RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 2300 Great Game Command Center

19:04, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

International Forums.

Posted by RefereeFor group 0
Referee
GM, 68 posts
Sun 18 Aug 2013
at 15:23
  • msg #1

International Forums

Post any public discussions, debate, resolutions, or proposals here.  This doesn't necessarily represent the UN General Assembly (but the UNGC is considered the default international forum...if necessary identify where you are taking things at the start of your post like so /UNSC/).

If you want to bring something up to a vote, I don't really think most players are interested in playing a game of International Law and Legal Research so what you want out of the proposal can be spelled out in plain language and considered to apply as commonly interpreted.

And also noting that nation-states are ultimately sovereign and may ignore any passed proposal short of the application of some sort of coercive force (economic\military).  In this world even Maritime Law is a weaker international institution at this point in time.

In the case of the UNSC anyone may make a proposal for simplicity's sake, and once all the permanent members have voted (Yes, No, Abstain) the issue is closed.  Other states may register their vote (and show the flag on an issue) if desired.
Germany
player, 31 posts
Tue 20 Aug 2013
at 06:48
  • msg #2

Re: International Forums

The world is facing a crisis on unforeseen consequences as major powers seem to risk a war no one may know how can end. Germany has been dragged to it, but (perhaps being somewhat naive) still believes a diplomatic solution to be possible.

Once more, the abuse of the veto power by some of the P5 has stalled any UNSC resolution that could help to this, forcing NATO and Russia to act by thier own to protect the civilian populations in the area.

So, in face of the high danger the present crisis represents for the whole world peace and population, Germany invokes General Assembly Resolution 377 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...embly_Resolution_377) and asks for an Emergency Special Session to urgently discuss the issue and try to put down the tension in the zone. Germany asks other countries arround the world that believe this diplomatic compromise to be possible to join in this request.

Meanwhile, Germany will keep its compromises and its assets are in the zone to enforce the Russian/NATO/Saudi declared no-fly zone.

OOC: I don't want this to bog down the turn resolution, and I expect this to be handled simultaneously with the turn going ahead, as all too often happens to the UN actions.
Germany
player, 37 posts
Thu 1 May 2014
at 07:21
  • msg #3

Re: International Forums

Extract from a speech form the German Ambassador to the UN:

After the launch of ESASS Freude, the first true spaceship, and with all probability more that will be launched in near future, it could be prudent to develop legislation about it before problems arise.

It would be good, for once, to act on a proactive way instead of complaining latter for the lack of this legislation and have to make ad hoc adaptations. Until there is a proper legislation, ESA will use the international laws of the sea, adapting them to space as needed and as well as we can.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:22, Thu 01 May 2014.
Germany
player, 79 posts
Sat 26 Jul 2014
at 08:54
  • msg #4

Re: International Forums

Germany asks for an emegrency meeting of the UNSC to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Things to be discussed (in order of urgency):

  1. Iran situatin: goal: to take the responsables for MDW using and attack o the Chinese, apparently with the goal to provoke a general war before the IPC, using whatever means are deemed necessary, while avoiding civilian casualtites.
  2. Caliphate/Iraq situation: goal: to support Iraq government and condemn ISIS killing and Human Rights breaks
  3. Iran/kurd situation: goal: to sponsor a referendum for independence in Iranin Kurdistan
  4. Turkey/Kurd situation: goal: to sponsor talks among them (and any arbiter they accept) to resolve once and for all the situation there.

Points 1 and 2 should be voted ASAP, other points as talks advance
This message was last edited by the player at 08:55, Sat 26 July 2014.
UK
player, 30 posts
Sat 26 Jul 2014
at 09:48
  • msg #5

Re: International Forums

Germany:
Germany asks for an emegrency meeting of the UNSC to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Things to be discussed (in order of urgency):

  1. Iran situatin: goal: to take the responsables for MDW using and attack o the Chinese, apparently with the goal to provoke a general war before the IPC, using whatever means are deemed necessary, while avoiding civilian casualtites.
  2. Caliphate/Iraq situation: goal: to support Iraq government and condemn ISIS killing and Human Rights breaks
  3. Iran/kurd situation: goal: to sponsor a referendum for independence in Iranin Kurdistan
  4. Turkey/Kurd situation: goal: to sponsor talks among them (and any arbiter they accept) to resolve once and for all the situation there.

Points 1 and 2 should be voted ASAP, other points as talks advance


Agreed - UK submits a Proposal to the UNSC along the following line (after the last time round I think its probably best we keep UN stuff short and punchy, so just the highlights)

Resolution on Iran

1 - UNSC authorizes the deployment of forces under the auspices of the UN to compel Iran to surrender its stockpiles of WMDs
2 - This force is further authorized to compel Iran to surrender those responsible for the use of WMDs to the international courts to be tried as war criminals
3 - Recommends that the UN conduct and monitor a referendum on independence from Iran.

