HYPOCRITE! That has been my point in negotiations. You can't dictate terms. Negotiation, as you so rightly say, is a two-way lane.
Neither Ausitoria can dictate SACTO terms upon which the negotiations will be carried out.
All that Ausitoria seeks is the ability for the IFC to function - and for IFC members to act - without constant interference from SACTO. We are not your puppets. We are trying to be neutral, and SACTO is making it impossible.
IFC, do you even want not to have to kowtow to SACTO?
The internal affairs of the IFC are none of our concern. Encroachment by Ausitorian government on SACTO sphere of influence, however, is. Remaining affairs are none of our concern, especially considering that Aravea and OS were members of IFA long before Ausitoria joined said organizations.
Anyway, if SACTO refuses to allow this, we have a problem. As I said in my TG, you cannot dictate terms, because that will lead to confrontation, and confrontation between two sides that will not compromise in a war that will never stop will not be pretty for anybody. Nobody wins in total war, even in nuclear weapons are left off the table. The ability to wage war = willpower x resources. Ausitoria, for funny cultural reasons, has an immense willpower to defend a centrist, neutral, trading bloc - because otherwise this moderate bloc will never have any functional independence.
Actually here I will disagree. Now allow me to quote a classic soviet military theories, Vasily D. Sokolovsky, whose theories about military art shaped operational doctrine of red army for majority of cold war. Sokolovsky formed four "laws" that describe possible chances in a military conflict:
"First Law: The course and outcome of war waged with unlimited employment of all means of conflict depends primarily on the correlation of available, strictly military combatants at the beginning of war ...
Second Law: The course and outcome of war depend on the correlation of the military potentials of the combatants.
Third Law: The course and outcome of war depend on its political content.
Fourth Law: The course and outcome of war depend on the correlation of moral-political and psychological capabilities of the peoples and armies of the combatants.
Now, quoting those laws:
1) How many forces could Ausitoria contribute to the fight at this point?
2) How many forces could, at this moment, Ausitoria contribute to the conflict? How well equipped they are? How well trained is it's officer cadre against SACTO militaries which had plenty of chance to practice combat during various interventions past year?
3) How much backup could Ausitoria get, now when Allanea declared that it will protect IYF (ask him if you do not believe)? How strong it is ideologically?
4) How will Ausitoria behave when SACTO declared it will not back down, because status quo benefits us much more? How will it behave against heavily ideological alliance, many of whom are backed by religious feelings in battle, which make them believe that what they are defending is holy?
Furthermore, I am pointing you back again to my ignored analysis of potential war between SACTO and Ausitoria, and why it may be far less devastating than how you think.
Therefore, you de-escalate, you compromise. That is how the world works.
No. Military wise Ausitoria does not pose a threat that would move our organization; and we see no reason why we should yield to foreign offensive on our zone of influence carried by enemy who negated our offers of peace. As famous Polish statesman said "Peace is a valuable and needed thing. Our generation, bloodied in wars, certainly deserves it. But peace, as all things on this world, has it's price. High, but possible to be paid. We in Poland do not know idea of peace above all. There is only one thing in the lives of people, states and nations that is priceless. And that thing is honor".
Furthermore, according to Prussian military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz "War is a struggle of wills". SACTO possesses willpower on our own, and there is nothing that Ausitoria can do at this moment to move us without guaranteeing it's own destruction. SACTO has no offensive goals, and Ausitoria can do nothing to prevent us from closing straits and canals to him short of war - which it's government will itself initiate, and which will trigger defensive war from SACTO aiming not at conquering Ausitoria, but at declawing it and denying it any ability to attack SACTO again.
And Riysa, obviously you ommitted to include Cuscy's earlier TG, when he'd threatened be with some hypersonic gravity vehicle. And on trade, I was chatting with Cuscy to see whether their nation would be interested on an informal level - why should I bother making a pretty diplomatic post if I'm going to get a humiliating official response which will simply lead to a long argument?
Said TG was response to constant - over a year long threats - of using nukes. It simply stated that Mutually Assured Destruction is now my official policy in case of Ausitorian use of nuclear weaponry...
Besides who signs a trade treaty with an enemy?
Glad to see Cuscy has had the sense to avoid that long public argument. [/sarcasm]
I am just stating my own knowledge; please do not thing I am trying to argue. However your own tone makes it hard. I kindly asked it to tone it down
Tl; dr: SACTO must learn to compromise, and accept that not everybody is with them or against them: some simply want to be ambivalent in a multipolar world.
Been reading Alexander Dugin?
Well if we take his criteria, isn't Ausitoria perfect example of Atlanticist civilization of the sea?
(Only the Sith think in absolutes).
( If you hadn't gotten that - check my sig
- namely info and quotes part ).
