Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition

[edofthesquid]

[X]Avoid Escalation

Let's keep supplying them without risking going further up an escalation ladder that ends in nuclear war

 

[agumentic]

And since de-escalating leads to us winning in Algeria anyway, what are we risking everything for?

Click to shrink...

Now, that's a valid question. Let's consider, what do we lose if we back down and avoid escalation?

1. It becomes harder and more costly to deliver arms to Algerian resistance, which means they'll get fewer of them and their capabilities will be reduced, which means the war and all the attendant unpleasantness is prolonged.
2. Simultaneously, it also gives a victory to France's government - that they can also sell to their population - emboldening it and providing stability, which means it'll take longer for the pressure of the war to get to them.
3. It worsens our relations with Libya. If Gaddafi sees us backing down from this, he will have fewer reasons to believe our relations with him are beneficial or that we would provide support, which means he also has fewer reasons to not go off the reservation with one of his wild ideas without considering our opinion. Now, he might do this anyway, but if we have no levers to work with there, we won't be able to even theoretically shift him.
4. It also kind of strikes at our diplomatic reputation in general. It's all well and good to speak about reasonableness and carefulness and all that, but, well, people worldwide appreciate bold behavior and winning. If USSR just sends in the navy and smashes through the French blockade, every movement and leader looking for support will consider it and think "Hey, look, USSR is strong and can afford to just smash through in support of Algeria, maybe they are also strong enough to support us". If we back down, however, every movement and leader will consider that and think whether or not USSR will choose to back down in their case, and how much. It's not the deciding thing, we will be able to build relations in any case and they will depend on individual circumstances, but it will weight on the scales.
5. It costs Klimenko and the ministry political capital. If we support de-escalation, we are looking weak before most of the rest of Politburo and before SupSov, as well. We might be able to afford it, but it's kind of awkward considering we're also throwing one of our issues to SupSov to discuss, and we must consider whether this is the time and the issue we want to be spending our political capital on.

Considering all this, and adding in the fact that by far the likeliest outcome of this, in my eyes, is both fleets posturing at each other with maybe a collision or two, I think the small risk of the situation escalating into a bad direction and spiraling out of control is more than acceptable price to pay.

 

[RentingViewer]

[X]Avoid Escalation
[X]Reform another Commission

 

[Quickshot0]

My bet, is this is where the issue is:

"The development of a dedicated station will inherently come from the design of new hardware for the RLA-3 platform, incorporating the lessons learned from the PKA project."

Sounds to me like they are planning around an RLA-3 launched midi-shuttle.

Click to shrink...

I didn't really bring it up as the Algeria thing took precedence. But I noticed how it mentioned re-entering the station after 3 months and you know repeating that cycle till they figure out for sure how to do long term habitability. I guess you'll get a lot of new hardware tested quickly like that... but efficiency it is not.

At worst, we can still de-escalate afterward, our leaders are not suicidal.

Click to shrink...

That was the kind of thinking they had in past crisis like the Cuba crisis as well. It turned out when they looked at it in hindsight that they in fact did not really get that choice in many a case. In fact some of the options that led to not getting that option were the send forces ones. For instance the maverick commander with an itchy trigger finger almost really happened, it's to the point it got in to the official classified paperwork.

Like there was a really strong push to just invade Cuba at that moment. And not in just a theoretical sense, they'd already started diverting troops training landing towards Cuba and were mass building up forces for it, it was just an order away. But we now know there was a fairly good chance that doing that would have caused a nuclear exchange.

Just like forcing the blockade for the Soviets wasn't actually a real option. That would have led to open warfare.

It's why the USA and USSR afterwards created a permanent hotline, a way basically to make more sure what really the intentions of the other was. Because uncertainty led to some really poor assumptions and choices.

Fasquardon, first of all, always lovely to read from you, but I'm afraid you are talking over us. No one cares what the genocidal colonialists think is happening, we know what is actually happening. (genocide by a colonialist power)

Click to shrink...

And if they did decide to go nuclear, then you can be happy that no one will care what you thought you were defending as well. They'll only care the communist party instigated a nuclear war causing a global genocide over a local brush war.

