To Ice Killa with love

Day 2,204, 09:54 Published in Italy Italy by Feliks Edmundovic

I keep on reading Ice Killa speaking about the NAP proposal between Italy, Slovenia and Serbia that we discussed at the beginning of this month.
He describes it as a generous proposal, which have been rejected with disdain by us.
But that's not the truth.


The NAP

On italian ground there are two possibilities for a NAP: one involves a sole bonus, and it's safer for Sloserbia (a border with Serbia only), the second one is about three bonuses, and it's better for us (and gets a border with them both).

Sloserbian proposal was about a three-months treaty: we would've got the first solution (better to them) at the beginning, and if we kept "behaving good" they would have given us the second option (three bonuses) in further months.

We advanced serious doubts: because 1. treaties for more than a month never worked between us; 2. Italian public opinion is bored and doesn't want a NAP to get isolated at the edge of Europe with only one bonus.
So, we told them we could discuss, but for a month-lasting NAP involving three bonuses.

So, we were still negotiating.


Our strike in Spain

Meanwhile we had our strike in Spain against Portugal, and that made Sloserbia cut off NAP negotiations.

I don't want to hide myself behind a finger: there is an historical sympathy between Italy and Spain, and there have never been hostilities since years, but our main goal was to make a push to separate Spoland from Sloserbia.

We pointed out that there is a front of countries who can stand alongside Spain against its current "allies", who were fighting for Portugal.

So no surprise in reading Sloserbians nervous: we jumped in a conflict they hoped to maintain under their control, keeping it inside TWO.

Because there is a conflict: no one can deny it.

Spain is an awkward ally for Serbia since Belgrade decided to take CUA proTWO, asking Spain to renounce to a good part of their external relationships (ROLA) from day to day.
And it's also evident that the shorter way for Serbian politicians to keep 10/10 and make their population satisfied is to mantain control on TWO: so 1. cut off the ally who makes the relationships with CUA rowdy and 2. make Poland weaker with the break of Spoland.

If it wasn't true, why rage because of a strike? If Slovenia fights for Albania when we're talking about a NAP, for instance, I would rather thank them, other than break negotiations.
If they fight for an ally of us we're nothing but happy.

And please, the story that you break it because we named you "enemies" in an article is too weak to be believed. We're enemies since years and all the world knows that.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be there to discuss for a NAP, would we?


Conclusions


In this game there are three types of countries: those which base their foreign policy on friendship, those which prefer to look at convenience and those which make a mix of these two stands.

Serbia is a country of the second type: they think the game has to go on, and no problem with who will be the next ally.
It's a choice and I personally don't despise them for it. It's not a choice I would make though, because I like to keep trust relationships with people at the other end of the world -- but everyone has the right to make it own choice.

Serbia did it: when they dropped off Chile for Argentina they probably knew they were also making Spoland more distant.

We all know it and we all are bored.
So let's change these alliances, and let's make this game funny again!


Hail new Alliance!


Feliks,
eItalian Cp