Join the new world

John Bokinski is an specialist on international issues. This conversation is about differents topics related to geopolitics and is focused on TWO, CoT and Latin America.

The article has been divided into four chapters:

i. A global view
ii. About TWO
iii. About CoT
iv. About Latin America

Thanks John for the interview.

CLICK ACÁ PARA VERSIÓN EN ESPAÑOL

---

For editorial policy, do not buy votes
If you like this article you can support by subscribing, voting and / or spreading[/b]

SHOUT:
ER Today - Interview to John Bokinski [ENG]
http://goo.gl/1wzljS

---

-A global view-

- ¿Why do you play ER?. ¿What is your RL nationality?

Well I started playing ER after a nephew showed the game to me in 2008. Since I have very few time for this type of games, eRep appeared interesting and just required a few minutes from me, so I kept on playing the game. Sometimes I have more time to look at what is going on, sometimes I am two clicking.

I am a RL Portuguese, and that is the citizenship that I choose to have when that feature appeared in the game. Irrespective the bonus the country hold I have kept myself a citizen of Portugal.

Game is dominated by four o five europeans countries, however, there are some emerging countries which haven’t been capable to break that dependency (Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia). Do you think the game is evolving to move the “core of power” to America, Asia or Oceania?

Well, when I started Indonesia was the greatest empire in eRep. They lost a lot of influence since then, although they are still an important player in Asia.

I believe the big news comes from Central and South America. No so much Brazil, which lost a bit of their strength in the last couple of years, but both Argentina and Chile are powerful new communities, which are important for the game. But there are more things happening here. Colombia and Mexico become medium size players, even Peru and Venezuela grew a bit.

When you look at the game you have two measures to look at: (i) number of members of the community and (ii) military strength.

When you look at number of member Serbia is clearly dominant, and Poland still clearly second but when you look at the other big three from the Balkans (Romania, Hungary and Greece) they are not very far from Argentina and Chile.

When you look military strength you have to look at the 4 divisions separately. Serbia is still the dominant force here but if you exclude them and look at D2 and D3, Chile and Argentina are very strong. Both top5 in D2 and Chile is nº2 in D3. D1 is more volatile, but again a lot of South American countries have an interesting dimension in this division.

The funny thing is that Argentina, and especially Chile have developed their divisions in a way they progress slower through the ranks, in order to build greater force. This strategy is becoming common in other countries (including my country). This is quite different from the way Serbia and Poland develop their communities, betting on a lot of fighting by their players, maybe as a way of foster retention.

But if you exclude D4, nowadays Argentina and Chile are very big players in D1, D2 and D3, more than night damage, South America has been able to grow their communities in the last 2 years and that makes them very relevant. On the other side of the spectrum are several other countries that still have very powerful D4 (like Croatia) but are weak below that.

In summary, South America has become an important part of the game, both in respect of dimension of their communities and military power in lower divisions, but up to now, their damage cancel itself out, so in the end they have very low influence in what is happening in the USA, Europe or Asia.

-Does exist any real opportunity to break the currently three country-blocks?¿Is it possible a multipolar e-world with four or five alliances with similar damage capacities?

Well, as a start, I do not see three blocks, but two. The third block which was EDEN has disintegrated and you see EDEN countries aligning themselves with TwO or CoT depending on the benefits that can bring them.

During most of the time you saw EDEN countries trying to avoid entering into conflict with each other, but since Croatia supported enthusiastically the Chilean AS in Romania I believe that now you will start to see ex-EDEN countries that aligned themselves with TwO and CoT being more relevant in battles directly involving other ex-EDEN countries. For pro-TwO ex-EDEN to be a block they needed to act together, and that is not really happening for now (it happens between CUA and Romania to some extent).

But although I do not see a third block, TwO uses ex-EDEN pro-TwO countries as counterweight to CoT. So currently CoT is the official enemy and pro-TwO can be used to absorb damage.

