NATO Falls Apart - The Timeline

The original object of this game was to derive a timeline that could be used as an input into an economic and financial wargame at a later stage. The actual result was something of a surprise for us. Our original thoughts were that Russia would occupy Ukraine. The Russian invasion of the Baltic States was unclear at the start of the game, but as Russia had done so well, and as it had received such little opposition from NATO, Russia could become emboldened to resolve matters in the Baltic States also. This is how the timeline wove itself.

Timeline: D+3

Geopolitical headline: Russia advances from south west Belarus to occupy Lviv and north west Ukraine, before moving southwards to threaten Kiev. Russian columns advance from southern Russia across southern Ukraine to occupy Kharkov and to threaten Kiev. Russian reinforcements arrive from the Central and Far Eastern Military Regions and are deployed along the Russia-Ukraine border.

Response in:

Washington: Outrage at events, diplomatic efforts to contain the situation.

Brussels: Outrage at events, diplomatic efforts to contain the situation.

Tokyo: Concern at events.

London: Concern at events, diplomatic efforts to contain the situation.

Beijing: Concern at events

Timeline: D+6

Geopolitical headline: Russia occupies Odessa and Kiev. The Ukrainian army is destroyed in the field and Russia occupies all of Ukraine.

Response in:

Washington: Concern at escalation of events. Warning issued to Russia about the integrity of territorial boundaries in Europe.

Brussels: Concern at escalation of events. Warning issued to Russia about the integrity of territorial boundaries in Europe.

Tokyo: Concern at escalation of events.

London: Concern at escalation of events. Warning issued to Russia about the integrity of territorial boundaries in Europe.

Beijing: Concern at escalation of events.

Timeline: D+9

Geopolitical headline: Russian forces regroup and are redeployed along the Russian border with Latvia and Estonia. Russian forces deployed along the Ukrainian border with Poland.

Response in:

Washington: Outrage at escalation of events. Warning issued to Russia about the integrity of territorial boundaries in Europe.

Brussels: Under the Common Security and Defence Policy, the Visegrad Battlegroup and the Nordic Battlegroup are alerted to activation.

Tokyo: Concerned by events, places armed forces on alert.

London: Follows US lead within the NATO framework.

Beijing: Concerned by events, places armed forces on alert.

Timeline: D+12

Geopolitical headline: Russian forces invade Latvia and Estonia, defeating their armies in the field. Tallinn and Riga are occupied. Lithuania is invaded and Vilnius besieged. Article 5 is triggered and NATO counter-attacks. German and Polish forces relieve Vilnius and push back Russian troops to Riga. The Visegrad Battlegroup advances across southern Ukraine to occupy Dnepropetrovsk and Donetsk. Romanian forces besiege Odessa.

Response in:

Washington: The United States is placed upon a war footing. Material assistance is provided for European NATO allies and US forces are mobilised for action in Europe.

Brussels: Under the Common Security and Defence Policy, the Visegrad and Nordic Battlegroups are committed to action. Germany supports collective action.

Tokyo: Concerned by events, armed forces remain on alert.

London: Commits RAF and Royal Navy to the conflict, along with land based forces when they are available. GCHQ commences cyber warfare against Russian targets.

Beijing: Concerned by events, armed forces remain on alert.

Timeline: D+15

Geopolitical headline: NATO airpower is committed to action. A small Ukrainian military force is gathered in Kharkov. Russian forces recapture Kharkov and Donetsk, pushing back the Visegrad Battlegroup. German forces besiege Russian occupied Riga and are repelled back to Vilnius.

Response in:

Washington: Congress approves Presidential action, US forces to be committed as they become available.

Brussels: Proposal to commit EU to NATO actions, no decision taken.

Tokyo: Concerned by events, armed forces remain on alert.

London: Commits to supporting NATO action.

Beijing: Concerned by events, armed forces remain on alert.

Timeline: D+18

Geopolitical headline: Air conditions are favourable to Russia, giving overwhelming air superiority. Russia retakes Dnepropetrovsk and largely destroys the Visegrad Battlegroup. Ukrainian forces recapture Kharkov. The German and Polish armies are destroyed outside of Vilnius, which is occupied by Russian forces.

