The SPSF would like to apologize to the ERN

[QuietDad]

Recently, the SPSF was called in last minute to support a liberation of Coalition of Catholic States and assist a large group including The United Defenders League (UDL), Ten-Thousand-Islands-Treaty-Organisation (TITO), Spiritus Defense Force (SDF), The Rejected Realms Army (RRA), Renegade Islands Alliance Special Forces (RIASF), Taijitu Militia, Fort Triumph Marshal Service (FTMS), The Founderless Regions Alliance’s Rangers (FRA), Lazarene Liberation Army (LLA), East Pacific Sovereign Army (EPSA), South Pacific Special Forces (SPSF) and Wintreath’s Hvitt Riddiral (WHR). Some of which the SPSF has worked with before. I agreed to join them but without time, I didn't have time to check things out first. Once the nission took place, I found out that one of the occupiers was the ERN of Europia which is a treatied ally of TSP. Had I known they where there, the SPSF would not have participated. This was an error on MY part and I take full responsibility. The regional government had nothing to do with this. I offer my sincere apologies to Kraketopia and the ERN for my missteps and hope we can put this behind us.

[Glen-Rhodes]

For the record, the treaty between The South Pacific and Europeia explicitly allows both regions to be on opposite sides of the field during a mission. We do not and will not make it a general rule to avoid military missions simply because an ally is on the opposite side. We have always made this a point in our treaties. The only time we decline to participate in a mission where we would be on the opposite side of an ally is if that ally explicitly requests us to do so, ahead of time, and when doing so would not harm our own interests.

[McMasterdonia]

QD says he wouldn't have asked the SPSF to participate if he had known the ERN were involved which seems to imply that under QD's leadership, he will endeavor to make sure it doesn't occur again. You now say that you may do it again in future, unless they specifically ask you. Seems a bit contradictory to me

Though generally, I don't think a bit of action on opposing sides of military gameplay is a bad thing for allies, especially given that the treaty makes allowance for it to occur.

[RiderSyl]

QD says he wouldn't have asked the SPSF to participate if he had known the ERN were involved which seems to imply that under QD's leadership, he will endeavor to make sure it doesn't occur again. You now say that you may do it again in future, unless they specifically ask you. Seems a bit contradictory to me

And so the TSP clusterfuck begins...

[Onderkelkia]

Quiet Dad's statement seems sensible and appropriate, although McMasterdonia is correct that it is implicitly contradicted by the statement of Glen-Rhodes.

We have always made this a point in our treaties.

You say that TSP has 'always made' a point of including provisions permitting one ally to engage in hostilities with the other. While this may well be true in relation to more recent treaties, this was not the case in the treaty between TNI and TSP, so your claim that it has 'always' been the case is incorrect.

[NoblePhnx]

*steps cautiously into the snakepit

If the SPSF and ERN are allowed to be on opposite sides of a military engagement and if Europia aren't(I assume) throwing a fit which even if they were they aren't really entitled to, the SPSF should not be apologizing for anything.

[Funkadelia]

I thought that there was a provision in the Europia/TSP treaty that prevented this sort of thing from becoming an issue whatsoever? What is the apology for?

[Eluvatar]

Quiet Dad's statement seems sensible and appropriate, although McMasterdonia is correct that it is implicitly contradicted by the statement of Glen-Rhodes.

We have always made this a point in our treaties.

You say that TSP has 'always made' a point of including provisions permitting one ally to engage in hostilities with the other. While this may well be true in relation to more recent treaties, this was not the case in the treaty between TNI and TSP, so your claim that it has 'always' been the case is incorrect.

While no explicit permissive exception exists, the definitions in the Non-Agression (sic) section of the (now defunct) treaty between TNI and TSP are very clear that they apply only to the regions The New Inquisition and the South Pacific.

Article I - Non-Agression Between Signatories

- TNI recognises the constitution, government and laws of TSP as legitimate and agrees not to undermine or overthrow them or to assist any other region in doing so. TNI further agrees to offer assistance in the event that another region or organisation attempts to overthrow the legitimate government of TSP.

- TSP recognises the constitution, government and laws of TNI as legitimate and agrees not to undermine or overthrow them or to assist any other region in doing so. TSP further agrees to offer assistance in the event that another region or organisation attempts to overthrow the legitimate government of TNI.

