Join the new world

America trying to look good for CoT. I hope CoT realizes the lies they're spreading about their own brother.
Imagine how they'll treat CoT once they are a member.
No alliance should even consider accepting them.

one bias CP shouldn't destroy relationships Scottty. I am sure this will all be smoothed over and filed away as a 'misunderstanding' then we can all be peachy again.

Excellent to this in its entirety rather than the fisher-price version FG posted.

V/S/S ; hopefully this will clarify the need for additional cooperation between the Western Hemisphere and Oceania.

v 38

In b4 shitstorm

...looking for the part where America betrayed you.

Only thing the log's really showed me is that CoT are on board with Chile's actions, and are actually directing some of the actions.

Also the bolded comment is pretty damning imo.

The article American CP posted is betrayal. Also orders to fight against Australia is betrayal in my eyes.
I have never fought against my brother in arms, USA.

Poor eAussie
want some candy? : 3~

RyGnwn: YES, WHERE'S MY CANDY!?

The part where the POTUS claimed eAustralia broke the treaty when they didn't and the part where the POTUS published only a brief part of a conversation and passed it off as the eAustralian government trying to destroy CoT. That part is betrayal besides the fact that the eUS government also ordered for their soldiers to fight against eAustralia after 5 years of being bros. How is that not betrayal? I guess I must not know what betrayal means...

Hmmm, very unfortunate, I myself wanted Australia to join CoT, you guys are seem like a good bunch

Still hoping for that Shirobu but CoT and USA have been lead down the garden path by misleading information and rather shady individuals.

looking over your agreement here, and i quote:

"2. Australia will move towards a Pro-CoT MPP stack or full CoT membership with increased CoT allies and MPPs;"


whoops.

I'm not sure what your point is in all of this XG. I get you had conversations and you weren't too thrilled with what you might have been told. Is that the sum total or it, or are you trying to suggest something else? Just asking.

we signed one with Poland last month to keep serbia from invading
this is soooo funny : )

@Twisted-pixel - you didn't read the article did you?

As XG clearly explained, we were trying to move to a Pro-CoT stack, but because Indonesia threatend to NE us to get WA, countries didn't want to MPP us fearing it would be a waste of money, with thier MPP with Indo being cancelled out on the first attack on Australia.

"2. Australia will move towards a Pro-CoT MPP stack or full CoT membership with increased CoT allies and MPPs;"


yes and that was blocked by both Chile and Indo who intimidated the other nations into not signing mpp's with us. your point twisted?

ah, so did you want the potus to run your state department too?

Why not NE them so they could get their region back? Why immediately run to two after having a conversation with them where in one log you claimed they were "taking it back to their senate" and in another you're about to get "wiped"?

@twisted-pixel: We can't force CoT members to sign MPPs with Aus just becasue we want them. Most have refused because they fear losing their Indo MPP should Indonesia invade Australia. Its upsetting to us, but a reasonable concern. What are we to do if they say no? Australia has decimated it 25 MPP stack of in order to move pro-CoT, only to be refused CoT MPPs, while being accused of not having enough.

Help us out with a solution to the CoT snooker.

I think everyone needs to take a nap, you are all cranky. Come get your little box of juice and fetch your blanky. Plato will be along shortly to read you a story. 😃😃

it's a pickle, sure, i'll give you that, but it's also a pickle (you) signed up for. life sucks, it takes hard work to get shit done, that's just the way it is, but with the right attitude....

So basically, you don't have an answer either.
The answer is that Chile, New Zealand and Indonesia have to want Australia joining CoT or we get nowhere ever.

No, my answer was diplomacy.

from what i gathered from fingergun's, that wasn't so far off, hell, even chile was on board. two down, one to go..

I dont see what was disclosed .... Everything is still the same....

Like Twisted said , nothing showed anything about eUSA betraying eAUS.

eAUS needs to run for help for every little thing, why would any country want extra baggage like eAUS, which btw is full of backstabbing, lying and selfish people.

wow Icetek is just bleeding all over the place. Smile emo kid.

