







































30                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 
 

 
 

The Linguistic Factor in the Deterrence Conversation between Russia and the 

West: If and How Russians Understand the Meaning of “Deterrence?”  

 

Liia Vihmand-Veebel, University of Tartu 

Viljar Veebel, University of Tartu 

 
 

 

 

Abstract 

Given Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine and its hostile remarks toward its NATO neighbours, 

the question of why the credible deterrence posture of the Alliance is not producing the desired 

results is becoming increasingly important. Either Russian political leaders do not want to comply 

with the Western credible deterrence posture, or they do not understand what is expected from 

them. Linguistic factors (e.g., the ‘lost in translation’ effect) affect the effectiveness of the 

conversation on deterrence between Russia and the West, including NATO. The Russian language 

does not have one unambiguous equivalent for the Western term “deterrence.” There are several 

possible translations for deterrence in Russian, including sderzhivaniye, ustrasheniye, 

sderzhivaniye putem ustrasheniya, sderzhivaniye prinuzhdeniyem, as well as others. These terms 

are not synonymous, with each having its own different meaning and some being used in Russian 

military-political theory, where they refer to different concepts. The current study focuses on the 

most visible linguistic complications in the deterrence dialogue between Russia and the West. 

Based on the current study, it would often be more reasonable to talk to the Russian political and 

military elite about containment or coercion, which are more common and have clear, specific 

meanings in Russian. 

 
 

 

 

  



31                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Introduction 

Language, as a communication tool and specific sign system, is an essential component of all 

dialogues, including political and security-related ones. It does not only transfer information but 

also indicates the status and attitude of the speaker. In recent decades, there has been no fruitful 

dialogue between Russia and NATO countries on strategic stability and deterrence. Parallel 

monologues are mostly performed for internal audiences and within the context of the actors' own 

interests. In Russia, foreign concepts are often not understood or perceived by recipients in the 

way that one would expect. One of the factors that has a direct role in this is the linguistic factor, 

which can cause a ‘lost in translation’ effect instead of transparent communication. Like any 

scientific discipline, the international relations field has its own terminology, which is known to 

those who have studied it. Different countries and language groups have their own specific political 

and military concepts and corresponding terminology, which is expected to be understood by other 

countries and languages. Using inappropriate or imprecise terminological equivalents can lead to 

difficulties in understanding the actual message, especially in conflict situations, resulting in a 

rejection of partnership or even an escalation of the conflict. 

Back in the 1990s, when relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and 

the Russian Federation were improving, and both parties were committed to productive dialogue, 

cooperation, and the establishment of lasting peace in the Euro-Atlantic region (Sarott 2021), 

NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation, and Security in 

May 1997. It marked the beginning of a new relationship aimed at a partnership between the 

Western institutions and Russia, which established a framework for NATO-Russia consultation 

and cooperation. To dispel myths and improve the transparency of communication and mutual 

understanding, the NATO-Russia Glossary of Contemporary Political and Military Terms was 

developed and published. This glossary covered the full range of terminology relevant to NATO-

Russia consultation and cooperation. In the glossary’s preface, then-NATO Secretary General 

Lord Robertson and the former Russian Federation Minister of Defense Sergey Ivanov expressed 

their hope that such a glossary would help to better understand each other’s intentions (NATO 

2001). 

In this context, the conversation on deterrence was and hopefully still is one of the key parts of 

contemporary Russia-NATO relations. At the same time, deterrence is a core element of NATO’s 

strategy towards Russia (NATO 2022) and is, therefore, increasingly important for Russian and 

NATO military thought. However, Russian understanding, translations, and definitions of 

deterrence differ from the Western conceptualization of deterrence. Next to the negative political 

sentiment in Russia toward the deterrence concept, the linguistic factor makes the deterrence 

conversation even more complicated. On the one hand, this is because Russian theorizing of 

deterrence is constantly evolving and is frequently lacking official codification. On the other hand, 

NATO’s deterrence concept lacks an established, generally accepted, and unambiguous 

terminological equivalent in the Russian language (Adamsky 2018). In this aspect, after Russia’s 

2022 aggression against Ukraine, the Russian political and military elite has shown full rejection 

of the idea that Russia would accept NATO deterrence in any format in the future (Medvedev 

2022; Putin 2022; The Washington Post 2022). 

Given Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine and toward its NATO neighbours, the question of 

why the concept of credible deterrence is not yielding the expected results with Russia is becoming 

increasingly important. Either Russian political leaders do not want to comply with the Western 



32                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

concept of deterrence, or they do not understand what is expected of them. The current study 

focuses on the most visible linguistic complications in the deterrence dialogue between Russia and 

the West. To do this, it focuses on Russian terminological equivalents of the term “deterrence,” 

the reasons why there is not one unambiguous equivalent term, how different terminological 

equivalents are used when discussing Western and Russian deterrence (as well as coercion and 

containment) concepts, and what impact can it have on the deterrence debate. The current study 

also considers which terminology would be more understandable (or even acceptable) for Russian 

political and military leaders. 

 

NATO’s Conception of (Credible) Deterrence 

Deterrence is a Western military-political concept, which has been chosen to be a core element of 

NATO's overall strategy in relation to global competitors and adversaries, including the Russian 

Federation. According to Belobrov (2020), Russian political leaders believe that despite the 

adjustments that have been made to the formulation of NATO’s strategy throughout its existence 

and the dynamics of the relations with the USSR/Russia, deterring Russia remains a key element 

of NATO’s strategy, being the fundamental principle for other strategic concepts and basic 

documents of the alliance (Belobrov 2020). 

The idea of deterrence is the practice of discouraging or restraining someone—usually a nation-

state in world politics—from engaging in undesirable aggressive behaviour, such as an armed 

attack. It refers to an attempt to halt or prevent an action, as opposed to the closely related but 

distinct concept of compellence, which refers to an attempt to compel an actor to do something 

(Mazarr 2018). Lawrence Freedman offers a more challenging definition of deterrence as he 

defines it as “deliberate attempts to manipulate the behaviour of others through conditional threats” 

(Freedman 2004, 6). 

According to the NATO definition, deterrence is “the convincing of a potential aggressor that the 

consequences of coercion or armed conflict would outweigh the potential gains. This requires the 

maintenance of a credible military capability and strategy with the clear political will to act” 

(NATO 2020, 42). The United States Department of Defense defines deterrence as “the prevention 

of action by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction and/or belief that the 

cost of action outweighs the perceived benefits” (DOD 2021, 63). Comparing this with the British 

perspective, the Encyclopedia Britannica (2022a) defines deterrence as a “military strategy under 

which one power uses the threat of reprisal effectively to preclude an attack from an adversary 

power.” The concept of deterrence consists of both the functional message that possible aggression 

is not cost-effective and the reputational message that the implementing side considers itself to be 

in sufficient control and has the necessary capabilities to prevent aggression or escalation.  

