[Arnhelm Alt] Opinion: On Dependence

[McEntire]

Editor’s Column: On Dependence
by McEntire​

Just when you thought everything that could be said about the MadJack Affair had been said, I have one last hot take in the can. I have waited to compose my thoughts on this matter until I could come up with something cogent to say. I hope this will also shed some light on my actions last term, and why I felt it was so important for us to treat the Rejected Realms as a true ally. This column will contain swear words, for those who may be uncomfortable with that.

Are we Independent? And is Independence fraudulent?

What is the future of Europeian Independence when Europeia is a self-identified Defender region? This was a question weighing heavily on my mind when the Senate ratified our entry into the Aegis Accords last term. Through the course of that questioning, then-Vice President Writinglegend talked about how our relationships with raiderdom had been increasingly “fraudulent” over the course of years.

It seemed to me that we had been continually accused on the world’s stage of having fraudulent interregional relationships, and our detractors said that “Independence” was a fig leaf for a non-committal attitude that allows us to leverage our allies. To use a real-life metaphor, we’d be the Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema of NationStates: because we know we sit in the balance of power, we are able to make demands and punch above our weight.

According to the traditional view, Independence allows us to prioritize regional interest over ideology, thus we are not locked into the R/D psychodrama but free to disavow the fringes of raiderdom or defenderdom as suits our current position. It seemed to me that Writinglegend’s admission about our fraudulent relationship with raiders validated the caricature of Independence that our detractors promoted. This is certainly a cynical view of our foreign policy practices, but I am sure that our FA heavies may agree with elements of the characterization, even if they view it as good clean geopolitics.

Independence in the Context of Aegis

In the Aegis ratification thread, I said all of this in so many words. I said that I “hope that we will not allow our relationships to be as fraudulent as they were on the Raider side” and noted that “Independence can exist without the strategic ambiguity that we adopted as Raider-aligned Independents.”

This was part of why the MadJack issue made my head spin. I felt that we were being weirdos for no reason other than to show TRR that they couldn’t lead us around by the nose. I had influential foreign policy people lobbying me to shut up, with one saying that “if you give them a taste of blood [t]hey will want more. Every morning. And then again for supper.” Is that really what we think of our allies? And if so, why are we getting into bed with them in the first place?

Maybe TRR was blowing a small issue up as a pretense to cause problems with us and our new Aegis allies. We certainly acted publicly like that was what they were doing. Of course, TRR’s only recourse was to kick us out of Aegis, and if they didn’t have the votes to do so, we could always give them the middle finger without much consequence. And that, in my view, is what we did by walking away from the talks.

Were TRR’s Initial Demands Reasonable?

Could we have avoided this whole kerfuffle by simply acceding to their initial requests? TRR’s starting demands were an apology for using information gained from their citizens-only area, and the name of the person from whom we received this information.

Our official position on their first demand was that we could apologize for mishandling the information, but never for using it, for fear of setting some sort of precedent that could rob us of our sovereignty somehow. This is a bit of silly FA hair-splitting that seems more like a negotiating position than a true principle.

As for their second demand, by refusing to reveal our source for the MadJack post, we were prioritizing our relationship with a still-unnamed third-party ally over our relationship with TRR. It stands to reason (although I have no private information to this affect) that the ally who provided us with the MadJack post was somewhere in the “Independent-sphere,” and that we didn’t want to cause more problems with those historical allies than those caused by our Aegis entry. Again, we are prioritizing another relationship to shore up our geopolitical position.

What Does it Mean to be Independent-Aligned Defenders?

While walking away may have been good statecraft (my professor from my negotiations class would have given Kazaman an A+), it was also a signal that we would operate in the same way but with new allies. This is directly at odds with our official government position, as President Rand put it in the Aegis thread, “Independent-aligned Defenders,” not just Independents but now with new friends.

I would posit that it is fine to be a part of an interregional community without needing to punch above our weight or show our allies that we can leverage them. Can we be Independent-aligned Defenders without engaging in the same decade-long dick-measuring contest that we had with Raiders?

Can we have close alliances with Independents without, ourselves, being Independent any longer? From where I stand, it’s okay to be dependent, and in fact mutual dependence and trust is the foundation of a healthy community.

A Rough Sketch of a Different Model

Our security is now paramount. Yes, through geopolitical leverage and treaty agreements we can coerce people to our aid in dire circumstances. But wouldn’t it be better to be more firmly rooted and let our relationships with our fellow Defenders blossom organically into a hedge of protection? To mix metaphors, could we enter this new marriage without having one foot out the door?

Our foreign policy caginess has led to a relatively isolationist Europeia, and one where foreign policy decision-making is restricted to a closely held establishment. I am certainly not proposing to burn that establishment down or throw out years of effort. I am proposing that there may now be an opening for a different strain of foreign policy thinking in Europeia: one that is more ideological, more comfortably defender aligned, and more rationally moralist.

Because ultimately, when it comes down to it, raiderdom is a dumpster fire right now and we have gained a lot by galvanizing the world against it. We could benefit further from a more democratized foreign policy that is truly representative of the ideological spectrum contained in Europeia, rather than one that ducks ideological questions entirely in favor of an all-realpolitik approach. And we could benefit from close interregional relationships based in mutual trust and dependence, rather than rigid adherence to a traditional neutrality and strategic flexibility.

The MadJack Affair may ultimately have been, as the kids say, not that deep. But going forward, I would encourage every Europeian to think critically about how we deal with these kinds of foreign policy situations. What kind of ally does Europeia want to be? And what do we expect in return?

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

I...don't agree with much of this even a little bit but I do think that when our foreign policy establishment pulls a Bill Belichick they invite this kind of interpretation of their actions. Maybe. Something to think about.

 

[McEntire]

I...don't agree with much of this even a little bit but I do think that when our foreign policy establishment pulls a Bill Belichick they invite this kind of interpretation of their actions. Maybe. Something to think about.

I don’t know what pulling a Bill Belichick is.

 

[Aexnidaral]

CSP forgets making sports based analogies in a very queer region is a lost cause.

 

[upc]

Hi McEntire,

I have a minor issue with your portrayal of this quote:

A small comment by UPC in the Grand Hall also acknowledged our desire to leverage defenderdom, saying that “we want to be defenders’ bosses.”

The actual quote is "we want to be defenders boss," and if I could be bothered to use proper grammar in a Discord argument, should have said "we want to be defenders, boss." I was not and am not advocating for Europeia to control defenderdom.

 

[McEntire]

Hi McEntire,

I have a minor issue with your portrayal of this quote:

A small comment by UPC in the Grand Hall also acknowledged our desire to leverage defenderdom, saying that “we want to be defenders’ bosses.”

The actual quote is "we want to be defenders boss," and if I could be bothered to use proper grammar in a Discord argument, should have said "we want to be defenders, boss." I was not and am not advocating for Europeia to control defenderdom.

Oh, my bad! I will correct that in the column. In the context of the conversation in the GH, I misunderstood.

 

[North East Somerset]

A deeply disingenuous article by someone who was and is now deliberately undermining the Europeian state (presumably doubling down on this to try and conserve their ego, after a political error of judgement).

I tried to help you as an old friend, and formerly a significant contributer to Europeia, by explaining the Foreign policy context in private, and you've spat it back in my face.

There's no attempt to even find a balanced view on things, you are just recycling lies touted by those who would seek to hurt us. This isn't a reasonable article, nothing it says is reasonable, you are just deliberately misinterpreting things to concoct and parrot increasingly dangerous propaganda that our detractors will be salivating at.

If you care about Europeia at all. Stop now, before you do more damage. Please.

 

[Writinglegend]

What is the future of Europeian Independence when Europeia is a self-identified Defender region? This was a question weighing heavily on my mind when the Senate ratified our entry into the Aegis Accords last term. Through the course of that questioning, then-Vice President Writinglegend talked about how our relationships with raiderdom had been increasingly “fraudulent” over the course of years.

It seemed to me that we had been continually accused on the world’s stage of having fraudulent interregional relationships, and our detractors said that “Independence” was a fig leaf for a non-committal attitude that allows us to leverage our allies. To use a real-life metaphor, we’d be the Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema of NationStates: because we know we sit in the balance of power, we are able to make demands and punch above our weight.

