Author: Ioana LEUCEA
Publication name: Romanian Intelligence Studies Review
Publisher name: Mihai Viteazul National Intelligence Academy
Publication type: Journal article
Publication date: December 31, 2025
Pagination:
Issue/ Volume: 2 (34)/2025
DOI:
Abstract:
The usage of the concepts and words less for their denotative meaning and more
for their connotative ones may seem unproblematic at a first glance. Yet the constant
usage of language not for the primary significance of words may spread a lot of confusion
even within the domain of strategic thinking. While scholars struggle to define and to
clarify the concepts they use in order to develop a school of thought to prevent war and
conflicts or the emergence of dangerous social phenomena, it seems that at the socio-
political level the clarity is lost as the elusive interpretations proliferate.
The conventional wisdom developed after the end of the Cold War envisaged the
concept of security in terms of expanding and deepening its meaning. The Copenhagen
school advocated for different social domains to be included within the concepts of
national, regional or global security, leaving the impression that the security risks are
ubiquitous, that no social arena was to be left outside the security compass: be that
culture, politics, or education. Every communication act would be monitored for the
possibility of containing the seeds of evil, name them propaganda, disinformation,
misinformation or fake-news. Film productions or literature are included here as well.
Expressions like “cognitive warfare” or “hybrid warfare” have produced more confusion
as it is presumed that there are no real peace periods but only war time preparation and
that the social reality cannot not be defined in terms of real cooperation. For instance,
assuming that specific issues of lesser importance should be included in the category of
national security issues, in terms of comprehensive security, the door to intervention
opens: the security services are allowed to intervene within the private or social spheres
while these are supposed to be free of surveillance or monitoring.
Additionally, the analysis we propose intends to focus on the importance of
finding the proper language for organizing the social space when speaking about security
matters, as the management of national security depends a lot on the conceptual toolbox.
The article upholds the idea that by extrapolating the meaning of security, the words and
concepts associated with it generate but confusion, which leads to poor management and
organizational errors.
Keywords: security; concepts; language; culture; cognitive warfare.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.