Join the new world

Note per gli italiani:
1. Il mio inglese notoriamente non è granché: ho fatto sicuramente degli errori. Se c'è qualche anima pia che ha la bontà di correggermeli via mp troverà un posto nel mio cuore sanguinario di spietato bolscevico.
2. La traduzione è libera, basta che citiate la fonte (o se a qualcuno piglia lo schizzo può inviarmela e poi la posto direttamente qui con la firma del prode).

Grassie e a presto

_________________________________________________________________________________


International relationships: a framework


Some days ago i read a shout in which was sai😛
"Asteria=damagehood
Aurora=brotherhood
Sirius=wannabe damagehood"

it's nice, and at first time i laughed. Later i thought about it, and i found there is something more than propaganda in that.

"Damagehood" is often an accuse in Erepublik: it means you are not a true friend to your allies and that your interest for them is only a reckoning.
That could sound weir😛 are we playing a strategy game or that's facebook?
But Erepublik is a social game, and trust among allies is one of factors that decide the wars output: that's the friendship of nations and the topic of this boring article.

Because countries are not all equal and also their need of "trust" is very different, for strategic reasons.
With this wall of text i want to propose for discussion a framework to read international relationships.


First of all, i see a difference between two great group of countries: those which their switch of side would take consequences only within their borders and those which can operate also outside of their natural borders.
For now i'll call them "fat countries" and "thin countries", as fat people seems to overflow from their clothes, and thin people doesn't.





That's a principle based on military power consideration, but which strongly involves the geographical and political position of the country.
I want to underline that this scheme doesn't affect the import/export damage process, which is internal to the evaluation of the political force of a country: for example, Serbia without doubts is often a damage importer, but its "potential" influence arrives to France's rubber, which is definitely abroad from its natural borders.
Same speech for countries like Croatia and Macedonia(FYROM), which are able to get regions by AS even if conquered in homeland.

On the other side countries like Italy, France, Germany, Uk, which doesn't have enough forces to defend their borders by themselves. Countries which are majority in the game and represents a power of fire often silent, but decisive.



Fat countries


If you're a fat country, you should have a very large possibility to develop your politics: cultural, historical, RL issues, people and ideas.
But all of these good willings will finally deal with some factual parameters: first of all your neighbours and your relationship with them.

There we start seeing the difference between "damagehood" and "brotherhood" approaches, which later is taken into alliances organization.
Some time ago i had a conversation with Pescaman, and among other things (if you didn't subscribe his newspaper do it, it's really worth it) i found very interesting what did he say about why Chile has a strong debate on foreign policy.
With a stronger and aggressive neighbour, he said, you have no other choice to develop your alliances to resist.

That's true also on the other side: if you are stronger than your neighbours and you want to have hands free to conquer them, the easier way o do so is to keep away from diplomatic tricks and make scope-deals. Damage for damage, help for help, and if the situation changes, no cries about friendship broken.

That's valid for foreign policies of Arg-Chi like for Cro-Serb ones, which are probably the mothers of all damage vs brotherhood accuses.
Between these ends there are a lot of intermediate positions, due to plurality of possibilities that every community have, but this scheme can explain a lot of foreign policies.
Larger the threat to your borders, more it's probable you're going to invest in some brotherhoods, and take care of borders of your friends.


That's true also for alliances with some specifications, because the foreign policy of an alliance is not simply the sum of all national policies: it's something which exist abreast to them and which have different times, as in short term (HQ elections doesn't overlap with Cp's ones), as in long one, because of long trial times and choices about how many members to acquire.

By there, if brotherhood is an approach, it cannot be applied to inter-alliances relationships, because their number is too low: it rather pertain to relationships among ally members, and especially about the relation between "fat" members and "thin" members.



Thin countries


It's very rare to read something about them. It's more often assumed that they should take fat countries' decision and make theirs on that base: this alliance or the other, fight or die, and anyway: carry on.

But these communities are populated by several thousands of people, they have a military influence and have often a great complexity within them.
For instance i come from a country, Italy, which now has something like a dozen of active parties, a big system of laws, institutions and different ideas, and i'm sure that for years nobody (excepted us) noticed it, and still now very few foreign people has an hazy idea about how these hundreds of people are organized.

That's the example i know better, but i know that also France, Portugal, Colombia, Mexico and so on, they all have an history and something like an e-culture.


On foreign relationships matters, thin countries can be divided by two: those which wants to join the international life, and those which doesn't, or still hasn't forces and knowledges to do so.
This distinction is more important for thin countries than for fat ones, because if you have damage and no diplomatical capability, you'll be anyway at the center of attention.
But if you haven't damage, your willing to commit international life is an effort, which you can afford at some conditions.

Basically this is a game of war: so you fight, and enjoy. But if you are part of a small group, and you feel your damage is useless, you doesn't get any fun.

That's the main reason of misunderstanding between bigger and smaller countries: a fat country needs to keep the reins of situation in its hands to preserve its borders. Their citizens wants it and they vote and support politicians who can ensure that.

But this is not valid also for thin countries: if you know to not be able to preserve your borders, in a virtual game they lose importance at your eyes.
What do you want is to feel respected and having an active role in the war.

Otherwise, month after month you will loose interest in fighting for someone else, feeling useless, and gradually will turn into fight only for your weak country, focus on other modules or simply quit the game.

That's the risk that a small country decides to carry when starts to get involved in international life, so when the main debates and political attention is given to the eWorld, and that's a cost.
If this cost will be repayed, it depends by how much fun that community will find with other ones.



It's a bet, that a small country does with one thought in min😛 that fun means growth, and babyboom.





Conclusions

I wrote too much and i'm tired. Anyway i have two things left to say: the first one is that i hope in a debate about that. If you agree, say it; if you disagree, say it louder; if you have something to add, please do.

Second one is that considered all what i wrote about thin countries, i'll never join any "pro-something" official alliance. It's an useless thing, which gives much less damage to the mother ally than the simple respect and involvement in the alliance and in the war.




Feliks


EDIT: un grazie a Lunatico9 per la revisione dell'inglese.