Victoria Falls: A Post-Collapse American Nation Quest [Down With Victoria!]

[4WheelSword]

thread policy Discussion of politics that does not directly relate to the Quest or to Quest votes are banned from hereon out. This thread policy will be enforced by the Moderation team. Do not ignore it.

 

[DkArthas]

I don't mind spreading and fighting in support of some FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

 

[Largo]

I say yes, this sounds like a more limited scale conflict, not only we wouldn't be the only beligerants, but while Minneapolis is "strong" this is more of a comparative strenght.
We would need to know the size of their armed forces, but how many armed troops could a post collapse city support? even if they do have some sort of militia or reserves, not unlikely but if you are an autocratic govermnent, you want the monopoly on trigger pullers, so even if a "patrician force" exist, it would be rather shoddy.

More importantly, if this comes to war, it won't be a war on our land, which is always a plus. Logistic issues assides, I mean.

Click to shrink...

These aren't reasons to fight at all. And the reasons @Lupercal are entirely about morality rather than what's actually the best for us. The modern day US barely has the option to make choices purely on moral grounds, and we aren't that.

I mean, this was precisely why I opposed dealing with Minnesota in the last round in the first place, because I was worried that we would get dragged into whatever was going on over there. And while I'm not necessarily saying recognizing Bemidji will lead to war, I am worried it will create a "Shooting an Elephant" situation where we are all but forced into a win that is not to our benefit.

My stance, to paraphrase from a man much wiser than I am, is that all of Minnesota for now is not worth the bones of a single Commonwealth scout.

 

[LilyWitch]

Bismark. Your paraphrasing Bismark. Talking about why it wasn't worth it to intervine in the balkans.

Edit: To be clear your also quoting one of his biggest diplomatic blunders. Not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier

 

[Chaos Blade]

These aren't reasons to fight at all. And the reasons @Lupercal are entirely about morality rather than what's actually the best for us. The modern day US barely has the option to make choices purely on moral grounds, and we aren't that.

I mean, this was precisely why I opposed dealing with Minnesota in the last round in the first place, because I was worried that we would get dragged into whatever was going on over there. And while I'm not necessarily saying recognizing Bemidji will lead to war, I am worried it will create a "Shooting an Elephant" situation where we are all but forced into a win that is not to our benefit.

My stance, to paraphrase from a man much wiser than I am, is that all of Minnesota for now is not worth the bones of a single Commonwealth scout.

Click to shrink...

But that is the thing, we are championing the reconstruction cause, we see ourselves a continuation of the US and are being asked by a faction that can prove it is the continuation of a US state, and other factions, to intervene in this issue.
War is not guaranteed if we move against Minnesota, but the cost of not supporting Bemidji would do to our reputation and stated political and ideological aims, severe damage.
Again, we aren't being asked to take over Minnesota, or even Minneapolis, just throwing our support behind Bemidji, the surviving State government and their allies, against an autocratic regimen against a warlord state that hasn't even tried to get any legitimacy other than by force of arms.

So, no guarantees here, but if we want to expand our sphere of influence, and our larger scale aims, specially re: Victoria, round two, having friends and good neigbors is critical.

 

[Random Member]

I don't mind spreading and fighting in support of some FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

Click to shrink...

Hmm, is there oil in the region?

 

[Cyberphilosipher]

Hmm, is there oil in the region?

Click to shrink...

The better question to ask is does it have access to International Markets and a Port?

Edit: Because that's what I'm thinking is our Oil.

 

[Chaos Blade]

The better question to ask is does it have access to International Markets and a Port?

Edit: Because that's what I'm thinking is our Oil.

Click to shrink...

the city is on the Mississippi, so, probably, depends on downstream, on any case by that reason alone it is of interest to us to, well, even if they are on another branch of the river or whatnot, a hostile state on the river could be problematic to our trade networks.
So, by that alone having a check on them is more or less a good idea.
Specially given their inherent instability

 

[me.me.here]

TBH I'm not sure what about that precedent would be a problem.

Click to shrink...