People tend to judge by final results after all.

1. It becomes harder and more costly to deliver arms to Algerian resistance, which means they'll get fewer of them and their capabilities will be reduced, which means the war and all the attendant unpleasantness is prolonged.
2. Simultaneously, it also gives a victory to France's government - that they can also sell to their population - emboldening it and providing stability, which means it'll take longer for the pressure of the war to get to them.
3. It worsens our relations with Libya. If Gaddafi sees us backing down from this, he will have fewer reasons to believe our relations with him are beneficial or that we would provide support, which means he also has fewer reasons to not go off the reservation with one of his wild ideas without considering our opinion. Now, he might do this anyway, but if we have no levers to work with there, we won't be able to even theoretically shift him.
4. It also kind of strikes at our diplomatic reputation in general. It's all well and good to speak about reasonableness and carefulness and all that, but, well, people worldwide appreciate bold behavior and winning. If USSR just sends in the navy and smashes through the French blockade, every movement and leader looking for support will consider it and think "Hey, look, USSR is strong and can afford to just smash through in support of Algeria, maybe they are also strong enough to support us". If we back down, however, every movement and leader will consider that and think whether or not USSR will choose to back down in their case, and how much. It's not the deciding thing, we will be able to build relations in any case and they will depend on individual circumstances, but it will weight on the scales.
5. It costs Klimenko and the ministry political capital. If we support de-escalation, we are looking weak before most of the rest of Politburo and before SupSov, as well. We might be able to afford it, but it's kind of awkward considering we're also throwing one of our issues to SupSov to discuss, and we must consider whether this is the time and the issue we want to be spending our political capital on.

Click to shrink...

1. 2. There is certainly some truth there, however they might get convinced that they aren't in an insurgency war instead and instead just in an outright war with the USSR who are just pupating proper French Algerians for their own nefarious hostile purposes. In which case it might greatly strengthen the resolve of the French people and in fact vastly intensify the war instead. With the USA pouring in arms to France and the will to fight allowing the government to maximize combat in Algeria using any and all means necessary for a long long time to come. In such a case France could despite all odds even win in Algeria, in part as they might compromise more with the more Francophone Algerians to 'win' their perceived war. So it's not actually clear which option would shorten the war or make it better, it could go either way depending on certain reactions.
3. We never promised breaking through blockades to Gaddafi, he'd probably still be happy if we just some what more covertly kept moving arms through. They surely won't appreciate it if this attempt instead led to a bad outcome, like them becoming a Lebanon where the neighbor potentially forcefully invades parts of the land to create a 'buffer zone' to try and stop arms flows that way instead.
4. People in the end only remember the final results. Short term boldness only has short term payoffs. If you ultimately win the conflict for them, that is what they'll remember most. It's what will go in the history book. Running a blockade will not get much mention. For long term reputation it doesn't get you much as such, only the final results. Of course if the final result is nuclear war, your reputation will plummet deeply in to the negative instead and you will be seen as extremely weak... because well you then will be.
5. When one makes internal politics the reason for external politics... Well that is how you sleep walk in to disaster. It's certainly how the USA walked in to quite a few. So normalizing that kind of behavior instead of pushing back against it is inviting more long term problems. And some of them will probably be really really expensive ones, even if none of them went nuclear.

Finally it's worth noting people will also remember who was the more reasonable adult in the room. The person who tries to stick to them, even if they have to be sneaky about it at times, as well as the one who went way to far over and over. There is a lot in reputation one can gain with neutral nations from that. They often like nations that don't look to aggressive.

-------


So on that basis I'm obviously voting for this, as there is pretty much nothing to gain here aside of rather unimportant prestige that is easily regained in more important areas and gaining the end result anyway. After all sending arms forcefully won't change the killing levels in Algeria after all, it very well may make it worse as it convinces France they are in an actual peer war instead and thus any and all measures are justified. Something that could easily make this end in not just a catastrophe for the Algerians.

[X]Avoid Escalation

 

[Moonless-seas]

And if they did decide to go nuclear, then you can be happy that no one will care what you thought you were defending as well. They'll only care the communist party instigated a nuclear war causing a global genocide over a local brush war.
People tend to judge by final results after all.

