Cormac Resigns as Osiris Delegate

[Onderkelkia]

I mean, given that NES has himself has spoken of the 'TNI contingent' in Lazarus and how it acted as a counterbalance against a 'UDL takeover', its a bit hard to argue that they didn't see themselves as representing some sort of imperialist interest in the region and not just 'private citizens'

No one has ever denied there was a group of people in Lazarus who also had membership in TNI, but they were acting on behalf of Lazarus, not TNI. If they were aligned together, it was in opposition to defender-Francoist members promoting undemocratic proposals and moving Lazarus away from neutrality.

Griffin was the longest-serving Delegate of Lazarus in recent history. She was a full and committed native of the region. NES had served in the Cabinet of Lazarus. It is entirely reasonable for people not to want their region to be taken over by defender-Francoists intent on imposing dictatorship.

A fear was that entirely legitimate given what was happened and the fact the region now languishes in the FRA with a dictatorship government - of course insofar as the current members of Lazarus are concerned, that may well be a consensual dictatorship, but not for the region's longest-serving Delegate.

My point is that Griffin never sought to influence Lazarus policy in favour of TNI or compromise Lazarus neutrality; she merely defended that neutrality.

[Kazmr]

I never said anything about Griffin Referring to NES in particular who, as I have said, saw his main reason for being in the region as a way to counterbalance defender or NPO interests and support those of TNI. The last time he had done anything of note in Lazarus was years before the coup, he himself played down his short time in the cabinet as being years ago. As anyone can tell you who was in the region, NES never did anything in the community for quite some time besides posting exactly as often as he needed to to maintain citizenship and voting down anything that would conflict with imperialist interest. Quite a model citizen there, eh?

Edit: At this point, though, I'm afraid to say I'm not really in the mood to continue an argument; its 2 in the morning and I want sleep . The points have been laid out, most of which have been played over and over again. We all know nothing we say here will actually change anyone's mind, and furthermore arguing with you, Onder, is like arguing with a brick wall, so I concede to you the only victory anyone's ever won in the gameplay forum: that of having the last word

[Cormac Stark]

Given that you claimed other imperialist regions regarded Osiris as 'at best a protectorate and at worst a colony', and accompanied this with statements claiming to have never been in favour of war with Lazarus, it is reasonable to address the implication that imperialist pressure led to these outcomes, which is an inference which Glen-Rhodes appears to have made from it when he, prior to my post here, talked about 'imperialists basically dictating Osiris' foreign policy'. The direction of Osiris foreign policy has been determined by the internal decisions of Osiris, not any UIAF influence on foreign policy.

Yes, as I've said numerous times both here and in Osiris, on this I entirely agree with you. UIAF had nothing to do with the decision to declare war against Lazarus or the post-RSC embassy closures, nor have I blamed them for either of those things. I made those decisions, without personally favoring them, because I believed they reflected the best interests of Osiris in light of the direction that the community of Osiris wanted for the region. I made that very clear in my resignation post in Osiris.

I am blaming foreign imperialists only for the issues I raised in a convenient bullet point list.

As for the grievances you listed, I discussed the final two points you raised, namely the independence conference in Europeia and the alliances with TBR, in my previous post. The independence conference in Europeia was not planned by the imperialist regions; the decision about which regions to invite belonged to the Europeian Government; we do not control Europeia in sense and it is completely unreasonable to lay this it at the door of the LKE, TNI and Albion.

Point conceded. Despite Kraketopia's and Anumia's protests to the contrary, I'm sure this had much more to do with Zenny Fominov and her political party in Europeia than anything to do with imperialism.

While we're on this subject, though, I find it ludicrous that Europeia would regard Osiris as purely imperialist while regarding TNI and The LKE as both imperialist and independent. TNI and The LKE declared war on the FRA and the UDL, at the time the most active forces in defenderdom, to provide flimsy political justification for what is truly a raider military policy of invading whatever, whenever. Any raid can be justified in terms of "defeating" organizations that defend all regions, which is, of course, why TNI and The LKE declared war on the most ridiculous grounds imaginable.

It's so mind boggling that either of those regions would be considered independent but that neither Osiris nor TWP would be -- despite the latter being a pioneer of independence -- that I'm 150% certain that can't be the true reason for either region's exclusion.

As for the issues in relation to TBR, Osiris had no declared state of war with them, the LKE and TNI had been close partners with TBR since TBR was founded, the only reason an alliance would not have been in place previously was because of TBR's historical preference against alliances (not because we'd been opposed to one), and you yourself have emphasised the partnership between Osiris and TBR to the point of closing relations with Liberal Haven. If Osiris had declared state of war with TBR, it would have been an entirely different matter, but that was not the case and we had long-standing links to TBR.

I was lying through my teeth when I closed relations with Liberal Haven. I closed relations with Liberal Haven because I could see that such relations would generate problems with TBR, that much was true, but I only cared about that because we couldn't risk problems with UIAF. I loathe TBR, as everyone in Gameplay knows. The only reason I backed off of TBR was because UIAF had ratified treaties with them, as my former cabinet and North East Somerset can confirm.

With regard to your other complaints:

NES, Cerebella and Cassius, in expressing opposition to the non-aggression pact with TRR, acted as individual members of Osiris: they were far from the only people in Osiris to be concerned about the formation of that pact, which you have since set about repealing. The UIAF's only intervention was to protest the anti-UIAF rhetoric you chose to justify the treaty with, not the treaty itself, and you ultimately apologised for those remarks.

The problem with this assessment is there was no reason for NES, Cerebella, or Cassius to oppose the TRR non-aggression pact except their pre-existing hostility to TRR, fueled by the UIAF wars with the FRA (and the UDL, given the Unibot connection). They never made any coherent case for why the non-aggression pact was against Osiran interests.

