On intra-alliance relations: idealism and pragmatism

Day 3,480, 12:31 • Published in Finland Finland • by TheJuliusCaesar
[The content of this article is completely that of my own and does not represent the view of Pacifica in any way.]

Greetings, again,

After the last article I vowed not to write again during my tenure, but, alas, flesh is weak and I am perhaps too easily baited. Thank you Yosemite Sam01 for your efforts in this article, I guess you succeeded in provoking a reaction. Moreover, it looked like the thoughts behind the interview could use some elaboration to be sufficiently clear. In this article I aim to delineate and present a wider context for my thoughts laid out in the above-linked interview. The length of this grew longer than I anticipated, but at least FreeGigi has now something to read during his morning coffee.



Intriguing questions on our time are myriad; how an alliance works, how eager are nations within it to cooperate or defend each other in certain circumstances, and so forth. We can divide the approaches to intra-alliance relations roughly in two: to idealism and pragmatism.

Idealism is of these perhaps the more common sentiment towards members of your alliance. Often nations express unconditional support towards other member nations of their bloc; they promise to support the other fully in every imaginable circumstance "forever". Of course we all know in our minds that no alliance structure or setting is eternal, but the unconstrained commitment nevertheless muddies the waters of one of the most important factors in foreign politics: actions and their appropriate consequences (a topic I have touched earlier in the previous articles of mine).


I find the idealist approach rather limited and ultimately hurtful to the internal chemistry of an alliance for few reasons outlined in the next section. The support offered by a nation to another is always dependant on circumstances, to some extent, and at the very least is one of the many shades of grey rather than just black & white. If an unconstrained pledge of support is offered or asked and subsequently broken due to various circumstances, it definitely hampers the development of a positive atmosphere within an alliance.

Therefore, sometimes a more balanced approach is employed. An approach I dub pragmatism understands and appreciates the nuances of different contexts and explicitly communicates them to the other member nation or ally or counterpart in general. It is not "building e-friendships based on conditions", as one citizen put it, but more of an honest expression of actions and especially appropriate consequences for them.



Operating with either approach has, of course, consequences which can again be divided in two categories: on the one hand to those of public level between government officials, and on the other hand to those attitudes and sometimes subconscious diplomatic approaches of nations.

On public communication, as in explicitly expressed between different allied nations, employing an idealist approach can without further communication cause discrepancy of expectations regarding support in each different contexts and circumstances. For instance, I as a president of Uganda would be more than eager to know what consequences might befall for my nation when attacking Zimbabwe, which is a MPP partner of my ally Somalia. If I have been told I have an unconditional support of Somalia no matter what, I might disregard any possible second-thoughts about the attack and then be disappointed or angry if Somalia won't help with their full strength. This, however, should be just common sense to ask how Somalia would feel about a certain operation. But it is to some extent in vain if Somalia themselves just expresses that they will support Uganda, in spirit of idealism.

However, when nations employ the pragmatist approach, a much wider consensus and level of perception is obtained. If priorities are openly discussed and each nation in conversation is glaringly aware of the consequences for their possible actions, it naturally follows that each member is more prepared to act in unison and mutual understanding. There are no miscommunications or misguiding blanket supports, and everyone should be content and well aware of the situation.


The second and for our analysis the more important level is baked deeper into the diplomatic approaches of different nations: one always has some sort of expectations and limitations ready in mind regarding other nations, even under idealist approach. You cannot run away from your mind. Ugandan leaders might, at least subconsciously, know that the support Somalia sends for Ugandan attack on Zimbabwe is probably less than they would give had Zimbabwe attacked Uganda instead. We all know and understand that the individual, governmental and national priorities and resources affect the amount of times we push the red button in a battlefield. Yet, under an idealist approach, for some curious reason Uganda at least pretends that the support should be equal in different contexts and circumstances. Needless to say, it is misleading and ultimately hurtful for both counterparts because of the discrepancy in expectations.

Under pragmatist approach, then, these underlying assumptions and expectations are brought up in the communication between member states, as well as both counterparts consciously understand or try to understand why the support from different nations vary. It is an undeniable fact that different factors like morale, foreign political context and MPP structures affect the enthusiasm, diplomacy, raw damage, coordination and ultimately the battle result between nations. There is no need to pretend the difference is not present, no matter how much allied and friend you are with the another member nation.



I prefer to express my thoughts realistically but without unnecessary harm. Today in the well-written interview by B. Mester I observed that the support Hungary would receive in case of their own aggression towards Romania is probably smaller compared to a situation where Romania attacks Hungary. I added that ultimately it would depend on the member states, as it does. I generally dislike to comment on hypothetical situations publicly precisely for the reason of them spiralling out of control and context, finally resulting in a need of a clarification from my side.

Following the pragmatist approach, it is needed to observe facts as they are. We all know that Hungary attacking Romania would result in comparatively smaller support from the other alliance members than in a case where Romania attacks Hungary. Both being hypothetical and non-existent situations at the moment. This has to do with the context and circumstances of these cases: Hungary attacking Romania (action) would result in appropriate consequences, which in turn are determined by the MPP structure, overall alliance political situation and the foreign policy of an alliance, individual priorities derived from this underlying context and so on.


Complex 4D chess

This very same logic and method applies to each and every alliance system in eRepublik and is no specific to Hungary or Romania or Pacifica or Asteria or any else entity. The amount of support can be sometimes hard to gauge, but it definitely is not equal in each and every context. Pretending otherwise would be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. That needs to be expressed and made clear for everyone in order for an alliance to efficiently communicate and cooperate.

Needless to say, no citizen or nation or alliance employs fully either of the elaborated frameworks, usually the approach with which the entity operates is a synthesis of the two explored narratives. Still, the breakdown is a useful analytical tool to explore one's own approach and affect it to a way or another.

Hope this rather long article cleared out my thoughts for those interested.

Until the next time,
-Caesar