As a boy of 14, I was very fortunate to find a hobby shop near my home that was owned by a retired PBY captain named Al Younghaus. It is where I met lifelong friends and where I first began playing wargames, a hobby I continue today. I can remember my first game, played on a blue carpet with miniature World War II ships. The game was Seekrieg.
Although I am not a military professional, there is, I think, some insight to be gained from playing these games. The best games, in my opinion, are those in which economies are integrated with the production of military units. Of course, Texas Hold’em is ultimately about probabilities — and about understanding your opponents.
Which brings us to fold equity and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In poker, fold equity is the value created by the possibility that your opponent will fold rather than call your bet. In this instance, it is a strategic metaphor. You don’t necessarily need the strongest hand if you can convince your opponent that calling is too costly or too risky. And so, Putin may believe that he does not need to be conventionally stronger than Europe. He may instead believe that the economic, political, or military costs of continuing to oppose him are higher for NATO nations than the costs of backing down. In that sense, military strength is not necessarily equivalent to strategic leverage. A player with the weaker hand can still have leverage if the other player believes that calling is too expensive. Recent infighting between the SBU and GUR, Ukraine’s top security agencies, signals internal friction to the rest of the table. They seem like “tells,” or cracks in institutional discipline — stress and political cohesion that Putin counts on. It could be seen as Ukraine having a weaker hand.
Putin often tests this relationship by raising the stakes through hybrid warfare. From frequent airspace incursions and waves of drone flights over NATO territories to sabotage campaigns targeting critical European infrastructure, these provocative moves are designed to probe the readiness, nerves, and resolve of the West. In Ukraine, Putin keeps throwing chips into the pot as soldiers, sustaining high casualties that many Western capitals would find politically unacceptable. Yet he may calculate that Russia’s historical tolerance for attrition will outlast the West’s appetite for risk. There is a great deal to be said about the war in Ukraine, but there are other players at the table. Briefly, Putin seems to use Iran as a side bet that forces NATO to split its chip stack in effect.
Germany is expected to lose or reduce a great many industrial jobs, particularly in the auto industry, in the near future. Combined with the influx of immigrants into Germany, what can be projected for its economy? Although many workers might retire, there are still likely to be a number of skilled workers and engineers looking for work in an environment that may be flooded with unskilled workers. This seems a recipe for increased unrest, not unlike what has already been demonstrated across Western Europe.
Great Britain’s economy seems to be foundering at sea amid an influx of refugees over the years. While the influx of refugees is possibly a positive factor economically, it may not be as far as societal cohesion is concerned. This also seems to be the case in France. So, we are speaking of an environmental calculus that includes each country’s current and future projected position. What can it actually put on the table today? Its economic capacity, or the chips that it holds. How quickly could it expand that capability? Its industrial capacity. Can it produce the weapons, ammunition, ships, aircraft, etc.? Is Britain’s current debate over defense spending and military preparedness seen as an invitation to exploitation?
In terms of demographics, does each country have the people (willing people) to sustain the effort? Does each country have the political and social cohesion needed for its population to accept the costs?
THE SO-CALLED ‘ISLAMIC NATO’ IS AMERICA’S SECRET LEVERAGE AGAINST CHINA
Ultimately, this comes down to strategic willingness.
Does Europe actually have the will to call Putin’s bet, or will internal fractures, economic fatigue, and fear of escalation cause the alliance to blink? There are yet many cards to be played, revealed if you will. After four years of war, we may have seen the “flop” but not the “river”. How long the conflict can go on is unknown, but it has been suggested that it could be resolved as an agreement of territorial concessions for peace. Perhaps it would be a territorial win for Putin, pyrrhic it may be, and a strategic win for Ukraine, having survived an existential threat. But for today, Putin seems to be betting that NATO’s hand will waver, leaving Europe and the United States with a choice of whether to fold, stay, or go all-in.
Andrew Moore is a small-business owner and author of the Primus Aeternus series.