The United Imperial Armed Forces

[Anur-Sanur]

<snip>

Utter nonsense. If anything, this confirms a consistency to their allies. It was the unsupported, foolish overture of Falconias that was out of character for the FRA.

By refusing to be manipulated by the Ondersphere, the FRA can ensure its commitment and mission remains immune to being compromised. The integrity of FRA doctrine is what their partners care about.

Now, if you could just get ineffective and covetous leaders like Just Guy out of the way, then they might just be able to act on that doctrine.

[Cormac A Stark]

Let me pause for a moment to ask myself if I'm really going to attempt to engage you in intelligent debate. *sigh* Oh, what the hell.

Utter nonsense. If anything, this confirms a consistency to their allies. It was the unsupported, foolish overture of Falconias that was out of character for the FRA.

I'm not Falconias' biggest fan, to say the least, but the idea behind this summit was anything but foolish. The purpose of the summit as I understand it was to establish a working relationship with the UIAF for the defense of Feeders and Sinkers; that would have demonstrated to Feeders and Sinkers a real commitment on behalf of the FRA to their security, to put aside ideological differences and work with those they would normally oppose in the common interest of Feeder and Sinker sovereignty. It would have made great strides for the FRA and defenders in general in improving their standing with pragmatic Feeders and Sinkers who are rightly concerned that when defender ideology and GCR security needs conflict, the former will trump the latter. Instead, Falconias' steps toward a greater commitment to Feeder and Sinker sovereignty are being repudiated as "one of the stupidest ideas ever" by the new Vice Chancellor.

By refusing to be manipulated by the Ondersphere, the FRA can ensure its commitment and mission remains immune to being compromised. The integrity of FRA doctrine is what their partners care about.

On the contrary, the FRA's commitment to the security of founderless regions is hindered by conflict with the UIAF. Had the summit succeeded in achieving peace between the two parties, the FRA could have focused more on stopping raiders (me, for example) who are intent on doing real and lasting harm to the regions they invade. Now they will have to continue to contend with the UIAF's formidable forces and nearly unbeatable occupations in addition to more destructive raids. Their unwillingness to look past their ideology isn't just detrimental to Feeders and Sinkers, it's detrimental to all founderless regions. It's fantastic for raider unity, though, so I suppose I should be thanking them for their intransigence and incompetence.

[Guy]

The FRA is committed to the defence of all founderless regions. I don't think we need a treaty with invaders to show that.

[Ambroscus Koth]

The FRA is committed to the defence of all founderless regions. I don't think we need a treaty with invaders to show that.

Sounds like something that should have been discussed before inviting the UIAF to a conference, don't you think?

[Anur-Sanur]

You can repeat your garbage ad nauseum for all I care Stark, the idea was as stupid as your attempt at "debate".

Getting in bed with the Ondersphere, with NES at the wheel, is the act of an idiot. If the lion is to rest with the lamb, the wolf must be kept at bay.

Furthermore, your blather regarding "Feeder sovereignty" is nonsense. Such a thing is only truly realized through localized Francoist actors, not foreign interlocutors.

Nevertheless, if a GCR was in need of defense, then surely the FRA could engage them in a bilateral fashion.

Your suggestion that an accord on GCR matters would see a cessation in UIAF action in other founderless regions is a fictitious one. It would rather open up the integrity of the FRA's doctrine to pollution on the part of supposed UIAF representatives, who would use any and all access to undermine the FRA and advance their own position.

The Ondersphere has always advocated only for itself.

[Cormac A Stark]

The FRA is committed to the defence of all founderless regions. I don't think we need a treaty with invaders to show that.

I take it this means the FRA has also repudiated Falconias' belligerence toward Osiris, then? Is there anything from his term that you have not rejected?

Nevertheless, if a GCR was in need of defense, then surely the FRA could engage them in a bilateral fashion.

I'm generally done replying to your tired drivel, but I just had to find the appropriate comment for this one sentence. Let me see here...



During the Imperium War, the efforts of all participating defenders combined contributed fewer forces to the liberation of Osiris than the UIAF with the bulk of defender forces coming not from the FRA nor the UDL but rather from Spiritus. This isn't even to mention contributions made by other independent regions such as Europeia and Mazeria. I can assure you that if a GCR is in need of defense, bilateral help from the FRA alone would be like throwing pebbles at Godzilla in an effort to take him down. Despite two of its three member regions being at war with the FRA, the UIAF has thus far never had a problem working with the FRA to liberate a Feeder or Sinker. Should that change, though, there is no question at all that any Feeder or Sinker in its right mind would accept UIAF assistance and tell the FRA thanks but no thanks. It's likely impossible to liberate a Feeder or Sinker without UIAF assistance in today's NationStates, and UIAF support for a coup d'etat would effectively be game over.

[Anur-Sanur]

You betray your own side with a glee, fool. How typical of you.

Why is this hypothetical GCR forced to choose between the UIAF and the FRA?

Are you suggesting the UIAF would not participate if the FRA was to lend assistance as well?

Such is not the disposition of a benevolent ally, but of a controlling, subversive, and manipulative master masquerading their malevolence through the facade of friendship.

This is the danger of the UIAF. Your sycophantic admiration of the UIAF's distinctly non-updater capabilities is simply one of might makes right, a demonstration that the UIAF is a partner to be shrewdly managed rather than warmly embraced.

A GCR in distress should not have to make a choice. All allies that wish to lend aid, should be able to. If one ally would seek to leverage a monopoly of force into any order that would undermine this sovereign right, then this is no ally.

The only person suggesting an exclusivity between the FRA and the UIAF is you, and again, this only betrays your own avarice and lust over the affairs of sovereign GCRs.

The Ondersphere advocates only for itself, as do you, a serial traitor.

If you want to defend GCRs, then do so without precondition at the update of distress, and then leave them to their affairs. This is a defender and an ally. Instead, you will find agents of the Ondersphere whispering in government ears, as maggots crawling through rotting wood.

[Whiskum]

I suppose a UIAF Officer (who was present at the talks) and Head of State of one of the founding regions of the UIAF deploying troops in a FRA member region is "negotiating in good faith".

The UIAF isn't innocent in all of this, and neither is the FRA, but on balance I feel like any errors we made pale in comparison to the underhanded and petty maneuvering we saw in Soviet Union by the LKE.

At that time of the deployment, no ceasefire had been proposed and as such we had never agreed to a ceasefire.

If the FRA had wanted a ceasefire as a condition for attending the summit, it should have asked for one - alas another major lapse on its part.

Had we engaged in an uninvited, unilateral ceasefire on our part, then I can't imagine the FRA would have stopped defending against our raids.

It was also an LKE-only deployment: I can't imagine an FRA member-region would have considered itself bound prior to any ceasefire either.

Once the FRA made clear that it wanted a ceasefire, we agreed to one on fair terms and withdrew from Soviet Union.

The FRA have announced our participation in a summit without our permission

Wait, you mean your participation which you announced yourself just a handful of posts above yours?

The FRA, having invited the UIAF to a summit, now appears to be debating whether or not they were correct to have done so.

Actually, I wouldn't label it a debate We are all pretty much in unanimity that the summit was one of the stupidest ideas ever.

The summit as a whole was based on a falsely-held underlying assumption - that the FRA has something to negotiate over. We don't. It's as simple as that, really. Neither do we have anything to apologise for, and we certainly don't need to accept a long list of demands from UIAF to atone for our nonexistent past transgressions.

I think one line from your whole statement encapsulates this summit and the stupidity of your untenable position.

We announced our participation in response to the announcement by Falconias, which he made without our permission and without informing us beforehand. It was very generous of us to agree to participate after the way he had announced it - we genuinely wanted to make it work.

'The FRA, on the other hand, is apparently 'pretty much in unanimity that the summit was one of the stupidest ideas ever' in spite of the fact that the summit was entirely the idea of the immediately previous FRA Arch Chancellor, who publicly announced it to the world as his key policy without obtaining the UIAF's consent. The UIAF did not propose the summit. We agreed to one in the hope that the FRA would prove to be reasonable. In fact the FRA is unreasonable and inconsistent in its diplomacy. That inconsistency is why we could no longer negotiate in good faith - because the FRA were not.

Responsibility for both the initiation of the summit and for the necessity of the UIAF terminating the summit rests entirely with the FRA.

[Karputsk]

Go away for a few hours and return to a topic filled with Cormac and Anur's crap, brilliant.

Did The LKEAF not withdraw from Soviet Union once it was agreed that the UIAF and FRA would not engage in hostilities with each other for the duration of the summit? And did the UIAF not continue to respect that agreement for the duration of the summit?

Whoop-de-fucking-do. I must remember to thank Onder despite being present at the discussions and otherwise fully aware of their ongoing nature. This was an underhanded maneuver by a UIAF Official to score petty political points and to try to strong arm the FRA in discussions. This is not conducting diplomacy in "good faith", and we should not be unfairly judged by yourself (although I expect nothing less) for the effect this has had on our approach and understanding of the talks.

It was FRA actions that provoked declarations of war from The New Inquisition and The Land of Kings and Emperors in the first place and it was the FRA that initiated this summit. You should have proposed a ceasefire immediately upon opening the summit; expecting the UIAF to impose a ceasefire on itself without any expectation the FRA would do the same is diplomatically absurd. But then, diplomatically absurd describes the FRA and so-called defender organizations in general rather well.

It's a diplomatic courtesy that hostilities should cease during talks of a ceasefire. Word of advice; you should really stop getting your FRA "history" from biased third parties considering you once complained to me that the FRA had destroyed the Kodiak Republic (Wopruthien's home for anyone interested). What Cormac fails to mention was that the reason TNI declared war on us was because we liberated a region that they had been occupying for two or so weeks (or something like that). Nothing more, nothing less. TNI had no legitimate claim to be there, and by all accounts it was a standard engagement between an Invader and a Defender force.

I think the reason a stink is being made is because the FRA looks less consistent and diplomatic

Which is a completely legitimate and proportionate reasoning to vilify us. I think you could do with a sense of proportion. Ultimately, I don't know why the UIAF is so horrified that we had concerns in private, would they have preferred we started an argument in NSGP? What's important to remember is that this isn't indicative of a FRA trend of inconsistency but is merely a result of the type of Arch-Chancellor Falconias was. He is very determined, and once he sets his mind on something he will endeavor to attain it. This approach does have its downsides as he did tend to move forward without necessarily consulting his Cabinet or the Regional Assembly, which is part of the reason why we weren't the cohesive Delegation we should have been. That's part of the process we were undergoing at the moment, and we were very much debating the merits of the discussions before the carpet was pulled from underneath us by the UIAF. Let's not forget, either, that Falconias was the primary driver behind these talks and real-life issues prevented him from being active in the latter half of this term - we cannot be blamed entirely for the talks lagging, then.

What disappoints me the most about this is that instead of the UIAF agreeing to end discussions in mutual respect has chosen to again score petty political points. It's so typical of their propaganda for them to paint the FRA as this unwieldy, internally conflicted and corrupt organisation and this reeks of it. Unfortunately, the UIAF have decided to absolve themselves from blame unfairly and have given a grandstand for Cormac get his FRA-bashing fix, and the usual bullshit has followed.

The FRA executive looks completely unreliable at this moment and I can't imagine that this unreliability is instilling any faith in the FRA's ability or willingness to effectively defend founderless regions of any kind, let alone Feeders and Sinkers. We don't know what their commitments will be when the next Archchancellor is elected.

Our Feeder (or GCR policy) is fairly well laid out, and as much as we disagreed about discussions to paint the FRA as lacking consistency is a massive stretch. If someone wants to know how committed we are to defending GCRs then they need only look at our involvement in Osiris and TSP to name a couple from just this year. In both cases we were present with the UIAF and I am not so sure we need to be co-operating with each other so much as ensuring we are co-operating with the legitimate GCR government at the time. Of course, if a GCR is intent on raiding our member-regions and making a political point out of it then don't expect us to bend over and take it. I think out detractors are all too willing to lump is in with the UDL and often forget that while we are a Defender organisation, our member-regions come first. If a GCR wants to sell our support down the river, have their Delegate at the time "apologise" for doing so claiming it was all a ruse, and then a few months later invade one of our member-regions while parroting exactly the same crap that we saw earlier then they shouldn't expect us to come rushing to their aid. Our policy clear enough now?

Member-regions > Founderless Regions > Osiris

^ Basically.

I take it this means the FRA has also repudiated Falconias' belligerence toward Osiris, then? Is there anything from his term that you have not rejected?

Lolno.

During the Imperium War, the efforts of all participating defenders combined contributed fewer forces to the liberation of Osiris than the UIAF with the bulk of defender forces coming not from the FRA nor the UDL but rather from Spiritus. This isn't even to mention contributions made by other independent regions such as Europeia and Mazeria. I can assure you that if a GCR is in need of defense, bilateral help from the FRA alone would be like throwing pebbles at Godzilla in an effort to take him down. Despite two of its three member regions being at war with the FRA, the UIAF has thus far never had a problem working with the FRA to liberate a Feeder or Sinker. Should that change, though, there is no question at all that any Feeder or Sinker in its right mind would accept UIAF assistance and tell the FRA thanks but no thanks.

Not so sure why it is a choice between one or the other, at least, that hasn't been the case in the past. Also, going to call you out on your complete bullshit here. As Arch-Chancellor of the FRA at the time and General of the Spiritan Defence Force I can confirm that FRA troops in Osiris outnumbered that of the SDF. Funnily enough, I thought it best to monitor any of my troops in Osiris.

It was also an LKE-only deployment: I can't imagine an FRA member-region would have considered itself bound prior to any ceasefire either.

If the FRA region in question was headed by someone present at the talks and a leading Officer in the FRA then I think it's fair to say that would be considered under-handed and would be rightly called out by you.

Once the FRA made clear that it wanted a ceasefire, we agreed to one on fair terms and withdrew from Soviet Union.

If only it were that simple. Although Osiris fled before our planned liberation attempt at the weekend I believe there was around 5-9 LKE troops still in the Soviet Union leading up to the attempt and withdrawal. It didn't surprise me to note just how long it took for those troops to withdraw in comparison to their quick deployment.

'The FRA, on the other hand, is apparently 'pretty much in unanimity that the summit was one of the stupidest ideas ever' in spite of the fact that the summit was entirely the idea of the immediately previous FRA Arch Chancellor, who publicly announced it to the world as his key policy without obtaining the UIAF's consent. The UIAF did not propose the summit. We agreed to one in the hope that the FRA would prove to be reasonable. In fact the FRA is unreasonable and inconsistent in its diplomacy. That inconsistency is why we could no longer negotiate in good faith - because the FRA were not.

I can't remember ever being unreasonable, as I highlighted above those present on our side were just as rushed into it as yourselves and personally I can only apologise for that. As I said, it's a downside of Falconias' style of leadership. Regardless, I think it's unfair to expect those present to parrot Falconias' line and I think perhaps you should be more grateful we kept our concerns and disagreements private. Ultimately, they weren't factors that blocked or scuppered discussions and despite some shaky moments we were working towards a draft before Falconias RL took hold. In all honesty, I would have liked to return to the drafting table with a more clearly defined FRA agenda but unfortunately that chance is gone now.

*sighs*

Ultimately then I will concede the FRA is not innocent in all of this, but, neither is the UIAF. Talks always had the feeling like they were rushed and that had a rather profound impact on how they played out. I think it's important to note as well that a lot of the dissent within the FRA regarding the talks only manifested itself after the LKE deployed in Soviet Union and was very much in response to that. Honestly, if the UIAF thinks a member of its delegation ordering troops into a FRA member-region is not underhanded then they are seriously blinkered. In addition to that, the UIAF has done itself no favours with this sort of grandstanding and it makes me wonder whether they were ever sincere about discussions or instead more concerned about engineering another anti-FRA release. It wouldn't surprise me.