According to the traditional view, Independence allows us to prioritize regional interest over ideology, thus we are not locked into the R/D psychodrama but free to disavow the fringes of raiderdom or defenderdom as suits our current position. It seemed to me that Writinglegend’s admission about our fraudulent relationship with raiders validated the caricature of Independence that our detractors promoted. This is certainly a cynical view of our foreign policy practices, but I am sure that our FA heavies may agree with elements of the characterization, even if they view it as good clean geopolitics.

This is a misinterpretation of what I stated. You are framing this as some sort of admission that Europeia had a non-committal attitude towards raiders and various other partners. In truth, what I said (as you can see below) is that our relationship was fraudulent because raiders ultimately wanted to just assert their control over our community. This is evident when you look at my entire post, and not a cherry-picked word.

The problem was raiders did not respect our right to install ethical codes, and in their disrespect of our sovereign right to control our military activity, attempted to do everything in their power to push the issue (for example, intentionally breaking our rules on holds and calling it an oopsie!). The relationship, in reality, was never on equal footing and we were never given a voice in the spaces that truly mattered. Our ethical rules were always a point of contention in our relationship with raider organizations because, flat out and full-stop, they didn't and don't respect them. The mask is just off now.

Ultimately, towards the tail end of our cooperation with raiders, it was really clear how fraudulent our relationship truly was. And ultimately, their disrespect of our ethical codes and operational decisions came from a deeply-rooted need for control and a disrespect for a region's sovereign decision making.

 

[McEntire]

A deeply disingenuous article by someone who was and is now deliberately undermining the Europeian state (presumably doubling down on this to try and conserve their ego, after a political error of judgement).

I tried to help you as an old friend, and formerly a significant contributer to Europeia, by explaining the Foreign policy context in private, and you've spat it back in my face.

There's no attempt to even find a balanced view on things, you are just recycling lies touted by those who would seek to hurt us. This isn't a reasonable article, nothing it says is reasonable, you are just deliberately misinterpreting things to concoct and parrot increasingly dangerous propaganda that our detractors will be salivating at.

If you care about Europeia at all. Stop now, before you do more damage. Please.

I am unsure why this article is evincing this level of vitriol. But clearly there's no political "win" for me in making this argument, I'm simply making an argument based on how I have seen us behave for a long time. I get that you disagree with it, but it's not propaganda, it's not some kind of foreign plot, it's that I'd genuinely like to see us adopt a more open and Defender-aligned stance.

What is the future of Europeian Independence when Europeia is a self-identified Defender region? This was a question weighing heavily on my mind when the Senate ratified our entry into the Aegis Accords last term. Through the course of that questioning, then-Vice President Writinglegend talked about how our relationships with raiderdom had been increasingly “fraudulent” over the course of years.

It seemed to me that we had been continually accused on the world’s stage of having fraudulent interregional relationships, and our detractors said that “Independence” was a fig leaf for a non-committal attitude that allows us to leverage our allies. To use a real-life metaphor, we’d be the Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema of NationStates: because we know we sit in the balance of power, we are able to make demands and punch above our weight.

According to the traditional view, Independence allows us to prioritize regional interest over ideology, thus we are not locked into the R/D psychodrama but free to disavow the fringes of raiderdom or defenderdom as suits our current position. It seemed to me that Writinglegend’s admission about our fraudulent relationship with raiders validated the caricature of Independence that our detractors promoted. This is certainly a cynical view of our foreign policy practices, but I am sure that our FA heavies may agree with elements of the characterization, even if they view it as good clean geopolitics.

This is a misinterpretation of what I stated. You are framing this as some sort of admission that Europeia had a non-committal attitude towards raiders and various other partners. In truth, what I said (as you can see below) is that our relationship was fraudulent because raiders ultimately wanted to just assert their control over our community. This is evident when you look at my entire post, and not a cherry-picked word.

The problem was raiders did not respect our right to install ethical codes, and in their disrespect of our sovereign right to control our military activity, attempted to do everything in their power to push the issue (for example, intentionally breaking our rules on holds and calling it an oopsie!). The relationship, in reality, was never on equal footing and we were never given a voice in the spaces that truly mattered. Our ethical rules were always a point of contention in our relationship with raider organizations because, flat out and full-stop, they didn't and don't respect them. The mask is just off now.