Response in:

Washington: Diplomatic and material assistance to NATO allies, USAF committed to action.

Brussels: Wrangling over the degree of commitment to provide to NATO. Hungary, Greece and Cyprus begin to object to the EU becoming involved.

Tokyo: Concerned by events, armed forces remain on alert.

London: Commits to supporting NATO action.

Beijing: Concerned by events, armed forces remain on alert.

Timeline: D+21

Geopolitical headline: Russia destroys the remaining Ukrainian forces and reoccupies Kharkov. Odessa is relieved and the Romanian army is destroyed. Russian forces consolidate their position in the Baltic States and advance no further.

Response in:

Washington: Diplomatic and material assistance is given to the NATO allies.

Brussels: Wrangling over the degree of commitment to provide to NATO. Hungary, Greece and Cyprus object to the EU becoming involved.

Tokyo: Concerned by events, armed forces remain on alert.

London: Commits to supporting NATO action.

Beijing: Concerned by events, armed forces remain on alert.

As the game unfolded, the collapse of NATO was not readily evident. Germany and Poland were able to field armed forces of reasonable strength on paper. The Visegrad forces in southern Ukraine were able to threaten the Russian hold on that country, and there was a threat to Russian forces along the Polish-Ukrainian border. 

The turning point was the German siege of Riga. Had the German forces occupied the city, Sweden and Finland could have ferried troops into the combat zone, which would have made all the difference. The failure to retake the city, even with air superiority, was the high point of the NATO advance. As it happens, both Riga and Tallinn remained closed to reinforcements from Sweden and Finland. This proved to be decisive. It allowed Russia to consolidate its hold on Riga and provided a launching pad from which the German army could be defeated in the field and from which the Polish army could be expelled from Vilnius, to be destroyed in detail. At that point, 21 days into the crisis, NATO ceased to have any forces in north eastern Europe. It was here that we called a halt to the game.

This is such an intriguing timeline. It has a feel of 1940 to it. The Red Team launches a blitzkrieg offensive that conquers all before it. There are a quick succession of Allied collapses. And with that, the international order prevailing up to that point falls apart. As stated before, this game is the prelude to an economic and financial game. One can wonder what impact this sequence of events would have on the financial markets. I guess we will have to play that game to find out.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2021

NATO Falls Apart - The Game

My long term commitments have shifted a bit recently. so I found myself with a bit of time on my hands. This is a rarity that doesn't happen too often. However, it does occur from time to time, so I always have in mind a list of things that I would like to do if the tempo weren't so pressing. High on my list of things to do was to revisit The Belarussian Right Hook (more details). To recap, the premise of the game was to consider the possibility that Russia could use the cover of joint exercises in Belarus to launch an operation to tidy matters away in Ukraine.

When we played the game before, we generated some interesting results, but I was left dissatisfied with the game on a number of levels. I felt that the Russian forces grouped around Brest in Belarus at the start of the game should have been deployed at an earlier stage, and I also felt that the Russian reinforcements from the Central and Far Eastern Military Regions ought to have been brought into the game a lot sooner. This version of the game encompassed both of those features. The Russian 20th Army Corps, located in Belarus, was tasked to be the first Russian unit to move. The reinforcements from the Central and Far Eastern Military Regions were permitted to enter the game in Turn 1 (in the first three days), if the Russian player had sufficient movement allowance to effect that.

We retained the complications of the Blue Team player - a complicated structure involving NATO members, EU members who are not members of NATO, and Ukraine and Moldova, who are neither members of NATO nor the EU. We added the complication that elements of the EU Nordic Battlegroup - essentially Sweden and Finland - could only enter the game via the ports of Riga or Tallinn, if they were not under Russian control. We retained the rules regarding Belarus - for it to be on the winning side, regardless of who that might be. And we kept the rule that the nuclear threshold would not be passed.

