As you might have noted, the ways of Pacifica and Hungary are currently parting with narratives swinging back and forth about the reasons of the events. In this article I will go through at least my own perspective of what went wrong in long-term and what was done for it.
For the most observers it was rather clear that the Pacifica alliance was divided into two blocs during 2017: to the majority with some sort of Pro-Asteria orientation and to the minority with some sort of Anti-Asteria orientation. The orientation of some members was so slight that it was, in essence, neutral between the two poles. But what caused things to go south with especially Hungary?
The main argument of the article consists of two parts. First, I aim to showcase how especially Hungary - along with some other members who later changed course - engaged in what I call dual approach in their policy towards the alliance and its direction. Specifically I will argue that Hungary wished to enjoy the security of the alliance which the earlier convergence towards Asteria had safeguarded especially with Polish support, while simultaneously undermining the foundations of the security with her policies. Second, it is important to note how Hungary was - by its own earlier decisions and the clever play by Asteria - forced to a sort of limbo, as they in fact couldn't diverge from the dual approach described above.
The first part consists of three premises leading to a logical conclusion. I'll examine all of them separately.
Premise I, Asteria's support is the cornerstone of Pacifica's security
This is a subject I have touched in my earlier articles to a degree. As you all are probably aware, Pacifica was engaged in a war with ProAsteria at the start of 2017 when I stepped in on the boots of Secretary General of Pacifica. We were neatly and swiftly driven away from our footholds in the British isles by ProAsterian forces and decided to de-escalate the conflict before burning our fingers and getting wiped. Unlike some other blocs both before and after the conflict in question
After the decision was made to de-escalate the conflict with ProAsteria and move towards them to prevent similar things in future, especially the relations Poland had towards Asteria proved helpful in the development. Indeed, it is doubtful that Pacifica could have realised its fresh objective without them. Moving towards Asteria and signing MPPs with them significantly helped Pacifica to safeguard her regions and retaining their cores intact, including those of Hungary. There probably isn't many who argue that the decision wasn't a rational one when it comes to alliance security and military considerations.
Premise II, the AntiAsteria wing of Pacifica eroded the affiliation with Asteria
AntiAsteria, of course, wishes to fight against ProAsteria. This was evident along the whole year of 2017, as the AntiAsteria bloc supported Turkey, Albania, Argentina and anyone who fought ProAsteria (outside of Pacifica) in general. Regardless of the aims, whether it was "keeping the balance" or just general RL-bound animosity, it weakened the basis of the alliance security by attacking its foundations. The pinnacle of this development for the last year was Hungary's airstrike on Arabian Peninsula to help Greece against Macedonia (FYROM) and Spain. As you are all probably familiar, it ended in Hungary getting attacked on three fronts. But more of that later.
Premise III, the AntiAsteria wing of Pacifica stayed in the alliance, enjoying its security
This does not require much of an elaboration. As we have established that the security of the alliance was largely dependent on relations with Asteria and therefore largely dependent on Poland, by staying with the alliance one intrinsically enjoys of the benefits that concerned the whole alliance. The security made sure that Pacifica (and therefore Hungary) would not as easily get attacked by ProAsteria nations.
Logical conclusion, the AntiAsteria wing of Pacifica enjoyed the security brought by the Asteria affiliation but continuously undermined it by eroding the said affiliation
From the three premises above, it logically follows that especially Hungary enjoyed the benefits of Polish diplomacy while acting in contrary direction. Again, regardless of the aims of remaining in the alliance, be it genuine intention to reconcile the irreconcilable or an opportunistic scheme to stay afloat, the effective reality derived from the premises was that Hungary stayed in an alliance, enjoying the collective security of Pacifica while undermining the said security with its diplomacy, military and politics.
Needless to say, such a dual approach strained the relations within the alliance. Poland especially, or that's what I observed, was irritated of acting as a shield to the Hungarian provocations and actions. I genuinely do not know whether the Hungarian decision to airstrike the Arabian Peninsula few weeks back was an innocent miscalculation, as they have argued, or a conscious and deliberated decision to test the limits of their shield. Nevertheless, such action acted as the last straw that broke the camel's back – and had certain consequences. Namely, no one from Pacifica deemed it feasible to defend Hungary against the ProAsterian retaliation in form of NE or AS. Most stayed away from the battlefields too.
Of course, this soured the already strained relations within the alliance. Hungary was extremely upset that no member came to their help in numbers. And I almost agree: the diplomatic gridlock should have solved months back before ProAsteria realised or decided that they could test the limits of the security the Polish diplomacy by retaliating against Hungary. But at least the easiest way of solving the gridlock was effectively blocked by the masterful play by Asteria, which brings me to the second part of the article.
Back in the early autumn of 2017, Hungary was open to at least discuss about the gradual shift in their foreign affairs. The moderate government in Hungary could have signed MPPs with ProAsteria to better accommodate to the expectations of Pacifica and the prevailing doctrine. Yet, I was informed that Asteria blocked such advances, effectively closing the door for any easy rehabilitation of Hungary to the ProAsteria group it had left few years back.
Effectively such approach by Asteria forced Hungary to continue on its divergent AntiAsterian path, perhaps as a feature of the classic path dependence theory often used in economics and political theory. Yet it was more or less to be expected that Asteria would not allow such an easily exploitable wedge in Pacifica to be bridged.
Sure, things could have been different with a longer transition process, in my mind. If Hungary had dropped its AntiAsteria MPPs and fought for ProAsteria for a time, things would most probably have been different. After all, that's pretty much how most of the diplomati transitions in this game happen. In fact, Hungary would have been in perfect position for such a move, as the collective security of Pacifica would have more or less guaranteed that Hungary remained intact during the transition.
Yet the political reality would not allow such a transition for two reasons. First, it was only roughly two years back when Hungary left the Asteria alliance in the first place. Generally successive "flips" from one "side" to another are looked down to, and reversing its rather fresh decision to depart from Asteria would have made Hungary to look rather bad internationally, at least for the AntiAsteria side.
Second, albeit partially interconnected to the first, the internal politics in Hungary are extremely volatile and AntiRomania (and, in extension, AntiAsteria). Many times during the last year I have had to wonder in anticipation that who will lead the Hungarian government next month and with what policies. As far as I have understood, there are two rather evenly matched blocs within the nation. One is moderate, one is a hardliner when it comes to Romania and Asteria. Such volatility also makes it harder for an alliance to do long-term plans, many times the novel government in Hungary criticised the decisions the former Hungarian government had agreed to. In overall, such atmosphere in Hungary does not favour longer commitment to move into a certain direction – especially towards Romania and Asteria.
At the time of writing, Hungary has more or less decided to leave the alliance, few weeks after the security offered by Pacifica and Polish diplomacy had ceased to exist in face of continuous undermining of it by Hungary and the ProAsterian attacks.
In this article I have mapped my understanding for what went wrong between Hungary and the rest of the Pacifica. The recent fallout of relations is, in my opinion, a combination of political necessities and (un?)conscious abuse of the security of the alliance while simultaneously undermining it. This is my argument and conception on how things went. Looking forward to hear other backed up narratives.