Like my grandfather, who saw the world as a geo-political chess game, so Putin calculates every move with cold composure - Not as a madman, but as a rational player in a chaotic system.

In September 2025, while the war in Ukraine continues for more than three years, Vladimir Putin continues to dictate the geo-strategic course in Europe.

Russia's and Putin's behavior is rational, and Putin is not mad -He is a rational player in an irrational system, and his decisions are not random, but the result of strategic calculation, even if they appear destructive from Western perspective. He operates from a deep understanding of the internal and external power structure, using tools of diversion, deterrence, and narrative control.

Simulations show probabilities of ~59% for de-escalation and ~36% for stalemate, and together a probability of ~95% that will leave Russia and Putin with significant geo-strategic achievements, effectively heralding a Russian strategic victory (even after deducting 10% for internal collapse, still 85% probability for Russian strategic victory).

Want to comment? We're waiting for you on X

As readers, do not see Putin as mad - Understand his rationality in order to influence policy.

🔍The Analysis: Motives and Strategies

Beyond the geo-strategic context, let's analyze the rationality through theoretical lenses.

Putin's conduct, which appears from the outside as aggressive and irrational, is actually the product of cold and calculated computations, driven by considerations of political survival, national security, and global influence. As one who views the eastward expansion of NATO as an existential threat, Putin uses military, diplomatic, and hybrid tools to recreate the "Russian world" and undermine Western unity. This analysis, based on political science theories and game theory, reveals how his actions reflect rational logic, even if dangerous.

🧭 The Geo-Strategic Context

Putin operates from a historical and ideological perception whose goal is to restore Russia to the status of a world superpower, while rejecting the eastward expansion of NATO. Ukraine is perceived as a strategic buffer zone, and its possible accession to NATO is a "red line" from the Kremlin's perspective [1].

The Dangers from Russia's Perspective:

* Loss of influence on Eastern European countries.
* Western military presence on its borders.
* De-legitimization of Russian policy in the international arena.

Putin's Moves:

* Use of military force in Ukraine to prevent its accession to NATO.
* Nuclear threats to deter the West from direct intervention [2].
* Proposals for compromises aimed at consolidating territorial gains and preventing Western presence in Ukraine [3].

📈 Rational Analysis of Russian Behavior

Putin acts according to rational choice theory: he weighs benefits (geo-political influence, territorial control, internal power preservation) against costs (sanctions, international isolation, military risk). According to Nash equilibrium, even if all parties would prefer peace, mutual distrust leads to stalemate or escalation.

A simulation in this context finds that:

 In the prisoner's dilemma, as described in Nash's game theory, Putin and NATO are 'trapped' in distrust - example: if NATO intervenes, Russia escalates; if not, Putin wins territory.

Putin acts in accordance with the 'Rational Choice Theory', in which political actors maximize personal and state utility while calculating costs and benefits. From his perspective, the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was a calculated step to protect historical buffer zones, prevent its accession to NATO, and weaken US influence in Europe. Today, with slow progress in eastern Ukraine (about 160 km² captured in August-September 2025, a 34% decrease compared to the previous period), he continues a gradual approach, using large manpower (including recruits from North Korea) and missiles with Western components, despite sanctions. This reflects 'Nash equilibrium' from game theory: Russia cannot withdraw without loss of face, and NATO cannot intervene directly for fear of nuclear escalation, creating a "prisoner's dilemma" where non-cooperation is the optimal outcome for each side [1].

Against neighboring NATO countries like Poland and Romania, Putin has shifted to hybrid provocations, such as Russian drones entering Polish territory on September 10, 2025, leading to interceptions and airport closures. These incidents, alongside the joint Zapad-2025 exercises with Belarus (which began on September 12th), are intended to test NATO unity without activating Article 5[3]. Here comes the 'diversionary theory': Putin uses the conflict to divert attention from internal Russian problems like a shaky economy and protests, while creating a "rally round the flag" effect that strengthens public support. In addition, according to the 'selectorate theory' (Logic of Political Survival), he maintains his power through rewarding a "selectorate" - a minimal coalition of oligarchs, military, and loyalists – by framing the war as an existential threat.

On the economic-political level, Putin builds 'minimal winning coalition' with partners like Iran, North Korea, and China, to bypass sanctions (which the European Union recently extended) and turn Russia into a central player in a multipolar world order [4]. Network analysis shows that Russia is a central node (with high centrality index), and Monte Carlo simulations point to high probability (59%) for de-escalation if economic pressure increases, but low (5%) for direct escalation.

🧩 Conclusions: Russian Rationality, Risks and Opportunities

So what does all this mean?

The main conclusion is that Putin will not give up easily: he sees the war as an opportunity to weaken NATO from within, as evidenced by Zelenskyy's calls for strengthening sanctions and American pressure (like Trump's letter to NATO on September 13 to stop purchasing Russian oil) [5]. However, if the West increases pressure (such as through NATO's "Eastern Sentry" initiative), a new equilibrium may lead to peace talks – but only if Putin sees personal benefit in it. The big risk is hybrid escalation (36% probability), which will undermine European stability.

🧠 Is the Behavior Rational?

Yes, the behavior of Russia and Putin is rational and Putin is not mad - he is a rational player in an irrational system, but his rationality is context-dependent.

Putin acts according to political survival logic (selectorate theory), maintaining a minimal loyal coalition, and exploiting the public agenda (Agenda Control) to frame the war as defense of Russia. His decisions are not random or impulsive, but the result of strategic calculation, even if they appear destructive from the Western angle. He operates from a deep understanding of internal and external power structure, using tools of diversion, deterrence, and narrative control. According to Rational Choice Theory and game theory, his actions are based on cost-benefit calculations: he maximizes geo-strategic influence while minimizing internal risks, even if it involves risky gambles. The error is not in rationality, but in estimating the Western response - proving that rationality does not guarantee success.

To change his behavior, the structure of incentives must be changed: increase the cost of escalation, offer tangible benefits for peace, and undermine the internal cohesion of the ruling coalition.

Because in practice the simulations show probabilities of ~59% for de-escalation and ~36% for stalemate and together a probability of ~95% that will leave Russia and Putin with significant geo-strategic achievements and effectively heralding a Russian strategic victory (even after deducting 10% for internal collapse, still 85% probability for Russian strategic victory).

As readers, do not see Putin as mad - understand his rationality in order to influence policy.

Want to comment? We're waiting for you on X

 For a more in depth analysis and theory - Please see Hebrew bersion.