@Draim
It should be enough for one candy : *

Come on, this wont change anything
It will only make ur relationship with USA gets worse
Just buckle up and get ready for war

We might have to face each other, but I still see good future between Indo and Aussie
Good luck o7

@Icetek Newsflash, you're in eAus yourself. You must be one of the "backstabbing, lying and selfish people."

Pretty sad conduct by POTUS.

i disagree infin, it was, imo, your cp who should have been more tactful.

No, my answer was diplomacy.

from what i gathered from fingergun's, that wasn't so far off, hell, even chile was on board. two down, one to go.. x2
__

The eternal eAus conundrum. It has no where the firepower of the country it wants to go up against, yet it wants to dictate terms where it has no standing to do so. The other countries know it, so the deliberating nation tries to take advantage of the situation where it can. That's the cost of doing business. eAus is in the same boat as all other countries in this regard. It's not going to get something for nothing, but that 'something' is also weighed on stature.

e.g. eAus says it wants rent for a region, the other country says tell you what FU your rent but call the free rent protection money. eAus says no, issues insulting articles regarding the opposing country (depending on the govt) and it's prelude to war - war we can't afford nor win.

Then there's a powerbroker, perhaps the only one eAus has left, in eUSA (and please no one say eBrazil or eSA or I swear I'll die of hysterics for obvious past and present reasons). I'm looking around and I don't see too many international allies prepared to be as insane in it's foreign policy and put their own country in jeopardy. Why would they? PoTUS was elected to protect their country, it's only a side order that they're generous enough to help out a little country like us.

Why isn't this a no brainer? Does eAus really want to be wiped again? It's going the way of it.

thank you.

I feel like I missed a lot of things over the weekend.

Chileans broke the agreement. if COT wanted to dishonor the agreement to save chile is "ok". But COT lying after that trying to acuse the aussies of being the traitors, liers. that´s a di.ck move. shame on everybody who is accomplice of this lie.

@ negro.cincope one Argentinian speaking of traitors, please!!!

american you mean. but i guess i can´t talk about this as an american neither. because usa government ended up betraying australia, too. either way what aussies say is the truth and you know it. Enjoy your empire in australia, chilean. But know that you still have it because you fought like a snake. Not like an honorable warrior. that will be your shame and many will remember it.

One bad POTUS isn't going to do much damage to the Aus/USA relationship. It's a pain in the ass at the moment but its only a short term issue for what another 5 days. Guess we'll see what happens then.

So to summarize:

The australia CP met with Chile to negotiate a NEW agreement, offered terms, that were not entirely liked by Chile, they offered other terms in return, there as a discussion of the situation and what could posibly happen in the different scenarios (opportunistically labeled as "threats" here). There was an agreement to discuss this further and to have another meeting. (Nothing is mentioned if the in-game discussion was ever held as Xavier promised he would, adding other players to it. Actually by the last conversation with Chukcha, it becomes clear that he as not added to any such conversation so most likely it never was created to include anyone from Chile to begin with.)

The response to Australia is the next day to go to USA, claim Chile had threatened it and did not want to deal with them, spin the story as if they're the victim and seek support for their "proposal", thus hoping to put pressure on Chile from inside CoT.

After they get an unambiguos show of support "do what you have to" in terms of signing a single MPP with Serbia (no mention how exactly Serbia as chosen and not Poland or Spain or any other big country from TWO), the CP goes out and asks about joining TWO, trying to spin it here that he got permision to do so by USA resident.

Later still he goes to Indo and does the same, but trying to imply that Chile was somehow commanding Indo and that they shouldn't be listening to this small and insignificant country and looking to make them a proposal, but his comments about CoT are not a threat (of course only Chile comments can be a threat, the insignificant Chile as it becomes clear).

In the meantime (this is omitted here of course) Public articles are published with an aggressive stance and accusations towards Chile.

After all the particapents compare notes, they see what is happening and meet to discuss the situation (this of course is traitorous because Australia is not present, but it was ok for Australia to talk to each individually to present a slightly changed version each time and try to play each of the other).

