant low-intensity engagement produces “deterring potential,” blurring deterrence and fighting.
Cultural sources matter. Holistic-dialectical cognitive style, deception/reflexive control, and COFM evaluation shape how Russia plans, signals, and interprets coercion.
Operational challenges are baked in. Coercion operations require repeated cycles and face signaling/evaluation problems; there is a “culmination point” beyond which escalation or reduced demands follow.
Ukraine is a mixed verdict. Russia deterred direct NATO involvement but struggled to deter massive Western support and to compel Ukraine—partly due to “false precision.”
Policy implication: Western analysts should avoid “universal logic” mirror-imaging and decode Russian lexicon and cultural mechanism to design counter-coercion.

⸻

📒 Sections

Chapter 1: Strategic Culture and Deterrence Scholarship

Summary: Sets the conceptual toolkit—strategic culture + deterrence theory—and explains why interpreting Russian coercion through Western terms alone can be “unhelpful.”

Key Points:

Strategic culture defined as shared values/norms/beliefs shaping strategic community behavior.
Strategic culture scholarship is contested (conceptual ambiguity; critiques like nonfalsifiability and selection bias).
Deterrence scholarship is described in “waves,” and a “fifth wave” emphasizes “neurocognitive and cross-cultural factors.”

Theory Lens Map:

Strategic culture as explanatory lens (identity/cognition/tradition → coercion design).
Deterrence/coercion theory as analytic grammar (deterrence vs compellence; denial vs punishment; escalation control).
Cross-cultural cognition as a bridge between the two (5th-wave deterrence).

Cross-Cutting Themes:

Mirror-imaging risk and translation errors as strategic hazards.
Psychological-cognitive emphasis as a Russian comparative advantage.

Coercion Logic Breakdown:

Coercion effectiveness depends on perception, diagnosis, and culture—not only capability and declared threats.
This chapter positions “culture” as the missing variable in coercion operations analysis.

Limits Map (mini):

Strategic culture risk: over-attribution (culture as catch-all). Adamsky flags critiques like nonfalsifiability/selection bias.
Potential gap between discourse (what experts say) and practice (what the state does) remains a recurring challenge (raised later, especially in Ukraine).

⸻

Chapter 2: Genealogy of Deterrence à la Russe

Summary: Traces deterrence à la Russe from Soviet times through post-Soviet adoption, focusing on nuclear/conventional and then informational coercion; highlights terminological and philosophical differences from the West and Russian efforts at cross-domain and tailored coercion.

Key Points:

Deterrence à la Russe resembles Western deterrence as “manipulation of negative incentives” but differs in etymology, logic, and typology.
Russian strategic community adopted Western “Anglo-Saxon” terms but applied a “Russian cultural reading.”
Convergence claims: both Russia and the West seek “cross-domain” and “tailored” deterrence.

Theory Lens Map:

Conceptual history/genealogy (how terms and meanings evolve).
Deterrence mechanisms (fear vs restraint; punishment vs denial; limited force; compellence).
Cross-domain integration as “modern” deterrence trend, interpreted through culture.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

Translation as strategy: sderzhivanie vs deterrence (fear-rooted vs not).
Action-forward coercion: deterrence can be “concrete engagement,” not only threats.

Coercion Logic Breakdown:

Mechanism: diagnose adversary values → calibrate “deterring damage” → use cross-domain tools and gestures → manage escalation.
Distinctive claim: Russia’s coercion works across phases of war and uses limited action to shape bargaining contexts.

Limits Map (mini):

Russian theorizing has “mishmash” and “frequently lacking official codification and a consistent terminological apparatus.”
This creates analytic uncertainty and increases miscommunication with Western observers.

⸻

Chapter 3: Cultural Sources of Deterrence à la Russe

Summary: Explains deterrence à la Russe through cultural, ideational, and historical factors, including cognitive style, deception/intelligence traditions, and evaluative frameworks like COFM.

Key Points:

Cultural-cognitive style: holistic/dialectical orientation (context, interconnections, tolerance for contradiction and change).
Ideational/intelligence traditions: reflexive control and military cunningness as influence mechanisms.
Evaluative instincts: COFM approach expands “power” assessment beyond classic parameters.

