Magnotta- Blog five

 Kim Magnotta

Professor Shirk 

May 1, 2022

How the Game of Risk is Relevant to the Discussion of International Politics: 

The study of International Politics is inherently complex, as all the competing players express a different set of motives and hold a varied amount of resources. Just as members in the political scene struggle to form agreements and peacefully collaborate, the multiplayer game of Risk illustrates a similar order of events. Perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of Risk was the impact of war. The presence of inter-state conflict encouraged allyships to be made with neutral parties that possessed strong armies. While on some occasions the allyships were formed between parties who were global “competitors” for the same share of land, the involved parties understood that collaboration would yield a beneficial result. Furthermore, in an international setting, no state is truly your “friend”, rather states only partner with one another if there is a known benefit to doing so. 

In some ways, the game of Risk acknowledged the Macchivellian method of politics, where trust on an international level should be kept to a minimum. A more realist approach should be taken while playing the game of Risk, as you can never fully trust the motives of the competing party. For instance, the goal of the black team was to establish as many allyships as possible in order to “win” the game. While the act of acquiring allies seems harmless, in this particular scenario, the actions of the black team were directed toward achieving a specific goal. With the concept of realism still in consideration, the importance of the classic security dilemma theory became noticeable while observing the relationship between the red and blue teams’ fight for control over Ukraine. As the blue team increased its number of troops in Ukraine, the red team increased its troop counts in the surrounding states. Increasing the number of troops in a particular territory contributes to a lack of trust between competing parties. This, in turn, allows for the implementation of more troops to lead to a world that is less safe. The fight for dominance between the red and blue teams sparked an arms race, where both parties desperately fought to remain the most powerful force. When the red and blue teams eventually went to war, both armies suffered great losses, as their armies had become so powerful from competing with each other. It is likely that if an agreement was formed before the problem escalated, both sides would have come to an agreement that yielded a less-deadly outcome. 

After playing a round of International Risk, I feel that I am significantly more pessimistic toward the international political scene. In my opinion, states should not place significant amounts of trust in the hands of another ruling power. While there are benefits to collaborations between parties, these alliances are often short-lived and conditional.