[Archive] War with the NPO

[Imaginary]

Lazarus,

I was recently requested by a public relations executive from a neighboring firm about what our thoughts on the war with the New Pacific Order are. What are they? Please vote on the poll above and post any details about your opinion below.

Thank you!
~Imaginary

 

[joWhatup]

I’m in favour of continuing as is. We’ve been stepped on long enough, and while it may not progress much, it still sends a message.

 

[Wymondham]

Personally I believe this war has gone on long enough. We stand to gain nothing from continuing this war any longer. A raid I went on at minor today confirmed this, a combined force of the osrian and lazarene militaries were unable to defeat the legio pacifica during what is the legio pacifica's weaker update. Right now we can probably stand to get some more concessions by ending this war, after a few more months with events like today's we will be lucky to get a status quo. The NPO fulfilled nearly all of the requests from what was meant to be a list of conditions it would never accept. We must face reality, the NPO is not going anywhere, it is better to grab a few more concessions while we still can then waste more effort on a fruitless war that takes up time and effort that could be better spent improving Lazarus. We would still be in the APC, an alliance against the NPO, but we would be freed from a war that is now taking in more than it gives out.

 

[whatermelons]

I have to agree with Wym here. We should always keep our distance from the hostile organisation that is NPO, but we should not wage a pointless war. I think we should agree that the war has gone on for way too long. We have done what we coul.

 

[Roavin]

I was never a fan of it from the very beginning (for reasons that I've stated multiple times, all of which hold true). The NPO as an entity, for better or for worse, is here to stay, and as Wym already stated, they actually met the demands made of them. It should also be noted that their current Emperor has a long track record (outside of this realm) to outright ban any and all behavior of the sort that led to this war in the first place.

The only potential "issue" I see is that the PR Director will need to talk this over a bit with sister sinker Osiris, but other than that, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[New Rogernomics]

I think we shouldn't leave the war while we have a treaty signed with the Coalition, and certainly not while Osiris is still in the war.

As no matter how you try to spin it, abandoning the war, and leaving Osiris to fend for itself would look like Lazarus abandoning it's commitments. Osiris would then be well within their rights to take it as a betrayal and end their treaty with Lazarus, and weaken our position to resist outside actors and not just the NPO.

I am as much opposed to leaving the war, as I was cautious about beginning the war in the first place.

If Osiris wishes to end the war, I might reconsider. But no one here has been officially advised of any change of stance.

Leaving now even after consulting Osiris, will severely damage our reputation. I certainly wouldn't trust Lazarus, if hypothetically Lazarus went to war alongside another region, only to abandon them because it was "too much of a hassle".

The war has no negative effect on Lazarus, except for not being able to open an embassy with the NPO and befriend them officially.

 

[New Rogernomics]

That said,

If Lazarus was to hypothetically end the war, with the least amount of diplomatic damage, I would advise:

1. Holding a vote to repeal the treaty with the coalition.
2. Holding a vote to repeal the treaty with Osiris, as we would no longer be full allies if we leave the NPO war.*
3. Making a diplomatic statement apologizing to Osiris and thanking them for standing with us in the NPO war.
4. Making a diplomatic statement to the NPO, formally ending the war and opening up at the very least partial diplomatic relations with them.

If you leave a war, you need to make an effort to secure peace. Poking the NPO, if we are no longer at war with them is like poking a bear. Don't poke the bear.

*Alternatively, amending it to remove provisions that may require us to defend Osiris against the NPO.

 

[Deleted1]

Let's continue the war.

 

[Roavin]

NR, sorry, but I could not disagree more with your assessment.

First, Laz leaving while Osi stays in does not mean that the commitment that Lazarus and Osiris have made in mutual defense vanishes. Lazarus will still have the responsibility (and also the privilege) to help defend its sister sinker from any aggression (including by the NPO). Repealing the Osi treaty, which was not made because of the NPO war, is like burning down the house because a lightbulb needs to be changed.

Second, the same applies to the APC treaty - that can stay and the provisions still apply even without a declared state of war (and I say this as somebody that thinks the APC treaty is dumb).

Third, suppose Osi wishes to end the war as well. At some point one side has to reach out to at least talk about it. It could be us, it could be them, but if Osiris were to also hold the view of "let's wait until they say something", nothing would ever get done. Regular confidential diplomatic talks are presumably happening either way with such a close ally.

Fourth, it is not Lazarus' reputation that will suffer, because if anything, this would be a cascade of events precipitated by Europeia's rescindal of their declaration many months ago. It's Lazarus saying "we're content with what we're seeing over there and don't want to hold on to the war now just because we feel like it".