This is beyond bad diplomacy, it would be slated as incompetent diplomacy if it was not coming from a very experienced player.

First the assumption that Australia is in any position to dictate terms is very much a fallible one, which leads to the need to either get other to unquestionably support you so you can keep that luxurious position or try to play all the posible players against one another. It seems very clear the second was the choice made and it all blew up in the end.

When one negotiates he does not go behind the back of the people he's negotiating to cut separate deals or alternate deals, especially when you're not in a position to exercise any of your demands on your own.

The second painfully apparent conclusion here is that Australia has some grosely exagerated assumption of it's potential as a military power, suggesting they can delete Argentina, that without them Chile would be deleted by Argentina and so on. I do not know if this is purely delusional or trying to seem strong when you're weak as a tactic.

Last thing that becomes readily apparent is that there was a genuine wish on all parties from CoT to solve these issues diplomatically. This coming from a position of ultimate strength and when there as "ne need" to even listen to Australia if chosen so. There is no benefit for CoT for doing so it was always done only for the benefit of Australia because of the values CoT adheres to, yet Australia thought it prudent to attack CoT standing and values and have pretences to judge when it's charter is being broken or not.

To be honest next CP of Australia has his work cut out for him, not going to be easy to repair this....

eRichard Parker nailed it.

You guys are so busy trying to find someone to be victims of, you squandered an excellent opportunity that was GIVEN TO YOU for really no reason other than friendship.

It was no secret that your new Administration was no fan of the Chile deal and it was pretty clear from the start of the term that you were going to try and find a way out of it. Congratulations, you no longer have a deal with Chile.

"It was no secret that your new Administration was no fan of the Chile deal"
Really? Really? That makes absolutely no sense. XG was one of the people involved in making the deal, the ARP was the one pushing for the deal originally and pretty much all of the people in the new administration wanted the deal. It was the other side of things (you know, the military party?) that wanted to fight instead. Can you please give at least one SHRED of proof that we were anti-Chile deal before you make sweeping statements like that? I have been part of the cabinet the whole term, and not once has there been anti-peace feelings untill CoT countries started proposing NEs on us - at which point, preparing for war is a pretty logical thing to do, as I'm sure you would agree if they were NE'ing you.

"you squandered an excellent opportunity that was GIVEN TO YOU for really no reason other than friendship"

What did we do to squander it? Seriously, we made the deal with eChile. We kept every single condition, and we moved as much towards a pro-CoT stack as possible, considering eIndo was threatening us, so no more CoT MPPs could be signed after that point. We kept every single part of the deal, and we broke NONE. eChile broke SEVERAL - they didn't give back territories that they agreed to (they either released them late or didn't want to give them to us when they had duplicates in Southern America). We didn't squander anything - eIndo decided to demand WA off of us, and that acted to set off this whole motion. Even with eIndo threatening us, we still kept to the treaty and tried diplomacy.

Tell me when we broke the friendship, tell me when we were anti-Chile. Not a random article published from eAus, when the official government position was anti-friendship, anti-CoT or anti-eChile? It never was, untill NEs got thrown around.

"There was an agreement to discuss this further and to have another meeting."
Kind of hard to have another meeting (as you're implying it was the eAus government's fault that there wasn't another meeting) when the CP gets impeached. He kind of loses the ability to act as a representative of the government, so the whole meetings get thrown off. Complex stuff.

"The response to Australia is the next day to go to USA, claim Chile had threatened it"
[15:22] we're pulling back
[15:22] and inform cot that our advice on indo not to attack are withdrawn

Please tell me what that is, if it isn't a threat? It's blatantly saying "Do what we want, or we're going to let eIndo attack you". Tell me any other way that could be interpreted. It's quite clearly a threat, so eAus wanted a way to defend itself, logically going to our 5-year ally eUSA.

"thus hoping to put pressure on Chile from inside CoT."
Considering they wanted to break the treaty they had signed with eUSA, eBrazil and CoT as witnesses, checking with eUSA to see what their stance is is a pretty logical next step. It's not putting pressure on them, it's seeing if eUSA will live up to what it said it would do in the agreement.

