General considerations on diplomacy and military systems. Case study: Romania
•
by 8-3=1
These days have been quite busy with all the excitement around Romania recent decisions:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-andyr-gov-official-statement-on-the-eden-romania-relations-1170344/1/20
But this article is not about these events, hopefully this will be soon history for the newborn babies.
However, these events can serve as a good example for all the discussions below.
As we all know, the system in eRepublik revolves around military alliances or conflicts. The MPPs, the wars, the battles- they are all part of the military system. All strategic and tactical moves can be resolved by military minds with a look at the map, at the regions, MPPs...etc.
A genuine question will then be: why the hell do countries need diplomacy? Why is USA having a huge Department of State (in eRepublik terms), with an embassy for each country in eRepublik? It looks outrageous. Well, not exactly.
Reality of eRepublik actually is more complicated than simple military decisions. I would like to explain a bit the relation between diplomacy and military. Is diplomacy subordinated to military? Is military subordinated to diplomacy? Are the two same thing or are they totally independent?
The first answer which will come to mind is that diplomacy is subordinated to military and the two of them are more or less the same thing since diplomacy cannot produce results which contradict the military logical decisions. However I don’t totally agree with this and let me explain why.
First of all, MPPs don’t grow only out of nothing. Alliance needs to be proposed, and it needs to be accepted. The system works now in such way that these two processes look quite simple and natural, especially if the military goal is common. However it is interesting what’s happening when:
a. There is no apparent military goal to justify an MPP which becomes accepted. One random example: http://www.erepublik.com/en/Austria/law/22221
b. There could be a military reason for an MPP to be accepted, but it does not get accepted.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/Spain/law/22707
c. There is a diplomatic reason only (not a military one) for an MPP to be accepted, but it doesn’t. http://www.erepublik.com/en/Russia/law/24593 (Russia boosted for such a long time its Slavic connection to Ukraine, the Russian diplomacy has been trying so hard to induce such relation for ages...then...well the MPP proposal fails in the Congress. This is a failure of diplomacy).
Therefore diplomacy (not only the military) has some role in designing and accepting (or rejecting of MPPs). It is not as important as the military reasons (by far), however it can be considered a variable. And when you have a big alliance to look after and carefully designed campaigns, you need to account for the variables.
Second point and more important is: what is happening inside an alliance (secured with MPPs)? Is the military only dictating the decisions of an alliance? Are the decisions of an alliance based entirely on the military reasoning or there is also some diplomatic influence?
Each country has its own military interests inside an alliance. Each country has something to attack or defend at a certain point. Each country thinks their mission is more important. It is down to compromises from each side to make sure that the alliance works and survives.
This is when the work of diplomats is more important than ever. With eRepublik countries like big engines fired up to win at all costs, the military is the fuel which makes the engine work and the wheel which ensure the right direction, but it is diplomacy which oils the engine and keeps it running for ever and ever. The engine cannot start without being oiled (the charter of each alliance is negociated by diplomats) and without continuous effort of diplomacy the bigger engine of an alliance dries up and stops at some point.
This was apparent for all the major alliances sofar and I am quite surprised that no one properly acknowledged it. Everyone keeps blaming the military reasons for breaking up of alliances, while the failures of diplomacy should be blamed. With proper diplomacy, the alliances would have lasted longer.
I said recent events in Romania are a good example for this article. What happened in Romania in the last few days showed how important diplomacy should be and how diplomacy can be easily overlooked.
If there were reasons for Romania to complain to its allies, this should have been done by diplomats. The solution found by Romanian government is not one of the diplomats, it is one of the military. In itself the decision might be right, but when you look at Romania as part of an alliance it doesn’t exactly look the same way. Diplomacy needs to keep all allies happy, and obviously Romania recent decisions did not quite work this way.
It is not only Romania who overlooked diplomacy. The same applies to EDEN. With frustration building up in Romania, this should have been discussed with EDEN diplomats and they should have found a compromise to keep everyone happy. My involvement with the diplomats makes me say that there were signals of frustration long time ago but they were either ignored or dismissed. EDEN acted in a military way by choosing to ignore or dismiss some concerns of one of the allies, while they should have adopted a more diplomatic approach.
EDEN and Romania are guilty as charged for the same reason. Diplomacy thinking failed. Military thinking prevailed. Perhaps it is time to try and go back to diplomacy, if we are to keep the alliance alive and winning.
HAIL SPAIN
HAIL ROMANIA
HAIL EDEN
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
no coolpic's?
@Stephan: (new rule) we only put coolpics in articles for countries which help us in our fights 😁)
@8-3=1 That means no mor coolpic's articles in the near future? 🙁
We are doomed!
