Meeting with TNI

[Sandaoguo]

Escade, Kris, and myself met with Onder from TNI. This is a log of the conversation we had:

 

[8:01:02 PM] *** Glen Rhodes added Escade, Kringalia ***

[8:01:20 PM] Escade: Hello

[8:01:27 PM] Kringalia: Hi there

[8:02:00 PM] Escade: Kris! It's been ages since we last met

[8:02:10 PM] Onder Kelkia: Greetings

[8:02:40 PM] Kringalia: Indeed.


[8:02:56 PM] Glen Rhodes: Since it's 1am for Onder, I suggest we just right into the meat of it.

[8:04:07 PM] Glen Rhodes: We've called for this meeting because we want to clarify the relationship between TSP and TNI. Even though previous Cabinets have called TNI our most important ally, there's not actually a lot of communication between us, and we want to fix that.


[8:06:17 PM] Onder Kelkia: Indeed, our alliance has predominantly been a practical one when specific situations have arisen rather than one of routine contact, especially in the last few months. Of course, many NS treaties are essentially practical and invoked in specific situations rather than involving an ongoing dialogue, but I think we can hope to build an additional relationship which involves more regular contact.


[8:06:51 PM] Escade: We appreciate TNI's help during the last coup and we'd like to build closer ties as well as have our region's members build relationships.

[8:07:33 PM] Escade: We do have some questions about our relationship and where its going as well as how you would feel about certain projects we have planned.


[8:07:40 PM] Kringalia: I think our concern is that most of our citizens only hear about TNI when there are elections and debates about our independence, and that isn't an ideal situation when we are supposed to be close allies. If we can agree on what we hope for our relationship, I think both regions would benefit greatly.


[8:10:39 PM] Onder Kelkia: I am happy to answer any queries you have, whether abour our thoughts or what our views on whatever projects you are considering, as well as any particular proposals you have for directions you would hope to take it in. I agree that it is far from ideal that citizens only hear about TNI when it comes to elections and debates about TSP's independence - of course I don't necessarily agree with the criticisms which are raised there, but I agree that we can collectively do more to illustrate and achieve the value of the alliance. In the immediate term, a joint cultural festival, perhaps with parts of it hold in both TSP and TNI, could be used to ensure direct citizenry contact beyond the kind of foreign affairs issues which tend to create controversy, or there could be some sort of exchange more refined or specific to our relationship.

[8:11:30 PM] Onder Kelkia: Equally, if TSP's military has any operations which they'd like TNI military support for, such as anti-Nazi invasions or anything else you have ongoing, then we will always be happy to consider such requests in line with our own policies.


[8:12:21 PM] Kringalia: That sounds good. I agree those are things we should do. Glen, I think you had some questions as well?


[8:12:36 PM] Glen Rhodes: Alright, to the more difficult questions.

[8:13:08 PM] Glen Rhodes: There's been a lot of debate lately about how our military agenda would interact with TNI and, more broadly, the UIAF.

[8:13:46 PM] Glen Rhodes: There are some inherent contradictions between the assumption in TSP about how TNI would react to certain things, and our position as an Independent GCR.

[8:14:07 PM] Glen Rhodes: So, we'd like to stop assuming things and actually get the opinion of TNI!


[8:14:36 PM] Onder Kelkia: Okay, I'm happy to give answers


[8:17:12 PM] Glen Rhodes: The past few Cabinets have been working towards better relations with the UDL. Under Belschaft, we worked to normalize relations. And under Escade, our goal is to actually have an operational relationship. The idea is that we're an Independent region, and we want to be able to defend as much as we can raid, and the UDL is one of the more organized and seasoned groups in the game right now we can envision actually having a good relationship with.


However, it's our understanding that TNI is at war with the UDL. So, if we were to conduct missions with the UDL, one of the few defender groups out there, how would this be seen by TNI?


