Join the new world

Kako se po nekima digla bespotrebno “velika frka” oko nedavno potpisanog MPP sa Makedonijom rešio sam da u ovom članku napišem moje viđenje cele stvari, a ujedno i da se u komentarima čuju mišljenje svih zaineresovanih građana.
Mislim da je ovo ozbiljna tema i da zaslužuje ozbiljnu analizu.




Uоči poslednjih kongresnih izbora, ni jedna stranka iz top5 nije imala zvanično proklamovanu politiku potpisivanja ovog MPP-a. Na predsedničkim izborima je kandidat ispred koalicije AP-SNO tražio podršku za ovaj MPP (pored MPP-a sa Poljskom i Rusijom) i izgubio izbore. Odmah po formiranju kružne poruke predstavnika kongresnih stranaka, Ugac je stavio na glasanje predlog da se glasa za MPP, i ako je oduvek praksa da su MPP sporazumi nadležnost MSP, a i po mehanizmima igre ovaj zakon može da predloži samo predsednik (što je i logično jer spoljnu politiku vodi Vlada, a ne kongres). Stranke koje predstavljaju Vladu (koalicija SS/NSS/Civili eSrbije) glasali su protiv, dok su podršku dali blokovi AP-SNO i UeS-SPL. Treba napomenuti da su predstavnici UeS-SPL tražili pojašnjenje spoljne politike Vlade (jer žele da Vladi daju priliku da radi) i da je članak o planovima MSP objavljen. U međuvremenu je diktator i CP je kontaktirao našeg predsednika i dobio negativan odgovor tj. da ovaj zakon nije u saglasnosti sa politikom za koju je Vlada dobila mandat. Očigledno upoznat sa raspoloženjem u kongresu i svestan da negira volju naroda sa predsedničkih izbora predložio je zakon na glasanje. UeS i SPL i pored objavljenog članka MSP glasaju za ovaj MPP (uz AP-SNO) i on je danas realnost.



Zaključak koji se može izvesti iz svega navedenog je da su stranke UeS-SPL i AP-SNO, promenile spoljnopolitički kurs od zadnjih kongresnih izbora, na kojima ljudi nisu glasali ni dali legitimitet novoj politici koja se rodila u međuvremenu.




U vreme kad sam ja počeo da igram erepublik, dakle maja 2011.godine, Makedonija je bila veliki saveznik sa Srbijom. Bila je u savezu ONE, tada suparničkom savezu EDEN-a.
Boraveći u istom savezu, neke makedonske jedinice (DSW) su sa Bugarima organizovale ustanke u Poljskoj. Makedonska zvanična država nikad se zvanično nije ogradila od ovih neprijateljskih aktivnosti prema savezničkoj državi, već je nastavila uredno da ih angažuje i plaća njihove usluge. Ovo je vremenom dovelo do tolikog zahlađenja odnosa na relaciji Poljska-Makedonija da u sledećem savezu TWO nije bilo mesta za Makedoniju (core saveza su bile zemlje SPoland-Serhun). Želim da napomenem da je u ovoj situaciji Poljska imala puno pravo, jer je i sama imala sličnu situaciju sa nama dobro poznatom jedinicom PoW, na koju nije mogla da utiče, ali je nikada nije ni angažovala niti plaćala državnim novcem.
Dakle, Srbija je završila u savezu TWO, a Makedonija u tada proTWO savezu CoT.
Zajednički neprijatelj oba ova saveza je EDEN.
EDEN je u to vreme bio izuzetno jak i moćan protivnik. Ovo mogu da posvedočim iz prve ruke jer sam u periodu prve polovine 2013. godine bio izuzetno aktivan. 90% vremena srpski dmg je bio usmeren na Makedoniju i Grčku, i uprkos svega, ove zemlje su se jedva držale na mapi. Dobro se sećam brojnih sukoba na hq TWO, jer je Srbija bukvalno ratovala samo za CoT savez, a naše saveznice u TWO su to neretko trpile. Treba dodati da Makedonija svo vreme TWO nije učinila ništa da popravi odnose sa Poljskom.
Težište dejstava EDEN saveza je većinu vremena trajanja i ONE i TWO saveza bilo na Balkanu, tj. Srbiji, dok su Poljaci kampovali na resursima. Negde u drugoj polovini 2012 godine, Srbija je usled neke ofanzive izgubili regije u Italiji, u koje je uletela Makedonija. Jedno kraće vreme su ono čak imali i 10/10, ali generalno ovakva pozicija posledica je nekin NAP-ova pomoću kojih je EDEN okrenut na TWO, nikako njihove realne snage.
Spor oko ovih regija trajao je mesecima. One jesu vraćene Srbiji u novembru i decembru 2012 godine, ali postojala su konstantna portaživanja od Makedonije u narednim mesecima, što je dodatno opterećivalo odnose.
Srbija je u sadejstvu sa zemljama CoT parirala EDEN-u na Balkanu, ali situacija počinje da se menja u proleće 2013.godine kada prvo Bugarska pa za njim i Makedonija izmeštaju glavne gradove i regije sa Balkana u Arabiju, i ostavljaju Srbiju bukvalno samu da se krlja sa moćnim EDEN-om. Postojao je dogovor da bar jedna država ostane na Balkanu i pomogne Srbiji, mada to nije poštovano. Core regije ni Bugarska ni Makedonija nisu ozbiljno branile, i odjednom je Srbija na granicama imala sve same neprijatelje, osim Mađarske.
Tokom razgovora sa tadašnjim zvaničnicima često se čuo argument kako je CoT nezavisan savez i kao takav može da radi šta im je volja, pa tako i narušava geostratešku poziciju Srbije, čijem dmg može da zahvali svoje postojanje. Štaviše, CoT u probno članstvo prima USA, još jednog velikog neprijatelja Srbije. Srbija je tada konkretno tražila od Makedonije da stavi veto, ali smo dobili odgvor da je to stvar saveza CoT i Makedonije i da nije posao Srbije da se meša u unutrašnja pitanja drugih država.
TWO i CoT lagano ulaze u krizu i počinje postepeno zahlađivanje odnosa.
U vreme mandata SashaL (mart 2013 godine), Poljska napada Rusiju sa ciljom da napravi koridor ka Kini (tada stožeru komplet EDEN ekonomije, zemlji sa neprikosnovenih 10/10 resursa). CoT savez brani Rusiju, podižu sve RW-ove Poljskoj i TWO i CoT prvi put ulaze u konfrontaciju (sećam se dobro da su tada sve formacije preseljene u Poljsku i jedva zatvoreni ovi RW-ovi). Zajednički dmg koji je inače plasiran protiv EDEN-a, sada se poništava, a mi ostajemo bukvalno sami da se nosimo sa višestruko nadmoćnim neprijateljom, koji glasa četri NE na Srbiju.
Tri dana, i ako ljudi bukvalno ne spavaju ne pravi se nikakav pomak i gubimo brojne regije uz realnu opasnost brisanja sa mape. Spašavaju nas Rumuni koji i ako član EDEN-a uleće u Bugarsku i zatvaraju granicu Turskoj, te sprečavaju Tursku sa stavi peti NE na Srbiju. Naravno, Rumuni odbijaju da stave svoj NE na nas, te nekako uspevamo da odbranimo core regije. Ovo se pre svega trebamo zahvaliti diplomatiji koja je održavala kontakte sa Rumunijom više od pola godine unazad.
U vreme najveće ofanzive, predstavnici Makedonije koriste našu lošu poziciju, i dolaze na da nude pomoć, već da traže regije u Arabiji (kao kompenzaciju za one u Italiji na koje su uvek polagali pravo) da bi kompletirali 8/10 resursa, koje su im tada, uz ucenu, prepuštene.
Mi već sledeći mesec potpisujemo MPP sa Rumunima koji tada vodi rat sa Bugarskom, što definitivno pokopava bilo kakve odnose CoT i Srbije. CoT traži da se odbace svi MPPovi članica CoT sa Srbijom, a Grčka uz Rumuniju izražava želju da postane članica TWO. Pokrenut je proces raspada EDEN-a, a države usled promena kursa odbacuju sve neprijateljske MPP-ove ( Rumunija i Grčka odbacuje hrvatski MPP, Čile i Bugarska odbacuju naš MPP itd).
Srbija jedno vreme zadržava MPP sa Makedonijom (koja sada ne poštuje povelju CoT koja definiše politiku saveza), sve do izbora u junu 2013. godine.
Ovi izbori su sa stanovišta Makedonije bili ključni, jer su i tada postojale dve struje u Srbiji, jedna proGrčka, druga proMakedonska. Ironijom sudbine, Akcioni pokret oduvek poznat kao promakedonska stranka na ovim izborima menja politiku i podržava kandidata Strider83 kojeg podržava i stranka grčko-srpskog prijateljstva, te nakon pobede potpisuju MPP sa Grčkom, koju primaju i u TWO, bez ikakvog probnog članstva (za nove države 3 meseca probnog perioda se podrazumeva).
Pitanje grčko-srpskih odnosa je tek kompleksna i složena tema, i zahtevala bi konkretan članak, ali generalno, naša tadašnja vlast je morala da insistira na probnom članstvu, gde bi se i pružila prilika da se na terenu pokaže i razvije savezništvo, ili se ovaj proces prekine i glasa protiv prijema u TWO.
Što se tiče Makedonije, postojao je neki načelan dogovor da se između Srbije i Makedonije ne razvijaju neprijateljstva, ne predlaže NE, ne vređaju sa državnih novina i sl. Dalja istorija je pokazala da to nije poštovano, jer je Makedonija stavljala NE na Srbiju, a opet ironijom sudbine, inicijatori današnjeg MPP-a su ih vređali sa državnih novina.



