Game theory is recognized as an important tool for studying interactions and decision-making and is now widely used in economics, marketing, politics and warfare. With the help of technology, complex mathematical models are used by armies and strategic research centers to organize military and political games to assessthreats to national security. This theory is the foundation of many electronic games popular worldwide.

Game theory is involved in studying chains of decisions and actions of one party and the reactions expected from other parties involved in conflicts as well as conflict of interests. That is to say, it studies each party’s way of making moves to achieve its goals. Chess can be considered such a game because each player makes moves to achieve victory taking into account the other player’s moves. 

According to game theory, a game is a competition or a conflict between two or more parties using one or more strategies to achieve their goals. Players are assumed to behave in a rational way to maximize benefit and minimize loss. Researchers recognize several types of games. This article, however, keeps its focus on analyzing the crisis over Ukraine from the perspective of game theory.

A mixed  game

The crisis in Ukraine can be seen as a multiplayer game that turned into a two-player game. On the political level, the game was between Russia, and, to an extent Belarus, on the one hand, and Ukraine, the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, on the other by the end of 2021. The United States and allies scrambled to declare political and military non-combat support to Ukraine and sent arms and trainers to back the Ukrainian army. During that period, Ukraine and its supporters seemed to have a loud voice because of their numbers and their control of the media around the world. 

However, when military confrontation broke out, the multi-player game became a two-player one involving only Russia and Ukraine against each other. It is a non-equal game because of unequal military capabilities of the two players. The game is a mixed one, in terms of the number of involved parties, as well as in terms of involving both war and diplomacy. As a result, it can be categorized as a dynamic or hybrid game, where rules and players change according to stages. 

Player behavior

The evolution of the crisis between Russia and Ukraine reveals each party’s ability to predict the behavior of other involved parties. Ukraine failed to predict Russian President Vladimir Putin’s behavior as its president Volodymyr Zelenskyy continued to procrastinate for months about the implementation of the 2015 Minsk Agreement about Russian-majority regions. Despite harsh warnings from Moscow, he reiterated his country’s desire to join NATO and continued to receive advanced weapons from Western countries to reinforce the Ukrainian military capabilities. In statements he made at the Munich Security Conference on February 20,  2022, Zelensky even talked about a possible new bid by Ukraine to acquire nuclear weapons, after it gave them up in 1994.

According to game analysis, Ukraine made decisions without taking into account Russia’s reaction and that Putin can resort to war. Intoxicated by support from the West, it even played down this possibility and when Russia launched the large-scale attack, it ended up standing alone in the field. 

The behavior of the United States and other NATO member states placed pressure on Russia and pushed it to the corner. Without making preparations for Russia’s reaction, they sent arms to Ukraine and refused to give security guarantees and reassurances to Russia that the alliance will not expand into Eastern Europe. Although Washington repeatedly announced that war is inevitable and that Putin is preparing for military intervention in Ukraine, and although it accurately predicted when Putin would invade Ukraine, they have not prepared any practical counter-measures and the Russian attack seemed to have surprised the West. This was evident in the delayed response of Washington and Western allies who took a long time to impose sanctions against Russia. If there had been planning in advance, the Western reactions would have been faster and more decisive. 

Russia managed to play the game in a more efficient way. In the beginning, Putin kept his focus on demanding security guarantees from the United States and its allies, and continued to look for a diplomatic solution and held talks with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. In the meantime, Putin ordered the armed forces to deploy at the border with Ukraine and to conduct joint wargames with Belarus and a naval exercise with China and Iran in the Arabian Sea and another in the Mediterranean using the Syrian port of Tartous. 

When the countdown to war began, Putin delivered his long speech on Tuesday, February 22nd, 2022 to explain the implications of the crisis with Ukraine from Russia’s point of view. He emphasized the importance of Ukraine for Russia’s national security. In the speech, he recognized the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. Two days later, he launched the large-scale military attack on Ukraine. 

Putin’s Preparations

The developments show that the Ukrainian president took part in a game that has implications far beyond his country’s border and capability. While Zelensky played down Russia’s reaction, Putin ran the game in an organized and careful manner and spent a long time explaining threats posed by movements by the United States and NATO allies to Russia’s security. He also sought to explain that he wants legal guarantees to protect Russia’s security, as well as implementation of the Minsk Agreement. Putin was right when he expected that the US and NATO would not risk intervening because it would lead to a third world war that would destroy all. 

The Russian attack drew a response. When the Security Council discussed a draft resolution proposed by the United States to condemn Russia’s military attack on Ukraine, Moscow used veto power against the bid. Three members, which are the UAE, China and India, abstained.

When Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Representative of the United States to the Security Council, announced the draft resolution on February 25, only 50 states backed the bid, which means that the United States could mobilize only a quarter of the United Nations members to back its position on the crisis. These include the 50 members of NATO in addition to Japan, New Zealand and Australia, which means that Washington was backed only by 17 members. This means that a majority of countries view this crisis as a manifestation of conflict between major powers, and not as a military assault by a major power on a small power. 

Dangerous game

This is a dangerous military and political game that can turn into a disaster if the Russian forces fail to achieve their goals soon and retreat to the border of the two separatist republics paving the way for serious negotiations. 

Moscow managed to change the rules of the game and proved that its capable of turning the situation into a zero-sum game. However, the continued fighting and failure of the Russian forces to achieve a swift victory will lead to another change to the elements of the game. 

As the fight in Ukraine rages on, the media expand coverage of the worsening humanitarian conditions of Ukrainian civilians, highlight the Ukrainian people’s determination to resist the Russians without thinking about surrendering and the possibility that the Russians would face urban warfare, which  will prompt some players involved in the game to change their positions. Most importantly, France and Germany, on February 26, announced that they are prepared for sending arms to Ukraine. More European countries banned Russian aircraft from their airspace. Overall, this will provide an opportunity for the Ukrainian government with an opportunity to begin a new round in the game that revolves around the fact that a major power occupied territory of another country that is a member of the United Nations. It will also provide an opportunity for Western countries to smuggle arms and ammunition into Ukrainian territory. Overall, the risk of a nuclear war becomes higher. 

In conclusion, looking into the history of international relations from the perspective of the game theory, it can be said that in games where a player overwhelms an opponent and achieves all of its goals at the expense of all other players, the end would be only temporary and can cause renewed conflict when circumstances change. It also reveals that stable ends of games were achieved when players involved in the game seek a balance between their goals.

Each and every game has a beginning and an end. What matters here  is not how to begin a game, but how to end it.