The concept and definitions of deterrence first appeared at the start of the Cold War when 

international actors began to construct and discuss nuclear deterrence. During the 1950s and 1960s, 

most of the work on the formulation of the deterrence concept was undertaken. The early concept 

of deterrence appeared during the time of complete US nuclear superiority. It was aimed at 

deterring hostile powers from challenging the US in large-scale conventional conflicts in Europe. 

The focus and center of gravity of the conceptual development of deterrence changed once again 

in the early 1970s when the Soviet Union reached nuclear parity with the US; the concept of 

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) appeared, and both sides accepted the impossibility of 

nuclear war. 



33                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

It was natural to assume that two equivalent, lethal, multi-megaton arsenals would result in a 

“balance of terror,” resulting in an uncomfortable but potentially long-lasting peace. Deterrence 

was assumed to work through the threat of severe punishment because of the nuclear association. 

That approach is known as “deterrence by punishment” (Freedman 2021, 5). However, the first 

two waves of deterrence theory made confident pronouncements about what would and would not 

deter an aggressor without any clear foundation (Mazarr 2018). 

Later, as the concept evolved, deterrence was rearticulated in another approach—deterrence by 

denial. In its simplest form, denial is “the immediate balance of forces in the contested territory” 

(Snyder 1959, 6). However, despite including a credible threat, denial further implies flexibility 

and control to “deny an opponent strategic options” (Freedman 2004, 37). Its strategies aim to 

deter an action by making it impossible or unlikely to succeed, robbing a potential aggressor of 

confidence in achieving its goals (Mazarr 2018). 

According to Michael J. Mazarr, there are two circumstances in which deterrence can be used: 

direct and extended (Mazarr 2018). Direct deterrence consists of efforts by a state to prevent 

attacks on its own territory. Extended deterrence involves discouraging attacks on third parties, 

such as allies or partners (Mazarr 2018). By its nature, extended deterrence is more difficult than 

protecting one's own country. A task that requires the projection of military force, sometimes 

thousands of miles away and often much closer to the territory of the aggressor state, is more 

difficult to accomplish when the attack is carried out in an area that is further away from the home 

country (Mazarr 2020).  

Deterrence can be classified into two types based on the time periods in which it can be used: 

general and immediate. General deterrence is the ongoing, persistent effort to prevent unwanted 

actions over the long term in non-crisis situations. Immediate deterrence represents more short-

term, urgent attempts to prevent specific, imminent attacks, most typically during a crisis (Mazarr 

2018).  

Deterrence can also be viewed in terms of its scope. According to the most restrictive definitions, 

deterrence only refers to military tools of statecraft—using the threat of military response to 

prevent a state from taking an action (Veebel 2018a). A broader concept of deterrence keeps the 

focus on threats but expands the scope to non-military actions: a state can deter using threats of 

economic sanctions, diplomatic exclusion, or information operations (Mazarr 2018). Lawrence 

Freedman describes these categories as “narrow” and “broad” (Freedman 2004, 32). Freedman 

suggests that “narrow deterrence involves deterring a particular type of military operation within 

a war, whereas broad deterrence involves deterring all war” (Freedman 2004, 32). 

One of the main specific domains of deterrence, both in theory and practice, was nuclear 

deterrence. Nuclear deterrence was and still is an essential component of the national security 

policies of many countries in the world today, most notably the United States and Russia, which 

have the greatest nuclear arsenals. The concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which was 

at the core of the nuclear deterrent strategy employed by both the United States and the Soviet 

Union at the height of the Cold War, continues to play an important role in the nuclear policy of 

these nations. The idea of MAD and the annihilation of both countries serves as a deterrent against 

the use of nuclear weapons. MAD, in essence, is the purest form of deterrence by punishment. 

This form of punishment is not the direct defence of the contested environment but rather a threat 

of extensive punishment that would make an attack too costly (Veebel 2018b). 



34                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

There are numerous variables and conditions defining and impacting deterrence: credibility, policy 

cohesion, capability, reputation of resolve, and communication. This study is aimed at improving 

the quality of communication relating to the discussion on deterrence. Communication is a basic 

element of deterrence by denial, as the adversary must be aware of the capability for it to be 

effective. It is difficult for adversaries to evaluate the effectiveness of a defence's deterrent impact, 

and attackers can only determine whether or not a target is impenetrable by attempting to do so. If 

this is the case, deterrence fails. To counter this argument, carefully crafted strategic 

communication can help communicate perceived effectiveness and convey a clear message to the 

adversary. 

Rebecca Hersman points out that deterrence depends fundamentally on the ability to shape 

adversaries’ and allies’ perceptions and risk calculations (Hersman 2017). It is a rationality-

oriented conversation among allies and adversaries, designed to persuade adversaries that the risks 

of conflict outweigh any potential benefits and to reassure allies that this conversation is working 

to protect their core interests (Hersman 2017). To be credible, both allies and adversaries must 

share a common understanding of the efficiency and rationality of this concept and clearly 

understand what the other side is saying and expecting, even when not sharing each other’s 

understanding of rationality (Veebel and Ploom 2023).  

Next to the concept of deterrence, the similarly aimed concept of compellence started to evolve. 

Compellence is an effort to force an actor to do something, while deterrence entails an effort to 

prevent an action (Mazarr 2018). The most distinguishing characteristic between compellence and 

deterrence is whether an act or behaviour has already been initiated that you wish to amend or 

stop. This differentiation is explained by Slantchev and Freedman. Slantchev states that 

“compellence aims to persuade the opponent to change his behaviour” and that “compellence is 

active: it seeks to change the status quo, where deterrence can be enduring” (Slantchev 2005, 4). 

On the other hand, as Lawrence Freedman states, “deterrence can be a technique, a doctrine and a 

state of mind. In all cases, it is about setting boundaries for actions and establishing the risks 

associated with the crossing of those boundaries” (Freedman 2004, 116). 

 

The Deterrence Debate between Russia and NATO before 2022 

The origins of the deterrence debate between Russia and the West can be traced back to the 

beginning of the Cold War in the mid-twentieth century. The announcement of the Truman 

Doctrine, also known as “Truman’s containment doctrine,” in 1947 was one of the events that 

marked the beginning of the Cold War and led to the creation of NATO. It was the start of 

containment policy: the United States' foreign policy, an ambiguous concept designed to limit the 

Soviet Union’s and communism’s expansion. Containment was originally advocated by US 

diplomat George Kennan, who was one of the policy’s architects. The overarching goal of such a 

policy was to keep the Soviet Union within the military boundaries established at the end of World 

War II. Therefore, containment could be seen as accommodationist rather than overtly aggressive, 

as some revisionist Cold War analysts have suggested (Evans and Newnham 1998). The rapid 

development of nuclear weapons signalled the start of a new era in the conflict between the United 

States and the Soviet Union. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, NATO scholars worked to 

understand how to best use nuclear weapons’ new power to deter the Soviet Union (Sagan 1991). 

