The war in Ukraine has highlighted the continued relevance of strategic deep attacks by SOF such as the attempts to degrade and/ or destroy the Kerch bridge. However, both Ukraine and its partners have been under severe political pressure to minimize these attacks for fear of provoking a Russian response. These political restraints limit the options for SOF planners, but similar constraints will likely be present in the future both in Europe and elsewhere. How can SOF incorporate and mitigate political considerations in planning deep area operations? How can the United States and its allies and partners increase the political restraints facing adversaries when they consider carrying out deep area operations?
Another example of the utilization of political limitations is the use of narratives—true, false, or a mixture of both—to discredit ongoing military operations. In each combatant command AOR, adversaries are using U.S. actions since the end of the Cold War (e.g., NATO enlargement, civil wars in the Balkans, Arab Spring, Color Revolutions, Afghanistan and Iraq, sanctions on Iran and Venezuela) to portray the United States as a destabilizing, imperialist, and militarily aggressive power that cannot be trusted and must be opposed. States that believe these narratives are likely to push back diplomatically against U.S. foreign policy and military initiatives in their country. In this way, narratives shape political limitations, which then, in turn, may have effects down to the tactical level (such as discontinuing joint combined exchange training or other small-scale SOF engagements). How can these narratives be countered, and how can counternarratives be attuned to address historical memories and cultural expectations of specific states?