Specifically, there are a bunch of robber-baron polities on the Mississippi that are basically entirely based on 'we have enough guns to make people pay us to pass'. Signifying our being willing to bypass temporal power in favor of more ephemeral stuff means all of them have to start looking over their shoulders for anybody who might be able to put together a claim regardless of whether they could really make it stick.

Which would make them significantly more nervous about being overthrown, which often leads to greater upfront hostility and/or intractability.

His patriotism resurging (not emerging, but resurging) points to a career that predates the fall of the United States.

Click to shrink...

The exact wording is that he's hearing the call of patriotism again - that doesn't actually say that the patriotism belongs to him. It could easily be that he's paying attention to rumbling in the lower ranks (who were explicitly noted to have attempted a coup earlier) in order to not end up giving orders that his subordinates wouldn't necessarily follow.

Also, you don't need to have been a careerist in the Old Country to have patriotic feelings regarding it (or even alive when it was a thing) - hence Revivalist Sentiment being super duper common instead of being strictly limited to the relatively small demographic of over-60's who were adults or nearly so pre-Collapse.

 

[AllenWalker]

I suspect some are going to accuse me of strawmanning, but it's a question which I think needs to be clear: are we willing, if it gets to that situation, to go to war against Minneapolis in order to support Bemidji? Are we willing to make such a commitment right after ending one war and while we're dealing with all sorts of pressures, never mind the fact that Victoria is still out there?

Click to shrink...

yes. Victoria is not a concern right now, they are busy killing themselves. In fact because of that there is no better time to do this than now.

We can not revive the Union if we allow some wannabee warlords to supress americans and fight the legitimate government.

 

[Rat King]

I'm not really in favor of reviving the union, but I am in favor of helping "three reservations in a trenchcoat".

 

[LilyWitch]

What Rat King said. I'd also add that the only legitimancy I care about is the legitimacy granted by the people living there. I came around on this partially because given its description Minneapolis sounds less like the popular government of the people being kept down by beurocrats/warlords/a gerntcracy which cloaks itself in old country symbolism and more like they *are* the beurocrats/warlords/a gerntcracy cloaking themselves in old country symbolism to suppress the popular government.

 

[Chaos Blade]

Specifically, there are a bunch of robber-baron polities on the Mississippi that are basically entirely based on 'we have enough guns to make people pay us to pass'. Signifying our being willing to bypass temporal power in favor of more ephemeral stuff means all of them have to start looking over their shoulders for anybody who might be able to put together a claim regardless of whether they could really make it stick.

Which would make them significantly more nervous about being overthrown, which often leads to greater upfront hostility and/or intractability.


The exact wording is that he's hearing the call of patriotism again - that doesn't actually say that the patriotism belongs to him. It could easily be that he's paying attention to rumbling in the lower ranks (who were explicitly noted to have attempted a coup earlier) in order to not end up giving orders that his subordinates wouldn't necessarily follow.

Also, you don't need to have been a careerist in the Old Country to have patriotic feelings regarding it (or even alive when it was a thing) - hence Revivalist Sentiment being super duper common instead of being strictly limited to the relatively small demographic of over-60's who were adults or nearly so pre-Collapse.

Click to shrink...

Well, it could serve as a carrot/stick precedent. if we go to blows, we set things up to show that minnesota rejected our carrot.
if we can do that, we can probably deal with the Mississippi riverine brotherhood of the coast/compulsive tax collection and donations officers and such groups.

I mean the above depends how things evolve, but if we are willing to intervene and are willing to talk first and deal fairly and what not, we could find our odds when dealing with the robber barons to be, actually, improved.

 

[Rivenscryr]

That's my bad, actually. Hostile Neighborhood is gone completely. I just forgot to update the Status Screen.

Click to shrink...

Thank you. That's very helpful to know and alleviates my concerns about possibly proc'ing that. Given that, I retract any objections related to that spirit, @uju32.

My concerns about the consequences of a very likely civil war on the people of the region, as well as how we are making inferences about the relative sizes of populations based on pre-Collapse when we know those numbers have likely shifted considerably, stand.