In the future that can change if the balance of power change. While the strategy of both CoT and pro-TwO ex-EDEN countries is to get close to countries of TwO, being that Serbia or Spain, TwO keeps control and will direct their damage to the side they believe is the greater threat. To change that, both block of countries had to have an independent strategy from TwO and for example, stop fighting in South America to help their USA allies or Canada, or Russia.

While pro-TwO and CoT continue on fighting between each other, TwO has things completely under control. And what stops this two blocks from stop fighting is the fact that if they take a decision that does not fancy the most powerful countries of TwO (closer to them), they will stop supporting them and they will be wiped.

For that reason, I do not see any chance of 4 or 5 allies fighting each other. The world will continue has it is, or become bipolar.

- From a strategic point of view, who won and who lose with creation of Imperium?¿Why Hungary participated initially on that project?

Well, basically Imperium was an alliance anti-Serbia. There were significant changes in the geo-political map of the world if that was achieved but sometimes people forget that, while leaders can change their minds very fast, communities don’t. Selling Imperium to the Polish and specially to the Hungarian communities would not be an easy task.

If the alliance had gone ahead, the biggest winners, in my opinion, would be the USA and Croatia, and the main looser: Serbia and probably Poland, since the fight would move from the USA to central Europe.

The dimension of the loss would depend of how countries like MKD would react and again China positioning would also be quite important. But clearly the winners would not be Poland and Hungary, in the long term, even if the first looser would be Serbia.

I think you can look at this as a USA/Brazil in relation to EDEN. EDEN fell first, but it was obvious that when EDEN ended, the USA would be the next target. In case of Imperium the things would be, in my opinion, more direct and the war would sparkle across center Europe making all these countries loose bonus and more important, breaking the bonds that unite them.

I do not know what goes through the mind of the Hangars, their language is really difficult and I do not read their press. I guess the Hungary leaders were frustrated with the way the Serbian CP was dealing with several subjects and just participated in the negotiations to show Serbia that things could go wrong for them if they try to implement their choices without further consultation. At the same time the Serbian CP decided to do his own thing and ended up impeached so everything return to the initial stage.

I believe that the bond that exists between Hungary and Serbia is very strong, forged when Hungary helped Serbia to become a super power in PEACE times, and even if leaders decide in one direction, that does not mean that the communities will follow.

The link between Poland and Serb/Hun is weaker, in my perspective, but still strong enough for Poland to choose Serbia/Hun over the USA even when they were in the same alliance. There are conditions to create a new alliance at the West, with certain group of Spanish leaders in power they maybe able to get congress to approve this new alliance, but getting Poland will be difficult (and if Poland does not approve, Spain will opt out).

---

-About TWO-

- Does TWO act as an alliance or just act according to the best interest of its leaders as Serbia or Poland in example?, Does CoT act as an alliance or just act according to the best interest of its leaders as Bulgary or Chile, in example?

The large alliances are always influenced by the objectives of their largest members but its unfair to thing that those are the only concerns of those alliances.

TwO is an imperialistic alliance, their objective is to grow their borders, and that has to be made through the power of their stronger members. It is difficult for UK to establish a beach head in Mexico for a long time, it requires that a lot of damage is shifted their way by the alliance, but it is easier for Hungary or Spain to do that.

The attack at the USA obviously was more of a requirement of Serbia and TwO HQ than other members like Spain, but fits well in TwO overall strategy. It was planned with smaller members participating but the execution depended mainly on the countries with large damage to bring to the table. So stronger members have their land expansions and smaller members have protection and other benefits.

CoT was built has a defensive alliance but dependent on the protection of TwO (the imperialistic alliance), which is strange to start with. During many months this protection worked, while EDEN existed. While EDEN was collapsing CoT struggled to recruit important countries (other than the USA) to their alliance, since their main countries were so involved in war with the countries they could recruit. At that point, in my opinion, CoT HQ let the rivalries that their major countries, like Bulgaria and Chile, had with some of the potential recruits, blind them and did not acted like a defensive alliance. They preferred to use the upper hand to add regions to some of their major countries believing that the protection of TwO would continue when they become the only other block in the game. That was… naive.