Zaključak koji se može izvesti iz navedenog je da je Makedonija nizom loših poteza, vremenom plovila putem koji se neminovno razišao sa Srbijom: Ključni trenutak je svakako formiranje saveza TWO, u kojem za Makedoniju nije bilo mesta. Članstvom u CoT, savezom kojim su dominirali Bugari, naši putevi se razišli mnogo ranije, dok je to samo formalizovano prijemom Grčke u TWO. Ne posedujem dovoljno informacija o mogućnostima Srbije da se zauzme za Makedoniju vreme formiranja TWO, ali za kasniji period mogu da tvrdim da nije bilo ni vizije ni želje da se ide putem koji ide Srbija, već se sledila ideja Bugarske koja je van svojih realnih mogućnosti (diplomatskih i vojnih) preko saveza CoT nastojala da postane globalni igrač. Vreme je pokazalo kolika je to bila zabluda i greška.




Volim da kažem da je Asterija savez po meri Srbije. Ocenjujući sve meni poznate relacije i ranije saveze, Srbija konačno ima dobro izbalansiran i poprilično kompaktan savez. Izvučene su pouke iz saveza TWO koji se raspao kad je postao preglomazan, i kad se usled brojnih isprepletanih interesa prestalo voditi logikom, a zarad dmg počeo ubacivati stalno nove i nove države. Nove države donosile su i nove relacije sa državama van saveza (nepomirljivost core članica sa nekim drugim npr. Španije i Argentine, Poljske i Rumunije i sl) što je na kraju kulminiralo izdajom Poljske i formiranjem Asterije i dva suprotstavljena saveze Sirijus i Aurora. Asterija je preživela sva iskušenja, razvila brojne relacije među državama koje po prvi put dele isti savez i ostvarila pretpostavke za dugoročnu dominaciju, što je na kraju dovelo do raspada Sirijusa i Aurore. Napuštanje Grčke nikako se nije odrazilo na poziciju saveza, čak je on sada i efikasniji jer se ne mora baviti državom koja je podeljena i sa stanovišta pomoći saveznicima uglavnom neučinkovita.
Članstvo u savezu nosi sa sobom niz benefita, ali usled uspešnog funkcionisanja zahteva i od članica određena usklađivanja spoljnih politika tj. politike MPP-ova neophodnih za organizovano usmeravanje dmg. Potrebno je neko osnovno poznavanje organizacije i usmeravanja dmg, da bi znalo da savez može da bude uspešan jedino ako preko kontrole setova MPP članica usmeri kolektivni dmg svih država na jedno mesto, što se definiše kroz prioritete.
Odličan primer za ovo je gore navedena ofanziva EDEN saveza, gde se TWO i CoT dmg poništavao u Rusiji, a Srbija ostala bez mogućnosti da taj dmg deluje zajedno i pomogne nam da se branimo.
Zaključak koji se nameće je da sve države sveta konstantno pokušava da se organizuje u saveze (Orion, Nebula…) ili teži tome, jer je to najlogičniji najefikasniji i najjeftiniji mogući način delovanja. Stoga na poziciju Srbije treba gledati kao na privilegiju i jedini mogućnost da se sadašnja liderska pozicija zadrži.




Kako su se relacije među državama, a i savezi menjali u prošlosti, postoje i izuzeci tj. neke države koje kroz savez ne vide način da ostvare sve spoljnopolitičke prioritete, te se iz ovog razloga odlučuju na nezavisan kurs sa održavanjem MPP sporazuma sa njima bliskim državama.
Ovakav izbor politike sa sobom gubitak brojnih benefita saveza, pre svega usmeravanje dmg svih država, što u praksi znači da se manjak dmg mora nadomestiti plaćanjem dmg preko CO ili masovnim tenkovanjima.
Dva su osnovna razloga zbog kojih se države odlučuju na ovakav iznuđen kurs, a zasnovane su na istorijskim relacijama:

I.nizak nivo odnosa sa drugim državama članicama

II.nemogućnost da se bliske države pomire sa interesima neke druge članice saveza

Ovdje je mnogo tačnije reći da su ovo razlozi zašto neke države ne mogu da budu u savezu, jer je nezavisan set MPP mnogo skuplja i neefikasnija varijanta vođenja spoljne politike.

Primer za br. I je Mađarska, koja je i ako osnivač Asterije zbog trzavica na relaciji sa Rumunijom napustila savez ne dugo po formiranju, ali zadržala proAsterija kurs, i MPP proAsterija set (osim Rumunije) dugo vremena. Ova država ima trenutno MPP i sa Poljskom i sa Makedonijom. Slična situacija je sa Poljskom ili USA koje su svoje politike definisale kao proAsterija, i imaju set MPP proAsterija zemalja.

Primer br.II je Grčka, koja zbog unutrašnjih podela i želja najjačih jedinica da se ne odbace saveznici Hrvati i Turci napustila savez i potpisala MPP sporazume sa ove dve države, neprijateljske prema Asteriji. Primer br. 2 donekle važi i za Mađarsku, od potpisivanja MPP sporazuma sa Makedonijom (neprijateljska država Asterije).
Mora se napomenuti da je su i Grčka i Mađarska svo vreme članstva u Asteriji poštovale politiku saveza, a MPP sa Hrvatskom i Turskom, odnosno Makedonijom potpisale tek nakon napuštanja saveza.

Zaključak je da ovaj pravac spoljne politike iznuđeno rešenje, iz navedenih razloga. Praktični benefiti ne postoje, dok su države koje se odluče za ovakav diplomatski kurs mnogo izloženije i ranjivije od država iza kojih stoji savez.




Srbija je izglasavanjem MPP-a sa Makedonijom koja je neprijateljska država saveza pokrenula brojna pitanja. Naglašavam naprijateljom saveza jer bez obzira na relacije Srb-MkD, ova država jeste neprijatelj svim ostalim članicama Asterije.
Prekršili smo pravila kojih se savez pridržava od osnivanja.
Ni jedna od preostalih 5 članica nema ni jedan MPP sa neprijateljskom državom. Rumunija je u međuvremenu odbacila MPP sa USA, iako je ova zemlja odbacila sve neprijateljske MPP-ove i vodi doslednu proAsterija politiku. Ne postoji racionalan razlog osim bliskosti sa Srbijom. Slično je i sa Poljskom i njihovom proAsterija politikom.
Da li je nama to možda dosadno, ili stvarno kongres uopšte nije upoznat sa spoljnom politikom i funkcionisanjem saveza?
Javljaju se argumenti kako može Grčka ili Mađarska, ali nažalost prećutkuje da navedene države imaju nezavisan set MPP sporazuma, koji su krenuli da formiraju tek nakon napuštanja Asterije.





Grčka pokušava da se konsoliduje nakon puča, pre svega da reguliše unutrašnje podele. Ideje da nam je neprijatelj su smešne, jer država koja ima 16/19 Asterija i proAsterija MPP sporazuma to ni po mehanizmima igre ne može da bude. Istina je da imaju MPP sa Kiprom, Turskom i Hrvatskom. I da pucaju za svoje saveznike. Ne vidim u ovome ništa čudno, možda bi trebalo da ne pucaju? Međutim, oni svoju politiku vode nazavisno, i niko nemože da ospori ovo pravo bilo koje države. Pored navedenih “ne poznaješ mehanizam igre” ograničenja zajedničkih MPP-ova, postoji i dokument potpisan od Asterije kojim Grčka definiše svoju poziciju prema savezu ( i prema Srbiji), i koji nije neprijateljski.
Argument da teroristi tenkuju za svoje saveznike protiv Srbije opet nije argument, jer istim kojima to sad smeta, nije isto to smetalo kad su bili deo Asterije. Ni nama niko ne kaže niti brani gde da pucamo i za koga, a kako to radimo licemerno je u ovakvom ponašanju tražiti bilo kakve argumente.
Dodao bih još i realnu procenu, a to je odgovor na pitanje da li Grci možda imaju ambicije da prave novi EDEN.
Racionalno govoreći koji je interes od toga, i ko ga ima? Verujem da Turska i Hrvatska sigurno rade na ovome, ali terorsti ma koliko se pokazivali tenkovanjem su pre svega racionalni, pa nešto i ne verujem da su spremni rizikovati poziciju Grčke zarad ambicija drugih zemalja. Brojna su tu druga pitanja, npr. da li su Turci i Hrvati spremni raskinuti relacije sa Čileom? Ili što to treba Rumuniji kad nikad u istoriji nije bila u boljoj poziciji, a pre toga je već kod formiranja Asterije odbila svaki razgovor na tu temu?