Resolution on Unrest in the Middle East:
1 - Requests member nations supply assistance to Iraq and other states to combat the rise in religious extremist militia
2 - Authorizes the deployment of UN peacekeepers to areas as requested by the Governments of the middle east to combat these rebel militias.
----

What does everyone think - Andreas are the US and France cool with this?
Japan
GM, 27 posts
Sat 26 Jul 2014
at 22:05
  • msg #6

Re: International Forums

UK:
What does everyone think - Andreas are the US and France cool with this?

GM says:
On USA: check with James, if he does not respond before 27 July, 2200 UTC, USA will follow UKs lead on this.
On France: France will not veto any of this but will not vote yes either.
I decree that unless someone vetoes it, it will pass.
China
player, 7 posts
Sun 27 Jul 2014
at 13:57
  • msg #7

Re: International Forums

UK:
Germany:
Germany asks for an emegrency meeting of the UNSC to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Things to be discussed (in order of urgency):

  1. Iran situatin: goal: to take the responsables for MDW using and attack o the Chinese, apparently with the goal to provoke a general war before the IPC, using whatever means are deemed necessary, while avoiding civilian casualtites.
  2. Caliphate/Iraq situation: goal: to support Iraq government and condemn ISIS killing and Human Rights breaks
  3. Iran/kurd situation: goal: to sponsor a referendum for independence in Iranin Kurdistan
  4. Turkey/Kurd situation: goal: to sponsor talks among them (and any arbiter they accept) to resolve once and for all the situation there.

Points 1 and 2 should be voted ASAP, other points as talks advance


Agreed - UK submits a Proposal to the UNSC along the following line (after the last time round I think its probably best we keep UN stuff short and punchy, so just the highlights)

Resolution on Iran

1 - UNSC authorizes the deployment of forces under the auspices of the UN to compel Iran to surrender its stockpiles of WMDs
AGEED-Note this is already authorised under a previous UNSC Mandate

2 - This force is further authorized to compel Iran to surrender those responsible for the use of WMDs to the international courts to be tried as war criminals
AGREED.

3 - Recommends that the UN conduct and monitor a referendum on independence from Iran.
AGREED While its on the table do the Balochistan independance referendum as well to prevent another blow up in this region..

Resolution on Unrest in the Middle East:
1 - Requests member nations supply assistance to Iraq and other states to combat the rise in religious extremist militia.
AGREED  Note Chinese expiditionary forces are not in a condition to assist but China can provide observers and humanitarian aid.
2 - Authorizes the deployment of UN peacekeepers to areas as requested by the Governments of the middle east to combat these rebel militias.
AGREED Note Chinese expiditionary forces are not in a condition to assist but China can provide observers and humanitarian aid.

----

Japan
GM, 30 posts
Sun 10 Aug 2014
at 12:07
  • msg #8

Re: International Forums

In reply to China (msg # 7):

GM says: Since noone vetoed this Resolution, it passed.

UN asks the UK to coordinate this effort.
UK
player, 39 posts
Mon 11 Aug 2014
at 13:45
  • msg #9

Re: International Forums

In reply to Japan (msg # 8):

There are currently forces from the US, UK, France, Germany and Russia in the region who are in a position to enforce this UN mandate - are there forces any other nation wish to commit to this UN action, and is anyone willing to contribute non militarily to this mission in Iran

Seconly - are any states covered by the second resolution in need of support from UN forces?
Germany
player, 94 posts
Mon 11 Aug 2014
at 14:20
  • msg #10

Re: International Forums

In reply to UK (msg # 9):

You forgot Poland among the nations helping in Kurdistan
Saudi Arabia
player, 4 posts
Mon 11 Aug 2014
at 14:26
  • msg #11

Re: International Forums

UK:
Seconly - are any states covered by the second resolution in need of support from UN forces?


Understanding you're asking about the Caliphate, is Saudi opinión that NATO forces better stay out if posible, as, even if Iraquí government wellcomes them, we guess most population won't.

As said before, though, any intelligence (mostly satellite) will be wellcome, but this aside, we believe that will be better handled by a muslim coalition if you don't want it to be seen as a Crusade.
Japan
GM, 33 posts
Mon 11 Aug 2014
at 15:35
  • msg #12

Re: International Forums

UK:
In reply to Japan (msg # 8):

There are currently forces from the US, UK, France, Germany and Russia in the region who are in a position to enforce this UN mandate - are there forces any other nation wish to commit to this UN action, and is anyone willing to contribute non militarily to this mission in Iran

Seconly - are any states covered by the second resolution in need of support from UN forces?

