O28 · Failure outcome · Named · National Security

Defence readiness failure

The armed forces cannot generate, command and sustain the deployable conventional capability required for their assigned national defence tasks.

Why it matters

Nominal forces provide little protection when personnel, equipment and support cannot sustain required operations.

Signs it has been reached

Deployable units fall below approved readiness requirements
Mobilisation exercises fail to produce required combat-ready formations
Joint exercises fail essential command and sustainment standards

Met when

The mean score of these 4 capability groups falls a full band (3 points).

Force Generation & Mobilisation
Land Power
Air Power
Maritime Power

Held by two of the three panel models.

Read with care

Third illustrative run, on the second-pass scenario set. The capability scores are candidate ratings and the test settings were drafted with the scenario records in the second pass; neither has been adopted. Scores are from the GINC National Capability Index 2026, which describes them as candidate ratings. Exposure is set nation by nation from the CIA World Factbook 2025 and the scenario's regional exposure. Results show the method working on real scores; they are not findings about any nation. How the tests work.

Reverse stress test

Working backwards from this outcome to the scenarios and conditions most likely to produce it, nation by nation, over 10 years.

Nations with a route: 121; of 197
Typical likelihood: under 0.1%; median nation, over 10 years
Leads most routes: Legitimacy rupture; 55 of 121 nations
Typical headroom: ×3.1; times Standard Severe, nearest single scenario

What produces it

Each nation’s most likely route, counted three ways: the scenario that does most of the work, the form the route takes, and the capability where a change would move the result most.

Lead scenario

Nations

Legitimacy rupture

Regional war spillover

Hybrid coercion

Cryptographic trust break

Form of the route

Nations

Two scenarios together

One scenario, with plans failing

116

Weakest buffer

Nations

Information Environment & Strategic Communication

Maritime Power

Resource Infrastructure

Cyber & Electromagnetic Operations

Public Integrity & Anti-Corruption

Likelihood, by region

One dot per nation. The bar marks each region’s mean. Further right is more likely.

North America
Europe
China
Indo-Pacific
South Asia
Gulf and Middle East
Africa
Latin America and Caribbean
Russia and Eurasia

Most likely: Latvia 1.4%, Lithuania 1.3%, North Korea 1.2%, Georgia 1.2%, Kuwait 1.1%.

Does a strong starting point protect?

Each nation’s score on this basket today against the likelihood of the outcome.

North America
Europe
China
Indo-Pacific
South Asia
Gulf and Middle East
Africa
Latin America and Caribbean
Russia and Eurasia

All 197 nations

The route shown is the most likely one, and the basket column shows the band the nation would move to. A full band is the same fall for every nation: for a strong nation it is serious but leaves it well above where a weak nation starts. Where no route was found, the closest approach is the furthest any condition moved the basket, against the 3 points needed.

