In-depth diplomatic analysis

Day 2,012, 02:05 • Published in China China • by mihail.cazacu

The comments and the PMs generated by the previous article motivated me to expand on the ideas written there.

To begin with everybody seemed to agree that the current Serbian-Croatian rivalry is pointless from the strategic point of view:

1) Both countries can enjoy their bonuses while having all their core regions free.
Croatia has her bonuses in India while Serbia has her empire running through Montenegro, southern Italy and Southern France;

2) The war between Serbia and Croatia serves only to make Plato fat.

Therefore that issue needs little developing. What is clear, is clear.

The issue which generated a heated debate both in the comments and in the PMs was:

Why do I think it would be strategically more sound for ex-EDEN to cooperate with TWO instead of CoT?

The reason is very simple: CoT maneuvered in such a way as to eliminate any interesting option for ex-EDEN.

1) Bulgaria could have expanded into the surplus territories offered to her by Russia and then could have further expanded into the surplus territories of Iran. All it was needed was for Bulgaria to stop being hostile to EDEN.

Instead of choosing that route for expansion, Bulgaria went into Egypt and Arabia, blocking any expansion for Greece and Turkey. Nobody forced Bulgaria to do that, other than rabid nationalism.

2) FYROM could have stayed happily in Southern Italy and Southern France by simply negotiating a rental agreement with Albania and Italy.

Just like in the case of Bulgaria, they chose the path of "teaching Greece a lesson". By doing so they dragged CoT in the position from which CoT cannot offer anything of value.

3) Chile could have nicely divided South America between them and Argentina instead of plotting behind Argentina's back, be kicked out of Terra as a result and then starting the useless ping-pong which only keeps Plato's cash register ringing.

4) Back to Bulgaria: they were so bent on "getting revenge" on Ukraine that they practically opened the way for Poland and Hungary there (plus for a while to the clowns who call themselves "Moldavians").

Ukraine had several surplus regions she could have rented to Romania, thus eliminating the need for Romania to expand elsewhere. Ukraine would have kept her sovereignty, Romania would have been happy and Bulgaria would have had zero enemies in the North. Or South. Or East.

All what the key members of CoT did from day one, starting with declaring war on Turkey, Greece and Argentina and continuing with their choices for expansion could guarantee only one thing:

When the time came, CoT had nothing valuable to offer to ex-EDEN.

TWO, on the other hand, can now make most of the ex-EDEN members happy very easily.

From ex-EDEN's point of view both CoT and TWO are filled with backstabbers and former enemies. Each and every member of TWO and CoT has at one point invaded, attempted to PTO or betrayed an ex-EDEN country.

But TWO can be negotiated with while CoT is firmly blocking any possible deal.

Whose fault is that, really?