By Leonid Bershidsky
If Russia is intractable on Ukraine and considers the
West an adversary in most other areas of global policy, why has U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry come to Sochi to meet
with President Vladimir Putin for the first time since Russia invaded Crimea?
Most likely, this isn't even a baby step toward a normalization of the
Russia-U.S. relationship, but just a sign that the two countries' strategic
interaction is close to what game theory calls the ultimate outcome.
The game unfolding between
Russia and the West is described in a paper published
in the April issue of the journal Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public
Policy. Its authors, economists Richard Ericson and Lester Zeager,
readily admit they have no particular regional expertise. To model the
interaction using the theory of moves, they read the coverage of the Ukraine crisis in The Wall Street
Journal and other major U.S. media. That makes their conclusions all the more
remarkable. It seems the logic of the game doesn't really depend much on the
personalities, history and emotional baggage.
Moves in the game are
unilateral policy changes -- say, Russia invades eastern Ukraine and the
U.S. toughens sanctions in response. Instead of making a move, a player can
pass or refrain from changing policy. Two consecutive passes by either player
end the game.
In Ericson and Zeager's
model, Russia can pursue three basic policies: "let go" (cease
interference in Ukraine), "destabilize" (keep aiding separatists as
it does now or exert economic pressure) or "invade" (openly send in
troops). The three possible Western lines are "business as usual"
(turn a blind eye to Russian actions in Ukraine), "sanctions" and "military
aid" (to Ukraine, that is). Putin supporters would challenge the authors'
description of the starting point in the game: "destabilize"
(for Russia) and "business as usual" (for the West), meaning the West
wasn't involved in any strategic interaction when Russia started meddling in
Ukraine after the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych. The official
Russian line is that the West aided an illegal coup in Ukraine, forcing Russia
to respond. In terms of the game, however, that's a moot point because we know
how each side moved for the year following Yanukovych's ouster.
The authors infer from these
moves -- correctly, I think -- that Russia is unwilling to "let go"
and that it responds angrily to any signs of Western interference. The West,
for its part, is generally prepared to react to escalation on Russia's part,
but it will choose the weaker response whenever possible. Ericson and Zeager,
however, experiment with reordering the sides' preferences. Besides, they
noticed that actions by Ukraine -- generally an inert pawn in the big game
-- can affect the order of Russian preferences: For example, the Ukrainian
army's military successes against the Russian-backed insurgents in the summer
of 2014 caused Russia to step up its destabilizing interference.
So the game theorists drew up
matrices and decision trees for 13 different scenarios, taking into account all
the more or less plausible combinations of moves. The idea is to assign an
order of preference-based value to each of the policy lines and calculate the
benefit of a series of moves to each player.
The equilibrium for most of
these scenarios was "sanctions"/"destabilize." To quote
Ericson and Zeager, "Russia destabilizes Ukraine, creating a 'frozen
conflict' that blocks the consolidation of a democratic, Western-oriented
polity, while the West settles into a stable configuration of ongoing
sanctions, punishing Russia, at high cost to itself, for 'bad behavior.'"
The second most likely option is "business as
usual"/"destabilize," in which "the West believes that
preserving a democratic, Western-oriented Ukraine is not worth the cost, again
allowing Russia to achieve its geopolitical objectives through successful
destabilization."
If one assumes that both sides
in the game are rational, they manage to avoid the "coordination
trap" in which Russia begins a full-scale invasion and the West steps up
military assistance to Ukraine. The assumption of rationality, especially on
Putin's part, is something of a leap of faith, but, like the paper's authors, I
am prepared to accept it. Rationality, after all, can be defined in terms of
economic and geopolitical gain, and Putin is clearly thinking in these terms,
whatever he may say on state TV.
In all of Ericson and Zeager's
scenarios, the ultimate outcome is reached in just a few moves. In real terms,
we may already be at the end of the game. After all, Russia continues to
destabilize Ukraine, and the West doesn't intend to lift sanctions. All that
remains for the most likely scenario to be realized is the formal creation of a
frozen conflict zone, like Transnistria in Moldova, with neither side prepared
to let go or escalate any further.
Putin and Kerry are still
talking, having kicked out the press immediately after shaking hands. It
doesn't matter, however, what the communique after the meeting will say. The
outcome of the Ukraine crisis is practically a foregone conclusion if both
sides' analysis of possible moves is relatively rational. Kerry has come
to Russia so the sides can agree to disagree on Ukraine and move on to other
issues such as Syria and Iran, where constructive interaction is still
possible.
For Ukraine itself, the role
of a pawn for bigger players may be somewhat humiliating, but it shouldn't
be. If the country successfully transforms itself into a Western-style
democracy with a viable open economy, it can handle the continued Russian
destabilization attempts and, in time, make them much less effective. Not
being a player in the big strategic game is even, perhaps, to Ukraine's
advantage: Once it realizes it can have little effect on the outcome, it can
concentrate on solving its internal problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment