The article addresses the issue of linguistic security (LS) as a relevant theoretical and practical phenomenon that requires in-depth scholarly examination and systematisation of the terminological framework. The author analyses a paradoxical situation: despite a considerable number of theoretical studies on LS since the early 2000s, the term has not yet received legal formalisation and is not закреплен (enshrined) in Russian strategic documents — including the Foundations of the State Language Policy of the Russian Federation, approved in July 2025. The paper traces the evolution of the concept of LS — from M.V. Gorbanevsky’s original interpretation (2002) as journalists’ responsibility for statements in the media to broader contemporary interpretations, which include protecting the language from displacement, countering culturallinguistic expansion, ensuring communicative norms, and so on. Particular attention is paid to distinguishing between the domains of linguistic security and linguoculture: while the former is associated with actual and potential threats to the language and linguistic relations in society, the latter covers issues of cultural-linguistic norms, speech culture, and verbal ethics. The author identifies two approaches to understanding LS: narrow approach — protecting the language from displacement by other languages, preserving the norms of the literary language, and countering linguistic expansion; broad approach — incorporating issues of language policy, communicative norms, speech offences, and language conflicts. The article critically analyses various classifications of LS (as part of information, semantic, cognitive, and national security) and argues that the most justified approach is to classify LS as part of civilisational security. Language, along with culture and the dominant belief system, is viewed as a fundamental foundation of civilisation, and its protection is seen as an element of the stability of Russian civilisational identity. Based on the analysis, the author concludes that there is a need for: methodological streamlining of the conceptual framework in the field of LS; clear delimitation of related concepts (linguo-social security, linguo-sociocultural security, etc.); development of strategic documents that would establish the status and mechanisms for ensuring linguistic security in Russia.