Cassius Cerebella's conduct as Deputy Commander of ISRA and ISRA's arrangements for displaying operational credit is nothing to do with the UIAF. NES and Charles Cerebella have both been kings of Balder. These were all matters internal to ISRA.

I could agree with this, except the reason Balder wasn't credited in the operation that led to the internal ISRA conflict is because both Cassius and Seven Deaths decided to represent UIAF on that operation rather than Balder. Had they been representing Balder, had their first priority not always and everywhere been UIAF, there never would have been any question in regard to whether Balder should have been credited. That was the problem. They couldn't be bothered to represent Balder; it was more important to add two more flags to the UIAF's numbers than to represent Balder as part of ISRA.

Terminating our treaty with TSP over its alliance with TRR was not a 'reversal of policy' but reflected our long-standing position over how we would respond to such a situation. Indeed, when Europeia proposed to ally with TRR in September 2011, TNI made its objection known then and that proposed alliance was dropped. With regard to the Pan-Sinker Security Pact, it is true that TNI allied with Balder in March 2013 while Balder only repealed the Pan Sinker Security Pact in July 2013. Likewise, we had a longer-term alliance with Lazarus during the period of its PSSP membership. Accepting this situation was a deviation from our long-standing practice which was in error, as confirmed by the circumstances in which Balder and Osiris both chose to end its PSSP membership and the condition to which Lazarus ultimately deteriorated (now an FRA region in its own right). It was the PSSP which was the aberration in policy and the PSSP which showed precisely how policy should not be conducted.

Yes, yes, I've already heard this all before when MagentaFairy copied and pasted your words to me as her response to my private telegram. It's impressive how many statements you crank out for UIAF member regions that don't have your name attached to them. You should really stop being so humble and start seeking some credit.

The fact is that The New Inquisition never expressed any problem with the PSSP, then dropped the bomb that a mutual defense pact with TRR would be grounds for termination of a treaty on TSP, Balder, and Osiris, without consulting any of them. This is not how an ally treats another ally. Did it ever occur to you that TSP may have taken that into consideration had they been informed that it was a problem in advance, but that they otherwise may have assumed since TNI was comfortable with the PSSP you had no issues with a mutual defense pact with TRR? Did it ever occur to you that you were making either Balder or Osiris feel like you were dictating policy by not even bothering to ask us if this reversal of policy was a problem?

The double standards you are applying are remarkable: you complain that the imperialists sought to tell Osiris 'with whom we can and can't agree to mutual defense'; at the same time you complain about the LKE, TNI and Albion allying with TBR. Likewise, you complain you were not consulted over that alliance, despite failing to consult us over a treaty with TRR when we are actually war with them, in stark contrast to the personal spat which you had with TBR. Similarly, you complain about us terminating our treaty with TSP, not an ally of Osiris, when you terminated embassy relations with TWP, an ally of the LKE, TNI and Albion. It should be emphasised we've made no complaint about either the making of the TRR Treaty or the post-RSC embassy closures; the issue here is your personal double standards in suggesting we should have engaged in consulation our own decisions.

Again, it never occurred to me that I needed to consult UIAF in regard to a non-aggression pact with TRR as a) you had been comfortable, or at least had never expressed discomfort, with the PSSP; and b) it was a non-aggression pact, a commitment not to attack TRR, not a commitment to defend them.

I did discuss the post-RSC embassy closures with NES. He was not in favor of them, but he also gave no indication that they would be in any way problematic.

The other theme that pervades your grievances is an apparent resentment about relations between the LKE, TNI and Albion, and Balder. In no way whatsoever have the LKE, TNI and Albion treated Osiris as any less of an equal or sovereign region than Balder. To read the idea that the UIAF views Osiris as not an equal partner into the decision of Europeia to invite Balder but not Osiris to a conference, which appears to be the only basis for this suggestion, is very strange indeed. We have always treated Balder with due respect, but the idea that by comparison we see Osiris as a colony is outrageous.

It is by no means "the only basis for this suggestion." It is as clear as it was with Lazarus that imperialists view Balder as the real imperialist Sinker and Osiris as the trophy to collect dust. That's why imperialists focus their activity in Balder, commit their WA nations to Balder, and concoct schemes like ISRA to ensure that Balder can piggyback off of Osiran activity to build its own prestige.

Not that Balder has been treated well by imperialists, either. Nobody missed the mass exodus of Balderans to Albion after Cere founded it and the subsequent drop in activity. Nonetheless, Balder is the Sinker to which you toss your crumbs of spam. Lazarus was the Sinker that you chose to hold but starve of all activity, so long as it remained neutral and in treaty alliance with you, and now Osiris has replaced Lazarus in that role -- except that others, either from Osiris or having relocated from elsewhere, are keeping Osiris somewhat active, whereas the NPO was as content with Lazarus' inactivity as you were until it decided it no longer wanted to share the sandbox.

What precisely do you mean by the 'remaining business' generated by 'those puppets I keep in Balder'?

I guess we'll all find out together.

But yes, like Kazmr, I'm going to drop this now. The walls of text are only going to get longer until someone says "uncle," and having done this before I'm well aware that I will eventually encounter a wall of text that makes me go and not reply to it. So I'm going to save all of us the time of that and you can have the last word. Meanwhile, tell Bishop to go raid something so I can remind UIAF what it's like when I'm not kissing your... feet.

[Onderkelkia]

I never said anything about Griffin Referring to NES in particular who, as I have said, saw his main reason for being in the region as a way to counterbalance defender or NPO interests and support those of TNI. The last time he had done anything of note in Lazarus was years before the coup, he himself played down his short time in the cabinet as being years ago. As anyone can tell you who was in the region, NES never did anything in the community for quite some time besides posting exactly as often as he needed to to maintain citizenship and voting down anything that would conflict with imperialist interest. Quite a model citizen there, eh?P

You referred to the comment made by NES as evidence for the general allegation about the conduct of TNI members in Lazarus. It did not stand alone.

