The STATE vs NATION-STATE distinction is not a quirk of style, which seems to have been lost on a lot of folks… https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/1032660083413417990?s=21

To elaborate :

• STATES exert sovereign control over *territory.* These territories have borders, are recognised by other States (diplomatic missions, treaties, &c.) and are administered by their own bureaucracy.
…

• NATIONS are socially constructed *communities* informed by language, religion, ethnic identity, &c.

So, STATES ≠ NATIONS, and strictly speaking we should probably only use ‘nation-state’ when describing ICT threats from Japan …

YMMV, but my private taxonomy for ‘advanced’ () campaigns :

• STATE-OPERATED : e.g., GRU hands on GRU keyboards
• STATE-AFFILIATED : extracurriculars by gov’t units, contractors
• STATE-SPONSORED : gov’t funding to non-affiliates
• STATE-TOLERATED : crime anywhere but here

**RT pls** re : taxonomy, assuming we want to level up from mangling int’l relations terms & get a bit of refinement in the guv’mint noun group...

Would you consider using STATE-SPECTRUM [actors|campaigns|espionage|hacking|malware|threats] as a replacement for NATION-STATE?