Vladimir

Ah, good times. Though I remember the ODN paying off all $0.5 million of the reparations surprisingly quickly. Happy birthday.

I have to agree with Delta on this one, and not just to make him feel dirty. An amoralist is someone who doesn't follow a moral code. You have to realise that this doesn't negate the possibility of them being a utility-maximising entity. So amorality is simply a lack of morals within oneself, it doesn't blind one to the role they play in others, nor to the instrumental value of playing along with them (as a purely self-interested excersise). If I am amoral (not to lend any credence to those accusations) I am still likely to honour treaties, not for the sake of honour itself, but because violating treaties would be (in most cases) against my long-term self-interest(no one would trust me). And indeed, you might find this in a great many cases, since morality develops over time for practical reasons; namely to hold a system together by internalising its norms. Similarly things like friendship have instrumental values (the value depending on what one considers their interest to be).

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='07 February 2010 - 05:19 AM' timestamp='1265519959' post='2166062'] While I don't disagree with white peace being found..what? NPO won the GPW? xfd. x.f.d. Did you also give them apologies out of the kindness of your heart? [/quote] Comrade Dilber has clarified what I meant, but... if you really wanted to get into it, [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=104&showentry=411]my position[/url] on the matter is quite well known...

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6rwiDuKfxs"]White, Discussion[/url] by Live [[url="http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/live/whitediscussion.html"]lyrics[/url]]

Every great war saw the majority of alliances exit with white peace, from the very first, the Great Patriotic War, when the evil NPO gave surrendering alliances white peace. The idea that it is a new phenomenon was an invention of Karma to justify its other actions.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='06 February 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1265497105' post='2165272'] i am still not entirely convinced that Grub knew of the preemptive strike, let alone condoned it. even if anyone else in Polar gov knew of it, Grub is still the Emperor who can override the gov. so until it is proven 100% that Grub knew of and supported the preemptive strike, then everything else does not matter. [/quote] Crymson's logs claim to prove that he did: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80162&view=findpost&p=2163314 If we accept this, and if Grub was keeping to the letter of the MK treaty, then he also notified them of the TOP/IRON attack under [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=70180&hl=6461&st=0]Article VI[/url].

If you add the blog number to the end of this link (it appears in the url when you're viewing a blog) it should send you e-mails for new entries... I think. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=blog&area=tracker&do=trackblog&blogid=

With the NpO's latest switch of sides, SuperGrievances have finally been able to open up their exit strategy to public view. With this opening we can first recognise SG's view that we have officially exited the bipolar world, which forces alliances to fight for the moral high ground (whether they are being genuine or realpolitik) and into a unipolar world, where they can take actions without great concern for damaging political repercussions -- for who is left to stand against them? Naturally the first stages of this transformation are of great interest for everyone, as they demonstrate the world that we will be moving into. Below I present just two statements from dozens that capture the essence of present: "And why should we let an alliance that aggressively and pre-emptively attacked us with no CB at all off the hook just like that? If you want surrender terms I don't think we'd be happy with any term that leaves TOP/IRON sitting with a nation above 1k tech just yet." -- Seerow [1] "They attacked me. They brought war to my alliance, and I have no reason to doubt they will do it again. Clearly lack of a just cause, or any cause at all, is not something to stand in their way. Much as I am not enthusiastic, I must take steps to defend my alliance and my allies before I can advocate peace." -- Archon [2] So what does this tell us? First, the obvious: terms are back. Of course, the word "back" implies that they ever went anywhere, when in reality this is the first war after the Karma War (which itself imposed the harshest terms ever seen). There was no idealistic break, just the continuity one would expect from power politics. Indeed, Seerow's assertion that they will push for all of TOP's nations to be below 1k technology is astonishingly harsh by any historical standard. But perhaps more interesting is the reasoning behind this, implied in Seerow's post and made explicit in Archon's: the removal of a challenger. This is the natural reaction to a war. Whether it is offensive or defensive is irrelevant, since either way the war was brought into being by a conflict of interests that each alliance desires to resolve. The intuitive way to resolve this from the victor's perspective is to physically destroy the defeated alliance's capacity to wage war, by removing technology and preventing growth for as long as possible. In this there is no change of direction from the past, which used precisely this logic. There is no consideration of 'past crimes' or any of the other justifications that were put forth in the last great war. There will be no allowing alliances to rebuild after a war on the basis that 'competition is fun' as was proposed. Rather, security will be put first and competitors cut down to remove the threat the pose. Recognising this logic and its implications, and the complete removal of Karma's normative logic from SG discourse, we can extrapolate future actions quite well, for we have seen precisely where it leads. We, the loyal readers of La Vanguardia Pacifica, on the other hand, are left still waiting for our Jam Tomorrow.

Not enough Neutral propaganda these days. [url=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/billie_joe34/Robotsiganimated3.gif]Giant Killer Robot[/url] returns. [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/billie_joe34/Innocentbot-1.gif[/img]

Seems TOP et al can't say [i]anything[/i] about the war without someone mentioning that they have a tech advantage -- as if preparing for war in a different way somehow invalidates the resulting good performance. How come you never note MK et al's consistent 50 million NS advantage when boasting about statistics?

I'm here for the hot chicks.

Thank you, Holy Ruler. Unfortunately time is short for me and the simple pleasure of intelligent debate is often the first to suffer. But I will endeavour to get around to answering the above replies eventually, especially Eamon Valda's, which makes some interesting points that demand response (and in parts agreement).