And what claim would that be? They are a city government with some troops. The closest analogue to them are regional warlords in 1920s China. They aren't the Minnesota government, they are a city with an army controlling parts of Minnesota. We are not dealing with an established, recognized nation, we are dealing with a warlord. We can't handle diplomacy with them in the same way we deal with nation states, since they are not a nation state.
And yes, if they go to war over our diplomatic declaration, I consider that to be evidence that they aren't willing to settle disputes peacefully and are thus a threat to their neighbors. I fail to see how establishing closer ties with a polity and somebody waging war over that is going to make neighbors hostile towards us.

Click to shrink...

You can't just go "what claim", when part of the reason we're getting involved in the mediation to begin with is because the situation is because both parties claim the State, with one being the de jure government, and one being the de facto hegemon. For us to claim that "if they go to war over our diplomatic declaration, I consider that to be evidence that they aren't willing to settle disputes peacefully and are thus a threat to their neighbors" really just sounds like us looking for a pretext to use our armies. And yes, we have a powerful enough army that we will almost certainly win a conventional fight if it comes to war, but is the cost (financial, humanitarian, etc) of a war, not just on us, but on the people of the region, truly worth it? If it comes to a war, after we destabilize the region, will the people of Minnesota actually thank us? Will our Congress - part of which really does not like us following our ramming through of a bill - approve when more Commonwealth soldiers are sent to die?

Many voices in the thread previously were very quick and very vocal about assigning us a portion of the blame for what the Victorians did to their own people, saying that the blood of the civilians of Buffalo were on our hands because we took the city. If we are to be consistent with that perspective, that would like logically mean that any blood spilled because of these choices will also be on our hands. The position shouldn't change because of how just we may see an intervention as being, which is why I am urging caution, that we do not minimize/dismiss the risks of the situation as it currently stands.

 

[Red Rationalist]

You can't just go "what claim", when part of the reason we're getting involved in the mediation to begin with is because the situation is because both parties claim the State, with one being the de jure government, and one being the de facto hegemon. For us to claim that "if they go to war over our diplomatic declaration, I consider that to be evidence that they aren't willing to settle disputes peacefully and are thus a threat to their neighbors" really just sounds like us looking for a pretext to use our armies.

Click to shrink...

It isn't a pretext. Governments generally don't declare war based on diplomatic recognition for another state. If Minneapolis chooses to declare war, they will be responsible for it. I would consider such a declaration of war to be insane war mongering.

And yes, we have a powerful enough army that we will almost certainly win a conventional fight if it comes to war, but is the cost (financial, humanitarian, etc) of a war, not just on us, but on the people of the region, truly worth it? If it comes to a war, after we destabilize the region, will the people of Minnesota actually thank us? Will our Congress - part of which really does not like us following our ramming through of a bill - approve when more Commonwealth soldiers are sent to die?

Click to shrink...

I don't think a war in Minnesota is likely outcome from our current choices. However, the removal of the Minneapolis government would not destabilize the region, all it would mean is a further empowerment of other local polities. We have settled disputes before on the great lakes, we could do it in Minnesota. Minneapolis doesn't stabilize the region in any sense of the word, I don't see them fighting of territorial incursions or insurgencies.

 

[uju32]

You seem to be claiming that if a polity which claims an area goes to war to defend that claim when it is threatened, then that proves it shouldn't have a claim to the region? I'm not sure that this is at all a practical stance to take when it comes to relations between nations, as it is likely to make any other polity incredibly nervous.



Taken in isolation, that would seem a reasonable interpretation. However, when considered in the context of all the other text regarding the situation, in which it is outright stated that whichever decision we make, there is likely to be upheaval, and that Minneapolis, if picked, can get the state in order, likely without a civil war, this very strongly implies that siding with Bemidji will lead to war.

Please do not minimize the risk present in these choices, especially since by recognizing Bemidji as the legitimate government over the state, you are essentially putting Minneapolis into a position where it has little choice but to defend its claim by force.



1. I'm not just going to assume that the person who is stated to be charge of the military is not in charge of the military. And I don't really see what Vic Diplomats being active in the area (as they were for many other areas, poisoning our neighbors against us) has to do with their chain of command and how much authority Benoit actually wields.

