Intelligence notes

NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence

9 min read

NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (StratCom COE)

BLUF

Confidence: High. The NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (StratCom COE) is a NATO-accredited multinational research and doctrine entity headquartered in Riga, Latvia, established in 2014 following the Wales Summit and operationally launched on 1 January 2014, with full NATO accreditation in 2014 (StratCom COE, “About Us”; NATO Wales Summit Declaration, 2014-09-05). Its mandated remit is “research, education and training on strategic communications” in support of NATO and allied nations (StratCom COE Charter, 2014). Its public output overwhelmingly catalogues adversary information operations — primarily Russian, secondarily Chinese — but its institutional function extends beyond defensive analysis: StratCom COE is the doctrine-development layer through which NATO and member states conceptualize, codify, and standardize their own strategic communications and influence-operations posture. Assessment: the Centre is analytically equivalent in institutional role to Russian and Chinese state research institutes that publish on Western information operations — same function, opposite framing, with the key differentiator being legal transparency and open publication.

As of 2026-05-08, the Director is Jānis Sārts (Latvia), in post since 2015 and one of the longest-tenured COE directors in the NATO framework (StratCom COE leadership page; LSM.lv, 2024-03 reporting on continued tenure). Gap: verify whether a 2025-2026 transition has occurred — leadership turnover at NATO COEs is not always promptly reflected in English-language reporting.

Organizational Structure

Confidence: High.

  • Founding. Memorandum of Understanding signed 2014; NATO accreditation granted 2014; declared fully operational shortly thereafter (StratCom COE “History”; NATO ACT documentation).
  • Status. NATO-accredited Centre of Excellence — not a NATO command, not part of the NATO Command Structure, and not funded from the NATO common budget. COEs are nationally or multinationally funded entities offering recognized expertise to the Alliance under the oversight of Allied Command Transformation (ACT) in Norfolk, Virginia (NATO ACT, “Centres of Excellence” page).
  • Sponsoring Nations (current as of last published listing). Latvia (host/framework nation), Estonia, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Finland, France, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic, Türkiye, plus contributing partners. Gap: sponsor count fluctuates as nations join/transition; the user-supplied figure of “25 member nations contributing staff” exceeds the typical sponsor count and likely conflates sponsoring nations with contributing/observer nations — to be verified against the current StratCom COE annual report.
  • Director. Jānis Sārts since 2015; Sārts is a former State Secretary of the Latvian Ministry of Defence and is one of the most cited NATO-affiliated voices on Russian information operations in Western media (StratCom COE biography page; Wired, 2018-05; The Atlantic, 2017).
  • Relationship to NATO ACT. Functional and doctrinal — ACT is the supported command and the COE’s products feed into NATO concept development and experimentation. Assessment: this is the institutional channel by which COE publications transit from “research” into Alliance-recognized doctrinal vocabulary.
  • Relationship to national IO/StratCom organizations. The COE is the principal multilateral interface to which UK 77th Brigade and US Military Information Support Operations (Global Engagement Center on the diplomatic side; MISO/4th PSYOP Group on the military side) contribute and from which they draw conceptual frameworks (StratCom COE conference proceedings 2017–2024; UK Defence Committee, “Disinformation and Fake News,” 2018).

Mandate vs. Practice

Confidence: High on mandate; Assessment on practice gap.

Stated mandate (Fact). Per the COE’s public charter and website: support NATO and allies through research, doctrine, education, training, and lessons-learned in the strategic communications domain (StratCom COE, “Mission”).

Practice (Assessment). Three-layer functional reality:

  1. Doctrine codification. COE publications introduce and stabilize the conceptual vocabulary — “hybrid warfare,” “narrative ecosystem,” “cognitive resilience,” “pre-bunking,” “information environment assessment” — that NATO members then operationalize through national doctrine (e.g. UK Integrated Operating Concept 2025; US Joint Publication 3-04 Information in Joint Operations, 2022). The COE does not itself conduct kinetic or cyber operations, but its terminology becomes the planning grammar for those who do.
  2. Threat baseline production. COE reports on Russian and Chinese information operations are routinely cited in NATO Strategic Concept revisions, EU Action Plan against Disinformation working documents, and member state defence reviews (NATO Strategic Concept 2022; EEAS EUvsDisinfo cross-references). Assessment: these baselines provide the analytical justification for member-state IO budget expansions — a function structurally similar to how Russian Ministry of Defence research institutes characterize “Western information aggression” to justify domestic information-control budgets.
  3. Network convening. The COE is the most efficient legal venue at which NATO-member IO practitioners, contractors, and academic specialists meet (see Riga Dialogue, below), creating institutional density that is itself a strategic-communications capability.

Gap. The COE does not publish a unified accounting of which member-state IO units operationalize which COE concepts; the connection between doctrine and operations is inferable from publication patterns and personnel overlap, not from explicit attribution.

Key Research Areas

Confidence: High — derived from the COE’s own publications catalogue (stratcomcoe.org/publications).

