Zelenskyy, Vladimir, Olaf & Joe: a 4 Player Strategic Game

As a negotiator a central question in this crisis: Can negotiations solve one of the most serious military escalations in the recent history of Europe?

Early this week the recently elected German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been visiting Russia in a bid to de-escalate the current crisis in eastern Ukraine. Initial talks seem to be successful in establishing the first steps of de-escalation after announcements from the Russians to pull some troops from the Ukrainian borders.

A few days later, the situation seems to have escalated to new highs as the ‘signalling’ war reaches an almost maximum. Ukraine has communicated that ceasefire in the Donbas region has been broken several times, Russia committed that it will protect its ‘citizens’ in East Ukraine against aggressions and most importantly Biden has said today that Putin has decided to go to war already. Clever wording however still gives the US a backdoor to de-escalate and score a political win if needs be.

Make no mistake; In multi-level negotiations signalling using media is an extremely important ingredient as it prepares constituents in each country for possible consequences if the negotiations reach an outcome. It is also an important tool to influence negotiations happening in back channels.

As a negotiator, I see a central question in this crisis: Can negotiations solve one of the most serious military escalations in the recent history of Europe?

To analyse how potential negotiations might solve the crisis, let’s first try to understand the parties involved & their publicly communicated interests.

Russia

• Big military, not afraid to use it, history of invading Ukraine

• Currently deployed over 130,000 soldiers, tanks and heavy artillery on the borders with Ukraine

• Considers Ukraine as historically and naturally part of Russia

• Officially stating being threatened by NATO’s potential expansion east

• Demands guarantees that Ukraine will be denied NATO membership

• Demands NATO to roll back troop deployment pre-1997

• Denies it has any intent to start a war

Ukraine

• Post-1991, Ukraine has given all its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for security guarantees (Minsk accords & Budapest Memorandum)

• Overthrown Russian leaning president Yanukovych in 2014 after major protests

• Elected a new president in 2019, Zelenskyy a self-declared populist

• Leaning towards NATO, the EU and away from Russia

• Ukraine receives 2B USD in transit fees for the natural gas pipelines that go from Russia through Ukraine to Europe

Germany

• Major importer of Russian Natural Gas

• Currently, most of the Russian gas to Germany goes through Ukraine which reduces energy stability for Germany

• Nord Stream 2 new gas pipe in the north sea and under approval by the Bundesnetzagentur

• SPD’s newly elected Olaf Scholz might aim to score political points: assert political leadership after Merkel’s legacy in Germany and Europe

• Refused to send arms to Ukraine during the current crisis

NATO & the US

• Recently lost face globally in a series of military operations from the Afghanistan withdrawal to a complete mess in Iraq

• Commitment to a united NATO has never been stronger since the 1950s

• Considers Russia as a threat to Europe and globally

• Has been expanding easterly in NATO member countries such as Poland and Romania as well as non-NATO member countries such as Ukraine

What is the underlying Game?

Let’s try to analyse the situation from a Game-Theoretic perspective:

Putin has essentially two options: The 1st option is to invade Ukraine and then negotiate a deal with the West and a 2nd option would be to negotiate a deal while threatening to invade Ukraine.

The 1st option leads to either Outcome A or Outcome B.

Outcome A

This is a catastrophic scenario for Russia, NATO and Ukraine. This is where NATO actively sends troops to Ukraine to fight against Russian troops. Considering both powers have nuclear weapons, the consequences of such a conflict are simply impossible to imagine for any sane individual.

Outcome B

This is the outcome if Russia invades Ukraine and NATO does not fight back directly. This will lead to an all-out war in Ukraine, millions of refugees in Europe, a major destabilisation in the Black Sea and East Europe & painful sanctions on Russia. This would include stopping Russian Gas and blocking Russian companies from the Swift system. This is a very painful outcome for Russia, Ukraine and NATO. Russia will not be able to achieve its goals by following this path, nor would any other party benefit from it.

Another path for Putin would be to not start a fight, but credibly threaten to start an invasion.

Outcome C

Similar to Outcome A — This is a catastrophic outcome for Russia and NATO. By attacking Russia, NATO will essentially start a 3rd world war.

Outcome D: The Chicken Game

In this scenario — Russia is not starting an invasion but is negotiating under the threat of an invasion. This creates a chicken game between Russia, the Ukraine & NATO. This is the only outcome in my opinion where Russia might achieve its goals.

So how can this situation be solved?

A chicken game is solved through a visible & credible commitment. The first party to make this cortezean commitment will have the upper hand in the negotiations.

Both parties have been signalling this commitment, however in my opinion these commitments are not credible enough. For instance, NATO has sent troops to Poland, sent weapons and signalled to stop Nord Stream 2. Harris has announced today in the MSC that the US will inflict painful economic sanctions on Russia in case of an invasion. On the other hand, Russia has put more than 130,000 troops on the ground ready to invade.

A credible commitment that NATO could immediately make is to issue a conditional membership to Ukraine. NATO should put Ukraine’s membership on the agenda. The moment Russia Invades Ukraine, NATO commits to pass the membership immediately. On the other hand, NATO should also commit to removing Ukraine’s membership from the Agenda, the moment Russia removes its troops from the border. Therefore Russia now has a dilemma, if they invade Ukraine, they are allowing NATO to interfere directly. If they don’t invade Ukraine and remove their troops, they can make a win. If this is packaged and framed correctly to the constituents, Putin will save face and might score a political win.

A credible commitment that Russia could make is to give an ultimatum to Ukraine: Give us a guarantee you will not join NATO and we will remove our troops from the Border. Don’t give us a guarantee and we will make sure Ukraine is not part of NATO by invading Ukraine.

What would happen in the next few days? Let’s hope the game is played by rational players.