Nuclear weapons had a revolutionary impact on the global security balance, and the concept of 

nuclear deterrence was born. Until the end of the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the focal point 

of the NATO-Soviet deterrence debate, and its elements have gradually migrated into the national 



35                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

defence strategies of other states (such as Russia), albeit with specific national nuances (Pechatnov 

2016).  

Strategic deterrence as an official military-political concept in Russia emerged only at the 

beginning of the twenty-first century. Due to the Soviet dual attitude toward nuclear war and the 

peculiarities of Soviet strategic culture, deterrence was not a central and elaborated concept in 

Moscow’s strategic thinking. Of course, Soviet leadership did act intuitively in accordance with 

the logic of deterrence (Adamsky 2014) and had their own view of deterrence. The Soviet view of 

deterrence had a dual nature, emphasizing both offence and war avoidance (Simes 1980). The 

Soviet Union's military policy aimed to deter the United States from launching a nuclear attack on 

the USSR by assuring that nuclear aggression would not go unanswered. Unlike the US, however, 

the Soviets did not develop or research deterrence doctrine (Adamsky 2014). 

Following the collapse of the USSR, the new 1990s international world order, under the hegemony 

of the United States, in which “there was nothing much that needed deterring” (Freedman 2004, 

21), did not provide fertile ground for the development of deterrence theory. After the Soviet Union 

disintegrated in 1991, relations between NATO countries and Russia began to improve, and Russia 

hoped to become a part of the Western security culture (Romanova 2011). However, that relatively 

peaceful and friendly period of dialogue lasted only two decades. The second decade of the twenty-

first century marked the beginning of a new period of confrontation between NATO and Russia 

(Rumer and Sokolsky 2020). Tensions began to escalate with the Russo-Georgian War in 2008 

and skyrocketed after Russia annexed Crimea and fuelled the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine in 

2014. All of this signalled the start of a new era in the NATO-Russian deterrence dialogue, with 

deterrence regaining prominence in the two countries' relations. The number of times the word 

deterrence appeared in the respective communiqués of the NATO 1999 Washington Summit 

(once) and the NATO 2016 Warsaw Summit (28 times), where deterrence was one of the two 

interrelated main themes, exemplifies this point vividly (Paulauskas 2016). Whereas deterrence in 

its military-political sense was not a central and elaborate concept in the Soviet Union’s strategic 

thinking (Adamsky 2014), Russia now has its own state-level concept of strategicheskoye 

sderzhivaniye, which is a Russian version of deterrence strategy. 

 

Russian Translations of “Deterrence”: Do Russians Understand What is Expected?  

The concept of deterrence has a relatively standardized meaning in English-speaking NATO 

countries. However, in the Russian language, there is no unambiguously understandable equivalent 

for the Western concept of “deterrence.” In various English-Russian dictionaries and online 

translators, this term has a large number of possible translations; these include sderzhivaniye, 

ustrasheniye, sderzhivaniye putem ustrasheniya, politika sderzhivaniya, uderzhaniye, 

otpugivaniye, zapugivaniye, zamedleniye, prepyatstvovaniye, etc. 

According to dictionaries, online translators, and scholarly articles, the two most-used Russian-

language equivalents of “deterrence” are sderzhivaniye and ustrasheniye. However, according to 

scientific articles, the term prinuzhdeniye also appears when discussing NATO’s deterrence, 

mostly in phrases such as sderzhivaniye prinuzhdeniyem and prinuzhdayushcheye sderzhivaniye.  

All of the terms mentioned are not synonyms in Russian. These Russian translations have 

meanings other than “deterrence,” and most of them are used in common parlance, where they also 

have different meanings and connotations. In most cases, if they were to be translated to English, 



36                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

“deterrence” would not be the first possible option suggested by the dictionaries. For example, 

sderzhivaniye can be translated as containment; ustrasheniye and zapugivaniye as intimidation; 

politika sderzhivaniya as containment policy; uderzhaniye as retention; otpugivaniye as 

frightening away; zamedleniye as deceleration; prinuzhdeniye can be translated as coercion, 

compulsion, or compellence; prepyatstvovaniye as obstruction, etc. 

As a result, the linguistic factor in the deterrence conversation manifests itself in two ways. First, 

deterrence does not translate into Russian as a single understandable word (or concept) but rather 

as at least three distinct words. Second, these three words also carry additional meaning (in terms 

of content) and social status not related to the Western idea of deterrence. On different levels, all 

Russian translations include the sentiment that the one who is deterred is the one being dominated, 

controlled, and patronized (Karaganov and Suslov 2019). This is the implication that most Russian 

political and military leaders would want to avoid at any cost. 

Now, the authors will analyze the most common Russian translations of “deterrence.” 

Sderzhivaniye is the most frequently used term for “deterrence.” It literally means containment, 

restraining, or holding back. In Russian, this term is conceived more broadly than the Western 

understanding of deterrence to include all activities aimed at war prevention (Ven Bruusgard 2016) 

and often includes what in the West is expressed using at least three different terms: “containment,” 

“deterrence,” and “compellence” (Fenenko 2020; Pechatnov 2016). Sderzhivaniye refers to efforts 

to preserve the status quo and implies, similar to Western usage, a more reactive modus operandi 

(Adamsky 2018). However, sderzhivaniye does not cover all aspects of deterrence but rather 

focuses on deterrence through denial in conjunction with resilience. Significantly, an aspect related 

to deterrence through punishment is absent (Veebel et al. 2020). 

The term sderzhivaniye is mainly used in the strategic (also nuclear) and political context. 

However, though the noun sderzhivaniye is mostly related to the military domain, the verb 

sderzhivat’ is widely used in Russian common parlance and has various meanings, which could 

also affect the way the military term “deterrence” is interpreted in Russia. To highlight the variety 

of potential synonyms and meanings of the term sderzhivat’, it could also mean to restrain or to 

hold back (uderzhivat’), restrict (ogranichivat’), humble (smiryat’), keep (in the sense of keeping 

a promise), or even slow down (zamedlyat’).  