NES was not the only person undemocratically banned and turned out of a region he hold citizenship in. Griffin was too, hence my points regarding her. No one can dispute her credentials as having been genuinely committed to Lazarus since she joined it since 2008. Her removal was completely unjustified. As for NES, promoting a neutral and balanced approach, as opposed to allowing a defender-NPO takeover, was furthering the interests of Lazarus.

None of these people were pushing an agenda to move Lazarus towards imperialism. They supported the traditional approach of Lazarus. Now, it may have been that other approaches would have more beneficial for Lazarus, but resisting a defender-NPO takeover away does not constitute external interference.

Yes, as I've said numerous times both here and in Osiris, on this I entirely agree with you. UIAF had nothing to do with the decision to declare war against Lazarus or the post-RSC embassy closures, nor have I blamed them for either of those things. I made those decisions, without personally favoring them, because I believed they reflected the best interests of Osiris in light of the direction that the community of Osiris wanted for the region. I made that very clear in my resignation post in Osiris.

I am pleased that you agree that the decision to declare war on Lazarus and the RSC embassy closures were nothing to do with the LKE, TNI and Albion. However, in light of Glen-Rhodes's comment about ''imperialists basically dictating Osiris' foreign policy', the point needed clarifying, hence my intervention.

Point conceded. Despite Kraketopia's and Anumia's protests to the contrary, I'm sure this had much more to do with Zenny Fominov and her political party in Europeia than anything to do with imperialism.

While we're on this subject, though, I find it ludicrous that Europeia would regard Osiris as purely imperialist while regarding TNI and The LKE as both imperialist and independent.

Thank you for withdrawing your allegation that the LKE, TNI or Albion somehow excluded Osiris from this conference, although it is not a matter of this having 'much more to do with' something else (about which I have no knowledge); it is a matter of it having nothing to do with TNI, the LKE or Albion.

I do not know enough about it to reflect on Europeia's reasons. What I object to most strenuously is that you linked it to the imperialist regions.

I would regard Osiris as an independent region, although I see no grounds for slighting the status of the LKE and TNI as such. To be independent is to take such military action as serves a region's self-interest without regard for the concepts of 'raider' or 'defender' (I notice you referred to Osiris as having a 'raider-imperialist approach' in your statement; it may have been statements like that which gave Kraketopia the wrong idea, but as I say I do not really know). Independence is not a question of being more or less extremist; an independent region can be extremely aggressive. What matters is that they take military action according to regional priorities determined by foreign policy rather than by moral idealism or military activity as providing fun in itself.

TNI and The LKE declared war on the FRA and the UDL, at the time the most active forces in defenderdom, to provide flimsy political justification for what is truly a raider military policy of invading whatever, whenever. Any raid can be justified in terms of "defeating" organizations that defend all regions, which is, of course, why TNI and The LKE declared war on the most ridiculous grounds imaginable.

The LKE declared war on the FRA in May 2010 because the FRA invaded United Kingdom of Britain, a founded LKE colony (not one gained from invasion). When the FRA was informed of UKB's status, Chin-Chillas, their intelligence minister sent a reply back saying that they opposed imperialism in all its forms.

That is not a flimsy justification. It was a gross violation of sovereignty against a background of implacable opposition to imperialist regions.

The FRA was not the most prominent force in 'defenderdom' when TNI declared war on it over Valhalla in December 2006; it was a relatively new group. Once again, when discussing the invasion of Valhalla on the forums of GB&I, FRA members made very clear that they opposed the practice of imperialism.

The declarations of war on the UDL came in 2012 in a different context. The LKE's declaration of war in April 2012 over Mahaj's creation of 'The Dominion of Munster' might be argued to be trivial, but it came against a background of many other incidents involving breaches of the Kelkia Doctrine. By contrast, TNI's declaration of war in July 2012 was over the UDL (unsuccessfully) attempting to refound Concosia. Concosia was a colony which TNI had taken as part of a sovereign war, not in any sense an ordinary raid, between Gatesville (then an ally of TNI) and Concosia. It was also the region of Tramiar of The Black Hawks, one of two natives left in the region, who had agreed to take residence in the region under TNI control: the UDL ejected her from the region, against her wishes, in order to perform a refounding using a password they had gained by an individual lying to a TNI officer about providing it to the other of the two natives. Ejecting natives against their will is not defending behaviour; that is what the UDL did in their venom to score a victory against TNI.

With the arguable exception of Valhalla, none of these declarations of war were simply responses to standard FRA or UDL defending activity.

An imperialist region does not need a specific justification to raid or defend a region as long as it brings material benefit to one's overall objectives and interests, including military strength and defeating enemy organisations. A raider region is a region which exists for the purpose of raiding; you would not have found raider regions undertaking the counter-invasion of Liberal Haven, led by the ISRA and where the UIAF contributed the bulk of the forces. That is what the militaries of imperialist and independent regions do which the raider regions (militaries in themselves) do not do. There is no need for equality between 'raiding' and 'defending'; one needs to disengage from thinking in those terms and simply see different functional forms of military action.

I was lying through my teeth when I closed relations with Liberal Haven. I closed relations with Liberal Haven because I could see that such relations would generate problems with TBR, that much was true, but I only cared about that because we couldn't risk problems with UIAF. I loathe TBR, as everyone in Gameplay knows. The only reason I backed off of TBR was because UIAF had ratified treaties with them, as my former cabinet and North East Somerset can confirm.

Evidently you have been 'lying through my teeth' while doing a lot of things.

However, I do not accept that you were doing this purely through gritted teeth.

You could have ignored events in Liberal Haven, which is what the UIAF did (despite having also contributed twice to counter-invasions there). There was no need to wade in acting in support of TBR. When the UIAF itself did not make that gesture, why would you need to do it to avoid problems with UIAF?