The purpose of the game was to produce a timeline that we could use in our sequence of nested games. We will publish that timeline in a future post, including reactions from around the world to give us a global perspective to unfolding events in Europe.

Did we achieve something useful? It's hard to answer that question, but we did achieve an interesting result - by D+21, three weeks after the first Russian incursion into Ukraine, NATO imploded. The sequence of events were a lukewarm response to the initial Russian incursion into Ukraine. This encouraged Russia to undertake a Blitzkrieg in the Baltic States. Riga and Tallinn were occupied within three days. The European NATO forces were committed piecemeal, relying heavily on German leadership. First the German, and then the Polish armies were defeated in the field, and NATO couldn't survive the political fallout resulting from those defeats. Russian forces occupied Vilnius, and at that point we called a halt to the game. 

The game provided us with some hard questions that we will explore in a future post. For now, we can place a marker that three avenues of approach suggest themselves. First, how fragile is NATO politically? In the game, NATO fell apart through political squabbling. When things started to go badly, the less committed nations started to weaken their contributions to the collective effort. Second, at what point should NATO become involved? There is an argument that had NATO become involved when the Russian 20th Army Corps besieged Lviv, the blitzkrieg into the Baltic States would have been much harder to achieve. If either Riga or Tallinn had not fallen, then Sweden and Finland could have become involved. Third, just how corrosive is the European skimping on defence spending? How far has the desire for budgetary savings impaired the effectiveness of the European NATO armed forces? We shall look at these questions at greater depth in a future post.

This is one future that we hope not to happen. It suggests a number of courses of action that we can take in the present to avoid that future. It is of some comfort that some of those measures seem to have been taken, but that is a different story for another day.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2021

What happens when generation rent ages?

We are all growing older. We are growing older as individuals (people always have) and we are growing older as a society. What is different about the current trend towards ageing is that it is becoming a societal as well as an individual feature. As a societal feature, it contains all sorts of problems that we haven't encountered before and for which the welfare state is ill prepared. The welfare state is poorly prepared on two counts - for the volume of numbers of aged people in the near future and for the novel situations that they will bring with them.

Let's deal with the novel situations first because they are likely to be more pressing. In the UK, the number of private rental tenants aged between 45 and 64 has doubled in the past two decades. In the next ten years or so, many in this cohort will reach state retirement age. Their personal financial circumstances when they reach retirement age, are likely to be of concern. In its construction, the welfare state rested upon two assumptions. First, that elderly renters would occupy social housing rather than the private rental market. Second, that the private rental market would be used mainly by younger renters prior to them getting on to the housing ladder. These two assumptions can now be called into question.

To begin with, there has been a dramatic decline in the social housing rental market since 1980. Starting with the sale of the council housing stock and exacerbated by the reduction in social housing new builds, the stock of available social housing has fallen considerably in recent decades. From about 5 million units in 1980, the social housing stock has fallen to between 1.5 and 2 million units today. In the same period, the population of the UK has risen from about 56 million in 1980 to about 65 million today. There are far fewer units of social housing to accommodate many more people. Just as the population started the ageing process, the number of units of social housing has fallen, forcing larger numbers of elderly people into the private rented sector.

In the private rented sector, this ageing population of private renters are competing with increasing numbers of younger renters. In the two decades from 2000 to 2020, the number of 25 to 34 year olds privately renting has increased by two and a half times. The average age of the first time buyer in the UK has risen from 26 in 1980 to 31 today. This is all having an impact on the private rented sector. Housing is scarce and expensive. This trend is one seen across Europe and North America, not just the UK.

If these core assumptions of the welfare state no longer hold, then they have a consequential impact on other aspects of the welfare state. The way in which the actuarial profession structure their forecasts of how much is needed in retirement assume a pathway where a person buys a house on mortgage, which has been repaid by retirement. The core assumption is that the retiree has zero housing costs. On this basis, Royal London calculated in 2018 that a retiree would need a pension pot of £260,000 to maintain a median salary. If rental costs are added to the retiree's needs, then a pension pot of £445,000 would be needed. Britons are currently nowhere near the smaller figure, let alone the larger one.

