Lazarus

Full Version: War with the NPO
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
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).
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
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 Tongue

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.
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.
TempestShadow Wrote: [ -> ]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.
TempestShadow Wrote: [ -> ]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 Tongue

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.
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)
Imaginary Wrote: [ -> ]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. Smile

(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.
Pages: 1 2