Error 503 Service Unavailable Service Unavailable Guru Meditation: XI😨8445016 Varnish
Oh great, moar crying. When something bad happens in any other EDEN country, we just fight to solve it asap. When something bad happens in Romania, Romanians cry, go on rage, cry, try to make their friend nations feel guilty, cry, forget everything else that has been done for them, cry, and so on, and cry, and then maybe try to solve the problem, and cry.
Anyway I like the way the article is written, so voted (Even without coolpics) 😛
Do an exercise...insert Serbia and Phoenix in this article where Romania and EDEN are and see how it comes across to you. Think of how Russia would feel if Hungary wrote this article. I think you are living in some kind of bubble and not seeing how this is being viewed by the rest of the world.
[removed]
@8-3=1 parca in tara ziceai ca reactiile populatiei sunt favorabile ... si aici si in USA reactiile sunt negative la adresa eRomaniei .. daca esti diplomat asta trebuie sa comunici, nu minciuni
ai acceptul presedintelui pentru ce faci ?
M Sorin
@CARADA: fa-i o informare presedintelui. Poate ma concediaza.
Toate cele bune.
Omul are dreptate, 8-3=1. fara suparare, dar ultimul lucru de care toata lumea are nevoie acum e ambiguitatea. Ma deranjeaza ca dupa trei zile nu exista nici o reactie oficiala pertinenta, doar comentarii mai mult sau mai putin in tema ale unor simpli cetateni. Credeam ca asta este o problema importanta pentru EDEN si pentru Romania. Din punct de vedere oficial, singurul care a declarat-o importanta, insa, ramane andyr.
Fara suparare, am si eu un pic habar despre ce inseamna diplomatie. Una dintre cele mai importante sarcini ale unui ambasador este si influentarea opiniei publice din tara in care activeaza in favoarea tarii sale. Am vazut ce ai scris pe forumul USA si am apreciat efortul, dar era cazul sa ii informezi si pe econcetatenii tai despre atitudinea aliatilor. Pentru ca acolo si-au dat cu parerea inclusiv oficialitati, chiar daca neoficial, sa spunem asa.
@AdrianHashu: nu e cu suparare stai linistit dar trebuie clarificate niste lucruri:
1. andyr a urmarit discutia de pe forumul din SUA. Si nu numai el, si alte persoane din stafful diplomatiei romanesti. Deci in afara de notificarile pe care le mai dau eu din cand in cand (stai linistit ca le dau nu sunt mut) fiecare din acesti oficiali si-a putut face si o opinie personala.
2. "era cazul sa informezi pe econcetatenii tai despre atitudinea aliatilor". Aici tin sa te contrazic putin, uite indatoririle corpului diplomatic al Romaniei:
"indatorile membrilor Corpului Diplomatic al eRomaniei:
- sa promoveze o imagine pozitiva a Romaniei in tara in care se afla
- sa prezinte guvernul Romaniei presedintelui tarii si locuitorilor sai
- sa stabileasca contact cu guvernul tarii in care isi serveste mandatul , presedintii partidelor de top si membri care par a fi lideri de opinie acolo
- sa gaseasca canalul oficial de IRC si sa ia parte la discutii cu eCetatenii acelei tari
- sa identifice forumul tarii respective, sa aiba un cont acolo si sa se implice in comunitatea tarii respective intr-un mod temperat si respectuos
- sa adune orice informatie utila despre tara in care se afla pe domenii : social, mass-media, economic si militar
- sa realizeze rapoarte saptamanale
- sa intermedieze contacte rapide intre oficialii romani si cei ai tarii in care activeaza: sa indice interlocutorul potrivit, sa aranjeze discutii online cu maxima rapiditate"
Deci nu scrie nicaieri ca eu trebuie sa scriu articole despre ce se intampla in SUA prin care sa informez "poporul". Asta tine de ambasadorul american in Romania si (pe baza informatiilor de la mine si din alte canale) de oficialii romani.
@8-3=1: Esti ambasadorul eRomaniei in eSUA din cate inteleg. Presupun ca nu poti sa ne informezi despre un raspuns oficial din partea Eden hq, dar poti sa ne dai o pozitie oficiala a eSUA fata de articolul presedintelui andyr. Care e?
@fuzzy wuzzy: deocamdata nu exista inca o pozitie oficiala publica din partea SUA. Toate comunicarile care nu sunt publice sunt transmise prin MAE in Romania, nu pot sa scriu articole pe tema asta.
sua e in campanie electorala din ce am vazut fugitiv prin presa lor...