"single MPP with Serbia (no mention how exactly Serbia as chosen and not Poland or Spain or any other big country from TWO), the CP goes out and asks about joining TWO, trying to spin it here that he got permision to do so by USA resident."

Who cares if it was Serbia, Poland or Spain? The point of the MPP is the same, a defensive MPP. It does the same thing, so no real point there. And when did you make that link from the convo with fingerguns to messaging TWO? With eChile threatening to break the treaty, it's logical to go to CoT's future enemies to see if they would support us. Not exactly related to the eUSA, we don't need eUSA's permission to talk to TWO. Might be surprising to you.

Character limit, writing another post now.

"Later still he goes to Indo and does the same, but trying to imply that Chile was somehow commanding Indo and that they shouldn't be listening to this small and insignificant country and looking to make them a proposal, but his comments about CoT are not a threat (of course only Chile comments can be a threat, the insignificant Chile as it becomes clear)."

The talk with eIndo was not at all the same, as you say here. Why would you go to those who have been NE'ing you, and ask for support? That makes no sense. eIndo was/are making unreasonable demands, so XG updated Indo about what has happened - communication is the key to diplomacy, and surprisingly enough eAus doesn't want to fight eIndo. Which do you think makes more sense - going to those who want to fight you looking for support, or trying to improve your relationship enough for proper diplomacy to happen? Exactly.

"After all the particapents compare notes, they see what is happening and meet to discuss the situation (this of course is traitorous because Australia is not present,"

So you wouldn't have a problem if eChile was exclused and eUSA, eIndo and eAus had a nice discussion? I'm pretty sure there would be an uproar in eChile. If you have a meeting to discuss the situation, you don't invite EVERY party except one. That gives an unfair bias against the party - if you think about it, it's obvious. eChile and eIndo can present their views to eUSA, but eAus cannot, so it is extremely unfair.

"When one negotiates he does not go behind the back of the people he's negotiating to cut separate deals or alternate deals, especially when you're not in a position to exercise any of your demands on your own."

What seperate deals? What alternate deals? That is just plain lying. None of these were ever cut - if you're going to try and say we're the traitors, at least use facts. Problem is, the facts say that eChile backstabbed us, not the other way around.

And character limit again.

Why do you continue to spin things when they are clear from the logs posted by your own CP here. The timetable is quite clear and the NEs are the last thing that came.

As for the coments from neolandes it is simply a statement that they see no way to get an agreement done, so they're cutting their losses and relinquishing any interests in the area thus also informing you that this would mean that Indonesia is free to do as they wish.

It is not a threath at all it just shows you that your position is unattainable. Still later in that discussion they agree to continue talks further. Australia response, go to the "perceived future enemy", now TWO will like that one too. Non the less basically you're admitting to exactly what I said, after finding out that you'll not get blind support against CoT from USA to defend a ludicrous position of demanding from a unattainably weak position, you went to TWO to gain the same support.

If and when they refused, where were you going to go, to EDEN?

This is the reason no one wants to deal with this anymore, because it's an irritation and a pain in the beep and all these countries do not need to deal with it at all, everyone was engaged in this process for YUOR benefit, not theirs. Until you realize that you'll just be making the same ludicrous diplomatic blunders as this has been.

You were never in the position to be choosers, yet everyone was trying to accomodate your wishes as well in return they got ou trying to cut deals with whoever was willing to force them to make concessions to you. Actually the one that tipped the carriage as not going to TWO and proposing to become members, wonder how much your population will like that move unilaterally byt CP (likely government, maybe congress). It was when you went to try and pit against each other countries which are allies in the same alliance to which you're not part of.

I mean how dilusional you have to be to think they will not talk to each other and compare notes and see hat's going on......

"The second painfully apparent conclusion here is that Australia has some grosely exagerated assumption of it's potential as a military power, suggesting they can delete Argentina, that without them Chile would be deleted by Argentina and so on. I do not know if this is purely delusional or trying to seem strong when you're weak as a tactic."