Theory Lens Map:

Strategic culture (cognition + tradition).
Decisionmaking psychology (perception, contradiction tolerance).
Operational art and intelligence tradecraft as coercion enablers.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

Emphasis on morale/psychological-cognitive factors as a design feature of coercion.
Deception/manipulation as integral to signaling strategy (creates both leverage and misinterpretation risk).

Coercion Logic Breakdown:

Coercion is partly a contest over cognition: shape the opponent’s “voluntary” choices (reflexive control) and create dilemmas (zugzwang).

Limits Map (mini):

Cognitive/holistic theories can be “inadequate” or “prescriptive wishful thinking,” implying possible divergence between self-image and performance.

⸻

Chapter 4: Critical Examination and Culmination Point

Summary: Moves from description to critique: examines the operational challenges of deterrence à la Russe through a generic coercion-operations model and the concept of coercion’s “culmination point.”

Key Points:

Coercion operations require planning–execution–evaluation cycles and often repeated iterations.
There is a culmination point beyond which demands must drop or escalation follows.
A core problem is communication/signaling: Russian “strategic gesture” logic can be misread; redlines can be interpreted differently.

Theory Lens Map:

Coercive diplomacy & operational art (campaign logic, cycles, assessment).
Signaling theory (but with cultural translation friction).
Escalation dynamics and security dilemma risks.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

Diagnostic limits: if you misread the adversary’s values/resolve, tailoring becomes “false precision.”
Action-signaling: gestures reduce ambiguity for some audiences but increase for others.

Coercion Logic Breakdown:

The chapter frames coercion as a campaign with an evaluative bottleneck: without good feedback loops, coercion can drift, overshoot, or culminate prematurely.

Limits Map (mini):

This is the chapter where “deterrence à la Russe” is treated as potentially self-defeating: action-forward signaling can provoke counter-coercion and accelerate escalation pressures.

⸻

Chapter 5: War in Ukraine and Avenues of Future Research

Summary: Integrates unknowns and preliminary evidence from the war in Ukraine to evaluate Russian coercion strategy and identify research questions.

Key Points:

Russia’s coercion suffered from “false precision” grounded in wrong assumptions and cognitive fixations.
Russian nuclear threats created a “cordon sanitaire” around Ukraine, deterring direct NATO entry; but deterring massive Western support proved much harder.
Nuclear intimidation may be reaching a coercion “culmination point,” potentially forcing escalation or demand reduction.

Theory Lens Map:

Extended deterrence and escalation management (NATO vs Russia).
Compellence failure and signaling misperception.
Culture + intelligence failures in campaign diagnosis.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

Strategic gestures and redlines: Russia sought to make escalation control and fear credible through repeated actions, but interpretation gaps persisted.
Endurance and protraction: war as prolonged coercion campaign rather than quick compellence.

Coercion Logic Breakdown:

Russia attempted to (1) compel Ukraine, (2) deter NATO escalation, (3) shape Western cost-benefit on sanctions/support—results diverged across targets and domains.

Limits Map (mini):

Miscalibration and feedback problems are central: the more Russia escalated to restore coercive effect, the more it risked culmination and counter-coercion.

⸻

Conclusion

Summary: Re-states that Russian deterrence is broad, cross-domain, and culturally shaped; informational deterrence is especially holistic; “cumulative coercion” captures the Russian informational approach and how it blurs coercion and fighting.

Key Points:

Informational coercion is still less mature doctrinally but likely to become more coherent given Moscow’s focus on digital sovereignty and informational security.
Russian informational deterrence is both domain-specific and cross-domain (informational threats to shape kinetic operations).
Cumulative coercion produces deterring potential through persistent low-intensity engagement, making coercion and fighting hard to distinguish.

Coercion Logic Breakdown:

Russia’s “deterrence” is a campaign repertoire: threats + limited use + informational friction + legal-governance moves → create leverage and shape decision environments.

Limits Map (mini):

As informational coercion codifies and expands, Western countermeasures may also adapt; persistent friction can generate blowback (norms, sanctions, resilience).

⸻

Section 2.1: Etymology & Logic — sderzhivanie vs deterrence

Summary: Linguistic variance matters: deterrence is fear-rooted in English; sderzhivanie is not fear-derived, reflecting different strategic philosophy.

