Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vikarion]

A slight criticism of this thread: it's been fairly apparent that the Caldari/Minmatar friendship efforts have been purely on the capsuleer level, so to someone (me) who has been reading the thread but not involved in any of it, it seems to contain a fair amount of "you're doing it wrong/how dare you try something different".

I thought that the Caldari-Matari efforts were interesting, in part because they were unexpected. In regards to the foreign relations angle, I'd simply note that nations do not act rationally.

[Publius Valerius]

A slight criticism of this thread: it's been fairly apparent that the Caldari/Minmatar friendship efforts have been purely on the capsuleer level, so to someone (me) who has been reading the thread but not involved in any of it, it seems to contain a fair amount of "you're doing it wrong/how dare you try something different".

I thought that the Caldari-Matari efforts were interesting, in part because they were unexpected. In regards to the foreign relations angle, I'd simply note that nations do not act rationally.

True that....Sure that is something new.... but new doesnt mean good. For example I can make a Corporation which says that Jita is part of the Khanid Kingdom or even its capital system.... I will ones... sooner or later fall down, as the ingame reality is that not the case (damn you reality...again. *Publius is to lazy to search for another topics wer he had dam the reality*). I think was the OP had try to say... and that stays as TRUE: "There isnt actually a foundation for this kind of behavior; aside form personal friendship etc...."

So it is less a "you doing it wrong", as more "look dude... Jita isnt the capital system of the Khanid Kingdom". A friendly reminder that somethings arent natural... as they look... as the OP had what I try think to explain.... So that it is more or less an unnatural alliance or behavour form some RP. And the OP could make a thread open, if I would say the Khanid Kindoms capital is Jita. With a comment that is unatural or even untrue: and HE WOULD BE RIGHT. Because in this case, there is a right or worng; or in many IGS discussion... but that is very off topic.

Or I explain it this way.... I had not long ago a moronic discussion with a guy... were I try to explain something... by NOT SAYING YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG... AND I EVEN HAD TRY TO SAY WERE HE HAD HIS ERRORS, and give him some benefits (isk) if he can find it by himself. BECAUSE I GENERALLY try to give a benefit of a doubt, that someone is just a moron and not a racist; and just dont understand what his comments mean in the end. BUT THIS WAS AN ERROR FROM ME... I should just comment in a IGS Style...

Which means: First: The borderline racist quote form that guy in the topic about slavery... with a line from me below it... which says:

You doing it wrong. Are you a moron or racist?

This line would summe up alot of work of my site. So there is always a possiblity for someone doing something wrong (as saying Jita is the captial of the KK), or saying that the republic and the stats are natural allies (as some really say on the IGS)... or that they will naturally come together (as someone wrote here).


As I said before, I agree with Mithra and Morwen.

[Morwen Lagann]

A slight criticism of this thread: it's been fairly apparent that the Caldari/Minmatar friendship efforts have been purely on the capsuleer level, so to someone (me) who has been reading the thread but not involved in any of it, it seems to contain a fair amount of "you're doing it wrong/how dare you try something different".

I thought that the Caldari-Matari efforts were interesting, in part because they were unexpected. In regards to the foreign relations angle, I'd simply note that nations do not act rationally.

In my case (and Morwen's to some extent, if/when she feels like commenting on this sort of endeavour), it's less a "you're doing it wrong" and more of a "while this is an interesting idea, you should be careful and make damn sure you aren't wasting your time and everyone else's, because the odds of this going anywhere in the long-term outside of the capsuleer community is nearly non-existent".

She's by no means an absolute pacifist but she does think that the Empires have far bigger fish to fry than each other and would rather see them focusing on that than playing chicken with steam valves.

[Lyn Farel]

I almost forgot something fundamental on the matter and Nico's link reminded me of it...

Instead, he renewed peace talks with the Caldari. As the Empire had found the Federation meddling in its affairs, it attained common ground with the State. This shared dislike of the Gallente was a springboard for peace talks.

What keeps the Caldari close to the Amarr is the fact that both litterally despise the Gallente, the same way both of the Gallente and the Minmatar despise the Amarr and are allied because of it. The only thing where dislike is not especially strong is between the Caldari and the Minmatar, and what keeps them separated that way is precisely the political circumstances. They are literally stuck because of it.

For sure, there is the fact that peaceful cooperation isn't the modus operandi that the Empire used to go by in the past. But then the Caldari are probably intelligent enough to realize that in the past, the Empire largely (since the conquest of Athra) dealt with nations that were vastly inferior and that the Amarr realize that the Caldari aren't in that position.

There is also something that people often forget, which is the last Amarr change of mind and politics under Heideran (and Doriam). The Empire went from a warmongering entity to an "Empire of Peace", as described in the PF. It is also said that Heideran managed to progressively change the Amarr society a lot (helped by the doubts raised after the defeat against the Jove).

That state of things lasted a good part of Heideran's life. We have to keep in mind that the last public image the Empire has kept in the cluster (except of course in anti Amarr circles) was an image of prosperity, peace and cooperation. That might have started to changed but it has only been a few years that Jamyl rose to power and we don't even know well what are her policies on the matter.

[Seriphyn]

Blown away by this thread, fantastic replies on both sides. I particularly enjoyed I-RED's response.

Since we're on the topic of strategic relations, will make another point based around that. We've already seen points about empire expansionism and alliances of best interest etc.

But I think a really big point has been ignored here. One-fifth of ALL Minmatar are in the Federation (in turn one-third of the whole Fed), and one-quarter are in the Republic. That is a VERY close gap.

That is the biggest insurmountable political reality. It keeps the Federation-Republic tied together. It would be astronomically insane Republic policy to distance themselves from the Federation and abandon a huge group of Minmatar. That's the thing; the Republic do not claim a monopoly on the Minmatar identity. Minmatar identity is dictated by the clan level, correct? Compare that to Caldari identity; dictated by massive interstellar megacorporations, not familial kin units. The Republic are just one group of Minmatar. They don't call the Minmatar out of the Republic 'traitors' like the Caldari call those Caldari out of the State as such.

The population bonding is the biggest reason things won't change IMO.

EDIT: This is not about "doing it wrong". This is more exploring actual, hard political reasons as to why getting friendly would be sound policy, rooted from PF discussion by looking at ALL factions. A holistic approach, basically. IMO, I-RED put up a very good rationale.

[Silver Night]

And one third are in the Empire.

I think it bears repeating that a better relationship with the State isn't the same as suddenly switching sides and declaring war on the Federation or something - and in fact from a diplomatic point of view, a better relationship with the State gives the Republic leverage with the Gallente (Let's make this agreement more favorable for us, or maybe we get it from our new friends in the State.) That's a fairly classic move, diplomatically.

Also, I'm not sure where you get that the Caldari consider all Caldari outside the State traitors - leaving aside the fact that there isn't really any population of Caldari outside the State with a similar enough history to even compare them as far as I know. The closest would maybe be the Caldari who are part of Mordu's Legion, and they are highly regarded. Most of the Caldari outside the State (as far as I know) are still part of their parent megacorps (much as, I think you are saying, most Minmatar in the Fed are still part of their tribe, if not clan). Obviously it isn't nearly the same numbers, and the reasons aren't exactly the same (which is why I don't think it is comparable), but they certainly aren't considered traitors.

Edit: Also, if you read back, I think you will find that the Minmatar population in the Fed has been mentioned repeatedly, not ignored.

[JinOtsi]

Have to say I don't understand the idea that a total political reversal is aimed at. It's not about forging some new alliances, simply dialing back hostilities to a closer to neutral stance. The State has nothing to gain from having a war on two fronts and neither does the Republic. Neither the Empire nor Federation is in a position to get uppity over State/Republic neutrality or at the very least less hostility.

