Ambient on/off

Sign up

 

Continue

Continue By creating an account you agree to the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy

The Economist ~ Notes on the TWO-USA NAP

Day 2,205, 10:33 by Iain Keers



Dear friends,


Some months ago the USA was under total occupation by TWO after a long but ultimately successful conquest. I had several discussions with leading figures in TWO about the future of the occupation, and the conclusion we came to was that it was essentially unprofitable to occupy the USA, and that the only real reason to occupy it was to secure Polish and Serbian bonuses in Western Europe. A couple of months after that, with Poland being the sole occupier, they signed a Non-Aggression Pact (NAP) with the USA which was designed to give peace to the USA, a monetary recompense for the war to Poland, and guarantee that both TWO and the USA would effectively ignore one another and get on with other things.


As the “mutually agreed third party” I was involved with the treaty throughout, and I can say the USA kept their side of the bargain well. Recent changes in the game modules have messed it up a little, but Poland respected that there was little that could be done and let the situation be. One of the clauses of the NAP signed back then was that there would be an option to renew the terms, minus the monetary bit, after the first NAP expired. Let me be clear - the whole of TWO supported the original NAP.


Yesterday Poland met with the USA and renewed the NAP. Essentially it said, stripped of all the fluff that people put in treaties so they look official, “you leave us alone, we leave you alone”. That is all it said. People have dismantled the wording to try and garner meaning from it that Poland is secretly plotting to ally USA, or that USA is going to invade Serbia or some rubbish like that. The fact is the USA has honoured it’s half of the treaty so far, Poland were simply securing their Western front, and the treaty doesn’t harm anyone at all.





In fact considering the melee going on in the balkans between TWO and the newly free nations down there, you’d think Serbia would appreciate the extra damage that Poland will be able to throw their way. Serbia has long said it can’t hold down Albania, Croatia and BiH all at once except by abandoning all hope of Empire, and with Bulgaria and [ Disputed Name Here ] free the situation is worse than ever.


Now Poland have admitted they might have made a mistake by not engaging with Serbia or TWO during the process of signing the NAP. But that small oversight is hardly worthy of declaring that “if the time has come for TWO to die, let's part up with respect and not like hypocrites.” I don’t see how re-signing a NAP which has been in force for 3 months is the sign of the coming apocalypse, but there you go. I also don’t see how signing a NAP which all of TWO supported makes Poland a hypocrite either. Their argument that by not consulting the alliance on this matter Poland is somehow trying to destroy TWO rings hollow even to the most ardent SPoland haters.


Poland for their part has already stated it is willing to listen to any amendments proposed by TWO to their NAP which might be of interest to Serbia. If for example, Serbia requested the NAP be expanded to include more countries, neither USA or Poland are unwilling to do this. In fact both parties have already stated that to be the case.


In my opinion there was no need for the Serbian government to publicly condemn their ally over this, especially as Poland has supported Serbia in its campaigns in the balkans all month and the USA has followed the terms of the previous treaty to a fault. No TWO country, especially Serbia, has any desire to attack the USA, so the treaty is merely a formalisation of the status quo. Any issues with the minor points of the treaty could have first been dealt with in a query on IRC, and if there was a major issue with the whole concept of a NAP, that could have also been raised- though I fail to see why anyone would desire a war with USA.


Iain





Relevant reading material:

NAP document

Serbian response
 

Comments

Prophet009 Day 2,205, 10:37

Comment deleted

cen1
cen1 Day 2,205, 10:39

Spoland > Servia

fuzzy wuzzy
fuzzy wuzzy Day 2,205, 12:02

Serbia > juniors

D.D.F Day 2,205, 10:42

Comment deleted

Maykol 16
Maykol 16 Day 2,205, 10:39

subpole

vladb
vladb Day 2,205, 10:39

I've seen a new NAP between Spoland and eUS but not a TWO -eUS NAP .

Just sayin' that Spoland <> TWO ..or is it ?

Iain Keers
Iain Keers Day 2,205, 10:45

As I said, the USA is fine with it being TWO. So really that's an issue that could be solved in a two minute query request, just like I did when I saw it and asked if UK could be included. Problem solved.

vladb
vladb Day 2,205, 10:52

But is it fine with all communities in TWO ? Have they been consulted ?
How come when it comes to a new ACT/TWO member every country can have a veto and when it comes to NAP each country can decide on it's own and then be presented as an expanded TWO NAP ?

Iain Keers
Iain Keers Day 2,205, 10:54

Many countries have made NAPs with neighbours at one time or another, including Serbia. A NAP just means they won't attack that country in a direct war. Since USA is no threat whatsoever to Serbia I don't see what the problem is, it's not like this will do anything except extend the current status quo

vladb
vladb Day 2,205, 10:58

I am yet to see an individual NAP being "branded" as TWO NAP
and I am still missing an answer about the new members -NAP parallel .

cc1432
cc1432 Day 2,206, 23:30

Again with your EDEN Propaganda.....

