Jump to content

Sovereignty


Unknown Smurf

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1357458764' post='3071967']
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]The treaty was signed during and with full knowledge of the ongoing, albeit one-sided, negotiations between us and the Mongols at the time. At first, Kaskus said that they had actually signed it before the incident between the Mongols and GOONS occurred, but they just hadn't posted it yet. Then they admitted it was done during the GOONS-Mongols negotiations when Bitburg asked them for help. Are you really going to try to rewrite history again? It was interventionism on the part of Kaskus plain and simple. It is true that we were asking for an amount that was higher than the aid sent to one of our targets because there were multiple packages of aid from the Mongols involved. The Mongols refused to negotiate or even pay any reparations at all - they wanted to fight instead of coming to a peaceful solution. Kaskus, just like now, also made zero attempts to engage us in a meaningful dialogue once they became involved.[/font][/color]

And just like now, that was a prime example of Kaskus throwing out the play book over something so mundane and routine that it should not lead to war and then doing everything possible to make sure that it comes to war. Signing the MDoAP was a lame, half-assed and all too transparent attempt at justification for intervening in an ongoing event that would have been resolved peacefully, then taking that simple situation to the brink and beyond for no reason (like your faux morals and principles used then and now) at the expense of your alliance. If Kaskus knew how to conduct diplomacy instead of taking every situation to the extreme, you guys would have done extraordinarily well for yourselves instead of becoming a crater two times in the last year.
[/quote]

I have a dream. A dream where alliances have the right to choose which path to take. They are not bound by social norms and forced to accept terms that they do believe to be fair.

A world where alliances are not judged by choosing to go to war just because the potential damage can be avoided by paying a few million; where nations are not bullied by better connected alliances or alliances with more NS. A world where wars do not need to be all or nothing; with the blessing of most alliances to be involved.

I have tried to work to make strides to that end. In the legion-tetris war and in this current war we see that the entire treaty web must not be activated; and again in this war. But now it hangs on you, alliance leaders. There is no spark to activity like war; save your alliance; save the realm; declare war.

So what are you waiting for? Coalitions are not necessary. If you dislike an alliance, attack. If there is an issue; stand your ground. Do not cower behind false pretenses of diplomacy.

Descend into anarchy.

There is no reason you cannot sign a MDP+ on the brink of war in order to defend your friends despite not having a treaty before. There is no reason you cannot [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Moldavi_Doctrine_(New_Sith_Order)"]moldavi[/url] in when you think an alliance is in the wrong but outguns the target. Might should not make right.

tl;dr Declare war, if you want to. Otherwise its boring except for a select few.

Edited by Unknown Smurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a whole galaxy of issues that alliances consider their sovereign rights, this is why there are wars in the first place, when those sovereign rights collide.

The other issue is how much risk to the alliance is there in pursuing those rights, and how much of that risk are they willing to take to pursue them. This isn't merely an issue of power, powerful alliances may not be willing to risk a war even with a much smaller alliance simply to pursue an issue they don't really care much about, while a smaller alliance like Kaskus may be willing to pursue any and all of their sovereign rights regardless of the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On always has the right to do whatever they want, as long as they dont give a flying $%&@ as regards the ramifications.

[quote name='Boogeyman657' timestamp='1357596950' post='3072549']
No one ever listens.. THEY BALLZ AIN'T BIG ENUFF
[/quote]
[img]http://www.physics.smu.edu/~scalise/apparatus/caliper/caliper.gif[/img]
Here, use these to make sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Gloin' timestamp='1357663215' post='3072854']
Maybe it's just me, but I thought CN was a game of politics. If we all just attacked whoever the hell we want would that not defeat the purpose of politics?
[/quote]

To a certain extent but with the damage that comes with war it is hard for an alliance to just go and declare war on anyone all the time. Alliances like that would be quickly stomped out or too war weary to continue.

They would have to only declare on alliances that have actually aggravated them imo. My issue is that even when alliances are aggravated by others they don't seem to want to stick up for themselves, and in this case, or whenever an alliance actually does, said alliance is condemned for not following the normal diplomatic way of doing things. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1357675375' post='3072906']
There's precedence for signing in the middle of a war as it is. Fark-MK treaty I believe during their war with Goons 1.0
[/quote]
Fark LUE, not MK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1357667743' post='3072874']
To a certain extent but with the damage that comes with war it is hard for an alliance to just go and declare war on anyone all the time. Alliances like that would be quickly stomped out or too war weary to continue.