  • Russian information operations, with Ukraine as the dominant case (2014–present, intensifying after 2022)
  • Chinese influence operations and “discourse power” abroad (2020–present)
  • Social media manipulation detection and platform-level vulnerability analysis
  • Narrative warfare, counter-narrative development, and pre-bunking methodology
  • Election interference (US 2016, European elections 2017–2019, US 2020/2024)
  • Credibility, legitimacy, and “trust” as strategic-communications variables
  • AI-enabled influence operations and synthetic media (series 2022–2024)

Symmetry observation (Assessment). “Social Media as a Tool of Hybrid Warfare” (StratCom COE, 2016) and “Framing of the Ukraine Conflict” (StratCom COE, 2015) are methodologically and structurally identical to research products issued by, for example, the Russian Academy of Military Sciences or the PLA Academy of Military Sciences when those bodies analyze Western information operations: same case-study format, same effects-typology vocabulary, same prescriptive section translating findings into capability recommendations. The institutional function is identical; only the targeted adversary and the publication regime differ.

Riga Strategic Communications Dialogue

Confidence: High. Annual flagship conference convened by the COE, drawing NATO-member StratCom and IO practitioners, government officials, platform-policy staff, and academic researchers (StratCom COE event archive; LSM.lv coverage 2017–2024). Assessment: the Dialogue is the principal institutional mechanism that closes the loop between the doctrine-development layer (COE researchers and academics) and the operational layer (member-state IO units, foreign ministries, platform trust-and-safety teams). It is the most consequential single venue in the Western information-operations professional ecosystem.

The Facebook Persona Experiment (2017)

Confidence: High — directly documented in COE publication.

In 2017, StratCom COE researchers purchased social-media engagement (likes, comments, views) and personal-data targeting to demonstrate the trivial cost and accessibility of influence-operations infrastructure on commercial platforms; results published as “The Black Market for Social Media Manipulation” (StratCom COE, 2018). Assessment: the experiment was framed defensively (vulnerability disclosure) but operationally is indistinguishable from capability-development tradecraft — the same procurement, the same vendor-mapping, the same effect-measurement. The boundary between defensive research and offensive capability development at this level is methodological, not material.

Gap: no public accounting exists of whether techniques mapped during the experiment were subsequently transferred (formally or informally) to NATO-member operational units.

Analytical Symmetry Note

Confidence: Assessment, high analyst confidence.

StratCom COE performs, for NATO and its member states, the same institutional function that:

  • Russian Academy of Military Sciences and adjacent FSB/GRU-linked think tanks perform for Russian information operations;
  • PLA Academy of Military Sciences and the doctrine-publishing arms of the PLA Strategic Support Force (now reorganized into the Information Support Force, 2024) perform for Chinese cognitive-domain operations;
  • Iranian IRGC-affiliated research centres perform for Iranian narrative warfare.

It is the research-and-doctrine layer of an alliance-level information-operations architecture. The substantive difference is not function but transparency regime: StratCom COE publishes openly, accepts academic peer engagement, and operates under the oversight of democratically accountable sponsoring governments. Russian and Chinese equivalents do not. This transparency differential is analytically meaningful — it constrains the doctrinal output and exposes it to correction — but it does not change the institutional category. Conflating the transparency differential with a functional difference is a recurrent analytical error in Western reporting on adversary IO and an example of the in-group/out-group framing asymmetry catalogued in Analytical Symmetry Protocol.

Publications Database (Selected)

Confidence: High — list compiled from stratcomcoe.org/publications.

  • Internet Trolling as a Tool of Hybrid Warfare: The Case of Latvia (2016)
  • Social Media as a Tool of Hybrid Warfare (2016)
  • The Black Market for Social Media Manipulation (2018)
  • Government Communications in a Crisis (2019)
  • Virtual Manipulation Brief (annual, 2020–present)
  • Hybrid Threats working-paper series (annual)
  • Ukraine conflict reports (2014–present; intensified post-February 2022)
  • Social Media Manipulation Report (annual, 2018–present)
  • AI and influence-operations series, including Generative AI and Information Manipulation (2023) and follow-ons through 2024
  • Robotrolling quarterly reports on automated/bot-driven manipulation (2017–2020)

Gap: a complete year-by-year publication map keyed to which NATO doctrinal documents subsequently cited each report would be a high-value future research artifact and is currently not available in any single public source.

Cross-References

Sources

Primary (StratCom COE / NATO):

  • StratCom COE official website — stratcomcoe.org (About, Mission, Publications, Leadership) [primary, authoritative]
  • NATO Wales Summit Declaration, 2014-09-05 [primary, authoritative]
  • NATO Allied Command Transformation, “Centres of Excellence” [primary, authoritative]
  • NATO Strategic Concept 2022 [primary, authoritative]
  • StratCom COE annual publications cited inline [primary, authoritative]

Secondary (journalism / academic):

  • Wired, profile of Jānis Sārts, 2018-05 [secondary]
  • The Atlantic, coverage of StratCom COE Russia analysis, 2017 [secondary]
  • LSM.lv (Latvian Public Media), Riga Dialogue and leadership coverage 2017–2024 [secondary, primary in Latvia]
  • UK House of Commons Defence Committee, Disinformation and Fake News report, 2018 [primary, authoritative]
  • US DoD Joint Publication 3-04 Information in Joint Operations, 2022 [primary, authoritative]

Comparative context:

  • Russian Academy of Military Sciences publications on “information confrontation” [state-aligned]
  • PLA Academy of Military Sciences, Science of Military Strategy (2020 ed.) [state-aligned]

Section confidence summary: BLUF High · Structure High · Mandate vs. Practice High/Assessment · Research Areas High · Riga Dialogue High · Facebook Experiment High · Symmetry Note Assessment · Publications High.

Collection window: OSINT reflects publicly available material as of 2026-05-08. Verify Director tenure and current sponsoring-nation count against the most recent COE annual report before citation in published Signal Brief output.

Graph View