A Political Analysis of Planet Bob

[Derantol]

First off, want to say good essay, even if I disagree in a lot of places.

Now, as for there only being 2 sides, with undecided's in the middle: You are forgetting NpO. They definitely have enough political pull to form a "side" relatively quickly.

Also, this couldn't be the first Cold War, it would at least be the second (NPO vs CoaLUEtion) or third (if you count NPO vs AEGIS as well), and possibly the fourth (Time between GWIII and UJW).

I would argue that CoaLUEtion and AEGIS would be part of the same cold war. I'd also argue that the time between GWIII and UJW was hardly a cold war, since the sides weren't set in stone (as I recall) until the later part of summer; more of the build-up to that particular conflict was figuring out who would go where when the time came.

I would agree that NpO is essentially a "dormant" pole, if you will - a pole that could, should the need arise, pull a considerable amount of power to it relatively quickly. However, as the world stands, there are certainly two sides that have formed, largely along the party lines of the Karma war.

The alliances that declared on TPF arguably form the core of one side. I would definitely argue against using any sort of comparison to the Karma war beyond the fact that the sides happen to line up, though; if the purpose is only to avoid the inevitable five pages of argument over whether or not Karma is alive or dead, or planned versus convenient, that purpose is definitely enough, as it allows the regular discussion to resume much more quickly. SuperGrievances/SuperComplaints is one alternative that I see fairly widely used, but since I see lots of people stating that each bloc has separate agendas, I think it may be prudent to avoid that one as well. Unfortunately, I'm lost as far as a name goes; I'll leave that up to the poll-makers to push.

Remnants is probably a good name for the other side, since most of the alliances on that side are ex-Heg core or periphery alliances. Even the Citadel alliances that leaned towards remnants were part of the Q system for quite some time. Many alliances on this side operate under the assumption that their slates are not clean in the eyes of some other alliances, even in a post-Karma world. Take Valhalla and STA, for instance. Whether or not each side truly dislikes or hates the other, there have been post-karma tensions based around the belief that things have not been settled (I think there has been, anyway). TPF, as well, now has GREAT reason to expect another attack, given the controversy of the last CB, and TPF's polarized nature - people like them or hate them, in MANY cases. Are these alliances justified in anticipating conflict? Being a member of this side, I think so, but that's a subject up for debate elsewhere. Regardless, the Remnants are all looking at the same general group of people, and as such, have nothing to lose by banding together and maintaining good connections. Finally, while many alliances may fit the description of "Remnant" alliances, not all are part of the core; TOP bowed out of Q relatively late, comparatively to some other alliances, which would make them a remnant of the Hegemony. However, TOP doesn't appear to have been the primary target of this war (tin foil hats put aside, the point of this war, if nothing else, was to weaken TPF, and potentially TPF's direct allies), and their agenda is more than likely a bit different than the average Remnant alliance.

The swing alliances you talk about are simply the alliances that are not part of the core of either side, and will potentially swing one way or the other in a future conflict. That is, of course, assuming the sides are the same, or similar, in the next war. This war, it appears that more of the swing sided with the Remnants. Next time, it could be the opposite. If you were to attempt to define Karma with poles of power and swing alliances, the swing alliances sided with Karma core alliances, while the Hegemony core (One Vision and Continuum, plus purple) had the short end of the swing stick.

In any case, I also thought the essay was well thought out. Good show!

[Lincongrad]

I'd say pre-GWII was the first cold war on Planet Bob.

[Vladimir]

This illustrates the dynamics of the new world. The Splinters and Remnants appear fairly close in power and strength. But, Planet Bob is NOT a bipolar world! The Bystanders exist as a third wheel, able to swing the balance of power in any direction. The Bystanders themselves do not compose a side, as they are too fragmented. However, they exist inbetween the two sides; a considerable amount of unaligned firepower, enough to compose a third "side" if they had a common goal (which they do not).

This has always been the case, stretching right back to the GPW, when dozens of small alliances were fought over, along with some larger ones -- Legion, ODN, NAAC. The same is true of every subsequent Great War, with the only difference being that over time the number of alliances has grown, and thus so has the number of 'bystander' alliances (as well as the number of alliances in each pole). This is far from a new phenomenon, and thus if you use it to justify something today, the same must be said of all of history.