Again, we never did any of this. We did not say that we could delete Argentina - please, please, tell me where this is said? All we said is that we could help eChile with fighting eArg if they moved their capital to Victoria. Nowhere did we say we would play a major role in the fighting, we said we would help. Which we would have, and you also seem to underestimate the determination of eAus when it wants to fight. We might not do insane amounts of damage, but we fight for so long that many countries have just left our territories after fighting us too much.

"Last thing that becomes readily apparent is that there was a genuine wish on all parties from CoT to solve these issues diplomatically. This coming from a position of ultimate strength and when there as "ne need" to even listen to Australia if chosen so. There is no benefit for CoT for doing so it was always done only for the benefit of Australia because of the values CoT adheres to, yet Australia thought it prudent to attack CoT standing and values and have pretences to judge when it's charter is being broken or not."

I do agree that there was a genuine wish from ALMOST all parties to solve issues diplomatically. eIndo, however was not diplomatic. They demanded WA for practically nothing, and refused to listen to our counterbargain. eChile played diplomatically for a while - untill it became obvious that they were beaten by eArg, again. At this point eChile (and CoT) stopped playing diplomatically and declared NE on eAus.

Simple as that, now you're just trying to justify your backstabbing.

Ok, I'm done this is pointless, I'm talking to a wall, good luck to you, if you got me to quit on engagement, you've achieved a great feat, you can ask around why......

Australia could and did present their side of things. It came in the form of weekly warnings that attack was imminent and Indo is threatening them and Chile is traitorous.

All month. Not just in the last week.

"Why do you continue to spin things when they are clear from the logs posted by your own CP here. The timetable is quite clear and the NEs are the last thing that came."

And everything was diplomatic untill the NEs came, was it not? On top of that, the eIndo NEs came BEFORE most of this happened, it was only the eChile NEs that broke the treaty (which means that CoT, eBrazil and eUSA should be declaring war on you) that stopped the diplomacy. Or are you saying diplomacy stopped before the NE? Try justify that one. The reason why I'm continuing to argue with you is because you're clearly deluded. The logs don't prove that we did anything wrong - talking to TWO isn't even breaching any agreement, but you seem to think something here justifies wiping us.

"As for the coments from neolandes it is simply a statement that they see no way to get an agreement done, so they're cutting their losses and relinquishing any interests in the area thus also informing you that this would mean that Indonesia is free to do as they wish."

You're just proving my point now. He was saying exactly that. If we didn't give in to his demands, exactly what you said would happen, would go ahead. That is the definition of a threat - do what we want, or we're going to throw you to the wolves/kill you/insert threatining statement here. Your statement would only make sense if there was no caveat of "if you don't do what we want".

"Australia response, go to the "perceived future enemy", now TWO will like that one too"

It's obvious - EDEN is falling, when EDEN falls the only major alliances left are TWO and CoT. What will happen - hugs and rainbows? Of course they'll fight.

"after finding out that you'll not get blind support against CoT from USA"

Getting "blind support" isn't what we wanted. eUSA, eBrazil and the rest of the CoT declared when they signed the treaty that if eChile broke the treaty, eChile would be invaded.

"Ok, I'm done this is pointless, I'm talking to a wall, good luck to you, if you got me to quit on engagement, you've achieved a great feat, you can ask around why...... "

Hey, I'm actually responding to points. You're not even bothering to respond to me when I point out the massive flaws in your argument, you're just going to another area and spewing off points there, when they get shot down moving on to the next area. It's not like talking to a wall, it's just like I'm not talking at all.

"Australia could and did present their side of things. It came in the form of weekly warnings that attack was imminent and Indo is threatening them and Chile is traitorous.

All month. Not just in the last week. "

The only articles published untill the recent NE by eChile about anyone threating us was about eIndo threatening us, which they clearly did. They literally said "Give us WA for nothing, we want it". What do you call that if not a threat?

Any other articles in the eAus news about eChile being a traitor before they broke the treaty for the second time (the first was ignored) was not written by the government, so you can't really blame them.


Oh, and anything I say here is my personal opinion, if you guys are thinking otherwise.