Possible PEACE Dissent?

Day 637, 18:38 • Published in USA USA • by Lieutenant Scheisskopf

The end to the war was going to be controversial no matter what; whether a NAP was signed or not, an event that dominated the game for over a month was going to create different perspectives on how it should end. But since eRussia famously rejected the NAP, we can look at PEACE's reactions and we may see some unprecedented rifts occurring within the multinational organization. We never saw this sort of disagreement amongst PEACE during the war (maybe not publicly), so to see it now is definitely interesting and worth monitoring.

Self-Interests in Conflict
Most apparent is eRussia's determination to seek its own self-interests. From their perspective, it is hard not to blame eRussia for wanting to continue their string of victories by conquering the remaining eUS regions and for seeking revenge for Scrabman's invasion from several months earlier. By choosing to continue the war with the eUS, eRussia has basically said that its will is more important than the interests of its allies. No alliance, even if it is as well organized as PEACE, can last like that; whether eRussia could continue if PEACE pulled the plug on its support is also unclear. In the short term, we may see eRussia become more aggressive and even attempt riskier battles (maybe against New Jersey or Florida) for fear that their allies may abandon them later or not be as supportive.

eRussia's pursuit of the war is an internal act of defiance to their alliance if the rest of the member nations still seek the implementation of the NAP. Not only does this act question the ability of the NAP to last, it may also lead to raised tensions with eHungary, eIndonesia, eIran, allies who fought for eRussia throughout the war, and to a lesser extent because they were more involved in their own fronts, ePortugal and eFrance. Conflict with any one of these states could arise down the road. As with RL history, when victorious allies have had trouble reaching mutually agreeable terms of peace, the stage is often set for a new war amongst them.

Even more interesting in this scenario has been the degree to which some PEACE member states (or isolated individuals) have gone to undo or negate eRussia's further advances. I have witnessed eIndonesian soldiers fighting for the eUS' defense against eRussia since the pact was signed; citizens of eTurkey, eHungary, and other PEACE nations have also taken part, probably to prevent eRussia's further rejection of their alliance's desired NAP with the eUS. While this shows that some PEACE members will try to prevent one member from straying from the flock, these actions also show that some PEACE members continue to see PEACE's best interests as their own best interests and will fight any adversary to protect them. Whether PEACE leaders are discussing this issue with eRussian leaders internally is a question I do not know the answer for, but one has to think that the rest of PEACE wants eRussia on board with this NAP if any end to the war is to be made in the immediate future.

The Little Guys
The PEACE GC consists of 25 states according to the wiki article, and regardless of that figure's accuracy, the number reflects that many more states are in the alliance than the 5 who made the NAP and received concessions from the eUS. eSerbia and eTurkey, for example, were both significant contributors to the various campaigns-- eSerbia, according to some counts, provided the fourth most damage amongst the PEACE member countries throughout the war. The eUK, although they were a weak link for PEACE, was also left out despite playing a large role early in the war. Yet these countries and others earned nothing in the major payday of the war. Individually, these states could not do enough to upset the giants, but collectively or in a widespread manner, their frustrations could undermine further PEACE policies and lead to the larger members losing support.

Looking Ahead
I am not at all suggesting that PEACE is collapsing or that the eUS can defeat them all if they have internal dissent. Quite the contrary-- any future eUS aggression would not only activate existing MPPs, but it would also reinvigorate the PEACE memories of eUS imperialism from previous administrations, a reason often suggested for explaining the current war as an act of retaliation and punishment. Others say that the war was just PEACE taking advantage of their greater size and organization. Whichever explanation you believe doesn't matter. What does matter is that the eUS must avoid any action which would unify PEACE.

Without a threat to mobilize and unify against, self-interests may begin to clash within PEACE, and loyalties to PEACE and cooperation amongst its members may fade. We could see these developments cause the world's alliances to shift in a way that would be beneficial for the eUS in the coming months as it begins to rebuild and recover. eUS policymakers should continue to watch these trends and attempt to place the country in the position to best benefit. Although our rebuilding must primarily come from within, external forces will continue to have a profound impact on the reconstruction process and how we view our progress.

God Bless America,

Lt. Scheisskopf