Eroding deterrence, new tech, and gaps in cyber defense

Deterrence in the Hybrid War Era

The global security environment in mid-2026 remains deeply unsettled, shaped by the persistent erosion of traditional deterrence frameworks amid rapid technological advances, shifting alliances, and evolving hybrid threats. Russia’s December 27, 2025 missile and drone saturation attack against Ukraine continues to serve as a stark exemplar of the operational strain imposed on modern defense systems, while recent political and technological developments add complexity to an already volatile landscape. The imperative for integrated, adaptive strategies that span military, diplomatic, technological, and societal domains has never been clearer.

Russia’s December 2025 Saturation Attack: A Harbinger of Modern Warfare’s Challenges

Russia’s large-scale barrage combining hundreds of missiles and armed drones against Kyiv and other Ukrainian regions underscored the limits of current deterrence and defense postures:

Operational Strain on Defenses: Ukraine’s air defense systems were pushed to their operational limits, revealing vulnerabilities in managing simultaneous, multi-vector saturation attacks. Defense forces employed agile countermeasures, yet the sheer volume and complexity of the assault exposed persistent gaps in detection, interception, and attribution capabilities.
Attribution Ambiguity and Escalation Risks: The blurred lines between conventional missile strikes and drone swarm tactics complicated real-time threat identification. This ambiguity increases the risk of inadvertent escalation as decision-makers grapple with uncertain actor attribution amid a hybrid conflict environment involving proxies and non-state actors.
Strategic Calculus: The timing, just days before a high-profile diplomatic meeting between Ukrainian President Zelenskiy and former U.S. President Trump, signaled a deliberate attempt by Moscow to undermine diplomatic momentum and test Ukraine’s resilience.

The attack crystallizes the urgent need for automated, multi-domain defense systems, improved intelligence fusion, and integrated command structures capable of responding to saturation threats with precision and speed.

Alliance Fluidity and Democratic Rearmament: Shaping New Deterrence Dynamics

The evolving geopolitical landscape has been notably influenced by alliance recalibrations and military expansions among democracies:

U.S.–Turkey Rapprochement: The thaw in U.S.–Turkey relations throughout 2025, catalyzed by personal diplomacy between former President Trump and President Erdogan, has partially reintegrated Turkey into NATO’s defense framework. This rapprochement has eased tensions stemming from Turkey’s Russian S-400 missile acquisition and prior U.S. sanctions, restoring critical dialogue channels.
- This development injects both opportunity and unpredictability into NATO’s collective deterrence posture, highlighting the necessity of flexible diplomacy that manages divergent national interests without compromising alliance cohesion.
Japan and Germany’s Military Overhauls:
- Japan approved its largest-ever defense budget, emphasizing missile defense, cyber capabilities, and maritime power projection to counter regional threats.
- Germany accelerated recruitment and modernization efforts, moving beyond historic restraint to address hybrid and conventional threats amplified by the Ukraine conflict.
Pentagon Warnings on China’s Military Growth: The U.S. Department of Defense’s alert in early 2026 about China’s rapid development in missile technology, naval forces, cyber warfare, and space capabilities underscores an urgent need for allied innovation and readiness.

Together, these trends illustrate a recalibrated deterrence landscape where democratic states are balancing historical caution with strategic necessity.

Technological Disruptions and Export Controls: Navigating Capability and Vulnerability

Technology continues to be a double-edged sword, offering new capabilities while exposing critical vulnerabilities:

Armed Drone Proliferation: The low cost and operational flexibility of armed drones are reshaping conflict parameters, lowering the threshold for kinetic engagement and complicating attribution. Their spread among state and non-state actors exacerbates escalation risks.
Russian Hypersonic Weapon Reliability Issues: Contrary to official claims, multiple reports of Russian hypersonic missile failures—including premature drop-offs and targeting malfunctions—have emerged. These technical setbacks undermine Moscow’s deterrence messaging and highlight challenges in fielding next-generation weapons reliably.
Expanded Regulatory Actions and Supply Chain Protections:
- The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has broadened bans on Chinese-made drones, citing espionage and supply chain infiltration concerns.
- G-7 nations have intensified efforts to diversify critical mineral sourcing—rare earths, lithium, cobalt—to reduce dependence on China and enhance technological sovereignty.
- The U.S. continues to build on Trump-era industrial policies promoting domestic production and alternative sourcing, successfully averting rare-earth shortages despite Chinese export restrictions.
New Counter-Proliferation Measures:
- In early 2026, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned ten individuals and entities involved in an illicit drone trade network linking Venezuela and Iran. This network is implicated in supplying armed drones to proxy groups in conflict zones, amplifying hybrid warfare threats.
- These sanctions mark a significant evolution in counter-proliferation strategy, emphasizing targeted sanctions, export controls, and multilateral cooperation to disrupt illicit supply chains and reduce escalation risks.

Cybersecurity Shortfalls: A Persistent Achilles’ Heel

Cyber defense remains a strategic vulnerability undermining deterrence credibility:

CISA’s Capacity and Leadership Challenges: The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency continues to face budgetary constraints and leadership instability, limiting its ability to safeguard critical infrastructure—from power grids to electoral systems—against increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks.
Strategic Imperative for Cyber Integration: Given the centrality of cyber operations in hybrid conflicts, closing resilience gaps is essential. This requires sustained funding, stable leadership, and talent retention to build adaptive defenses capable of countering multi-vector cyber threats.
National Security Consequences: Persistent cyber vulnerabilities grant adversaries asymmetric advantages that erode deterrence and threaten social cohesion.

Whole-of-Society Resilience: Expanding the Security Paradigm

Recognizing that hybrid threats transcend military domains, security strategies increasingly emphasize broad societal engagement:

Leadership Calls for Collective Action: The UK Chief of the Armed Forces’ exhortation for “the whole country to step up” captures the need for collective responsibility.
Key Pillars Include:
- Infrastructure operators enhancing protection against cyber and kinetic attacks.
- The private sector securing supply chains, intellectual property, and combating misinformation.
- Public awareness campaigns to inoculate populations against disinformation and strengthen societal resilience.
Integrated Defense Model: This holistic approach intertwines information integrity, infrastructure robustness, and social cohesion with traditional defense capabilities, aiming to build resilience against multifaceted hybrid threats.

“Peace Through Strength” and Trump’s Influence on Strategic Orientation

President Trump’s first year back in office has had a tangible impact on U.S. strategic posture and policy choices:

Four Successes and Four Failures: Trump’s administration advanced several key initiatives, including the U.S.–Turkey rapprochement and industrial policy continuity, while grappling with leadership challenges in cyber defense and diplomatic consistency.
Pragmatic Balance: The administration emphasizes concluding protracted conflicts, deterring adversaries through credible military power, and engaging rivals diplomatically. This “peace through strength” approach balances hard power with flexible diplomacy and alliance management.
Strategic Flexibility: Maintaining alliance cohesion amid shifting geopolitical realities involves pragmatic realpolitik, avoiding rigid orthodoxy while preserving credible deterrence.

Conclusion: Navigating Complexity in an Era of Eroding Deterrence

As mid-2026 unfolds, the global security environment is marked by persistent erosion of traditional deterrence, intensified by technological disruption and hybrid warfare complexities. Russia’s December 2025 missile and drone barrage revealed operational stress points in defense systems and escalation control. Meanwhile, alliance fluidity—epitomized by the U.S.–Turkey rapprochement—and democratic rearmament in Japan and Germany signal evolving deterrence postures.

Technological challenges, from armed drone proliferation and hypersonic weapon reliability issues to expanded export controls and new counter-proliferation sanctions, underscore the delicate interplay between capability and vulnerability. Cybersecurity shortfalls remain a critical vulnerability that adversaries exploit to undermine deterrence credibility.

The shift toward a whole-of-society resilience model, coupled with pragmatic “peace through strength” policies informed by recent U.S. political developments, articulates a comprehensive approach integrating military power, diplomacy, industrial policy, and societal engagement.

Success in preserving deterrence and international stability amid persistent uncertainty will depend on sustained political will, innovative policymaking, and cohesive societal effort to adapt to an increasingly complex and volatile security landscape.

Sources (22)