So we are looking at a situation where the state's actual government has been displaced by some warlords in fact?
That makes me alot more inclined to take Bemidji's side.
fasquardon
Essentially. Remember that four factions asked us to mediate:
The State of Minnesota at Bemidji, with the support of the United Councils of Manitoulin, the State of Superior at Duluth, and the Armstrong Clique, has approached you to request that you mediate their dispute with the State of Minnesota at Minneapolis over the rightful status of the state government. The State of Minnesota at Minneapolis, surprised and outraged by this maneuvering, which they apparently missed entirely, had no such grand assortment of allies, but did, nevertheless, manage to muster the provisional support of the State of Superior at Duluth (it's complicated). They assure you that no such mediation is necessary.
[ ][MEDIATE] Oh, but it is. You have no immediate interest in Minnesota but whatever's going on between Bemidji and Manitoulin intrigues you, and you very much do have a medium-term interest in resolving this conflict to your west before it becomes your problem, later. You will have the option to organize this mediation.
[ ][MEDIATE] If it's not, it's not. You have no interest in intervening. Let them sort it out like adults.
Minnesota has more guns, so its been able to intimidate its immediate neighbors.
And yet Bemidji has been able to put together enough allies to ask for foreign mediation, which points to a facility with diplomacy that would serve its neighborhood well over the coming years.
Also, one of the people who asked us to intervene is Manitoulin, which is an immediate neighbor of ours.
1. Commander Benoit is not merely part of the rank and file. He is the military counterpart to the elected Mayor of the State of Minneapolis. It is very hard to get higher up than the leader of a polity's military forces.
2. The description you cited mentions the citizens unfurling flags and such, suggesting that this sentiment is more widespread than you credit
3. I would not be so quick to assume that siding with them would disempower the Revivalists, especially when the best way to poison the well is to turn them into an enemy.
1)Yes, I noticed.
But like I pointed out, its unclear how much actual real influence he wields in the modern day. His feeling the pull of patriotism points to a career that predates the Collapse, which puts him in the seventies as a minimum. And we know Vic diplomats were active in Minneapolis.
Which again leads to the question of who actually controlled the military there.
2) Good. Now they have to actually act like it.
Wrapping yourself in the flag doesnt mean anything if you dont live up to its ideals. The Klu Klux Klan used to wrap themselves in the flag in the Old Country, and Unionists wrapped themselves in the flag too.
Minneapolis is literally an elective autocracy that exacts tribute from satellite communities and gives them no say on how their moneys and resources are spent or otherwise used. Thats certainly contrary to the ideals of the flags being waved. The Boston Tea Party was literally a protest against taxation without representation, and it was one of the proximal causes of the US War of Independence.
3)And if you're worried about enemies? Minneapolis is IRL less than 10% of the population of Minnesota, and that proportion would not have increased during Victoria's deliberate attempt at deurbanizing the US. If I was going to worry about making enemies, I'd be aligning myself with the majority population that occupies most of the rest of the state compared to the <10% in Minneapolis.
So instead, what you suggest is that we make this other power acknowledge our authority to mediate their dispute...through the threat of military force. Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds very much like forcing them to acknowledge us as an effective overlord, especially when they did not welcome our mediation to begin with.
As to your point that Minneapolis is a major port city, and one that is commercially positioned to become a major hub, why yes, it is. That doesn't change the fact that one of the main arguments the mayor was use to calm the restive situation prior to our conflict with Victoria was that to do otherwise would risk destabilize the hegemony the State needed to survive. Whether or not there is any factual basis in his argument, I do not know, but what I do know is that if you strip away what people believe they need to survive at the end of a barrel of a gun, you should not expect to find them well-disposed to you - or necessarily that others will think you a hero for it.
1)We know what forcing people to acknowledge you as an overlord is like, as do they; Victorian control is still less than five years gone.
This is not it. We are not compelling them to pay us tribute, the way they were doing to their neighbors.
Or asking them to change their policies or host troops the way the Victorians did.
This is just us making it clear that they cant use military force to coerce their neighbors anymore. At least, not without Consequences.
Victoria might have been happy to have them do it; we are NOT.
If you feel entitled to bully others with military force, you dont get to complain if someone shows up with a bigger stick.
2) No. He was making an argument for the hegemony that Minneapolis needed to survive
in its current form.
That is not the same thing as the survival of Minnesota. You are going to be hardpressed to justify why Minneapolis deserves to continue in its current configuration at the expense of its neighbors.
1. We may not be extracting tribute, but the region would still be in our sphere of influence, with Bemidji owing us quite a bit. And while I agree that a polity should not be allowed rob it's neighbors, remember that Minneapolis claims the lands of the State of Minnesota, just as Bemidji - from that perspective, what we call tribute may well be seen by them as taxes.
2. Our options are not limited to that, no. Nor do we necessarily have to choose an option that will likely lead to war. Indeed, if we were to rule in favor of Minneapolis, it may be possible to attach some stipulations regarding their conduct towards their neighbors, or their relationship with Bemidji. If we rule against them, there will very likely be a war, and we will have killed off any goodwill in the aftermath.
3. Personally, I find it unwise to assume that choosing an option that has been heavily implied will trigger a war won't trigger a war to be an undue risk, especially as we'd be ruling that the hegemon of the area has no right to the territory it controls. But if we want to assume that choosing such an option is fine and we will be seen as liberators, well, I simply have my doubts.
1) Yes?
We ARE actively attempting to expand our sphere of influence. This is a GOOD thing for us in our quest to resurrect the Old Country.
Moral authority matters.
Minneapolis does not get to claim the lands of the State of Minnesota; Americans and Canadians live there, whose opinions take precedence.
And the residents apparently acknowledge the authority of Bemidji over Minneapolis according to our diplomats. Thats what the situation boils down to. Minneapolis doesnt get to make an argument that ignores the opinions of the rest of the citizens of Minnesota.
2) Peace is more than just an absence of war. Chicago was not peaceful when it hosted the Andrew Division, for all the lack of open fighting on the streets. If Minneapolis is unwilling to listen to the people of Minnesota, who outnumber it by at least 9:1, without threatening war? If it chooses to push this? Then let there be war.
Better now than later, and there's always room for a warlord who wants to turn himself into an example of what NOT to do.
As for goodwill, goodwill with who? Minneapolis is a minority of the Minnesota population.
Its just the biggest city.
3) Hegemony is not a right.
Its a combination of happenstance, geopolitical positioning, moral authority, military might and the consent of the people in the area.
If you dont have the willing consent of the locals, any political arrangement is fragile and prone to collapse at the worst possible moment.
A situation where a city of maybe 10% attempts to lord it over the other 90% by force of military arms is never going to last without external intervention.
Thanks for the information interesting article.
Guess we will be aiming for F-16s or F-18s as our main multirole fighter since we can probably eventually produce and maintain them with greater ease.
You're welcome.
F-16Us or F-16Xs along with F-15EXs if I have my way.
www.forbes.com
www.who.int
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
www.bbc.co.uk
