5 May
Dear Garry Kasparov,
For full disclosure, I am neither a political scientist nor a military strategist. As an outsider, I am watching the horrific events between Ukraine, Russia and the West unfold from afar. So I am writing to you from an uninformed place, in hopes you may enlighten myself and others on the geopolitics and narratives at hand.
As you know, we tend to begin game theoretic analysis with assumptions about the information and beliefs that we, our neighbours, and our adversaries hold. Decision trees in turn tend to spring about from the presumptions we make. And in our current climate, I am wondering just how much of recent events were anticipated and premeditated by every party involved.
I find it hard to imagine, for example, that Russia did not anticipate Ukraine’s resilience and the West’s response. In this long standing game of chicken, burning bridges, and salami tactics, Putin seems to have accepted the long-run economic and political price of a full scale invasion.
This makes me wonder what went through the minds of Western decision makers and analysts in the days, months, and years before Russia’s buildup and attack. Their delays in arms support and fumbling sanctions suggest to me that they might have been unprepared and uncoordinated despite all the forewarning.
But if we operate on the assumption that such things should not escape Western intelligence, then perhaps they believe that recent events are the least bad of possible worldlines (as awful as this sounds). Perhaps, the toll of another foreign war and the risk of nuclear brinkmanship is unpalatable. And maybe the opportunity to weaken Russia economically was factored into their calculus.
Of course, all of this is speculation from an uninformed outsider. I am simply thinking aloud.
Another narrative I’ve seen is the criticism of Europe’s energy dependence on Russia. On one hand, it has contributed to our global energy woes and financed Putin’s war machine. But on another, it’s given Russia and their oligarchs something to lose. True, in this instance, the deterrent failed. But if the ultimate goal is world peace, large economic interdependence, I think, remains an important goal for the future. Negotiation is impossible when individuals are isolated with nothing to lose.
I’ve also heard some proponents call for assassinations and other extreme measures on the news and social media. This worries me greatly. The health of any democracy depends on the preservation of democratic norms and forbearance. We cannot build an inclusive global society by eliminating the bullies we despise. As painful as this experience is, we have to exhaust every economic and diplomatic measure first.
My heart aches for Ukrainian and Russian families fighting in a war that should not exist. Humans, for all their technical achievements, cannot seem to overcome their inherent dysfunction. Thomas Schelling lamented more than five decades ago in Arms and Influence that it is easier to destroy than to create. I like to believe that things have improved since the Second World War. But I’m not so sure.
People suggest that a Third World War is impossible given the threat of mutually assured destruction and the interconnectedness of the global economy. While I’d agree that the likelihood is low, it is not beyond the realms of possibility. It remains an existential tail risk. We must not forget that nations are not necessarily rational actors. Decisions, after all, are made on the ground by humans. It only takes a bit of miscalculation, hubris, desperation, and historical amnesia to produce the irreversible.
Garry, I’d appreciate any reactions and corrections you might have on my views here. I’ve followed your commentary on Twitter and the news for quite awhile now. But I do wonder if the nuances in your views have changed after recent developments or since writing Winter is Coming more than seven years ago.
Warm regards,
Tobias
Tobias Lim
Tobias Lim