Makedonija je neosporno u teškoj poziciji, što zahvaljujući svojoj bahatosti što zahvaljujući lošim procenama iz prošlosti. Nema tu mnogo naše krivice, i ako je ima minimalna je. Na kraju krajeva sve ove godine, mi nismo odmogli, nismo glasali NE i ako nas je Makedonija proglašavala za prirodnog neprijatelja u vreme kad smo imali vojnu sa Čileom. Ne treba zaboraviti ni zdušnu podršku pučevima koje je pokušao Trico (u kojem teroristi nisu uzeli učešće), ili brojne ratove sa Argentinom.
Potpuno je jasno da je za Makedoniju ključni interes obnavljanja savezništva sa Srbijom. Međutim, postoje tu ozbiljna ograničenja, jer je MPP sa neprijateljskom državom Asterije neodrživ. Mogućnosti i spremnost ove države da krene putem Poljske ili USA, te postane proAsterija i odbace sve neprijateljske MPP-ove (Čile, Bugarska itd.) su svakako stvari kojima treba da se bavi njihova diplomatija. Konkretan primer bespotrebnosti ovog MPP-a i nepromišljenosti našeg kongresa videćemo već sledeći put kad napadnemo Španiju ili Čile, te neminovno ostanemo bez makedonskog MPP-a.




Izglasani MPP predstavlja potpuno bespotrebno potezanje pitanja Makedonije i korišćenje njene situacije u svrhu unutrašnje polititike. Svođenje na relaciju Grčka-Makedonija, tj. za/protiv je takođe pogrešno, do momenta kad i ako Grčka povede agresivnu politiku ka Srbiji (predloži NE, odbaci neke MPP-ove i sl.).

Jednostavno, tema treba da nam bude Srbija i Asterija, a ne ni jedna od dve navedene države.

Moguća su dva scenarija:

I.odbacivanje ovog MPP-a u skorijoj budućnosti

II.izlazak iz Asterije i kreiranje nezavisne politike MPP-ova sa zadržavanjem makedonskog MPP sporazuma

Održavanje statusa quo u budućnosti teško da je moguće, iz prostog razloga jer ne postoji ni jedan argument da se od drugih članica Asterije traži da ne potpisuju MPP sa državama koje su neprijateljske prema Srbiji. a međusobno su bliske.
Kongres je pustio duha iz boce, a presedan koji je Srbija napravila potpisivanjem MPP sporazuma sa neprijateljskom zemljom Asterije daje puno pravo da u budućnosti npr. Argentina potpiše MPP sa Turskom. Ne mogu da tvrdim da će se ovo ikada desiti, ali ne postoji suštinska razlika u relacijama Argentina-Turska i Srbija-Makedonija. niti naša diplomatija može da nađe argument za prigovor ukoliko se ovo pitanje postavi.

Stoga je moj stav po ovom pitanju krajnje jasan, a to je Srbija nije u mogućnosti da održi makedonski MPP i da on u skorijoj budućnosti treba da se poništi.

Opciju br. II neću ni razmatrati jer je to ćorsokak srpske diplomatije i spoljnopolitičkog kursa. Izlaskom iz Asterije, ovaj savez će neminovno postati EDEN2, uz lako predvidiljiva dalja dešavanja. Možda sam po ovom pitanju subjektivan, i svako ima prostor da me u komentarima ili nekom članku demantuje.

Nesumnjivo je da je ovo važna tema. O ovakvim spoljnopolitičkim zaokretima treba da se javno priča i postigne što širi konsenzus. Mnoge države praktikuju izjašnjavanja saveta jedinica, jer su jedinice i vojnici najpozvaniji da se izjasne, s obzirom da svaki dan pucaju rame uz rame sa saveznicima. Svojevremeno, pri formiranju Asterije, 9/10 najjačih rumunskih MU je glasalo da ma šta bude ostaju uz Srbiju. Možda bi i Srbija trebalo da razmisli o tome, a ne da spoljna politika zavisi od toga ko će da upadne u top5 za kongres, te da li će na mah promeniti spoljnopolitički kurs.

Takođe bih, zbog važnosti teme, zamolio sve stranke da se uoči kongresnih izbora izjasne na ovu temu, da bi ljudi imali predstavu za kakvu politiku glasaju.





Serbia and Asteria/english version

As there was an unnecessary big fuss about recently signed MPP between Serbia and Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), I’ve decided to write my opinion about it, and to hear in comments opinion of all interested citizens.

I believe that the subject is serious and that it deserves serious analyses.




Before last congress elections, none of the top 5 parties in Serbia had official policy regarding this MPP. On presidential elections, candidate of AP–SNO coalition had asked support for this MPP (along with MPPs with Poland and Russia) and has lost the elections. Right after making circular with representatives of congress parties, Ugac has proposed that we sign this MPP, even though usually signing new MPPs is something decided by MoFA, and game mechanisms are such that these kind of laws can only be proposed by president (which makes sense, and foreign policy is lead by government, not by congress). Parties representing government (coalition SS/NSS/Civili eSrbije) voted against it, while it was supported by AP–SNO and UeS–SPL coalitions. I must also say that representatives of UeS–SPL coalition have asked for explanation of government’s foreign policy (because they wanted to give government a chance to work) and that article about MoFA plans has been published. In the meantime, dictator and CP of Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) has contacted our president and received a negative answer, because this law is not a part of policy for which this government has won the elections. Clearly familiar with opinion of congress and knowing that he’s negating decision of the people from presidential elections, he has proposed the law. Along with AP–SNO, UeS and SPL vote for this law, even though MoFA article was published, and today we have that MPP.



