[Discussion] Diplomatic issues

[joWhatup]

My opinion on the war on NPO is well-documented ("dumb" is the key adjective here), so an Armistice as a starting point sounds good to me in principle, BUT I assume NPO wouldn't even agree to that, precisely because it's so meaningless, and them agreeing to an armistice would be them actually acknowledging any remote threat that just doesn't even exist. So they'll probably counter offer with a NAP as a "take it or leave it" option.

You assume wrongly.

Should there be a preference for ending the war and signing an NAP, that could most likely also be arranged. The situation has changed since the last time this matter was brought up, and while I personally would not back such a decision, should the region wish that rather than the proposed armistice, we will see what we can do. Therefore I ask, do we wish an end to the war and an NAP to conclude it or do we wish to continue the war?

[Roavin]

You assume wrongly.

Do you say that because you have talked to NPO leadership about it and/or have other prior knowledge? If not, my assumption is just as valid as yours (and I'd argue probably more likely to be true in this specific case).

[joWhatup]

You assume wrongly.

Do you say that because you have talked to NPO leadership about it and/or have other prior knowledge? If not, my assumption is just as valid as yours (and I'd argue probably more likely to be true in this specific case).

I asked Xoriet, current Legatus of the NPO, if the NPO would potentially agree to an armistice. So yes.

[Roavin]

Fair enough. Surprising, but okay.

[Demonos]

The Principality of Demonos supports any effort in peace. Give the armistice with NPO a sunset, though. Should signatories fail to comply to its articles and it expires, at least the situation that arrises won't be constrained with a perpetual armistice situation.

Pertaining to the Treaty with TWP. Do you think @joWhatup that the appraisal, "doesn't change our relationship [between us] at all", is a good description for what would happen should the treaty be "chucked out"? Why not renegotiate? The effort would signal an intention to remain diplomatic and cooperative, at least. By renegotiating we could establish conditions that Lazarus and TWP could be happier with. The project needs to insure better conditions or don't even bother with it: withdraw. Perhaps custom may develop instead of statute...

[McChimp]

It seems incongruous that you would throw out relations with the West Pacific because they made a treaty with the NPO and make peace with the NPO because of it.

The "armistice" you propose is peace by another name and should be subject to all the provisions of the Assembly that ending the war would be. I am against it for all the same reasons I am against ending the war. Give us more than rebrands.

[joWhatup]

Pertaining to the Treaty with TWP. Do you think @joWhatup that the appraisal, "doesn't change our relationship [between us] at all", is a good description for what would happen should the treaty be "chucked out"? Why not renegotiate? The effort would signal an intention to remain diplomatic and cooperative, at least. By renegotiating we could establish conditions that Lazarus and TWP could be happier with. The project needs to insure better conditions or don't even bother with it: withdraw. Perhaps custom may develop instead of statute...

My personal preferred option is renegotiating, yes. It would both say "we don't want allies that do not regard us as allies proper" while also saying "we are still open to closer ties in the future, but not right now."

[Roavin]

NPO also signed with Balder now.

[New Rogernomics]

NPO also signed with Balder now.

Though we don't have treaties with them like with TWP.

We aren't in a rush to sign with Balder either.

Regardless of an armistice or peace with the NPO, I'd guess the question would stlll stand i.e. should there be re-negotiation, repeal, or just a diplomatic statement of disapproval - which TWP will likely acknowledge or shrug off in some fashion.