Blog post 5
Implications of Diplomatic Risk Game
The Diplomatic Risk Game provided valuable insight as to how international political decisions are executed, morevor what leaders place emphasis on when choosing their political strategies. In a fictional game, the chosen leaders and diplomats were not concerned with the true implicit and explicit costs of war, rather, the focus was on total dominance in resources. Similarly, as Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues to progress it can be seen that leaders like Vladimir Putin operate under those same principles.
In principle, war should operate as it did throughout the Risk Game: two nations that cannot reach an agreement go to war and the dominant nation will emerge victorious. The Risk Game allows its players to focus solely on the international dynamics and their corresponding power changes emerging post-war. In order to settle a conflict, “both the defender and the attacker roll X dice, where X is the amount of units they have in battle”(1), and if there are no allies assisting, the nation with the most units in battle emerges victorious. In modern day combat, victory is not determined by who has the most soldiers as seen in the difference of active military personnel in Russia and Ukraine on the 24th of February. Russia was operating with “900,000 active military personnel across land, sea and air,” while “Ukraine had 196,600 active military personnel when the invasion began”(2). The rational assumption would be that Russia would emerge victorious in a relatively quick manner with minimal casualties, however this is not what the world witnessed following the first attack. Putin’s miscalculation in strength of both the Russian and Ukrainian military can be seen when on the “third day of fighting, there were signs of personnel shortages among the assaulting [Russian] troops, who [could] not get control of the besieged but resisting Ukrainian cities”(3). In response to this lack of success, Putin’s increase in violence, lays the foundation for “the most devastating conflict on the continent since World War II” (4) to be seen. Furthermore, “more than 1.5 million people have fled the violence so far, making it the fastest-growing refugee crisis in Europe since World War II(4).
The reason that these crucial predictions of war are often miscalculated can be attributed to powerful leaders, such as Putin, treating their rule like a game and their civilians and military as pawns. Putin is willing to risk mutually assured destruction, as long as it assures Russia is victorious. Vadym Boichenko, the mayor of Mariupol, claimed that Russia has been “burning the bodies of civilians killed by shelling in a new mass grave” which was further supported when “a US satellite imagery company released photos that appeared to match the site”(5). It is indisputable that a leader who operates in such a manner is concerned with anything other than an increase in influence and resources. He operates in such a manner because it is not his house that is bombed, not his children that will be laid to rest in a mass grave, but rather the public.
Leaders making decisions that decide the quality of life of their public, while simultaneously basing those decisions solely on the projected increase in diplomatic power; it lays the foundation for assured mutual destruction to be seen globally. Leaders must take into account that they are not playing a game, they are making decisions that have real consequences: families are split apart, people starve, lives are destroyed, and many innocent people die.
I agree with many of the points made in this blog. I think that in war, there is always the human factor to account for and because of that, more powerful nations have been defeated by less powerful nations. I also agree with the statement that when one leads a real country in the same way that one would lead a nation in risk, bad things tend to happen. Furthermore, I find it super interesting that you made this connection between Putin and leaders engaging in world politics the same way that one would engage in the game of risk because, for a long time, Putin has always been seen as a global chess player of sorts, and always one move ahead of his opponents. Subsequently, I think that this public image of himself has been shattered by the war as well as his severe miscalculations with regards to how the world would respond to his invasion.
ReplyDelete