[Derp] Interview with Spite

Day 3,807, 14:00 • Published in USA USA • by Derphoof



Recently, Spite started to resurface in eRepublik, writing articles again. Spite was a major player in international politics a few years ago. As such, he's had to deal with the eUSA and many other countries around the globe. He carries invaluable insight, so I asked him to chime in about his return, the invasion, and American policy and attitudes:


1. I think it's accurate to say that most people in this game have long enjoyed your articles. Yet, only recently have you come back and started writing again. What made you decide to come back to writing in eRep?

I quit the game in late 2014, mainly because I felt I’d done everything I could do, and I was beginning to repeat myself. Sirius was an attempt to go off-script and make something different, bringing together a bunch of former adversaries. It was a bold experiment, but it didn’t go very well. I deserve at least some of the blame for the current situation because of that. In the aftermath I actually started spending a lot of time on the eUSA forums and played a few other games with the Mensa crew.

I rejoined eRep a few weeks ago just on a whim really. I joined the eUK discord from a link on jamesw’s profile and he began badgering me with all the problems he was facing. I couldn’t help but pick some things up and after that I was stuck here again.





2. Of note to Americans is your recent article about our nation's foreign policy. Would you characterize the "WO Doctrine" as a success?

Short answer? No. In my personal opinion the policy of isolationism only functioned at all because of the unique traits the eUSA has. In any other country isolating yourself from global politics would make you an easy target. Whether you’re a puny country like the eUK or a powerhouse like Romania, you need to have allies and you need to be willing to sacrifice for them. I also think the eUSA has always liked to be the leader of whatever alliance it is in, and as a result of that it has ended up in the weakest of the three alliances.

That said, had the eUSA not attacked Croatia they might have had another year of peace, who knows. But it would have been boring.






3. You write that the eUSA could "take back its position in the front rank of countries" with a more active foreign and military policy. How would you describe that "position" the USA could find itself in?

I think currently the eUSA is heavily tainted by the past, both good and bad. The rest of Pacifica still hold a lot of Asterian MPPs, but as it stands the eUSA is isolated from both Asteria and Andes (and their respective spheres). It makes it extremely hard for them to build a network of allies.

However the eUSA is still a powerful country, and well organised when led properly. I think it would be a valuable asset to any potential future alliance. But to do that, before you even start rebuilding relations, you need to get a blank slate. That means someone has to take the blame and apologise. Probably a few people. You need a new face leading (or new faces). Then you can start working on a strategy out of this mess.

The likely position the eUSA will find itself in is a supporting one for now as it rebuilds its reputation. But generally it’s position means that it is very expensive and difficult to attack it, but it has the ability to dominate North America, and the fringes of Europe and Asia. It could use that position to its advantage going forward.





4. Does it take more than refocusing to get to that position, or does the eUSA need a resurgence of active players like Croatia?

I don’t think the eUSA is going to win the war with damage, and I think if there was going to be a resurgence it would have happened by now. The eUSA has natural advantages which make an occupation expensive and cumbersome. That means one way or another they will get back on the map unless Asteria really makes a concerted effort to stop it, and that seems unlikely.

However it is how you do that which matters. If you fight your way back onto the map you might feel a bit more pride at having overcome your invaders. But sometimes eating humble pie has better results in the long run. The way I see it an anti-Asterian bloc is necessary to balance Asterian dominance and really that means making up with the people who have just invaded you. Not an easy shout.







5. The border nations of the eUSA have experienced a faster decline, resulting in less powerful local targets. Indonesia, Spain, and others were far more powerful nations at one point. How do you think this has affected American interest in the game, and its isolation?

I think it would have had more of an effect if the eUSA didn’t have such good bonuses within its borders. As it stands there is little need to fight neighbours. Indonesia has been focused for many years on Asia, and that has become more difficult for them since airstrikes allowed people to land right in their backyard. Spain has always been Europe-focused and in eRepublik Europe is a cage. I think like Croatia, Spain is a country which could quite quickly bounce back into activity given the right stimulation. Right now it is sleeping.

As a result of this, the eUSA can only effectively be invaded by airstrike. Coordinating multiple airstrikes is difficult and expensive. That makes the eUSA even better defended than it was previously. A few good allies and a strong CO can blunt an airstrike. The eUSA would be able to act as a fortress backstop for an alliance, preserving bonuses for manufacture, and allowing them to strike at will abroad. An invasion like this is too expensive to happen more than once a year.






6. Many times, eAmerican leaders have tried to steer completely clear of the Balkan region, going so far as to create CTRL. Should the USA seek to get more involved with Balkan nations, or is it possible to have a successful strategy by ignoring them in this stage of the game?

The ‘greater balkan’ region, including Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece, represents the bulk of the offensive firepower in the world. Historically they have been fairly evenly divided amongst opposing alliances, but nowadays only Croatia and Greece stand outside of the Asterian bloc. That should be worrying for the whole world. Whilst messing with the balkans can lead to swift retribution, I think politically speaking picking a side is a necessity. Because when they come for you, the only thing that’s likely to stop them are other members of that group.






7. I think the animosity that some Americans have towards Croatia can be traced back to Sirius and its aftermath. Do you think the USA's experience of the Sirius alliance still informs the attitudes of its government? As a direct observer, what was the USA-Croatia relationship in Sirius like?

The Croatians were always extremely cordial and supportive to all of the Sirius countries. I saw some animosity between countries, but little from Croatia. Even then, the eUSA was mostly represented by one or two people (and of course WO was one of them) and that meant the story of what happened in Sirius was mostly told through the lens of his ambition. If I had to describe Croatia, I’d call them pragmatists. They tend to turn up, do their best, and bow out, whether they win or lose. They, like the Serbs, tend to be quite blunt in their criticisms. But they are always honest about them.

Obviously the way the eUSA left Sirius was unpleasant but that conflict was mostly between Spain, Poland and the eUSA. The Croatians did push for the eUSA to help eSpain but only because they saw it as the logical move to make, not out of any anti-American feelings.

To answer your first question last, I don’t think that the Sirius experience led to anti-Croat feelings. Although I was absent for much of this period, my understanding is that anti-Croatian feelings were developed and nurtured as part of an internal political/cultural change in the eUSA, from being historically pro-Croat to being against. Perhaps that was because certain pro-Croat politicians were political opponents, or because there was a vision of aligning the eUSA against the weaker side in the global political scene. I think it was a mistake either way- the eUSA will never be allied with Serbia and that pretty much means they have to be allied with Croatia.






8. Lastly, if America is to permanently end its isolationism, do you think the USA needs to seek a new set of allies, or simply reaffirm its active commitment to current allies?

Pacifica is too small to succeed in the long term. I think that the current alliance system with three small alliances backed with larger informal groups is broken, and really needs fixing badly. Currently Asteria is almost totally dominant across all battlefields. The opposition to Asteria seems divided and poorly led with several potential leaders providing conflicting ideas about what to do next. The anti-Asteria group seems to spend more time reacting to events rather than leading them.

Honestly, I think some of the Pacifica nations are more of a natural fit with Asteria. But for the sake of balance, and a challenge, it would be better if we could go back to a true binary system with the eUSA more aligned with Andes.

A second world alliance would require some inspired leadership, but given recent events I am not sure the eUSA can credibly provide that. However that wouldn’t prevent you from supporting those who do. I think the best path for the eUS going forward is to be active and involved, but to learn how to be a team player again. Accept the leadership of others, and that sometimes that is going to mean you don’t get the most benefit. But in the long term it would help you reclaim that place amongst the world’s trusted and valued countries once again. And that makes it worth it.