Ultimately, towards the tail end of our cooperation with raiders, it was really clear how fraudulent our relationship truly was. And ultimately, their disrespect of our ethical codes and operational decisions came from a deeply-rooted need for control and a disrespect for a region's sovereign decision making.

Gleg, obviously you're more influential than I have ever been, but I've been around longer. I remember when the foreign policy consensus of the day was that any kind of ethical standards in military gameplay whatsoever was dangerous radical moralism. It's not me cherry-picking a word, I think that your statement in the thread is a remarkable departure from our previous foreign policy positionality, and revealing of the true nature of our relationships with raiders. Yes, raiderdom changed, but so have we.

My point is precisely that I don't think we should base our foreign policy on who is trying to "control our community" less. If that's Independence, just going with whoever will give us a longer leash, then I don't want it. My point is that I'd like to see us develop stronger relationships, be less isolationist, and have a more democratized foreign policy. I understand what your point in the thread was, I think I have characterized it appropriately, and it's possible for people to have a difference of opinion.

And this is my problem. Y'all act like there is one correct way to view FA, and anyone who deviates must be either a foreign agitator or a simpleton. Tbh, the things I've wrote here have been my view for the entire time I've been in Euro, and I have always gotten shouted down. For a long time I convinced myself that I just didn't know anything, but the MadJack thing really validated a lot of the issues that I've had for years. Disagree with it if you like, but I stand by my characterization of our attitude and my opinions of how I'd like to see it change.

 

[North East Somerset]

Okay, well I'll do you the justice of a full comprehensive response McEntire, which explains why I think much of your article is disingenuous, and the conclusions you draw are potentially damaging to the region (if not read with appropriate context, which you haven't given).

Are we Independent? And is Independence fraudulent?

What is the future of Europeian Independence when Europeia is a self-identified Defender region? This was a question weighing heavily on my mind when the Senate ratified our entry into the Aegis Accords last term. Through the course of that questioning, then-Vice President Writinglegend talked about how our relationships with raiderdom had been increasingly “fraudulent” over the course of years.

It seemed to me that we had been continually accused on the world’s stage of having fraudulent interregional relationships, and our detractors said that “Independence” was a fig leaf for a non-committal attitude that allows us to leverage our allies. To use a real-life metaphor, we’d be the Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema of NationStates: because we know we sit in the balance of power, we are able to make demands and punch above our weight.

According to the traditional view, Independence allows us to prioritize regional interest over ideology, thus we are not locked into the R/D psychodrama but free to disavow the fringes of raiderdom or defenderdom as suits our current position. It seemed to me that Writinglegend’s admission about our fraudulent relationship with raiders validated the caricature of Independence that our detractors promoted. This is certainly a cynical view of our foreign policy practices, but I am sure that our FA heavies may agree with elements of the characterization, even if they view it as good clean geopolitics.

No the Philosophy that Europeia has espoused for most its history is not "fraudulent" thank you very much, and we should be proud of our Independent heritage, that has in your own words allowed us to "punch above our weight" - I'd prefer to say "live up to our potential", for nearly a Decade. We have a huge community, but we weren't always a significant player in international affairs, and I think Independence has helped us immensely in that regard, which in turn has kept us relevant on the world stage, and kept the region going through quiet patches.

Our consistent and successful creation of the Independent philosophy, building it from nothing to a significant force in world affairs - is a huge achievement, not something to frown upon. I also think it's deeply insulting to characterise it as "non-committal" - we have been hugely committed and loyal to our allies and military partners for many years, even when its not always reciprocated, which is how we ended up in a situation where we were being used for raiding reinforcements without being afforded respect or a stake in their decision-making processes.

Quoting WL out of context *is* deliberately disingenuous, you know in the full sentence that he gave that he was talking specifically about the nature of cooperation with some raiders towards the "tail end" of our relationship with them being what I would call a "one way street".

Independence in the Context of Aegis

In the Aegis ratification thread, I said all of this in so many words. I said that I “hope that we will not allow our relationships to be as fraudulent as they were on the Raider side” and noted that “Independence can exist without the strategic ambiguity that we adopted as Raider-aligned Independents.”