As with the embassy closures, even if you say you privately preferred a different course, you were more zealous than you needed to be to satisfy anyone.

In any case, without a state of war between TBR and Osiris, there was no reason for the LKE, TNI and Albion to refuse to formalise a relationship which existed between itself and TBR ever since TBR was founded, which has involved TBR given substantial military support to our operations. If there was a declaration of war, it would have been inconsistent to be allied to an enemy of an ally, so a choice would have to been made, but without such a state of war there are no grounds for suggesting that the LKE, TNI and Albion should have acted any differently. Your personal loathing of TBR was in spite of the partnership between them and Osiris, as you observed in your post. A state of war is not the same thing as some foolish remarks having been exchanged.

The problem with this assessment is there was no reason for NES, Cerebella, or Cassius to oppose the TRR non-aggression pact except their pre-existing hostility to TRR, fueled by the UIAF wars with the FRA (and the UDL, given the Unibot connection). They never made any coherent case for why the non-aggression pact was against Osiran interests.

Your idea that being a true Osiran is conditional on supporting a non-aggression pact with The Rejected Realms is unwarranted.

Given that the position of Osiris was an imperialist region, one which includes strong raider elements in its population, it is entirely unsurprising that members had some concderns about non-aggression with a region and leader hostile to imperialism, which TRR and Unibot demonstrably are.

People can have a political disagreement over the course of foreign policy for perfectly proper motives. Cerebella and Cassius were only two among 7 voters, along with two abstentions, against that treaty (which is now subject to a repeal vote, with 11 votes in favour of repeal, none of them UIAF).

This dispute had nothing to do with the LKE, TNI or Albion. The issue here is about you being intolerant of vocal political disagreement.

I could agree with this, except the reason Balder wasn't credited in the operation that led to the internal ISRA conflict is because both Cassius and Seven Deaths decided to represent UIAF on that operation rather than Balder. Had they been representing Balder, had their first priority not always and everywhere been UIAF, there never would have been any question in regard to whether Balder should have been credited. That was the problem. They couldn't be bothered to represent Balder; it was more important to add two more flags to the UIAF's numbers than to represent Balder as part of ISRA.

It is still nothing to do with the position of the United Imperial Armed Forces; it is to do with the individuals concerned, whose actions insofar as their obligations to ISRA were entirely a matter for the authorities in Balder and Osiris. Are you arguing that the UIAF should have told them to de-flag as UIAF?

It was not for the UIAF to tell the Deputy Commander of the ISRA to fly an ISRA flag. The debate over whether he should is for Balder and Osiris.

Of course, given that UIAF policy that is all three regions are always credited if any UIAF unit of any region partakes in an operation (unless it has been specifically designated as a single-region operation by that region's military authority), one can understand that they might have been confused about how Osiris intended the crediting system within ISRA to work, but then again these were purely matters of protocol (to be resolved between Balder and Osiris).

Yes, yes, I've already heard this all before when MagentaFairy copied and pasted your words to me as her response to my private telegram. It's impressive how many statements you crank out for UIAF member regions that don't have your name attached to them. You should really stop being so humble and start seeking some credit.

Naturally, if you send communications on official business they will be discussed between the relevant officials to ensure the response reflects policy.

I must confess that it is rare that I have to contend with allegations of humility. I have never denied having a role in developing LKE and TNI policy on these issues, as Emperor of The LKE and a very senior official in TNI. In relation to 'UIAF member regions' as a whole, I have never drafted an Albion statement.

The fact is that The New Inquisition never expressed any problem with the PSSP, then dropped the bomb that a mutual defense pact with TRR would be grounds for termination of a treaty on TSP, Balder, and Osiris, without consulting any of them. This is not how an ally treats another ally. Did it ever occur to you that TSP may have taken that into consideration had they been informed that it was a problem in advance, but that they otherwise may have assumed since TNI was comfortable with the PSSP you had no issues with a mutual defense pact with TRR? Did it ever occur to you that you were making either Balder or Osiris feel like you were dictating policy by not even bothering to ask us if this reversal of policy was a problem?

It was not a 'reversal of policy'; our response to TSP was precisely the same as that we foreshadowed the last time an ally proposed a bilateral alliance with TRR in September 2011, as I have explained. The idea that people were confused, as to precisely what our policy towards alliances with FRA regions was, is bizarre; Belschaft warned TSP what our response would be as part of their internal discussions. We have always been clear about our view on the FRA.

Allying with an enemy is not how an ally treats an ally: if you have declared war on someone, it is wholly unreasonable for an ally to align with them.

Tolerating the Pan Sinker Security Pact was a deviation from our long-standing policy - this course of action was also a policy failure, hence why Balder and Osiris terminated it, and Lazarus ended up as an FRA region - indeed, it's hardly a model on which we should have proceeded. However, as Magenta Fairy presumably will have also relayed to you in the reply to that message, there is a qualitative difference between a multilateral security pact based on pan-GCR unity and a bilateral alliance hence the variation in our approach, although the PSSP of course illustrated that this difference is meaningless.

Again, it never occurred to me that I needed to consult UIAF in regard to a non-aggression pact with TRR as a) you had been comfortable, or at least had never expressed discomfort, with the PSSP; and b) it was a non-aggression pact, a commitment not to attack TRR, not a commitment to defend them.

Likewise, it never occurred to the LKE, TNI and Albion why you would have a problem with us formalising a strong relationship which already existed as, unlike with The Rejected Realms (a region which we had declared war on), Osiris had no war with TBR and as you stated had a partnership with them.

The LKE, TNI and Albion treaties with TBR included no 'commitment to defend' TBR from Osiris, as it expressly excluded allied regions from the mutual defence clauses. So insofar as your point about the non-aggression pact with TRR goes, the same applies to our treaties with TBR.