- Both TNI and TSP agree to peaceful military relations with one another. They agree not to seek to overthrow the delegacy of either region and not to assist any other region in doing so.

- The Signatories agree to share any intelligence relating to the security of the other region with appropriate members of that region. This includes, but is not limited to known invasion plans, spam attacks or any other type of forum sabotage.

- Signatories agree not to conduct any form of intelligence operations inside the other region.

[Onderkelkia]

Quiet Dad's statement seems sensible and appropriate, although McMasterdonia is correct that it is implicitly contradicted by the statement of Glen-Rhodes.


You say that TSP has 'always made' a point of including provisions permitting one ally to engage in hostilities with the other. While this may well be true in relation to more recent treaties, this was not the case in the treaty between TNI and TSP, so your claim that it has 'always' been the case is incorrect.

While no explicit permissive exception exists, the definitions in the Non-Agression (sic) section of the (now defunct) treaty between TNI and TSP are very clear that they apply only to the regions The New Inquisition and the South Pacific.

Article I - Non-Agression Between Signatories

- TNI recognises the constitution, government and laws of TSP as legitimate and agrees not to undermine or overthrow them or to assist any other region in doing so. TNI further agrees to offer assistance in the event that another region or organisation attempts to overthrow the legitimate government of TSP.

- TSP recognises the constitution, government and laws of TNI as legitimate and agrees not to undermine or overthrow them or to assist any other region in doing so. TSP further agrees to offer assistance in the event that another region or organisation attempts to overthrow the legitimate government of TNI.

- Both TNI and TSP agree to peaceful military relations with one another. They agree not to seek to overthrow the delegacy of either region and not to assist any other region in doing so.

- The Signatories agree to share any intelligence relating to the security of the other region with appropriate members of that region. This includes, but is not limited to known invasion plans, spam attacks or any other type of forum sabotage.

- Signatories agree not to conduct any form of intelligence operations inside the other region.

Nonsense: nowhere in what you have quoted does it provide any definition limiting the applicability of non-aggression to the regions themselves - not even implicitly, whereas you say 'very clearly' - yet nowhere does it even hint at creating such a definition.

The treaty in fact clearly states ''Both TNI and TSP agree to peaceful military relations with one another'.

Peaceful military relations excludes hostile military relations. Engaging on different sides of a military conflict is hostile military relations.

'Peaceful military relations' between TNI and TSP clearly means more than simply refraining to attack each other's region - it means the militaries are at peace with each other, so the militaries concerned do not attack each other, hence the use of the term 'military relations'. Indeed, if it only meant they could not attack the other's region, it would be wholly superfluous given the separate clause about not overthrowing the other's government. In any case, Glen-Rhodes suggested TSP's treaties 'always' had a clause akin to that in the TSP-Europeia treaty, which is (even in your argument) not the case.

[Solorni]

I would just assume allies wouldn't attack each other.

[Onderkelkia]

I would just assume allies wouldn't attack each other.

Indeed, frankly this is such a basic, core principle of having an alliance that it does not bear stating.

Even where it is not a breach of treaty, it is a breach of decorum and conventional expectations - which I assume is why Quiet Dad saw fit to apologise.

[Anumia]

QuietDad, as I said in TSP's embassy on the Europeia forum, the Republic appreciates your prompt response, and looks forward to better fortune and teamwork in the near future.

[QuietDad]

The issue here is not treaties, regional politics, not anything like that. The ERN and SPSF were in communications about maybe doing a joint operation together and I found it bad taste at this time to go against the ERN. Thats ALL there is to it at this point. You can add all the drama and politics into it you want. It's just not there. Will the ERN and SPSF find itself on opposite sides of the battlefield in the future? Probably. Welcome to the battlefield. We'll way those situations when it happens.

[Ynys Prydain]

The better question for me is why one always finds the ERN, the military of a purportedly independent region, involved in raids and occupations. Had they not been occupying CCS, they could have joined their allies in The South Pacific in attempting to liberate the region.

Well, no, they probably couldn't have anyway, because the UIAF would have provided The Black Hawks with a treaty shield that would have prevented Europeia from participating in a liberation. Funny how the only time this independent region can do anything but raid is when fascists are the raiders.