Fifth, you can end the war and still say "yeah we're upholding the proscription and we don't really want anything to do with you". There's nothing wrong with that. If we had to be at war with anybody we don't want anything to do with, then we'd have to start working on probably a hundred declarations right now.

2. Holding a vote to repeal the treaty with Osiris, as we would no longer be full allies if we leave the NPO war.*
[snip]
*Alternatively, amending it to remove provisions that may require us to defend Osiris against the NPO.

Why? Why in Imki's name would we stop defending Osiris against the NPO if we end the war?

What ending the war would do is say "if we see you on the street, we're gonna stop trying to punch you in the face, but we're still not saying hi".

If you leave a war, you need to make an effort to secure peace. Poking the NPO, if we are no longer at war with them is like poking a bear. Don't poke the bear.

Right now, Lazarus is in open declared war against the New Pacific Order, ergo the NPO is fully justified in countering. And that New Pacific Bear, by the way, still holds the strongest reserve force in the game and its updater force is matched only by the NPA on a very good day. The only thing that could have challenged the NPO in open combat was the full coalition back in the day, but even that has fallen to the wayside with Europeia and a bunch of other regions endings its declared state of hostilities.

This is not poking the bear, this is the chihuahua deciding with good reason not to bite the bear in the ankles anymore.

 

[New Rogernomics]

NR, sorry, but I could not disagree more with your assessment.

First, Laz leaving while Osi stays in does not mean that the commitment that Lazarus and Osiris have made in mutual defense vanishes. Lazarus will still have the responsibility (and also the privilege) to help defend its sister sinker from any aggression (including by the NPO). Repealing the Osi treaty, which was not made because of the NPO war, is like burning down the house because a lightbulb needs to be changed.

Second, the same applies to the APC treaty - that can stay and the provisions still apply even without a declared state of war (and I say this as somebody that thinks the APC treaty is dumb).

Third, suppose Osi wishes to end the war as well. At some point one side has to reach out to at least talk about it. It could be us, it could be them, but if Osiris were to also hold the view of "let's wait until they say something", nothing would ever get done. Regular confidential diplomatic talks are presumably happening either way with such a close ally.

Fourth, it is not Lazarus' reputation that will suffer, because if anything, this would be a cascade of events precipitated by Europeia's rescindal of their declaration many months ago. It's Lazarus saying "we're content with what we're seeing over there and don't want to hold on to the war now just because we feel like it".

Fifth, you can end the war and still say "yeah we're upholding the proscription and we don't really want anything to do with you". There's nothing wrong with that. If we had to be at war with anybody we don't want anything to do with, then we'd have to start working on probably a hundred declarations right now.

2. Holding a vote to repeal the treaty with Osiris, as we would no longer be full allies if we leave the NPO war.*
[snip]
*Alternatively, amending it to remove provisions that may require us to defend Osiris against the NPO.

Why? Why in Imki's name would we stop defending Osiris against the NPO if we end the war?

What ending the war would do is say "if we see you on the street, we're gonna stop trying to punch you in the face, but we're still not saying hi".

If you leave a war, you need to make an effort to secure peace. Poking the NPO, if we are no longer at war with them is like poking a bear. Don't poke the bear.

Right now, Lazarus is in open declared war against the New Pacific Order, ergo the NPO is fully justified in countering. And that New Pacific Bear, by the way, still holds the strongest reserve force in the game and its updater force is matched only by the NPA on a very good day. The only thing that could have challenged the NPO in open combat was the full coalition back in the day, but even that has fallen to the wayside with Europeia and a bunch of other regions endings its declared state of hostilities.

This is not poking the bear, this is the chihuahua deciding with good reason not to bite the bear in the ankles anymore.

I am not arguing whether this will 100% be the case, but these are four options to deal with a change of diplomatic and military policy towards the NPO, which all depends on what plan we intend to achieve peace with the NPO in the long-term and not just the short-term.

If we are to end the war, it may require us re-visiting the treaty with Osiris, to look into any clauses that may be of issue, and Osiris is within its rights to not continue a treaty with us. Whether it actually chooses to do so is up to Osiris.

What I argue is that if Osiris decides, "hey Lazarus has abandoned us", they wouldn't be wrong for believing so. Even if we disagree with that.

 

[Roavin]

The text of the Treaty of the Sun is pretty standard treaty text and doesn't have any special considerations with respect to the NPO, so no change there would be needed.