This was part of why the MadJack issue made my head spin. I felt that we were being weirdos for no reason other than to show TRR that they couldn’t lead us around by the nose. I had influential foreign policy people lobbying me to shut up, with one saying that “if you give them a taste of blood [t]hey will want more. Every morning. And then again for supper.” Is that really what we think of our allies? And if so, why are we getting into bed with them in the first place?

Maybe TRR was blowing a small issue up as a pretense to cause problems with us and our new Aegis allies. We certainly acted publicly like that was what they were doing. Of course, TRR’s only recourse was to kick us out of Aegis, and if they didn’t have the votes to do so, we could always give them the middle finger without much consequence. And that, in my view, is what we did by walking away from the talks.

I'm not sure that sticking up for our principles against slander and disinformation being conducted against us surreptitiously, is being "weirdos". And I think you know very well that we didn't get in bed with TRR specifically - we got into the Aegis family, which meant working with TRR because they are a member of Aegis. So again, it feels like you're being disingenuous here, given that I explained this all to you.

Neither us nor them really wanted to be in bed together prior to that, or even subsequently based on what I've seen. But the facts are; TRR does want to be in Aegis, Euro also wants to be in Aegis, and clearly they were not so diametrically opposed as to prevent that happening. Obviously its been challenging, but no one has given up yet, despite some peoples best efforts to cause problems.

The reality is Euro is now a member of this one overarching Aegis family of regions, and we need to make it work. You, and others who seek to reopen old wounds and pour salt into them, are not helping with that. You are only helping those who don't want it to work.

What Does it Mean to be Independent-Aligned Defenders?

While walking away may have been good statecraft (my professor from my negotiations class would have given Kazaman an A+), it was also a signal that we would operate in the same way but with new allies. This is directly at odds with our official government position, as President Rand put it in the Aegis thread, “Independent-aligned Defenders,” not just Independents but now with new friends.

I would posit that it is fine to be a part of an interregional community without needing to punch above our weight or show our allies that we can leverage them. Can we be Independent-aligned Defenders without engaging in the same decade-long dick-measuring contest that we had with Raiders?

Can we have close alliances with Independents without, ourselves, being Independent any longer? From where I stand, it’s okay to be dependent, and in fact mutual dependence and trust is the foundation of a healthy community.

But again - this is disingenuous, because we are still Independent as well. We're tagged as both. We can be in the Aegis organisation, as a region identifying as Defender, following all their treaty binding commitments, and still encourage and consult some of the Independent principles as well in guiding our philosophy. That doesn't mean sticking to the letter of the Independent manifesto, before you bring that up and start quoting sections at me like its a binding document we must adhere to rigidly. I helped write it, I know the intention with which it was written - its a philosophical guide. A guide thats now nearly 10 years old, and as the geopolitical world around us has changed, and we've adapted it. Thats actually the very essence of Independence, and the same spirit that created that document originally.

So the whole argument you present here is a strawman.

And in the final paragraph are you arguing we should stop having close alliances with all Independent regions?

A Rough Sketch of a Different Model

Our security is now paramount. Yes, through geopolitical leverage and treaty agreements we can coerce people to our aid in dire circumstances. But wouldn’t it be better to be more firmly rooted and let our relationships with our fellow Defenders blossom organically into a hedge of protection? To mix metaphors, could we enter this new marriage without having one foot out the door?

Our foreign policy caginess has led to a relatively isolationist Europeia, and one where foreign policy decision-making is restricted to a closely held establishment. I am certainly not proposing to burn that establishment down or throw out years of effort. I am proposing that there may now be an opening for a different strain of foreign policy thinking in Europeia: one that is more ideological, more comfortably defender aligned, and more rationally moralist.

Because ultimately, when it comes down to it, raiderdom is a dumpster fire right now and we have gained a lot by galvanizing the world against it. We could benefit further from a more democratized foreign policy that is truly representative of the ideological spectrum contained in Europeia, rather than one that ducks ideological questions entirely in favor of an all-realpolitik approach. And we could benefit from close interregional relationships based in mutual trust and dependence, rather than rigid adherence to a traditional neutrality and strategic flexibility.

The MadJack Affair may ultimately have been, as the kids say, not that deep. But going forward, I would encourage every Europeian to think critically about how we deal with these kinds of foreign policy situations. What kind of ally does Europeia want to be? And what do we expect in return?

This is probably the only section of this whole article that ISN'T completely disingenuous. I don't forego anyone to have a vision, especially a positive vision of the future.

I just think the reality is this is not a positive vision, as you are asking us to sacrifice a lot of influence and relationships.

The great irony is the Defender organisation that we have joined isn't demanding this, and does still apparently respect our contribution.

Some people outside Euro, are unfortunately jealous of our success - that is a powerful and defining emotion that helps balance the great powers of world affairs, and we will never escape it. So some people don't want us to have "the best of both worlds". They see an inconsistency, a gap to exploit and open up.

You have seemingly hit on the same theme, and are (not for nefarious purposes I will assume) helping them in their aim. Which in turn damages us.

Eventually *IF* more people within and outside Euro help them, you will get your wish, and we will end up either leaving/removed from Aegis, or as "ideological" and "rationally moralist" Defenders cut off from our Independent allies.

What will that achieve? For Europeia? For you? For them?

Think about it.

 

[HEM]

I don't really want to rehash all of the arguments. The horse has been dead, kicked, re-animated, killed again, kicked, infected with that weird fungus from "The Last of Us," killed again, and kicked.

I just want to say one thing:

Our official position on their first demand was that we could apologize for mishandling the information, but never for using it, for fear of setting some sort of precedent that could rob us of our sovereignty somehow. This is a bit of silly FA hair-splitting that seems more like a negotiating position than a true principle.

This was always a very real position for me. We were being asked to essentially make a commitment not to use any domestic information from another region that fell into our laps — even if it were in our regional security or foreign policy interests to do so. If we made that commitment to TRR, wouldn't all regions want it from us? And then, all of the sudden, even programs like The Watch become basically impossible.

It wasn't hair-splitting. And it's kinda confusing to have you, on one hand, effectively say we need to be "better" allies, and on the other hand, say we should've just waived through some broad expectations that we never, ever could've lived up to.

 

[Rand]

Mac, I feel like your take on the Madjack situation has been missing one big component. Let's imagine you were President. What would you have done if you learned that a high-ranking advisor of one of our closest allies was openly bashing Europeia and attempting to undermine our interests?

I've said this before and I'll say it again, the location in which we learned of MadJack's true intentions never crossed my mind. In fact, it never crossed my mind until Gorundu mentioned it; and from the chat logs shared in Madjack's trial, I believe it was revealed it was MadJack's idea to turn this into a debate over TRR forum access. In my opinion, the whole TRR fiasco was a calculated attempt by MadJack to distract the world from his own wrongdoing.

We have inadvertently learned of a difference in values between our two communities, and we resolved that. However, make no mistake: It was a targeted attack on our relationships with the world community. We truly went into all of this with the best intentions.

 

[McEntire]

Thank you, NES, for taking the article seriously and responding in kind. I do want to respond to a few of your points, because I feel that much of what you described as "disingenuous" are things that I have recognized in the article, even if you don't like how they're framed.

My main point is this: what I am trying to suggest is that there is a level of cognitive dissonance caused by us applying both Independent and Defender labels to ourselves at the same time. I think that these changes (becoming Defender, becoming a Frontier) came down the pike at a rapid speed, and while they did have democratic support, there is still a process of adjustment or socialization that needs to happen among the Europeian people for us to fully realize the potential of these new associations. You may disagree with the steps I've taken in that argument, but it is nice to hear you recognize the validity in my ultimate point, which is that we need to work towards resolving some of our contradictions.

No the Philosophy that Europeia has espoused for most its history is not "fraudulent" thank you very much, and we should be proud of our Independent heritage, that has in your own words allowed us to "punch above our weight" - I'd prefer to say "live up to our potential", for nearly a Decade. We have a huge community, but we weren't always a significant player in international affairs, and I think Independence has helped us immensely in that regard, which in turn has kept us relevant on the world stage, and kept the region going through quiet patches.

Our consistent and successful creation of the Independent philosophy, building it from nothing to a significant force in world affairs - is a huge achievement, not something to frown upon. I also think it's deeply insulting to characterise it as "non-committal" - we have been hugely committed and loyal to our allies and military partners for many years, even when its not always reciprocated, which is how we ended up in a situation where we were being used for raiding reinforcements without being afforded respect or a stake in their decision-making processes.