Nowadays, it is very difficult for CoT to stretch their damage in order to face TwO (& pro-TwO), so you cannot say that CoT just thinks in their major countries. The fact is there is not enough damage for all and countries end up fighting more for themselves. The same happened to EDEN when they lost USA and Brazil and stopped being able to fight against COT/TWO.

- Does exist any way to counteract the power of TWO?

TwO/ACT has currently approx 35-40% of total damage. So, the other countries all together, can fight TwO, that’s what has happen when ONE was created. However, this time the things are not progressing as in the past for two key reasons:

- The remaining countries have strong rivalries between themselves and prefer to continue their regional wars than look at the global picture;
- The remaining countries are afraid to promote a global alliance against TwO since they think, that anyone promoting that will become a target for TwO.

In my opinion, if these countries want to be independent from TwO, the only way to go would be to reduce or even stop their inner fighting and focus only on the battles against TwO, in the USA, Russia or Canada.

This way the basis of a new global alliance can be built, or TwO will feel the need to add new players to the alliance and create further disruption that may break the alliance and create a new world order. Personally separating Spoland and Serb/Hun would be good for the game, and a starting point of generating something which is balanced. But I respect that there are strong bonds between Poland and Serb/Hun and they do not want to go on separate ways.

But for a real threat for TwO to appear, the alliance has to think as a defensive alliance. You cannot expect to be in a defensive alliance and still keep the regions for 10/10 bonus and keep areas that you are free to attack.

In a defensive alliance, the enemy is the other alliance and you have to make concessions from your country objectives in order to have full support from all members. If you try to create a imperialistic alliance to face TwO you lose, because the stronger countries able to play that game are almost all in TwO already and you will not get the support from the smaller countries.

- TWO concentrate the damage in ER, the alliance has defeat CoT in almost all the war fronts (Russia, USA, Mexico, Australia), From a global point of view, despite all that power concentration, why TWO fought against Spain-CoT MPP’S?

I see that as something normal coming from the TwO HQ. If TwO has designated CoT has the enemy, makes no sense that members have mpp with enemy countries. CoT used to have the same rules.

- Initially, Poland didn’t attack USA with Serbia, then attacked with its allies and then, negotiated leave TWO with Imperium. What do you think about present relationship between Poland and Serbia in TWO?.

Poland is the second major power in the world, they have a good relationship with Serbia, but want to have their own agenda.

After Imperium failed, Poland probably want to have their options open, but making that agreement without having discussed it with TwO HQ it was not a good idea. The relationship between Poland and Serbia is not at its best, but still is important. There was a lot of Polish citizens that applauded the agreement with the USA but also a lot that criticized it.

---

-About CoT-

- Why CoT grew up until become into one of the two main alliances in ER?

When you have a dominant imperialistic alliance controlling the eWorld, it is normal that a defensive alliance emerges representing the opposition to such an alliance.

Is CoT that alliance? Can CoT grow their ranks in order to really challenge TwO ? My personal opinion is – not likely.

CoT has a lot of baggage, a lot of countries that believe that CoT is the enemy rather than TwO, and I do not blame them for it. I think that CoT could be a platform to create an alliance to oppose TwO, but there is a level of re-invention required that I am not sure CoT countries are willing to accept. Bridges that have to be built…

TwO its just now assuring a strong footprint in Asia. ROC and Australia were recruited and China is probably TwO’s number one recruiting target. That will put Croatia under pressure, which probably is the next objective for TwO HQ, now that the American adventure is stalling.
If CoT pursues to be the alliance opposing TwO they still have a chance to grow, if they try to re-establish links with TwO, sooner or later, some countries will take the lead on that as you saw with Imperium.

- Why USA-CRO+ ALB+ITA+Others attacked Serbia and CoT did not do the same?

I do not have clarity over what was agreed between CoT and USA+Croatia, but apparently some countries in CoT are still afraid to challenge TwO directly. They look at Romania, Turquia and CUA as their enemies, rather than TwO. So they are focused in attacking those countries rather than directly attacking Serbia or defending with all their force the USA and Russia, which are also CoT.