This suggests a future in which the older private renters could clock up significant rent arrears, face eviction from housing, and could fall back on the state for assistance. The social infrastructure, outside of the adult care sector, just isn't there. The situation is worsened by the prospect of the other feature of societal ageing - the sheer volume of numbers of old people needing assistance at the same time. Not only will the state face an intractable problem surrounding the housing of the elderly it will also face the question of placating larger numbers of articulate and older citizens who are ready to exercise their vote.

All of this suggests a future in which there will be a much larger role for the state than we are accustomed to. Greater levels of financial assistance will be needed for housing, healthcare and adult social care. Not only will the levels of assistance be greater, but also the numbers requiring assistance will be much higher too. How this will all be paid for is anyone's guess. It does suggest a fundamental restructuring of the welfare state is likely this decade. So, what happens when generation rent ages? Public spending goes through the roof! (Pun intended).

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2021

What makes a scenario persuasive?

If we accept that the future is undetermined, and if we accept that a plurality of futures can emerge from our present state, then how do we distinguish between competing visions of the future? We don't have perfect foresight, despite, on occasion, an 'official future' being given to us as a planning assumption for our future thinking. In which case, if there is no 'true' view of the future, then surely we have to fall back upon those futures which we find more persuasive as a technique to discern the signal from the noise. What is it, then, that makes one scenario more persuasive than others?

The futures cone might help us to order our thinking in this area. To start with, in order to be persuasive, the future has to be possible rather than impossible. There is a sequence whereby impossible futures become possible, but from the immediate future horizon, we have to accept the impossibility of some futures. For example, some science fiction writers talk of inter-stellar travel using 'faster than light' drives of some sort. Given the current state of our technology, and barring the possibility of humanity being gifted such technology, these futures seem impossible for the immediate future. That impossibility could change in the future, but from the perspective of the present, such futures are unlikely to be too persuasive.

If we travel further into the cone, we move from the realms of possibility to the realms of plausibility. If one future is possible because it might happen, another becomes plausible because it could happen. We are now starting to enter an area where we find some futures likely and others less so. We make no comment on the degree of likelihood in this zone, we just note, in an ordinal way, that some futures are more likely than others. The more likely the future is, the more persuasive we are bound to find it. Of course, the assessment of likelihood is a question of subjective probability, which accounts for different people viewing the same scenario with different degrees of persuasion.

The question of subjective probabilities pulls us from the area of plausible futures to the area of probable futures. In this case, we are a bit more certain about a set of future outcomes. Once again, the probabilities are likely to be subjective, but we are at the point where we can be fairly sure of ourselves because we see the set of future events as fairly likely to happen. The danger here is hubris, which encourages us to abandon any lingering uncertainty about the future. This is the zone in which 'official futures' are created.

The final category of futures we need to consider in this context are projected futures. These are futures that arise on the assumption of ceteris paribus, that things more or less progress as they are progressing now. There is a degree of persuasiveness about these futures, particularly in the very near term future, where it is not unreasonable to assume that most things are set. Change takes time to implement and to have an impact. In this moment, ceteris paribus is not a wholly unreasonable assumption. This can make some projected futures fairly persuasive.

What about preferred futures? We have separated preferred futures form the other categories because they blend a mix of likelihood and desire. These are the futures that we want to happen, which may or may not be influenced by their likelihood. These are the futures from which a compelling vision of the future may emerge. Or they may be the futures where we simply disappear in a cloud of wishful thinking.

As with all things, much depends upon out motives. If we are using futures as an aid to strategic planning, then we are likely to dwell in the area of probable and plausible futures, with the occasional excursion into the realms of possible futures as wild card exercises. If, on the other hand, we are using futures as a device for transformational change, then we are less likely to focus on the likelihood of a set of futures than their desirability. We will find some futures more desirable than others and that desirability enters into our appraisal of which futures we find more convincing. We can try to guard against this bias, but bias and choice are part of the human condition, so they can't be eliminated entirely. 