[8:26:29 PM] Onder Kelkia: In terms of the UDL-TSP operational military relationship, it would depend on the context: for instance, TSP forces were present alongside UDL forces in Makhnovia  recently and TNI raised no complaint over that. If it involved reactively defending in circumstances that were blind to the other parties involved (that is the invaders in question), then that would be of concern because in foreign policy terms TSP could unwittingly end up fighting TNI or our treatied alies (not the raider groups, but Europeia, LKE, Albion, etc.) in a military engagement, which isn't really compatible with a relationship as allies. If TNI and its allies aren't actually involved in an operation, and there's no risk of a military conflict, then we wouldn't be gravely concerned about occasional missions alongside the UDL in those contexts. On the other hand, if TSP was regularly or formally working with the UDL in a military context, when it wasn't for example raiding regularly and sending reinforcements to support UIAF occupations, then that wouldn't suggest a situation of parity in terms of TSP's approach. The other point to make is that there are defender groups we are not at war with, notably Wintreath and Mordor, in terms of UDL being one of the few defender groups out there.


[8:29:42 PM] Kringalia: I'm being called. I'll come back in a couple of minutes guys.


[8:29:47 PM] Escade: I understand your concerns.  We are not in the interest of harming relations with one solid ally in favor of an untested one.  We do however plan to take a more independent stance in the near future.  


If there was some better way to discuss the exact details, perhaps your FA and military person would keep ours updated as to missions and such, then we'd be on the same page. 


Finally, I personally am interested in bringing peace to NS and one of my goals would be to - at some point in the future - bring TNI and UDL to the negotiation table to discuss how to move forward.


[8:31:52 PM] Onder Kelkia: Obviously, a lot of raid missions in terms of precise targets are either spontaneous or kept to a very small number of individuals before the actual operation for security purposes, but if you can ask your military person to get in touch either I as TNIAF Comamnder or UIAF Joint Commander Bishop would be very happy to talk to them.


[8:32:16 PM] Glen Rhodes: Regarding TNI and its allies, who exactly counts as "allies?" One of the things brought up in various debates in TSP is the assumption of network effects. Basically the idea that because TNI is at war with the FRA, that means TSP can't work with FRA-allied regions, otherwise we'd risk your ire. So, when you say TSP can't meet TNI's allies on the opposite side of the battlefield, are we talking UIAF members, or are we talking any region which TNI may consider an ally, no matter how loosely?


[8:34:11 PM] Escade: Onder Kelkia, our military person is Southern_Bellz and I will let him know.


[8:35:35 PM] Onder Kelkia: In terms of TNI allies, that means people we have treaties with - so the other two UIAF regions - LKE and Albion, then there is Europeia, Balder, Kantrias, Unknown Mazeria and we are currently finalising an agreement with Osiris - as well as TSP of course. It doesn't mean TBR or other raider groups etc (though we generally provide reciprocal military support to them and TBH) - if that makes sense - but obviously if we or another one of those allies was deployed alongside TBR, then we would be involved.


[8:36:21 PM] Glen Rhodes: My concern is that that's pretty much the entire raider sphere.

[8:36:41 PM] Glen Rhodes: It makes the chances of TSP running into TNI and its allies very high.

[8:40:37 PM] Glen Rhodes: Since it's inevitable that TSP and TNI+allies will meet on opposite sides of the battlefield -- no matter what, mistakes happen -- one thing we really want is a solid understanding of what will happen then. A lot of huge inter-regional scandals in NS happen because both sides jump to conclusions and things get emotional. We don't want that to happen with any of our allies. So we want a good communications plan. A promise that neither side will react until they can get ahold of each other. Basically, the real-world version of the red phone.


[8:41:57 PM] Onder Kelkia: Well, it is currently TNI, LKE, Albion, Osiris, Europeia, Balder, Kantrias, Unknown and Mazeria - I wouldn't call that the raider sphere, more like the imperialist and independent sphere, with the exceptions of Osiris and Unknown to an extent. There are various other regions which raid far more regularly than these, notably TBR. But yes, TNI is actively involved in raiding and naturally we do not think that TNI and an ally engaging in a military confrontation is appropriate - and there is obviously a significant risk of that if an ally engages in reactive defending blind to the other invading parties involved, with no ability to select which forces they are fighting.

[8:43:10 PM] Onder Kelkia: Naturally we can seek contact with TSP before doing anything drastic to check there has been no misunderstanding etc. - a mutual arrangement to speak and engage in that regard makes sense, yes.