2. Actual representation was offered to the colonies in the wake of the Boston Tea Party, and the Conciliatory Resolution ended taxation on colonies that provided for the imperial defense. The War of Independence happened anyway.

3. I'm not at all certain that we know the comparative size of the populations we're dealing with. Yes, we know the pre-Collapse sizes, but that may not reflect the current reality on the ground. If Minneapolis is relatively prosperous and things are great for its citizens, then I don't find it unlikely that they could have experienced population shifts from. Immigration in the decades since the collapse, if not at the rates that the CFC is currently seeing.



1) So we agree then, that intervention would lead to the Commonwealth expanding our sphere of influence via military force. This satisfies the conditions to trigger Hostile Neighborhood, regardless of our stated justifications.

2) "Let there be war", is it? I fear that this is very much the mindset that leads to thinking "they will greet us as liberators." Better now than later assumes that there will necessarily be a later, that war is in fact, inevitable, but I refuse to believe that. There are diplomatic options we could very well pursue, but we won't have the opportunity of even trying should we provoke a war now, no matter how justified we may believe we are.

3) By that definition, it is not our right to act as hegemon either, especially when both parties involved have some supporters (Note now Duluth is supporting both sides in the mediation here).

Vote how you choose. I am simply going to express that a degree of caution is warranted, given that we don't actually know the population numbers 40 years after the collapse, that a civil war in Minnesota is not likely to result in good things for the population of the area, and that armed intervention may have a chance of triggering Hostile Neighborhood - something I won't rule out unless @PoptartProdigy confirms otherwise.

Click to shrink...

1) All things being equal, no successor state is entitled to rule an area against the will of the residents there, and that is a principle that I am generally happy to defend with military force, and a principle we've held sacred since the secession of the Old Country from the British Empire.
We bodied Victoria for attempting to enforce such a claim in the Great Lakes region. Im not seeing why we should give Minneapolis a bye on that.

2)Order that requires you to keep pointing guns at people who outnumber you to enforce it is unstable. Sooner or later you'll come a cropper.
I'd rather back the people who are demonstrably capable of talking to disparate communities and getting them to work together.
Bemidji can buy arms and military trainers; Minneapolis cant buy diplomatic aptitude or population or Legitimacy.

3) We have a good idea how Victorian "diplomacy" works, and we know from the writeup that Victorian agents were heavily involved in Minneapolis' foreign policy and domestic policy decisions of the last three years. It is reasonable to question just how much of its military decisions were controlled by the military figurehead commander, and how much are influenced by other members of the military hierarchy.

4)And the colonies didnt think it was good enough, as was their right.

5) Victoria has pursued a deliberate policy of deurbanizing the United States where they can for the last thirty years. In the absence of urban infrastructure, there is very little chance that Minneapolis share of the Minnesota population has increased, and its all but certain its actively dropped as people moved out into the countryside to perform subsistence agriculture.

6)No we are not agreed.
By your definition of things, kicking the Shawnee Kingdom out of Chicago's ports should have triggered Hostile Neighborhood, but it didnt.
Neither did our defensive alliances with the Shawnee Republic or the Sandusky Communes or the Blue Mountain Farmers.

We made a public commitment not to attempt to force people to do things our way. We sent diplomats to talk and mediate. Not soldiers.
Thats not the same thing as a commitment to pacifism.
If Minneapolis choose to keep waving guns around, they'd have made their choice.

7)Dude, we just sent diplomats to the region to find out who has popular support.
Minneapolis has to point guns at people to get them to profess support, Bemidji does not. It really is that simple.

8) See, here's the difference between us and Minneapolis: We are very carefully not pointing guns at anyone to make them see things our way.
Despite the fact that our capacity to do so vastly outweighs that of Minneapolis.
Our population wants to be here and under the control of our government. Our allies want to be in alliance with us.

If we were behaving the way Minneapolis seems to be, they would be funnelling tribute down to Chicago today.

I suspect some are going to accuse me of strawmanning, but it's a question which I think needs to be clear: are we willing, if it gets to that situation, to go to war against Minneapolis in order to support Bemidji? Are we willing to make such a commitment right after ending one war and while we're dealing with all sorts of pressures, never mind the fact that Victoria is still out there? And if anyone responds with "There won't be a war" or "Minneapolis can't stand up to us", I will end you.