We can conclude from the above that UeS–SPL and AP–SNO have changed their MoFA course since last congress elections, in which people didn’t vote or give legitimacy to new policy that was born in the meantime.




When I started to play eRepublik (during May 2011), Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) was Serbia’s major ally. It was a part of ONE alliance, enemy of EDEN at the time.

Even though we were in the same alliance, some units of Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) (DSW) organised resistance wars in Poland alongside Bulgaria. Their government has never distanced itself from these hostile activities towards an ally, but has continued to hire them and pay for their service. In time, this lead to cooling of relations that big that in the next alliance, TWO, there was no place for Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) (core members of the alliance were SPoland and SerHun). I want to point out that in this case Poland was right, as it had the same situation with their well known unit PoW, which it couldn’t influence, but has never hired it or funded it with state money.

So, Serbia became a member of TWO, and Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) was a member of pro-TWO alliance at the time, CoT. Common enemy of both alliances was EDEN.

EDEN was extremely strong and powerful opponent. This I can testify firsthand because I was very active in the first half of 2013. For 90% of the time, Serbian dmg was directed to Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Greece, and despite that, these countries barely stayed on the map. I remember well a numerous arguments on TWO HQ, because Serbia was literally fighting only for CoT and our allies in TWO suffered because of lack of dmg. I must also add that for that entire time Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) didn’t do anything to improve relations with Poland.

Center of action of EDEN alliance for most of ONE and TWO was in Balkans, namely Serbia, while Poland enjoyed easy resources. Some time during second half of 2012, Serbia lost regions in Italy due to heavy offensive, and Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) took them. For a short while they have had 10/10, but in general this position was a consequence of several NAPs used to make EDEN focus on TWO, and not their own power.

Quarrel about these regions lasted for months. They were returned to Serbia in November and December 2012, but Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) constantly demanded them in the following months, which put additional pressure on two countries’ relations.

Serbia and CoT countries was well matched to EDEN in Balkans, but situation begins to change in the spring of 2013, when first Bulgarian and then Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) move their capitals and regions from Balkans to Arabia and leave Serbia alone to fight with the mighty EDEN. There was a deal that at least one country should stay in Balkans and help Serbia, but that deal wasn’t honoured. Bulgaria and Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) didn’t defend their cores seriously, and all of a sudden, except for Hungary, Serbia had only enemies on its borders.

During conversations with their officials at the time, you could often hear an argument that CoT is independent alliance, and as such can do whatever it wants, even impair geopolitical position of Serbia, to whose dmg CoT can be thankful that it exists. Moreover, CoT takes USA as a trial member, another nemesis of Serbia. Serbia asked to veto them, but we got an answer that it’s a matter of CoT and Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and that it’s not Serbia’s job to get involved in other countries’ internal matters.

A crisis between TWO and CoT slowly emerges and then comes cooling of relations.

During term of SashaL (March 2013), Poland attacks Russia with the goal of making a way to China (center of complete EDEN’s economy, country with undisputed 10/10 resources). CoT alliance defends Russia, raises all possible RWs in Poland, which leads to first confrotation of TWO and CoT. I remember well that all our formations were moved to Poland and their RWs were barely secured. Dmg of TWO and CoT, usually used against EDEN, now was annuled, and Serbia stays alone to fight multiple times stronger enemy, who sets 4 NE laws on Serbia.

For three days, even though people literally don’t sleep, there’s no progress and we lose countless regions with a big possibility of being wiped. We were saved by Romania, who even though was a member of EDEN, attacks Bulgaria and closes our border with Turkey, which saved us from receiving 5th NE. Of course, Romanians refuse to set us as their NE, and we somehow manage to defend core regions. We must be thankful here to diplomacy which maintained contacts with Romania for more than half a year before that.

At the time of the strongest attack on us, officials of Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) use our bad position and come not to offer help, but to ask for regions in Arabia (as a compensation for the ones they lost in Italy, which in their minds always belonged to them) in order to complete 8/10 resources, which were then given to them because we were blackmailed.

The next month, we MPP Romania, who was at war with Bulgaria at the time, which definitely buries all relations between CoT and Serbia. CoT requests that all CoT members reject their MPP with Serbia, and Greece, along with Romania, express the desire to become a member of TWO. A process of EDEN’s end was started, and countries lose all enemy MPPs due to change of course (Romania and Greece lost Croatian MPP, Chile and Bulgaria lost our MPPs, etc.).