[8:43:52 PM] Escade: And we already have a treaty of amity with Kantrias and are considering ties with other regions.  More then ever though I'd like to emphasize more friendly relations  between regions to cement alliances and keep them active from one term to the next.


Finally, while GR is presenting some of the worst case scenarios which I understand happen in NS more of then then needed.


I appreciate your honesty and we will meet with you once more before taking any big steps because we don't want to be on opposite sides. More communication would help alleviate any misunderstandings.


Our Minister of the Army is Southern_Bellz and I have trust in his judgement on missions.


[8:44:57 PM] Glen Rhodes: I don't personally understand the part about 'reactive defending.' In my experience, _defenses_ aren't planned long in advance, and it's rarely clear who everybody is, and time is normally in short supply. I'm not sure how the NSA can prevent running into all of these actors, unless we check with TNI each and every defense we do, and TNI itself knows who is doing what at all times.

[8:46:29 PM] Glen Rhodes: Would you think TNI would be open to formalizing the "red phone" idea? Writing up an agreement (not a treaty or amending the treaty), just in case?


[8:47:05 PM] Kringalia: Back.


[8:48:12 PM] Onder Kelkia: Indeed, defending is inherently reactive - which is why it compromises your independence we would argue. It removes your choice of whom you fight and obviously for imperialist/independent regions, someone fighting you is generally a bigger deal than it is for professional raider/defender rgeions. This is why, as I say, we'd be concerned if TSP was routinely engaged in that sort of activity,  because otherwise that would suggest that is a strong chance that TSP would fight TNI and its other allies, which naturally we are concerned about, and we'd want to avoid as allies I am sure.

[8:48:46 PM] Onder Kelkia: We'd be open to an operational memorandum of understanding with the Red Phone idea yes

[8:49:27 PM] Onder Kelkia: If you have a draft proposal, I would be glad to receive it.

[8:49:50 PM] Onder Kelkia: Outlining our agreement to contact each other if, incidentally, we end up clashing militarily accidentally.

[8:50:11 PM] Onder Kelkia: The problem is the difference between an accidental and unforseeable clash and something which is highly likely to occur if you act in a particular way.


[8:50:16 PM] Glen Rhodes: The entire idea of independence is that we raid _and_ defend when it's in our interests. I think what you're saying here is that it's difficult to be independent _and_ defend, which is something that's been said before by various well-respected people. I think, though, that it's a contradiction solvable by our imperial and raider allies. The UDL, for example, has always included provisions in proposed agreements stating that meeting them on the opposite side of the battlefield wouldn't harm the relationship.


[8:50:43 PM] Onder Kelkia: The UDL is a professional defender organisation, not a political region


[8:51:00 PM] Glen Rhodes: I'm not sure I understanding the distinction being made.


[8:51:20 PM] Onder Kelkia: We regard the people we fight alongside as our allies and the people we fight against as our enemies, as a poltiical region - warfare is not a separate game, but integral to our foreign policy - that is our understanding of independence, as opposed to being raider or defender

[8:51:36 PM] Onder Kelkia: The UDL, not being a political region, naturally simply sees the R/D game

[8:52:10 PM] Onder Kelkia: We don't see an R/D game, we see TNI foreign policy and military operations conducted representing it - the miltiary represents TNI and is a tool of TNI - fighting it is therefore fighting TNI


[8:56:29 PM] Kringalia: Part of the issue I think is that some of us wouldn't view all situations in which we meet TNI or its allies in the battlefield as conflictive to our relationship. I do understand the fact that this is a matter of foreign policy for you, so that's why I'd like of reach some kind of understanding (overall, not really about specifics now) about which situations would be no-go and which ones would be acceptable encounters. Like has been said, that red phone idea would be good to not view encounters in the battlefield as either of us wanting to affect our relationship.


[8:58:04 PM] Onder Kelkia: I am happy to agree to the 'Red Phone' idea as a means of communication to clear up misunderstandings and ensure rapid resolution - however, we don't want to agree to something which effectively licenses TNIAF and The South Pacific Army fighting each other or undertaking activities likely to lead to them fighting each other, as that is not an alliance really.


[9:00:00 PM] Kringalia: I agree. My doubt is whether each encounter, with a TNI ally for example, would be viewed as inherently damaging to our relationship, or if TNI would take the context into account. I'm not calling for TNI-TSP facing each other constantly, that I want to make clear.