The proof of this is in the fact that in the first, second/third, fourth and fifth great wars (aka. all of them), one of the coalitions (sometimes the status quo, sometimes the challenger) has ostensibly come into existence (ie. been named and given form) purely for the purpose of the battle. Indeed, the point has never been that the world exists perpetually with two solid poles, but rather that over time a challenger pole develops, sucking in more and more of the bystanders until such a time as it can move to overthrow the status quo, causing great war event. When this begins to break out any superficial semblance of multi-polarity is immediately destroyed as each proto-pole begins to battle for every inch of advantage they can get.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Vladimir

[Haflinger]

Honestly, it's the only theoretical merge between two currently prominent blocs that would have a chance at being successful. Of course it will never happen if only because no one involved wants to create a new Continuum.

A much better comparison would be to WUT. Continuum was designed as a defensive bloc; it never really worked all that well launching wars.

WUT even had the two internal blocs, albeit at the end of its existence.

[Prime minister Johns]

I agree there are clearly two camps, there are Karma and Remnant alliances that are clearly hostile to each other.

And if the issues that exist between them are not resolved diplomatically there will be another global war.

[Learz]

First, I'd like to make 2 points before I dig into the replies:

1) As a member of government, I am often privy to information that does not get into the open. I had to cut and slash a fair amount out of the OP due to OPSEC reasons. As such, when something appears inaccurate or biased, it may be because I know some things that other do not. I hope to clarify some things as I respond to people.

2) I tried to keep alliance/bloc names out of the piece. However, I'll probably start using them below. Please be aware that my opinions and thoughts of them are entirely my own.

The one problem with your hypothesis is that, unlike a real cold war where there are actual lives/national treasure at stake. With out these, it gives the Nations/Alliances the freedom to take risks, openly fight, and act more irrationally than any actor in the OCC world could.

All too true. That's why I added a "trigger-happy/bored" caveat onto the end of the piece

-snip

While there were multiple blocs and power centers, they did form two general sides. This was due to either having the same goals, or having treaty connections/friends, with one side. The real question is how many joined a side due to convenience, and are now possibly going to leave that "side".

Not quite a bi-polar world yet, Polar's bloc may have fallen apart but they still have more then enough political pull to act as a third wheel to the two main groupings.

Frostbite was not a major power center. Sure, they had power and connections and treaties. But they were in the middle, so to speak, and would have had conflicting treaties between the two sides. Additionally, FB was very weak in overall terms of strength. If you took simply the cores of Remnants or Splinters, they held exponentially more nation strength and military power then FB.

As to Polar specifically, I'll get to that below.

The only analysis i didn't agree was that this is the first coldwar as there have been some before it.

Ah ha. As others have pointed out, this is indeed correct. I blame the fact that I wasn't around then

Good analysis, however, I also see that alliances of what you termed "the Remanents" and "the Splinters" are also becoming "Bystanders". Of course, most of those were already rather neutral alliances in the first place (in terms of political power). This will perhaps create more centres of power than we could expect, or, they could just converge into the pre-existing powers of Planet Bob come treaty activating time.

It's interesting. The way I see things, there are two opposing mindsets. Unless someone were to forge a new mindset, new goal, new objective, nearly everyone will fold into the first 2 sides.

Also, there are neutral alliances that may be splitting from the two sides and merging/re-merging into the Bystanders. I would classify these as "weak-Remnants" or "weak-Splinters".

I would suggest this is a very very superficial overview at best.

Some people are just never satisfied.

Kidding!

But yes, I tried to keep the length down. This piece had very narrow, specific goals, so I did not need to add much.

I think it's a little too simplistic to essentially label one side "neo Hegemony" and one side "neo Karma". I know you didn't use those terms, but that's basically what you said. I agree that the two sides are split largely along Karma War lines, but not entirely so. For example, a large portion (at least) of Citadel seemed to be leaning towards CC. This group was one of the central factions of Karma, so I don't think you can really label them as "bystanders" who have simply moved closer to the Remnants (which is an awesome name by the way... Best one I've seen for the ex-Hegemony crowd). Karma War affiliations aside, Citadel/allies are much more than a peripheral swing group who have leaned towards the Remnants. The Citadel-and-allies crowd, even if not all of them had fought, would have formed a large percentge of CC's NS and nukes. So I think viewing the "CC side" of the web as primarily being the Remnants, with the Citadel group as a mere peripheral faction, is erroneous.

Citidel is interesting. I would certainly label them as Bystanders who are now allied with Remnants, although that is changing. I'd rather not say anymore on that Suffice to say, Citidel has enough power to form their own side, but they won't.

Instead, I see that side of the web as primarily being a fusion of two groups: The Remnants (of the former Hegemony coalition) and the Moderates (of the former Karma coalition). The Moderates (Citadel and allies) fought for Karma, but had (as a group) been close to NPO in the past, and were mostly in favor of lighter punishments for the Hegemony. They tended to be less fanatical about the conflict. I see the "SG side" of the web as being primarily made up of the Stalwarts (of the former Karma coalition). The Stalwarts fought for Karma, had been lightly tied (in the case of SF/allies) or opposed (in the case of CnG/allies) to NPO in the past, and were mostly in favor of stronger punishments for the Hegemony (though this was certainly not always the case). In general, they saw their struggle as a war of good overthrowing evil, and were much more dedicated to and fanatical about their cause.

Interesting thought. I define Bystanders as including those who have fought on both sides (in this case, Citidel). It is possible to call them Moderates/ex-Karma (weak Splinters), but I feel that is incorrect. They have fought on both sides, so you could just as easily call them ex-Hegemony Moderates who happened to be allied with Karma that time.

I also dissent with your opinion that the world has not become bipolar again, but I think the disagreement here is one of terminology. What exactly is a "pole"? Is it any group, however nebulous, with a large amount of strength? Or is it a clearly-defined "side" that is politically and/or militarily struggling with another side or sides for power? I tend to lean towards the latter definition, and I think it's the most commonly accepted one. For that reason, I don't view the swing groups as a pole of their own, and thus I view the world as bipolar.

Your definition (the second one) is correct. However, the first definition is also correct, IMO. In terms of firepower, there are loosely 3 main centers, possibly more. In terms of political ideologies, there are 2 main centers, with the possibility of more occurring.

I think that Bob has a tripolar/multipolar world that will shift (is shifting) into a bipolar world as the Remnants and Splinters seek to grow and gain more alliances under their control.

[Learz]

Now, as for there only being 2 sides, with undecided's in the middle: You are forgetting NpO. They definitely have enough political pull to form a "side" relatively quickly.

(The trick is to say something without saying anything ).

Can NpO form its own side? Yes.

Will NpO form its own side? No.

The reasons are many and complicated, which I won't get into here.

Karma was a marriage of convenience. Sure, it contained C&G and SF- but only because they were unified against the NPO. To say they control the current political climate is simply not true. If RoK didn't accuse TPF of spying on it during the last 'almost' war- C&G would have stood alone. Citadel, C&G, NpO, Ex-Hege and SF will be on the same side as one and other if it happens that the treaty web falls that way. There is no 'supergrievances.' No side has control over the whole of planet Bob.

I'm not saying SF/C&G are permanently allied and in control of Bob. There is a large grouping of alliances that compose the Remnants. SF hates a section of them, and C&G hates a section of them. In other words, they are united by convenience and have the same overall goal (therefore composing a "side"). If the Remnants were to vanish overnight, SF and C&G would no doubt be vying for dominance over each other.

The TPF issue came out of nowhere, the next issue will as well.

Not quite. It was a convenient reason to attack, but the attack itself had been coming for some time. As is the case with the next war; it's already started, just no shots have been fired.

decent analysis though bias is quite clear. the two above statements are hardly unbiased and can render a negative impression of the entire essay. fact is, while some alliances in the Splinter side may actively oppose the Remnants it is not true for every single alliance that composes the Splinter side. in fact, i would say that some alliances are friendly across the lines.

Most Splinters and Remnants do not actively oppose one another, however, different outlooks and treaty connections mean that they often will end up opposing one another.

also, TPF was not attacked in "an apparent attempt to finish the Remnants before NPO could be released from terms." please leave the speculation and major bs out of this. there are what, half a dozen threads that this could be discussed. no need to even attempt to bring unsubstantiated claims such as this into the mix.

I'll refer to my first point. But yes, you are correct in that there are other places to discuss this.

now onto the rest of the analysis. while CnG and SF are tied by treaties, they have their own particular outlooks and agendas. thus, they may or may not always be on the same side of an issue.

Addressed earlier in the post.

I think this analysis is a bit off, the world is not bi-polar.

But, Planet Bob is NOT a bipolar world!

Thinking that it is all a matter of how some "swing" alliances fall into the picture is missing the big picture.

In fact, the sides in the next flare up could vary significantly, in many permutations. Depends on how it happens.

I dunno. IMO, there are two sides, both vying for control over a third unaligned side. Without getting into details, I will say that the emergence of a third true side is possible, but will most likely not happen.

@ Derantol, you hit the nail on the head repeatedly with your post

@ Vladimir, you are correct. However, in the past, the Bystander side, as it were, was often small and militarily weak. People only fought to control them due to one side being weaker and needing a boost. The stronger side often ignored them, and only sought to gain control when the weak side began to grow and challenge.

Now, however, people can no longer ignore the Bystanders. The Bystanders hold a tremendous amount of political and military clout, not to mention sheer numbers. To ignore them would mean losing the next war (for any side).

[LiquidMercury]

Very interesting read, good work overall.

I think it's a little too simplistic to essentially label one side "neo Hegemony" and one side "neo Karma". I know you didn't use those terms, but that's basically what you said. I agree that the two sides are split largely along Karma War lines, but not entirely so. For example, a large portion (at least) of Citadel seemed to be leaning towards CC. This group was one of the central factions of Karma, so I don't think you can really label them as "bystanders" who have simply moved closer to the Remnants (which is an awesome name by the way... Best one I've seen for the ex-Hegemony crowd). Karma War affiliations aside, Citadel/allies are much more than a peripheral swing group who have leaned towards the Remnants. The Citadel-and-allies crowd, even if not all of them had fought, would have formed a large percentge of CC's NS and nukes. So I think viewing the "CC side" of the web as primarily being the Remnants, with the Citadel group as a mere peripheral faction, is erroneous.

Instead, I see that side of the web as primarily being a fusion of two groups: The Remnants (of the former Hegemony coalition) and the Moderates (of the former Karma coalition). The Moderates (Citadel and allies) fought for Karma, but had (as a group) been close to NPO in the past, and were mostly in favor of lighter punishments for the Hegemony. They tended to be less fanatical about the conflict. I see the "SG side" of the web as being primarily made up of the Stalwarts (of the former Karma coalition). The Stalwarts fought for Karma, had been lightly tied (in the case of SF/allies) or opposed (in the case of CnG/allies) to NPO in the past, and were mostly in favor of stronger punishments for the Hegemony (though this was certainly not always the case). In general, they saw their struggle as a war of good overthrowing evil, and were much more dedicated to and fanatical about their cause.

I'm going to have to disagree with you Bama. Most of citadel (outside of TOP and even some in TOP) truly disliked NPO. We pushed for white peace during Karma because that's just how we do things. We can despise someone absolutely but still give white peace. Most in the bloc just don't agree with reps in theory so we don't ask for them anymore (WotC kind of turned us off from them as it just felt dirty). I would say that the analysis of Cit being a peripheral factor is relatively correct. As a whole we could of been drawn into either side, it just so happened that the cards fell that this time it was for IRON.

[kriekfreak]

The whole thing reeks of bias so I didn't read it thoroughly enough. I think Bama is pretty accurate for most of what he said, at least he comes closer to the truth than Learz did.

Edited January 6, 2010 by kriekfreak

[Learz]

The whole thing reeks of bias so I didn't read it thoroughly enough. I think Bama is pretty accurate for most of what he said, at least he comes closer to the truth than Learz did.

I think I found your problem.

[Vladimir]

@ Vladimir, you are correct. However, in the past, the Bystander side, as it were, was often small and militarily weak. People only fought to control them due to one side being weaker and needing a boost. The stronger side often ignored them, and only sought to gain control when the weak side began to grow and challenge.

Now, however, people can no longer ignore the Bystanders. The Bystanders hold a tremendous amount of political and military clout, not to mention sheer numbers. To ignore them would mean losing the next war (for any side).

I'm afraid this was still the situation in all previous wars. How often do we hear former League members complain that Legion and ODN (Orple) cost them the second great war by staying out of it, for example? Or who can forget the importance of the mass of 3rd parties in the Unjust War -- which was at its origin an Initiative civil war. Gaining 'the bandwagon' has always been a key to victory in great wars.

[Learz]

I'm afraid this was still the situation in all previous wars. How often do we hear former League members complain that Legion and ODN (Orple) cost them the second great war by staying out of it, for example? Or who can forget the importance of the mass of 3rd parties in the Unjust War -- which was at its origin an Initiative civil war. Gaining 'the bandwagon' has always been a key to victory in great wars.

Hmm. Interesting. Very interesting. Definitely food for thought.

[supercoolyellow]

I think what makes the OP very relevant is this.

before TPF war: Perceived Tensions/anticipated next war was between the four most powerful blocs.

After TPF war: Perceived tensions/anticipated next war is between super complaints and a coalition of alliances not in a major bloc which will likely be connected to old NPO allies.

Just the change in perception is noteworthy.

1. It guides how nations plan. For example before TPF war, I expected the next major war to be bloc vs bloc, and so I guided BTO in the direction of not having treaty parters who were aligned to any blocs to avoid the war. Now I think otherwise.

2. It could become a self fulfilling prophecy if respected by enough alliance leaders.

[Dochartaigh]

I'll refer to my first point. But yes, you are correct in that there are other places to discuss this.

you were gov on the other side. just because you are gov does not mean you are not biased. Hoo and others on SG's side stated that the intention of the war was never to draw anyone else in, though it was taken into concern that others would be drawn in. i trust your word when it comes to ya'lls side but honestly, the fact that you did not state the simple fact that this war was fought because Athens/RoK felt they had been attacked by TPF and thus GOD and \m/ joined to help them out, shows that you are biased at least when it comes to SG's side.

[Learz]

you were gov on the other side. just because you are gov does not mean you are not biased. Hoo and others on SG's side stated that the intention of the war was never to draw anyone else in, though it was taken into concern that others would be drawn in. i trust your word when it comes to ya'lls side but honestly, the fact that you did not state the simple fact that this war was fought because Athens/RoK felt they had been attacked by TPF and thus GOD and \m/ joined to help them out, shows that you are biased at least when it comes to SG's side.

I am indeed biased. I try to keep it to a minimum though

To prevent derailment, I responded here.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Learz

[The Thief]

A very insightful and thought-provoking thread, one which I will definitely be visiting in the future. I don't feel equipped enough to respond to anyone here, but I do respect your opinions, and we at the Neutrality Pact will certainly be treating our foreign policy with even more care from now on. I can see how with tensions as they are, one mistake can lead to an alliance lost. We don't want to be that alliance.

[Buds The Man]

NVM

Edited January 14, 2010 by Buds The Man

[Joe Stupid]

There is no 'supergrievances.'

Not yet there isn't.

[zimmerwald1915]

Not yet there isn't.

Hush, you.

[Ferdinand I]

Very interesting post, i agree with most of the things said.

[Qaianna]

I can see the New Polar Order (and to a lesser extent the Siberian Tiger Alliance --sorry, Tyga, but I think Grub keeps getting all the better press) being something of a de facto 'third' side. What do you think would happen were you to see Almighty Grub or Tygaland suddenly announce their alliances would move in direction A, or B? It might make more neutralish alliances follow suit.

I think a lot of the 'SuperComplaints' talk came from how members of those two blocs seemed to march very closely with each other. Appearances can be a lot more convincing than even the most vehement statements that one can make. Especially if you make a habit of not telling folks what your real plans are

And yes, it might be interesting to see just what the New Pacific Order will do once its terms are over. Despite all that's happenned, it's still a big chunk of power. And all sorts of crazy things can come about, especially as some alliances move to more paperless treaties.

[Chalaskan]

I see Super Complaints solidifying, while LOL purple and others band together. Really, people are choosing sides dependent on being on the "winning side" or being with friends.

I think the new Cit. is part of the latter.

[Dochartaigh]

if ya'll have not noticed, the sides are starting to clarifying. treaties are being made and treaties are being canceled already. the TPF war basically showed who was gonna be on either side.

[AlmightyGrub]

if ya'll have not noticed, the sides are starting to clarifying. treaties are being made and treaties are being canceled already. the TPF war basically showed who was gonna be on either side.

And yet so much is still unclear to so many. The notion of sides already formed though is always true to an extent, most people swing one way or another, some just swing.

[Marcos]

I like this essay a lot.

I would say a "cold war" existed prior to the Karma war when the string of cancellations with Hegemony Alliances in the month of March. After Karma though, this present war looks like a "power struggle" within the Karma splinters, because the majority were who are fighting in this new war were in a coalition against the Hegemony.