Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

From: Martyrdom

Posted by Enamel32 , 05 November 2012 · 764 views


You're one to talk about spin when it's no secret that said cancellation was in no way political and that IRON signed off on our own treaty with Umbrella.


I'll be honest, I don't know much about the interactions there. I don't doubt that IRON signed off on that treaty, but I guess I question if IRON's opinion really mattered at all in the first place. If IRON said, no, we prefer if you didn't sign that treaty. Would things be different today? Maybe you would have waited a couple weeks before you pressured for approval again, but I doubt they'd be able to prevent the treaty from being signed. They may have just said yes to cut through the b.s..


We were aware of the Umbrella treaty and didn't have any principle objections, we didn't "sign off" on the treaty, we don't sign off on the foreign policy objectives of our allies, it's not our job to dictate their agenda. If we are on divergent paths then we will quite simply part when we come to the cross roads. IRON knows where TOP perceives itself to be in the world and vice versa, we're not concerned and neither should anyone else be :)

Source: Martyrdom

I wanted to make another post about what MCRABT is saying here. It seems there's a small conflict between what TOP and IRON are saying. TOP says IRON was fine with the Umbrella treaty, and IRON is saying they had a ~neutral opinion on the treaty. Further, MCRABT doesn't feel it's his right or responsibility to press his agenda on anyone else, which further begs the question, did you really have a neutral attitude, or did you not want to put your ally in a tough position? That's a rhetorical question, really. I don't need a bunch of TOP rage posts. I'm not here to mudsling. The true answer is probably somewhere in between, and that's OK. I realize there are many dynamics involved with these decisions/events. But I digress, I wrote this blog because I think MCRABT has highlighted an interesting difference between Sparta and IRON, and I wanted to talk about it.

MCRABT seems to imply IRON takes a highly hands off approach to diplomacy of allies and allies of allies. I'd say that's a sharp contrast to how Sparta handles diplomacy with our allies. I'd say Sparta is a pretty vocal alliance with our allies in the sense that treaty partners come to us and tell us they'd like to sign a new treaty partner. Further they ask, how does Sparta feel about that? We see this very clearly: an ally of Sparta's ally, is an ally to Sparta. We want to like our friends. We want to like the friends of our friends. If we don't like someone, we're going to let you know about it. Granted, the choice to treaty is ultimately up to the alliance in question, but the way I see it is if your ally is a liability to us, then it's our business. To have little consideration for our thoughts or opinions is a bold move to make. As such, I/We/Sparta appreciate when other alliances listen to and value our input when it comes to treaty partners. I can think of, but won't name, a few instances where this has had significant impact on Sparta, our allies, and the unaligned. Was the impact positive or negative? Well, I could argue both with myself. I would never argue that we make the right decisions all the time, but I am glad we do things the way we do.

Is Sparta's or IRON's approach better than the other? You can decide that, I suppose.




Photo
Winner12345
Nov 05 2012 01:56 PM
Is this a recruitment message? It looks like it.
Ah.......that was not at all the intent........
Photo
Winner12345
Nov 05 2012 02:01 PM

Ah.......that was not at all the intent........

Well you did good, if iw asn`t a president of the IAFG, i would Join Sparta.
Photo
Feanor Noldorin
Nov 05 2012 02:25 PM
Rage post.
Photo
Feanor Noldorin
Nov 05 2012 02:27 PM
Anyways, I've normally followed the "Spartan" approach but not every time. You have to know when to pick your battles.
Photo
Unknown Smurf
Nov 05 2012 03:02 PM

Well you did good, if iw asn`t a president of the IAFG, i would Join Sparta.


hahahahhahahhahahahahhaha

Well you did good, if iw asn`t a president of the IAFG, i would Join Sparta.

Huh?
For all your rhetoric, Sparta really can't be one to claim they've had recently successful foreign policy. Just sayin'
Outside the jab, I'm not sure what you're getting at, because the success of foreign policy is based on many, many more things beyond the case I've posted above. Besides, at no point did I claim to have a successful foreign policy.


