How Collective Defense Among Smaller Nations is Reshaping the Cyber Balance of Power
By the Center for Cyber Diplomacy and International Security
In the evolving landscape of international cybersecurity, a dangerous assumption persists among major powers: that technological superiority and substantial cyber budgets guarantee strategic advantage. This presumption fundamentally misunderstands the nature of cyber threats and the force-multiplying effects of coordinated action among smaller nations. As the digital domain continues to reshape international relations, the failure of major powers to prioritize coalition-building today risks a dramatic reshaping of the cyber strategic environment—one that could fundamentally alter both national preparedness and the international legal frameworks governing cyberspace.
The Asymmetric Nature of Cyber Power
Traditional military power follows predictable patterns of resource accumulation and force projection. Cyber capabilities, however, operate under fundamentally different dynamics. A coalition of smaller nations, pooling expertise, intelligence, and defensive capabilities, can achieve cyber effects far exceeding the sum of their individual capacities. This reality challenges conventional assumptions about power projection in the digital age.
The 2007 cyberattacks against Estonia demonstrated this principle with stark clarity. Despite Estonia’s modest size, the nation’s response catalyzed international cooperation that fundamentally reshaped NATO’s approach to cyber defense. Following the incident, NATO established the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) in Tallinn, creating a nexus for cyber defense research, training, and cooperation that now serves the entire alliance. What began as a vulnerability for a small nation transformed into a collective strength that enhanced the defensive posture of the world’s most powerful military alliance.
The Force Multiplier of Collective Defense
Recent developments illustrate how smaller nations are leveraging cooperation to punch above their weight class in cyberspace. NATO’s annual Cyber Coalition exercise, which concluded in 2023 with participation from over 1,300 cyber defenders representing 35 allies and partners, demonstrates the operational reality of collective cyber defense. Estonia, with a population of 1.3 million, now hosts one of the world’s most sophisticated cyber ranges and serves as a training ground for the alliance’s cyber forces.
This collaborative approach creates several strategic advantages that individual major powers, despite their resources, struggle to replicate:
Intelligence Fusion: Smaller nations often possess unique visibility into threat actors and attack vectors relevant to their regions. When shared through coalition frameworks, this intelligence creates a comprehensive threat picture that no single nation, regardless of size, could achieve independently.
Distributed Defense Architecture: Coalitions enable distributed defensive capabilities that are inherently more resilient than centralized approaches. An attack that might overwhelm a single nation’s defensive capacity becomes manageable when response capabilities are distributed across multiple jurisdictions with coordinated response protocols.
Normative Power: Coalitions of smaller nations can shape international cyber norms and legal frameworks through coordinated diplomatic action. The influence of collective voices in international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and regional bodies often exceeds what major powers can achieve through bilateral pressure alone.
Innovation and Specialization: Smaller nations can develop specialized cyber capabilities and share them across coalitions. Estonia’s expertise in digital governance, Israel’s prowess in cyber offensive technologies, and Singapore’s leadership in cyber diplomacy exemplify how specialization within coalitions creates comprehensive capabilities.
Legislative and Normative Implications
The strategic implications of small nation coalitions extend beyond operational cybersecurity into the realm of international law and governance. Currently, the international legal framework for cyberspace remains contested, with major powers advocating different approaches to cyber sovereignty, acceptable state behavior, and attribution standards.
Coalitions of smaller nations are increasingly asserting influence in these debates. The ITU’s Global Cybersecurity Agenda, which identifies legal measures as a strategic pillar alongside technical and organizational components, provides a framework through which collective action can shape international norms. When smaller nations coordinate their positions in these forums, they can advance legal frameworks that may not align with the preferences of major powers who have historically dominated international security discourse.
This normative influence manifests in several critical areas:
Attribution Standards: Coalitions can establish shared attribution methodologies and evidentiary standards that become de facto international norms through widespread adoption.
Sovereignty in Cyberspace: Collective positions on the applicability of sovereignty principles to cyber operations can constrain the freedom of action that major powers have traditionally enjoyed in the digital domain.