Sderzhivaniye first appeared in the Soviet Union at the end of the 1940s as a Russian-language 

equivalent of the Western term “containment.” Nowadays, the term “containment” is rarely used 

by the institutions of NATO or by the governments of NATO member states. It is not included in 

the NATO term base (NATO Term 2023) or the United States Department of Defense Dictionary 

of Military and Associated Terms (DOD 2021). However, for more than four decades, the concept 

of containment existed as a separate Western military-political concept, and it was referred to as 

sderzhivaniye or politika sderzhivaniya (containment policy) in the Soviet Union and, later, in 

Russia. The term “containment” is also absent from the NATO-Russia Glossary of Contemporary 

Political and Military Terms (NATO 2007). However, one can find there the term politika 

sderzhivaniya; its equivalent in English is listed as “deterrence,” not “containment.” It is described 

as follows: “A range of political, military and other measures, aimed at convincing the other side 

that it cannot achieve its political ends by armed attack, because of the overt threat of retaliation” 

(NATO 2007, 71). 

It is curious that in the NATO-Russia Glossary, the term politika sderzhivaniya refers to the 

Russian Federation’s policy that was already formed in the twenty-first century, rather than the 



37                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Western military political concept of containment. The term politika sderzhivaniya can also be 

found in a Russian Military-Technical Dictionary: War and Peace in Terms and Definitions 

(Voyenno-tekhnicheskiy slovar': Voyna i mir v terminakh i opredeleniyakh) edited by former 

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. This dictionary is intended for top military and 

political leaders, as well as specialists in national security and military sciences. It includes the 

definition of politika sderzhivaniya, which states that it is a type of foreign policy of a peace-loving 

state, the main purpose of which is to reduce the level of military danger, limit the possibility of 

aggression and actively hold the aggressor back from any military aggression, conflicts and wars. 

This policy assumes the effective use of a complex of political, economic, military, and diplomatic 

measures (Rogozin 2004). 

To summarize, politika sderzhivaniya refers to two distinct concepts in Russia: the concept of US 

foreign policy during the Cold War (also known as containment policy or simply “containment” 

in the Western world) and the concept of Russia’s military-political theory in the twenty-first 

century (usually referred to in the Western world as “deterrence”). Both of them are also referred 

to as sderzhivaniye. 

In Russian strategic thinking, there is a broad concept of voyenno-politicheskoye sderzhivaniye 

that can be translated as military-political containment or military-political deterrence. This is a 

broad concept that refers to a set of military and political measures taken by a state to deter 

aggression and threats to its peaceful development and vital interests. These policies are based on 

both direct and indirect use of military force as a political means of forcing a potential adversary 

to abandon an armed attack due to the threat of retaliatory actions that will result in such 

consequences that the aggressor state will lose its ability or political motivation to continue the 

war.  

Strategicheskoye sderzhivaniye (strategic containment or strategic deterrence) is a part of voyenno-

politicheskoye sderzhivaniye. It is a narrower concept than voyenno-politicheskoye sderzhivaniye 

or just sderzhivaniye. Strategicheskoye sderzhivaniye is a system of non-coercive and coercive 

measures that are implemented on a continuous basis, both during peacetime and during wartime. 

These precautions are taken not only to avoid coercive actions or to keep the object within a 

specific framework but also to de-escalate a military conflict. 

An essential part of strategicheskoye sderzhivaniye is voyennoye sderzhivaniye (military 

containment or military deterrence). It consists of silovoye sderzhivaniye (coercive containment or 

coercive deterrence), which implies the direct use of various weapon systems, including nuclear 

ones. Yadernoye sderzhivaniye (nuclear containment or nuclear deterrence) is a part of silovoye 

sderzhivaniye, and, as the term implies, it is containment or deterrence by a threat of using nuclear 

weapons. 

Although these concepts overlap in some ways with the essence of the Western concept of 

deterrence, they overlap more with the definition of containment. If one reads the definitions of 

the concepts of sderzhivaniye in Russian military-political theory, one can clearly see that it is 

described as a defensive concept drawn to prevent or de-escalate aggression and conflict, to stop 

the adversary’s coercive actions, and to end hostilities (Entsiklopediya raketnykh voysk 

strategicheskogo naznacheniya 2022; Spravochnik po terminologii v oboronnoy sfere 2022; 

Voyennyy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ 2022). In these definitions, retaliatory actions and actions 

that hold back, rather than provoke aggression, predominate. Sderzhivaniye aims to prevent or end 

further aggression. Causing damage is mentioned only as a response to the aggressor's actions. For 



38                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

that reason, in English, to translate the names of various parts of the Russian concept of voyenno-

politicheskoye sderzhivaniye, it would be more accurate to use the terms “contain” and 

“containment” because, in English, these words correspondingly mean to “control” or “restrain” 

and to “hold someone or something within.” These terms express a less aggressive mode of 

operation than the terms “deter” or “deterrence,” and they are better suited to interpreting the 

essence of Russian military-political concepts (or at least how they are formulated in theory). 

The authors of this article believe that, despite its widespread use, sderzhivaniye is a confusing 

term rather than an unambiguous equivalent for “deterrence.” There are several reasons for this. 

First, sderzhivaniye does not encompass all aspects of deterrence, both conceptually and 

linguistically. Second, in Russian, it is used in several lexical phrases as an equivalent for three 

different Western concepts: containment, deterrence, and compellence. Third, the term 

sderzhivaniye has its own specific meaning in Russian military-political theory, where 

sderzhivaniye means more than the Western concept of deterrence implies. All that influences 

one's understanding of the Western concept. 

Ustrasheniye is the second most popular Russian translation for deterrence; it translates as 

“intimidating” or “frightening.” This noun is mainly used in a military context, but the verb 

ustrashat’ and the corresponding adjectives are quite frequently used in common parlance, where 

they have clearly aggressive and intimidating connotations. This term’s association with 

aggressive intimidation to get its own way is particularly clearly reflected in the expression 

ustrashat’ vraga, which means not only to cause fear among the opponents (in Russian, this would 

be pugat’), but to frighten them by one’s “mightiness” and “greatness” (Veebel and Vihmand 

2020, 9), meaning that the other side is seen as a lower or less important actor. Accordingly, this 

verb has a strong element of labelling the actor as superior to the object, which makes it very 

complicated to accept for the Russian political and military community. 

The military-political term ustrasheniye first appeared in the Soviet Union after the Cold War 

began, when international actors began to discuss (nuclear) deterrence. Even though sderzhivaniye 

was used to refer to deterrence, ustrasheniye was also used to refer to the new Western concept. 

Ustrasheniye has negative connotations and is still primarily used to describe others' deterrent 

policies. This term was frequently used in the Soviet Union when discussing Western deterrence, 

but in the twenty-first century, it has fallen out of favour, giving sderzhivaniye a chance to 

dominate the Russian-language deterrence discourse. In the NATO-Russia Glossary, ustrasheniye 

is marked as a synonymous term for sderzhivaniye as the Russian equivalent for “deterrence” 

(NATO 2007). However, in Russian military-political theory, these two terms are not synonymous.  

