What does he propose for Ukraine from the point of view of game theory?
We know that Vladimir Putin did not expect his “special operation” in Ukraine to go as badly as it is now.
Any observer could say that.
And we know that he is looking for a way out so as not to end up losing without palliatives.
Isn’t there someone in Putin’s inner circle who also takes advantage of the fact that it lasts?
In any case, Putin needs some triumph to be able to disguise his failure from the Russians. And it’s about giving him this pawn so that we all win the game of Ukraine.
Perhaps there are other unconfessed incentives to continue the war.
Surely they are not enough for those who die there or lose their homes and everything they have.
Which pawn would you sacrifice from a theoretical perspective to win the game?
The ones that in game theory can be lost at the lowest cost and maximum gain. Expanding NATO would not make the West more secure than it is. It would be enough for Ukraine not to be part of NATO. And that would be a triumph that Putin could show the Russians to save himself from paying with his head for defeat.
And does he not deserve, instead, an exemplary lesson, he and all of Russia, and to be humiliated?
This is not the rational calculation but the primal instinct – to teach it a lesson so that it does not challenge our established order again – which is precisely what we try to avoid when we calculate our moves in game theory.
What would be the smart move?
The classics warned of the risk of extra vincere, the destructive excess in victory. Let’s say it’s the moment when destroying the opponent no longer provides any benefit to the winner and, instead, if the loser perceives this intention, the incentive to resist increases. This would be a mistake of the West.
And in Ukraine, what would this error be?
If the Russians perceive that what you want is to teach them a humiliating lesson, what you are doing is increasing the incentive for them to allocate more resources and lives to the war. Because they would no longer fight for Ukraine but for the salvation of their own homeland.
How do you know?
Because we already made this mistake when we excessively and unnecessarily humiliated the former Soviet Union by denying it the right to be part of the club of the powerful. Putin resists Russia precisely because Russians still perceive him as the one who brought them out of this humiliation.
And don’t we have to teach him another lesson now?
It is also the mistake that the Allies made after the First World War by humiliating the Germans: they prepared the ground for the advent of Hitler and his revenge, which was to start the Second World War.
Do you see Russia taking revenge on the West?
I have no doubt that he would at least try. And we don’t need to humiliate Russia: only save Ukraine.
Is this second possible without the first?
Of course, and if you want a more precise argument, read Keynes’s book The Economic Consequences of Peace, where he raises the arguments about Germany that we should now apply to Russia.
Another dilemma for game theory: how to curb current inflation without recession.
If we reinterpret history, almost always to curb inflation central banks have raised rates so much that they ended up causing a recession.
Is the cure worse than the disease?
I would say that eventually we will have a recession; but a mild recession, and so the Federal Reserve will eventually curb inflation.
Why do we know so little about how to curb inflation?
We know that it can be slowed down by raising rates, but in effect, no one knows exactly how much to raise them or when.
Will Trump win the election again?
Trump takes advantage of the inefficiency of the electoral system of the Republican primaries, because he has been an opportunist who has taken advantage of this inefficiency. That’s why I designed a system to reform it.
But didn’t Trump win at the polls?
Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016, because he won those primaries in several states, but not by a majority but with only 13% of the vote.
And he made it to the White House.
Only because the anti-Trump vote was split among many other Republican candidates in these primaries. If he had only had one challenger, Trump would have lost.
What do you propose?
Trump will win again in 2024 if we don’t reform the system. I propose that instead of voting for a single candidate, vote for favorite A; and then a second B; a third C… Afterwards, the calculation of preferences would decide the winner.
Who would decide to implant it?
Voters, as they have done in Maine and Alaska. And we are working to get it approved in other states.