It is, however, an argument in favour of a diverse range of participation in transformative and normative futures. This is hard to achieve in practice because some interest group is bound to be overlooked. A set of scenarios derived from too narrow a base are unlikely to be too persuasive. So what does make a scenario convincing? A more likely and a more desirable scenario will undoubtedly be more persuasive than one that is neither. This is all part of telling a better story.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2021

How do you measure a return on investment for foresight?

Let's just suppose that we agree that foresight ought to have a return on investment. In that case, how would we go about measuring such a thing? It is entirely possible that we could devise new models of foresight evaluation, but a shorter route would be to take existing models of investment appraisal and to adapt them for the purposes of foresight evaluation. The financial community has a long history of doing just this. Would to be possible to commandeer some of their models to put to work in evaluating foresight?

We have stated before that one of the objections to using foresight as a better aid to strategic planning is the utilitarian nature of the methods used. However, in this case, they can also be a strength. We can readily see that it is worth undertaking a project if the benefits outweigh the costs. It is also true in reverse, an activity is not worth undertaking if the costs outweigh its benefits. In commercial language, it fails to meet the action threshold. There are problems with these approaches, but let's set those aside for the moment to focus on the core of the technique. It might help to examine the cost side of the equation before going on to review the question of appraising the benefits.

This approach is best suited to what the evaluator community calls project evaluation. When reviewing the prospective costs of a project, the starting point has to be what it is that the project hopes to achieve. What is it examining? Over what time horizon? With what deliverables in mind? So many foresight projects go astray because this clear vision of what the project is about is absent at the beginning. A degree of clarity is needed at the outset because that will dominate the structure - and the cost base - of the whole project ahead.

If you are certain what it is that you want to look at, the next question to resolve is who is to be involved in the process. In many respects, that is a question of determining which stakeholders have a voice in the process, and which stakeholders are not consulted. In some projects the core stakeholders appear obvious, in others less so. Those close to the subject being reviewed might expect a voice, whilst those affected by it remotely may not. This involves a balancing act for the project managers. On the one hand, a more diverse group will yield more robust results. On the other hand, including too many voices will reduce the effectiveness of the core of the project. In this sense, a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

At some point the project will have to take a view on tool selection. If we have defined the problem to be examined, if we have determined who will be conducting the examination, we then have to take a view on how the examination will be conducted. This is the point at which we encounter the question of uncertainty. We want to choose the right tool for the job, but we cannot know for sure a priori which is the right tool for the job. We can only say that, on a balance of probabilities that a given tool is likely to yield useful results. 

This is where the staffing question and the tool selection issue start to become inter-dependent. Some tools require a wider input than others, Some tools require a more intensive time cost than others. It is at this point that we may have to scale back our ambitions for the project because the budget won't support the initial scale of those ambitions. The process of adjustment may tend to be adaptive in how it rolls out. However, if the project is to go ahead, then eventually a compromise will be reached on the cost side. It is then we can turn to the prospective benefits.

We have already stated that the project will have a focus in the future. This could be a forecast of a future state or, more likely, the discernment of the broad contours of the future. The project is likely to aim at producing insights into the future from which we can profit by preparing for that future today. This is an area which can prove to be quite problematic. 

To start with, our view of how the future might unfold could be wrong. There is considerable uncertainty about future states. The prospective benefits to our actions are remote - they lie a long way off from the present - and may not be clearly defined. The benefits are likely to be less quantifiable than the costs and the impact of our actions might not be experienced in quite the way we previously anticipated. We could do the right thing for the wrong reasons and the wrong thing for the right reasons. There is no way of knowing a priori exactly how things will turn out. The future out-turn could be broadly in line with our original thoughts or it could quite equally be very different. The right foresight tools should enhance the likelihood of the former and lessen the chance of the latter, but nothing is guaranteed.

If foresight is a means to gauge a volatile, uncertain, complex, and adaptive world; then the tools it uses are likely to reflect that state of being. This means that when we measure the return on investment on foresight, we ought to include a statement to the effect that the process contains a wide margin of error. At the end of the day it will be up to the client to determine whether or not a specific project is likely to provide sufficient benefits to justify the cost. What the foresight professional can do is to help frame that judgement in a fairly systematic way.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2021

Should foresight have a return on investment?

