In recent years the nature of security transformed. Contemporary threats increasingly extend beyond conventional military confrontation, targeting institutions, societies, and democratic processes through disinformation, cyberattacks, political interference, and other forms of hybrid activity. Rather than seeking immediate territorial gains, such threats frequently aim to undermine public trust, weaken institutional legitimacy, and exploit societal vulnerabilities. n this con

Photo: OpenAI By Louis Sandro Zarandia When analysts struggle to explain why Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Moldova or Armenia keep finding themselves at the centre of geopolitical crises, they tend to reach for familiar explanations: democratic deficiency, corruption, institutional weakness, a region caught between Russia and the West. What these explanations share, beyond their condescension, is a common blind spot. They treat the symptoms while refusing to name the disease.

Photo: OpenAI By Mariam Gamdlishvili and Ketevan Jakeli Within less than a week in May 2026, Beijing hosted both: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The sequence itself became part of the message. In practical terms, the visits focused on trade, security, sanctions, and geopolitical competition. Symbolically, however, they communicated something broader: China increasingly sees itself - and wants to be seen - not just as a participant in global affairs, but as the diplomatic

Photo: OpenAI By Mariam Gamdlishvili Strategic communication is still widely misunderstood. It is treated as messaging - something that follows policy, explains it, or, in the worst case, tries to repair it. This is not just inaccurate; it is strategically dangerous. Communication actually does not sit or set downstream of policy. It is inseparable from how policy is experienced, interpreted, and ultimately judged. Neville Bolt offers a rigorous definition of StratComms: th