untitled design

How the ‘minor’ front in Kaliningrad can prove to be the spark of war in Europe

By Tyler Cowen

“Beware of the nested game”. It’s one of the lesser-known but most useful sayings to keep in mind when dealing with international affairs – and it is particularly important now that Lithuania has announced that it is blocking the shipment of Russian goods subject to sanctions. .

A nested toy is exactly what the term implies – a toy that nests inside another, larger one. Recognizes that acting “players” in most real-world environments are not unified and have conflicting motivations.

The classic example is the failure of a half-hearted peace agreement in the Middle East because a hardline faction staged a terrorist attack or assassination. The agreement was never a matter of just two parties negotiating with each other. Each side also faced its own internal conflicts.

Nested game theory can also help to better understand the Russian war against Ukraine, and unfortunately shows that the risk of escalation is increasing. Most estimates of the war compare the military forces on each side. This is certainly important – but so are nested toys. Russia and Ukraine are not monolithic entities. Each country has many different interests and views, especially if “Ukraine plus its allies” is defined as one side of the conflict.

Lithuania and Kaliningrad

Lithuania has announced that it will block rail shipments of Russian goods subject to sanctions to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, an isolated part of Russian territory surrounded by Lithuania, Poland and Russia, with no ties between Russia and the Baltic Sea. mainland. Lithuania claims, wrongly, that such an exclusion stems from EU sanctions against Russia.

From Russia’s point of view, however, it may seem like an act of war when a NATO member cuts off part of the connection between Kaliningrad and the rest of the country. Several Russian officials have threatened escalation and retaliation, deliberately obscuring the details of what they will do. Russia also claims that the blockade violates previous transport agreements with Lithuania.

If Lithuania had not imposed this blockade when it did, it is not clear that the European Union would have forced it to do so (the delay or renegotiation of EU decisions is not unprecedented, especially when pre-existing agreements with other countries).

In this sense, the exclusion was a strategic decision on the part of Lithuania. One view of Lithuania’s strategy is that it forces or motivates its allies to reaffirm their support for it.

It is too early to say whether this is a wise strategy on the part of the Lithuanians. The point is that Lithuania ‘s interests do not always coincide with those of NATO, the EU or the US. Given the risk of escalation on the part of Russia and in the light of my view that the imposition of “punishment” in Kaliningrad is a matter of low priority, I personally would have preferred Vilnius not to have taken this decision.

By playing a nested game, on the other hand, Lithuania has made things more dangerous for some of the other parties involved. Lithuania also made it more difficult to predict the course of the conflict, as hostilities could extend to the Baltic.

In favor of escalation?

Now, some of the smaller players in the region, especially those who are more afraid of Russia, may see advantages in escalating the conflict. It is a common belief that time is now on Russia’s side and so smaller countries may feel a sense of urgency that, for example, Germany cannot.

Nested games tend to complicate rather than simplify situations. Is the subversive factor here Lithuania or perhaps the USA, as some claim? What exactly are the differences of opinion within the Lithuanian government? What does Poland think about the timing of this possible escalation?

Speaking of which, Poland has been playing nested games all this time, as it faces constant challenges over how to get directly involved in arms supplies to Ukraine, which could increase the risk of Russian strikes on Polish territory.

Even a simple description of all the different questions can cause dizziness. In this way, nested game theory functions as a kind of alternative to game theory and its famous ability to predict the future. But there is also the danger.

The danger of “nested games”

Game theory is not always correct in predicting the future, as is natural. However, it is a useful “discipline” because it forces people to think about the worst possible results.

The danger of nested game theory is that it can lead to the acceptance of the inner logic of a small faction of a block or a special situation – while wars, once they begin, tend to develop their own logic. Throughout history, too many wars have slipped out of control for reasons that seem arbitrary, foolish, or simply unnecessary, yet make sense in the light of a nested game theory.

All of this is a way of saying that the value of nested game theory is its explanatory power, not its predictive value. And that, once the nested toys take the reins, the risks of escalation increase.

Source: Bloomberg

You may also like

Get the latest

Stay Informed: Get the Latest Updates and Insights

 

Most popular