[9:00:22 PM] Onder Kelkia: We would naturally take context into account, yes.

[9:01:14 PM] Onder Kelkia: A single unexpected encounter with a TNI ally, rather than TNI (assuming it wasn't UIAF which TNIAF operates as part of except when TNI directs otherwise), which was unlikely to occur again is hardly something worth jeopardising our relationship over

[9:02:16 PM] Onder Kelkia: That stands in contrast to a situation TSP is routinely running into the UIAF or TNI's other allies because it is effectivelly allied to the UDL militarily against TNI and its allies


[9:02:20 PM] Glen Rhodes: The concern, I believe, is that with an increasing web of allies, the pool of opportunity for TSP to defend _without_ encountering any of these regions/organizations will shrink and shrink.

[9:04:34 PM] Glen Rhodes: Also, it might be helpful to not look at this in terms of the UDL. No matter which group we're working with, the scenario above would play out.


[9:05:23 PM] Onder Kelkia: I agree there is a concern - and that is a result of the nature of defending - it removes the political element, the ability to choose which regions you are opposed to and which you are not.

[9:06:01 PM] Onder Kelkia: And that political element, rather than simply raiding or defending out of principles which are specific to those cultures, is what really distinguishes an independent region

[9:06:33 PM] Onder Kelkia: There are no regions which engage in raiding and defending equally - the military activity of  most independent regions are determined by their sphere of alliances

[9:07:24 PM] Onder Kelkia: Most regions which are genuinely independent primarily raid, but then defend when their specific interests are at stake, because that allows them a choice about which military operations they engage in, and choice is clearly crucial to their independence

[9:07:44 PM] Onder Kelkia: Now if a region is habitually defending, then naturally it will run into conflict with not only raiders but also independent regions which raid

[9:08:09 PM] Onder Kelkia: Independence in terms of doing raiding/defending equally is really a fiction


[9:08:20 PM] Glen Rhodes: I'm not sure that's how most people in TSP understand Independence.


[9:08:56 PM] Onder Kelkia: Be that as it may, there are no such regions in practice

[9:09:06 PM] Onder Kelkia: Every region which habitually defends does very little raiding and vice versa

[9:09:32 PM] Onder Kelkia: The real distinction is between whether you raid or defend for the sake of it, or whether you act in accord with a web of allies

[9:09:44 PM] Onder Kelkia: And if you act in accord with a web of allies, that's your foreign policy


[9:10:29 PM] Glen Rhodes: The idea has always been that interests dictate when we raid and when we defend. Not that raiding is the default, and we only defend when it's necessary. This is actually a criticism of Independence that's been refuted by a lot of people in TSP who support it. :\


[9:11:11 PM] Onder Kelkia: Indeed, indepenedence is being able to dictate when you raid and when you defend on the basis of your interests

[9:11:33 PM] Onder Kelkia: But that is inherently difficult when you are mainly defending, because you are blind to who you are fighting

[9:12:00 PM] Onder Kelkia: And that blindness can result in you harming the interests of other regions whose interests you would not want to harm

[9:12:32 PM | Edited 9:14:32 PM] Onder Kelkia: Which is partly why a lot of the regions which used to call themselves independent but primarily defended, e.g. Spiritus, esentially started calling themselves defender

[9:13:08 PM] Onder Kelkia: I mean, how can you make a balanced judgement of when to defend when you have no idea who you are fighting?

[9:13:41 PM] Onder Kelkia: How can you weigh up the interests involved in such a scenario?

[9:13:51 PM] Onder Kelkia: It is essentially impossible.


[9:14:13 PM] Kringalia: Alright...do you have any more questions GR, Escade?


[9:16:33 PM] Onder Kelkia: If I may, I'd like to go back to the question Escade raised earlier on a peace conference


[9:16:37 PM] Escade: Thank you Onder, for explaining your perspective. I, at least, am new enough to politics that this has been very informational. I agree that we do not want to take actions that harm our allies.


I would love to speak to you about some other questions I have at a later time, please feel free to Skype with me or my vice delegate Kris about any concerns you have.


[9:16:52 PM] Escade: Sure, Onder - that is a long term goal I have.