They would have to only declare on alliances that have actually aggravated them imo. My issue is that even when alliances are aggravated by others they don't seem to want to stick up for themselves, and in this case, or whenever an alliance actually does, said alliance is condemned for not following the normal diplomatic way of doing things. Why?
[/quote]

When you venture outside of political norm and precedence without tact or discretion: People will condemn your alliance for being foolhardy.

If Kaskus has wanted war with someone who truly aggravated them, why did they pick NSO? An alliance you had little to no contact with. "You" referring to Kaskus.

This entire war was a poor spin attempt by Kaskus government to try to cover their own inadequacies in negotiating and dealing with other alliances. As has often been the case for your poor excuse of an alliance. If anything, I'd label you a collection of rogues more than an actual political body of nations brought together for common purpose (an alliance).


I commend you for your efforts at differentiating yourselves from the status quo of this game, but you've gone to the point where you simply look foolish. No forums (until recently), ignoring negotiations and overtures from other alliance heads, and essentially sacrificing your nations every few months by challenging larger opponents into wars you can't win (statistically speaking). You can counter this all day long with a few examples of "NSO being aidbombed" or "NSO getting beat bad in X tier", but the fact remains that my alliance is close to 3 million in nation strength and your alliance is being ground into dust (again).

Do you know why alliances don't randomly declare on alliances that "aggravate" them? It's because of their target's allies. The[b] numbers[/b] arrayed against them prevent it from becoming an effective war and aggression alone just sadly isn't a good enough Casus Belli for their own allies to back yet, though these days it seems like it's coming pretty damn close to becoming one.

The treaty web prevents your dream from happening Smurf. Unfortunately wars cannot be fought by major alliances on anything but a global scale these days without a curb-stomp occurring. Which happens even in global scale wars sadly. Any smaller war would indeed become one where the alliance's strength, and thus effective capacity to carry out it's goals, is crippled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tiber Septim' timestamp='1357696015' post='3072997']
(stuff)
[/quote]

Your analysis is half right, and to be quite honest almost word for word what I told <r> quite a few months back now, in explaining why I would not link my own alliance too closely with theirs.

They are reckless. They dont dot all their i's and cross all their t's. This has hurt them before and it will doubtless hurt them again. And defending US will probably be their worst mistake so far.

That said, these guys have more guts in their pinky fingers than most of y'all have period. NSO has a legitimate beef with them and I hope that works out to the satisfaction of all involved. But if you dream of crushing and humiliating them for this, your dreams are likely to remain dreams only. These guys can take a beating but I dont think they crush very well at all. I like you both and for both your sakes I would suggest a diplomatic compromise. In the unlikely event that your own diplomatic resources are stymied I would be more than happy to try to mediate myself, if requested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: Just want to preface this with: Thank you for answering without flamebaiting/trolling. I'm glad we can have a civil discussion about this and I hope it continues this way.

[quote name='Tiber Septim' timestamp='1357696015' post='3072997']
When you venture outside of political norm and precedence without tact or discretion: People will condemn your alliance for being foolhardy.

If Kaskus has wanted war with someone who truly aggravated them, why did they pick NSO? An alliance you had little to no contact with. "You" referring to Kaskus.[/quote]

I don't believe Kaskus "picked" NSO. Kaskus was gearing up for another war when the NSO situation happened. Prior to the war starting there were multiple instances of Kaskus govt+members saying that they will go to war with NSO if it comes to that but it is not their ideal target.

[quote]This entire war was a poor spin attempt by Kaskus government to try to cover their own inadequacies in negotiating and dealing with other alliances. As has often been the case for your poor excuse of an alliance. If anything, I'd label you a collection of rogues more than an actual political body of nations brought together for common purpose (an alliance).[/quote]

I think it was more of blunders up front that were then attempted to be (for lack of a better word) repented for rather than a spin attempt from the beginning. Though I don't see the point of arguing this as its a matter of opinion.

As for the 'collection of rogues' we do have a stated trium + ministers government. I think that is what separates us from "rogues."