Of course, if Osiris had declared war on TBR, then even absenting a commitment to defend in the treaty, an alliance with TBR would have been incompatible with an alliance with Osiris, but that was not the case and we had no reason to anticipate that Osiris wished to declare war on TBR.

So why in your view should we have consulted Osiris before making treaties with TBR, when Osiris need not have consulted us about the treaty with TRR?

Given that there was no commitment to defend against the other in either, by your reasoning either both required consultation or neither should have.

It is by no means "the only basis for this suggestion." It is as clear as it was with Lazarus that imperialists view Balder as the real imperialist Sinker and Osiris as the trophy to collect dust. That's why imperialists focus their activity in Balder, commit their WA nations to Balder, and concoct schemes like ISRA to ensure that Balder can piggyback off of Osiran activity to build its own prestige.

No, the reason why North East Somerset and Charles Cerebella have committed activity and their WA nations to Balder is because they have had long-standing involvement in Balder since its creation, both having risen to become kings there; as former delegates, it is unsurprising that is where their WA nations are. Until the events of the latter half of 2013, the culture in Osiris was very different. So this really has absolutely nothing to do with them looking down on Osiris; it's simply a question of them as individuals having been long-standing members of Balder. Holding that against them really is absurd.

It is unfortunate that you have decided to peddle this anti-Balder feeling, when ISRA presented opportunities (and problems) for both regions.

Not that Balder has been treated well by imperialists, either. Nobody missed the mass exodus of Balderans to Albion after Cere founded it and the subsequent drop in activity.

Whenever a highly successful and enticing new region is founded, it will attract existing players within the same sphere - that did not just affect Balder; it affected a very wide range of regions. If everyone's attitude to success was to resent it, as your statements indicate, no one would ever make any progress.

Lazarus was the Sinker that you chose to hold but starve of all activity, so long as it remained neutral and in treaty alliance with you, and now Osiris has replaced Lazarus in that role -- except that others, either from Osiris or having relocated from elsewhere, are keeping Osiris somewhat active, whereas the NPO was as content with Lazarus' inactivity as you were until it decided it no longer wanted to share the sandbox.

TNI had no strategy to 'starve [Lazarus] of all activity' because the domestic agenda in Lazarus was nothing to do with TNI's government. Griffin, alongside other ministers in Lazarus in that period, may have been culpable for inactivity, I do not really know but if so they were as members of Lazarus, not of TNI.

TNI gave no thought to activity in Lazarus. TNI, the LKE and Albion give no thought to creating spam in Balder; that is for their government. Some members of our regions may be active in Balder, but if so that reflects their own historical ties to that community, not some evil master plan to throw 'crumbs of spam' at Balder while starving Osiris. This really is ludicrous; are you suggesting the UIAF ought to have deployed spammers to Osiris to show equal attention to it as in Balder? Such concerns are not at all our place. What is our place is treating both Balder and Osiris with respect, which has been our record.

[Frattastan II]

The LKE declared war on the FRA in May 2010 because the FRA invaded United Kingdom of Britain, a founded LKE colony (not one gained from invasion). When the FRA was informed of UKB's status, Chin-Chillas, their intelligence minister sent a reply back saying that they opposed imperialism in all its forms.

The FRA wasn't aware that United Kingdom of Britain was a colony of the LKE: the region was founderless, LKE troops moved in to take the delegacy, and that deployment was mistakenly considered an invasion like any other.

This has been stated multiple times, and in four years you haven't been able to gather any "evidence" that FRA was acting maliciously beyond a telegram which might mean anything. It was definitely a good pretext, though, and happening at a pretty convenient time as well.

[Onderkelkia]

The LKE declared war on the FRA in May 2010 because the FRA invaded United Kingdom of Britain, a founded LKE colony (not one gained from invasion). When the FRA was informed of UKB's status, Chin-Chillas, their intelligence minister sent a reply back saying that they opposed imperialism in all its forms.

The FRA wasn't aware that United Kingdom of Britain was a colony of the LKE: the region was founderless, LKE troops moved in to take the delegacy, and that deployment was mistakenly considered an invasion like any other.

This has been stated multiple times, and in four years you haven't been able to gather any "evidence" that FRA was acting maliciously beyond a telegram which might mean anything. It was definitely a good pretext, though, and happening at a pretty convenient time as well.

Invading an LKE colony is an offence of strict liability.

It is an extremely grave matter whether or not the intention accompanies the act.

If the FRA is going to move military forces into regions it knows nothing about, it is accountable for the consequences of doing so.

We have no way of confirming the FRA's state of knowledge. Given the FRA's poor relations with the LKE, there is every reason to suspect hostile intentions.

---

Moreover, if the FRA had immediately apologised and accepted that it was in the wrong, that might have mitigated the matter.

Instead, when confronted with the facts of the matter, an FRA minister replied as follows:

Collatica
4 years 131 days ago

We do not and never will condone imperialism, in any form.

In response to a telegram explaining that the region was our founded colony, the FRA replied that they 'do and never will condone imperialism, in any form.'

That telegram is very clear they did not care that we had created the region. As long as we were imperialists, they were happy to do as they will.

It was a violation of LKE sovereignty. When this was pointed out, to add insult to injury, the FRA made it about challenging 'imperialism, in any form.'

Indeed, even now (instead of owning up to this violation of our sovereignty, which it was whether or not it was intentional) the FRA cannot help but add that 'was definitely a good pretext' as if we needed a reason to move troops into a founderless LKE colony. This shows a complete lack of respect.

[Frattastan II]

No apology was given because there were suspicions that it was a trap, and you've been told this more than once.

[Onderkelkia]

No apology was given because there were suspicions that it was a trap, and you've been told this more than once.

While you have been told more than once it was not a trap.

