Ragashingo's Blog

You have to consider a couple of things. You are looking at a very specific time period that cannot be compared directly to any other randomly chosen time period. Karma was a broad coalition, taking in numerous cultures and including many former Continuum alliances that had suddenly switched sides. Emerging from the war it was therefore inevitable that camps would be set up and either a) consolidate into a great power or b) diverge into two camps and create a great war. As was widely expected the latter happened (though it took more time than I personally had anticipated).

You are therefore looking at a period of bipolarity and comparing it to the period of unipolarity prior to the Karma-NPO conflict. This is important for the primary reason that alliances are unable to violate or remould international norms without damaging their international position, and are unable to enter a major but isolated conflict without other alliances recognising in it their vital interests and becoming engaged (eg. Athens-TPF; NpO-\m/). Similarly we can see the immediate strategic folly of dropping treaties where any alliance from your 'side' attacked weakens it vis-a-vis the other 'side' -- whereas immediate interests (aka. saving your infra) might override long-term interests (aka. credibility in the international system) in a different situation. [i'll miss out the final example, lack of diplomacy before war, because I'm not sure why you think that is a good thing.]

What will serve as the test is the regime that emerges from this war, if the victorious side is able to maintain itself and create a unipolar world where such restraints no longer apply.

Times are never as bad as people say they are. I've been here a long time, committed acts that were unjust, and have suffered injustice myself, and can look back to have enjoyed every era for its own reasons. As they say; it is what it is.

Vlad, I'm not sure why you think one can't compare and contrast one time period to another. That seems like a recipe for regulated thought. I'm also not sure why you thought it wouldn't take quite a while for a great war, considering the political pressure not to "look like a new Hegemony" that opposed maneuvers (especially early or direct/blatant maneuvers) to seize the power vacuum (either by diplomacy in the case of your A scenario or war in the case of your B scenario).

I would also suggest that remolding international norms (even at the temporary/direct cost of damaging one's international position) is in and of itself an advancement of one's international position. So yes, as you said, this is precisely the sort of situation where credibility overrides infra-hugging. I'm confused why you'd suggest this is a bad thing. [And insofar as his final example, I'd suggest it was more a "lack of backroom muggings" before war than a "lack of diplomacy," that he thought was a good thing.]

By your last comment, I take it you're of the opinion that this war should necessarily result in a coalescence of power with one side as undisputed king of the mountain? Or is it just that your political theory needs this to be the case?

{Edited for clarity.)

Perhaps I overstated my argument in parts. I do not mean to say that you cannot compare time periods at all, I am saying that you cannot point to a bipolar time period, compare it to a unipolar time period, and argue that there has been a significant change in the way the world works, because bipolar and unipolar worlds work in fundamentally different ways regardless of the alliances, norms, etc, in them. There are different pressures on alliances that demand different strategies, actions and responses.

You might be correct that I underestimated the normative pressures after the Karma War, but ultimately it is near impossible to predict when a great war will occur over a long time period -- there are too many variables. All we can be sure of is the fact that it will occur eventually.

You are correct that changing international norms can be valuable, but it is also difficult and risky to violate accepted norms, as they can cost valuable 3rd party support and lead prematurely to the great war. You find that most (if not all) great wars will start with the accusation that one side has violated norms and thus must be removed as a menace to society.

In terms of my own position, I am not (generally) making judgements as to what is good or bad, but rather discussing the structural pressures that lead to the bipolar world being different to the unipolar one. That the situation emphises to credibility over infrastructure might be good or bad, but for me it is just a fact. Similarly my expectation that a great war will usually result in the creation of a unipolar world is an historical-theoretical expectation rather than a desire on my part.

If you're interested where I am coming from: Thesis, Antithesis should explain it.

You have to consider a couple of things. You are looking at a very specific time period that cannot be compared directly to any other randomly chosen time period. Karma was a broad coalition, taking in numerous cultures and including many former Continuum alliances that had suddenly switched sides. Emerging from the war it was therefore inevitable that camps would be set up and either a) consolidate into a great power or b) diverge into two camps and create a great war. As was widely expected the latter happened (though it took more time than I personally had anticipated).

I'd say we had more than two camps, but close enough. The various camps do tend to compress back down to two when a big war occurs.

You are therefore looking at a period of bipolarity and comparing it to the period of unipolarity prior to the Karma-NPO conflict. This is important for the primary reason that alliances are unable to violate or remould international norms without damaging their international position, and are unable to enter a major but isolated conflict without other alliances recognising in it their vital interests and becoming engaged (eg. Athens-TPF; NpO-\m/).

I'm really not sure there is any real difference here between pre and post Karma War. In either case starting a minor conflict was / is dangerous.

I'll miss out the final example, lack of diplomacy before war, because I'm not sure why you think that is a good thing.

Whoa there! I didn't say anything about a lack of diplomacy and I'm not very sure that you aren't trying to twist my words here. I in fact do like diplomacy before a war. What I don't like is what alliances used to do before the Karma War. They'd pull another alliance's leaders into a back room then hound them with rapid fire questions in an effort to get them to admit something. Your own alliance was guilt of this as are others I'm sure. Often times the actual goal of these meetings had nothing to do with averting war. Rather they were aimed at getting quotes from those foreign leaders to back up a predetermined CB. Actual diplomacy is aimed at working out differences, not getting key pieces of info to inflame problems.

In this post Karma War era we see actual diplomacy save the day. Two fresh examples of this would be the Athens FoB tech raid where MK and others defended their allies diplomatically against an impending war; and the STA / Kronos debacle where diplomacy was again able to stop what almost turned into a war.

What will serve as the test is the regime that emerges from this war, if the victorious side is able to maintain itself and create a unipolar world where such restraints no longer apply.

I don't believe there is any guarantee that we will get a single regime. Only curbstomps tend to last long enough or do enough damage to remove an alliance from politics entirely. Even the Karma War which lasted longer than most was not able to knock the NPO from the top 10 alliances for instance. If it weren't for the terms of surrender the NPO would currently be a solid political player. My own alliance is not in or near the top ten and we are certainly big political players.

Further I don't believe a unipolar world is in and of itself something to fear. The poor conditions we had before the Karma War (the numerous curbstomps, widespread PZI, etc) were the direct result of the attitudes and morals of those alliances that lead the unipolar power blocs. The fact that things happened one way in the past is no indication that they will work out the same way in the future. I don't believe that either side in this current war would return to those old ways. I believe the Karma War showed everyone that the community will not

tolerate those abuses of power again.