[9:19:28 PM] Escade: It's part of my vision for a TSP that acts as a negotiator and takes a more central stance in NS politics.  


To be honest, I do feel that some of the infighting is a barrier to enjoying the game and would like to see it reduced or at least alleviated.


[9:22:09 PM | Edited 9:25:26 PM] Onder Kelkia: I can certainly understand. TNI is not closed to such schemes - we attended peace talks with the FRA in Europeia which were arranged by Europeia and made the FRA a peace offer, and likewise when the FRA invited us in late 2013 to talk to them again, we did so, though we left after they started debating whether they should have invited us and kept us waiting for over a month. If TSP was to invite us to such a conference, then we'd consider it in the same way we considered the request of our ally Europeia, though we'd want redress (e.g. an apology) for the UDL's actions in Concosia, where they used a leak by a TNI general to get a password to a TNI colony, occupied the region and attempted to refound it, until we intercepte the refounding that is, which is why we declared war on the UDL - TNI was also accompanied by the LKE in both the previous peace conferences with the FRA, TNI's ally which is also at war with the FRA and the UDL, so we'd naturally look to attend a peace conference together to resolve the UDL issue effectively. I couldn't make any commitment as to TNI's negotiating position and we have no objective towards a peace agrement, but if an ally were to invite us to such a conference, we'd certainly strongly consder attending.


[9:28:58 PM] Escade: Well there is a lot of back story that I am not privy to and would probably need a brief summation from both parties involved. It is a longer term goal and I will get back to you about this within a few weeks.


As to TSP and TNI.  For now, I'd like to consult with my cabinet and assembly to asses what is needed from both sides. 


Thank you for spending time with us and working this out so we know what's going on and can plan around that. 


Unless anyone has any other comments or questions, I'd say let's plan to follow up next week (Wednesday?) and move forward then in regards to a memorandum. Please give us a time that you are available and which is convenient.


[9:30:03 PM] Kringalia: No questions from my side. Actually I did like us four having this conversation. It was long overdue for us to actually talk to TNI instead of, like Glen, said, speculate about what you guys would think of something.


[9:30:55 PM] Onder Kelkia: I am also glad we have clarified these things, it is important we are all clear on the potential issues are and do talk to each other as allies rather than it drifting in the background.

[9:31:53 PM | Edited 9:32:07 PM] Onder Kelkia: Next Wednesday sounds good - I'd preferably want to meet earlier, say 11pm GMT, so that'd be 6pm EST, but if you can only do later I'd understand


[9:32:19 PM] Escade: 6pm Wednesday works for me.


[9:32:27 PM] Kringalia: Works for me too.


[9:32:42 PM] Onder Kelkia: Very good


[9:33:06 PM] Glen Rhodes: Unfortunately, I just get off work at that time. :\

[9:33:23 PM] Glen Rhodes: You can have to the meeting without me, though, if that's fine with Escade and kris.


[9:34:13 PM] Onder Kelkia: 11:30 would be possible, so 6:30 if that works better perhaps?


[9:35:40 PM] Kringalia: Any time works for me. I don't know about Escade and Glen?


[9:37:13 PM] Escade: Either time works for me as well on Wednesday. GR, I assumet that would still be difficult for you?  


Since GR will be developing the cabinet discussion for this particular subject, if he can't make it - then we'll have his notes and feedback to work on.


[9:37:58 PM] Kringalia: That works for me. Anyway, I think we have already dealt with some outstanding issues in this meeting, so the next one shouldn't be so difficult.


[9:38:06 PM] Onder Kelkia: Indeed


[9:38:35 PM] Escade: Ok, sounds good

[9:39:10 PM] Escade: We'll see you next week Onder and here are some cookies, a lampshade, and a balloon since this is the first time we've officially met!


[9:39:27 PM] Onder Kelkia: Thank you. So 6pm next week then? I look forward to it. Good to talk to you.

[9:39:29 PM] Onder Kelkia: Bye


[9:39:42 PM] Kringalia: Bye. Thanks for meeting us!

[9:40:20 PM] Escade: Night

[Sandaoguo]

There are some comments by Onder that really concern me:

 

"On the other hand, if TSP was regularly or formally working with the UDL in a military context, when it wasn't for example raiding regularly and sending reinforcements to support UIAF occupations, then that wouldn't suggest a situation of parity in terms of TSP's approach."