Key Points:

Russian deterrence thinking differs by etymology, internal logic, typology, and terminology.
These differences are not merely linguistic—they produce conceptual and operational variations.

Theory Lens Map: Strategic culture → lexicon → coercion mechanism.

Cross-Cutting Themes: Perception, mirror-imaging, escalation management.

Coercion Logic Breakdown: “Holding back” logic legitimates active shaping measures.

Limits Map (mini): Translation traps: Western observers treat “deterrence” as category-equivalent when it may not be.

⸻

Section 2.2: Informational deterrence & cumulative coercion

Summary: Informational deterrence is holistic and cross-domain; cumulative coercion is constant low-intensity engagement producing deterring potential.

Key Points:

Informational deterrence uses CP and DT influence to attain political goals.
Cumulative coercion explains the serial, persistent use of limited informational force.

Theory Lens Map: Competition continuum; cyber/EW; cognitive warfare; deterrence by denial + punishment (blurred).

Cross-Cutting Themes: Shaping environment; persistent engagement; ambiguity of peacetime/crisis/war.

Coercion Logic Breakdown: Probe/learn → build deterring potential → exploit in crisis.

Limits Map (mini): Persistent coercion can normalize friction and reduce marginal coercive value; also invites counter-resilience.

⸻

Section 4.1: Coercion operations model & culmination point

Summary: Coercion has planning, execution, and evaluation stages; repeated cycles can hit a culmination point where demands must drop or escalation follows.

Key Points:

Evaluation is often the bottleneck; if feedback is distorted, coercion drifts.
Culmination point makes escalation dynamics central even in “limited” coercion.

Theory Lens Map: Clausewitzian culmination; coercive diplomacy; signaling theory.

Cross-Cutting Themes: Credibility, resolve, risk manipulation, inadvertent escalation.

Coercion Logic Breakdown: Coercion is a campaign with diminishing returns and escalating risk.

Limits Map (mini): “Strategic gestures” can backfire if interpreted as weakness/bluff or if they harden the target’s resolve.

⸻

🧱 Limits Typology (Coercion-Specific)

Lexical/analytic mismatch: “Deterrence” in Russian usage can cover coercion across phases and include compellence, creating analyst and policymaker misreads.
Term-to-action slippage: Russian theorizing can be a “mishmash” lacking consistent codification—reducing predictability and increasing internal incoherence.
Signaling ambiguity from action-forward gestures: Gestures intended as clear signals can be interpreted as escalation, bluff, or domestic theater—especially across cultures.
Diagnostic failure / false precision: Tailoring depends on correct assumptions; wrong beliefs yield “false precision” and compellence failure.
Feedback/evaluation limits: Coercion operations require cycles; poor evaluation can push toward culmination and unwanted escalation.
Cumulative coercion diminishing returns: Persistent low-intensity pressure can become “background noise,” generating resilience and countermeasures rather than compliance.
Escalation control paradox: Tools designed to manage escalation (nuclear threats, ambiguity) can also create security dilemmas and spur counter-coercion (sanctions, armament).

⸻

📏 Measures of Effectiveness (MoE)

Baseline MoE (coercion theory):

Deterrence MoE: target refrains from the undesired action (status quo preserved).
Compellence MoE: target adopts the desired action (status quo changed).

MoE adapted to deterrence à la Russe (broad/coercion-continuum):

Behavioral change across phases: does the opponent’s behavior shift in peacetime, crisis, and wartime?
Environmental shaping: does Russia succeed in shaping the strategic environment (rules of interaction, constraints, decision space)?
Escalation management: did coercion prevent escalation or achieve de-escalation (without forcing uncontrolled war)?
Cross-domain spillover: did informational threats/actions change kinetic behavior (or vice versa)?
Deterring potential (informational): did cumulative coercion create reusable “deterring potential” for later exploitation?

Ukraine-specific MoE (Adamsky’s framing):

Success: deterring direct NATO intervention into combat (cordon sanitaire effect).
Partial/limited: deterring some escalation pathways while failing to deter large-scale Western support (arms, aid, sanctions).
Failure: compelling Ukraine to surrender/accept terms quickly; Russian assumptions produced “false precision.”

