Game-theoretic modeling uncovers conditions under which rival Ukraine war narratives emerge as distinct separating equilibria, highlighting requirements for strategic plausibility.
NATO enlargement and Russian occupation of Crimea marked crucial turning points in the process that eventually resulted in the Ukraine war. According to one narrative, that Russian move was part of a plan to re-establish dominion over Eastern Europe. According to a rival view, it was an attempt to counter a U.S. plan to subjugate Russia. This paper scrutinizes the logical requirements of those narratives in a multi-stage game of incomplete information that produces equilibrium play such that first NATO is enlarged and then Russia attacks Ukraine. The two competing narratives correspond to two different separating equilibria. Conditions for their existence inform about the consistency and plausibility of the associated narratives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giacomo Corneo (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: