The Opening of Pandora's Box

[Reptyler]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286935405' post='2483102']
VE almost joined GUARD because it was about to get rolled by FAN. At least, thats the conclusion I remember hearing about the whole situation, I didn't actually give a !@#$ at the time.
[/quote]
That may have been our fear. In reality, both NpO and FAN basically abstained from the GCW. FAN, being one of the most warlike alliances in the Initiative, sent only 2 nations to attack VE, as I recall. That was quite the political statement.

And yes, we did apply to GUARD, when it became apparent that the allies who had previously pledged to support our independence would not be doing so. That obviously didn't work out.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Reptyler

[SonOfHoward]

The best part about this is sethb being in charge VE's FA department.

[Reptyler]

[quote name='SonOfHoward' timestamp='1286942674' post='2483213']
The best part about this is sethb being in charge VE's FA department.
[/quote]
Shhh... We were waiting for NPO to raise a stink about it.

[TonytheTiger]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286923703' post='2482923']
That's a very good short form. Hopefully everyone reads it and remembers it. If PB, SF and C&G were in fact one megabloc, then we would be in a hegemonic position. But we're not, as was pointed out earlier we don't have any shared members (like Continuum/One Vision) or major interconnected treaties. (Pretty much everyone was treatied to the Continuum; not that many people are directly treatied to PB.) If you persist in believing in the old world dichotomy of 'NPO vs LUE' then sure, the 'LUE' side – everything that isn't a close friend of NPO – is huge, overbearing and hegemonic. But things aren't like that any more.
[/quote]

Just to add to the points others have already made against your position, even you draw the distinction you now discredit with that line down the middle of your very own treaty web.

[Dajobo]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' timestamp='1286941986' post='2483197']
I don't see how any of that changes the fact that you sucked up to Polar but I guess it all makes sense...in your mind.
[/quote]

This amused me greatly. Ivan doesn't need defending but he sure as hell has never sucked up to us!

[Pingu]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1286941030' post='2483173']
The fact that an alliance can make a mistake, take a real beating and still stand proud is a sign of something better than just having the most guns at this particular point in history anyway, in my opinion. The number of guns can change over time, integrity and resolve rarely do.
[/quote]

I thank you for this tribute to my alliance, however belated and subtle (others might have missed it, so I'm sure you'll forgive my pointing it out).

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1286942039' post='2483198']
If I can make one thing clear regarding anyone's ties to Nueva Vida;

all our treaties (except AZTEC, of course) are non-chaining. This was done specifically so that we wouldn't have to pick and choose our friends' friends. Whatever our feelings are for VE, they do not necessarily extend to VE's allies. You gotta be out of your mind if you think we're going to let anyone use our treaty with them bring us and our AZTEC friends in to help some bozo in GOONS.
[/quote]

i honestly wonder if NV would not defend VE should VE get attacked for defending GOONS even if GOONS aggressively attacks another alliance (unless the alliance was allied to NV of course). While i get your treaties are non-chaining, NV has never struck me as an alliance who would let their friends get attacked and then do nothing about it regardless of the reason for the attack.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286943163' post='2483225']
I thank you for this tribute to my alliance, however belated and subtle (others might have missed it, so I'm sure you'll forgive my pointing it out).
[/quote]
That would imply that you had some level of resolve initially and that such resolve actually still existed today.

Are you secretly part of another alliance Pingu?

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286896738' post='2482450']
Anyone who's power is damaged by this power play. Realist literature dictates a balance of power against a rising hegemon because it is in the best interests of other states to do so (to brutalize realist literature with such a simplistic summary). Just saw your edit. If you don't know what Im talking about and/or referencing then don't bother responding to it.
[/quote]
Either the SuperGrievances power structure is damaged by this, or things are pretty much exactly the same as they were before. My ear isn't close enough to the street to speculate, but this announcement doesn't have the feel of anything really significant.

To me its just more interconnecting of the treaty web, another set of de jure ties changing nothing about the de facto situation. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

Edited October 13, 2010 by bigwoody

[Argin]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1286941315' post='2483179']
you guys do have major interconnected treaties with SF, CnG, and Aztec blocs. VE has treaties with SF alliances (did you forget your MADP with GOD- Not to mention due to the MADP plus the MDoAP with RIA: you could bring in Chestnut Accords bloc), or the MDoAP with RoK, plus your MDoAP with NV who is in a MADP Bloc). FOK is in LEO with RnR/Int, Athens has an MDoAP with PC, GOONS holds MDoAPs with LOST and GOD,

Then there is MHA, Fark, Argent, WF, NEW, and Guru Order as direct treaties. then you have several indirect treaties with alliances like Sparta along with others, like IAA, LoSS, GATO, NpO, STA, and others.

so you have heavy and direct connections to SF, CnG, Aztec, Chestnut Accords, and LEO. along with the fact that LEO is overlapping due to FOK being in both LEO and PB. Chestnut Accords overlap with SF. so if you description of being hegemonic is the world of Q or WUT in which Q or WUT was the center of other major blocs, well that is pretty much what PB is considering it can call on many blocs to surround it just like Q or WUT did.
[/quote]

To add on to what hizzy has said all of VE's treaties are non-chaining as well.




More on topic, now that this is finally announced it's time to celebrate the only way I know how.

[img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/animalhouse347.jpeg[/img]
TOGA TOGA TOGA!

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='bigwoody' timestamp='1286943483' post='2483231']
Either the SuperGrievances power structure is damaged by this, or things are pretty much exactly the same as they were before. My ear isn't close enough to the street to speculate, but this announcement doesn't have the feel of anything really significant.

To me its just more interconnecting of the treaty web, another set of de jure ties changing nothing about the de facto situation. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
[/quote]
My point was that such a statement was not directed at "ex-Hegemony" like your snide comment implied but rather could include SuperGrienvances alliances as well.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286943589' post='2483235']
My point was that such a statement was not directed at "ex-Hegemony" like your snide comment implied but rather could include SuperGrienvances alliances as well.
[/quote]
Perhaps. Guess we'll see.

[Pingu]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1286943396' post='2483230']
That would imply that you had some level of resolve initially and that such resolve actually still existed today.

Are you secretly part of another alliance Pingu?
[/quote]

Our well-known commitments to democracy and cake have not wavered from February 2006 to the present. We resolved to stand by these values through good times and bad, have seen plenty of both, and are here today still standing proud, our resolution unwavering. I am impressed that despite your well-known hatred for both democracy and cake, you can see the value of our commitment (even if compelled to disavow this publicly for reasons of image maintenance).

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='bigwoody' timestamp='1286943937' post='2483237']
Perhaps. Guess we'll see.
[/quote]
Indeed. Thats what I was saying when I stated that it would be interesting to see if this disproved realist theory on Bob. If these actors don't counter balance such a move then realist theory doesn't hold.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Pingu' timestamp='1286943958' post='2483238']
Our well-known commitments to democracy and cake have not wavered from February 2006 to the present. We resolved to stand by these values through good times and bad, have seen plenty of both, and are here today still standing proud, our resolution unwavering. I am impressed that despite your well-known hatred for both democracy and cake, you can see the value of our commitment (even if compelled to disavow this publicly for reasons of image maintenance).
[/quote]
Considering that I see the former as just a position of fear from which to avoid making certain tough leadership decisions that might end up having ill effects on the nations within the alliance I do not consider it a virtue in the same sense that you wish to note it.

And cake is for fat people.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286944016' post='2483240']
Indeed. Thats what I was saying when I stated that it would be interesting to see if this disproved realist theory on Bob. If these actors don't counter balance such a move then realist theory doesn't hold.
[/quote]
I guess I need to go and have someone explain the current state of affairs to me then...I lost track.

Still sense that this announcement hasn't really changed anything.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286944016' post='2483240']
Indeed. Thats what I was saying when I stated that it would be interesting to see if this disproved realist theory on Bob. If these actors don't counter balance such a move then realist theory doesn't hold.
[/quote]
Unfortunately I do not see it as a lack of talent or even will in regards to the actors presently in position to pose such a counter.

Instead it is a general malaise that has been cultivated through a schematic cultural depression in which it is considered extraordinary to have two large scale wars within a period of a year and a half coupled with the idea that the fear of losing position or relative strength is enough to offset any formerly existing principles against perceived injustices.

[Smooth]

*Redacted.*

Edited October 13, 2010 by Smooth

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Bergerland' timestamp='1286939389' post='2483148']
"Valhalla and Boards Alliance of Protectorate States (Hereafter knows as BAPS) agree to abstain from aggressive military action and all forms of espionage against each other"

Guess you guys need to be told not to attack your treaty partners too.

It's a common treaty clause. I seriously don't know where you're going with this.
[/quote]

I was responding to someone claiming that it wasn't a mark of a good treaty, or something like that.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1286944258' post='2483246']
Unfortunately I do not see it as a lack of talent or even will in regards to the actors presently in position to pose such a counter.

Instead it is a general malaise that has been cultivated through a schematic cultural depression in which it is considered extraordinary to have two large scale wars within a period of a year and a half coupled with the idea that the fear of losing position or relative strength is enough to offset any formerly existing principles against perceived injustices.
[/quote]
I tend to agree. But that coincides with the point I made in the post you quoted. If that is in fact the case then that straight out disproves the realist notion that actors are always aiming to achieve their best interests and grab the most relative power possible. Such an environment of apathy just cannot coexist with said theory.

That being said, I do think that there has been enough fumbled opportunities in the oppositions side to question the strategic capability of many of their leaders.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286944478' post='2483253']
I tend to agree. But that coincides with the point I made in the post you quoted. If that is in fact the case then that straight out disproves the realist notion that actors are always aiming to achieve their best interests and grab the most relative power possible. Such an environment of apathy just cannot coexist with said theory.

That being said, I do think that there has been enough fumbled opportunities in the oppositions side to question the strategic capability of many of their leaders.
[/quote]
Only when they have disagreed with, or failed to inquire about, my opinion on a given plan. But that is neither here nor there. *coughs* Cluster$%&@ War *coughs*

Regardless, I am not so certain that a lack of cohesive action will demonstrate a failing of the theory. Since what I describe is indicative of positions within both "sides" then it is likely that this realignment will simply see a continuation of the status quo, where one side has somewhat obvious numeric superiority while the other has the threat of equalization through future action. The threat will remain even if the act does not materialize in a vacuum (i.e. outside of a declaration on a major opposing power) so those in the newish bloc(s) will still not engage those in the standalone microcosms because of the fear of associated full response.

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286944478' post='2483253']
I tend to agree. But that coincides with the point I made in the post you quoted. If that is in fact the case then that straight out disproves the realist notion that actors are always aiming to achieve their best interests and grab the most relative power possible. Such an environment of apathy just cannot coexist with said theory.

That being said, I do think that there has been enough fumbled opportunities in the oppositions side to question the strategic capability of many of their leaders.
[/quote]
Ummmm, bandwagoning is quite a common occurrence in realist literature. Counter-balancing is effective mostly in cases where power is concentrated enough to actually make a counter-balance against a massively more powerful actor. Planet Bob has over a hundred alliances with NS over 1,000,000 IIRC. You seem to think that you masterfully created some sort of huge counter balance to the existing hegemony, but you really exploited a temporary weakness created by an unforced diplomatic error with an ad hoc coalition and sailed through on a wing and a prayer.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Lord GVChamp

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Lord GVChamp' timestamp='1286944871' post='2483260']
Ummmm, bandwagoning is quite a common occurrence in realist literature. Counter-balancing is effective mostly in cases where power is concentrated enough to actually make a counter-balance against a massively more powerful actor. Planet Bob has over a hundred alliances with NS over 1,000,000 IIRC. You seem to think that you masterfully created some sort of huge counter balance to the existing hegemony, but you really exploited a temporary weakness created by an unforced diplomatic error with an ad hoc coalition and sailed through on a wing and a prayer.
[/quote]
I do not disagree that thinkers like Mearsheimer address bandwagoning (if only to state how god awful of an idea it is) but they also say that if there is such a powerful hegemon that counter balancing WILL occur as a natural force in the Balance of Power Politics. If what we have now is truly a hegemon (mind you I stated I didn't believe so earlier in the thread) then the complete and utter lack of action by opponents does not go hand in hand with the theory. Also, if you think Karma was not a myriad of events culminating in that final conflict you are crazy. That was not just the cause of a temporary weakness but rather many exploited events over the two years previous to Karma.
[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1286944829' post='2483259']
Only when they have disagreed with, or failed to inquire about, my opinion on a given plan. But that is neither here nor there. *coughs* Cluster$%&@ War *coughs*

Regardless, I am not so certain that a lack of cohesive action will demonstrate a failing of the theory. Since what I describe is indicative of positions within both "sides" then it is likely that this realignment will simply see a continuation of the status quo, where one side has somewhat obvious numeric superiority while the other has the threat of equalization through future action. The threat will remain even if the act does not materialize in a vacuum (i.e. outside of a declaration on a major opposing power) so those in the newish bloc(s) will still not engage those in the standalone microcosms because of the fear of associated full response.
[/quote]
I find this to be a more accurate rebuttal to my argument. However, I feel like that by this line of thinking the inability of the opposition is to blame for its failures to pull away or break up the current power structure.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[Pingu]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286944478' post='2483253']
I tend to agree. But that coincides with the point I made in the post you quoted. If that is in fact the case then that straight out disproves the realist notion that actors are always aiming to achieve their best interests and grab the most relative power possible. Such an environment of apathy just cannot coexist with said theory.
[/quote]

We must be careful here to differentiate between Structural Realism and Offensive Realism. While the latter predicts power-maximizing behaviour, the former predicts [i]security[/i]-maximizing behaviour. Structural Realism, then, can account for periods of relative stability - or apathy, if you will - in which the world's significant powers are (broadly speaking) content with the status quo and will only respond defensively to the rise of a new revisionist power. Offensive Realism, which is closer to the classical Realist tradition, posits power-maximization as a constant interest of all states and therefore would indeed find it hard to account for a period without significant attempts to change the balance of power, as major powers should seek constantly to outdo one another through alliance decisions and internal growth. The punctuated violence of Bobian history seems to support Structural Realism better between these two approaches, but there is plenty of scope for argument about the appropriate time-scale for measuring stability etc. And, of course, there is the possibility that a non-Realist analysis would fit the evidence still better.

Thank you, Ivan, for confirming what was already known of your views on democracy and cake. You have the virtue of consistency, at least.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1286945077' post='2483264']
I find this to be a more accurate rebuttal to my argument. However, I feel like that by this line of thinking the inability of the opposition is to blame for its failures to pull away or break up the current power structure.
[/quote]
The problem with that position, as I see it, is that the current power structure has demonstrated that it will not act against a major oppositional alliance for fear of losing statistical ground without clear and concise boundaries or expectations in place, therefore the opposition can rightly act in extremely limited response to this new alignment because there is no immediate threat stemming from this bloc. Further, limited response weakens the planning ability of the primary bloc sense the prevalent alignment that would result in such direct and swift response would be clearly defined.