The LKE force was ordered to secure the region because the founder, belonging to Emperor Lucius (who was busy in real life at the time), had died.

UKB was a very well-known LKE region; arguably our highest profile colony. It would have made absolutely no sense to use it as part of any trap.

The LKE has every right to move its forces into its colonies without attracting unwarranted and offensive suspicion.

---

Second, the FRA's baseless suggestion that it was a trap is yet a further discrediting feature of the incident.

In order to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions, they have fabricated unsupported nonsense about being lured into the region.

It does not reflect well on the FRA that you are resorting to making up such excuses to avoid admitting fault.

---

Finally, the allegation that it was a trap was not at all the reason why the FRA minister who participated in the invasion declined to apologise.

The FRA minister who led the invasion refused to apologise simply because 'We do not and never will condone imperialism, in any form.'

That telegram from the FRA lead refused an apology because it was imperialism; not because they believed it was a trap.

This nonsense about it being a trap has only been raised after the fact by the FRA, without any evidence, in an attempt to excuse their failure.

[Frattastan II]

Whether it was a trap or not doesn't change the fact FRA didn't cause harm to UKB and had not intention to do so, although it's the reason why the leadership of the time chose not to issue an apology.

This nonsense about it being a trap has only been raised after the fact by the FRA, without any evidence, in an attempt to excuse their failure.

I'm not sure how it could have been raised 'before the fact', but thank you for this clarification, I guess.

[Onderkelkia]

Whether it was a trap or not doesn't change the fact FRA didn't cause harm to UKB and had not intention to do so, although it's the reason why the leadership of the time chose not to issue an apology.

The FRA interfered in the LKE's territorial control of a region founded by the then LKE Emperor.

As stated, if the FRA is going to move military forces into regions it knows nothing about, it is accountable for the consequences of doing so.

Invading an LKE colony is a violation of our sovereignty regardless of their intention, although given the initial explanation about the operation being anti-imperialist, the FRA's refusal to make an apology and fabricated claims about it being a trap, one is hardly likely to believe the FRA had good intentions.

This nonsense about it being a trap has only been raised after the fact by the FRA, without any evidence, in an attempt to excuse their failure.

I'm not sure how it could have been raised 'before the fact', but thank you for this clarification, I guess.

It could have been raised at the time of the incident, specifically when an apology was first sought.

Instead, this was the FRA's lead's response at the time (this being a minister in the FRA cabinet):

Collatica
4 years 131 days ago

We do not and never will condone imperialism, in any form.

Nothing to do with this allegation it was a trap; everything to do with it being imperialist.

[Coraxion]

I do not understand much about politics revolving around GCR wars, but I understand something on basic requirements of NS Warfare. I don't care what traitor Cormac may think or say about, but I personally want make pragmatic (and Unauthorized by my TBR Superiors) suggestion that UIAF allies of TBR would gather sort of Updater Phalanx auxiliary for a joint updater operations of TBR. We are expanding Schemes of "tag raiding" and that would require more forces online. Also, that would be good for increasing UIAF's own military performances.

TBR will help anyway with UIAF's occupations if requested and strategic situation requires update enforcements and troop movements.

Sincerely,
- Cora -

[Cameron M Romefeller]

Whether it was a trap or not doesn't change the fact FRA didn't cause harm to UKB and had not intention to do so, although it's the reason why the leadership of the time chose not to issue an apology.

The FRA interfered in the LKE's territorial control of a region founded by the then LKE Emperor.

As stated, if the FRA is going to move military forces into regions it knows nothing about, it is accountable for the consequences of doing so.

Invading an LKE colony is a violation of our sovereignty regardless of their intention, although given the initial explanation about the operation being anti-imperialist, the FRA's refusal to make an apology and fabricated claims about it being a trap, one is hardly likely to believe the FRA had good intentions.

I'm not sure how it could have been raised 'before the fact', but thank you for this clarification, I guess.

It could have been raised at the time of the incident, specifically when an apology was first sought.

Instead, this was the FRA's lead's response at the time (this being a minister in the FRA cabinet):

Collatica
4 years 131 days ago

We do not and never will condone imperialism, in any form.

Nothing to do with this allegation it was a trap; everything to do with it being imperialist.

So, what you're saying is you got mad because someone played the game the same exact way you do?

[Glen-Rhodes]

TNI never 'unilaterally extended' its treaty with TSP to apply to the LKE and Albion.

That is 100% false. The Cabinet at the time (I was not a member) raised the question internally if the TSP-TNI alliance extended to the UIAF, as part of an internal foreign policy review. The MoFA at the time said that TNI had confirmed that the TSP-TNI Treaty covered all of the UIAF as well.

[Zenya]

I loled.

[Onderkelkia]

TNI never 'unilaterally extended' its treaty with TSP to apply to the LKE and Albion.

That is 100% false. The Cabinet at the time (I was not a member) raised the question internally if the TSP-TNI alliance extended to the UIAF, as part of an internal foreign policy review. The MoFA at the time said that TNI had confirmed that the TSP-TNI Treaty covered all of the UIAF as well.

If any individual advised TSP of that, they were incorrect, although far more likely your 'MoFA' misunderstood or misrepresented their response.

If it was a question about whether TNI would have considered an attack on UIAF operations a treaty violation or whether UIAF forces would have responded to a TSP aid request, then the question would have been answered affirmatively, but but the former is equally applicable to when TNI forces work with any other ally (we'd would have objected equally to an attack on TNI forces when they were deployed with the forces of Europeia, Balder, Osiris, etc.,) and the latter arises because TNIAF is within UIAF, with the effect of providing additional troops to respond to any aid request (unless TSP asked for only TNIAF).