@Feanor, That's true. A balance is key. Expecting to get your way with allies all the time is setting unrealistic expectations.
Our relationship is old, like the oldest there is at the moment in CN, and its deep and with times sometimes its v. simple, sometimes its v. complex, sometimes FA paths are aligned, sometimes they arent and we always try to figure out a way. :) Between TOP and IRON, if you look at the history, there have been times where our paths are same, and times where they aren't. Now at present, what happens between IRON and TOP remains IRON and TOP's business :).

Now about other stuff, you misunderstand the hands-off approach, We work extensively and on day-to-day basis with our allies towards our common goals. There's alot more to it then what you see, hear or read on OWF or grapewine. We've never been the ones to beat drums of our successes and making things happen. We do our stuff and people who need to know, know.

BUT, we dont tell our allies you can sign off here or you cant, they dont need our permission nor we expect to give them our permission or blessings. Do we tell them of our opinions on their decisions, hell ya. All of our allies are mature enough to know what they're doing and I dont beleive we have the right to dictate the agenda and override the goals set by the membership and govts of our allies.

Anyway, that's my personal opinion. If you need to know more about how we do things, you're always welcome to our boards and can always drop a msg to our govt members.
The TOP + IRON treaty survived them being on opposing sides in the Karma War, even if some of TOP's treaties cause them to end up on different sides in yet another war I wouldn't be surprised if the treaty doesn't get cancelled regardless.

IRON though clearly didn't sign the treaty between TOP and Umbrella, so that treaty could force TOP to choose whether they want to side with Umbrella's side in a war or IRON's side if they are on opposing sides. Even if they are on opposing sides it wouldn't surprise if the one on the winning side tries using diplomacy to get the other a better peace agreement and helps them rebuild after, but I would think they are both aware that choosing to honor some treaties in some situations will cause them to be unable to both fight on the same side.

Centarius saying IRON signed off on it in his mind likely just meant they notified IRON and IRON didn't tell them not to do it, or at least didn't oppose it to the extent the treaty between them was at risk.

If Sparta wants to consider every ally of an ally their friend, then you're likely to consider a lot of alliances allies who don't see you guys the same way. So either you cancel your treaties with anyone who signs with alliances who aren't someone you guys want to ally (or who don't want to ally you back) or you have a highly inflated sense of who you think are your allies by thinking most of the treaty web are your allies if you have a few allies connected well into the treaty web. I think the war where Umbrella dropped you guys showed where relying on allies of allies to be your allies can get you, since if they don't see you the same way and that ally considers themselves closer to their other allies you could end up in a bad situation.
Ultimately you are also over egging the difference in Foreign Affairs between the Spartan approach and the IRON approach.

We don't formally sign off on a treaty. We would of course be notified of a treaty, and we of course would offer opinions on the treaty. But at the end of the day, if someone is dead set on a treaty we may not be happy with we have two options. Protest to the relevant alliance and then work around the new treaty, or cancel with that alliance.

The only difference between that and Sparta is that Sparta (reading between the lines) has made a formal declaration to its allies that if it does not consent to their new treaty Sparta may cancel on them. Ultimately I cannot see sparta cancelling a close ally for signing with an alliance it is ambivalent towards when that ally really loves that alliance and is determined. So there could also be situations when Sparta is unhappy with a treaty but signs off on it.

The difference is very slim in terms of policy. What may come out as different is the execution. IRON has a broad coalition of friends and alliances it cares for and wants to see prosper. It is less concerned with making the treaty web look nice for a future conflict or trying desperately to consolidate a position based on were people lie in the web. Such a position might last the next war or even the next two wars. In the long term though it is not sustainable and would surely lead to ruin.

Our relationship is old, like the oldest there is at the moment in CN, and its deep and with times sometimes its v. simple, sometimes its v. complex, sometimes FA paths are aligned, sometimes they arent and we always try to figure out a way. :) Between TOP and IRON, if you look at the history, there have been times where our paths are same, and times where they aren't. Now at present, what happens between IRON and TOP remains IRON and TOP's business :).

Now about other stuff, you misunderstand the hands-off approach, We work extensively and on day-to-day basis with our allies towards our common goals. There's alot more to it then what you see, hear or read on OWF or grapewine. We've never been the ones to beat drums of our successes and making things happen. We do our stuff and people who need to know, know.

