Henry Graff Blog 5

Henry G

International Politics

Blog 5

Although it does not truly portray an accurate image of international politics, The Game of Risk can serve as a good example of how states should conduct themselves, even if said strategy does not give the highest chance of actually winning the game. Given the vast difference in complexity, The Game of Risk can only be so useful in understanding international politics. For example, every player essentially has the same goal of conquering all other players' territories. Even in our case, the goals were centered around only a few aspects, such as the number and placement of territories, troops, and resources. Obviously, the board game is an incredibly simplified picture of international affairs, but it still brings up very important strategies relevant on the global stage. To play Risk, one must learn how, when, and why to attack their opponents, and when to do the opposite. These decisions, like choosing whether to attack, align, or stay neutral with other powers, equate to much more general relations between states in the real world. Furthermore, although simplified, the thought process behind these strategies can be largely similar to ones made in the true context of international relations. One modern issue which can be better understood is the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Having now gone on for over two months, with new players and actions raising the stakes, the situation demonstrates a territorial conflict involving third parties on many levels. Similar to Risk, Putin’s vague intentions and the precarious nature of the situation present challenges to other international players in terms of their views on and level of involvement in the situation. The United States and NATO are very open in their support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russia, yet cannot become too involved due to the expected consequences. With the incredible destructive capabilities of modern states, total war is utterly undesirable and frightening. Unfortunately, this can be used to deter retaliation or interference from other players on the international stage. Similarly, acts of aggression in The Game of Risk create openings for other players to attack, team up, or take advantage of weakened territories. In the case of Russia and Ukraine, there are extraneous circumstances which decrease the likelihood of beneficial interference for the likes of the United States and NATO, as they are likely to escalate the conflict significantly. Enlarging the conflict would likely bring about the involvement of other players, such as powerful players like China. However, we have not seen China take an overt stance on the issue, despite their close ties with Russia. Similarly, in a game of Risk, one might deem their alliance not strong enough, or objective not important enough, to engage in true conflict. Recently, Russia has worked feverishly to reestablish the value of its currency and strength of its economy, while the physical conflict rages on with no end in sight. With the  incorporation of many third parties and other factors, the aggression of Russia’s decisions matters immensely, similar to waiting an extra turn for more troops in The Game of Risk. Although the real issue is undoubtedly more complex, the same basic principles hold. On the other hand, some circumstances might evoke players to act on other desires in order to take advantage of the weakened states of other players. For example, many people speculated that China might use the Russian conflict to expand their influence in the Middle East, or possibly strengthen oppressive measures in Hong Kong. One large aspect of Risk is the lack of NGOs and the inherent equality of the players, which does diminish its authenticity due to the dispersal of power relative to opinions and objectives of opponents. I think these connections demonstrate how the thought processes behind The Game of Risk can be generally extrapolated and applied to international affairs, all things considered. Whether it serves as a model for how to or how to not act, the strategies which arise from the multiparty territorial disputes are undoubtedly helpful to understand.