Executive Summary
This paper introduces state-preserving actions into the graph model for conflict resolution, distinguishing them from physical moves and inaction. It analyzes how these actions, such as military exercises or leaks, change decision-makers' perceptions of capabilities and intentions without altering the physical state. The framework explores how different interpretations of evidence can enable provocation or deterrence in conflicts.
Why It Matters
This research provides a formal model for understanding how non-physical actions, like information operations or military signaling, influence perceptions and strategic stability in conflicts.
Key Takeaways
- State-preserving actions, such as military exercises or strategic leaks, alter decision-makers' beliefs about capabilities and intentions without changing the physical state of a conflict.
Source evidence · PDF page 2
Many actions in real conflicts leave the combination of options unchanged and still matter: a declaration that a sanction is ready, a military exercise, a leak suggesting that a threat is empty, a private signal to one party but not another, a deceptive signal about future capability or intention. What such an action changes is not the state of the conflict but what other DMs believe about which moves are available and which moves the others would want to make.
- The model distinguishes between capability assessments (affecting perceived moves and sanctioning paths) and intention assessments (affecting only the credibility of opponents' moves), showing they impact different stability concepts.
Source evidence · PDF page 9
Assessments of capability determine which moves exist in the perceived model. Through the focal DM’s own options they affect its improvements and hence every concept, Nash stability included; through the opponents’ options they affect the sanctioning paths and hence every sanction-based concept, but not Nash stability. Assessments of intention determine only which of the opponents’ moves count as credible, and affect only SEQ.
- Actions can be classified as 'provocation-enabling' (making a stable state unstable for an opponent) or 'deterrence-enabling' (making an unstable state stable), depending on how they manipulate perceptions.
Source evidence · PDF page 10
A provocation-enabling action turns a state that i judges stable into one it judges unstable, where at least one of i’s improvements is welcome to k; whether i takes that improvement is not asserted. A deterrence-enabling action turns a state that i judges unstable into one it judges stable, where k prefers the state to every improvement i was contemplating.
Strategic Relevance
This paper offers a theoretical framework for analyzing the strategic impact of non-kinetic actions and information warfare in geopolitical conflicts, providing insights into how perceptions are shaped and how deterrence or provocation can be achieved without direct military engagement.