[Kazmr]

Let me pose a question to Onder et all:

Why should you expect an alliance or non-aggression pact to extend to a region where you aren't the lead? I understand QD showing courtesy, fine, but you guys make it out as if it would have been plain wrong for TSP to get involved and contrary to being an ally. Given how multilateral just about every NS military op is, you can hardly expect a raid in which your providing support to remain untouched by principle. If that were the case, your old arguments about an alliance with one UIAF region isn't one with all is pretty much bunk, seeing as they tend to always conduct joint ops and thus you would seem to expect no maneuvers against anyone.

[Ynys Prydain]

Let me pose a question to Onder et all:

Why should you expect an alliance or non-aggression pact to extend to a region where you aren't the lead? I understand QD showing courtesy, fine, but you guys make it out as if it would have been plain wrong for TSP to get involved and contrary to being an ally. Given how multilateral just about every NS military op is, you can hardly expect a raid in which your providing support to remain untouched by principle. If that were the case, your old arguments about an alliance with one UIAF region isn't one with all is pretty much bunk, seeing as they tend to always conduct joint ops and thus you would seem to expect no maneuvers against anyone.

The New Inquisition expects allied regions not to participate in any operation that opposes TNIAF, even if they weren't involved in the operation at update and are only providing support. This is often -- almost always, really -- used as a "shield" to protect other raiders' raids from TNI's independent allies.

To their credit, The Land of Kings and Emperors and Albion are both willing to maintain the same type of clause as found in the TSP-Europeia treaty, noted above, in their treaties. Only TNI is so inflexible. However, due to TNI being one of three UIAF member regions and given that they nearly always do joint operations, a treaty with TNI effectively protects the other two as well. And as I said, it usually also protects other raiders because UIAF very often provides some degree of support to any raid.

Yet another reason that "independence" is usually a sham. Independent regions that sign a treaty with The New Inquisition (so, most of them) surrender their independence, as Europeia, Balder, Osiris, and The West Pacific have done and as TSP had done before TNI did them the favor of terminating the treaty.

[Kazmr]

Thanks cormac, though I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth

[Ynys Prydain]

Thanks cormac, though I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth

Understandable. Fair warning though, he'll say what I just said, while trying to make it sound like he isn't saying what I just said, and will spend several more paragraphs doing it.

[Sovreignry]

Thanks cormac, though I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth

Understandable. Fair warning though, he'll say what I just said, while trying to make it sound like he isn't saying what I just said, and will spend several more paragraphs doing it.

But half the fun is treating Onder's response as an essay in a college class and giving out grades.

[Kraketopia]

On behalf of the ERN I would like to accept this apology. Quiet Dad has been great to deal with so far, and seems like a very honourable, reasonable fellow. I look forward to working alongside the SPSF on many operations in the future.

[Onderkelkia]

It is strange that a thread about an apology from TSP to Europeia has turned into an attempt to question me, but I will respond nonetheless.

The better question for me is why one always finds the ERN, the military of a purportedly independent region, involved in raids and occupations. Had they not been occupying CCS, they could have joined their allies in The South Pacific in attempting to liberate the region.

Well, no, they probably couldn't have anyway, because the UIAF would have provided The Black Hawks with a treaty shield that would have prevented Europeia from participating in a liberation.

The Black Hawks and the Europeian Republican Navy arranged the operation in the Coalition of Catholic States without UIAF involvement.

The UIAF only became involved in the update operation and reinforcement after the Joint Commander offered assistance during the update.

As it was a joint TBH-Europeia mission, the suggestion that the UIAF's presence somehow barred Europeia from fighting on the other side is totally wrong.

Likewise, there are a great many raider-led (often TBR) occupations without any UIAF presence - the UIAF is not involved in all raiding activity in this game.

Funny how the only time this independent region can do anything but raid is when fascists are the raiders.

Independence is not about balancing raiding and defending. It is about performing military activity according to your foreign policy objectives (e.g. as defined by your alliance networks - quite why people would want to pursue military operations which involve working against their allies I have no idea).

There are numerous examples of independent regions undertaking defensive operations where fascists were not the raiding party: off the top of my head, operations in Anzia, The Imperial Legion, Haven, Osiris, The South Pacific and Feudal Japan are all examples in this category.