BUT, we dont tell our allies you can sign off here or you cant, they dont need our permission nor we expect to give them our permission or blessings. Do we tell them of our opinions on their decisions, hell ya. All of our allies are mature enough to know what they're doing and I dont beleive we have the right to dictate the agenda and override the goals set by the membership and govts of our allies.

Anyway, that's my personal opinion. If you need to know more about how we do things, you're always welcome to our boards and can always drop a msg to our govt members.

Thanks for the post Shahenshah, The pleasure has been all mine.

If Sparta wants to consider every ally of an ally their friend, then you're likely to consider a lot of alliances allies who don't see you guys the same way. So either you cancel your treaties with anyone who signs with alliances who aren't someone you guys want to ally (or who don't want to ally you back) or you have a highly inflated sense of who you think are your allies by thinking most of the treaty web are your allies if you have a few allies connected well into the treaty web. I think the war where Umbrella dropped you guys showed where relying on allies of allies to be your allies can get you, since if they don't see you the same way and that ally considers themselves closer to their other allies you could end up in a bad situation.

Thanks for the post methrage. I can agree with most of what you are saying, but I'd like to address the above quote. You are right. This is what Feanor's post was getting at. Sparta, or any alliance for that matter, cannot force all its' opinions on all its' allies. If we did that, it wouldn't be long before our allies told us to get lost. However, again as feanor mentioned, there's a balance. You have to know which fights to pick. You can't expect to get your way all the time. Every relationship is a two-way street. You have to respect your allies desires, and your allies have to respect your desires. When that two-way relationship begins to change to an undesired one-way relationship, that's when re-evaluation needs to occur.

Regarding Umbrella, they burned our candle at both ends long before that war imo. Umbrella always seemed to be a great ally until war came around, where they were incredibly unreliable and you couldn't count on them for anything. War after war, Umb left us disappointed.-Moreso than any ally I can recollect. Several members of Sparta were pro-cancellation even before that war, but were consistantly overruled by Royalty. At no point do I recall sparta being pro-DH (or PB), but again, 'two-way' street. At the time of signing, PB/DH posed no threat to us, so we had no real reason to express opposition. Once MK decided they wanted to take down XX/SF, there wasn't much we could do. Cancellation of the Umb treaty would ensure our rolling, and we wanted to give umb one last chance to make good with us: Umb not complying with our request to cash in our chips would destroy our relationship, and it certainly did. To specifically address your statement, I think it was largely the Umbrella-Sparta treaty that held that war off as long as it did. DH was trying to get Umbrella to cancel it before the war. Sparta was trying to get Umb to move away from DH. The war didn't start until TOP/MK ensured that Umbrella was with their coalition. Umb was the last piece of the puzzle so to speak. Umbrella had the power the change that war: We had no expectations for MK, TOP, DH or PB, but we did have expectations for our ally, umbrella. I think that's what makes that war hurt so much, because that entire war was firmly seated in Umbrellas decision making abilities and JA was too dense to capitalize on it. They chose their path and I have no sympathy for anything that happens to them now.

Great, thanks Methrage. Now you got me rage posting about Umbrella. I hope I addressed your queries thoroughly. /Enamel32 breathes into paperbag


We don't formally sign off on a treaty. We would of course be notified of a treaty, and we of course would offer opinions on the treaty. But at the end of the day, if someone is dead set on a treaty we may not be happy with we have two options. Protest to the relevant alliance and then work around the new treaty, or cancel with that alliance.

The only difference between that and Sparta is that Sparta (reading between the lines) has made a formal declaration to its allies that if it does not consent to their new treaty Sparta may cancel on them.

I'd say that's generally true. Again, relationships are a two way street, so if someone is dead set on a treaty, yeah, there may not be anything you can do about it. But that begs the question, if they are dead set on the treaty, they really aren't considering your opinion are they?

Ultimately I cannot see sparta cancelling a close ally for signing with an alliance it is ambivalent towards when that ally really loves that alliance and is determined. So there could also be situations when Sparta is unhappy with a treaty but signs off on it.