If on the other hand the question was whether the alliance was, as you present it, 'extended' to cover the LKE and Albion as well as TNI, that absolutely was not the case and most certainly no one ever acted as if an alliance had been created between the LKE or Albion and TSP. How could the treaty have been extended to cover 'the UIAF'? The UIAF is purely a joint military command structure for when our forces work in tandem; it is not a sovereign entity.

Of course, the other question that might have been posed would have been about whether the UIAF would have considered itself bound by non-aggression not to attack TSP, in which case the answer would have been that as TNI forces were in UIAF, UIAF forces would not attack TSP and TNI would veto any such UIAF operation, but LKE and Albion forces operating outside of the UIAF were not covered (but that it was very unlikely they would do such a thing).

So without knowing the details of who said what and when, I cannot clarify what happened, most likely your minister asked about whether the UIAF would provide military aid under the treaty and was told that it would do, but what is '100% false' is that that the treaty was so extended; that would have been absurd, no discussion within TNI's government to that effect took place and no one from TNI or TSP ever notified the LKE government of any such thing.

Really, the notion that the treaty's provisions could have been extended to apply directly to the whole UIAF is preposterous and was never the case. That was not at all the basis on which any of the governments of TNI, the LKE or Albion were operating. The treaty provisions were solely applicable to TNI-TSP.

[Darkesia]

Dear Lord... Onder! You are like the king of walls of text.
That being said, I'm not reading it all. No way.

From what I can gather of scanning, Cormac feels that Osiris has become too much a colony of the UIAF, much like others (Eli et al) felt in ancient times about the ADN's influence in TWP. I will pay attention to that bit of happening as TWP has quite a bit of empathy to go around there. I will be interested to see if it is a feeling shared by Osiris' general population.

Best of luck in your new endeavors, Cormac. It was fun to play with/against you. Maybe we will get to play on the same side sometime.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Really, the notion that the treaty's provisions could have been extended to apply directly to the whole UIAF is preposterous and was never the case. That was not at all the basis on which any of the governments of TNI, the LKE or Albion were operating. The treaty provisions were solely applicable to TNI-TSP.

Tell that to the Cabinet who believed otherwise.

The problem with you, Onder, is that you choose to remain oblivious to the UIAF's influence. If it's not a direct dictation, it's not "real" influence and no"real" impropriety has happened. The problem, in reality, is that you and the rest of the UIAF have a culture of superiority, and so you're blinded to how your actions and words shape others' decisions, and you can't see how or why anybody would ever accuse the UIAf of nefarious intent.

[Onderkelkia]

Really, the notion that the treaty's provisions could have been extended to apply directly to the whole UIAF is preposterous and was never the case. That was not at all the basis on which any of the governments of TNI, the LKE or Albion were operating. The treaty provisions were solely applicable to TNI-TSP.

Tell that to the Cabinet who believed otherwise.

If TSP's cabinet believed otherwise, they were utterly wrong.

If TSP's cabinet genuinely thought the treaty extended to the LKE or Albion, then why did it never discuss it with the LKE or Albion, or vice versa?

I can understand why questions might have arisen about whether UIAF would have provided aid to TSP or attacked TSP: presumably TSP would have been pleased that because of the fact TNIAF was acting in unison with the other UIAF forces, UIAF would have offered aid and would not have attacked TSP.

However, in no sense were any of TSP's obligations under its treaty with TNI extended towards the LKE and Albion.

If anyone said anything to that effect, they were wrong, although more likely TSP asked about whether the UIAF would offer it military aid and non-aggression: if UIAF, with TNI forces operating within it, had declined to offer military assistance and said it was free to attack TSP, then doubtless you would have complained about TNI failing to observe its treaty commitments given its forces operation as part of the UIAF. Now you suggest the opposite.

The problem with you, Onder, is that you choose to remain oblivious to the UIAF's influence. If it's not a direct dictation, it's not "real" influence and no"real" impropriety has happened. The problem, in reality, is that you and the rest of the UIAF have a culture of superiority, and so you're blinded to how your actions and words shape others' decisions, and you can't see how or why anybody would ever accuse the UIAf of nefarious intent.

The problem with you, Glen-Rhodes, is that you make misguided generalisations based on unsupported insinuations.

The issue you have raised here has nothing to do with either 'direct dictation' or 'a culture of superiority'.

It is straightforward that no treaty was ever extended towards the LKE and Albion; not least because neither TNI nor TSP told LKE or Albion such.

The fact that the UIAF is successful organisation with influence does not mean it can be groundlessly accused having 'nefarious intent'.

[Hileville]

To clarify here;

The question that walked at the time was would UIAF forces all take part in the aide of TSP had they been attacked. The answer that was received was in fact YES.

The Treaty did not automatically or legally bind Albion or LKF to TSP.

There was a verbal agreement between TSP and UIAF at the time.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

[Onderkelkia]

To clarify here;

The question that walked at the time was would UIAF forces all take part in the aide of TSP had they been attacked. The answer that was received was in fact YES.

The Treaty did not automatically or legally bind Albion or LKF to TSP.

There was a verbal agreement between TSP and UIAF at the time.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

Thank you for clarifying this point.

As I specified above, there was no doubt that the UIAF would have aided TSP if requested, as TNI forces were operating as part of UIAF.

To go back, the earlier remark from Glen-Rhodes which I objected to was:

To the where TNI unilaterally extended our treaty with them to the entire UIAF

In no sense does a UIAF agreement to defend TSP if it was attacked, after a TSP question, constitute unilaterally extending the TNI-TSP treaty to LKE and Albion. It was wholly disingenuous for Glen-Rhodes to claim that was the case and then use that communication to justify his position on the matter.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No, Onder, it is not "disingenuous." HIleville is simply wrong that the Cabinet at the time, and subsequent Cabinets, were not under the understanding that the provisions of the TSP-TNI Treaty extended to the whole of the UIAF. That is, plain as day, what was posted in the Cabinet forums. That is the understanding that underlined every interaction with the UIAF. It is why we talk in terms of the UIAF -- despite your apparent distaste for that, given that you keep on using scare quotes when using it, or opting for "TNI, LKE and Albion" -- and not just in terms of TNI. This is all very obvious.

