La larga sombra del Kremlin. Denegabilidad plausible o Denegación implausible

Legal and Politico-Strategic Review Fernando Pereira Bravo, “The Long Shadow of the Kremlin: Plausible Deniability or Implausible Denial”, CODESEL Bulletin (Cadre of Defense and Security Law), Vol. 2, No. 7, February 2026 This article offers a conceptually sophisticated examination of Grey Zone competition as a central feature of contemporary strategic interaction between the Russian Federation and Western states. Its principal contribution lies in clarifying the legal and strategic implications of state-sponsored ambiguity, particularly through the use of non-state actors and indirect instruments designed to project power while remaining below the threshold of open armed conflict. From a doctrinal perspective, the article provides a clear and analytically precise distinction between hybrid warfare and Grey Zone operations. By emphasizing that the Grey Zone constitutes not merely a transitional phase but an autonomous operational space with its own tools, effects, and logic, the author corrects a frequent conceptual misunderstanding in both legal and strategic literature. The insistence on ambiguity as a constitutive element of the Grey Zone is particularly important, as it explains why traditional categories of war and peace struggle to capture the reality of contemporary competition. The legal analysis is especially compelling in its discussion of plausible deniability as a structural challenge to international law. Drawing on both historical analogies—such as the use of privateers under letters of marque in early modern Europe—and contemporary practice, the author demonstrates that deniability is not a novel invention but rather a recurring technique adapted to modern legal and informational environments. The comparison underscores how legal authorization of private violence has evolved from formalized state practices to more informal and opaque arrangements involving proxy actors. A key analytical innovation of the article lies in its engagement with the concept of implausible deniability. The author convincingly argues that, in many contemporary cases, particularly in the European theatre, Russian actions are sufficiently visible to render denial unconvincing to observers, yet remain formally ambiguous enough to complicate legal attribution and response. This conceptual shift captures a crucial evolution in Grey Zone strategy: denial is no longer aimed at convincing adversaries, but at preserving procedural ambiguity to prevent escalation and inhibit collective response mechanisms. From an international law perspective, the article highlights the erosion of attribution standards as one of the most significant consequences of Grey Zone practices. The difficulty of establishing effective control, intent, and state responsibility undermines the application of existing legal frameworks governing the use of force, countermeasures, and collective defence. The analysis implicitly exposes a structural vulnerability in the international legal order, which remains heavily reliant on clear thresholds, identifiable actors, and binary categorizations of conflict. Strategically, the article situates Kremlin practices within a broader continuum of competition that includes cyber operations, information warfare, economic coercion, and proxy violence. This integrated view reinforces the argument that Grey Zone operations are not ancillary tactics but central instruments of state strategy in an era of nuclear deterrence and legal constraint. The discussion of how such practices paralyze kinetic responses and frustrate action–reaction dynamics is particularly relevant for security planners and legal advisers alike. Overall, this contribution stands out as a high-value doctrinal and strategic analysis that successfully bridges international law, security studies, and historical analogy. It provides a refined conceptual toolkit for understanding how contemporary power competition exploits legal ambiguity and challenges the resilience of the rules-based international order. The article is especially valuable for scholars and practitioners concerned with hybrid threats, attribution, and the future of collective security mechanisms.