The most visible difference between these two terms and concepts is revealed by the definitions 

of the two separate Russian military-political strategies: strategiya sderzhivaniya and strategiya 

ustrasheniya. Strategiya sderzhivaniya (containment strategy) is a method of strategic action based 

on the implementation of a set of measures aimed at pinning down the enemy from unleashing a 

war (Rogozin 2004). There can be several containment strategies, which form a comprehensive 

containment strategy (strategiya sderzhivaniya kompleksnaya)—a set of strategies based on the 

principle of inflicting unacceptable damage on the aggressor in a war, adequate defence, strategic 

stability, and the development of a peace-loving state's defence capabilities. A comprehensive 

containment strategy entails both active attacks in the name of containment and increased self-

defence (Rogozin 2004). 



39                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Strategiya ustrasheniya (intimidation strategy) is a set of strategic actions involving the threat of 

military force. It is defined as a military strategy used to force the enemy to end hostilities. 

Strategiya ustrasheniya assumes overwhelming superiority in forces and the use of means and 

methods against which no effective defence exists (Rogozin 2004). Strategiya ustrasheniya is 

considered to be more aggressive than strategiya sderzhivaniya and directly implies the conducting 

of hostilities, intimidation through a threat of destroying the enemy, and the use of methods from 

which there is no defence. Accordingly, the one who implements this strategy is the one having 

strategic initiative and supremacy, while accepting it means accepting the domination of an 

imposer (Karaganov and Suslov 2018). 

Besides sderzhivaniye and ustrasheniye there are other terms that are used when talking about the 

Western concept of deterrence. On the basis of sderzhivaniye and ustrasheniye, another term was 

formed and used in the Soviet Union and later in the Russian Federation as a possible Russian-

language equivalent of deterrence—sderzhivaniye putem ustrasheniya, meaning “containment 

through intimidation.” 

At the turn of the twenty-first century, the paradigm of deterrence began to shift, and new 

deterrence strategies, methods, and instruments emerged. Despite the fact that the term 

prinuzhdeniye is not listed in dictionaries as a possible translation of the English term “deterrence” 

and that it is absent from the official Russian military encyclopedias and handbooks,1 due to the 

constant development of deterrence theory, phrases including the term prinuzhdeniye are now 

increasingly used in the Russian scientific literature when referring to the Western concept of 

“deterrence.” 

Traditionally, prinuzhdeniye is the Russian equivalent of “coercion,” both as a legal and a military-

political term (Bartosh 2021). In Russia, the term is more commonly used as a legal term to refer 

to the act of persuading someone to do something by using force and threats (coercion), but it is 

also increasingly used in the military context, where it refers to efforts to change the status quo 

and implies a more proactive connotation, similar to the Western usage of the term (Adamsky 

2018). However, some Russian political scientists use this term to denote compellence (Fenenko 

2021). Since, in their interpretation, compellence is a type of deterrence—the more offensive type 

of deterrence—prinuzhdeniye is used when talking about deterrence, for example, in such phrases 

as prinuzhdayushcheye sderzhivaniye and sderzhivaniye prinuzhdeniyem that can be 

correspondingly translated as “coercive containment” and “containment by coercion” or, in other 

words, “coercive deterrence” and “deterrence by coercion.” However, in the Western strategy, 

deterrence and compellence are two different concepts. Whereas deterrence is aimed at preventing 

adversary behaviours through threatened action, compellence involves threats or actions to force 

the adversary to do something. Coercion is also a distinct military-political concept in Western 

countries. In fact, deterrence and compellence are two distinct concepts in Western military-

political theory that are both forms of coercion (Encyclopedia Britannica 2022b). 

Even though prinuzhdeniye does not yet have a place as an official term in Russian military-

political theory, it is becoming increasingly common when discussing military-political relations. 

This term is often used in the phrase silovoye prinuzhdeniye when referring to “compulsion by 

force” as a means of aggressive deterrence. Ekonomicheskoye prinuzhdeniye refers to “economic 

 
1 For example, see Entsiklopediya raketnykh voysk strategicheskogo naznacheniya 2022; Spravochnik po terminologii 

v oboronnoy sfere 2022; Voyennyy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ 2022. 



40                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

compulsion,” but prinuzhdeniye k miru is translated to English as “peace enforcement.” The term 

prinuzhdeniye is also used when referring to sanctions, which Russians refer to as “means of 

compulsion” (metody prinuzhdeniya). Diplomatiya prinuzhdeniya is the Russian equivalent for 

“coercive diplomacy,” but “strategic coercion” is sometimes translated as strategicheskoye 

vozdeistviye (strategic influence) instead of strategicheskoye prinuzhdeniye (strategic coercion). 

Sometimes, the term prinuzhdeniye is used as a synonym for nastupateljnoye sderzhivaniye 

(offensive containment) (Fenenko 2019, 2021). 

 

How to Improve the Russian-Western Deterrence Conversation? 

As Rebecca Hersman states, “deterrence is, at its core, a dialogue—and, as such, rests on three 

questions: Can we be heard? Are we listening? And are we understood?” (Hersman 2017). Despite 

the use of similar terms and expressions in public statements and political declarations by the 

Russian political elite and NATO leaders, the two groups appear to speak a different security and 

defence language because the meaning of the terms and the concept of deterrence differ between 

the Russian and Western communities (Veebel and Ploom 2019). As a result, it is no surprise that 

there might be doubts if NATO’s deterrence towards Russia is still credible after the 2022 Russian 

war against Ukraine. 

Precise and transparent translations are required to keep the NATO-Russia deterrence conversation 

effective. Unfortunately, the English term for NATO's key concept of deterrence does not have a 

clear terminological equivalent in Russian, which might create confusion among people who have 

not studied it as a concept. In NATO, when deterrence is being discussed, a single well-defined 

term is used, meanwhile, the terminological apparatus in Russia remains inconsistent due to the 

presence of several similar phenomena and the corresponding terminology. When the term 

“deterrence” first appeared in the dialogue between the West and the Soviet Union, it did not get 

one specific lexical equivalent in Russian. It was referred to as sderzhivaniye (the same term that 

was used to mark “containment”), ustrasheniye (the term that emphasized the aggressiveness of 

Western concept) and sderzhivaniye putem ustrasheniya (the hybrid of the first two terms). The 

terms sderzhivanye and ustrasheniye have been used interchangeably when talking about the 

Western concept of deterrence for many decades. Sderzhivaniye putem ustrasheniya has also been 

used from time to time. Later, as the deterrence strategy evolved and the corresponding English-

language terminological apparatus was supplemented by updated terminology, new terms began 

to appear in Russian as well. For example, expressions such as prinuzhdayushcheye sderzhivaniye 

and sderzhivaniye prinuzhdeniyem also started to be used to refer to some form of deterrence. 