P.S. I think it's important to note that mine and Guy's posts are not FRA policy and we are not authorised to speak on the FRA's behalf. Any forthcoming statement will have to be approved by the Regional Assembly.

[Consular]

UIAF's distinctly non-updater capabilities

I think you'll find we are actually more than capable of deploying a very sizeable update force, as well as our obviously impressive reinforcement capabilities. Anyone who is actually active in gameplay can testify to our updater numbers. Those holds didn't seize themselves, you know. But then, with the absence of any real defending lately, it isn't surprising that they know nothing about their opponent's capabilities.

[Wopruthien]

The United Imperial Armed Forces Press Release
Withdrawal from UIAF-FRA Summit
27 November, 2013


snip

Thank you for informing us of your decision.

See you on the battlefield.

[Karputsk]

The United Imperial Armed Forces Press Release
Withdrawal from UIAF-FRA Summit
27 November, 2013


snip

Thank you for informing us of your decision.

See you on the battlefield.

I would just like to point out that it's extremely unlikely you will ever see Wop on the battlefield.

[Unibot III]

During the Imperium War, the efforts of all participating defenders combined contributed fewer forces to the liberation of Osiris than the UIAF with the bulk of defender forces coming not from the FRA nor the UDL but rather from Spiritus.

*chuckles* Yes, UIAF had the advantage of being able to deploy troops to endorse the INVADER DELEGATE, without the worry of being, you know, ejected and banned. Congratulations to UIAF for it's ability to pile on the opposing side of The Imperium War than you.

Also, you weren't so critical of FRA and UDL when a joint-task force of UDL-FRA did the slingshot to actually topple Nev/JAL.

Only Cormac could make Frak look good in a debate.

[Karputsk]

We didn't do the slingshot, for the last time. UDL did, though.

[Camps]

UIAF's distinctly non-updater capabilities

I think you'll find we are actually more than capable of deploying a very sizeable update force, as well as our obviously impressive reinforcement capabilities. Anyone who is actually active in gameplay can testify to our updater numbers. Those holds didn't seize themselves, you know. But then, with the absence of any real defending lately, it isn't surprising that they know nothing about their opponent's capabilities.

You think Anur-Sanur is a defender. How cute.

[Whiskum]

The FRA invited the UIAF to a summit. In preliminary discussions, it became clear that FRA representatives did not support the principles which Falconias announced. After those preliminary discussions, Falconias agreed to present a treaty draft - after waiting over a month for this to happen, we were informed that the FRA was essentially dithering over whether to keep talking to us, despitethe FRA having invited us in the first place.

That is a pattern of unprofessional, highly inconsistent and insulting behaviour towards the UIAF on the part of the FRA, fully warranting withdrawal.

We have already heard from Guy above that the FRA Regional Assembly thought the summit to be the stupidest idea ever. The summit the FRA initiated.

Whoop-de-fucking-do. I must remember to thank Onder despite being present at the discussions and otherwise fully aware of their ongoing nature. This was an underhanded maneuver by a UIAF Official to score petty political points and to try to strong arm the FRA in discussions. This is not conducting diplomacy in "good faith", and we should not be unfairly judged by yourself (although I expect nothing less) for the effect this has had on our approach and understanding of the talks.

There was nothing remotely 'underhanded' about the LKE's deployment to Soviet Union.

We never agreed to any ceasefire and the invite to the summit issued by Falconias never asked us to agree to any ceasefire.

If the FRA wanted to impose additional conditions, then they should have included them in their invitation.

We agreed to talks on the basis of the invitation which was issued, with a a couple of changes regarding the nature of our representation.

How precisely did deploying to Soviet Union score 'petty political points' against the FRA? It was a perfectly normal, open military operation.

Additionally, the fact that I am a senior UIAF officer places no constraints on the LKE's sovereignty and the UIAF has no foreign policy powers.

If the FRA region in question was headed by someone present at the talks and a leading Officer in the FRA then I think it's fair to say that would be considered under-handed and would be rightly called out by you.

Frattastan was present in the FRA's Delegation.

