Fellow South Pacificans,

sometimes the future is not at all what we predict, and if you had told 2017 Roavin that we'd be doing this, I would have laughed at you. But we're here now!

The South Pacific and Balder were allied until 2016. The relationship broke down for multiple reasons, but earlier this year we talked with Balder and hashed out a Statement of Detente, reestablishing embassies and getting things back on track. At the time, I wrote this:

If somebody had said a year ago that Balder and TSP were "talking things out", they would have been labeled a crazy person. However, with the current GP landscape, this is not as crazy as it may appear at first glance. Balder's once-positive relationships with Osiris and The Black Hawks are degrading more and more, while at the same time, we are more solid and entrenched (and strong) than ever. Balder told us in our discussions that they want to move away from being perceived as fanatically anti-defender as they have been. For us, signing such a statement would be a proportionate reaction to the current shifts. While it's unreasonable to expect Balder to be supporters of the Defender cause anytime soon, this is a good chance to open more diplomatic venues to work towards our interests, particularly with respect to The Black Hawks.

What's positive to note is that this shift from Balder has not reversed course, and particularly with The Black Hawks stepping on The North Pacific's toes a few days ago, the likelihood of any short or even medium term shift towards the Hawks' sphere is near inconceivable. Furthermore, on occasion, we have even seen the Jomsvikings (Balder's military) aid in liberation efforts (most notably in Trovons), something that was also unthinkable not too long ago.

We have been in talks with Balder about the state of the world, the coming changes to the meta with Frontiers and Strongholds, and our relationship. We share some apprehension about F/S. Balder in particular, while they won't get as directly affected by F/S as we will, certainly are apprehensive about the rather unforeseen changes to the meta that F/S will bring, and want to make sure that their diplomatic network is appropriately suited up for that eventuality. It's in this context that Balder floated the proposal to have a more binding diplomatic agreement between our two regions, one that includes non-aggression and (by their request) possibly even mutual defense obligations. As to how that would look, the basic framework would be what we have with Pax Capricorn, our Non-Aggression Pact with the Pacific.

Balder benefits from this mostly in terms of their diplomatic portfolio. We would be their first and only proper Defender relationship at a time when Defenderdom is strong both politically and on the battlefield. In particular, the coming F/S changes will include a period of time where the new meta of gameplay is created, particularly surrounding what actions on Frontiers are acceptable, and Balder (just like any GP-relevant region) would like to have a "seat at the table" when that time comes. They're unlikely to benefit much from the actual non-aggression or mutual defense obligations; their region is locked down pretty securely by design and their endorsement numbers won't be affected by F/S, and they have no intention of creating their own Frontier satellite regions.

We do benefit (marginally) more with regards to the mechanical obligations, as F/S will eventually cut our regional endorsement count in half, plus our regular Delegate elections and transitions combined with a high endorsement cap do heighten the risk of a coup or even an invasion from very crafty invaders. Our portfolio isn't necessarily strengthened by this directly, but indirectly it ties Balder (and other Manifesto-aligned regions) closer to our side of the world than the side of Osiris, The Black Hawks, and the like.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been working on wiki pages for regions of interest, so if you'd like to know more about Balder, I recommend the Balder page on our wiki.

I want to open this to you, my fellow South Pacificans, for discussion to see where we stand on this. In particular, the ministry would like to hear your thoughts on whether a mutual defense clause should be included or not. As always, please spam me with all your questions!

-- Roavin, your friendly lampshade-wearing MoFA

Reply

Devil’s advocate here.. What has Balder done concretely to demonstrate that they’d legitimately adhere to a non-aggression pact?

I remain opposed to a mutual defense clause, because that’s a full alliance and not a non-aggression pact as being advertised. Even in the example NAP framework linked here, with the NPO, there isn’t a mutual defense clause. Because mutual defense is a policy among allies, not regions that are just beginning to explore somewhat closer relations.

(This post was last modified: 12-28-2021, 12:50 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I was extremely disappointed when Balder "forgave" TBH and started working with them a couple of weeks ago, but I remain optimistic that a better relationship with them will at least screw Osiris over, and maybe TBH depending on where this TNP thing goes. I understand hesitancy about mutual defense, so I have a bit of a suggestion,

Let's be honest with ourselves: We're in hot water for the next delegacy transition. If Balder is willing to pile for it and help us get through what is likely a long one (and especially if they abstain from raids during it) then I will definitely be supportive of mutual defense. 

