Join the new world

3 October 2010, Day 1,048 of the New World. Not too long ago, six new nations were announced as future additions to the New World. A plethora of analysis articles followed, mostly pedestrian and containing so many indubitable arguments that they hardly seemed worth publishing. At the time the nation of Israel was reaching new levels of failure by flexing its partisan might, and I made a simple suggestion to make the country better: The six new nations should be eSyria, eLebanon, eJordan, eGypt, eRaq, and Saudi eRabia.

Instead, another sign of the imminent collapse of Israel appeare😛 a change in the mechanics behind alliances. In the past, alliances were most accurately described as “mutual protection pacts.” The first part of this term indicated the bidirectional nature of the protection. The second part, protection, differentiates the treaty from a mutual declaration of war on another party. If one nation invades another, the other nations with which it shares a mutual protection treaty do not necessarily come along, as aggressive action is not “protection.” If one nation is invaded by another, the other nations it shares a treaty with are activated to provide protection. Furthermore, one nation would not become involved in the defense of a friend unless that friend’s core territory was under attack.

The rules governing mutual protection pacts are in line with the real-life North Atlantic Treaty Organization / Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique Nord. If a nation outside the alliance declares war on one of NATO’s member states in their core territory, it is as good as declaring war against all other member states, as they are obliged to defend their fellow NATO nation. It was conceived as a deterrent to a Soviet invasion; despite being formed in 1949, the first time a member-state suffered an attack in its core territory since then was 11 September 2001. The United Kingdom was invaded by Argentina in 1982, but because this invasion occurred in the Falkland Islands, hardly core territory of the UK, NATO members were not obliged to help. The same thing happens under the old MPP rules if a country is invaded in a region it took from another country.

Of course, militaries frequently use moving tickets to deploy to allied nations. They may have unofficial involvement in the war, but if their countries were activated in the defense of their ally, their soldiers could fight from their own territory.

All these intricacies are being scrapped outright; from now on, a country engaging in a military adventure anywhere, aggressive or defensive, brings its allies along. This will drastically shift the existing geopolitical balance. Israel, bordering just two foreign nations, is one of the simplest nations to examine the change in.

Consider Israel’s position in the worl😛



By virtue of its few countries, we can demonstrate the volatile borders of the Levant with just two lines.



Border 1, between Turkey and Israel, has been hot before but mostly is pretty quiet. While Turkey is a much stronger nation, historical allies prevented the Turks from being able to cross into Israel. When Israel invaded Turkey across border 1, the allies of Turkey were activated in that war, and Israel was annihilated. Border 2 has seen much more conflict in the history of the New World, with Greece and Turkey both crossing and activating each others’ mutual protection pacts. The Greek-Turkish war following the liberation of Greece was a prototypical Atlantis/EDEN vs PEACE/Phoenix struggle.

The number of alliances Turkey signed usually did not matter to Israel. Even in a one-on-one confrontation, Israel would fare poorly against Turkey, so any additional support the Turks would have against an Israeli invasion would be even worse. It took a psychotic president for Israel to attack across border 1. Now that alliances come along on aggressive military campaigns, Israel has reason to fear.



Border 2 will likely remain the stalemate it has been for several months. Greece and Turkey commonly renew alliances with their friends – friends which are much more powerful than Greece or Turkey. These include the United States, Romania, and Croatia on the Greek side and Serbia, Indonesia, and Russia on the Turkish side. Israel is much more infrequent and transient with its alliances. It usually maintains at least one alliance at a time, recently alternating between the United States and Poland. Israel’s alliance with Poland expires in two days, and that is the only alliance it has signed at the moment. Turkey has nine alliance signed, including with three nations on par with Poland. Turkey will no longer have to wait for an Israeli leader to make the mistake of crossing border 1 to activate those mighty treaties. Israel stands in danger of annihilation at the whim of any Turk.

The changes to the mechanics of alliances were probably designed to reduce stalemating. While the world has been at war basically forever, it usually grows cold, flaring up briefly in world-spanning chain reactions when one nation makes a move. Otherwise, mutual protection pacts lock the world down. Similar changes were implemented towards this end in the last year: the over 200% increase in the cost of MPP’s and the inactivation of a nation involved in a war that did not renew its MPP. Unfortunately, we likely are not going to see stalemating reduced, but we will see smaller countries more easily gobbled up by one of the powerful states of either super-alliance. The change also makes alliances more necessary, especially if a hostile neighbor has already signed several, and further drains gold into treaties.

Israel has been presented a legitimate challenge to overcome. With many of its high-leveled citizens leaving, its economy stagnant, and its foreign relations questionable, its remaining citizens are apprehensive for the future.