 

In my understanding, Onder is saying we must raid with the UIAF more than we defend with anybody. Throughout the entire conversation, I got the understanding the TNI wants to be our supreme ally, and they would be very unhappy if we started working with any defenders in any significant capacity. He's fine with "occasional" missions, but kind of draws the line at anything more than that.

 

"Indeed, defending is inherently reactive - which is why it compromises your independence we would argue."

 

This is the largest red flag that popped up, for me. Onder/TNI is operating under a very different understanding of Independence than the majority of TSP. If you read Onder's comments, they are basically the exact same thing Unibot has been saying in the Assembly. Onder openly states that our "web of allies" leans strongly imperialist, so it would be nearly impossible to start defending, and if we do start defending, that will harm our relationship with TNI and other imperialist allies.

 

Onder's definition of Independence is nicely summed up by his comment: "Most regions which are genuinely independent primarily raid, but then defend when their specific interests are at stake, because that allows them a choice about which military operations they engage in, and choice is clearly crucial to their independence"

 

That stands in stark contrast with the understanding of Independence in TSP: that we will raid or defend, according to our regional interests. Am I the only one that sees the contradiction between TSP's understanding and TNI's?

 

I worry that operating under two different ideas of Independence will lead to conflict with TNI. To be "genuinely independent," we have to "primarily raid." We have to only defend "when [our] specific interests are at stake." If we don't follow this paradigm, then I believe TNI will start to question TSP's Independence. It's my opinion and advise as MoFA that, if we work with defender groups on a significant scale, TNI will start to think we're a defender region because we aren't primarily raiding. You can see that type of thinking in his assessment of Spiritus.

 

I'd like to hear from Southern Bellz and Rebeltopia about their interpretations of this conversation.

[Southern Bellz]

I think the conversation was pretty bizarre to be honest, and a lot of the questions asked aren't really TNI's issues to answer for us.  I hope to see less of an interview next conversation, and more diplomatic efforts to bring our regions closer.  Our region has discussed our relation with TNI over and over again for the past few months, and the treaty still stands.  Therefore, I think we need to be working with TNI more, especially in a non military context.  Our relationship shouldn't be defined solely on our military involvement.

 

Having relations with both invader leaning regions and defender leaning regions is going to be complicated.  If we use that 'web of alliances' argument to stop working with invader leaning regions, then we have to use it to stop working with defenders, then we are back to the past where TSP has defined our independence as doing nothing.  The assembly had a long thread more or less expressing the desire of an active NSA, and the only way for us to be active in context of being independent is working with both sides of NS military gameplay.  If the cabinet wants to move away from working with both types of regions, it isolates the NSA from doing almost anything.

 

As far as the things you are concerned about, I think you are kinda over blowing it.  He said they are fine with us working with defenders unless we essentially become a defender only region or move directly against them.  A stance I find perfectly reasonable.  I am not going to humor Unibot's theories about 'webs of allies' making it impossible to defend.  Under my command we have had 4 deployments with defenders, and you just talked with TNI and they didn't announce any issue with it.

 

The one thing I do agree with you is that we seem to define independent differently.

 

My conclusion is we need to stop playing the 'What If" game with TNI.  Historically they have been a reliable and loyal ally, seem to want to work with us, and expressed little protest to us working with defenders.  If these issues that we worry about arise, we should cross that bridge when we get there.

[Kris Kringle]

I should point out that the conversation was specifically planned to ask Onder the questions he was asked. That's why we agreed on a future meeting, to then discuss actual integration with them. We wanted to hear from TNI itself what their reactions were to the NSA working with defenders, instead of guessing like we have been doing so far. Those questions were answered, regardless of whether we agree with the answers or not.

 

There are some comments by Onder that really concern me:

 

"On the other hand, if TSP was regularly or formally working with the UDL in a military context, when it wasn't for example raiding regularly and sending reinforcements to support UIAF occupations, then that wouldn't suggest a situation of parity in terms of TSP's approach."