Click to shrink...

I mean cool blame gaming i guess, but USSR being at fault for that is impossible, the french are insane and have first strike policy on their nuclear arsenal(which is why the nuclear war tags are there) where the USSR doesn't. ANY nuclear strike will be from France to us first.

Sure you can blame chase it to "oh if only those dirty commies didn't provoke them" but at that point we might as well go to the root of "this only happened because the French decided it was okay to colonise algeria" and cut it off there.

 

[Quickshot0]

Sure you can blame chase it to "oh if only those dirty commies didn't provoke them" but at that point we might as well go to the root of "this only happend because the French decided it was okay to colonise algeria" and cut it off there.

Click to shrink...

Even if some one is at fault for something, that doesn't mean literally any response is ok against it. To give an extreme example so one can see what I mean in the extreme contrast, they're terrible, thus when we fix it by nuking France completely to oblivion then surely this is justified is an obvious nonsense.

If ones response creates vastly out of proportion reactions then if you had done nothing at all, then how are you not involved in causing that cause in part as such. Of course you were involved if you created a worse outcome then if you had done nothing at all. And when people then blame you for that, that would be 100% justified.

You can try to shove that off with saying things like 'blame gaming', but the reality will still be the reality.

 

[darknessworld]

And if they did decide to go nuclear, then you can be happy that no one will care what you thought you were defending as well. They'll only care the communist party instigated a nuclear war causing a global genocide over a local brush war.

People tend to judge by final results after all.

Click to shrink...

They would remember how the war started because the Soviet Union tried to uphold an International law.
Every other detail would feel hollow legitimacy wise, because the side aspects would disappear.

 

[agumentic]

1. 2. There is certainly some truth there, however they might get convinced that they aren't in an insurgency war instead and instead just in an outright war with the USSR who are just pupating proper French Algerians for their own nefarious hostile purposes. In which case it might greatly strengthen the resolve of the French people and in fact vastly intensify the war instead. With the USA pouring in arms to France and the will to fight allowing the government to maximize combat in Algeria using any and all means necessary for a long long time to come. In such a case France could despite all odds even win in Algeria, in part as they might compromise more with the more Francophone Algerians to 'win' their perceived war. So it's not actually clear which option would shorten the war or make it better, it could go either way depending on certain reactions.
3. We never promised breaking through blockades to Gaddafi, he'd probably still be happy if we just some what more covertly kept moving arms through. They surely won't appreciate it if this attempt instead led to a bad outcome, like them becoming a Lebanon where the neighbor potentially forcefully invades parts of the land to create a 'buffer zone' to try and stop arms flows that way instead.
4. People in the end only remember the final results. Short term boldness only has short term payoffs. If you ultimately win the conflict for them, that is what they'll remember most. It's what will go in the history book. Running a blockade will not get much mention. For long term reputation it doesn't get you much as such, only the final results. Of course if the final result is nuclear war, your reputation will plummet deeply in to the negative instead and you will be seen as extremely weak... because well you then will be.
5. When one makes internal politics the reason for external politics... Well that is how you sleep walk in to disaster. It's certainly how the USA walked in to quite a few. So normalizing that kind of behavior instead of pushing back against it is inviting more long term problems. And some of them will probably be really really expensive ones, even if none of them went nuclear.

Click to shrink...

It's not like they aren't already doing this, and it's not like we would stop smuggling in arms even if we de-escalate. All that backing down would achieve on that front is giving the government ammunition to say "we're fighting against the USSR and we're winning! Look at how they backed down, we need to push more and our victory will be complete".

What do promises have to do with this? Gaddafi will simply look at the facts and conclude that if USSR is not willing to break that blockade, they are obviously not going to be willing to break any other blockades that might be imposed on him, and so we aren't super invested into maintaining our ties. Like, there isn't any arguing that it will lead to some cooling down of relations. And he would actually be super into getting invaded, because then he can scream "Witness me!" and send hordes of obsolescent armour he bought from us to kill and die in his name.

And the final result of backing down, is, well, backing down. People aren't going to simply forget we backed down instead of forcing our way through. Sure, our continued supply of arms is also not going to get forgotten, and so will the end of Algerian War, however it ends, but one fact doesn't erase another, they are all in consideration.

There's nothing to normalize or push back against, that's just how things work. You might find it distasteful that this is a price that has to be paid, but it's not going to just go away, because people aren't actually separating external and internal politics in their minds like that, they think "Oh, he made a weak and wrong decision on external front, he'll make the same kind on internal one, he needs to be criticized". And yes, sometimes there's an unpopular option that nevertheless needs to be chosen, and that's when you clench your teeth and use your political capital to pay for it. But you do need to pay for it, so you need to keep in mind what are you spending your political capital on - and in this particular case, I do not believe backing down is worth the price.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Fasquardon, first of all, always lovely to read from you, but I'm afraid you are talking over us. No one cares what the genocidal colonialists think is happening, we know what is actually happening. (genocide by a colonialist power)

Click to shrink...

So tell me, were you a willing participant in this quest back in the Stalinist turns?

"But Israel France just thinks it's defending itself, and will retaliate!!!" really isn't a poll winner with SV you might want to rethink your approach.

Click to shrink...

The argument here isn't "They think they're in the right, so they are." It's "They think they're in the right and that this is important, increasing the risk that they'll toss a fusion bomb at you over this."

In the end, getting disintegrated by a fusion bomb is just about as bad whether you were morally in the right or not before the kaboom.

 

[Quickshot0]

They would remember how the war started because the Soviet Union tried to uphold an International law.
Every other detail would feel hollow legitimacy wise, because the side aspects would disappear.

Click to shrink...

The USA invaded Afghanistan because terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center. If you ask the world today how they view that war, they're not going to say it was justified though.

Justifications and such don't really matter, you'll be judged on the end result. If it's a complete slaughter you'll be judged as having followed international law blindly with no regard of real world consequences and how many people really had to suffer for those words. That would be how that would be remembered then. Of course if it goes well perhaps you'll get a more positive image then, but that assumes it does. There are quite a few negative outcomes here, up to and including France and USA deciding that if we can fund insurgents in core territories then so can they and have fun in Central Asia with that.

It's not like they aren't already doing this, and it's not like we would stop smuggling in arms even if we de-escalate. All that backing down would achieve on that front is giving the government ammunition to say "we're fighting against the USSR and we're winning! Look at how they backed down, we need to push more and our victory will be complete".

Click to shrink...

The reality would be thus they get their small victory and now they are no longer officially directly fighting the USSR. Meaning that instead it is the locals rebelling against them and they just are happening to smuggle in USSR weapons. It's not nearly as existential risk if they lose there then, and it won't be just blamed on the USSR then either.

As such, their hollow victory leads to a substantially safer and more sure outcome for the USSR at not just no extra cost to the USSR, it will probably literally be substantially cheaper in lives and material costs. People get tired of brush fires far more quickly then state to state wars where you think you are fighting for your very lives and existence.

What do promises have to do with this? Gaddafi will simply look at the facts and conclude that if USSR is not willing to break that blockade, they are obviously not going to be willing to break any other blockades that might be imposed on him, and so we aren't super invested into maintaining our ties. Like, there isn't any arguing that it will lead to some cooling down of relations. And he would actually be super into getting invaded, because then he can scream "Witness me!" and send hordes of obsolescent armour he bought from us to kill and die in his name.

Click to shrink...

Sure, but there the smuggling is still continuing they'll also get the impression you don't actually get abandoned. So it's kind of relative as relationship losses go. How ever if in the other scenario an invasion to create a buffer zone actually did happen, that would definitely cause a lot of relationship harm. Because of course the USSR will be blamed for not having foreseen this possible outcome when they started mass shipping arms to Algeria through Libya.

You say he'll be super in to that, but that's only if he wins. He'll probably be less amused if all the tanks die, the capital gets bombed and they try to personally target him. Even most fanatics tend to develop some negative thoughts when it starts hitting them personally.

And the final result of backing down, is, well, backing down. People aren't going to simply forget we backed down instead of forcing our way through. Sure, our continued supply of arms is also not going to get forgotten, and so will the end of Algerian War, however it ends, but one fact doesn't erase another, they are all in consideration.

Click to shrink...

So how many cases of backing down in the Cold War do you still recall right now off the top of your head? And how much weight do you give those cases from long ago for deciding how countries will act right now?

Because I know I certainly don't recall quite a few of them and I'm more in to history then your average person by a long shot.

So in reality, it's only a short term hit. In a decade or two it will start fading in to the background again for what ever the countries actually did then. Current behavior is far more important then past behavior in the end. So this reputation hits real impact is pretty marginal in long term practise. And meanwhile you get to look way better to the neutral countries for looking like more of the adult in the room, rather then the other sides reckless imperialistic escalations. And when they end up loosing, you'll look doubly good for that.

But you do need to pay for it, so you need to keep in mind what are you spending your political capital on - and in this particular case, I do not believe backing down is worth the price.

Click to shrink...

Sure fair, political capital is paid. But if you end up winning you'll regain it in the end. How much will it cost if it goes badly though? Even if it isn't nuclear, quite a few other bad outcomes will cost big time in the long term in political capital. Trying to save a little bit by backing a bad decision that has many potential dangerous down sides is just asking to risk a major loss here in future.

 

[Ashheap]

Yall are forgetting that France KNOWS if they escalate to nuclear war then they will be wiped off the map, not just losing a part of France, they will lose it all.

 

[Quickshot0]

Yall are forgetting that France KNOWS if they escalate to nuclear war then they will be wiped off the map, not just losing a part of France, they will lose it all.

Click to shrink...

What makes you so sure they don't think the situation is going that way anyway? They're being encircled, France proper is basically already being invaded, the Germans are rearming, the USSR is becoming ever more powerful and bellicose. Are not all the signs clearly there that the Soviets are aiming to end them?

With signs like that, any reasonable analyst would tell one that one might have to seriously start considering at least a use of a nuclear warning. Just to make sure they get the point that they've reached a red line and that you aren't going down with out taking them with you.


From the French side I'd say at least part of the population is thinking the situation is like that.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Yall are forgetting that France KNOWS if they escalate to nuclear war then they will be wiped off the map, not just losing a part of France, they will lose it all.

Click to shrink...

There are almost certainly Frenchmen in Paris who are correspondingly saying:

"Yall are forgetting that Russia KNOWS if they launch a serious nuclear attack on France, then they will be wiped off the map by the Americans, especially with the new administration. They wouldn't dare retaliate against us seriously."

 

[agumentic]

The reality would be thus they get their small victory and now they are no longer officially directly fighting the USSR. Meaning that instead it is the locals rebelling against them and they just are happening to smuggle in USSR weapons. It's not nearly as existential risk if they lose there then, and it won't be just blamed on the USSR then either.

As such, their hollow victory leads to a substantially safer and more sure outcome for the USSR at not just no extra cost to the USSR, it will probably literally be substantially cheaper in lives and material costs. People get tired of brush fires far more quickly then state to state wars where you think you are fighting for your very lives and existence.

Click to shrink...

Well, that's not how the French government will say it, they will be fighting the USSR no matter what we will do here. You can say that they will have less ammunition for their propaganda if there's no ongoing blockade breaking, but between failing to interdict USSR "trade" to Libya and making the USSR back down, then blowing up random smuggler-looking people in the desert, I'm going to say the latter is much easier to present as success.

However if in the other scenario an invasion to create a buffer zone actually did happen, that would definitely cause a lot of relationship harm. Because of course the USSR will be blamed for not having foreseen this possible outcome when they started mass shipping arms to Algeria through Libya.

You say he'll be super in to that, but that's only if he wins. He'll probably be less amused if all the tanks die, the capital gets bombed and they try to personally target him. Even most fanatics tend to develop some negative thoughts when it starts hitting them personally.

Click to shrink...

No it wouldn't? People will blame France and Gaddafi will be all on that as long as we continue to send him arms, now heavier and modern ones with intention of blowing up all the French and coming in as the liberator. Now, that would be a pretty dangerous escalation, but it's also going to make things worse for France before us.

So in reality, it's only a short term hit. In a decade or two it will start fading in to the background again for what ever the countries actually did then. Current

Click to shrink...

Decade or two is not a short term by any means. Decade or two of struggle will shape how the world will look before China and maybe India emerge as great powers in their own right and change the international situation. If this is going to affect things for decade or two, I am very much willing to risk escalation to ensure we look strong.

Sure fair, political capital is paid. But if you end up winning you'll regain it in the end. How much will it cost if it goes badly though? Even if it isn't nuclear, quite a few other bad outcomes will cost big time in the long term in political capital. Trying to save a little bit by backing a bad decision that has many potential dangerous down sides is just asking to risk a major loss here in future.

Click to shrink...

No, we aren't going to regain it in the end, because the end is years away. By that point we'll already taken all the hits and everyone will be able to say that their chosen course would surely make the situation better. And, let's consider, how much it will benefit if it goes well? We'll be in a much better position to maybe whittle another favour out of Semyonov to help him keep his faction on board, which we could then use to pay for a real education reform, or to improve our budget before the next plan, which is looking lean, or for a number of other things. Internal political game is not something to disregard, especially when the decision we're backing is not actually bad.

 

[DegenWeeb]

[X]Allow Libyian Self-Defense
[X]Throw the Matter to the Supreme Soviet

We need to support comrade Gaddafi in his endeavour of anti imperialism, with our help he will liberate Africa from the grip of the decadent western Imperialism. We must give him the means to strike against the French, I am sure that comrade Gaddafi will not abuse this gift from us.

 

[darknessworld]

Justifications and such don't really matter, you'll be judged on the end result.

Click to shrink...

The process is much more important than the end results.
Everyone who ever say the end results are the things that matter is just trying to not discuss or even hide how they reached that point.
The Afghanistan failure was the USA ignoring how unpopular the government they supported was with the local population and how corrupt it also was. But, technically, the end result of a non Taliban governament was reached for around 20 years, and that's the only truth that matters if you ignore the process.

How we reach the liberation of Algeria specifically is more important than the end result. Like how the liberation of India was for the British empire in this quest.

 

[Ashheap]

With signs like that, any reasonable analyst would tell one that one might have to seriously start considering at least a use of a nuclear warning. Just to make sure they get the point that they've reached a red line and that you aren't going down with out taking them with you.

Click to shrink...

Then we will also do a "nuclear warning" of our own. Nuclear brinkmanship at it finest.

There are almost certainly Frenchmen in Paris who are correspondingly saying:

"Yall are forgetting that Russia KNOWS if they launch a serious nuclear attack on France, then they will be wiped off the map by the Americans, especially with the new administration. They wouldn't dare retaliate against us seriously."

Click to shrink...

Nah, Ashbrook ain't gonna commit suicide for Algeria.

 

[Quickshot0]

Well, that's not how the French government will say it, they will be fighting the USSR no matter what we will do here. You can say that they will have less ammunition for their propaganda if there's no ongoing blockade breaking, but between failing to interdict USSR "trade" to Libya and making the USSR back down, then blowing up random smuggler-looking people in the desert, I'm going to say the latter is much easier to present as success.

Click to shrink...

We don't know if they'd fail to interdict trade in the sea, that's a pretty big assumption. And blowing up occasional smugglers will help convince them they perhaps have things under control then. Thus ultimately they'll come to realize it wasn't the USSR that brought them down but the Algerians. Just like they did in the OTL. Unless you think smuggling wasn't a thing in the OTL?

No it wouldn't? People will blame France and Gaddafi will be all on that as long as we continue to send him arms, now heavier and modern ones with intention of blowing up all the French and coming in as the liberator. Now, that would be a pretty dangerous escalation, but it's also going to make things worse for France before us.

Click to shrink...

We aren't talking about people but ony Gaddafi in specific. And plenty of authoritarians bite the hand that fed them when something goes bad in it, they rarely take the blame for their own mistakes in the matter. They'll probably 'demand' more help, say they are owed it for the USSR mistakes. Of course they'll still blame the French as well, but make no mistake that their relationship with the USSR would have developed new tensions, because it didn't all go as cleanly and they got in to personal danger as well.

That's pretty standard in things like this usually.

Decade or two is not a short term by any means. Decade or two of struggle will shape how the world will look before China and maybe India emerge as great powers in their own right and change the international situation. If this is going to affect things for decade or two, I am very much willing to risk escalation to ensure we look strong.

Click to shrink...

Decade or two is small potatoes in practise really. Though that time frame is like the pessimistic one, usually the next crisis wipes out much of the impression of the previous. And yes things will shift a bit over time, thus why it is important to look responsible.

After all, if one draws one of the bad outcome lots, one will not necessarily look strong. One can have negative links to ones reputation as well. Like in the assumed case of a French invasion in to Libya to try stop arms trade. I'm sure one can spin it some how at home, but for a neutral country that will look like, USSR help comes with invasions and parts of your land getting completely annihilated in the ensuing fighting. Which is a very negative impression and will make them much more hesitant to accept any kind of help from the USSR.

No, we aren't going to regain it in the end, because the end is years away. By that point we'll already taken all the hits and everyone will be able to say that their chosen course would surely make the situation better. And, let's consider, how much it will benefit if it goes well? We'll be in a much better position to maybe whittle another favour out of Semyonov to help him keep his faction on board, which we could then use to pay for a real education reform, or to improve our budget before the next plan, which is looking lean, or for a number of other things. Internal political game is not something to disregard, especially when the decision we're backing is not actually bad.

Click to shrink...

Assuming things don't explode in your face, in which case you'll be in a much worse position. After all the instigators in case of a failure take the blame. It's what happened to Khrushchev for instance over Cuba as well.

You are in the end basically gambling here over a bit of political influence loss on one side. And the potential to gain a bit of political influence, with a risk of losing it all and being on the chopping block instead. And all for what in many cases are highly questionable outcomes internationally.

The process is much more important than the end results.

Click to shrink...

That's only if the end results are with in reason enough still. If the outcomes are dire enough, which for instance even a limited nuclear exchange definitely would be. Then one will get the blame regardless of the process. The process will be declared broken, morally bankrupt, etc if it led to an outcome like that. And one could argue they might be right then.

Though I guess in the end this in a way says you are right, the process is more important. But who runs such an impartial and clear headed process where they have really thought through any response the opponent might make, why they'd make it, how to best respond to it. And then have made decisions to maximize the good outcomes for all from that. That would be running a good process. I do not think one can sanely argue that just running the blockade comes close to qualifying for that.

Then we will also do a "nuclear warning" of our own. Nuclear brinkmanship at it finest.

Click to shrink...

I see, you choose escalate because surely nothing bad will come of it and they wouldn't be 'that' crazy to actually end the communist world in their panicked fears being seemingly confirmed.


---------

Truthfully a lot of these discussions remind me on reading through the history of the Cuba crisis, same kind of reasons and motivations given. And none of it mattered in the end, just superficial things for the forces and damages they almost unleashed. In the end no one actually understood the other sides perspective and why they thought they also had no choice and so both rushed towards the cliff at breakneck speed, all the while utterly convinced of themselves being in the right.

Though I suspect that continuing this at this point won't convince any one further. So I guess I'm with @fasquardon that it is interesting how you can see the same opinions and choices get made over and over again straight towards the potential cliffs.

So I hope the dice are kind and this time the cliff doesn't hit, things were just starting to really look up. I was actually wondering if we could reach real communism here.

 

[MajorCringe]

[X]Send a Force

[X]Throw the Matter to the Supreme Soviet

 

[Moonless-seas]

So tell me, were you a willing participant in this quest back in the Stalinist turns?

Click to shrink...

No actually, I only found it when we were already on Malenkov, and I only created the SV account when she was already on the si-fi quest. But to answer the unsaid question, the difference is that Stalin's ethnic fuckery wasn't in the narrative, where as the Algeria situation very much is.(Just like in any "army" quest where every army deployment is presumably followed by metric tons of sexual assault like in the real world, but they don't make it a part of the narrative so it's fine)

I think I would like to read "Fulfill the ethnic tranfer quotas" just as much as the rest of you.

The argument here isn't "They think they're in the right, so they are." It's "They think they're in the right and that this is important, increasing the risk that they'll toss a fusion bomb at you over this."
In the end, getting disintegrated by a fusion bomb is just about as bad whether you were morally in the right or not before the kaboom.

Click to shrink...

I presumed it was obvious, I don't think anyone thinks the reasons they invaded Algeria are like... an elaborate larp.

 

[DkArthas]

I do think running the blockade is too risky. Which is way we should simply arm the third world nations and thus give them the ability to repulse the western liberal-imperalist regimes! This is the only way to ensure that the West doesn't force decolonized Africa back into chains.

 

[Fantasy explorer]

[X]Send a Force
[X]Throw the Matter to the Supreme Soviet

 

[agumentic]

We don't know if they'd fail to interdict trade in the sea, that's a pretty big assumption. And blowing up occasional smugglers will help convince them they perhaps have things under control then. Thus ultimately they'll come to realize it wasn't the USSR that brought them down but the Algerians. Just like they did in the OTL. Unless you think smuggling wasn't a thing in the OTL?

Click to shrink...

It's not really a big assumption, with our fleet deployed, success is practically assured. What's possible is that this success brings more troubles than it's worth, but that is not especially likely. And sure, they'll ultimately accept that it was Algerians, but what ultimately happens doesn't matter, what matters is how long they'll be able to maintain their spirits by posing it as a national struggle. And, as I said earlier, I believe failing to maintain the blockade and more intensive fighting more arms would ensure will mean they'll be less able to maintain their spirits.

We aren't talking about people but ony Gaddafi in specific. And plenty of authoritarians bite the hand that fed them when something goes bad in it, they rarely take the blame for their own mistakes in the matter. They'll probably 'demand' more help, say they are owed it for the USSR mistakes. Of course they'll still blame the French as well, but make no mistake that their relationship with the USSR would have developed new tensions, because it didn't all go as cleanly and they got in to personal danger as well.

Click to shrink...

No, what'll happen is Gaddafi would go "Fucking French, perfidiously beating my troops, USSR, I need more arms to continue the fight!" and we will go "Hell yeah, more people fighting the French, here, take another thousand tanks that'll get blown up, modern air defenses and advisers that will help the army". No one is going to blame anyone in that relationship, because the actual hardship is going to be on the people doing the dying. Like, I doubt the leadership of FLN or whatever the Algerian resistance is calling itself is blaming USSR for supplying them with arms, despite it much more directly leading to the war and the occupation.

Decade or two is small potatoes in practise really. Though that time frame is like the pessimistic one, usually the next crisis wipes out much of the impression of the previous. And yes things will shift a bit over time, thus why it is important to look responsible.

Click to shrink...

What's important is to look winning. "Responsible" is just something you get called if you managed to win in a good enough fashion. And the outcomes of breaking the blockade mostly look like a victory, with the bad ones being unlikely. Even an outright invasion of Libya, like you have mentioned, is something that would be pretty easy to spin into victory both internally and externally. Most people we support are either fighting already or wouldn't mind picking a fight, because they are some of the last ones that will be in danger.

Assuming things don't explode in your face, in which case you'll be in a much worse position. After all the instigators in case of a failure take the blame. It's what happened to Khrushchev for instance over Cuba as well.

Click to shrink...

If things go badly, which, to say again, is unlikely, we get to the other benefit of supporting a popular position - there are plenty of people we can shift the blame to. That is not something we can say about backing down. So unless things go catastrophically badly, an unlikely outcome in an already unlikely branch of development, we'll still be in an internally better position than if we were to support backing down.

 

[Ashheap]

I see, you choose escalate because surely nothing bad will come of it and they wouldn't be 'that' crazy to actually end the communist world in their panicked fears being seemingly confirmed.

Click to shrink...

Unironically yes, bcs Tit-for-tat is the best option in a iterated Prisoner dilemma.

 

[Redshirt Army]

[X]Send a Force
[X]Throw the Matter to the Supreme Soviet

I'm not backing down on this.