Click to shrink...

Can we afford not to be willing to go to war against Minneapolis in order to support Bemidji, if it gets that far? Any more than we were not willing to go to war for Detroit? Can we afford to ignore an autocracy on our northwestern border as it attempts to coerce its neighbors and expand by force of arms? Can we afford to let this problem fester?

We committed to expanding by political and diplomatic means for both ethical and pragmatic reasons. To grow our influence diplomatically and economically, not by force of arms. We however are not pacifists, and can be startlingly pugnacious; see our reactions to the Vic diplomats at Detroit. The Chicago Air Patrol and Navy did have a function of fucking up people who messed with Chicagoan trade, and still do.

Its in part because Victoria is out there that we need to push a proactive foreign policy to build an alliance of the likeminded while we have a free hand. We do need to grow, both as a matter of our ideals, and survival.

 

[Largo]

Can we afford not to be willing to go to war against Minneapolis in order to support Bemidji, if it gets that far? Any more than we were not willing to go to war for Detroit? Can we afford to ignore an autocracy on our northwestern border as it attempts to coerce its neighbors and expand by force of arms? Can we afford to let this problem fester?

We committed to expanding by political and diplomatic means for both ethical and pragmatic reasons. To grow our influence diplomatically and economically, not by force of arms. We however are not pacifists, and can be startlingly pugnacious; see our reactions to the Vic diplomats at Detroit. The Chicago Air Patrol and Navy did have a function of fucking up people who messed with Chicagoan trade, and still do.

Its in part because Victoria is out there that we need to push a proactive foreign policy to build an alliance of the likeminded while we have a free hand. We do need to grow, both as a matter of our ideals, and survival.

Click to shrink...

I do not see Minnesota as a strategic interest nor as a threat. And while there may be some concerns about having a potential rival on our western border, that's not going to end even if we went so far as to outright annex Minnesota. Are we going to be like Russia, continually gobbling up land to its east and west because it needs a buffer zone to protect Moscow, and then needs a buffer zone to protect the buffer zone, and then needs a buffer zone to and so on?

We cannot just expand haphazardly and continue to stick ourselves into every state which comes begging for something from us, and I continue to maintain that our destiny is to the east and south.

 

[uju32]

I do not see Minnesota as a strategic interest nor as a threat. And while there may be some concerns about having a potential rival on our western border, that's not going to end even if we went so far as to outright annex Minnesota. Are we going to be like Russia, continually gobbling up land to its east and west because it needs a buffer zone to protect Moscow, and then needs a buffer zone to protect the buffer zone, and then needs a buffer zone to and so on?

We cannot just expand haphazardly and continue to stick ourselves into every state which comes begging for something from us, and I continue to maintain that our destiny is to the east and south.

Click to shrink...

Minneapolis is a significant node on the upper Mississipi.
It absolutely is a mediumterm strategic interest, and one whose provenance we should keep an eye on.

Minnesota overthrew what sounds to be a democratically elected state government upstream.
Fine, that was in the Before Times. We drew a line under that. But they seem to be still attempting to coerce their neighbors militarily even after that. Which is Not Okay.

Thats not a valid comparison. Modern Russia goes around destabilizing other nations in order to create client states. Here, we've been asked by the people who live there for diplomatic support so they can exercise their right to self-determination. The state govt at Bemidji was elected by the rest of Minnesota, and still holds their professed allegiance when Minneapolis is not within earshot to loom threateningly while fondling their gun barrel.

We are not expanding haphazardly.
Also, Revivalists. Part of our Legitimacy/Legacy and moral authority comes from our support for the ideals of the Old Country, including the right to self-determination. We're idealists pretty much by definition, and we've stuck out our neck for worse.

Either we're moving beyond the era of "Power grows out of the barrel of a gun" or we're not.
As the current regional heavyweight, with great power comes great responsibility, and how we choose to ignore, how we deal with people will color how others deal with us in the future when we'll need support.

