The article “This is Not Game Theory” written by R.A look at how game theory is tied to the conflicts in Russia. He argues that game theory doesn’t really work in this situations unless you make some assumptions.
He starts by pointing out at first it seems that it isn’t worth it for Russia to invade. This is because Nato promises a massive attack if they invade and they don’t get much out of the invasin. In this case the payoff isn’t attractive. If Putin looks at NATO’s decisions he sees that going to war with Russia is a huge negative outcome for them because it would likely cause another world war over a small country like crimea. So NATO’s best decision is actually to not respond with war. This still brings up the question why Putin would risk NATO sanctions for such small a gain of territory. This brings up the idea of utility for Putin, he must see a benefit to gaining these territories even though he is occurring such a cost for doing so.
I found this article interesting because it brings makes you question why Putin is willing to occur the economic costs, now knowing that NATO won’t respond with military action, for such a small gain. Is it just so Russia can show that it is powerful or for another reason. The only solution is to somehow make the payoff for Putin smaller or Make the Cost more substantial to change the way he plays the game.