General considerations on diplomacy and military systems. Case study: Romania
8-3=1
These days have been quite busy with all the excitement around Romania recent decisions:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-andyr-gov-official-statement-on-the-eden-romania-relations-1170344/1/20
But this article is not about these events, hopefully this will be soon history for the newborn babies.
However, these events can serve as a good example for all the discussions below.
As we all know, the system in eRepublik revolves around military alliances or conflicts. The MPPs, the wars, the battles- they are all part of the military system. All strategic and tactical moves can be resolved by military minds with a look at the map, at the regions, MPPs...etc.
A genuine question will then be: why the hell do countries need diplomacy? Why is USA having a huge Department of State (in eRepublik terms), with an embassy for each country in eRepublik? It looks outrageous. Well, not exactly.
Reality of eRepublik actually is more complicated than simple military decisions. I would like to explain a bit the relation between diplomacy and military. Is diplomacy subordinated to military? Is military subordinated to diplomacy? Are the two same thing or are they totally independent?
The first answer which will come to mind is that diplomacy is subordinated to military and the two of them are more or less the same thing since diplomacy cannot produce results which contradict the military logical decisions. However I don’t totally agree with this and let me explain why.
First of all, MPPs don’t grow only out of nothing. Alliance needs to be proposed, and it needs to be accepted. The system works now in such way that these two processes look quite simple and natural, especially if the military goal is common. However it is interesting what’s happening when:
a. There is no apparent military goal to justify an MPP which becomes accepted. One random example: http://www.erepublik.com/en/Austria/law/22221
b. There could be a military reason for an MPP to be accepted, but it does not get accepted.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/Spain/law/22707
c. There is a diplomatic reason only (not a military one) for an MPP to be accepted, but it doesn’t. http://www.erepublik.com/en/Russia/law/24593 (Russia boosted for such a long time its Slavic connection to Ukraine, the Russian diplomacy has been trying so hard to induce such relation for ages...then...well the MPP proposal fails in the Congress. This is a failure of diplomacy).
Therefore diplomacy (not only the military) has some role in designing and accepting (or rejecting of MPPs). It is not as important as the military reasons (by far), however it can be considered a variable. And when you have a big alliance to look after and carefully designed campaigns, you need to account for the variables.
Second point and more important is: what is happening inside an alliance (secured with MPPs)? Is the military only dictating the decisions of an alliance? Are the decisions of an alliance based entirely on the military reasoning or there is also some diplomatic influence?
Each country has its own military interests inside an alliance. Each country has something to attack or defend at a certain point. Each country thinks their mission is more important. It is down to compromises from each side to make sure that the alliance works and survives.
This is when the work of diplomats is more important than ever. With eRepublik countries like big engines fired up to win at all costs, the military is the fuel which makes the engine work and the wheel which ensure the right direction, but it is diplomacy which oils the engine and keeps it running for ever and ever. The engine cannot start without being oiled (the charter of each alliance is negociated by diplomats) and without continuous effort of diplomacy the bigger engine of an alliance dries up and stops at some point.
This was apparent for all the major alliances sofar and I am quite surprised that no one properly acknowledged it. Everyone keeps blaming the military reasons for breaking up of alliances, while the failures of diplomacy should be blamed. With proper diplomacy, the alliances would have lasted longer.
I said recent events in Romania are a good example for this article. What happened in Romania in the last few days showed how important diplomacy should be and how diplomacy can be easily overlooked.
If there were reasons for Romania to complain to its allies, this should have been done by
diplomats. The solution found by Romanian government is not one of the diplomats, it is one of the military. In itself the decision might be right, but when you look at Romania as part of an alliance it doesn’t exactly look the same way. Diplomacy needs to keep all allies happy, and obviously Romania recent decisions did not quite work this way.
It is not only Romania who overlooked diplomacy. The same applies to EDEN. With frustration building up in Romania, this should have been discussed with EDEN diplomats and they should have found a compromise to keep everyone happy. My involvement with the diplomats makes me say that there were signals of frustration long time ago but they were either ignored or dismissed. EDEN acted in a military way by choosing to ignore or dismiss some concerns of one of the allies, while they should have adopted a more diplomatic approach.
EDEN and Romania are guilty as charged for the same reason. Diplomacy thinking failed. Military thinking prevailed. Perhaps it is time to try and go back to diplomacy, if we are to keep the alliance alive and winning.
HAIL ROMANIA
HAIL EDEN
Comments
Excelent point ! I hope we can all learn form this
not voted... bye...
what was done is done you'll have to prove that you need Romania , we needed help just few gave it to us , you need help we gave it ,Here EDEN has failed ,keep up and EDEN shall die soon
In my opinion Romania made a right decision we made to much for you , now you try to say that we didn't pay to EDEN like other countries made ,that we didn't help you then so be it we shall help only the countries that deserve our hwlp
haide mah optminustreiegalunu. ce-i cu harneala asta.
se stie ca de vorba buna nu respecta pe nimeni, le sta in caracter si basta. ii lasam singurei sa vedem cum se descurca cu franta, germania si mb.
@SINIGR: ce zici ca ai facut tu pt EDEN pana acum? Lasa-i pe altii sa se planga, ca are cine cred ca sunt liste de asteptare 🙂
and what if diplomacy fails again?
I undestand your point of view and in theory it`s uncontestable. but getting to the bottom line: what makes you hope that this time EDEN diplomats will act differently? (presuming that the romanian part will act cristal clear- about this please grant me to have my doubts). If the romanian diplomats failed to make themselves understood by EDEN members about the terrible growth of dissapointment in eRomania in "better times", how would they manage that now?
I hope you`re right and I`m just getting it wrong for EDEN`s sake.
"a compromise to keep everyone happy." ? = o utopie... sa mai fie si altii unhappy 😉
@Surubu: reformulez: "a compromise to keep everyone equally unhappy". Ce zici? 🙂
Din pacate diplomatia nu a functionat in ultima vreme la noi, comentariile din presa straina sunt elocvente.
Si nici armata: ne plangem de razboiul pierdut in Bulgaria (putini romani au dat in zidul ala!), dar cand am avut ocazia, nu am atacat. Secundo: Strategia de acum din razboiul din Bulgaria, imi aminteste de cea de dupa oprirea in fata regiunii Karnataka, cand pierdeam regiunile chinezesti una dupa alta si ordinele sunau ca si acum :"Aparati X! X a cazut... Aparati Y! Y a cazut etc" pana nu a ramas nimic din "imperiu". Am avut si atunci si acum o strategie pusa la punct care prevedea doar o directie de desfasurare a ostilitatilor: "Batem tot". Nu tu plan de rezerva, nu tu bani de rezerva etc..marsaluim pe muzica pana in Karnataka si pana in HK etc..
Altii sunt de vina, tot timpul....
pero que nos estais contando.......?????
"diplomats failed"-esta es vuestra mejor explication?
nuestros diplomatos no nos deepxionaron en ningun momento.
here in this game USA it`s just a point to map ... maybe WE the rest of country must to share this point of 50 state enough for every one .
De mai mult de 6 luni tot stam si dam ajutor la aliati. In tot acest timp populatia noastra a "murit" ( de plictiseala mai ales). Cum am avut o actiune, chiar daca nu a fost reusita din unele puncte de vedere, populatia Romaniei s-a (re)activat, se vede o crestere a numarului luptelor si chiar al userilor, si asta e cel mai important.
Ce trebuia sa facem? Sa mai asteptam inca 6 luni cu speranta ca ne va observa cineva? Pana atunci probabil am fi avut populatia unui stat sub medie din eRepublik.
In ultimul rand sa nu uitam ca e doar un joc, nu trebuie sa ne facem buncare sub casa de frica tancurilor dusmane. Daca si aici stam si pupam in fund, si ne lasam calcati in picoare... mai bine ma intorc in RL, ca avem destul parte acolo.
Nope, nu si-au dat inca seama ca Romania tr tratata ca aliat si nu ca un biet copil de mingi. Mai tr lasati cateva runde pana realizeaza.
Nu vreau sa ajungem in ipostaza sa fim tradati pt a N-a oara din cauza ca ei au alte interese. Stiti vorba aceea "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me"...
Ne mutam in Serbia si o aparam de eliberatorii bulgari? Pe ultima suta de metri....un fel de a arata EDEN-ului ce putem face cand vrem😃
Memoriile unei gheise 🙂
M-ai facut sa rad. Pe bune. Daca tu crezi ca tot ce-ai scris acolo se aplica intr-un joc, esti naiv.
Nici 1% din userii eRepublik nu dau 1 RON pe diplomatie si alte idiotenii de-astea. E un joc ce se vrea a imita realitatea doar ca iti ofera sansa sa dai in cap la ungur fara sa-i dai cu adevarat in cap. Intelegi tu 🙂.
Concluzia: Diplomatia excesiva (ceea ce propui tu) nu are ce cauta in eRepublik. Pur si simplu ar omori jocul.
@vberezan: sa lasam atunci militarii sa rezolve acest diferend de opinii cu EDEN. Pana acum...zero barat din punctul meu de vedere. 🙂
bun articol.
in ce partid ziceai esti? vreau sa ma inscriu si eu.