The aim of this study is to systematically analyze the theoretical concept of ‘credibility’ in the context of conventional deterrence by using John Gerrings theoretical framework ‘Conceptual Goodness’ for understanding concept formation. It is a qualitative study based on four selected scientific articles about conventional deterrence. By exploring and categorizing the usage of the concept of ‘credibility’ the theoretical understanding of the concept is problematized and analyzed by using six different criteria described by Gerring. By increasing the theoretical understanding of how the term is used in the relation to conventional deterrence the concept analysis contributes to clarify the extent of what the concept entails and the limits of how it can be used in the military doctrines of the Swedish armed forces. The results show that the concept of credibility is a complex but useful concept to describe the interactive process how military deterrence is achieved. The analysis also highlights the potential limitations of using a concept as comprehensive as ‘credibility’.

The Russian actions in Ukraine are often described and analyzed as a form of hybrid warfare, a new concept that needs to be understood and countered with new methods, such as hybrid deterrence. This understanding of the conflict might be problematic since it could lead to a wasting of resources on non-functional methods and policies and an overgeneralized understanding of Russian methods and aims. Therefore, this study aims to test an older theory of conventional deterrence, to examine if the theory can give an adequate understanding of the conflict. This study uses the Ukraine conflict of 2014 to test if John Mearsheimers theory of conventional deterrence offers a capable approach to understand and analyze the case. This study uses a qualitative text analysis to examine three different secondary sources explaining the case. The results show that the theory is well suited to analyze the case, since the majority of the indicators in the framework are fulfilled. However, it is possible that some important non-military factors are overlooked, since the theoretical framework only applies to the relation between military risks and costs and political goals. This study argues that older theories successfully can be used to understand the conflict and be used as a point of departure for future studies of both the specific case and similar cases.