Ice Killa
Ice Killa Day 2,205, 10:49

Don't engage Keers in such debates, he'll get confused and reflexively start supporting Spoland.

Iain Keers
Iain Keers Day 2,205, 10:52

I'm surprised you can talk with your foot in your mouth

Schmidt FZR
Schmidt FZR Day 2,205, 10:40

Good written Iain!
o/

Aramec
Aramec Day 2,205, 10:40

On point as always. Cheers.

Mininuns
Mininuns Day 2,205, 10:41

Miau

Passos Coelho
Passos Coelho Day 2,205, 10:43

Its funny to see Iain always taking the side of Spoland.

Come on man I don't think you need to lick Spoland so much, it is becoming ridiculous

They will take UK in a new alliance if it comes to that don't worry man.

Iain Keers
Iain Keers Day 2,205, 10:46

I'm sorry I should be taking the side of Portugal? Currently enemy country, formerly enemy country, since before the formation of ONE? CoT logic right there.

Passos Coelho
Passos Coelho Day 2,205, 10:57

I don't think Portugal is involved in this.
And Portugal was never CoT or TWO.

Please enlight me on the Portuguese side in a NAP between Spoland and the USA and Serbia beeing against it.

Iain Keers
Iain Keers Day 2,205, 10:58

You are currently being fisted by Spain. I guess that means you are going to moan about SPoland.

Frankly idk how anyone who kisses as much ass as Portugal can possibly comment. If you suck up to anyone more they'll have to invent a mercenary medal for countries.

Lord Calois Draco Bellator
Lord Calois Draco Bellator Day 2,205, 11:02

Hey, do not compare former CoT and Portugal. We hve more pride, we never changes sides every month depending were they can get more benefits, beeing pro-TWO and Pro-EDEN, depending to whom they are talking to.

CatBea
CatBea Day 2,205, 17:40

Funny as this words fit you so well, you are the one who felt the need to to suck and be fisted by Spoland, by publishing two suck Articles

"You are currently being fisted by Spain. I guess that means you are going to moan about SPoland.

Frankly idk how anyone who kisses as much ass as Ian Keers can possibly comment. If you suck up to anyone more they'll have to invent a mercenary medal for countries."

keep up the good work, Spoland are enjoying as much as you but in different positions

Marcellus Bracara
Marcellus Bracara Day 2,205, 18:02

Portugal is the center of the world.

D.D.F
D.D.F Day 2,205, 10:47

portugal is the one who is "licking"

Lemon Vodka
Lemon Vodka Day 2,205, 10:45

Voted for the use of rubbish.

Finway Divi Filius
Finway Divi Filius Day 2,205, 10:48

Maybe you should learn what's an alliance then... : x

Ice Killa
Ice Killa Day 2,205, 10:48

You have presented the Spoland version of the deal. Now present the Serbian version of the current affair (why Serbia might be bothered with it). Otherwise you are merely showing you are a lackey to others with your recent biased articles.

Iain Keers
Iain Keers Day 2,205, 10:52

Please present to me the reasons why the NAP is a bad idea Ice Killa.

vladb
vladb Day 2,205, 10:55

I think the reasons can be found in your previous article when you wrote about the eSlo-eSp-ePt situation .
BTW : what was the reason why a Spanish Portuguese NAP was a bad idea ?

Ice Killa
Ice Killa Day 2,205, 10:57

No one is saying NAP is a bad idea, problem is how the NAP was agreed upon and what is in the context of that NAP (amongst other Spoland promising to improve relations with America) and the time it was agreed upon (during tensions in TWO). Spoland decided not to inform TWO, or any country fro TWO that is - and if I was Serbia I'd react accordingly as they did.

Iain Keers
Iain Keers Day 2,205, 11:02

So what you're saying is EXACTLY what I said in the article Howly?

1. There is nothing wrong with the NAP
2. The only problem is that Poland didn't inform TWO

But most importantly, there is nothing wrong with the NAP.

Are you saying you'd proclaim Poland are destroying TWO because they didn't notify Serbia they were renewing a NAP? Because if so I can think of other countries that make NAPs without consulting TWO, I don't remember being part of your negotiations with Switzerland or Italy, or any of a hundred other NAPs and agreements made by members.

Ice Killa
Ice Killa Day 2,205, 11:04

NAP not being a bad idea does not equal NAP being bad. Yes, it is bad in its current form. No, the only problem isn't Spoland informing TWO.

I have given you reasons why NAP is bad, feel free to turn my words around.