When discussing the same concept in two different linguistic and cultural spaces, the use of 

specific terminology, one or more terms, can affect how the recipient perceives this concept. In 

this process, some of the vital components might be lost during translation or some sentiments 

added. Due to its etymology, the concept of deterrence in English implies instilling fear and 

threatening the adversary (Online Etymology Dictionary 2023a; Online Etymology Dictionary 

2023b). The Russian term sderzhivaniye does not relate to fear. Sderzhivaniye is concerned with 

actions taken to hold the adversary back. Ustrasheniye, on the other hand, is directly related to 

generating fear. That is, in fact, what this word literally means. 

The language used may influence the public's willingness to accept risks and, as a result, their 

willingness to escalate the crisis (Berejikian and Zwald 2020). The choice of terms influences how 

the message is perceived and interpreted, as well as how the attitude of one part of the conversation 



41                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

toward the other is perceived. Furthermore, during the meaning construction process, the 

information presented in the text interacts with previously stored knowledge and mental models 

(Schäffner 2004). All of this points to the deterrence dialogue between Russia and the West. In 

that conversation, the Russian Federation frequently employs the terminology examined in this 

study, giving the impression that Russia is containing and restraining aggression while the West is 

intimidating and coercing. When describing its own policies, Russia uses the term sderzhivaniye, 

but when describing NATO expectations and actions, Russians frequently use the terms 

ustrasheniye and prinuzhdeniye. For example, the term ustrasheniye is normally used to portray 

(implicitly illegitimate) deterrence policies of other powers and implies certain negative 

associations. The habitual phrase to describe US policies during the Cold War was sderzhivaniye 

putem ustrasheniya (Ven Bruusgard 2016). The strategic concept of the US adopted in the early 

1970s—National Security Strategy of Realistic Deterrence—is translated to Russian as strategiya 

realisticheskogo ustrasheniya (Rogozin 2004, 101). 

Indeed, in the Russian language, sderzhivaniye (containment) sounds more peaceful than 

ustrasheniye (intimidation) and prinuzhdeniye (coercion), which have more aggressive 

connotations. In fact, there is a reason for using these terms in such a way. In the mind of the 

Russian Federation, the Russian analogue of the Western concept of strategic deterrence—the 

concept of strategicheskoye sderzhivaniye evolves within a framework of the defensive concept of 

national security. The Western concept of deterrence, on the contrary, is seen as an expansionary-

offensive concept that ensures the advancement of US international interests (Pechatnov 2016). 

This fact explains why there is a difference in terminology when discussing Russian and Western 

actions. However, because the Russian concept of strategicheskoye sderzhivaniye implies that all 

of Russia's actions are defensive or reactive, and its intention is only to restrain the adversary rather 

than conduct an offensive operation, it may give Russia the impression that it is always acting 

defensively. As Kristen Ven Bruusgard points out, this terminology may lead the Russian 

leadership to believe that their actions are simply a reaction to perceived aggression (Ven 

Bruusgaard 2016). Although Russian military-political theory admits that in some cases, the 

strategy of containing (sderzhivaniye) military aggression can be implemented through 

intimidation (ustrasheniye).  

 

Conclusion 

Allies agreed at the NATO summit in Warsaw in 2016 that deterrence must be supplemented by 

meaningful dialogue, with the goal of avoiding misunderstanding, miscalculation, and unintended 

escalation, as well as increasing transparency and predictability (Paulauskas 2016). Understanding 

the linguistic component of the deterrence conversation between Russia and NATO aids in meeting 

these objectives. It is useful in understanding how Russian leaders perceive and comprehend the 

NATO deterrence posture, and, if they do not, how it can be changed. It also helps to understand 

Moscow's intentions and Russia's strategic thinking, especially after Russia’s aggression against 

Ukraine in 2022. It should also be kept in mind that, at different levels, all Russian translations for 

deterrence include the idea, that the one who is deterred, is the one being dominated, controlled, 

and patronized. This, however, is the implication that most Russian political and military leaders 

would want to avoid. 

The fact that the same terms are used as equivalents for the Western concept of deterrence and as 

terms noting concepts of Russia's own military thinking complicates the issue of terminology. 



42                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

However, the underlying concepts of these terms differ. For example, the most commonly used 

Russian deterrence equivalent, sderzhivaniye, plays an important role in Russia’s strategic 

thinking, where it is a much broader term than the Western concept of deterrence. Sderzhivaniye 

denotes a concept that in Western thinking is expressed by three concepts and corresponding terms: 

“deterrence,” “containment,” and “compellence.” Etymologically and historically, sderzhivaniye 

is more appropriate as an equivalent term for “containment.” Furthermore, on a conceptual level, 

it is less aggressive than the Western concept of deterrence. Not without reason, that term was 

coined as a Russian equivalent for the Western concept of containment, which some revisionist 

Cold War analysts suggested was a policy of accommodation rather than overt aggression (Evans 

and Newnham 1998). Based on the analysis and etymology of the terms under consideration, the 

term sderzhivaniye is a suitable equivalent for the Western term “containment,” which is related 

to but not synonymous with the term “deterrence.”  

Another term that is often used when talking about deterrence is ustrasheniye. However, while it 

is sometimes used interchangeably with sderzhivaniye when discussing the Western concept of 

deterrence, in Russian military-political thinking, these two terms denote distinct concepts and 

cannot be considered synonyms for conceptual and etymological reasons. Ustrasheniye, on the 

other hand, is a better etymological and conceptual equivalent term for “deterrence,” directly 

associated with the creation of fear, which is a key component of deterrence. 

Speaking about the terms prinuzhdayushcheye sderzhivaniye and sderzhivaniye prinuzhdeniyem, 

it should be noted that these terms only convey a portion of the deterrence strategy. Terminological 

confusion is deepened by the fact that, in some cases, prinuzhdeniye is used to talk about 

compellence or coercion. However, in Western strategy, “deterrence,” “compellence,” and 

“coercion” are three distinct terms with distinct underlying concepts. All of this only complicates 

the terminological issue of translating the Western military-political term “deterrence” into 

Russian. Another factor to consider is how Russian equivalents of the concept of deterrence are 

translated into English. Russian strategicheskoye sderzhivaniye, for example, is not conceptually 

the same as Western strategic deterrence, despite the fact that it is frequently translated as such. 

Considering the essence of Russian military-political strategy, Dmitry Adamsky (2018, 36) 

proposed to use the term “cross-domain coercion” when talking about the Russian concept. This 

question requires further investigation based on the components of the Russian strategy and the 

possible deterrence conceptualization variations.  