That you don't think it is only underscores my point about your willful ignorance. For somebody who fronts this highly sophisticated and intelligent demeanor, you are very oblivious to how your words and actions come across to others. The UIAF exerted influence in TSP, so much so that members of TSP's government had commented from time to time about being fearful of UIAF retaliation if we were to step out of line. Because nobody in the UIAF explicitly dictated what our region had to do, you don't think there's any merit in the accusations that the UIAF exerted undue influence over our foreign affairs. You're doing the same thing now with Osiris, after Cormac has outlined a very similar set of accusations TSP lodged against the UIAF several months ago.

[Onderkelkia]

No, Onder, it is not "disingenuous." HIleville is simply wrong that the Cabinet at the time, and subsequent Cabinets, were not under the understanding that the provisions of the TSP-TNI Treaty extended to the whole of the UIAF.

You accused TNI of unilaterally extending the terms of its treaty with TSP to 'the whole of UIAF'. TNI never did anything like that and you lied by claiming it.

To the extent TSP's Cabinet misunderstood (although Hileville apparently did not), that is something that arose solely out of its internal muddled thinking.

You attributed this supposed understanding to a communication from TNI, presumably the communication which Hileville has just revealed as being nothing more than TNI's verbal agreement (after it was asked) that the UIAF would defend TSP that is hardly something which in any sense negatively affects TSP.

Nothing in TNI assenting to the UIAF providing assistance to TSP if it was attacked constitutes the treaty being extended to the LKE and Albion.

That the UIAF assented to provide such assistance was all the communication on which you sought to rely on proves. For you to have presented that communication to suggest that the treaty was extended to the LKE and Albion, when Hileville has clarified that it did nothing of the sort, is disingenuous.

That is the understanding that underlined every interaction with the UIAF.

The fact that the UIAF was a vehicle for providing military aid to TSP on behalf of TNI does not mean that TSP had obligations to the LKE or Albion.

No one in the UIAF will have ever either stated or implied as such. It is completely baseless to suggest that the UIAF created this understanding.

It is why we talk in terms of the UIAF -- despite your apparent distaste for that, given that you keep on using scare quotes when using it, or opting for "TNI, LKE and Albion" -- and not just in terms of TNI. This is all very obvious.

The UIAF is just a military. It does not enter into treaties. The UIAF has no power to enter into treaties on behalf of the LKE or Albion (or indeed TNI).

The UIAF does not have any foreign policy-making power. All such power belongs to the LKE, TNI and Albion as individual regions.

The UIAF is simply the equivalent to a regional military, except that it combines three regional militaries together. To even talk about UIAF member-regions is inaccurate, but the UIAF is composed of militaries, not regions. The final say over each regional military lies with each regional government.

The UIAF Joint Commander takes his orders from the three governments and is entirely subordinate to their directions in questions of policy.

That you don't think it is only underscores my point about your willful ignorance. For somebody who fronts this highly sophisticated and intelligent demeanor, you are very oblivious to how your words and actions come across to others. The UIAF exerted influence in TSP, so much so that members of TSP's government had commented from time to time about being fearful of UIAF retaliation if we were to step out of line. Because nobody in the UIAF explicitly dictated what our region had to do, you don't think there's any merit in the accusations that the UIAF exerted undue influence over our foreign affairs.

The UIAF cannot be hold accountable for speculation - which it appears had nothing to do with its actions - by foreign government officials.

There is a distinction between the UIAF seeking to influence TSP and TSP officials wishing of their own volition to act in such a manner to have a good relationship with TNI, the LKE and Albion because the UIAF. The latter is the perfectly normal conduct of inter-regional politics and it is not at all sinister.

You're doing the same thing now with Osiris, after Cormac has outlined a very similar set of accusations TSP lodged against the UIAF several months ago.

Actually, when I raised it, Cormac has clarified quite clearly that his allegations are nothing to do with UIAF influence on the foreign affairs of Osiris:

Given that you claimed other imperialist regions regarded Osiris as 'at best a protectorate and at worst a colony', and accompanied this with statements claiming to have never been in favour of war with Lazarus, it is reasonable to address the implication that imperialist pressure led to these outcomes, which is an inference which Glen-Rhodes appears to have made from it when he, prior to my post here, talked about 'imperialists basically dictating Osiris' foreign policy'. The direction of Osiris foreign policy has been determined by the internal decisions of Osiris, not any UIAF influence on foreign policy.

Yes, as I've said numerous times both here and in Osiris, on this I entirely agree with you. UIAF had nothing to do with the decision to declare war against Lazarus or the post-RSC embassy closures, nor have I blamed them for either of those things. I made those decisions, without personally favoring them, because I believed they reflected the best interests of Osiris in light of the direction that the community of Osiris wanted for the region. I made that very clear in my resignation post in Osiris..

The issues Cormac raised, while frankly absurd in themselves, were not about influencing Osiris policy.

[Hileville]

No, Onder, it is not "disingenuous." HIleville is simply wrong that the Cabinet at the time, and subsequent Cabinets, were not under the understanding that the provisions of the TSP-TNI Treaty extended to the whole of the UIAF..

Considering I am the one who was involved in the discussions that led to verbal agreement between TSP and UIAF, I don't see how I could be so simply wrong.

[Unibot III]

I don't see how I could be so simply wrong.

Because being right would mean being unpopular in your new home?

[Anumia]

Point conceded. Despite Kraketopia's and Anumia's protests to the contrary, I'm sure this had much more to do with Zenny Fominov and her political party in Europeia than anything to do with imperialism.

This is genuinely funny.