Are you seriously claiming that the Rejected Realms Army adopted a policy of not defending against any identified LKE/TNI/Albion/UIAF raids when the summit commenced? I think not.

As for us, if we wanted a ceasefire from the outset, we would have agreed one from the outset.

On previous occasions, in August 2011 for instance, the LKE and TNI have negotiated with the FRA with standard military operations continuing.

The FRA had no right to expect peace simply because they invited us to a summit - the summit was there to agree a deal. If they wanted a temporary deal for the duration of the summit, then they should have asked from the outset. When the FRA did eventually ask for such a deal, we gave them that deal.

Again, any failure to obtain a ceasefire which you wanted from the start is simply evidence of the FRA's disorganization and lack of professionalism.

If only it were that simple. Although Osiris fled before our planned liberation attempt at the weekend I believe there was around 5-9 LKE troops still in the Soviet Union leading up to the attempt and withdrawal. It didn't surprise me to note just how long it took for those troops to withdraw in comparison to their quick deployment.

I received no complaints about the speed of withdrawal at the time - again, if the FRA had bothered to ask, we could have investigated any delay.

[Crazy girl]

<snip>

You betray your own side with a glee, fool.

This is just the kind of behavior we do not wish to see in Gameplay. *** Warned for flaming ***
Keep this up and we will take into account the warnings you have accumulated over your other nations and escalate accordingly. Shape up.

[McMasterdonia]

The FRA is committed to the defence of all founderless regions. I don't think we need a treaty with invaders to show that.

That sounds like something I would say.

[Consular]

The FRA is committed to the defence of all founderless regions. I don't think we need a treaty with invaders to show that.

That sounds like something I would say.

How very suspicious.

[Ambroscus Koth]

The FRA is committed to the defence of all founderless regions. I don't think we need a treaty with invaders to show that.

That sounds like something I would say.

[The United Imperial Armed Forces]

The United Imperial Armed Forces Press Release
Slavia Operation
3 January, 2014

At the last major update, the United Imperial Armed Forces of The Land of Kings and Emperors, The New Inquisition and Albion struck the latest blow in the LKE’s and TNI’s war against the FRA with the capture of what is a publicly declared FRA member-region of Slavia. A total of 18 units participated in this tense update operation, unseating an incumbent Delegate with 11 endorsements. This would be worthy of being recognised as a substantial invasion in its own right. The fact that now Slavia is a region associated with the FRA further magnifies the significance of this operation.

In 2012, TNI successfully invaded three FRA regions, namely The Rejected Realms, Soviet Union and Fidelia. This followed the FRA’s decision to reject a peace at a conference with TNI and the LKE hosted by Europeia in late 2011. In September 2013, the FRA decided to invite the UIAF for further peace talks. The FRA announced these talks before we agreed to them and when we arrived their Delegation adopted an incoherent position, with the FRA Assembly debating whether to stay in negotiations which they chose to invite us to. We therefore withdrew from negotiations and promised to continue the war effort. The invasion of Slavia marks the continuation of our track record of military success against the FRA.

We understand entirely that Slavia may well have been in amidst a process of reconsidering the continued merits of its FRA membership, but by failing to unequivocally withdraw from and denounce the FRA, this region, tagged as defender, is now paying the price of having joined that organisation in the first place and for its prolonged dithering over whether to get out. If you are a founderless region, the Founderless Regions Alliance provides no refuge from the UIAF’s military might. The FRA has once again failed to take either the military or the diplomatic steps necessary to guarantee the security of its member-regions. Its member-regions are paying the consequences of that failure in the context of the FRA’s historical acts of aggression against TNI and the LKE.

We are grateful to The Black Riders, The Kingdom of Great Britain, Green-Black Concordant and Kantrias for their support with the update operation, and we thank all those regions now sending update reinforcements to support our victory.

Field Marshal Christopher Bishop

Joint Commander of the United Imperial Armed Forces

[Rapturous Arc]

Well done gentlemen.

[Suchasmallthing]

A nice way to start off the year

[Sword Excalibur]

This is quite the excellent start.

[Cormac A Stark]

Congratulations! Down with the FRA.