<![CDATA[Maritime competition extends beyond conventional force projection, requiring naval power to influence adversarial perceptions, strategic calculations, and political behavior without triggering direct confrontation. This study examines maritime diplomacy as a form of psychological deterrence and evaluates how naval presence can be redefined within national defense strategy. A qualitative multiple-case study design was employed, combining 24 expert interviews, analysis of 42 strategic and policy documents, and comparative assessment of 12 maritime cases involving exercises, patrols, forward deployments, port visits, and humanitarian missions. The findings show that deterrence effectiveness depends less on naval capability alone than on the interaction of strategic credibility, signaling intensity, operational visibility, narrative consistency, and alliance participation. Joint naval exercises produced the strongest deterrent effects because they combined readiness, interoperability, political commitment, and visible coalition cohesion, whereas humanitarian missions generated stronger reassurance and legitimacy than coercive pressure. The results also indicate that ambiguous signaling can increase escalation risk even when naval visibility is high. The study concludes that naval power projection should be understood as a multidimensional process integrating military capability, diplomatic communication, perception management, and escalation control. Maritime diplomacy therefore offers a strategic mechanism for shaping adversarial behavior while preserving political space for negotiation and regional stability.]]>
