Cristo Verde wrote:A statement that pointedly doesn't name the treaty ally of yours currently supporting an operation you've already decided is "griefing," and only names those at your back on the lib.
lol.
and stop hiding behind a puppet, souls. no one’s interested in your ham-handed attempts to stir the pot. your playbook is so painfully obvious. didn’t you recently pull the “but you weren’t in the room, you don’t know how it went down” card on me recently? why do you suddenly get to speculate like this? or do your own standards not apply to you?
but i’ll give you a quick moralist interpretation of the situation because i happen to be nice like that.
ethically speaking, moralism cannot and should not preclude working with independent organizations. if you hold sovereignty in the highest regard, the resolution is simply to liberate the attacked region. you don’t hang sanctions over their heads or try to get them to pull out. you need not dictate what the independent orgs ought or ought not to do, as much as you know it is wrong. this conflict has arisen countless times before and it has literally never posed a barrier to defenders working with independents. you hand the region back to its rightful owners and you carry on with your treaties intact.
so go ahead. continue to make up some bullshit world in which these things aren’t compatible or in which defenders attempt to force the hands of their allies. i am sure we’d all thoroughly enjoy it.