NationStates

Mahaj wrote:

Whiskum wrote:Hardly: we pursued our own interests in a way which guaranteed the eventual return of Osiris, something which was by no means certain.

Our leverage derived from the presence of our military forces, which cross-endorsed and potentially could have switch sides if the situation called for it.

An update military 'liberation' as such was never going to be a practical option for a long time.

Frankly, however, LKE and TNI do indeed benefit from this outcome, so does Osiris.

We support a stable, free and democratic Osiris. We believed a precondition of that is the removal of UDL and FRA influence. We acted accordingly, to pursue our own interest, but in a way that has secured the return of Osiris into freedom. We get different things out of it obviously.

Indeed.

the LKE and TNi benefited from this.
Osiris is still stuck under a multitude of Gatesvillian demands.

An update military liberation was a practical option with UIAF assisting.

They chose not to, and Osiris suffers.

Southwick wrote:

Cerian Quilor wrote:Osirian Interests were served quite well by this peace, and your continued and deliberate ignorance of the reality of the situation does not serve you, or the UDL in any way.

Liberations alone do not always solve the problem in a situation like the Osiris Coup. War in the GCRs is very much a matter of politics, negotiation and attrition, which is why the UDL has always been ill suited for it.

So LKE did their actions for their own benefit, not for Osiris' benefit? Highly unsurprising coming from the imperialist sphere. A liberation would have achieved exactly what has been achieved, getting the region back, except it would have happened quicker and it wouldn't have forced Osiris to sign a degrading peace treaty.

Whiskum wrote:

Mahaj wrote:Indeed.

the LKE and TNi benefited from this.
Osiris is still stuck under a multitude of Gatesvillian demands.

An update military liberation was a practical option with UIAF assisting.

They chose not to, and Osiris suffers.

As I say, we have no reason to deploy if we do not benefit. Osiris also benefits substantially from the return of its region. It is to mutual benefit.

Whiskum wrote:

Mahaj wrote:Indeed.

the LKE and TNi benefited from this.
Osiris is still stuck under a multitude of Gatesvillian demands.

An update military liberation was a practical option with UIAF assisting.

They chose not to, and Osiris suffers.

As I say, we have no reason to deploy if we do not benefit. Osiris also benefits substantially from the return of its region. It is to mutual benefit.

I disagree entirely that an update military 'liberation' was possible with our support and any military option for liberation was made substantially more possible with our forces in the region able to potentially switch sides. This made a negotiated settlement a reality, to Osiris's benefit.

Cerian Quilor wrote:

Southwick wrote:So LKE did their actions for their own benefit, not for Osiris' benefit? Highly unsurprising coming from the imperialist sphere. A liberation would have achieved exactly what has been achieved, getting the region back, except it would have happened quicker and it wouldn't have forced Osiris to sign a degrading peace treaty.

That's not what I said, and a liberation wouldn't have been practical. the only reason the numbers might have gotten to a 40 distance even in the first place was because, in order to not get banjected, all non-updaters, from such regions as the GCR allies of Osiris, Mazeria, etc, would have to endorse TDE so as not to appear a threat. You are not thinking about GCR conflict, but conflict in your standard founderless region.

Your continued ignorance, Southwick and Mahaj, which has to either be a record, or wilfull, is astounding.

Southwick wrote:

Whiskum wrote:

As I say, we have no reason to deploy if we do not benefit. Osiris also benefits substantially from the return of its region. It is to mutual benefit./quote]

You deploy because you support a stable, free, and democratic Osiris. But I guess that is only when it serves you.

Edit: Fixing bb code

Cerian Quilor wrote:

Southwick wrote:So LKE did their actions for their own benefit, not for Osiris' benefit? Highly unsurprising coming from the imperialist sphere. A liberation would have achieved exactly what has been achieved, getting the region back, except it would have happened quicker and it wouldn't have forced Osiris to sign a degrading peace treaty.

That's not what I said, and a liberation wouldn't have been practical. the only reason the numbers might have gotten to a 40 distance even in the first place was because, in order to not get banjected, all non-updaters, from such regions as the GCR allies of Osiris, Mazeria, etc, would have to endorse TDE so as not to appear a threat. You are not thinking about GCR conflict, but conflict in your standard founderless region.

Your continued ignorance, Southwick and Mahaj, which has to either be a record, or wilfull, is astounding.

Whiskum wrote:

Southwick wrote:

As the Prime Minister's statement asserted from the outset, for us a precondition for a stable and free Osiris was the removal of UDL and FRA influence. A precondition for a democratic Osiris was Cormac becoming Delegate. We have secured a solution to bring both about.

If the UDL and the FRA really cannot see that the guaranteed return of the Delegacy to Cormac serves Osiris, then that is strange.

Whiskum wrote:

Southwick wrote:

As the Prime Minister's statement asserted from the outset, for us a precondition for a stable and free Osiris was the removal of UDL and FRA influence. A precondition for a democratic Osiris was Cormac becoming Delegate. We have secured a solution to bring both about.

If the UDL and the FRA really cannot see that the guaranteed return of the Delegacy to Cormac serves Osiris, then that is strange.

Mahaj wrote:

Whiskum wrote:As I say, we have no reason to deploy if we do not benefit. Osiris also benefits substantially from the return of its region. It is to mutual benefit.

I disagree entirely that an update military 'liberation' was possible with our support and any military option for liberation was made substantially more possible with our forces in the region able to potentially switch sides. This made a negotiated settlement a reality, to Osiris's benefit.

How is this settlement a benefit to Osiris? They lose an incredible amount of sovereignty over this.

Cerian Quilor wrote:That's not what I said, and a liberation wouldn't have been practical. the only reason the numbers might have gotten to a 40 distance even in the first place was because, in order to not get banjected, all non-updaters, from such regions as the GCR allies of Osiris, Mazeria, etc, would have to endorse TDE so as not to appear a threat. You are not thinking about GCR conflict, but conflict in your standard founderless region.

Your continued ignorance, Southwick and Mahaj, which has to either be a record, or wilfull, is astounding.

I think you have no clue as to the feasibility of the liberation.

Cerian Quilor wrote:

Mahaj wrote:How is this settlement a benefit to Osiris? They lose an incredible amount of sovereignty over this.


I think you have no clue as to the feasibility of the liberation.

Osiris loses none of its sovreignty. They don't have to make changes to their policies or structures. They have to make certain concessions in the peace treaty, yes, but all peace treaties are give and take. And you continue to ignore the fact that it was the UDL, not Osiris, UIAF or Gatesville, that saw to it that UDL-Osiris relations were cut.

If UIAF endorsers had switched, after cross endorsing for so long in the region, it would have beggared Durk's influence levels. This was a conflict of attrition, not of pure manuever.

Mahaj wrote:

Cerian Quilor wrote:Osiris loses none of its sovreignty. They don't have to make changes to their policies or structures. They have to make certain concessions in the peace treaty, yes, but all peace treaties are give and take. And you continue to ignore the fact that it was the UDL, not Osiris, UIAF or Gatesville, that saw to it that UDL-Osiris relations were cut.

it was not

If UIAF endorsers had switched, after cross endorsing for so long in the region, it would have beggared Durk's influence levels. This was a conflict of attrition, not of pure manuever.

Indeed, this i recognize.

Mahaj wrote:

Whiskum wrote:As the Prime Minister's statement asserted from the outset, for us a precondition for a stable and free Osiris was the removal of UDL and FRA influence. A precondition for a democratic Osiris was Cormac becoming Delegate. We have secured a solution to bring both about.

If the UDL and the FRA really cannot see that the guaranteed return of the Delegacy to Cormac serves Osiris, then that is strange.

It is clear how the return helps Osiris.

It is less clear that the agreements other terms help.

But a question: Was the government of Osiris aware of the precondition of "removal of UDL and FRA influence" when they approved the LKE coming in?
That's just a simple yes or no.

Whiskum wrote:

Mahaj wrote:It is clear how the return helps Osiris.

It is less clear that the agreements other terms help.

But a question: Was the government of Osiris aware of the precondition of "removal of UDL and FRA influence" when they approved the LKE coming in?
That's just a simple yes or no.

No: there was zero discussion of removing UDL and FRA influence when a UIAF deployment was approved.

They were aware that we wanted to leverage negotiations between them and Gatesville. Negotiations naturally involve concessions by all sides.

Ultimately, Osiris is better off as a result. If the LKE and TNI were not also better off through an Osiris which is more stable and free of UDL and FRA influence as well as democratic, then we would have had no incentive to deploy. That deployment has helped Osiris far more than anything else.

Mahaj wrote:

Whiskum wrote:No: there was zero discussion of removing UDL and FRA influence when a UIAF deployment was approved.

They were aware that we wanted to leverage negotiations between them and Gatesville. Negotiations naturally involve concessions by all sides.

Ultimately, Osiris is better off as a result. If the LKE and TNI were not also better off through an Osiris which is more stable and free of UDL and FRA influence as well as democratic, then we would have had no incentive to deploy. That deployment has helped Osiris far more than anything else.

When was the Osiris government made aware that the LKE desired the result of removing defender influence?

North East Somerset wrote:I think UDL members of Osiris should wait for Cormac to make a statement and support his return to the Delegacy. Who is your Leader, Cormac or Mahaj? Consider that.

Anarchic Plains wrote:

North East Somerset wrote:I think UDL members of Osiris should wait for Cormac to make a statement and support his return to the Delegacy. Who is your Leader, Cormac or Mahaj? Consider that.

Because everything in life is black and white.

North East Somerset wrote:

Anarchic Plains wrote:
Because everything in life is black and white.

Either you support Cormac, or you find the anti-UDL actions by Osiris under Cormac to be unnacceptably detrimental, and thus support Mahaj. Not very complicated, really. I know I support the elected Pharoah, and consider the only detrimental influence in Osiris to be that of the UDL.

North East Somerset wrote:

Anarchic Plains wrote:
Because everything in life is black and white.

Either you support Cormac, or you find the anti-UDL actions by Osiris under Cormac to be unnacceptably detrimental, and thus support Mahaj.

Everbeek wrote:All this time I was trying to help regain Cormac's delegacy and now I find out he deliberately prolonged the coup just to get rid of people like me? What a bloody waste of my time