⸻

🤷‍♂️ Actors & Perspectives (Strategic Empathy)

Russian side (strategic community lenses):

Political leadership: sets strategic aims, redlines, escalation narratives.
Military/General Staff: designs cross-domain coercion operations; calibrates force and gestures.
Intelligence tradition: reflexive control and deception as influence tools.
Informational apparatus: CP narratives + DT tools; cumulative coercion builds deterring potential.
Domestic governance/legal sphere: digital sovereignty and IIS as deterrence/denial instruments.

Western side (risk of mirror-imaging):

Analysts and policymakers often assume “universal logic of deterrence,” but Adamsky warns this is “at best unhelpful” for decoding Russian conduct.
NATO’s key calculus: avoid direct NATO-Russia war while supporting Ukraine indirectly—consistent with cordon sanitaire logic.

Ukrainian side:

Core interests: survival, sovereignty, resistance; coercion targeting can increase resolve rather than compliance (Ukraine as compellence-hard target).

⸻

🕰 Timeline of Major Events

Mid-2000s: “strategic deterrence began gathering momentum” in Russian discourse.
2008 (Georgia): Example of “deterrence by punishment” as coercion/compellence episode in Russian discourse.
2014: Ukraine/Crimea as a watershed for contemporary Russian-Western coercion dynamics (sets stage for cross-domain coercion emphasis).
2015–present (Syria campaign): CP and DT “deterring potential” creation and exploitation; REB testing and signaling.
2019: “Law of the Sovereign Runet” as part of digital sovereignty and informational security framing.
Autumn 2021: Beginning of the latest Ukraine crisis; Russia begins coercive posture.
December 2021: Russia issues a coercive ultimatum to the U.S./NATO.
February 2022: Russia invades Ukraine (“special military operation”), converting crisis coercion into war; coercion dynamics continue intrawar.
October 2022 onward: Russia uses strikes and nuclear rhetoric as signals to shape Western escalation decisions; effectiveness contested; risk of culmination point emerges.

⸻

📖 Historiographical Context

Deterrence scholarship “waves”: Adamsky frames the field as evolving in waves, with a “fifth wave” emphasizing “neurocognitive and cross-cultural factors.”
Strategic culture debates: He acknowledges persistent critiques (conceptual ambiguity, nonfalsifiability, selection bias), but uses strategic culture as a practical analytic tool to decode Russian coercion style.
Key contribution claim: One of the first systematic efforts to merge deterrence literature with strategic-culture scholarship to explain an actor’s proclivities when initiating coercion.

⸻

🧩 Frameworks & Methods

Two main theoretical lenses: strategic culture + deterrence theory.
Approach:
- Intellectual history / genealogy of “deterrence à la Russe” and “strategic deterrence.”
- Cultural explanation: trace traits to cultural, ideational, historical factors (including intelligence traditions).
- Operational critique: apply coercion-operations model (planning–execution–evaluation; culmination point).
- Case stress test: preliminary evidence from war in Ukraine to probe unknowns.

⸻

🔄 Learning Over Time

Post-Soviet catch-up and adaptation: Russian experts internalized and emulated Western deterrence constructs, then applied a distinct cultural interpretation.
Western atrophy vs Russian “full blossom”: Adamsky argues Russian deterrence theory advanced while Western deterrence fell into relative disfavor during the 1990s–early 2000s.
Informational realm evolution: Informational coercion remains less mature but shows an effort to “crystallize and operationalize” mechanisms; likely to codify faster given digital sovereignty pressure post-Ukraine.

⸻

🧐 Critical Reflections

Causal inference challenge: Strategic culture can explain “why this style,” but risks overfitting (culture as catch-all). Adamsky notes the scholarship’s critiques (nonfalsifiability/selection bias).
Discourse vs practice: Russia’s conceptual apparatus can be sophisticated while operational performance suffers from false precision and signaling failures (Ukraine).
Action-centered signaling dilemma: If “action itself” is required to shape coercion, Russia may pay higher escalation risk costs and invite counter-coercion.
Informational coercion ambiguity: If coercion and fighting become indistinguishable, the deterrence “ladder” becomes noisy—harder for adversaries to interpret thresholds and intentions.
Policy relevance tension: Decoding Russian lexicon can reduce mirror imaging, but could also lead to over-accommodation of Russian “redlines” if misapplied.