Quoting WL out of context *is* deliberately disingenuous, you know in the full sentence that he gave that he was talking specifically about the nature of cooperation with some raiders towards the "tail end" of our relationship with them being what I would call a "one way street".

I would argue that it's apparent that our relationships with raiders were fraying well before the "tail end" of the relationships. Even if that's not what Gleg was referring to in that moment, I don't think it's an unfair characterization at all.

And as for the idea of "punching above our weight" vs. "living up to our potential," I think you've sort of made my point there. My point is that, while we might disagree on how to characterize it, we are describing the same phenomenon of leveraging and maximizing our alliances in the balance of gameplay power. I am not saying that it has not benefited us, to be entirely clear. I'm simply saying that now is a good time to reassess the benefit we get and consider other guiding principles.

I'm not sure that sticking up for our principles against slander and disinformation being conducted against us surreptitiously, is being "weirdos". And I think you know very well that we didn't get in bed with TRR specifically - we got into the Aegis family, which meant working with TRR because they are a member of Aegis. So again, it feels like you're being disingenuous here, given that I explained this all to you.

Neither us nor them really wanted to be in bed together prior to that, or even subsequently based on what I've seen. But the facts are; TRR does want to be in Aegis, Euro also wants to be in Aegis, and clearly they were not so diametrically opposed as to prevent that happening. Obviously its been challenging, but no one has given up yet, despite some peoples best efforts to cause problems.

The reality is Euro is now a member of this one overarching Aegis family of regions, and we need to make it work. You, and others who seek to reopen old wounds and pour salt into them, are not helping with that. You are only helping those who don't want it to work.

This is fine and fair, but again doesn't really cut against my depiction of a shotgun marriage. If anything, it sort of bolsters it. I am trying to be a domestic voice for greater cooperation, I fail to see how that's helping those who don't want it to work. To go along with your metaphor, you do have to treat a wound so that it will heal properly, and salt (when diluted with water) can have antibacterial properties. I don't think it's helpful to instead say that we should deal with these contradictions by not acknowledging them or having introspection about a foreign policy issue that was clearly divisive within our region.

But again - this is disingenuous, because we are still Independent as well. We're tagged as both. We can be in the Aegis organisation, as a region identifying as Defender, following all their treaty binding commitments, and still encourage and consult some of the Independent principles as well in guiding our philosophy. That doesn't mean sticking to the letter of the Independent manifesto, before you bring that up and start quoting sections at me like its a binding document we must adhere to rigidly. I helped write it, I know the intention with which it was written - its a philosophical guide. A guide thats now nearly 10 years old, and as the geopolitical world around us has changed, and we've adapted it. Thats actually the very essence of Independence, and the same spirit that created that document originally.

So the whole argument you present here is a strawman.

And in the final paragraph are you arguing we should stop having close alliances with all Independent regions?

I know that this is the very point that you don't want me to bring up but: the spirit of Independence is to "eschew the R/D dichotomy," which is not possible when you are self-identifying as Defender. Just because you wrote the damn thing doesn't mean that you can make a square peg fit into a round hole.

In my final paragraph I am arguing the exact opposite. Even in being more comfortably Defender, could we not still retain our Independent allies? Especially with the state of raiderdom, would we not still be an attractive ally even as more vocal Defenders? I suppose this is an assumption that I'm making, not necessarily something based in my own knowledge, so I would turn the question to you. It's surprising for me to hear you say that we would lose our Independent alliances if we were to be more vocally Defender, do you think that's actually the case?

This is probably the only section of this whole article that ISN'T completely disingenuous. I don't forego anyone to have a vision, especially a positive vision of the future.

I just think the reality is this is not a positive vision, as you are asking us to sacrifice a lot of influence and relationships.

The great irony is the Defender organisation that we have joined isn't demanding this, and does still apparently respect our contribution.

Some people outside Euro, are unfortunately jealous of our success - that is a powerful and defining emotion that helps balance the great powers of world affairs, and we will never escape it. So some people don't want us to have "the best of both worlds". They see an inconsistency, a gap to exploit and open up.

You have seemingly hit on the same theme, and are (not for nefarious purposes I will assume) helping them in their aim. Which in turn damages us.