Let me pose a question to Onder et all:

Why should you expect an alliance or non-aggression pact to extend to a region where you aren't the lead?

If your forces are present in the region, moving forces in against them is taking hostile military action against them.

The identity of the lead party does not change that (although in this case Europeia had a greater stake in the operation than the UIAF).

I understand QD showing courtesy, fine, but you guys make it out as if it would have been plain wrong for TSP to get involved and contrary to being an ally. Given how multilateral just about every NS military op is, you can hardly expect a raid in which your providing support to remain untouched by principle.

The purpose of an alliance is to denote a common political and security network. Alliances are not ornamental; they show that regions are aligned.

Allies should be providing aid to each other's military operations, not opposing them.

In an independent region, military action is an instrument of foreign policy and the region as a political unit, not a part of a separate 'R/D' game. Accordingly, to oppose a region's military action is to oppose its state. Regions engaged in armed hostilities should not be allied to each other.

The New Inquisition expects allied regions not to participate in any operation that opposes TNIAF, even if they weren't involved in the operation at update and are only providing support. This is often -- almost always, really -- used as a "shield" to protect other raiders' raids from TNI's independent allies.

Nonsense, it is because TNI's military represents the whole of The New Inquisition: to deploy against a TNIAF unit is to oppose every single citizen of TNI.

This is nothing to do with shielding raiders. It is for precisely the same reason that no TNI citizen is permitted to join an FRA region - every citizen of TNI is part of our conflict, the military is the manifestation of TNI collectively and to oppose TNI militarily is to oppose TNI as a whole.

Additionally, in practical terms, whenever TNI forces are deployed, we have interests at stake. If a region we are reinforcing is 'liberated', that reflects on us and has in the past (such as in ITALIA and other examples ) been used in enemy propaganda against us as if we were the lead party. This applies doubly so where the organisations going into battle with us are in a state of war with us, where they will inevitably claim a victory. So our interests are at stake.

At its heart though, it is a consequence of our independent philosophy, namely that our military activity is an expression of foreign policy - having military battles is not a form of. fun. Military confrontation is hostile and political conflict. Allies should not be involved in hostilities against each other.

So it is absolutely nothing to do with providing a 'shield'' to raiding militaries.

To their credit, The Land of Kings and Emperors and Albion are both willing to maintain the same type of clause as found in the TSP-Europeia treaty, noted above, in their treaties.

Actually, you find a clause of this kind in the treaty between TNI and Balder, so this attack on TNI is quite baseless.

The LKE has clauses of this kind in its treaties with Balder, Osiris and TWP. However, most LKE and TNI treaties do not have clauses of this kind.

Moreover, these clauses do not encourage or expressly provide for operations against allies, they merely indicate they do not constitute a treaty breach, e.g.:

(a) Neither Balder nor The LKE will engage in military hostilities against the other. Participation by [Insert region name] and The LKE on opposite sides of a military engagement that does not constitute an attack on either region shall not be considered "military hostilities against the other" for this purpose.

This definition is expressly restricted to purposes associated with the interpretation of this clause.

Simply because something is not banned under a treaty does not make it an appropriate course of action in the context of an alliance, as most people understand, hence why you do not see Balder randomly deploying against UIAF operations. Between allies there is meant to be a culture of mutual ties which should not require formal agreements to entail the most basic courtesy, namely military non-aggression - as I said above, it does not bear stating.

Barring special circumstances, an alliance where one party conducts operations against the other would be an alliance in name only, a sham, and either side would accordingly be within their rights to look at the alliance, conclude it is not a meaningful relationship and conclude it in that situation.

However, due to TNI being one of three UIAF member regions and given that they nearly always do joint operations, a treaty with TNI effectively protects the other two as well. And as I said, it usually also protects other raiders because UIAF very often provides some degree of support to any raid.

The LKE takes the same attitude to these questions as TNI.

I have relatively little involvement in Albion, so I cannot comment definitively on its position, although I'd be surprised if it took a different view.

I have explained that the LKE and TNI's policies on this issue have nothing to do with protecting other parties; it is to do with our own interests.

There is no burning desire or interest among the allies of the LKE, TNI and Albion in opposing one of the other region's military operations.