Either way, this would be something for the PR Director to square away, and given that rescinding a war declaration is initiated by the Prime Minister (so, the PR director's boss), I think it's safe to assume that we wouldn't be presented with that option unless the Cabinet had already done its due diligence on that front (and we can still vote against ending it if they haven't - and in fact, I would vote against ending it under that circumstance, even though I've said from the beginning that the war is silly).

 

[Wymondham]

I would like to state that I believe that were Lazarus to leave, Osiris would quite possibly be following Laz out the door, but that's just what I've heard from people

 

[TempestShadow]

Personally, I'd prefer to leave the war going for at least another few months. I do however recognize that my given reasoning of spiting everyone who said it'd only last a year isn't the greatest

In regards to Osiris, I think I'm safe in saying that Osiris will probably go with us whichever way we decide, though it'd be better to work out a joint announcement if we were to end it I think. Repealing our treaty with Osiris over this would be idiotic. It's a standard treaty with no special provisions about the NPO.

In regards to the APC treaty, I maintain that it's a good step in-between war (extremely rare) and proscriptions (relatively common) on a sort of staircase of relations. I'm sure we'll probably end up repealing it within the year, but I don't think it should be done with this. Preferably after a change in Emperor (or two changes), though I understand my long-view take on when deescalations should occur isn't the most accepted. Therefor, we shouldn't repeal it, at least not right now.

 

[TempestShadow]

Further notation, I'm unclear precisely what concessions are potentially left to extract from the NPO in any case, no matter what way we move forward.

 

[Leonism]

Further notation, I'm unclear precisely what concessions are potentially left to extract from the NPO in any case, no matter what way we move forward.

A valid point. What would our war goal be if we want to maintain the war?

I know many here are familiar with Paradox Grand Strategy games such as Europa Universalis or Stellaris, to name just two. In these games you always have to have a reason to go to war (casus belli) and have to determine a war goal (I.e. conquer province X etc.).
This formulaic view of war may be helpful in our case as well.

The casus belli in our case was pretty clear, the infiltration and undermining of the legitimate government of Lazarus. But what about the war goals?

I am not intimately familiar with the history of Lazarus before I joined the region in October 2018, when it was already under Imki's stable control. From what I know the NPO already made some concessions to Lazarus. Do these satisfy our original war goals? Did we even have any? If yes, are they still valid.

Of course one could formulate "total destruction of the NPO" as war goal, i.e. having them relinquish contest of the Pacific, but we know we are nowhere near strong enough to enforce this. How strong is the APC? Could an invasion of the Pacific by military means succeed at some point in the future?

If the answer is no and we cannot get any other useful concessions from the NPO, then the only valid reason to prolong the war is for diplomatic relations with other anti-NPO regions and internal cohesion, though the latter effect seems to be week in Lazarus.

---

Further notation, I'm unclear precisely what concessions are potentially left to extract from the NPO in any case, no matter what way we move forward.

A valid point. What would our war goal be if we want to maintain the war?

I know many here are familiar with Paradox Grand Strategy games such as Europa Universalis or Stellaris, to name just two. In these games you always have to have a reason to go to war (casus belli) and have to determine a war goal (I.e. conquer province X etc.).
This formulaic view of war may be helpful in our case as well.

The casus belli in our case was pretty clear, the infiltration and undermining of the legitimate government of Lazarus. But what about the war goals?

I am not intimately familiar with the history of Lazarus before I joined the region in October 2018, when it was already under Imki's stable control. From what I know the NPO already made some concessions to Lazarus. Do these satisfy our original war goals? Did we even have any? If yes, are they still valid?

Of course one could formulate "total destruction of the NPO" as war goal, i.e. having them relinquish contest of the Pacific, but we know we are nowhere near strong enough to enforce this. How strong is the APC? Could an invasion of the Pacific by military means succeed at some point in the future?

If the answer is no and we cannot get any other useful concessions from the NPO, then the only valid reason to prolong the war is for diplomatic relations with other anti-NPO regions and internal cohesion, though the latter effect seems to be week in Lazarus.

 

[Leonism]

Further notation, I'm unclear precisely what concessions are potentially left to extract from the NPO in any case, no matter what way we move forward.

A valid point. What would our war goal be if we want to maintain the war?

I know many here are familiar with Paradox Grand Strategy games such as Europa Universalis or Stellaris, to name just two. In these games you always have to have a reason to go to war (casus belli) and have to determine a war goal (I.e. conquer province X etc.).
This formulaic view of war may be helpful in our case as well.

