Join the new world

Dear fellow countrymen,

Because I can't blab through the channel I'm writing this article to reflect on whatever the CP candidates have to say. I'm parafrasing most of what they say because I don't want walls of text in this article aside from the ones I write myself. If any candidate feels I misinterpreted his statement, please pm me with a better version.
'Wie hetzelfde anders zegt, zegt iets anders'


Question 1: Are there plans to join/create a new alliance?
MaartenW: No alliance suits us. A private alliance with Canada is possible.
TheGeneralDutch: No alliance suits us. Alliance with Canada is an option.
Van_Spijck: We must focus on bonds with Canada and extend the rent period to 6 months. Also set up military cooperation with Canada and Swiss. CoT is dying so we need to strengthen bonds with all allies.

Garmr: Alliances are worthless as long as we have nothing to offer. The military module in it's current state ensures we have nothing to offer. There is no point talking about alliances until we have over 5k citizens and that's an unlikely event.


Question 2: What will be your attitude to Poland and will there be some kind of diplomacy?
MaartenW: Their prime candidate seems not inclined to sign a treaty with NL. I may send him vodka.
Van_Spijck: We've moved to Canada so there is no threat from NL to Poland, they have nothing to fear. A treaty would be nice though.
Response from MaartenW to van_Spijck: Poland is not driven by fear of losing a bonus. Why would Canada be safe if they want to wipe us again?
Response from van_Spijck to MaartenW: That's not what I said. Once we lose Northern Netherlands there is no threat from us to them.
TheGeneralDutch: Negotiations with Poland are important, but they do not seem to respect us. Best thing is to stay in Canada to get everything together. We should not trust them.

Garmr: A temporary shelter (and buffer against Hungary) inside Canada does not warrant us to stop prioritizing a solution for the Poland occupation. All candidates lack a proper plan.


Question 3: What to do with Belgium and the breach of treaties after the closed embassy? Should we reopen the embassy and improve relations?
TheGeneralDutch: We should take all opportunities to improve relations with other nations.
Van_Spijck: The embassy will be reopened when the ambassador makes an apology. Relations with Belgium have always been good, even now they fight with us in Canada.
MaartenW: I consider the ambassador in question a friend, a topic about PTO'ing eSA has no place on our forum and he acted morally correct in leaking it. However, he has lost our trust and the eBE gov should assign a different ambassador.

Garmr: Who cares about something as useless as an ambassador. Come on. Even in primary school you'll learn to be a good boy and shake hands when you've thrown sand in someone's face, even if it wasn't really your fault.


Van_Spijck leaves the debate at this point, claiming it is more important to win the ongoing battle in British Columbia.

Garmr: Quite a few attendees interpreted this as if he just doesn't feel like talking anymore. I have no idea if that is true. Either way, he didn't appear in the top 5 of the battle at that time (round 3).


Question 4: What are your plans with the state communes?
MaartenW: Better funding so people will rejoin the state military with supplies based on activity.
TheGeneralDutch: Communes should become more independent so they can work in a more profitable manner but still fight for NL and it's allies. This will speed up the rate at which they grow stronger.
Response from MaartenW: What do you mean by 'profitable manner'?
Response from TheGeneralDutch: For example easier fights to get BH's.

Garmr: Let relatively newer players work the state communes for quality weapons they wouldn't get in most MU's. They don't need to join a state MU for this, so when they get fired and replaced when they reach a certain level, they are already acquainted with a private MU.


Question 5: What are your plans for the state MU's?
TheGeneralDutch: The state MU's are a bit disorganized, I'd reform them to the model of PG, turn them private but still have them fight for NL.
MaartenW: I dislike tax going to private MU's. The NL military used to have friend and foe fighting united under a single banner. The state should not fund personal military interests.
Response from TheGeneralDutch: Could you give an example of these personal military interests?
Response from MaartenW: A private commander is not within state control, so in order to give him state funds, he must follow the prio's from the state, which makes it a state MU. If a MU does not follow the state prio's, it should not get any funding.

Garmr: There is a fine line between uncontrolled MU and private MU. A state MU has, at times, a dumbass MoD meddling in everything (improvements yo) which screws everything up. A private MU can choose it's own capable officers and work out their own supply system, while still hitting for exactly the targets the state requests. Disbanding state MU's and funding private MU's brings a safety against stupid MOD's, CP's and congress'. And if the MU misbehaves, you cut the funding until they'll listen. Works faster than someone 'fixing' it while the state keeps pouring money into it.



There you have it, this is how the Garmr sees it and that is the one thing you can a priori assume as truth.