The translation and perception of the Western concept of deterrence in Russia is heavily influenced 

by Russian terminological equivalents of “deterrence” and terminology used in modern Russian 

military theory. However, it is also critical for the West to understand the foundations of Russian 

strategic thinking and the linguistic factors that influence it. As a result, understanding the 

problems associated with translating the term “deterrence” and its most commonly used Russian 

equivalents, as well as the relationships between these terminological units, will aid in better 

understanding each other in the deterrence conversation. Additionally, if NATO is about to make 

its dialogue more transparent and straightforward with Russian political and military leaders, then 

it should consider the use of the terms “containment” and “coercion” in proper context instead of 

“deterrence,” which may be ambiguously interpreted by Russians. This would be clearer in terms 

of expected content and would also be comprehensible for a wider Russian political and military 

society.   

  



43                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

REFERENCES 

Adamsky, Dmitry. 2014. “If War Comes Tomorrow: Russian Thinking About ‘Regional Nuclear 

Deterrence.’” The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 27 (1): 163-188. https://

doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2014.874852. 

———. 2018. “From Moscow with Coercion: Russian Deterrence Theory and Strategic 

Culture.” Journal of Strategic Studies 41 (1-2): 33-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/

01402390.2017.1347872. 

Bartosh, Aleksandr. 2021. “Sderzhivaniye i prinuzhdeniye v strategii gibridnoy voyny.” 

[Deterrence and coercion in a hybrid war strategy]. Voyennaya Mysl’, no. 9, 18-34. 

Belobrov, Yuriy. 2020. “Evolyutsiya politiki NATO po sderzhivaniyu SSSR i Rossii” [The 

evolution of NATO policy of deterring the USSR and Russia]. Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn’, no. 

6, 22-33. Accessed June 15, 2023. https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/material/2353. 

Berejikian, Jeffrey, and Zachary Zwald. 2020. “Why Language Matters: Shaping Public Risk 

Tolerance during Deterrence Crises.” Contemporary Security Policy 41 (4): 507-540. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1729496 

DOD (United States of America Department of Defense). 2021. Dictionary of Military and 

Associated Terms. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/dictionary.pdf. 

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2022a. “Deterrence”. Accessed December 10, 2022. 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/deterrence-political-and-military-strategy. 

———. 2022b. “Compellence”. Accessed December 10, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/

topic/compellence. 

Entsiklopediya Raketnykh Voysk Strategicheskogo Naznacheniya. 2022. Accessed December 12, 

2022. http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/listrvsn.htm. 

Evans, Graham, and Jeffrey Newnham. 1998. The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. 

London: Penguin Books. 

Fenenko, Aleksey. 2019. “Effektivno li yadernoye sderzhivaniye?” [Is nuclear deterrence 

efficient?] Russian International Affairs Council, April 26, 2019. Accessed December 16, 

2022. https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/effektivno-li-yadernoe-

sderzhivanie/. 

———. 2020. “Evolyutsiya teorii yadernogo sderzhivaniya v SSHA v gody kholodnoy voyny.” 

[Evolution of the nuclear deterrence theory in the US during the years of the Cold War]. 

Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Mezhdunarodnyye Otnosheniya 13 (1): 111-

135. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2020.108. 

———. 2021. “Asimmetrichnaya model' yadernogo sderzhivaniya” [An asymmetric model of 

nuclear deterrence]. Analiz i Prognoz. Zhurnal IMEMO RAN 3: 13-29. 

https://doi.org/10.20542/afij-2021-3-13-29. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2014.874852
https://doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2014.874852
https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2017.1347872
https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2017.1347872
https://interaffairs.ru/jauthor/material/2353
https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1729496
https://www.britannica.com/topic/deterrence-political-and-military-strategy
https://www.britannica.com/topic/compellence
https://www.britannica.com/topic/compellence
http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/listrvsn.htm
https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/effektivno-li-yadernoe-sderzhivanie/
https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/effektivno-li-yadernoe-sderzhivanie/
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2020.108


44                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Freedman, Lawrence. 2004. Deterrence. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

———. 2021. “Introduction—The Evolution of Deterrence Strategy and Research.” In NL ARMS 

Netherlands Annual Review of Military Studies 2020: Deterrence in the 21st Century—

Insights from Theory and Practice, edited by Frans Osinga and Tim Sweijs, 1-10. Accessed 

on September 5, 2023. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-419-8_1. 

Hersman, Rebecca. 2017. “The Deterrence and Assurance Conversation.” Center for Strategic and 

International Studies, January 13, 2017. Accessed October 18, 2020. 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/deterrence-and-assurance-conversation. 

Karaganov, Sergei, and Dmitry Suslov. 2019. “Sderzhivaniye v novuyu epokhu” [Deterrence in a 

new epoch]. Rossiya v Global'noy Politike, no. 4. Accessed October 27, 2023. 

https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/sderzhivanie-v-novuyu-epohu/. 

———. 2018. “A New World Order: A View from Russia.” Russia in Global Affairs. Accessed 

on September 5, 2023. https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/a-new-world-order-a-view-from-

russia/. 

Mazarr, Michael J. 2018. “Understanding Deterrence.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 

Accessed September 5, 2023. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE295.html. 

———. 2020. Understanding Deterrence. In NL ARMS Netherlands Annual Review of Military 

Studies 2020: Deterrence in the 21st Century—Insights from Theory and Practice, edited by 

Frans Osinga and Tim Sweijs, 13-28. Accessed on September 5, 2023. 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6265-419-8_2. 

Medvedev, Dmitry. 2022. “Medvedev v otvet na ugrozy udarit' po Chernomorskomu flotu 

napomnil pro giperzvukovyye rakety” [In response to threats to strike the Black Sea Fleet, 

Medvedev reminded about hypersonic missiles]. Kommersant. Accessed October 27, 2023. 

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5572179. 

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). 2001. “Preface of the NATO-Russia Glossary of 

Contemporary Political and Military Terms. Accessed January 12, 2022. 

https://www.nato.int/docu/glossary/eng/index.htm. 

———. 2007. NATO-Russia Glossary of Contemporary Political and Military Terms. Accessed 

September 17, 2022. https://www.nato.int/docu/glossary/eng/15-main.pdf. 

———. 2020. AAP-06 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions.  

https://www.coemed.org/files/stanags/05_AAP/AAP-06_2020_EF_(1).pdf. 

———. 2022. “Deterrence and defence.” September 12, 2022. Accessed December 4, 2022. 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm. 