Devil’s advocate here.. What has Balder done concretely to demonstrate that they’d legitimately adhere to a non-aggression pact?

Engage in good faith relations for 9 months without issue? Support the SPSF (and others) in Trovons?

New Quebecshire,
Full Player Résumé
Discord: Cubic#1608

Reply

Helping in a delegate transition has absolutely nothing to do mutual defense, and Balder is not going to be a significant contributor to a transition anyways even if they really wanted to help.

Reply

Apologies for the delay, this thread somehow slipped off my list.

Devil’s advocate here.. What has Balder done concretely to demonstrate that they’d legitimately adhere to a non-aggression pact?

For one, while there of course hasn't been much chance for that, there hasn't been any indication of anything that would violate a NAP from them even without an obligation. Their more recent acts to seek reconciliation with us and the wider Defender sphere also speak to them more likely adhering to the terms than not. Finally, just from a more realpolitik perspective, unlike years ago where we were the laughing stock of GP, we are now in a much stronger position and them violating the treaty is something that would directly hurt their standing in the interregional sphere, particularly with regions like TNP, TEP, and TP (all of which we have extant diplomatic agreements with).

Any other opinions on mutual defense in particular or an agreement in general before I talk to Balder again?

Reply

For one, while there of course hasn't been much chance for that, there hasn't been any indication of anything that would violate a NAP from them even without an obligation.

We thawed relations with Balder a while ago. I'd argue there's been plenty of time for chances to demonstrate a clear shift. The Cabinet is going up against many more years of history, and Balder is still run by the same people who were incredibly hostile to TSP not just back then in Balder, but when they were in Europeia and TNI and the UIAF.

The explanation for why a NAP is a good idea seems to be more about defender politics than TSP/Balder relations. If we're using defender politics as the basis here, then what is the strategy to ensure Balder is in our sphere of defenderdom, versus TGW's?

Finally, just from a more realpolitik perspective, unlike years ago where we were the laughing stock of GP, we are now in a much stronger position and them violating the treaty is something that would directly hurt their standing in the interregional sphere, particularly with regions like TNP, TEP, and TP (all of which we have extant diplomatic agreements with).

Balder was diplomatically connected with TNP, another ally, when they violated their treaty with us in the first place. Doing so didn't seem to hurt them back then with TNP, who allegedly was very much on our side at the time. I don't think diplomatic networks are much of a deterrent nowadays, if they ever were, when the regions in the alliance web aren't very close allies.

Any other opinions on mutual defense in particular or an agreement in general before I talk to Balder again?

Yeah, it's a no-go for me. TSP should not be jumping into a full blown alliance with Balder, and trying to couch in a "mutual defense" clause into a non-aggression pact is trying to sneak a full alliance into a type diplomatic agreement that most people yawn about.

Reply

I'll be reaching out to Balder again today. By my judgement, now guided and informed by all of your comments, I will pursue a NAP without mutual defense obligations.

For one, while there of course hasn't been much chance for that, there hasn't been any indication of anything that would violate a NAP from them even without an obligation.

We thawed relations with Balder a while ago. I'd argue there's been plenty of time for chances to demonstrate a clear shift. The Cabinet is going up against many more years of history, and Balder is still run by the same people who were incredibly hostile to TSP not just back then in Balder, but when they were in Europeia and TNI and the UIAF.

Well, Balder being involved in multiple liberations when that was unthinkable even just a year or two ago is certainly a demonstration, I would say!

The explanation for why a NAP is a good idea seems to be more about defender politics than TSP/Balder relations. If we're using defender politics as the basis here, then what is the strategy to ensure Balder is in our sphere of defenderdom, versus TGW's?

Well, for one, we'd be the ones signing a NAP, rather than TGW.

[quote="Roavin" pid='225997' dateline='1641435533']Finally, just from a more realpolitik perspective, unlike years ago where we were the laughing stock of GP, we are now in a much stronger position and them violating the treaty is something that would directly hurt their standing in the interregional sphere, particularly with regions like TNP, TEP, and TP (all of which we have extant diplomatic agreements with).

Balder was diplomatically connected with TNP, another ally, when they violated their treaty with us in the first place. Doing so didn't seem to hurt them back then with TNP, who allegedly was very much on our side at the time. I don't think diplomatic networks are much of a deterrent nowadays, if they ever were, when the regions in the alliance web aren't very close allies.

That historical fact is certainly true to my knowledge, but doesn't invalidate my statement.

Reply