Proportionality and Countermeasures: Coordinated interpretation of international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict as applied to cyber operations shapes the boundaries of acceptable state behavior.
Private Sector Responsibilities: Coalitions can advance harmonized approaches to private sector cybersecurity obligations, creating regulatory environments that extend beyond individual national jurisdictions.
For major powers comfortable with existing ambiguities in international cyber law, the prospect of coordinated action by smaller nations to clarify and codify cyber norms represents a potential loss of strategic flexibility. Once normative frameworks gain sufficient international support, even powerful nations find it costly to operate outside accepted boundaries.
The Strategic Window is Narrowing
The current moment represents a critical juncture for major powers to engage proactively in coalition-building. Several converging trends suggest that the window for shaping the cyber strategic environment through cooperative frameworks is narrowing:
Accelerating Technological Change: The integration of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and other emerging technologies into cyber operations is creating new vulnerabilities and attack vectors at an unprecedented pace. No single nation, regardless of resources, can maintain comprehensive expertise across all relevant technological domains.
Proliferation of Cyber Capabilities: Advanced cyber tools continue to proliferate beyond state actors. Non-state groups, criminal organizations, and even individuals can access capabilities that were once restricted to well-resourced intelligence agencies. This democratization of cyber power makes collective defense increasingly essential.
Growing Interdependence: The increasing interconnection of critical infrastructure across borders means that cyber incidents in one nation can cascade across regions. The 2022 Viasat cyberattack, which affected satellite communications across Europe, illustrated how vulnerabilities in space-based infrastructure can have far-reaching consequences.
Shifting Geopolitical Alignments: As great power competition intensifies, particularly between the United States and China, smaller nations face pressure to align with one bloc or another. Those seeking to maintain strategic autonomy are increasingly looking to coalitions with like-minded states as an alternative to traditional alliance structures.
The Cost of Complacency
For major powers that delay engagement in cyber coalition-building, the costs are substantial and multifaceted:
Operational Surprise: Without the intelligence and early warning that coalition partners provide, major powers face increased risk of strategic surprise from cyber threats. Even sophisticated intelligence capabilities benefit from the distributed sensing that coalition frameworks enable.
Normative Disadvantage: Allowing smaller nations to shape international cyber norms without major power engagement risks creating legal frameworks that constrain future freedom of action. Participation in norm development is more effective than attempting to revise established frameworks.
Alliance Fragmentation: Traditional security alliances may face strain if cyber cooperation does not keep pace with conventional defense cooperation. Partners who develop effective cyber coalitions outside traditional alliance structures may reduce their dependence on major power security guarantees.
Resource Inefficiency: Operating without coalition frameworks forces major powers to develop redundant capabilities across all cyber domains rather than benefiting from specialization and burden-sharing among partners.
Legislative Isolation: In the absence of coalition engagement, major powers risk finding themselves isolated in international forums when cybersecurity legislation and standards are debated and adopted.
A Framework for Effective Cyber Coalitions
Recognizing the imperative for coalition-building is only the first step. Effective cyber coalitions require thoughtful design that addresses unique challenges in the digital domain:
Trust and Information Sharing: Cyber coalitions depend on members’ willingness to share sensitive information about vulnerabilities, threats, and capabilities. This requires establishing trust through incremental cooperation, beginning with less sensitive information sharing and gradually expanding as relationships mature.
Technical Interoperability: Coalition members must invest in compatible technologies, shared protocols, and integrated systems that enable coordinated action during cyber incidents. NATO’s emphasis on cyber defense exercises addresses this requirement through regular testing and refinement of coalition capabilities.
Legal Harmonization: Effective coalitions require compatible legal frameworks for cyber operations, particularly regarding authorities for cross-border defensive actions and rules of engagement for coalition cyber operations.
Capacity Building: Major powers benefit from investing in partner capacity development, ensuring that coalition members can contribute meaningfully to collective defense. This includes training programs, technology transfer where appropriate, and support for developing national cyber strategies.
