CoT: a broader and responsible outlook for a balanced world

Day 2,081, 15:34 • Published in Russia Russia • by UncIe


World War 6 is never over, lasting along battlefront lines and trenches all around the world, with countries being deleted and returning to the map again. Regardless of the difficulties and hardships for Circle of Trust and its non-party allies and partners, we see an uneven stalemate in eWorld, with TWO being strong enough to sustain a lasting advantage, but being unable to install a total occupation.

The vigour, energy and vitality of CoT countries and states beyond it who bravely combat TWO and reach impressive tactical success at times is unquestioned. I reckon, however, that it is time to think of the reasons which brought CoT to the seemingly eternal alive-and-running resistance position, and the potential to change the current environment into a more balanced system, which will let the bravery and dignity of CoT and non-CoT opposing their enemies have a more effective realisation.

This article may cause dubious and uneasy reactions and yelling at me, but I'm sure that this-or-that balancing system should be installed in order to benefit both CoT and non-CoT states. Our countries and e-world as a whole deserve a more interesting game than the WW1-styled positional war.

CoT: a broader and responsible outlook for a balanced world

Speaking from a stance of a three-term CoT country president amidst the world war, ex vMC and aSC of the alliance, I' m obliged to present a vision of changes and reforms required on COT side only, although I'm sure TWO and other alliances, as well as suballiances, have their own strategies implemented.

So, CoT requires several immediate changes:

1. Allow cross-MPPs and drop the hostile MPP (countries allied to countries at war with CoT) notion from CoT charter.

I can say something openly. For a long time CoT got used to act immaturely and lean on back of TWO's damage, being a sword against EDEN and ex-EDEN countries. At the same time the Charter of CoT, having MPP restrictions, has set a major setback for diversification of allied ties of the Circle, while TWO enjoyed this through creating diversity for each of major countries.
Although TWO as a whole has never supported neither directly Argentina, Romania, CUA states or indirectly - Turkey, Iran etc., it had de facto encouraged several of its members to form ties with them, thus creating a diverse and balanced environment.
CoT, at the same time, was restricted to not sign MPPs or cooperate with ex-EDEN states naturally or situatively opposed to TWO, thus creating an allied damage disbalance prior to WW6, which, together with diplomatic mistakes, dragged the e-World where it is now.

2. Sanctioning military operation involving two or more countries should be made by a joint decision of both SCs and the MC.

Monthly diplomatic planning for EACH country should be done at the beginning of each presidential term, as well.

3. Effective usage of alliance treasury.

The only way to quickly recreate organized mobile forces is an effective usage of COT treasure funds, motivating its members through combat orders in prioritized battles.

4. A diversified diplomatic outlook.

We see a more or less balanced and survivable environment only there where is a diversity of connections. This, for instance, is the Asian region, where Indonesia and Japan keep a contact with China and Thailand, trying to preserve healthy relations and consulting on matters of mutual importance. At the same time, of course, joint ATO efforts should be taken in countries of this region, as well as USA. Another good example of diversification is ROLA as an idea, where the model of Spanish involvement is at the moment only successful example of a positive direct damage drain in the closed TWO-CoT model.
In an open model we see another positive drain along Croatia-Turkey allied ties, when the latter supports the efforts of the former in joint operations with some CoT members against Serbia.
Examples of negative drain are Russia-Ukraine, where Turkey assists the latter, Bulgaria-Greece and Bulgaria-Romania, where Turkey assists the latter too.

Steady Non-attack pacts directly with opposing states or with states largely and primarily assisting the enemy side should be introduced. Where these are not deemed possible, an airstrike to a SAFER environment on RENTAL and RESPECTFUL conditions should be carried out to save forces for the time.

Summing up, there are countries with which NAP negotiation and partial cross-mpps are possible and necessary, and countries against which a concentration of allied damage is imminent. The best idea is if concentration includes a sided positive drain as mentioned above here.

5. Associated members/partners for peace.

Diplomatic immaturity has another example: members states have a master mentality despite the fact they were the ones to impose and enforce conditions only at the moment of heavily benefitting from TWO's allied damage. As stated above, the clauses on MPP signing with states allied to countries at war with CoT should be dropped. Moreover, CoT growth should have a different vector: countries not seeking membership of CoT but naturally interested in cooperation with it should be given associated membership or partnership for peace status. And it is UP TO CoT ONLY in this case to create an atmosphere of non-hostility: NO CoT state should declare war or fight against on an organized level against a partner/associated member. Such status should be given with 2/3 of COT votes. This clause is discussable.

6. Official reshaping of CoT policy towards other alliances

Time to review things and speak frankly. A sincere and eager time of non-hostility, publicly promoted, towards any major alliance or group of countries with allied ties in the world has come. YES: this should include public parting from anti-EDEN experience, and a strategy of combatting certain countries instead of fighting alliance windmills.

I see this strategy on a long-term scale as a way to make CoT, or any alliance which may be in similar situation 1,2 or 3 years later, an integral and effective alliance with strong leadership, not a team of brave but desperate monthly renewed Che Guevaras chanting "Viva la Resistance".

It's time to act maturely.

With respect to my readers,
khotko,
CP of Russia
ex vMC/aSC of CoT

CoT: a broader and responsible outlook for a balanced world
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/2300054/1/20