Iain Keers
Iain Keers Day 2,205, 11:06

No you haven't. Please explain why the NAP was bad? Your point mentioned some fluff about improving relations which means nothing whatsoever and then about not informing TWO. I didn't see any other points.

mcmoox
mcmoox Day 2,205, 11:06

you know very well our relationship with usa, so this nap is always special ... you just can compare nap with switzerland and austria with that ...this is like Serbia signing nap with MaKedonia without noticing Greece ..

Iain Keers
Iain Keers Day 2,205, 11:07

mcmoox, the NAP that has been in place 3 months with no problems? It's not like you expect Poland to charge into USA do you? Seriously...

mcmoox
mcmoox Day 2,205, 11:10

there was one also in the 3.August, it ended within one day and polish cp offering to resign ...

Hostilian
Hostilian Day 2,205, 12:32

Iain, you got things backwards. More importantly the alliance wasn't informed (not just informed, but asked about opinion). After that it is quite irrelevant whether the agreement is good or bad.

mcmoox
mcmoox Day 2,205, 13:45

http://prntscr.com/28i78n

end it has started....
just becouse of one small nap... : D ...

The Baron Samedi
The Baron Samedi Day 2,205, 10:56

Some fair points.

V.

mcmoox
mcmoox Day 2,205, 10:58

And Spain's part ?
MPP's ?
The imperium that almost succedeed during mine term as cp of Serbia ?
NAP usa - Poland in the begining of August that ended with leaving cp of Poland offering to resign ?

There are too many ''nap's'' and other stuff that is done without consulting the ''Two'' by Poland, all of them later ends ''listening to any amendments proposed by TWO'' but point is that Two just try to solve issues between Poland and other members, if they are not Serbia, mostly on their loss ....
Poland is behaving as a big bullie that can do anything and if they see they have pushed it to far then they ''consult'' TWO ...This is a policy that works since the founding of two, if I remember well..


MCMOOX je bio ovde !!!

mcmoox
mcmoox Day 2,205, 11:00

the question is for how long will it work with this new ''rules'' implemented by admin, and ending of ''empires'' : D ...

Exalted Druid
Exalted Druid Day 2,205, 11:14

We would not want there it be the possibility of an actual war in a war game, would we? The only thing we see is TWO walking over and destroying small communities because they can. Break up already and put some life back into this game.

elMengu
elMengu Day 2,205, 11:16

So true. Voted.

eDarkAngel
eDarkAngel Day 2,205, 11:23

I can't quite make up which beep you're trying to slobber over, but by the brown nose I can tell it was a beep.

Worst damage control article ever

Iain Keers
Iain Keers Day 2,205, 11:31

Billy no mates here talking about making friends lol

eisenmutter2 Day 2,205, 11:43

Comment deleted

eisenmutter2 Day 2,205, 11:44

Comment deleted

eisenmutter2
eisenmutter2 Day 2,205, 11:45

"Their argument that by not consulting the alliance on this matter Poland is somehow trying to destroy TWO rings hollow even to the most ardent SPoland haters."

gamechanges make holding full boni harder for the big countries. now poland asking all around the world for NAPs/treaties to save their a55 ->leaving the rest of TWO on their own



" No TWO country, especially Serbia, has any desire to attack the USA, so the treaty is merely a formalisation of the status quo. "

treaty says
'B. The military forces of the United States, Poland, and Spain shall not engage in any direct MPP battles, or fight against each other in any Resistance War'
= while eUSA will not participate in ANY fights against poland (or spain) it can fight in battles against other TWO members


i also don't know why the other TWOmembers might not like that

eisenmutter2
eisenmutter2 Day 2,205, 12:33

even in countries partly occupied by poland for boni making a treaty with poland only OK not to let their people + allies RW the regions mentioned in the treaty. but they don't let poland tell them not to fight for allies in MPP battles against poland...

ExZilYon
ExZilYon Day 2,205, 11:51

So lets begin...
One of the term from the first NAP:
-The United States and the forces of Poland, Spain and TWO-ACT shall not engage in any direct MPP battles (this does not prevent mobile forces of any of these nations from fighting each other in non-direct battlefields across the world)
One of the term from second NAP:
-The military forces of the United States, Poland, and Spain shall not engage in any direct MPP battles, or fight against each other in any Resistance War after the return of occupied United States regions.

This matters whole TWO as alliance ie. every country that is member of it.
Saying that it is only problem in eSerbia is false because as I can see nothing forbids eUSA attacking eUK for example or countries like eRoC or really any other nation of TWO....
Article that was written by eSerbian government just pointed why that NAP is dangerous for the alliance as a whole and not just eSerbia as it is something people are trying to say.
Other than that I can't see anything bad when it comes to that NAP but with that new little different term it changes a lot.

 
Post your comment

What is this?

You are reading an article written by a citizen of eRepublik, an immersive multiplayer strategy game based on real life countries. Create your own character and help your country achieve its glory while establishing yourself as a war hero, renowned publisher or finance guru.