Russia’s long-term information operations (IO) and influence campaigns have altered how US and Western decision makers perceive the risk level of Russia using a nuclear weapon. Russian IO are designed to influence the decision makers through several levers, including through their constituents. These IO use multi-domain approaches such as Russia’s own domestic media. Mr. Giles pointed out that most Russian media is broadcast in many countries, giving it a wide reach and large non-Russian audience. An example of this targeted use of media is Russian news showing the trajectory needed for Russian missiles to strike specific European cities—even though the Russian missile system required to launch the missiles is believed to be offline. The Kremlin uses long-term IO to convince its adversaries that it is willing to use a nuclear missile if contested.

Authoritarian states more frequently use a whole-of-society approach to deterrence and coercion activities than democratic states. Because of many societal and geopolitical changes that have occurred since modern deterrence concepts were founded, there is a need for examining deterrence and coercion through new concepts of influence (COI). Dr. Drohan argued that despite authoritarian countries’ more frequent use of COI to achieve their geopolitical objectives and interests, democratic states should be able to use COI more effectively. Concepts of influence as discussed in the presentation are an expansion of previous Cold War Era concepts of coercion theory that focused heavily on deterrence by denial and punishment. Dr. Drohan’s presentation was based off his recently published book, Combined Effect Strategy and Influence: How Democracies Can Defeat Authoritarians, (NY: Praeger Security International, Bloomsbury Academic, 2023). His expansion of the definitions and language associated with deterrence and COI helped illustrate how interconnected and complex coercion activities are in the current modern and multi-polar world.

The complex nature of the modern threat environment and geopolitical competition, especially competition in the gray zone, has caused many scholars and military leaders to study how all Combatant Commands can combine their resources and capabilities to conduct effective integrated deterrence. This panel was comprised of the authors of a SMA Perspectives Publication: U.S. Command Perspectives on Campaigning in Support of Integrated Deterrence (Volume IV). During this panel the authors, from USAFRICOM, USCYBERCOM, NORAD and USNORTHCOM, USSOCOM, and USSTRATCOM commands, addressed how individually and cumulatively the Combatant Commands can best conduct integrated deterrence in a sustained campaign. The speakers detailed how a successful long-term campaign will create enduring advantages for the US and its allies across the many warfighting domains.

The war in Ukraine is raising questions about the security of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants and the safety of civilians who are in their proximity. Military and civilian leaders in other countries that possess nuclear power plants are examining how litigation could protect their own facilities during future conflicts. Ms. Dolzikova stated that this discussion has intensified since Russia occupied the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone and captured the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) during the early stages of its invasion of Ukraine. The ZNPP is still under Russian occupation, forcing collaboration between Ukrainian and Russian nuclear scientists, Ukrainian workers at ZNPP, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Russian occupiers to ensure the plant’s safety and security. Since Russia’s take-over, all six ZNPP nuclear reactors have been shut down. One reactor is in a “hot shutdown,” allowing it to produce steam. Russian nuclear scientists are insisting that it is necessary for this reactor to produce steam for the safety of the power plant, but Ukrainian scientists claim that a “hot shutdown” is an unnecessary hazard. They claim that keeping the reactor in this state is reducing the time window that workers would have to divert a catastrophe during a systems failure.

India’s expanding political influence is altering the current geopolitical order in Asia, with India positioned at its center. India’s growing role in geopolitics will over time take away some of the geopolitical focus on the Asia-Pacific region and place it on the Indo-Pacific region. Mr. Soliman emphasized that India’s geographical position at the center of the economic corridor running between China and the Middle East, give it a political and economic advantage. India’s massive population gives it massive economic and industrial potential on its own. India is also in a unique position to build political ties throughout the Indo-Pacific region with its historic and cultural ties throughout the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions. To further its geopolitical influence in the Indo-Pacific, India is not only relying on its economic potential, but also signing military and security deals with other nations in the region. India is increasing its dialogue with several significant actors in the Middle East: Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Finally, Mr. Soliman put forth that Shinzo Abe’s Indo-Pacific vision, an India-centric strategy with a focus on bilateral security dialogue with Australia and the US, is now coming true.

International relations (IR) experts widely perceive the US global political influence to be in a decline, especially in regions farther from the US. However, state actors who are gaining influence in their home regions are experiencing their own geopolitical roadblocks. Dr. Katz highlighted the past work of IR theorist, John Mearsheimer, who created a standard for measuring an actor’s great power strength and influence in regions across the world. Dr. Mearsheimer’s work argues that the US is the only nation to achieve hegemony in one region (the Western Hemisphere) and be able to prevent any other great power from gaining hegemony in any other region. Dr. Katz argued that the question is no longer if the US can grow its own geopolitical influence in regions, but if it can keep its adversaries from increasing theirs.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are still a relatively new technology and an even newer commercial product; however, the growth of the UAV market has been immense. During the last 13 years, there have been 1.7 million UAVs registered in 100 countries. Of these, 75% are for consumer or commercial use, increasing their prevalence in modern civil society. However, commercial UAVs have the capability to be used by the state militaries and to carry out attacks by violent non-governmental organizations. Because of these capabilities, many states have concerns over the growing commonality of commercial UAVs. Some of these concerns come from past assassination attempts on state leaders using UAVs. Col (Ret) Edwards emphasized that the war in Ukraine has given combatants a wealth of new case studies for both the development and employment of UAVs in combat. Ukraine itself has become an epicenter for UAV development.

The Kremlin is blending its nuclear discourse, politics, and theological beliefs, changing the domestic perception in Russia regarding just nuclear war and nuclear escalation with the West. Prof. Adamsky stated that the Kremlin has been integrating the Russian Orthodox Church in its military campaigns for many years. The use of the Orthodox Church in Russian military operations has traditionally been to provide spiritual and psychological support for troops, bolstering individual and unit moral while reaffirming Russian soldiers’ belief in their cause. The Kremlin also uses Orthodoxy to justify its military activities to other state leaders, depicting Russia’s conflicts as good against evil. However, the war in Ukraine is forcing the Russian Orthodox Church to address the cognitive disconnect many Russians feel when fighting fellow Orthodox Christians in Ukraine.

The US and China have been locked in a great power competition (GPC) that will decide who has more political influence among both developing and developed countries.

Wilayat Sinai (WS), formerly known as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM), is an Egyptian-based extremist group that is active in the Sinai Peninsula. The group seeks to influence the region’s politics and establish a state of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).