Both has to consider the future as much as the present, and even should any side decisively win (which we know they won't, but let's just go with it) there's the peace-time afterwards to consider. Not having yet another enemy to fight would be beneficial for everyone involved.

No one's denying that the Caldari aren't fuzzy hugamathrons who wuvs and adowes the Minnies. Any relationship would be a professional one benefiting the State, or preferably both at once. This is absolutely no barrier to a professional neutral stance between the two. Especially since neither would have an interest in imposing their culture on the other.

[Silver Night]

Speaking of possible future outcomes - even as notional allies of the Empire, it is in the State's interest for the Empire to continue to be counterbalanced by the Republic.

[Bong-cha Jones]

And one third are in the Empire.

Also, I'm not sure where you get that the Caldari consider all Caldari outside the State traitors - leaving aside the fact that there isn't really any population of Caldari outside the State with a similar enough history to even compare them as far as I know. The closest would maybe be the Caldari who are part of Mordu's Legion, and they are highly regarded. Most of the Caldari outside the State (as far as I know) are still part of their parent megacorps (much as, I think you are saying, most Minmatar in the Fed are still part of their tribe, if not clan). Obviously it isn't nearly the same numbers, and the reasons aren't exactly the same (which is why I don't think it is comparable), but they certainly aren't considered traitors.

On the first point:  The presence of Matari in the Empire is not really analogous to the presence of Matari in the Federation.  The Republic is angry at the Amarr for holding so many of their people in bondage (though of course some are free), while I think they are more puzzled by or disappointed in those Matari who choose to live in the Fed.  Wildly different circumstances and relationships.

On the second point:  There are quite a few Caldari in the Federation.  It's apparently a sticking point and I doubt the State thinks kindly of them.

[Silver Night]

If you compare the numbers, those populations of Caldari are probably fairly insignificant. Also, again, the situations aren't really similar enough that they compare to the Minmatar in the Federation.

[Bong-cha Jones]

If you send me the numbers, I'll be happy to do the comparing 

Sure the situations are different, I think we agree that the Matari situation isn't really strongly analogous to anything, but I was intending to rebut the idea that there weren't meaningful numbers of Caldari outside the State apparatus.  It might not be huge numbers on a cluster-wide scale, but entire planets aren't insignificant either.

[Publius Valerius]

And one third are in the Empire.

I think it bears repeating that a better relationship with the State isn't the same as suddenly switching sides and declaring war on the Federation or something - and in fact from a diplomatic point of view, a better relationship with the State gives the Republic leverage with the Gallente (Let's make this agreement more favorable for us, or maybe we get it from our new friends in the State.) That's a fairly classic move, diplomatically.

true that... on the first part that a "a better relationship with the State isn't the same as suddenly switching sides". And true on "leverage", but as I said in anarchy, even the Fed can than use a "leverage" in the Empire and can as I mention before use it for assimilation of their own matari popolus. When you say... that their is a leverage you are right. I repeat you are right. And that it is a "That's a fairly classic move, diplomatically." But, a huge BUT.... why hasnt the Gallente in your example this tool?



As I said again and again.... just saying their is something... but not playing it tru... means in short form:
We Matari smart can use leverage (or other tools)
Gallente stupid havent that tool.... (or think behind a first move)






And that is a major thing in all of your arguments (I mean here with yours... pro matari & caldrais bffs).... that you always forgot that the other side has most likely the same tools and brainzelles as the matari. Just we all love them in real life, doesnt mean that every other side does become a moronic zombie without any tools to counter any matari move.


By the way you (with you... I mean here Silver Night) still havent answer my question from before. Lets say Im a matari freedom fighter... and we are best friend forever, how those that you dont like Heth improves our relationship. I has matari, would say thanks for the information (as friendly matari), and move on. Why? As it doesnt mean you are on my side.... or I put it that way: against Heth dont equal pro matari... ot can also mean thousend other things... like you are pro magecorporation etc.....




