With the diplomatic storm brewing in the backdrop of the attack on Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, southern England, one would have expected the Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS) to be a damp squib. According to the British government, a military-grade Novichok nerve agent of a type developed by Russia was used in the attack. The incident has caused major diplomatic fallout, with the expulsion of some 150 Russian diplomats by the UK and its allies being met by counter-expulsions from Moscow. The truth, however, was to the contrary. Having attended the sixth conference in 2017, I had the opportunity to participate in the event this year too. Attended by 30 Defence Ministers along with 900 other participants including the top military brass from 90 countries, the MCIS-2018 appeared to be very successful. It was expected that the British and US participants will steer clear of MCIS-2018, but nongovernmental participants like Malcolm Chalmers, DDG RUSI (UK); Thomas Greminger, OSCE Secretary General; Ariel Cohen, Director IAGS (USA) and Dan Smith, Director SIPRI participated as panellists while many more European guests added colour to the event. This year, the conference focused on the defeat of terrorists in Syria. Russian participants shared their experience on combating ISIL and provided estimates on the further development of the situation in the Middle East, including post-conflict rehabilitation. The security issues facing Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America were also in the spotlight at the forum. A special session addressing soft-poweras a tool to pursue military-political objectives, stole the show with most participants flocking to it to partake in the very lively discussion. Yakov Kedmi, an Israeli expert, proposed an outright ban on the use of soft-power, while Dan Smith of SIPRI presented a balanced approach to the debate. Iqbal Ali Naderi, Deputy Minister of Defence of Afghanistan, lost himself in rhetoric while lamenting the pathetic state of affairs in his war-torn country. He forgot to mention soft-power in his speech at all. Yakov Kedmi, an Israeli expert, proposed an outright ban on the use of soft-power as a tool to achieve political or military objectives at the MCIS, while Dan Smith of SIPRI presented a balanced approach to the debate The 2012, definition provided by Harvard University professor, Joseph Nye regarding soft power that “the best propaganda is not propaganda”, inter alia during the Information Age, “credibility is the scarcest resource,” came under discussion. Civilian instruments of national security – diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action and economic reconstruction and development” were also highlighted.The discourse revolved around the role of soft-power projection in modern, high-tech warfare. It was also questioned whether soft-power is a legitimate tool for intervention or cooperation. George W. Bush’s use of the phrase “you are either with us or with the terrorists” was presented as an exercise of hard power. Though military and economic force was not used to pressure other states to join its coalition. Instead, a kind of force that can be termed’representational force’was used. This kind of force threatens the identity of its partners, forcing them to comply or risk being labelled as evil. This being the case, soft power is therefore not so soft. However, rationalist analysts would merely see this as an ‘implied threat’, and that direct economic or military sanctions would likely follow from being ‘against us’. Shrimati Nirmala Sithraman, speaking during the session ‘Global security in a polycentric world’ did not spare the opportunity to castigate Pakistan, without naming it for allegedly supporting terrorism. She was perhaps playing to the gallery back home. Fumbling and stuttering while reading from a prepared script did not help matters. The session on “European Security: cooperation or confrontation?” generated heated debate. It was in this session that the US and Britain came up for attack for their irrational approach to the Skripal affair. “Regional Security in the Middle East and North Africa; Post-conflict reconstruction” was also a lively session. The bulk of the speakers emphasised on restraining drug trafficking as a source of revenue for terrorist organisations, as well as illegal immigration, which has become a source of recruitment and propaganda. A broad spectrum of military interests was brought up. The humanitarian issue at Ghouta was highlighted along with certain world powers’ double standards. There was unison in thought on denying the regrouping of ISIL and preventing the extremist group from establishing more sleeper cells. An interesting concept that caught the fancy of most participants was that “you can jail a terrorist but not his ideas”. The main lessons that emerged included the folly of ‘containment strategy’. It was also stressed that terrorism is able to thrive in weakly governed areas, because power vacuums are a magnet for terrorism. A number of scholars agreed upon the slick proficiency of the terror mongers in the use of crypto currencies, the dark web and cyber space having emerged as the new battleground. Kudos to Moscow for hosting a very prominent event in very difficult times. The writer is a retired Group Captain of PAF. He is a columnist, analyst and TV talk show host, who has authored six books on current affairs, including three on China Published in Daily Times, April 7th 2018.