Risk: The Game of Systems
This analysis illustrates how historical board game mechanics can illuminate modern global dynamics, from energy politics to technological competition, while highlighting the complex interplay between centralized control and fragmented market development.
What’s Going On?
The board game Risk offers an intriguing framework for understanding contemporary geopolitical dynamics. In Risk, players compete for world domination through strategic control of continents, each offering different military advantages:
- Asia (7 armies)
- North America (5 armies)
- Europe (5 armies)
- Africa (3 armies)
- South America (2 armies)
- Australia (2 armies)
This simple game mechanic parallels current global power dynamics, particularly in how nations balance regional influence against global control.
Modern Power Dynamics
Today's U.S. administration appears to be executing a strategy reminiscent of Risk gameplay – focusing on consolidating influence in North America while strategically engaging in South America and Europe. This approach inherently counterbalances Asia's potential dominance, where BRICS nations maintain significant influence. However, historical attempts to project power into culturally distinct regions have often proved problematic.
Yet, a fascinating pattern emerges: despite international setbacks, the United States and its Five Eyes allies consistently maintain economic superiority. This resilience suggests that international interventions, while potentially costly, rarely threaten core domestic prosperity – much like a wealthy Beverly Hills resident whose unsuccessful trip to Bali doesn't meaningfully impact their standard of living.
The Energy Chess Piece
The contemporary geopolitical landscape increasingly revolves around energy resources, particularly oil. This focus echoes Cold War dynamics, where energy security played a pivotal role in international relations. Recent administrative actions, from executive orders on energy production to policy statements linking oil prices with monetary policy, underscore this strategic priority.
The New Competition
Just as the Cold War era sparked the Space Race, today's global powers compete for dominance in artificial intelligence. However, this new technological race reveals an interesting contrast in approaches:
- The Western model often emphasizes proprietary development and controlled ecosystems
- Asian markets demonstrate a more complex pattern, particularly in sectors free from central planning
- When regulatory control loosens in Asian economies, industries often fragment into smaller, independent units
This fragmentation principle manifests across various sectors, from street-level commerce to agriculture. The proliferation of independent Chinese restaurants in Western countries, rather than chain establishments, exemplifies this phenomenon.
Open Source vs. Closed Systems
The tension between centralized and decentralized models mirrors the dynamics in technology development. The success of open-source platforms like Android and Linux, alongside proprietary systems like Apple's ecosystem, demonstrates that different approaches can thrive simultaneously. This coexistence suggests that future technological and economic development may not follow a single model but rather adapt to local conditions and requirements.
The Perpetual Game of Systems
The interplay between closed and open systems creates a self-sustaining cycle in the global economy. Closed-source models, exemplified by companies like Apple, excel in capitalist markets where intellectual property and controlled ecosystems translate directly into shareholder value and market capitalization. This approach aligns perfectly with Western financial markets and their emphasis on publicly traded companies.
Meanwhile, open-source frameworks serve as a powerful enabler for China's vast manufacturing base. Just as Android's open ecosystem has allowed Chinese manufacturers to flood global markets with affordable smartphones, this model extends across various sectors of consumer electronics and beyond. The open architecture creates opportunities for rapid iteration and cost-effective production at scale, particularly benefiting manufacturers operating at the lower end of the value chain.
This dynamic tension between closed and open systems, between proprietary innovation and accessible manufacturing, keeps the global economic game in constant motion. Yet beneath this complex dance lies a starker reality: when the first shot is fired, it may devolve into a game of attrition—or, as in Risk, simply come down to who has amassed the most armies.