Atlas & LETO
Brian Boru
Hey, it's my first article in eCanada, you should totally vote this up. Also, a Polandball should be done by tonight.
Damagehood & Friendship
The dominant ideology of Foreign Affairs in eRepublik is "Damagehood". When countries talk about friendship, loyalty and honour, nine times out of ten they are largely referring to the reliability of delivering damage in favour of each other's countries in times of need. This is inevitable as most countries are connected only via the personal contacts of a very small number of people in each country. It's hard to be a friend to someone you never talk to.
Of course, there are ways to increase the damage you get. The prevailing ideal here for large countries has been to get together with other large countries to dominate the smaller ones. Small countries often try to copy this, and so the arrival of secondary alliances like LETO and its predecessors came long ago.
Common Interests
The problem with this is simple. Many countries in the secondary alliance have no common strategic interests whatsoever, more often than not being located on the other side of the planet to one another. For large countries, this is less of a problem as they do not need to deploy their entire strength via MPPs in order to make a difference, so alliances like Aurora can exist effectively. However, for smaller hangers-on, this means that the main people to be called upon in the event of an invasion of their territory have no real interest in the conflict. This is made worse by the parent alliance having its own strategic interests.
LETO is therefore very badly optimised to deliver the maximum amount of damage. It has no geographic core of countries which can rally directly to each other's aid, and the lack of proximity means that a crisis in one country is not regarded as a crisis for the alliance. The playerbases are also divided by a lack of a common culture, being based in different RL cultures and having little to zero ingame contact beyond diplomatic channels. As a minor alliance looked at on its own, LETO is a basketcase.
In short, apart from alliance obligation, why would Israel or Iran give a rat's ass if Canada was invaded? Or indeed, vice-versa.
Atlas, the way forward?
All this means I must applaud the initiative of the current Canadian government on the subject of the Atlas project. The treaty rallies the Atlantic states of LETO into a workable structure with a small number of countries with a common European heritage. Geography, culture, social contact, common strategic interests, the alliance is built very well to represent the interests of all three countries involved. Provided that Asteria support is retained, it should also be very successful.
This is the direction that Canadian foreign policy, and indeed, Canada's governmental policy in its entirety needs to move. Towards greater optimisation of military capability and away from frankly superfluous and bureaucratic arrangements with countries that are essentially incapable of aiding each other directly. Friendships should be maintained, but overarching alliances built only with countries with whom we have common interests. LETO should reform in a series of pro-Asteria geographic alliances along the path already forged by Canada, France and Portugal.
Brian Boru,
Comité de salut public
Comments
"All this means I must applaud the initiative of the current Canadian government on the subject of the Atlas project."
Unless Dozzer would like to chime in with his involvement with Atlas (as I have heard nothing from him, in game or on the forums) then I must say that the Canadian government has bumbled along with the Atlas project and little applause should by given...
Well done Dozzer then 😛
You do have a personal issue with me, don't you?
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
I suspect we disagree on the manner of putting it in place though 😛
I think the way it has been handled so far has been awful, but I do agree with the underlying idea behind it. The fact we look poised to straddle the fence between joining Atlas and staying in LETO is something I think should be avoided.
Good thoughts here, but I'd go on to say that maybe there's no need to concentrate on "pro-Asteria" nature of probable regional alliances. Better if they stand for themselves regardless of how the big picture changes. Take the example of ASGARD which keeps it key principles intact while its strategic partner alliances change - first it was the EDEN stack, then CoT, then Asteria.
Asteria just happens to be the super-alliance that works at the moment, obviously if the landscape changes then so must the political arrangements, and as I said, the purest damagehood ideology only works for large countries, small ones need to band together along geographic and cultural lines for support.
Smaller ties work more effective than the bigger ones in the long run. While the big stack reshuffles, the regional / two-party friendships become a more and more important factor. Besides, smaller regional alliances are actually a far more pragmatic choice for smaller countries.
Oh Brian since when were you here? xD
Week or two.
Go be CP and hire me
That's the plan 😛
BB did you move there in RL too? best of luck
Not yet. Off to Montreal next week to get the bureaucracy out of the way.
Good thoughts 😁
true you also forget 1 factor, the pro nations are often smaller and often have a lack off funds for mpp's to mpp everyone off there pro sided alliance, geographical pro's reduce the costs off mpp's also..
Voted Brian, nice to see us both here!
~hyuu~
v.
Go home, Brian. You're drunk.
Or Irish.
Same thing, really.
Pretty much. That stereotype isn't actually a stereotype.
Preaching to an Irish-Canadian choir, son.
Today I Learne😛 The Irish are PTOing us.
I vote yes to the Irish PTO. I will request the immigration council fast track the process. They are bringing whiskey?
Whiskey and explosives.
YANKS OUT
So basically it's Asgard, Trans-Atlantic version. \o/\o/\o/ We'll never rule the world but a few close friends who'll always be there for you are better than a whole bunch of vague aquaintances who'll probably be busy most of the time when you need them.
Nice article! To bad I'm so uninvolved with politics that I have no political comments.
Too* you dumb ass
Your reasoning is sound.
One thing I would point out is that when first formed the LETO countries were not that far apart geographically. Soon we found that we were not that far apart in other ways. Then we found out that we actually could work together and one at a time took care of each other. By the time it got around to LETO helping rid Canada of the US we even had some help from our big brothers. Lately people have pushed to get 'other' countries in LETO. These are the ones that expect help but give none. This is when troubled times come to any alliance. Arguments, finger pointing. Yada, yada...
Indeed, but that is why having a good set of criteria for entry other than "moar damage nao" is a wise policy.
Psst!
Just between you and I a good set of criteria is too much to expect.
Yes, well, the state of the game is a sorry one indeed.
This quote sums up the situation quite well:
"In short, apart from alliance obligation, why would (insert country name) or (insert country name) give a rat's ass if (insert country name)was invaded? Or indeed, vice-versa."
o7
smaller regional alliances... this remindes me of the ENTENTE that was founded by France, Italy and Romania a long time ago...