To address you're first comment, I think it depends on the level of feelings toward the alliance. Sparta has definitely considered cancelling treaties because of allies of allies. I can't think of any treaties we've actually canceled because of allies of allies, but seriously considered? For sure. I can think of one treaty in the last few months. A cancellation was even drafted, but never posted.-Last minute changes of minds.

To address the second comment, yep, there are a few allies-allies I know I could be happier about. That's for sure. *cough*MHA-Umb*cough* I'm sure there's alliances out there that could be happier to be indirectly allied to sparta too. It happens.
As you noted in the thread in question, you don't know what goes on between TOP and IRON. While I'm sure that the interactions between our two alliances have political implications for you, note that our treaty is by a large margin the longest-standing MDP in the game's history. It has lasted with meaning for a long time, and it has even survived, with very evident flying colors, us being on opposite sides of the spectrum before.

Outside the jab, I'm not sure what you're getting at, because the success of foreign policy is based on many, many more things beyond the case I've posted above. Besides, at no point did I claim to have a successful foreign policy.


Your foreign policy has been an abject failure. You got yourselves into a bloc that turned out to be slaved to the fate of two alliances (Polar and GOD) that were detested by your alliance (or at least its leadership, both middle and upper) at the time. Then, when you got yourselves into the first losing war in Sparta's history and finally had the chance to prove the Sparta's naysayers---who said that Sparta would never fight in a losing war---wrong and solidify your reputation as a quality alliance, you instead chose to prove those naysayers absolutely correct by running to peace mode en masse in highly cowardly fashion. This obliterated your alliance's reputation and credibility and played possibly the most significant part in the follow-up war that occurred this June; it was widely felt amongst the coalition from the Winter War that several alliances (most notably Sparta, but also R&R and GOD) had escaped damage during that war, and thus there was widespread support, from the alliances that made up that coalition, for another war to finish the job. That is why a coalition came together so smoothly and easily when MK began its war against CSN.

Then came that most recent war, and Sparta ran to peace mode yet again. This time, nobody was surprised. In retrospect, your best move for the long run would have been to take your licks in the Winter War, thus proving yourselves, and then rebuild your FA (the then state of affairs of which was, as noted, something that many in your alliance were not exactly happy about) in the aftermath. Instead, the cowardly approach was taken; and on top of destroying your reputation and playing a part in ensuring another war against you and your allies, you needlessly destroyed your relationships with ODN and Umbrella, two alliances that were, believe it or not, quite loyal to you, and whose friendship could have been useful to you in the postwar period.

In short, your alliance did everything wrong. Thus ends this wall of text.

@Feanor, That's true. A balance is key. Expecting to get your way with allies all the time is setting unrealistic expectations.


Sparta's approaches in both foreign affairs and military affairs over the past 51 weeks have been horrific. "Balance" is not a word that can be reasonably applied to them. More, your rhetoric on loyalty to your allies is nonsense. That Sparta was the sole alliance to hide its stats en masse in peace mode whilst its allies fought and burned proves the vacuity of your boasts.
Butthurt much are we? Did you not extort enough stats from us in the last two wars or insert other complaint?

Butthurt much are we? Did you not extort enough stats from us in the last two wars or insert other complaint?


To all I said, that is the best response you can muster? How telling...
I refuse to address your mindless frothing WoT. It surprises me you'd think I'd waste my time on such a thing.

I refuse to address your mindless frothing WoT. It surprises me you'd think I'd waste my time on such a thing.


That's a very poor cover for your true issue: that you have nothing of substance to say in rebuttal.
No, I know that I could write a scholarly article, blessed by every god ever imagined, and you'd still be butthurt about who the $%&@ knows what. Quite trolling my blog looking to stir.

No, I know that I could write a scholarly article, blessed by every god ever imagined, and you'd still be butthurt about who the $%&@ knows what. Quite trolling my blog looking to stir.


Your chosen line of retreat is not sophisticated enough to fool anyone.

November 2014

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
161718192021 22
23242526272829
30      

Recent Comments

Categories