Good to see Sparta really pulling their weight and getting stuck in : http://uevil.maybe.net/testing/newcharts/ANS.html

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.

I find myself in casual agreement with Comrade Triyun who, in my experience, is never wrong about these things.

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.

This is a quick follow-up to Thesis, Antithesis: the Story of a Great War. Structure and Unit In examining our political world we must recognise two basic analytical concepts: structure and unit. The latter, unit, is where most analysts spend their time, carefully (or, more often, not so carefully) examining the characteristics and motives of individual alliances, and making predictions based on these observations. The problem with such analyses is that they typically come to see alliances as living in a vacuum, and thus come to imagine said characteristics and motives to be static properties, leaving the theories developed with zero predictive qualities. The result is what we saw during the Karma war: dreams of multipolarity -- of multiple blocs competing independently, winning and losing wars, and building back up again to challenge the others on an equal footing. The former concept, structure, examines the underlying realities of our world -- when someone mentions international anarchy, they are talking about structure. Unfortunately discussion on this rarely goes past giving it a name. Structure is what provides alliances with their incentives and disincentives: it is what broadly makes a rational action rational and an irrational action irrational. If I walk off a cliff it is only irrational because an element of the physical structure, gravity, will crash me to the ground; if instead I floated walking off a cliff would no longer be irrational. Structural analysis alone cannot tell us when or where a great war will occur (though it can track the development of bipolarity), but rather gives us a wider view as to what will occur over long periods of time. The Great War The past seven months have been a powerful demonstration of structure at work. As we emerged from the Armageddon War we could recognise a number of blocs and forces, including Complaints and Grievances, SuperFriends, Citadel, Frostbite, former 'Hegemony' and many others. Under the unit analysis we would expect each of these blocs to build up independently to pursue their own agendas, but this is not what we saw. As the months rolled on what we saw was clear antagonisms arise between certain alliances and certain blocs as they got in each others way politically and culturally. As these antagonisms developed we saw them suck in greater and greater forces, destroying any proto-multipolarity in favour of a powerful bipolarity. The reason for this is simply that it would not be rational for an alliance to pursue a 'pure' agenda (that is, its whole program) where there is one side of the conflict supporting a part of their agenda and another side supporting an agenda that would be detrimental to their own. As a consequence of this alliances sacrifice their ideal world in order to practically advance its salient elements. This is exactly the same dynamic that we see when alliances join blocs in the first place. Recognising this we can see why nearly every major alliance in the world quickly became sucked into this two-sided conflict, codifying the bipolar world that had been in development. It was only rational for alliances to join a side and fight for the world that would inevitably emerge after it, based on the culture of the victorious alliances. It follows from this polarising that any minor incident will stand the risk of becoming a great war, and so we saw two great war build-ups with similar alliances on each side in less than a month, the second after the first failed to resolve the underlying conflict (much as the 'Third Great War' followed the Second). One could also hypothesise from this that the first attempt to spark a great war via The Pheonix Federation, was a calculated provocation to draw the opposing forces out before they were fully prepared. We can also recognise the disastrous consequences of the New Polar Order's acceptance of peace, which will inevitably be seen by those on its side as a betrayal of their interests, costing them the trust that is so vital in a world of imperfect information and the resultant suspicion. From here (assuming a Complaints & Grievances victory against TOP/IRON/NSO), barring a drastic political move, they will either be forced into the arms of a world order that is contrary to their interests, or be left isolated on the wrong side of the tracks. Likewise we can see the 'two wars' theory being advanced by C&G as the 'second' war is in effect a battle against half of the interests opposed to them, allowing a divide and conquer strategy that could set them up in a powerful unipolar position for some time to come. New Regime, Old World The post-NPO world therefore has served as a slap in the face to unit analysis and a confirmation of structural analysis. We can now see for the first time that the NPO did not cause the great war structure of our world, but rather was only a unit within it, vindicating the predictions made by structural analysis. We can therefore also expect the predictions made to continue with the end of this war. If C&G and their allies emerge victorious a new unipolar world will emerge built in the image of its hegemonic bloc(s), and, over time, a new counter-hegemonic bloc will develop to challenge it before founding a new unipolar regime. We can also expect the consequences of this, as, for example, wars like Athens attacking TPF or NpO attacking \m/ no longer develop into great wars, but remain curbstomps, and the treaty web continues to proliferate.

There's an old saying: "Theory is always for someone and for some purpose." I think it's clear what the purpose of the 'two wars' theory is.

Good post. Reminds me of TWiP.

Wait, I remember this from last year. Is this the new meme; everytime you decide you don't like an alliance they get accused of disbanding CIN, \m/, Genmay, NAAC and GOONS?

The People's Front of Judea is bureaucratic centralist -- a petit-bourgeois deformation that does not, and indeed cannot, speak for the Judean class. The only real Judean organisation is the Front of the Judean People.

The Emperor's dedication to unilateral disarmament and the incentivisation of peace is an example to us all. If only others had his moral courage.

Vladimir never claimed that. People just like to say that he did because it's less effort than reading what he actually said. The concept you outline has always been a silly one.

Was it good for you? FAN really wasn't a challenger in The Initiative. Politically, Philosopher ran your foreign affairs for you; in strength you were ranked 4th at the time of the war, behind us, GPA and GOONS. FAN stated at the time that we were correct to attack; unfortunately there's no wider 'we were too awesome to live!' story here. FAN really need to move on.