This is a peculiarly phrased question, but it is one that is worth bearing with. It highlights a key issue in our motivation for undertaking foresight. There are various motivations for undertaking foresight. One motive could be that it would help to produce decisions that more closely align with where we want to be in the future - an aid to better strategic planning. Another motive could be to use foresight to build a better world - as a vehicle for a transformative future. There are more motives for undertaking foresight, but I want to focus on just these two because they have the feel of polar opposites from which we might learn something. Let's start with the former motivation before looking at the latter.

Foresight as an aid to better strategic planning is unfashionable in some quarters and very fashionable in others. It tends to be sought after in the corporate world, where the futurist is often asked to make the 'business case' for foresight. In terms of justification, we are entering the world of cost-benefit analysis. Where a return from an activity has to be shown in excess of the cost of undertaking it. In this sense, foresight needs to have a return on investment, even if we can't quite quantify those costs and benefits, and despite the eventual costs and benefits existing in an uncertain future. 

The underlying philosophy of this approach is utilitarianism - the social good is enhanced when the greatest benefit accrues to the greatest number of beneficiaries. It is the core philosophy underlying much theoretical economics and it has a number of flaws. To start with, the beneficiaries are not identified. One could argue that unborn generations ought to considered as beneficiaries with an equivalence to current ones. There has been a move in this direction in recent policy developments. However, the most damaging criticism of this approach is that is does not factor in individual rights and has the potential to be the source of grave injustices. The partiality of whose voice counts - and those who are excluded - is the core argument against this approach.

By way of contrast, foresight as a transformational device starts with the individual as the core of its focus. This approach tends to be seen more in community and governmental settings, usually by those who wish to effect profound change. In this case, a project will be endorsed if it can be shown to lead to a better world. It needs to show an absolute positive impact to be worth undertaking. In this sense, a project doesn't necessarily need to show a return on investment. It only needs to show a positive impact.

The problem with this approach lies with how the positive impact is ascertained and in whose interest the positive impact accrues. This is a fairly serious issue. The transformational approach is being adopted to the issue of climate change, which can help to expose some of the flaws arising fro this approach. It is generally accepted that climate mitigation is a good thing and that we need to act today to ensure a better tomorrow. 

Laying aside the issue of whether or not that is true, it does create a distributional problem over who bears the costs of mitigation. So far, where mitigation policies have been implemented, it is the poorer elements in society who have had to bear the greater cost of climate mitigation. This exposes the problem at the heart of the transformational approach. Unless each and every person affected by the policy is consulted, the approach is delivered as a top down policy that has a tone of authoritarianism about it. The 'Guardians' deliver policy to the masses. It exposes the connection between Futurism and Fascism that futurists strive to deny. 

This leaves us in an unhappy place. On the one hand we have an approach that is infused with a corporate bean-counters mentality. On the other hand we have an approach where the great and the good tell the rest of society how they ought to live their lives. In practice, most of us try to find a pragmatic compromise in order to avoid an extreme position. A more balanced approach might be the best way to deal with the question. Should foresight have a return on investment? In a corporate setting it probably should. In a community setting it probably shouldn't.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2021

How Can We Game A Future Economy?

We have previously written about the possibility of joining together a sequence of games to generate a set of nested games (see here for more detail). In pursuit of that objective, we have now played one of the middle games to see how it all unfolds. The basic premise is that a set of geopolitical events drives movements in the financial markets. There is a set of actors who can influence outcomes within those markets, and that provides the basis for the game. To complete the description, the game then provides a set of market outcomes which can be used as inputs into a game examining how individual firms respond to rapidly moving markets. 

