O30 · Failure outcome · Named · National Security

Strategic awareness failure

National authorities can no longer obtain, verify and maintain the timely operational picture needed for security decisions and force coordination.

Why it matters

Poor awareness prevents decision-makers from judging security risks and directing national capabilities reliably.

Signs it has been reached

  • Priority intelligence requirements remain persistently unanswered
  • Operational tracking and positioning fail accuracy standards
  • Commanders lack a verified common operational picture

Met when

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

  • Intelligence & Assessment
  • Cyber & Electromagnetic Operations
  • Sensing, Timing & Navigation

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
103
of 197
Typical likelihood
under 0.1%
median nation, over 10 years
Leads most routes
Cryptographic trust break
102 of 103 nations
Typical headroom
×2.6
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
Legitimacy rupture

102

1

Form of the route

Nations

Two scenarios together

103

Weakest buffer

Nations

Quantum Technologies

Cyber & Electromagnetic Operations

National Resilience & Crisis Management

Digital & AI Competence

Regulatory Governance & Strategic Controls

90

7

2

1

1

Likelihood, by region

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

01234Likelihood over 10 years, per centNorth America 2North America mean: 0.3Europe 42Europe mean: 1.3MonacoChina 1China mean: 0.1Indo-Pacific 30Indo-Pacific mean: 0.5MongoliaSouth Asia 8South Asia mean: 0.0Gulf and Middle East 16Gulf and Middle East mean: 0.6Africa 53Africa mean: 0.0Latin America and Caribbean 33Latin America and Caribbean mean: 0.1Russia and Eurasia 12Russia and Eurasia mean: 1.7GeorgiaAzerbaijanKazakhstanKyrgyzstan
  • North America
  • Europe
  • China
  • Indo-Pacific
  • South Asia
  • Gulf and Middle East
  • Africa
  • Latin America and Caribbean
  • Russia and Eurasia

Most likely: Georgia 4.2%, Azerbaijan 4.2%, Kazakhstan 4.2%, Latvia 3.0%, Lithuania 2.7%.

Does a strong starting point protect?

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

02.557.51012.51517.501234Basket score today (0 to 20)Likelihood (per cent)GeorgiaAzerbaijanKazakhstanLatviaGermanyJapanUnited StatesChinaIndia
  • 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.

All 197 nations

197 of 197 nations

Rank
Nation
Region
Basket
Likelihood
3 years
Most likely route
Headroom
Breaks first
Lever
1GeorgiaRussia and Eurasia5.0 Nascent → Inception4.2% Possible1.3%Hybrid coercion Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severe×1.9 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 1.3
2AzerbaijanRussia and Eurasia5.7 Nascent → Inception4.2% Possible1.3%Hybrid coercion Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severe×1.9 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 0.8
3KazakhstanRussia and Eurasia5.9 Nascent → Inception4.2% Possible1.3%Hybrid coercion Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severe×1.9 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 1.5
4LatviaEurope7.2 Foundational → Nascent3.0% Possible0.9%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.1 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 3.3
5LithuaniaEurope8.1 Foundational → Nascent2.7% Possible0.8%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.2 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 3.8
6EstoniaEurope9.4 Transitional → Nascent2.4% Possible0.7%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.5 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 5.5
7UkraineRussia and Eurasia12.1 Established → Foundational2.4% Possible0.7%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.3 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 3.5
9LuxembourgEurope4.8 Nascent → Inception2.2% Possible0.7%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.0 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 3.5
8PolandEurope12.0 Transitional → Foundational2.2% Possible0.7%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.5 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 7.3
10MaltaEurope4.1 Nascent → Inception2.1% Possible0.6%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×1.8 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 2
11CyprusEurope4.3 Nascent → Inception2.0% Possible0.6%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×1.8 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 2
12IcelandEurope3.5 Nascent → Inception2.0% Possible0.6%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×1.9 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 1.3
13NorwayEurope13.9 Established → Transitional1.8% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.9 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 7.5
14SerbiaEurope7.3 Foundational → Nascent1.8% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.0 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 2.8
15BulgariaEurope6.7 Foundational → Nascent1.8% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.0 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 3.3
16PhilippinesIndo-Pacific6.2 Foundational → Nascent1.7% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×1.9 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 2
17CroatiaEurope6.2 Foundational → Nascent1.7% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.1 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 2.5
18FinlandEurope13.3 Established → Transitional1.7% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×3.0 S04Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 12.3
21KuwaitGulf and Middle East4.7 Nascent → Inception1.6% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×1.7 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 1
19MalaysiaIndo-Pacific8.7 Foundational → Nascent1.6% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.1 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 4
20HungaryEurope7.4 Foundational → Nascent1.6% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.1 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 6
23North KoreaIndo-Pacific9.2 Transitional → Foundational1.6% Possible0.5%Regional war spillover Severe+Cryptographic trust break Severe×1.5 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 1.3
22SlovakiaEurope6.9 Foundational → Nascent1.6% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.1 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 3.3
25ThailandIndo-Pacific8.1 Foundational → Nascent1.6% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.0 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 3.3
26SloveniaEurope6.8 Foundational → Nascent1.6% Possible0.5%Hybrid coercion Major+Cryptographic trust break Severeplans fail×2.2 S09Intelligence & AssessmentQuantum Technologies 3.8

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.