The Linguistic Factor in the Deterrence Conversation between Russia and the West: If and How Russians Understand the Meaning of “Deterrence?”
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".