[quote]I commend you for your efforts at differentiating yourselves from the status quo of this game, but you've gone to the point where you simply look foolish. No forums (until recently), ignoring negotiations and overtures from other alliance heads,[/quote]

Thank you. I will be the first to admit things have not gone ideal; but things rarely do in the first year of an alliance, especially one as loud as Kaskus :P

[quote]and essentially sacrificing your nations every few months by challenging larger opponents into wars you can't win (statistically speaking). You can counter this all day long with a few examples of "NSO being aidbombed" or "NSO getting beat bad in X tier", but the fact remains that my alliance is close
to 3 million in nation strength and your alliance is being ground into dust (again).[/quote]

Challenging larger opponents? Well GOONS declared on a MDoAP ally (which was annouced during negotiations but signed beforehand -- again not worth arguing this because its neither here nor there) and the other time they chose to defend a member (who may or may not have been worthy of defending; we really don't need another thread arguing this).

I guess my point is that Kaskus hasn't exactly gone looking for fights; but they/we have not shied away from them. Or at least that was the intention we were trying to go for. Going back to the OP; is there something wrong with that?

[quote]Do you know why alliances don't randomly declare on alliances that "aggravate" them? It's because of their target's allies. The[b] numbers[/b] arrayed against them prevent it from becoming an effective war and aggression alone just sadly isn't a good enough Casus Belli for their own allies to back yet, though these days it seems like it's coming pretty damn close to becoming one.[/quote]

Well thats the issue. The world would be much better if you didn't know exactly how strong either alliance was or even how strong individual nations are. People would actually go to war for what they believed in rather than if they had the upper hand or not.

[quote]The treaty web prevents your dream from happening Smurf. Unfortunately wars cannot be fought by major alliances on anything but a global scale these days without a curb-stomp occurring. Which happens even in global scale wars sadly. Any smaller war would indeed become one where the alliance's strength, and thus effective capacity to carry out it's goals, is crippled.[/quote]

Well aside from some notable examples in the last year (Legion/tetris, GOONS/Kaskus, NSO/Kaskus) I tend to agree with you. But as those examples shown we don't have to keep doing it that way; or at least I wish we didn't.

Edited by Unknown Smurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Helbrecht' timestamp='1357617745' post='3072658']
On always has the right to do whatever they want, as long as they dont give a flying $%&@ as regards the ramifications.


[img]http://www.physics.smu.edu/~scalise/apparatus/caliper/caliper.gif[/img]
Here, use these to make sure.
[/quote]

Does that cover micrometers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1357718554' post='3073157']
Your analysis is half right, and to be quite honest almost word for word what I told <r> quite a few months back now, in explaining why I would not link my own alliance too closely with theirs.

They are reckless. They dont dot all their i's and cross all their t's. This has hurt them before and it will doubtless hurt them again. And defending US will probably be their worst mistake so far.

That said, these guys have more guts in their pinky fingers than most of y'all have period. NSO has a legitimate beef with them and I hope that works out to the satisfaction of all involved. But if you dream of crushing and humiliating them for this, your dreams are likely to remain dreams only. These guys can take a beating but I dont think they crush very well at all. I like you both and for both your sakes I would suggest a diplomatic compromise. In the unlikely event that your own diplomatic resources are stymied I would be more than happy to try to mediate myself, if requested.
[/quote]

Skipping over all lines of propaganda and towing party lines etc: This war will end in some kind of diplomatic compromise. I don't see Kaskus surrendering, hell I see Kaskus as an alliance with a similar attitude to war as the Order.

Also I appreciate the offer to mediate but I think the issue at the moment is that no one has even gone to the negotiating table yet. We're quite enjoying our wars. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1357718559' post='3073158']
-snip-
[/quote]

I just wanted to throw this out here: Kaskus' behavior towards the Order in this war reminded me of our behavior towards Legion in the build up to Legion/Tetris. Purposefully antagonistic, stubborn, and difficult. I wasn't saying you should shy away from war, but for the future sake of your alliance: Perhaps diplomatic discourse wouldn't hurt either.

But as I said in the post above: Your alliance's attitude towards war is after my own heart (and the rest of NSO for that matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tiber Septim' timestamp='1357787920' post='3073549']
Also I appreciate the offer to mediate but I think the issue at the moment is that no one has even gone to the negotiating table yet. We're quite enjoying our wars. :P
[/quote]

Oh indeed. The window for diplomacy closed when the first war was declared, and it wont open up again for a bit, until enough people get tired of the war to start thinking about the next step. Given the combatants involved I would be shocked if anyone had reached that point this quickly.

But it will come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...