 

In my understanding, Onder is saying we must raid with the UIAF more than we defend with anybody. Throughout the entire conversation, I got the understanding the TNI wants to be our supreme ally, and they would be very unhappy if we started working with any defenders in any significant capacity. He's fine with "occasional" missions, but kind of draws the line at anything more than that.

 

I actually disagree. What I got from that wasn't that we should raid more than we defend, rather that we shouldn't work more with defenders than we work with raiders (and that should also work the other way around), in order to keep a reasonable appearance of independence and balance (hence his use of "situation of parity"). I will be honest here, nonetheless, and say that I would not feel at all confortable in having the NSA support UIAF occupations, like he suggested, but that's a personal opinion.

[Sandaoguo]

I think the conversation was pretty bizarre to be honest, and a lot of the questions asked aren't really TNI's issues to answer for us.  I hope to see less of an interview next conversation, and more diplomatic efforts to bring our regions closer.  Our region has discussed our relation with TNI over and over again for the past few months, and the treaty still stands.  Therefore, I think we need to be working with TNI more, especially in a non military context.  Our relationship shouldn't be defined solely on our military involvement.

I have to disagree with you, here, SB. The questions I asked were absolutely fundamental to the relationship. Every single decision the Cabinet and Assembly have made regarding foreign affairs has always involved TSP-TNI relations in some way. Every single debate, argument, and fight about our relationship with TNI has rested upon a set of assumptions about how they would react to certain events. I asked them about those questions, and I'm very concerned about the answers we were given.

 

Nobody can just magically will into being a "closer relationship" with TNI. It takes a lot of work, and if TNI is operating under a different set of assumptions and understandings than we are, then it becomes impossible. I know that some of you guys don't like to talk about it, but it's very important to talk about whether or not you agree with Onder/TNI's views on independence, because it will directly affect everything we do with our military.

 

SB, you may not want to play "what ifs," but the hard reality is that it's necessary. We have a bloc of players that views the TNI treaty as sacred, and they're operating under assumptions that we can go ahead with defending because we're independence, and it won't hurt the relationship. Well, according to what Onder said, that's false. It's not "the Cabinet" that wants to stop working with both sides --- it's Onder saying that we can't raid and defend without hurting our relationship. It's also not "Unibot's theories." It's Onder saying that we have a web of alliances that affects our foreign policy.

 

I don't want to wait until things go bad to address them. That's a terrible way to go about things. I think the conversation with Onder revealed a lot of new information and falsified a lot of our assumptions. How do we go forward with the UDL, now that we know TNI won't like it if we "formally" work with defenders more than imperialists? How do we feel about TNI telling us that we're not allowed to do X or Y, when the entire point of Independence is that we make those decisions ourselves?

 

I don't want this to just be brushed under the table because it might make people uncomfortable to talk about it. Do we agree to TNI's position that we have to work with them more than we defend? Do we agree with Onder that as an Independent region, we must primarily raid and only defend when it's vital to our interests? Do we not see any problems at all with anything that was said?

 

SB, you said you agreed that we view Independence different. How do you think that will affect our foreign and military policy?

 

The difficulty I'm having is that I don't see any easy way forward. I feel like there's an implied ultimatum with TNI, and that makes me very uncomfortable.

[Southern Bellz]

His argument is TNI would take issue in the case TSP only defends, and ignores raiding activities.  His example was supporting TNI as a raiding activity. To preface his comment he also said that he knows we have worked with the UDL, and they had no complains about it.  Are you going to selectively ignore that he said they have no issue with us working with the UDL if it doesn't attack TNI?

 

You specifically asked for my opinion, and I don't think that is an outrageous statement, or an implied ultimatum or anything remotely to take issue with, especially in the context of the whole conversation.

[Rebel-topia]

I tend to agree with SB here.

 

Ive said it when I was MoFA and MoS... "If we're trying to make EVERYBODY happy, we're only making ourselves unhappy. If we try to make ourselves happy, we'll make everyone unhappy." Is it worth keeping our independence and having a foreign policy of "we'll work with everyone without a treaty" or should we try to renegotiate our current treaties, and add to all future ones, provisions to meet on the opposite side of the battlefield without fear of repercussion from either side?

 Really, I think the better option is the later. But maybe if our hand is forced, we go with the former, and show we're not joking around when it comes to our independence.