Region

Route

All 197 nations

Find a nation

197 of 197 nations

Rank	Nation	Region	Basket	Likelihood	3 years	Most likely route	Headroom	Breaks first	Lever
1	Latvia	Europe	7.0 Foundational → Nascent	1.4% Possible	0.4%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×2.6 S03	Maritime Power	Resource Infrastructure 4.8
2	Lithuania	Europe	7.8 Foundational → Nascent	1.3% Possible	0.4%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×2.7 S03	Maritime Power	Maritime Power 4.8
3	North Korea	Indo-Pacific	11.2 Transitional → Foundational	1.2% Possible	0.4%	Regional war spillover Extremeplans fail	×2.0 S03	Maritime Power	Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance 1.8
4	Georgia	Russia and Eurasia	6.0 Nascent → Inception	1.2% Possible	0.4%	Regional war spillover Major+Hybrid coercion Extremeplans fail	×2.4 S03	Force Generation & Mobilisation	Cyber & Electromagnetic Operations 6.3
5	Kuwait	Gulf and Middle East	7.8 Foundational → Nascent	1.1% Possible	0.3%	Regional war spillover Extremeplans fail	×2.4 S03	Maritime Power	Maritime Power 5.3
6	Ukraine	Russia and Eurasia	12.4 Established → Transitional	1.0% Possible	0.3%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.4 S04	Maritime Power	Energy Infrastructure 11.9
7	Lebanon	Gulf and Middle East	4.6 Nascent → Inception	1.0% Unlikely	0.3%	Regional war spillover Severe+Legitimacy rupture Severeplans fail	×1.9 S03	Force Generation & Mobilisation	Resource Infrastructure 3
9	Bahrain	Gulf and Middle East	6.9 Foundational → Nascent	1.0% Unlikely	0.3%	Regional war spillover Extremeplans fail	×2.4 S03	Maritime Power	Maritime Power 5.8
8	Iran	Gulf and Middle East	11.8 Transitional → Foundational	1.0% Unlikely	0.3%	Regional war spillover Extremeplans fail	×2.5 S05	Maritime Power	Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance 6.5
10	Iraq	Gulf and Middle East	6.7 Foundational → Nascent	0.9% Unlikely	0.3%	Regional war spillover Severe+Legitimacy rupture Severeplans fail	×2.3 S03	Force Generation & Mobilisation	Maritime Power 3.3
11	Azerbaijan	Russia and Eurasia	8.2 Foundational → Nascent	0.9% Unlikely	0.3%	Hybrid coercion Extreme+Cryptographic trust break Majorplans fail	×2.5 S04	Maritime Power	Information Environment & Strategic Communication 7
12	Poland	Europe	12.9 Established → Transitional	0.9% Unlikely	0.3%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.4 S03	Maritime Power	Energy Infrastructure 11.5
13	Cyprus	Europe	5.7 Nascent → Inception	0.8% Unlikely	0.3%	Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×2.2 S03	Maritime Power	Resource Infrastructure 3.3
14	Qatar	Gulf and Middle East	8.9 Foundational → Nascent	0.8% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Extremeplans fail	×2.7 S03	Maritime Power	Maritime Power 6.5
15	Bulgaria	Europe	7.8 Foundational → Nascent	0.8% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×2.8 S03	Maritime Power	Maritime Power 6
16	Syria	Gulf and Middle East	4.6 Nascent → Inception	0.8% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Major+Legitimacy rupture Extreme	×1.8 S05	Force Generation & Mobilisation	Public Integrity & Anti-Corruption 1
17	Greece	Europe	13.2 Established → Transitional	0.7% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.2 S03	Maritime Power	Resource Infrastructure 10
18	Belgium	Europe	9.3 Transitional → Nascent	0.7% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.1 S03	Maritime Power	Maritime Power 7.8
19	Estonia	Europe	8.3 Foundational → Nascent	0.7% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.1 S04	Maritime Power	Energy Infrastructure 8.9
20	Portugal	Europe	10.3 Transitional → Foundational	0.6% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.1 S03	Maritime Power	Resource Infrastructure 8.3
21	Finland	Europe	13.2 Established → Transitional	0.6% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.6 S04	Maritime Power	Information Environment & Strategic Communication 12.7
23	Croatia	Europe	8.5 Foundational → Nascent	0.6% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Major+Hybrid coercion Extremeplans fail	×3.0 S03	Maritime Power	Cyber & Electromagnetic Operations 7.3
22	Taiwan	Indo-Pacific	14.0 Established → Transitional	0.6% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.2 S03	Maritime Power	Alliances & Security Cooperation 8.5
24	Spain	Europe	13.8 Established → Transitional	0.6% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×4.0 S03	Maritime Power	Resource Infrastructure 12
25	Singapore	Indo-Pacific	14.7 Established → Transitional	0.5% Unlikely	0.1%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.3 S03	Maritime Power	Resource Infrastructure 8.8

Showing 1–25 of 197 nations · page 1 of 8

Neighbouring outcomes

Download every nation and outcome (CSV)All outcomes and settings

A failure outcome is met when the basket falls a full band, which is three points. A prosperity outcome is met when the basket rises half a band, 1.5 points: in this model gains from a scenario are smaller and slower than losses, so the bar is set lower and the difference is stated.