Yet another reason that "independence" is usually a sham. Independent regions that sign a treaty with The New Inquisition (so, most of them) surrender their independence, as Europeia, Balder, Osiris, and The West Pacific have done and as TSP had done before TNI did them the favor of terminating the treaty.

Agreeing to refrain from opposing TNI forces in battle does not in any sense constitute a surrender of 'independence'. It's basic courtesy.

The idea, that it is somehow normal for allies to go around opposing each other's operations, undermines the very notion and meaning of an alliance. Alliances are meaningless unless they are built on a bedrock of shared objectives. Alliances among parties engaged in military confrontation are worthless.

It is entirely reasonable for a region to expect its allies to either support it or to refrain from undertaking hostile activity against it. That does not mean that an allied region most always support its ally, but an allied region is not an ally if it actually prefers to undermine and oppose its so-called friend.

Thanks cormac, though I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth

Understandable. Fair warning though, he'll say what I just said, while trying to make it sound like he isn't saying what I just said, and will spend several more paragraphs doing it.

Actually, my response is founded upon a completely different perspective to your concerted attempt to present TNI in a negative light.

[Solorni]

Onderkelkia is the devil in the religion of Unibotion and Cormacian religions. If young defenders aren't careful and dutiful, they will be tortured by Onderkelkia forever in the afterlife

[Unibot III]

they will be tortured by Onderkelkia forever in the afterlife

As opposed to now where you're only tortured by reading his responses.

[Cormac Pendragon]

<snip>

That was a lot of words to confirm basically what I've said: These regions cannot participate in mainstream defensive operations, and must confine themselves to defending against fringe raiders. That isn't independence. At best, they might occasionally be able to join in a liberation against The Black Riders and even then if you got wind of it you would probably deploy the UIAF.

I don't actually care, mind you. If you want to be raider, be raider. What bothers me is the sham of "independence." There is no independence among these regions. You raid 95% of the time and the other 5% consists of self-serving defensive operations that you can then cite to prove you aren't raider.

Onderkelkia is the devil in the religion of Unibotion and Cormacian religions. If young defenders aren't careful and dutiful, they will be tortured by Onderkelkia forever in the afterlife

I don't have a religion, and if I did, Onder wouldn't be nearly important enough to be the devil. Jakker would be the devil. Onder would be like, I don't know, some kind of snake oil salesman televangelist of a competing religion that only crackpots join.

[Onderkelkia]

That was a lot of words

If you really wish to debate length, the sections of my post replying to Kazmr's question are 133 words, whereas your reply to that question was 192 words.

This was despite the fact you advised him, when he indicated he still desired a reply from me, that I would take 'several more paragraphs' to answer it.

The reason the post I have just made had 'a lot of words' is because I had more content to respond to, including your misleading reply.

These regions cannot participate in mainstream defensive operations, and must confine themselves to defending against fringe raiders. That isn't independence.

You are basically arguing that a region cannot be independent unless it designs its foreign policy to participate in operations against the UIAF.

Independence is rejection of the raider-defender spectrum altogether. Why should they be concerned about how much defending they do?

For an independent region, offensive operations and defensive operations are just tools to be used as they need them to advance their objectives. There is absolutely no imperative for independent regions to in any sense balance offensive and defensive operations, because they refuse to be defined by them.

What bothers me is the sham of "independence." There is no independence among these regions. You raid 95% of the time and the other 5% consists of self-serving defensive operations that you can then cite to prove you aren't raider.

1. None of the operations I listed above (or the other operations which it appears I forgot, like Greater Wetlands and Grand Central) were pursued so we could 'cite [them] to prove [we] aren't raider'. They were pursued either because of a connection to the regions involved or political interests at stake.

2. On the other hand, an independent region which sought to alter the balance of offensive and defensive operations simply to increase the number of defensive operations relative to offensive operations would be doing precisely what you allege: doing operations to cite them to prove they are not raider.

Essentially, your proposed benchmark for independence, of seeking to increase the share of defensive operations for its own sake, would lead independent regions into embracing the very other activity you warn about, namely simply doing operations to prove independent regions are not raider.

3. Independent regions already know they are not raider; they don't need to do defensive operations to prove it. Indeed, to deliberately pursue defensive operations to look equally 'defender' would be to ignore the point of independence, namely rejecting the entire concepts of 'raider' and 'defender'.