The casus belli in our case was pretty clear, the infiltration and undermining of the legitimate government of Lazarus. But what about the war goals?

I am not intimately familiar with the history of Lazarus before I joined the region in October 2018, when it was already under Imki's stable control. From what I know the NPO already made some concessions to Lazarus. Do these satisfy our original war goals? Did we even have any? If yes, are they still valid.

Of course one could formulate "total destruction of the NPO" as war goal, i.e. having them relinquish control of the Pacific, but we know we are nowhere near strong enough to enforce this. How strong is the APC? Could an invasion of the Pacific by military means succeed at some point in the future?

If the answer is no and we cannot get any other useful concessions from the NPO, then the only valid reason to prolong the war is for diplomatic relations with other anti-NPO regions and internal cohesion, though the latter effect seems to be weak in Lazarus.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Personally, I'd prefer to leave the war going for at least another few months. I do however recognize that my given reasoning of spiting everyone who said it'd only last a year isn't the greatest

In regards to Osiris, I think I'm safe in saying that Osiris will probably go with us whichever way we decide, though it'd be better to work out a joint announcement if we were to end it I think. Repealing our treaty with Osiris over this would be idiotic. It's a standard treaty with no special provisions about the NPO.

In regards to the APC treaty, I maintain that it's a good step in-between war (extremely rare) and proscriptions (relatively common) on a sort of staircase of relations. I'm sure we'll probably end up repealing it within the year, but I don't think it should be done with this. Preferably after a change in Emperor (or two changes), though I understand my long-view take on when deescalations should occur isn't the most accepted. Therefor, we shouldn't repeal it, at least not right now.

If we end the war, maintaining a hostile posture towards the NPO shouldn't last in the long term. It seems a logical step to remove the proscription as any potential threats can be voted out by the existing powers of the CLS.

As for Osiris, I made that hypothetical scenario as no one had informed me there was any discussion over it with anyone with Osiris. If Lazarus can leave the war without any repercussions from Osiris, that would be ideal. But a continued participation with APC isn't realistic if we declare peace, as it is a hostile treaty targeting the NPO, and you can be sure that a future administration will at some point repeal the treaty as relations with the NPO improve, and hostile policy becomes less and less justifiable and supported among Lazarenes.

I think the argument that we can end the war and still remain hostile with the NPO relies on the same logic that established the war in the first place, though without a war and with the alleged requirements for peace fulfilled, it becames a stance on very fragile grounds.

And by fragile grounds, a few arguments could be brought up:

1. The NPO infiltrated us in the past, is an argument that relies on a continual and present threat, which we admit doesn't exist by declaring peace. It relies upon paranoia about the NPO to continue on after a war has ended, as there is no evidence the current or future NPO intends to do this, and they publicly state they do not.

2. The NPO is "evil" or "unethical" is again relying on past behavior, and while the past regime in the NPO did unacceptable things, to argue the current one does is an appeal to emotion built on past offenses and not the current NPO.

3. Arguing the NPO never did everything we wanted is another one, which relies on an unrealistic goal of NPO being toppled being achieved, which by declaring peace we reject as a realistic goal.

If we take the position that peace with the NPO is possible by ending the war, there is no reason to treat a new Emperor who had nothing to do with Task Force Lazarus with the same hostility as we did the last Emperor, and instead it would make sense to establish some diplomatic contact through an embassy or other method.

There are two ways to achieve a distance from the NPO. Either a perpetual war or the basic diplomatic contact to maintain peace without a hostile policy towards the NPO.

Peaceful diplomatic relations with the NPO by no means opening the floodgates to hypothetical infiltrators, though realistically Lazarus can maintain a war and not attack the NPO directly, which is essentially the current status quo. And if we end the war, having some diplomatic contact with the NPO is the most reasonable step after ending a war with them, which the APC treaty bars us from.

 

[Imaginary]

Thank you to everyone who has voted and voiced their opinion! It appears there is strong sentiment against concluding the war with the NPO at this time.

(although certainly please mention further thoughts/concerns/ideas on the subject)

 

[New Rogernomics]

Thank you to everyone who has voted and voiced their opinion! It appears there is strong sentiment against concluding the war with the NPO at this time.

(although certainly please mention further thoughts/concerns/ideas on the subject)

I think it is more than if we make peace with the NPO, we would need to define what future relationship we would have with them, as if we declare peace there would be some obligation to look into whether we want to be perpetually hostile to them (which I'd personally argue is unrealistic), or to reach out for a diplomatic relationship and actually secure peace on a regular basis. This might draw us into conflict with some provisions of the APC treaty though.