Inclusive Governance: Coalition structures must provide meaningful voice to all members, regardless of size, in decision-making processes. This prevents the perception that coalitions simply serve major power interests and maintains partner commitment.
Conclusion: Strategic Choice or Strategic Imperative
The question facing major powers is not whether cyber coalitions matter, but whether they will proactively shape these coalitions or reactively adapt to coalitions formed without their participation. The evidence suggests that smaller nations, recognizing their vulnerability in isolation, are already building collaborative frameworks. The establishment of institutions like NATO’s CCDCOE, the growth of regional cyber cooperation mechanisms, and the increasing coordination among smaller nations in international cyber governance forums demonstrate this trend.
For major powers, the choice is clear: engage now in building inclusive, effective cyber coalitions, or face a future cyber strategic environment shaped by coalitions formed in their absence. The costs of the latter option—reduced intelligence visibility, constrained freedom of action, fragmented alliances, and isolation in international cyber governance—far exceed the costs of proactive coalition engagement.
The cyber domain rewards cooperation and punishes isolation. Major powers that recognize this reality and invest in coalition-building today will find themselves better prepared for the cyber challenges of tomorrow. Those that rely on the illusion of self-sufficiency may discover, as Estonia’s experience demonstrated, that in cyberspace, collective strength often trumps individual capability—regardless of nation size.
The time for complacency has passed. The imperative now is action: building the coalitions, establishing the norms, and creating the frameworks that will determine whether the cyber domain becomes a source of persistent instability or a realm where collective security can prevail.
References
Council on Foreign Relations. (2018). Increasing International Cooperation in Cybersecurity and Adapting Cyber Norms. https://www.cfr.org/report/increasing-international-cooperation-cybersecurity-and-adapting-cyber-norms
Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2025). A Shared Responsibility: Public-Private Cooperation for Cybersecurity. https://www.csis.org/analysis/shared-responsibility-public-private-cooperation-cybersecurity
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (n.d.). Cybercrime Module 8 Key Issues: International Cooperation on Cybersecurity Matters. https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/cybercrime/module-8/key-issues/international-cooperation-on-cybersecurity-matters.html
NATO. (n.d.). Cyber Defence. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_78170.htm
NATO Allied Command Transformation. (2023). NATO’s Flagship Cyber Exercise Concludes in Estonia. https://www.act.nato.int/article/cyber-coalition-23-concludes/
Brandefense. (2025). Global Collaboration Against Cyber Threats: Challenges and Solutions. https://brandefense.io/blog/drps/collaboration-against-cyber-threats/
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. (2025). Cybersecurity Strategy Scorecard. https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/cybersecurity-strategy-scorecard
Herzog, S. (2011). Revisiting the Estonian Cyber Attacks: Digital Threats and Multinational Responses. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(2), 49-60.
Fox Technologies. (2024). Estonia Cyberattack (2007): The First Cyberwar on a Nation. https://foxtechnologies.co.uk/estonia-cyberattack-2007-the-first-cyberwar-on-a-nation/
Via Satellite. (2025). Estonia: The Beating Heart of Europe’s Space Cyber Response. https://www.satellitetoday.com/cybersecurity/2025/04/16/estonia-the-beating-heart-of-europes-space-cyber-response/
Bloomberg Sponsored Content. (2021). Can Small States Contribute to a Rules-based Order in Cyberspace? https://sponsored.bloomberg.com/article/cyber-security-agency/can-small-states-contribute-to-a-rules-based-order-in-cyberspace
Center for Cyber Diplomacy and International Security. (2025). Small Tech Attacks, Big Politics. https://cybercenter.space/2025/07/20/small-tech-attacks-big-politics/
Center for Cyber Diplomacy and International Security. (2025). Proactive Cyber Diplomacy: Anticipating Conflict in the Digital Age. https://cybercenter.space/2025/09/02/proactive-cyber-diplomacy-anticipating-conflict-in-the-digital-age/
Leave a comment