We played the middle game where geopolitics is driving market movements and where actors can respond and influence those market movements. The geopolitical frame we chose was 'The Belarussian Right Hook' (see here for more detail). To recap, the setting is that Russia uses the cover of wargames in Belarus as a launch pad to complete an invasion and absorption of Ukraine. Initially, things go well, but then they start to go off plan. NATO becomes involved, highlighting a tension between NATO and the institutions of the European Union. Eventually the US becomes involved. As that happens, China becomes a bit more aggressive in East Asia. The scenario ends with Russia expelled from Ukraine - but not Crimea - and European (but not necessarily NATO) forces in Smolensk, along the line of the Dnepr River. This represented a 30 day time frame of geopolitical drama.

Within that framework, the markets fluctuated wildly. We played with five actors, representing an amalgam of the Central Banks and Treasuries of the US, the ECB, China, Russia, and Japan. Each player was given a set of indices that they had to defend and a range of instruments to use in defending them. Collaborative play was encouraged and the players took to supporting each other in their game play. The players are gamers and not Central Bankers, so they brought to the game a more general knowledge than that of subject experts. The first four turns were played as part of a session delivered to the Edinburgh Futurists, with the remaining six turns played by e-mail after the event.

The broad results of the game were both interesting and instructive. The players rather rapidly formed two groups. The US, ECB, and Japan on one side (the Allies); Russia and China on the other side. If anything, China and Russia did a bit better than the Allies. To a certain extent, the game deepened the dependency of Russia on sales of hydrocarbons and minerals to China through long term contracts for supply at favourable rates, whilst driving the spot prices for hydrocarbons and minerals on the world markets to prohibitive levels. The Commodities Metals Index rose from 100 to 124 and the price of oil rose from $50 per barrel to $80 per barrel. Further along the value chain, the Chinese Overseas Trade Index rose from 100 to 107 and the Shanghai Composite Index rose from 3,500 to 3,579. From the Russian and Chinese perspective, the geopolitical adventure was good for business.

Russia beggared it's customers in Europe and the US. This was reflected in the falls in the stock indices over the 30 day period. The S&P 500 fell from 30,000 to 19,425; the Stoxx 600 fell from 400 to 191; and the Nikkei 225 fell from 27,750 to 17,610. This had repercussions in the bond markets and the global currency markets. The 10 Year US Treasury went from 1.00% to 0.83%, reflecting it's safe haven status; the 10 Year German Bund went from -0.50% to -0.83%, representing a loss of confidence that induced large doses of QE; whilst the 10 Year Japanese Bond went from 0.25% to 0.17%, representing a loss of faith in equities. As for currencies, the WSJ $ Index rose from 100 to 133, again highlighting the safe haven status of the US Dollar, whilst the Euro moved from €1.25 to the $  to €0.91 to the $. There was a lot of selling of Euros. From the perspective of the Allies, war in Europe was not at all good for their economies.

I think that we can draw some tentative conclusions at this point. The most obvious conclusion is that war is an expensive business, not only in human and financial terms, but also in terms of opportunities forgone. It is much better to stay out of a conflict than to rush into one. That isn't always possible and in the game the US was drawn into this conflict rather reluctantly. However, once the conflict was started, the Allies readily acted in concert and Russia acted to gain support from China, who was more than willing to provide it. This is a conclusion we have drawn from other games, to an extent that we now see this as something of a default future. Towards the end of the game, US involvement in Europe created room for a bit of Chinese adventurism in East Asia. A Chinese expeditionary force had set sail into the East China Sea, possibly towards the Senkaku Islands, possibly towards Taiwan. This is one potential continuation point for the game.

The end of the game left us in a position where the economies of the Allies needed a cessation of hostilities. The unresolved questions of Kaliningrad and Crimea had been left on the table. There was also a question over Belarus that we didn't really tease out. In terms of development, I think we can take this game in two possible directions. The first is to play out the Hedge Fund game - the final tier in the nested game system. That would be a fun thing to do. The second possibility would be to game the peace conference and throw in the thorny questions of Kaliningrad, Crimea, and Belarus. That would make a great matrix game for the future.

On the whole, I'm pleased with the progress that we have made. We are starting to generate sets of games that dovetail into each other quite well. They are generating some interesting ideas for spin-off games, and we starting to reach a wider audience. I guess that's a cue for more of the same.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

© The European Futures Observatory 2021