NATO Term. 2023. “Welcome.” Accessed September 5, 2023.  

https://nso.nato.int/natoterm/content/nato/pages/home.html?lg=en. 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/deterrence-and-assurance-conversation
https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/a-new-world-order-a-view-from-russia/
https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/a-new-world-order-a-view-from-russia/
https://www.nato.int/docu/glossary/eng/index.htm
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm
https://nso.nato.int/natoterm/content/nato/pages/home.html?lg=en


45                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Online Etymology Dictionary. 2023a. “Deterrence.” Accessed January 9, 2023. 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/deterrence. 

———. 2023b. “Terror.” Accessed January 9, 2023. https://www.etymonline.com/

search?q=terror. 

Paulauskas, Kęstutis. 2016. “On Deterrence.” NATO Review, August 6, 2016. Accessed February 

2, 2022. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2016/08/05/on-deterrence/index.html. 

Pechatnov, Yuri. 2016. “Teoriya sderzhivaniya: genezis” [Deterrence theory: the genesis]. 

Vooruzheniye i ekonomika 2: 25-32. 

Putin, Vladimir. 2022. “Speech on the Incorporation of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and 

Zaporozhye.” Michael Rossi Poli Sci. Accessed September 5, 2023. YouTube video, 43:44. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP69jld8XAE. 

Rogozin, Dmitriy, ed. 2004. Voyna i mir v terminakh i opredeleniyakh [War and peace: terms and 

definitions]. Moscow: PoRog. 

Romanova, Tatiana. 2011. “Yevrosoyuz kak normativnaya sila i problemy yeye vospriyatiya v 

Rossii kak bar'yer na puti politiko-pravovogo sblizheniya” [European Union as a normative 

power and problems of its perception in Russia as an obstacle in the way of political and 

legal rapprochement]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta 6 (1): 56-66. 

Rumer, Eugene, and Richard Sokolsky. 2020. “Tridtsat' let khozhdeniya po krugu: politika SSHA 

v otnoshenii Rossii” [Thirty years of walking in circles: The US policy toward Russia]. 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Accessed June 15, 2023. 

https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/04/21/ru-pub-81258. 

Sagan, Scott D. 1991. “History, Analogy, and Deterrence Theory.” The Journal of 

Interdisciplinary History 22 (1): 79-88. 

Sarott, Mary Elis. 2021. “Sderzhivaniye posle kholodnoi voiny” [Deterrence after the Cold War]. 

Rossiya v Global'noy Politike, no. 6, 44-60. Accessed June 15, 2023. 

https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/sderzhivanie-posle-holodnoj-vojny/. 

Schäffner, Christina. 2004. “Political Discourse Analysis from the Point of View of Translation 

Studies.” Journal of Language and Politics 3 (1): 117-150. https://doi.org/

10.1075/jlp.3.1.09sch.    

Simes, Dimitri K. 1980. “Deterrence and Coercion in Soviet Policy.” International Security 5 (3): 

80-103. 

Slantchev, Branislav L. 2005. Introduction to International Relations: Lecture 2: State and 

Anarchy, April 19, 2015. University of California – San Diego.  http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/

courses/ps12/02-state-and-anarchy.pdf. 

Snyder, Glenn H. 1959. Deterrence by Denial and Punishment. Princeton: Center of International 

Studies. 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/deterrence
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=terror
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=terror
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2016/08/05/on-deterrence/index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP69jld8XAE
https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/04/21/ru-pub-81258
https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/sderzhivanie-posle-holodnoj-vojny/
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.09sch
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.09sch


46                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Spravochnik po terminologii v oboronnoy sfere [Directory for Defence Terminology]. 2022. 

Accessed December 12, 2022. http://dictionary.mil.ru/dictionary. 

Veebel, Viljar. 2018a. “NATO Options and Dilemmas for Deterring Russia in the Baltic 

States.” Defence Studies 18 (2): 229-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2018.1463518. 

———. 2018b. “(Un)Justified Expectations on Nuclear Deterrence of Nonnuclear 

NATO Members: The Case of Estonia and Latvia?” Defense & Security Analysis 34 (3): 291-309. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2018.1500758. 

Veebel, Viljar, and Illimar Ploom. 2019. “Are the Baltic States and NATO on the Right Path in 

Deterring Russia in the Baltic?” Defense & Security Analysis 35 (4): 406-422. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2019.1675947. 

Veebel, Viljar, and Liia Vihmand. 2020. “Living in Confronting or Parallel Strategic Narratives? 

The Reasons behind the Missing Security Dialogue between Russia and the Baltic 

States.” Journal on Baltic Security 5 (2): 17-28. https://doi.org/10.2478/jobs-2019-0007.  

Veebel, Viljar, Liia Vihmand, Illimar Ploom, and Raul Markus. 2020. “Western Misperception 

When Deterring Russia: Cultural and Linguistic Factors.” Journal of Politics and Law 13: 

151-159. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v13n3p151. 

Ven Bruusgaard, Kristin. 2016. “Russian Strategic Deterrence.” Survival 58 (4): 7-26. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2016.1207945 

Viljar Veebel, and Illimar Ploom. 2023. “President Putin: A Holy Mad Man or a Brave but Trapped 

Chicken in Ukraine?” Comparative Strategy 42 (1): 61-79. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/01495933.2022.2158030. 

Voyennyy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar' [Military Encyclopedic Dictionary]. 2022. Accessed 

December 12, 2022. https://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/list.htm. 

The Washington Post. 2022.“Read Putin’s National Address on a Partial Military Mobilization.” 

Accessed September 5, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/21/putin-

speech-russia-ukraine-war-mobilization/. 

  

http://dictionary.mil.ru/dictionary
https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2018.1463518
https://doi.org/10.2478/jobs-2019-0007
https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v13n3p151
https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2016.1207945
https://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionary/list.htm


47                   Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 16 (2)2023: 30-47  

ISSN 2562-8429 

 

Published by the Centre for European Studies at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada 

Available online at: https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index 

The Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies (CJERS – formerly Review of European 

and Russian Affairs) is an open-access electronic academic peer-reviewed journal: articles are 

subject to double-blind peer-review. Topics relate to the European Union, its Member States, the 

former Soviet Union, and Central and Eastern Europe. The journal is published by the Centre for 

European Studies, an associated unit of the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies 

at Carleton University. 

CJERS aims to provide an accessible forum for the promotion and dissemination of high quality 

research and scholarship.  

Contact: 

Carleton University 

The Centre for European Studies 

1103 Dunton Tower 

1125 Colonel By Drive 

Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 

Canada 

Tel: +01 613 520-2600 ext. 3117; E-mail: CJERS@carleton.ca 

Creative Commons License 

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 

 

This Working Paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No 

Derivs 4.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).  

Articles appearing in this publication may be freely quoted and reproduced, provided the source 

is acknowledged. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial 

purposes. 

ISSN: 2562-8429 

© 2019 The Author(s) 

 

 

 

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index
mailto:CJERS@carleton.ca
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