 

[Dessard]

I don't think the risk of war in Minnesota is a big concern, short-term - we can win it if so and I'm convinced by the arguments that we wouldn't come off as the aggressor.

I think it'd be more of a concern in the long term: when Victoria recovers enough to present a threat, it'd be better not to have another threat on the other side.

But even then, the smart way to play it would be not as a military risk but a diplomatic/industrial one: could we change/befriend/defang the state at Minneapolis enough and/or strengthen and network our allies/its rivals in Minnesota enough to check it by the time that happens? So my view is that a commitment to Bemidji is very likely a diplomatic or economic one, which I haven't seen discussed, but probably not a military one though we should be prepared to spend military effort to protect the other Minnesota powers if we have to.

I'm also not convinced that not backing or not antagonizing Minneapolis would actually neutralize an opportunistically growing warlord state in the long run, so I don't see much argument for it besides avoiding both the commitment to Bemidji & Friends and the gain of local security. We'd want to neutralize Minneapolis diplomatically and economically of course, using money, our legitimacy and its revivalist sentiment... same as we'd be doing if we picked the other side in action economy terms.

Ultimately, it seems to me like narrow geopolitics/risk assessment can't answer to which vote is better, only what we want ideally (Bemidji) and whether a reputation for backing popular governments or not rocking the boat would be better in expanding South.

 

[Professor Vesca]

The thing with Minneapolis is that its on a river, a river we have access to, and we just increased the size of our brown water navy. Doubled in fact.

Here is the thing. While theoretically Minneapolis can threaten its neighbors, I question the size of their own brown water navy. Especially when compared to our own. I think its fair to say that while its possible they can slow us down, they cant actually fight us off if we put our foot down. As a city state, this means that they are in range of our guns. We can sail our ships right up to them and they cant do a whole lot to stop us. Assuming we take them seriously from the word go and dont half-ass this.

What does this mean? They are a city state that relies on their military power to extract tribute. This means they dont have many local friends. Other than Duluth, possibly. Theoretically they could go out and try to attack Bemidji but if they were capable of that they would have done it by now. They can stay and their military power on which they depend is in range of our navy guns, or they can leave Minneapolis to go try to stomp Bemidji and force a faite accompli, in which point they effectively secede the city to us. Once they give up the city, thats it. They have no support outside of the urban core which we have just seized from them and will evaporate in short supply. Without a sympathetic population in which to disappear... yeah.

Essentially their best bet is to stay in Minneapolis and hope they are too tough a nut for us to crack right away.

But if they were capable of expanding their hegemon, they would have done so by now. If they have to sit in Minneapolis to keep us away, they cant expand their hegemon and their tributary system starts to shrink as people defect away from them and towards Bemidji. Its a downward spiral, the more their tributary system contracts, the less they have to support their military, the more their military shrinks, the faster their tributary system begins to fall apart. So we have to assume they know this, they know we know, and we know that they know we know.

The question then becomes once we stomp their own riverine navy, what is their next reaction going to be. They cant take and hold Bemidji, and the state government isnt tied to any one community. So it can just pull up stakes and relocate to another sympathetic settlement. Whereas Minneapolis is by definition tied to the city of Minneapolis. They will need SOMETHING to force us to pull our forces away from them and it cannot be through direct military opposition. Their lack of territory translates to lack of resources and therefore any military they do have will be hard pressed to rebuild after we thrash it.

They would have to find unlikely allies to distract us with. This either means the Russians (unlikely, any comms would have to go through us or one of the other Great Lakes polities, which basically means us), Victoria (Very unlikely, it would likely prompt a revolt if word got out that Minneapolis leadership conspired with the Vicks to preserve their own power) or possibly the Japanese. But if the Japanese had the ability to project much force over the Cascades they would have done it by now. It probably has a lot to do with why Minneapolis is giving us the cold shoulder.

If we become involved in their affairs the paper tiger becomes exposed. That and our own political ideologies are not compatible with Minneapolis and how they have chosen to construct their hegemon in the region. As soon as we become involved the precariousness of their situation becomes plain, which makes their situation even more untenable as it becomes obvious their strength is ephemeral only. This is probably a big part of why Minneapolis has chosen to give us the cold shoulder and is attempting to keep us out of affairs in the region.

So yeah, ultimately it boils down to an economic and political concern in the region. I think while Minneapolis has the teeth to maintain short term peace, it lacks the capacity to form a long term viable state that isnt chaotic and internecine. I think it would be better served if we can defang the current minneapolis government and unite everyone under a more democratically elected government of one sort or another. Likely underneath the State government in Bemidji. It is highly likely we would have to give them guns and economic support to keep them going, but once they are on their own two feet we could stand to gain a stable long term ally in the area, if not a bunch of new members for our burgeoning revived USA. It will cause short term pain, but I think the reputation of backing governments with popular support is worth it. Especially if we start moving south.

In this instance, I suggest ripping off the bandaid and supporting Bemidji.

 

[Rivenscryr]

6)No we are not agreed.
By your definition of things, kicking the Shawnee Kingdom out of Chicago's ports should have triggered Hostile Neighborhood, but it didnt.
Neither did our defensive alliances with the Shawnee Republic or the Sandusky Communes or the Blue Mountain Farmers.

Click to shrink...

I take exception to this, given that we as the Commonwealth have every right to decide that a power that has been unrelentingly hostile to us and was attempting to organize an alliance to oppose us is not welcome in our ports. That is not, by any reasonable definition, using military force to expand our sphere of influence.

Neither would our defensive alliances with the Shawnee Republic (against a power which was already hostile to us both), the Sandusky Commune (against Victoria, who we were already hostile), or the Blue Mountain Farmers (where the region is not in dispute).

This situation, where there is a disputed claim to the region, with the strong possibility that we will have to resort military force to enforce our mediation, should we find against the existing regional hegemon, is very different from the above.

That said, I already said that I withdrew my objections related to triggering Hostile Neighborhood, so I don't know why you kept arguing as if I hadn't.

3) We have a good idea how Victorian "diplomacy" works, and we know from the writeup that Victorian agents were heavily involved in Minneapolis' foreign policy and domestic policy decisions of the last three years. It is reasonable to question just how much of its military decisions were controlled by the military figurehead commander, and how much are influenced by other members of the military hierarchy.

Click to shrink...

@PoptartProdigy, could we get a ruling on what the Commonwealth knows about the military leadership of Minneapolis? Do we have any substantial reason to suspect that the person who is stated as being in charge is merely a figurehead?

It isn't a pretext. Governments generally don't declare war based on diplomatic recognition for another state. If Minneapolis chooses to declare war, they will be responsible for it. I would consider such a declaration of war to be insane war mongering

Click to shrink...

Which is why IRL we have recognized Taiwan as an independent state, yes? Or why the Arab states in the Middle East absolutely did not declare war on the new state of Israel after the UN voted to divide Palestine into two sovereign states, leading to issues in the region which continue to this day.

 

[Pittauro]

The state govt at Bemidji was elected by the rest of Minnesota, and still holds their professed allegiance when Minneapolis is not within earshot to loom threateningly while fondling their gun barrel.

Click to shrink...

about this.. we've been told that they've held elections 3 years ago, but... well, I'm kinda curious about just WHO got to vote.

Let's be real, I don't think they managed to hold elections across the whole of Minnesota. I expect the election was only held in Bemidji, so the value of this election is a bit lower than what I think you're expecting.

Still better than Minneapolis though, who restricts his vote to only PART of its citizens, and then goes to extort collect "protection money".

..what does this remind me of.... oh, wait!

 

[Red Rationalist]

Which is why IRL we have recognized Taiwan as an independent state, yes? Or why the Arab states in the Middle East absolutely did not declare war on the new state of Israel after the UN voted to divide Palestine into two sovereign states, leading to issues in the region which continue to this day.

Click to shrink...

The ROC uses economic sanctions against governments that acknowledge Taiwan. WhIch isn't war, on account of the lack of weaponry being fired.
I suppose the case of Palestine is the exception that proves the rule. The vast majority of recognition of national states don't lead to war. I fail to see what is so special about Mineapolis here.

 

[Rivenscryr]

The ROC uses economic sanctions against governments that acknowledge Taiwan. Which isn't war, on account of the lack of weaponry being fired. I suppose the case of Palestine is the exception that proves the rule. The vast majority of recognition of national states don't lead to war. I fail to see what is so special about Mineapolis here.

Click to shrink...

I fail to see why you are dismissing PRC's warning as of this year that Taiwanese independence means war, or the very real tensions that exist between the USA and China regarding the status of the island. If you think that US recognition of Taiwan as an independent nation would not lead to war, any more than the Commonwealth recognizing Bedmiji will lead to civil war in the Minnesota area, I think you are drastically underestimating the risks inherent in kicking over the apple cart.

 

[uju32]

I take exception to this, given that we as the Commonwealth have every right to decide that a power that has been unrelentingly hostile to us and was attempting to organize an alliance to oppose us is not welcome in our ports. That is not, by any reasonable definition, using military force to expand our sphere of influence.

Neither would our defensive alliances with the Shawnee Republic (against a power which was already hostile to us both), the Sandusky Commune (against Victoria, who we were already hostile), or the Blue Mountain Farmers (where the region is not in dispute).

This situation, where there is a disputed claim to the region, with the strong possibility that we will have to resort military force to enforce our mediation, should we find against the existing regional hegemon, is very different from the above.

That said, I already said that I withdrew my objections related to triggering Hostile Neighborhood, so I don't know why you kept arguing as if I hadn't.

Click to shrink...

1) Why? We are not at war with the Shawnee Kingdom at the moment. Nor were they creating an alliance to make war upon us. To oppose us diplomatically and economically, but not militarily, if only because we outweighed them massively. Furthermore, we did not just ban them from our ports; we banned anyone trading or associating with them from our ports as well.

Thats an economic blockade enforced by the current regional power. Blockades have been considered acts of war, and our Vic treaty considers Vic blockade of our trade to be casus belli, and yet no one considers the progressive economic strangulation of the Shawnee Kingdom to be heavyhanded or unprovoked. If we consider that a legitimate course of action (and to be clear, I do) then I'm not really seeing what the problem is.

Egregious diplomatic opposition is sufficient to invoke crushing economic retaliation without triggering Hostile Neighborhood.

2)Military alliances are not innocuous.

They represent a projection of political and military force into a region where it previously didnt exist. Our military alliances are a promise that we will bring the full force of Commonwealth retaliation on anyone who fucks with our ally's territory in the region. That is not trivial. Victoria had a network of military alliances that we forced them to renunciate with our peace treaty, and noone ever thought any of them were innocent.

3) There isnt a disputed claim. Not on closer observation.

One citystate wanting to perpetuate itself as kingshit of turd mountain at the expense of everyone else in the state because it currently has more guns than everyone else is not a disputed claim. When your kid tries to take his siblings candy after eating his own, ownership of the candy isnt actually in doubt; whats in doubt is whether you'll watch him/her steal that shit.

Minneapolis does not have a right to suzerainty over Minnesota; even pre-Collapse, it was just the seat of the state government. The MN state government doesnt have to be seated in Minneapolis, and the one at Bemidji was actually elected recently. The administration currently holding Minneapolis is the city/county govt.

Literally their only claim here is Might makes Right. And we have enough Might to make that argument invalid.

4)Missed that post. My apologies.

 

[uju32]

about this.. we've been told that they've held elections 3 years ago, but... well, I'm kinda curious about just WHO got to vote.
Let's be real, I don't think they managed to hold elections across the whole of Minnesota. I expect the election was only held in Bemidji, so the value of this election is a bit lower than what I think you're expecting.

Still better than Minneapolis though, who restricts his vote to only PART of its citizens, and then goes to extort collect "protection money".

..what does this remind me of.... oh, wait!

Click to shrink...

Nah. Bemidji only elections would not have standing. Or statewide support.

Doesnt necessarily mean that they held one man one vote elections across the state, though that IS possible; we were holding those back in the 18th and 19th century with no transport faster than horseback.
It might have been a proxy vote style affair, with communities sending representatives to vote for them at a meeting of communities.