Serbia keeps MPP with Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) for a while (who didn’t respect charter of CoT that defines policy of the alliance), until elections in June 2013.

These elections were crucial for Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), because there were two fractions in Serbia at the time: one was pro-Greek and the other one was pro-Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Ironically, Akcioni pokret, always know as pro-Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) party, changes their policy since these elections and supports Strider83, who was also supported by party of Greco–Serbian friendship. After they had won the elections, they signed MPP with Greece, which also becomes a member of TWO without trial membership (even though new countries should have 3 months trial membership).


Question of Greco–Serbian relations is a complex subject and would need another article, but in general, our government at the time should have insisted on trial membership, where they’d get a chance to show and develop alliance not only on paper, but on the battlefield as well, or to stop the process and vote against their full membership.

Regarding Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), there was a silent agreement not to develop any hostilities, not to propose NE, insult from official newspaper, etc. History shows that it wasn’t respected, because Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) has NE-ed Serbia, and again ironically, initiators of today’s MPP have insulted them from official newspaper.





A conclusion: Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) has made a number of bad moves, which made its path separate from Serbia’s path. The key moment is surely formation of TWO, in which there was no place for Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Membership in CoT, a Bulgaria dominated alliance, made us go separate ways long time before that, and it became official when Greece became a member of TWO. I don’t have enough information about Serbia’s possibility to stand for Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) during TWO’s formation, but for later periods I can claim that there was neither vision nor willingness to follow Serbia’s path, but they followed Bulgaria, who was outside of its real possibilities (diplomatic and military) via CoT alliance tried to become global player. The time has show how big mistake that was.




I like to say that Asteria is an alliance fitting for Serbia. Judging all by relations known to me and former alliances, Serbia has finally well balanced and pretty compact alliance. We learned lesson from TWO, who fell apart when it became too big, and when due to a lot of different interests it stopped using logic, and kept receiving new members just to get dmg. New countries brought new relations with countries outside alliance (some countries just couldn’t work together, for example Spain and Argentina, Poland and Romania, etc.), which ended with Poland’s betrayal and creation of Asteria and its two enemies, Sirius and Aurora. Asteria survived all temptations, developed numerous relations among countries who were in the same alliance for the first time and had a possibility of a long-term domination, which finally led to dissolution of Sirius and Aurora. Greece leaving Asteria didn’t have a bad infact, moreover, now it’s more efficient because it doesn’t have to deal with country which is divided and not really useful to its allies.

Alliance membership brings a lot of benefits, but due to successful cooperation and alignment of foreign policy, namely MPP policy needed for organised directing of dmg, a basic knowledge of organisation and dmg direction is needed. Alliance can be successful only if via controlling MPP sets of country members it directs collective dmg of all countries to one place, which is defined through priorities.

A good example for this is above mentioned EDEN attack, when TWO and CoT dmg was annuled in Russia, and Serbia lost possibility to use that dmg together and help us defend.

A conclusion: all world’s countries constantly try to make alliances (Orion, Nebula…) or lean towards it, because it’s logically the most efficient and the cheapest way of acting. That’s why Serbia’s position should be watched as a priviledge and the only way to keep its current leading position.




As relations among countries and alliance have changed in the past, there are some exceptions, some countries who don’t see an alliance as a way of achieving their priorities in foreign policy, and they decide to use independent course with keeping MPPs with countries close to them.

This policy brings a loss of numerous alliance benefits, above all all countries’ dmg directing, which means that lack of dmg must be payed with CO or massive tanking.

There are two basic reasons to make countries decide to do this, and they are based on historical relations:
1st. bad relations with other alliance members
2n😛 inability to bring interests together with some of the alliance members

It’s more accurate to say that these are the reasons why some countries can’t be in an alliance, because independent set of MPPs is a lot more expensive and inefficient kind of leading foreign policy.

Example for 1st case is Hungary, who even though it’s founder of Asteria, due to problems with Romania has left the alliance not long after it was former, but has kept pro-Asteria course, and pro-Asteria MPP set (other than Romania) for a long time. This country currently has MPPs with Poland and Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). It’s a similar situation with Poland or USA, who defined their policies as pro-Asteria and have pro-Asteria MPP set.

Example for 2nd case is Greece, who due to internal issue and desire of the strongest MUs not to reject allies Croatia and Turkey has left the alliance and signed MPPs with these two countries, who are Asteria’s enemies. This can be somewhat applied to Hungary as well, since they signed MPP with Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), which is Asteria’s enemy.

I have to note that both Greece and Hungary respected alliance’s policy the entire time they were its members, and MPPs with Croatia and Turkey, and Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), respectively, were signed only after they left the alliance.

Conclusion: this way of leading foreign policy is a forced solution, for the already mentioned reasons. There are no real benefits. Countries leading this kind of diplomacy are a lot more vulnerable than the ones who have an alliance to support them.