⸻

⚔️ Comparative Insights

Against classic Schelling coercion: Adamsky’s Russia emphasizes action-forward shaping, deception/reflexive control, and cross-domain integration; classic models privilege clearer threat communication and bargaining structure.
Against denial/punishment binaries: Russia uses those categories but can fold many nonmilitary tools into “deterrence,” and can re-label compellence as deterrence.
Against “crisis-only deterrence”: Russia treats coercion as spanning all phases of war and employs “cumulative coercion,” which resembles persistent competition strategies more than episodic crisis bargaining.
Israel MABAM analogy: Adamsky explicitly compares Russia’s “perpetual friction” and shaping logic to Israel’s “campaign between the wars” concept (MABAM).

⸻

✍️ Key Terms / Acronyms

COFM — correlation of forces and means.
CP — cognitive-psychological influence (propaganda, persuasion, intimidation, etc.).
DT — digital-technological capabilities (REB, cyber, infrastructure/data manipulation).
REB — radio-electronic battle (EW) (used in DT realm).
IO — information operations (CP + DT practice set).
IW — informational war / informational struggle (broad umbrella).
IIS — international informational security.
ConOps — concept of operations (appears in informational deterrence context).
WWW — World Wide Web (Sovereign Runet aim).
NATO / EU — primary external audiences/targets in Ukraine coercion dynamics.

⸻

❓ Open Questions (Instructor Focus Questions)

If “deterrence” in Russia includes compellence and wartime action, how should Western planners re-map Russian “deterrence moves” onto coercion frameworks without mirror imaging?
What counter-signaling strategies reduce the chance that Russian “strategic gestures” create misperceived redlines or escalation spirals?
What indicators reveal a coercion operation’s approach to a “culmination point,” especially for nuclear intimidation in protracted war?
How should extended deterrence and alliance assurance adapt when nuclear threats create a theater “cordon sanitaire” but fail to deter indirect support?
Can cumulative coercion be deterred—or is the right strategy resilience/denial plus counter-coercion?
What is the right balance between cultural explanation (strategic culture) and rational/material explanation in predicting Russian coercion behavior?

⸻

🗂 Notable Quotes & Thoughts

“Deterrence à la Russe… has a much broader meaning than what Western experts have in mind.”
“Deterrence à la Russe is not so much about rhetorical threats as… an action itself.”
“The Russian word sderzhivanie… does not derive from the word fear.”
“Strategic gestures are coercive signals aimed at deterring and compelling.”
“Cumulative coercion stands for constant low-intensity engagement… designed to produce… ‘deterring potential.’”
“False precision… based on erroneous assumptions, wishful thinking, and cognitive-conceptual fixations.”
“Cordon sanitaire around Ukraine…”

⸻

🧾 Final-Paper Hooks

Thesis hook: “Action as signal” versus “threat as signal.” Test Adamsky’s claim that Russia views action itself as necessary for coercion shaping, and evaluate when that improves credibility vs accelerates escalation.
Cross-domain coercion effectiveness under uncertainty. Compare Russia’s cross-domain coercion design (nuclear + conventional + informational) with Western “integrated deterrence” concepts; ask whether integration increases or decreases escalation control.
Cumulative coercion as a competition strategy. Treat cumulative coercion as a theory of victory in information space (persistent friction → latent leverage), then explore counter-strategies (resilience, norm-building, counter-friction).
Culmination point and nuclear signaling credibility. Build an operational framework for identifying when nuclear intimidation hits culmination and becomes less coercively useful (Ukraine as primary case).
False precision as coercion failure mechanism. Use Ukraine to argue coercion fails less because of inadequate capability than because of incorrect diagnosis (assumptions, fixations) and misread strategic culture.
Alliance assurance under “cordon sanitaire” dynamics. Analyze how Russian nuclear threats constrained NATO direct intervention but failed to deter indirect support; derive implications for extended deterrence and assurance policy.
Strategic culture as an explanatory variable for coercion design. Evaluate Adamsky’s methodological move (use culture to explain the coercer’s proclivities) against critiques of strategic culture theory, proposing a research design that avoids unfalsifiability.