That’s the relevance of a global NAP in South America: Chile and Brazil being able to focus their damage in defending the USA and Mexico. But that is a step Chile is unwilling to take because (in my opinion) they do not want to challenge TwO. And the same goes for Argentina. They feel that continuing fighting Chile they are doing what TwO wants them to do, and while they continue doing that, the support from TwO will continue to benefit them. It’s a catch 22.

- In your opinion, does exist a war TWO-CoT? or exist two wars: 1. pro CoT vs. CoT and 2. TWO vs. USA+Mexico??

That’s not the way I see it. I see TwO establishing their objectives of dominance… USA, Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, Mexico. Two dominates almost 50% of the eWorlds damage, and choose were to go, to have fun and bonus. Despite seeing some of their allies being dominated by TwO the rest of the world is fighting each other since they know they cannot fight TwO.

For instance, if TwO decides not to support Argentina and Chile & Brazil are able to establish their dominance in South America, that will be done at the cost of USA loosing again a lot of ground, because if TwO’s damage is not in South America it will be somewhere else. An if Chile does not get concerned about that, you are just in the first stage of what happened to EDEN. You start by separating the members from each other, by forcing them to fight for themselves or some regional silos, and after that the alliance is dead, the bonds have weakened and if TwO finds a solution for one country in the alliance, he will take it.

- The charter of TWO was modified in order to avoid “crossed MPP”. ¿Would be a benefit for CoT allow crossed MPP”?

If CoT wants to find individual solutions for some of their members, like Chile the crossed MPP may give them some advantage. But this advantage is for the country, in my opinion, not for the alliance. If you want the alliance to grow, hiding from the fight will not work.

---

-About Latin America-

- You have commented that is not convenient for Serbia, Poland and Spain a NAP between Chile and Argentina. ¿Why?

I believe I explained above. A NAP in South America shifts damage that the non-TwO world is doing against each other, against TwO, and that is not good news for the alliance as a all. From a strategic perspective, if South America starts to stabilize, this is very bad news for Spain, which is extremely stretched in respect of regions and bonus for their capability to do damage.

Like I also commented, for me a NAP between Chile and Argentina means nothing, the only thing that could be a game changer, it would be a NAP in South America as an all. A NAP between Argentina and Chile, protect the regions of these two countries, but the damage will be done within the region, so nothing changes, and I do not believe the allies of Chile and Argentina will be impressed with such a NAP.

- In your opinion, is it possible an intervention of a power european country by an AS to avoid an eventual agreement Chile - Argentina?

No. It is not something that TwO fancys, but discussions will be held in the backstage not as an AS.

- What do you think about consequences of election of a CAT gov in Brazil? ¿NAP Brazil- CUA?¿NE to Spain?¿Official ending of ROLA?¿growing apart CAT-CUA and approaching CAT-ROLA?

One government does not change a country.

When Brazil decided to enter CTRL and move away from most of their former allies, it took many months of propaganda and manipulation from a group of political leaders to change the community views in respect to those allies and accept their major enemy (Spain) as a new ally. And even after that, a significant part of the community still sees Spain as the enemy. So, it will not be a month of a government which does not like Spain, which will change the community views.

The problem with Brazil, unlike Chile or Argentina, its that their community is not in agreement in anything. The change implemented by those politicians 15 months ago, broke the Brazilian community in two (or more) parts and it is almost impossible to have a foreign policy agenda if your community does not agree where they want to go. Getting South America together is clearly something which is not impossible to be discussed in Brazil, but Spain is quite a different, I do not believe any action against Spain will be accepted by the community.

One of the politicians that broke the Brazilian community is today MoFA or vMoFA of Spain, so you can better understand the link between part of the Brazilian community and Spain, by this.
I think that if the NAP does not go through, Brazil will come back to their initial stance, and support ROLA.