Serbia opened a number of questions by signing MPP with Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). I emphasize that they are the enemy of the alliance, because regardless of Serbian relations to them, they are the enemy of other Asteria members.
We broke the rules which the alliance was respecting since it was founded.

None of the remaining 5 members has any MPP with enemy countries. Romania has in the meantime dropped MPP with USA, even though this country has rejected all hostile MPPs and is leading consistent pro-Asteria policy. There’s no rational reason other than closeness with Serbia. It’s similar case like Poland and their pro-Asteria policy.

Are we maybe bored, or congress really knows nothing about foreign policy and the way alliance works?

We have heard arguments like: “how can Greece or Hungary do it”, but sadly they said nothing about these countries having independent MPP set, which they formed only after leaving Asteria..



Greece is trying to consolidate after coup, and above all to solve inner issue. Ideas that they are our enemy are ridiculous, because according to game mechanics, country that has 16/19 Asteria and pro-Asteria MPPs can’t be our enemy. It’s true, they have MPP with Cyprus, Turkey and Croatia. They fight for their allies. Nothing strange about this, maybe they shouldn’t do it? However, they have independent policy, and nobody can dispute this right of any country. Besides the already mentioned “you don’t know game mechanics” limitations of the common MPPs, there’s document signed by Asteria which defines their policy towards the alliance (and Serbia), which is not hostile.

Argument that “terrorists” tank for their allies against Serbia is again not an argument, because they same ones who are bothered by it now, didn’t have a problem with it while they were a part of Asteria.

I want to add another estimate, and that is answer to the question “do Greeks have ambition to make new EDEN?”. To be honest, who does? I believe that Turkey and Croatia surely work on it, but “terrorists” as much as they have shown themselves as big tanks are above all rational, which is why i don’t believe the would risk Greece’s good position because of other countries’ ambitions. There’s a number of questions about it, for example: are Turks and Croats ready to cut their relations with Chile? Or: why does Romania need that when they were never in a better position, and have even rejected that idea before Asteria was formed?

Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is without a doubt in a bad situation, partially thanks to its arrogance and also to bad estimates from the past. We’re not to blame for it, and if we are, very little is our responsibility. Finally, all these years, we weren’t hostile, didn’t set them as NE even if they did that to us while we were at war with Chile. Let’s not forget big support they gave to Trico’s attempt to coup us (in which “terrorists” took no part), or numerous wars with Argentina.

It’s clear that making Serbia an ally again is crucial for Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). However, there are serious limitations about it, because MPP with enemy countries of Asteria is not sustainable. Possibilities and readiness of this country to walk the path of Poland or USA, and become pro-Asteria and reject all hostile MPPs (Chile, Bulgaria, and so on), are the things that their diplomacy should deal with. We will see example of how unnecessary this MPP is when we attack Spain or Chile again and our MPP with Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) gets cancelled.




The MPP we signed represents completely unnecessary opening the question of Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and using its situation to mess with our inner policy. Reduction to relation Greece–Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), namely against/for, is also wrong, until the moment when and if Greece leads aggressive policy towards Serbia (sets it as NE, rejects some MPPs, etc.).

It’s simple, the subject should be Serbia and Asteria, and not either one of the two countries.

There are two possible scenarios:

1st. rejecting this MPP soon
2nd. leaving Asteria and creating independent MPP policy while keeping MPP with Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)

Keeping status quo in the future is hardly possible, simply because there’s no argument that other Asteria members shouldn’t sign MPPs with countries hostile towards Serbia and each close to each other.

Congress has unleashed a genie, and precedent that Serbia made by signing MPP with country hostile towards Asteria gives right to, for example, Argentina to sign MPP with Turkey. I can’t say that this will happen at all, but there’s no big difference in historical relations between Argentina–Turkey and Serbia–Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), or our diplomacy can find an argument to object it if it happens.

That’s why my stance towards this is quite clear: Serbia can’t keep MPP with Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and it should be cancelled as soon as possible.

I won’t even discuss option 2, because that’s a dead end of our diplomacy and foreign course. With Serbia leaving Asteria, this alliance would surely become EDEN 2, with easy predictable future. I might be subjective about this, and everyone can object what I said either in comments or in another article.

No doubt that this is an important subject. About these kind of changes of foreign policy there should be a public discussion and a broad consensus. Many countries have MU councils to decide on these matters, because MUs and soldiers are best placed to be heard, since they fight alongside their allies every day. At the time while Asteria was former, 9/10 top Romanian MUs supported Serbia no matter what. Maybe Serbia should think about it as well, so not to have foreign policy depend on who is in top 5 for congress and if it will change foreign policy.

Also, due to importance of the subject, I’d like to ask all parties to state their opinion about it before congress elections, so that people can know what kind of policy they can vote for.