The Collapse of the INF Treaty. How Can Game Theory Explain the Current State of Affairs?

Image source: Elcura DeIsso © 123RF.com

One problem dating back to the Cold War era is at the brink of being resolved, meanwhile, a new one rises over the horizon

Tomorrow is going to be a pivotal day for the security council of the member-states of NATO. On the morning of February, the 13th in Brussels, Minister Radmila Sekerinska of Macedonia is expected to shake hands with NATO's secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, in an accession process for the Balkan state, and its acceptance to the North Atlantic Treaty.

The country has suffered decades-long controversies over its name and disputes with neighbouring Greece, problems which were inherited from the last day of the Soviet Union and has had overlying consequences for Eastern Europe, is now finally coming close to fruition. Yet, as the world is preparing for another milestone in the elimination of the last remaining problems from the Cold War era, a mere few hours later, the security council of ministers is going to meet and discuss a new threat to the global power balance – the collapse of the INF treaty and the future of the nuclear weapons control.

On the 2nd of February of this year, the US officially announced that it would withdraw from the agreement and Moscow followed suit shortly after that, which means that the prospects for control over nuclear proliferation and the build-up of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) look bleak for the nations of the world. Old agreements for cooperation and partnership seem to fail like domino pieces, on the global board of strategic planning, and if we are to use game theory to explain all of this, the outcomes do not look promising.

Yet, the collapse of the INF treaty creates unique opportunity to cast aside an outdated bilateral model for arms control, fit for a duopoly of superpowers, and devise a brand-new multilateral agreement, to serve the rapidly changing times of the world of today. The laws and assumptions of game theory can undoubtedly shed light on our understanding of the politics of coercion, so that we can truly comprehend the motivations and presumptions of the strategic players, like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Understanding the driving forces of this sequential game is of fundamental importance and a pretext for the development of a new multilateral treaty, which can reflect on the conditions of a globalized world.

So why is this a blessing in disguise?

While there are still deep-rooted consequences of the Cold War era, which are being felt to this day, an honest discussion about the intricacies of the original INF treaty should expose the obsoleteness of this outdated treaty, which was befitting the polarized world of two super-camps and the world of the 1980s, and yet, falls short in meeting the expectations of a diversely populated international arena of today. Presently, the US is not the hegemonic power that it once was, despite still being the biggest economy in the world.

Nevertheless, this is being challenged by the rapidly expanding Chinese sphere of influence, furthermore, the unambiguous aspirations of Xi Jinping for an extensive nuclear arsenal is no secret to anyone. Last but not least, President Vladimir Putin's Russia seems to be involved in every major event on the global level. While the self-serving trail of interests of the Russian oligarchy can be traced back to the Kremlin, Putin appears to be pulling strings behind the curtains of a global political theatre.

This contextual segregation of world power and multilateralism has been putting much strain on international agreements, such as the INF treaty, for quite some time, and this degrading effect on international cooperation has made it increasingly difficult to cope with the circumstances of the globalized world of today.

The dismantling of this treaty presents Putin, Trump and Jinping, alongside other global leaders, with an opportunity to cast aside bilateral settlements for international cooperation and adopt a more cosmopolitan approach to the diffusion of global tension and the reduction of WMD's. A new treaty, which is to take the place of its predecessor – the INF, could be developed in an attempt to account for the present-day circumstances of the 21st century and address the motivations and beliefs of the global superpowers accordingly.

The Devil is in the details. 21st-century nuclear arms race

Using game theory to explain the demise of the INF treaty, creates the unique opportunity of perceiving the motivations and character-driven inspirations of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, in the quest of understanding how the situation escalated to the current circumstances. The rules of game theory dictate that some strategic games allow for the opportunity to free ride, which is essentially the decision to exploit the general terms and conditions of the game in an attempt to take advantage of the benefits of the game, without carrying out with one's commitments to the other participants.

In essence, this is what the US accused Russia of doing when in July of 2014, in its Compliance Report, the US stated that Russia was violating the INF treaty “not to possess, produce or flight-test” a ground-launched cruise missile having a range of 500-5500 kilometres or “to possess or produce launchers of such missiles”, according to armscontrol.org. Russia rejected the accusations and denied voluntary breaching the terms and conditions of the treaty.

Prisoners Dilemma

Channelling an example of a classical prisoner's dilemma, the US accused Russia of “free riding” the INF treaty regulations, by violating the terms and conditions of the arrangement, while still passively participating in it. This accusation has put Russia in a very delicate situation, virtually narrowing down its options to two: Either somehow to try and reconcile with the US, by providing evidence proving the accusations as unsubstantiated, or simply deny them altogether. Russia did just that, without presenting any conclusive evidence in its defence, which alluded to a potential cover-up, as Russia's argument was not as decisive as it perhaps should have been.

In a classical prisoner's dilemma, deciding to cheat the other player is yielding success in games, which are taking place only once. However, for sequential games, such as the INF treaty and the promise of cooperation between the participants, those players get to know each other, they learn each other's motivations and strategical thinking. Therefore, deciding to cheat in a sequential game, has more detrimental consequences for the relationship between the players than a one-off match, because the trust is ruined and it is more problematic to be regained afterwards.

Of course, what is essential to be noted here is that in a sequential prisoner's dilemma, what is equally important to the decision-making process for the players, is the perception of the other player's motivations and beliefs. If the US believes that Russia is cheating (or vice versa), regardless of the amount of evidence reaffirming such concerns, and Russia fails to respond in a meaningful way is going to convince the US of the severity of its suspicions.

This process of reaffirmation in a strategic game does not necessarily require evidence to fuel the qualms and fears, not that there isn't any evidence to substantiate the US` claims, and therefore, long-term cooperation gets hampered by speculations of abuses by the other player. From a strategic point of view, the demise of the INF was undeniably on its way to fruition, based on Russia's rejection to cooperate in the long term, and merely mirroring the US foreign policy of abdication from the treaty. There are, however, more practical reasons as to why this pact is at the end of its prominence.

Firstly, the INF was devised in the days when the world was divided between two camps, and presently the flight of China at the centre stage of global politics and arms race has consequently raised concerns in the US about the unhindered build-up of its military capabilities, including the expansion of its medium-range ballistic missiles. So the balance of power politics dictates that China's military expansion cannot be left unchecked, which is compelling the US and Russia to increase their military capabilities accordingly.

Secondly, the INF was initially meant to outline the agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, a state that no longer resides on the global map. And while Russia is technically a descendant of the Soviet Union, it would be a mistake to consider the two countries as one and the same. Present day Russia's struggles to shake off the authoritative past is met by resilient backlash from the oligarchy, which has taken hold of the shaky democratic process in the country. At the same time, the United States is undergoing a process of rising populism and shifting tides of the political arena, and for the unforeseeable future, the country looks poised to completely alter its aspirations and motivations at both the domestic and the international fields.

All of this has fundamentally changed the strategies of the two countries, which now find themselves at odds with each other and with the regulations of the actual INF treaty as well. As mentioned, the new challenge by China, as a novel player on the world political change, is only going to further boost the world towards the realization that the rules of the game have changed altogether.