Game theorists: NATO needs to convince Russia everything is still on the table
I don’t normally write about current events, but, as a mathematician, I felt compelled to point out the flaws in how NATO is dealing with the Ukrainian conflict right now. In particular, the President has taken the most powerful bargaining chip off the table in dealing with Russia: direct conflict between Russian and NATO forces.
It isn’t surprising why Biden has chosen this path. He is a product of the Cold War era where Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was the order of the day. But even then, the concept didn’t make mathematical sense.
The idea of MAD comes from a game theoretic concept which Zagare and Quackenbush refer to as classical deterrence theory. In this theory, war (between superpowers) is considered to be the least desirable outcome by all rational actors.
It turns out, however, that, if one makes this assumption, classical deterrence theory is unstable, you cannot maintain the status quo. Thus, by assuming a classical model of deterrence, NATO leaders are almost guaranteeing that in the end, Russia will win not only this conflict but the next and the one after that.
Counterintuitively, the best way to maintain the status quo (i.e., peace) is to be willing to fight.
