Peace with Sweden?
•
by Seth Ford
Good day, my fellow citizens of the eUSA! As you may or may not know, President Scrabman has proposed peace with Sweden. He is acting in accordance to assurances given by the Swedish government that they are wrapping up their war against Germany. There has also been significant debate in Congress as to whether we should propose and accept peace with Sweden. The president is not caving into to Sweden; he is merely giving your elected representatives the chance to weigh in on this issue. That said; if you want to affect the outcome of this matter please do not flood the president’s inbox with PMs on this matter. After all, he can only propose peace. We senators have the power to accept or reject it. If you have feelings on this proposal, please PM your senator. We want to know what you think, but become an informed voter first.
Relevant background information can be found in the following public threads in the House of Representin’ board in eUSA forums:
eusforum.com/index.php/topic,5196.0.html (Covers the debate on the recent proposal)
eusforum.com/index.php/topic,4248.150.html (Provides the background information regarding the start of the Swedish-German conflict and some the debate surrounding Congress’ refusal to renew the German MPP)
Now that the disclaimers are out of the way, I shall precede to the main purpose of this article. Citizens of eNew Mexico and the eUSA, I am torn over whether to approve peace with Sweden or reject it. Coverage of the Swedish-German conflict and its consequences has practically monopolized the attention of our national newspapers. This is obviously an issue about which the citizens of this enation feel passionate. Given this fact, I want to solicit your opinions on this matter to help me determine the proper course of action. Please comment on this article so that this senator can learn from the wisdom of the people.
Here are the pros and cons of the proposal as I currently see them:
Pros: If the Swedes can be trusted at their word, then peace ends this entire sordid business for now. At this point, it is apparent that continued military conflict will not preserve the territorial integrity of Germany. Peace will allow us to pursue political solutions to the conflict. Many government officials believe that a PTO of the German presidency is eminent, and peace will help us coordinate efforts to prevent such an attempt.
Cons: Peace proposed by us can be viewed as a reward for Swedish aggression against Germany. Also, for you citizens out there that just love the RAWR, peace closes off an avenue to rank and level up without having to pay for a ticket. Then again, we do have regularly scheduled war games. Sweden could theoretically resume its war against Germany after we conclude peace with them.
I voted to let the MPP with Germany lapse in part because of the threat of a PTO of the German presidency and the fact that Sweden had already activated our MPP by attacking Germany. In my opinion, letting the MPP lapse still allowed concerned, private citizens to participate in a war of principle. At the same time, it prevented us from the possibility of being trapped by the MPP of a potentially PTOed German presidency and saved our government 30 gold at a time when we are rebuilding our finances from the battle in the Far Eastern Region. The MPP can always be renewed when we are more confident of the German government’s stability.
Without further ado, I welcome any comments you might have.
Sincerely,
Seth Ford
Edit: At press time, the vote currently stands at 11/11.
Senator for New Mexico
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
I'm overjoyed to see this kind of communication from a Congressman to his constituents.
New Mexico chose well!
no peace, appeasement don´t work
The cons say it all.
I would not vote for peace with Sweden until they A) end their aggression and 😎 return the lands they've taken from Germany to Germany.
I echo both previous sentiments. I am not of New Mexico, but those people have made a fine choice if this candor is an indication.
How much value in eUSA's opinion and your attempts at mediation mean to the swedes and poles?
http://www.erepublik.com/en/battles/show/6599" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/battles/show[..]6599
They're wrapping up the war by attempting to destroy the last bit of German infrastructure left in that ravaged country.
It is very refreshing to see a congressman write such an article.
At the moment there is no evidence that either Sweden or Poland are going to be true to their word. Once we declare peace, we lose some diplomatic leverage. If we declare peace now, we are merely kowtowing to Sweden. It would be nice to think that the eUSA had some diplomatic influence, but maybe we haven't. Maybe we are weaker than Sweden. I'd like to see Sweden and Poland agreeing to return at least some regions, and to make good the loss of infrastructure.
If you voted against the alliance with Germany because of the possibility of a presidential PTO, have you/will you take the same approach with other vulnerable countries? That might reduce the number of allies we have.
If you are concerned about spending 30 gold, are you interested to know who is paying for the eMarines to tank in Romania?
Thanks for asking.
Great stuff Seth, I'd personally go with the peace proposal. But it's up to you 🙂
Under pros you forgot to mention the economic benefit to those companies with Swedish export licenses. That was the tipping point for me, that and the fact that the cons are just about sending a message we don't want to send and not about actual limitations.
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. I have recorded my no vote on the peace proposal. Messages are important even if they have no value vis-a-vis the game mechanics. I will respond to David and Gertrude's comments tomorrow, but now it is off to bed.