O05 · Failure outcome · Domain · National Security

Broad fall in national security

The 10 capability groups of national security, taken together, fall a full band: the whole domain is weaker, not one part of it.

Why it matters

A fall across a whole domain cannot be made good from inside it, and shows in the national index.

Met when

The mean score of these 10 capability groups falls a full band (3 points).

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: 92; of 197
Typical likelihood: none; median nation, over 10 years
Leads most routes: Cryptographic trust break; 32 of 92 nations
Typical headroom: ×3.4; 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

Cryptographic trust break

Regional war spillover

Hybrid coercion

Legitimacy rupture

Form of the route

Nations

Two scenarios together

One scenario, with plans failing

Weakest buffer

Nations

Quantum Technologies

Maritime Power

Resource Infrastructure

Cyber & Electromagnetic Operations

Energy Infrastructure

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: North Korea 1.8%, Latvia 1.4%, Lithuania 1.3%, Georgia 1.0%, Belgium 0.9%.

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	North Korea	Indo-Pacific	10.3 Transitional → Foundational	1.8% Possible	0.5%	Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severe	×2.0 S03	Intelligence & Assessment	Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance 1.8
2	Latvia	Europe	6.1 Foundational → Inception	1.4% Possible	0.4%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×2.7 S03	Maritime Power	Resource Infrastructure 4.8
3	Lithuania	Europe	7.0 Foundational → Nascent	1.3% Possible	0.4%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×2.8 S03	Maritime Power	Maritime Power 4.8
4	Georgia	Russia and Eurasia	4.9 Nascent → Inception	1.0% Unlikely	0.3%	Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Extremeplans fail	×2.5 S03	Intelligence & Assessment	Quantum Technologies 1.3
5	Belgium	Europe	8.1 Foundational → Nascent	0.9% Unlikely	0.3%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.0 S03	Maritime Power	Maritime Power 7.8
6	Iran	Gulf and Middle East	10.3 Transitional → Foundational	0.9% Unlikely	0.3%	Regional war spillover Extremeplans fail	×2.5 S03	Joint Command, Projection & Sustainment	Fiscal Capacity & Public Finance 6.5
7	Azerbaijan	Russia and Eurasia	6.6 Foundational → Nascent	0.9% Unlikely	0.3%	Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Extremeplans fail	×2.6 S04	Intelligence & Assessment	Quantum Technologies 0.8
8	Greece	Europe	9.9 Transitional → Foundational	0.8% Unlikely	0.3%	Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×3.3 S09	Joint Command, Projection & Sustainment	Resource Infrastructure 10
9	Ukraine	Russia and Eurasia	11.0 Transitional → Foundational	0.8% Unlikely	0.3%	Hybrid coercion Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×3.5 S09	Intelligence & Assessment	Energy Infrastructure 11.9
10	Kazakhstan	Russia and Eurasia	6.1 Foundational → Inception	0.8% Unlikely	0.2%	Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Extremeplans fail	×2.7 S04	Intelligence & Assessment	Quantum Technologies 1.5
11	Bulgaria	Europe	6.3 Foundational → Nascent	0.8% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×2.9 S03	Joint Command, Projection & Sustainment	Maritime Power 6
13	Portugal	Europe	8.1 Foundational → Nascent	0.8% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×3.2 S03	Joint Command, Projection & Sustainment	Resource Infrastructure 8.3
12	Poland	Europe	11.0 Transitional → Foundational	0.8% Unlikely	0.2%	Hybrid coercion Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×3.5 S03	Intelligence & Assessment	Energy Infrastructure 11.5
14	Taiwan	Indo-Pacific	11.9 Transitional → Foundational	0.8% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.0 S03	Maritime Power	Alliances & Security Cooperation 8.5
15	Estonia	Europe	7.5 Foundational → Nascent	0.7% Unlikely	0.2%	Hybrid coercion Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×3.2 S04	Intelligence & Assessment	Energy Infrastructure 8.9
16	Slovenia	Europe	5.5 Nascent → Inception	0.7% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×2.7 S03	Joint Command, Projection & Sustainment	Maritime Power 3
17	Kuwait	Gulf and Middle East	5.9 Nascent → Inception	0.6% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×2.5 S03	Joint Command, Projection & Sustainment	Maritime Power 5.3
18	Finland	Europe	11.0 Transitional → Foundational	0.6% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.8 S04	Maritime Power	Information Environment & Strategic Communication 12.7
20	Bahrain	Gulf and Middle East	5.2 Nascent → Inception	0.6% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×2.5 S03	Joint Command, Projection & Sustainment	Maritime Power 5.8
19	Jordan	Gulf and Middle East	6.5 Foundational → Nascent	0.6% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Major+Cryptographic trust break Extremeplans fail	×2.6 S03	Intelligence & Assessment	Quantum Technologies 1
21	Spain	Europe	11.6 Transitional → Foundational	0.6% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×3.9 S09	Intelligence & Assessment	Resource Infrastructure 12
22	Netherlands	Europe	12.1 Established → Foundational	0.5% Unlikely	0.2%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×4.0 S03	Maritime Power	Resource Infrastructure 13
23	Thailand	Indo-Pacific	8.5 Foundational → Nascent	0.5% Unlikely	0.2%	Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Extremeplans fail	×3.1 S09	Intelligence & Assessment	Quantum Technologies 3.3
24	Singapore	Indo-Pacific	12.1 Established → Foundational	0.5% Unlikely	0.1%	Regional war spillover Severe+Hybrid coercion Severeplans fail	×3.4 S03	Maritime Power	Resource Infrastructure 8.8
26	Qatar	Gulf and Middle East	7.2 Foundational → Nascent	0.5% Unlikely	0.1%	Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail	×2.8 S03	Joint Command, Projection & Sustainment	Maritime Power 6.5

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.