Eventually *IF* more people within and outside Euro help them, you will get your wish, and we will end up either leaving/removed from Aegis, or as "ideological" and "rationally moralist" Defenders cut off from our Independent allies.

What will that achieve? For Europeia? For you? For them?

Think about it.

Again, I would ask whether you truly think that we would sacrifice our relationships by taking a more ideological stance. That's surprising for me to hear. I also think that the "they're just jealous of us" argument is a bit of rah-rah patriotism bullshit that's not really going to be motivating to me in this debate. If you're going to use the boogeymen of these "outside enemies" of ours, be specific. Who is jealous of us, why, and how am I aiding them?

As for what it will achieve, let me be more specific, because this is not a lark that I decided on one day. I have always seen the Frontier change as an opportunity for a much larger shift in Europeia. In my head, I have been sort of referring to this as "big box Euro," because I think we have the opportunity to become bigger, badder, and more formidable.

First, we have already seen our population nearly triple between mid-April and early June, with (it seems to me) a more steady influx of new citizens. After a dip of initial CTEs, we have steadily climbed again, gaining almost 200 new nations in the last month. I believe that this more steady rate of growth will continue for some time before leveling off, so we have an opportunity to decide what we want to do with that growth. We have changed the basic circumstances of our growth, and now have to figure out how to translate that into greater WA power, etc.

Second, our Frontier status naturally brings us more into alignment with Defender values. At this point, we are the largest "founderless region" (UCR, at least), and certainly likely to remain so. When Gleg originally came out in favor of Frontier, we had a public discussion about the development of a "Frontier-sphere." We haven't really heard much about this since then, but I think mutual defense among Frontiers could be an area of growth for the future.

Third, I do think that our messaging is a little... confused or lacking in conviction. Just to give you an example, when we are calling people out to do liberations and we say we want to "kick some raider ass" or whatever, I'm like... oh do we? That's not really the rhetoric of our government when it comes to raiderdom. Now, that's not to say it shouldn't be. Personally, I never liked raiding or raiders. I'm much more motivated by defending (even though I still only participate occasionally). I think if we could adopt stronger rhetoric without toeing the line, we could get the full benefit of our new stance.

Finally, as I have said many times, I think there are governmental changes we could make so that our government structure encourages WA participation. Although I lost my Senate seat, I still hope to be part of that conversation going forward. When you put these pieces together, you can kind of see how it's all tied together and could represent a potent achievement.

I understand that you are protecting your own achievements in the Independent-sphere, and I think we should recognize your perspective in Balder in this situation. I am not suggesting that we should flip a switch and start bad-mouthing our Independent allies, I'm suggesting that I think that our commitment to Independence should be a more open question, given what we could benefit by becoming more firmly ensconced in the Defender-sphere. Or at least, we should have factions discussing each of these possible options. We are talking about long-term shifts and big-picture things here, not sudden movement.

Mac, I feel like your take on the Madjack situation has been missing one big component. Let's imagine you were President. What would you have done if you learned that a high-ranking advisor of one of our closest allies was openly bashing Europeia and attempting to undermine our interests?

I've said this before and I'll say it again, the location in which we learned of MadJack's true intentions never crossed my mind. In fact, it never crossed my mind until Gorundu mentioned it; and from the chat logs shared in Madjack's trial, I believe it was revealed it was MadJack's idea to turn this into a debate over TRR forum access. In my opinion, the whole TRR fiasco was a calculated attempt by MadJack to distract the world from his own wrongdoing.

We have inadvertently learned of a difference in values between our two communities, and we resolved that. However, make no mistake: It was a targeted attack on our relationships with the world community. We truly went into all of this with the best intentions.

Rand, I wanna be entirely clear here: I am not claiming that I would have handled this situation perfectly, or even better, as President. It's always hard in a game like this, because principled stances feel so personal. I have high regard for your knowledge and skills, and frankly for many of the people that I have sharply criticized in this incident. PhDre and Kazaman are two people that I have admired and worked well with in the past.

At the same time, I think the fact that it never crossed your mind was an oversight, and was colored by our historic relationship with TRR. That's entirely reasonable to have happened in the moment, but that doesn't mean that we can't course-correct in retrospect. I am not saying that your intentions were bad, but I think we inadvertently committed a faux pas and we should reflect on it rather than completely externalizing any blame to MadJack.