So If you try to use rational and realpolitik... plz give everyone the same tools, skills and informations. We dont play our charackters like Tony G arent we? I think he has show were it leads if you have just stereotypes, which havent a fuel skillset, or charackter etc..... It leads just to some broke halffinsh charackters.

[Mithfindel]

I found the notion of Caldari tribes loyal to the Federation (or at least, opposing the State) living around Kaalakiota Peaks, Caldari Prime (now controlled by the Caldari State) quite amusing. But yes, on the topic of Caldari in the Federation, we may assume that there's individual settlements, much less than the amount of Jin-Mei, which is in the large scale of things a negligible amount. Specially if they do limit outside contact.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Neither the Empire nor Federation is in a position to get uppity over State/Republic neutrality or at the very least less hostility.

Of course the Empire and the Federation are exactly in the position to get 'uppity' over State/Republic neutrality. First, the State is supposed to be the ally of the Empire while the same is true about the Republic and the Federation. Second, the State depends as much on the Empire as the Empire on the State. At least the same is true about how Republic and Federation relate to one another, if the Republic isn't depending more on the Federation than vice versa. Third, this means that if the State and Republic drop putting pressure on the enemy of their allies, those allies will put off pressure from their respective Enemy.

It isn't in the interest of the Caladri, though, that the pressure on the Gallente by the Empire is lowered, nor is it in the interest of the Republic that the Gallente press the Empire less. The benefit of any neutral stance would thus, best case, be canceled out, probably the allied forces would take steps that go a bit beyond canceling out any benefits - though not too bi, as to not overstep the room for maneuvering they have because forming even neutral relations is an uncertainty as in a world with limited information available neither the State nor the Republic can be sure that the other party isn't playing a trick on them or will just outright block that move towards neutrality.

So if the Republic tries the "maybe we get it from our new friends in the State" move, the Gallente will be playing the "maybe we drop you like a hot potato" card and they will do so before the Republic can be even remotely sure about getting what they want from the State.

If you are allied with someone and you depend on that someone (and that's factually the case in the Republic/Federation and State/Empire cases, each party is depending on the other), than you don't make a move towards neutrality with the allied force's enemy.

[Publius Valerius]

Neither the Empire nor Federation is in a position to get uppity over State/Republic neutrality or at the very least less hostility.

Of course the Empire and the Federation are exactly in the position to get 'uppity' over State/Republic neutrality. First, the State is supposed to be the ally of the Empire while the same is true about the Republic and the Federation. Second, the State depends as much on the Empire as the Empire on the State. At least the same is true about how Republic and Federation relate to one another, if the Republic isn't depending more on the Federation than vice versa. Third, this means that if the State and Republic drop putting pressure on the enemy of their allies, those allies will put off pressure from their respective Enemy.

It isn't in the interest of the Caladri, though, that the pressure on the Gallente by the Empire is lowered, nor is it in the interest of the Republic that the Gallente press the Empire less. The benefit of any neutral stance would thus, best case, be canceled out, probably the allied forces would take steps that go a bit beyond canceling out any benefits - though not too bi, as to not overstep the room for maneuvering they have because forming even neutral relations is an uncertainty as in a world with limited information available neither the State nor the Republic can be sure that the other party isn't playing a trick on them or will just outright block that move towards neutrality.

So if the Republic tries the "maybe we get it from our new friends in the State" move, the Gallente will be playing the "maybe we drop you like a hot potato" card and they will do so before the Republic can be even remotely sure about getting what they want from the State.

If you are allied with someone and you depend on that someone (and that's factually the case in the Republic/Federation and State/Empire cases, each party is depending on the other), than you don't make a move towards neutrality with the allied force's enemy.

+1 Really good.... I totally on your side on this. And I like how you have better explain the "natural standing/no guarantee", of anarchy than me... with the point: "limited information available". I really like it... It is a overall a better example as my half-ass prisoner dilemma example; as is show the from you mention "limited information available" and that the other side cant be sure that "other party isn't playing a trick."

If you could thumbs of a day you would get them