NATO enlargement and Russian annexation of Crimea marked crucial turning points. According to one narrative, the Russian occupation was part of a plan to re-establish dominion over Eastern Europe. According to a rival view, it was an attempt to counter a U.S. plan to subjugate Russia. I scrutinize the logical requirements of those narratives in a multi-stage game of incomplete information that produces equilibrium play such that first NATO is enlarged and then Russia attacks Ukraine. The two competing narratives correspond to two different separating equilibria. Conditions for their existence inform about the consistency and plausibility of the associated narratives.