- Spain did not renew its MPP with Chile. Is it a benefit for ROLA-South American countries that Spain stay in TWO avoiding admission of Argentina and Colombia to the alliance?

In the short term yes. CUA has the support of part of TwO but not being an official member, it does not have full support and therefore this helps ROLA. In medium term is difficult to assess if this is good or bad for ROLA.

The entrance of Argentina in TwO would generate tensions between TwO members that could lead to the split of the alliance, and that could really change the world order. The fact that Spain is blocking countries that most of the other members wants to see in TwO also creates tensions. Honestly, I do not now

- Portugal is gonna leave its originals to keep peace in Japan in a similar way to Chile in Australia or Croatia in India?

No, Portugal will continue with 4 regions in Portugal, as agreed with Spain. The move for Japan is to create some action in the community since we cannot attack Spain seriously just now. I believe our objective is to reach an agreement with China, ROC and Japan creating the basis for Portugal to have a footstep in Asia, close to some ex-EDEN countries that we know well from past experience.

Our objective is not to wipe Japan, but to get some weapon bonus. Time will tell how this adventure progresses.

- For Argentina is it convenient be part of TWO?

Yes. Currently Argentina relies a lot on TwO damage (mainly Greece) in order to balance the ROLA vs CUA war. If there is no other plan to change the geo-politics, the option to enter TwO seems obvious. They would not lose any of their major supporters like Romania or Turkey, and they would receive stable support from TwO.

If the world starts to change dynamics in respect to CoT and Ex-EDEN than other options may make Argentina to question what is the best road to follow, but as it looks today, entering TwO is the safer option for Argentina. However, I do not believe this will happen while TwO keeps their current formation. Spain will prevent that.

- For Chile is it convenient leave CoT?

At this point in time I do not think that is the best option. Chile leaving CoT means killing the alliance and creating a distance to old and important friends like Bulgaria. Personally I believe an old friendship is something to cherish not to take lightly, even if Bulgaria is not looking their best just now.

Living CoT would allow Chile to get closer to some TwO countries like Spain and re-Establish the mpp with them, but I do not believe Chile could enter TwO since Greece or others would block it, as Spain is blocking Argentina.

So I do not see how an mpp with Spain could worth more than the current relationship with CoT countries, unless Chile leaving CoT its part of the creation of a new platform, without CoT’s baggage, that may be able to appeal to more countries than CoT today.

- Finally, What option that you prefer for Portugal in ER? in TWO?, another one?

Well, if I could choose Portugal would belong to a defensive alliance. There would be 2, 3 or 4 alliances but overall there would be balance between them and the victory would be more related to good strategy and adequate spread of damage, rather than brute force. And Portugal would fight side by side with their allies for the benefit of their alliance, as it has done in the past.

But the world it is not like that. Portugal fought during almost a year against Spain supported by TwO and CoT. The war itself allowed us to refresh our community (it’s easier to bring people to the game when you are fighting for something) but that depleted our financial resources, and the difference in damage was so large that in the end we were forced to an agreement with Spain, including conceding 3 regions to them.

This is not what we want, but is what we got. Our relationship with Spain is cold, although probably got better after the NAP ended. And just recently the community voted a pro-TwO position. But do I see Portugal as a TwO/ACT member ? no, that is not really in our heart. We are not Venezuela, our relationship with Spain is forced not something we choose. Time may change that feeling, but I do not believe it will change a lot.

We are helping the friends that we have and trying to create new content to motivate our younger citizens which does not enter into conflict with the understanding we have with Spain. Japan is part of that.

---

Last interviews (ENG - ESP)

The Undercover
http://www.erepublik.com/es/article/the-undercover-interview-with-free-area-eng-esp--2269274/1/20

The Graverobber
http://www.erepublik.com/es/article/habla-el-cp-b-uacute-lgaro-entrevista-a-the-graverobber-esp-eng--2252894/1/20

Valahian
http://www.erepublik.com/es/article/una-visi-oacute-n-rumana-entrevista-a-valahian-esp-eng--2250383/1/20