From parallel trajectories to joint strategy: models of effective integration of military and civilian security expertise
Abstract
The article explores models of effective integration of military and civilian security expertise in the context of a prolonged armed conflict. A comparative analysis of institutional mechanisms, methodological approaches, and technological tools for expertise integration in leading NATO countries and states facing asymmetric security threats has been conducted. Three basic models have been identified: the British “adaptive integration”, the Scandinavian “security convergence”, and the Israeli “functional hybridization”. Their institutional, methodological, and technological features are analysed in detail through practical implementation cases. Using the British CENR project, the Finnish “Comprehensive Security Network” program, and the Israeli «AI Vision» system as examples, the specifics of national approaches to integrating expert communities are revealed. Special attention is paid to the impact of artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies on the transformation of expertise integration systems, particularly their potential for expanding collective intelligence capabilities and changing the epistemic structure of expert activities. It is substantiated that these technologies provide a fundamental transition from a hierarchical “intellectual pyramid” to a “distributed cognitive network’ capable of effectively withstanding destructive influences, overcoming epistemic fragmentation, and ensuring high adaptability. The concept of “poly-domain cognitive networks” is analysed as an innovative approach to integrating different types of expertise through shared blockchain infrastructure and AI orchestration. Conceptual foundations of the Ukrainian model of military and civilian expertise integration are proposed, synthesizing the most relevant elements of the studied foreign models, taking into account national specifics and requirements of Euro-Atlantic integration. In the context of expected geopolitical transformation (April 2025), it is proven that the development of such a model creates a unique opportunity for Ukraine’s strategic repositioning from a “security consumer” to an “expertise exporter’ in the new European security architecture, transforming the unique experience of confronting multi-domain aggression into a strategic asset of global significance.
Downloads
References
Dunayev, I.V., & Solovyov, Y.V. (2024). Public management of intellectual resources of national security: What are the prospects for the idea of regional hubs of expert resources? State Building, 2(36), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.26565/1992-2337-2024-2-17 [in Ukrainian]
Bergman-Rosamond, A., & Rosamond, B. (2022). Strategic dialogue methodology: Building security communities in the Nordic region. Journal of Strategic Studies, 45(2), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2022.2043855
Bondar, K. (2024). How Ukraine rebuilt its military acquisition system around commercial technology. Center for Strategic and International Studies. URL: https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-ukraine-rebuilt-its-military-acquisition-system-around-commercial-technology
Case study of the European Security Architecture: NATO and OSCE (report). (2020). Brussels. URL: https://www.globe-project.eu/case-study-of-the-european-security-architecture-nato-and-osce_11317.pdf
DCAF – Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance. (2020). Civil Society Involvement in Security Sector Reform and Governance in Ukraine. URL: https://www.dcaf.ch/tool-6-civil-society-involvement-security-sector-reform-and-governance
Goda, S. (2015). European security architecture and the conflict in Ukraine. International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs, 24(1-2), 3–16. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26591854
Grego, L. (2025). Do technology advances allow missile defences to make up ground? Journal of Strategic Studies, 48(2), 465-509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2024.2447306
Israel Ministry of Defense. (2020). Technological incubators in the service of national security: Strategic overview. URL: https://www.mod.gov.il/English/Pages/default.aspx
Libel, T. (2019). From the sociology of the (military) profession to the sociology of (security) expertise: The case of European national defence universities. Defence Studies, 19(1), 62–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2018.1562910
Michaels, J.H. (2024). Deterrence studies: A field still in progress. Journal of Strategic Studies, 47(6-7), 1058–1079. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2024.2417388
Ministry of Defence of Finland. (2017). Security strategy for society. Helsinki: Security Committee. URL: https://turvallisuuskomitea.fi/en/security-strategy-for-society/
NATO Communications and Information Agency. (2020). Federated mission networking: Implementation plan. Brussels: NCIA. URL: https://www.ncia.nato.int/resources/site1/general/what%20we%20do/fmn/fmn-implementation
NATO Review. (2019). A new era for NATO intelligence. URL: https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2019/10/29/a-new-era-for-nato-intelligence/index.html
NATO. (2022). NATO 2022 strategic concept. Brussels: NATO Public Diplomacy Division. URL: https://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/
NATO. (2025). Relations with Ukraine. URL: https://www.nato.int/cps/uk/natohq/topics_37750.htm
Norheim-Martinsen, P.M. (2021). The European Union and military force: Governance and strategy. Cambridge University Press.
Senor, D., & Singer, S. (2009). Start-up nation: The story of Israel’s economic miracle. Twelve.
Svensson, E., Norén, A., & Kjellén, J. (2021). Civil-military intelligence fusion: Lessons from the Nordic experience. Journal of Strategic Studies, 44(4), 541–565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2021.1872751
Tetlock, P.E., & Gardner, D. (2015). Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. Crown Publishers.
Timmerman, M.N. (2024). Wave blockers: When governments use foreign military interventions to offset transnational political currents. Journal of Strategic Studies, 47(5), 699–729. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2024.2332332
UK Cabinet Office. (2022). Centre of excellence for national resilience: Strategic framework 2022-2025. London: Cabinet Office. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/integrated-review-2021
UK Government Office for Science. (2017). Guidance: The futures toolkit. London: Government Office for Science. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/futures-toolkit-for-policy-makers-and-analysts
UK Ministry of Defence, Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre. (2016). Joint doctrine publication 04: Understanding and decision-making. Shrivenham: DCDC. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jdp-04-understanding
UK Ministry of Defence. (2020). Integrated operating concept 2025. London: Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-integrated-operating-concept-2025
UK Ministry of Defence. (2020). Joint concept note 1/20: Multi-domain integration. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multi-domain-integration-jcn-120
Zenko, M. (2015). Red team: How to succeed by thinking like the enemy. Basic Books.
Copyright (c) 2025 Pressing Problems of Public Administration

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.