GM says: No new countries are willing to participate militarily. Non-militarily a whole bunch say they are willing to commit but don´t leave any specifics yet...

Any particular country you are thinking of? Otherwise Check out the newssection;
https://sites.google.com/site/...2029#TOC-Middle-East:-

The Syrian govt welcomes the resolution and asks for UN support in fighting the extremist ISIS militia.
UK
player, 42 posts
Fri 15 Aug 2014
at 23:27
  • msg #13

Re: International Forums

Japan:
UK:
In reply to Japan (msg # 8):

There are currently forces from the US, UK, France, Germany and Russia in the region who are in a position to enforce this UN mandate - are there forces any other nation wish to commit to this UN action, and is anyone willing to contribute non militarily to this mission in Iran

Seconly - are any states covered by the second resolution in need of support from UN forces?

GM says: No new countries are willing to participate militarily. Non-militarily a whole bunch say they are willing to commit but don´t leave any specifics yet...

Any particular country you are thinking of? Otherwise Check out the newssection;
https://sites.google.com/site/...2029#TOC-Middle-East:-

The Syrian govt welcomes the resolution and asks for UN support in fighting the extremist ISIS militia.



Ok, UK suggests the following, NATO forces in the region deal with the Iranian situation, Russian and Saudi forces look to assist the Syrians? If Russia diverts forces from Iran (NATO should be able to handle that side of things) then that should allow them to help fight back and stabilize Syria.

Are any other player nations looking to contribute militarily?
Germany
player, 100 posts
Mon 18 Aug 2014
at 12:51
  • msg #14

Re: International Forums

Japan:
Iranian President says: We stand here today together in peace pronouncing the first steps to a new era. There has been enough bloodshed. Iran will comply with the UN resolution. We have made peace between nationalists and moderates. Our WMDs are destroyed, we will close our WMDs factories and invite UN inspectors. We have arrested some of the IRGC leadership responsible for the WMD attacks and the recent war and will turn over these to India for transport to the ICC in Hague. We have sent an emissary to Kurdistan to initiate a transition.


Germany applauds Indian achievement and suggests that inspectors be sent from IAEA and from countries like Indonesia and/or Bangladesh o course should they accept the mission), both being muslim countries (to avoid suspicacies) and not involved in the zone.

Also, should security troops be needed to help restablishing stability, Germany suggests those same countries for the same reasons.
UK
player, 68 posts
Doctor Who?
Exactly!
Mon 8 Feb 2016
at 12:41
  • msg #15

UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

We have previously discussed UN Security Council Reform - I think now (whilst the management get on with the work and we're not distracted by turn orders) to discuss this - Since all P5 members now have players I'm pretty sure we can get this done without PAs

UK Proposals are as follows

1) Expansion of the current permanent members - additional Permanent members to be

Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa

2) Veto powers of permanent members is removed - no more veto

3) Motions require a 2/3rds majority of Permanent members to vote in favour or abstain and a simple majority of the whole council.

4) Total number of Members to be 24 (so 14 non permanent members)

Thoughts? Would any P5 Member Veto this?
Germany
player, 191 posts
Mon 8 Feb 2016
at 16:14
  • msg #16

UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to UK (msg # 15):

Germany has been advocating for something like this since decades, so you have German support.
Nigeria
NPC, 1 post
Mon 8 Feb 2016
at 16:15
  • msg #17

UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to UK (msg # 15):

Nigeria feels Africa is underrepresented this way. Being the country with the largest population in Africa should merit also a place, or at least being discussed.
UK
player, 69 posts
Doctor Who?
Exactly!
Mon 8 Feb 2016
at 17:13
  • msg #18

UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to Nigeria (msg # 17):

First I'd like to get feelings from the P5 before throwing this out to others
Russia
player, 21 posts
Mon 8 Feb 2016
at 19:38
  • msg #19

UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to UK (msg # 15):

Russia can see no particular reason to support this and a signficiant reason to oppose this. The UNSC is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states, to agree to this proposal is to fundamentally surrender national sovereignty to the other UNSC members. The UK may be ready to sell for nothing having its national policy dictated from Beijing, but Russia is not ready to sell so cheaply having its national policy dictated from Johannesburg.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:10, Tue 09 Feb 2016.
UK
player, 70 posts
Doctor Who?
Exactly!
Mon 8 Feb 2016
at 20:29
  • msg #20

UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to Russia (msg # 19):

We are not changing the role of the security council - we are looking to prevent an individual nation halting security council action against the will of most of the world. We would hope that the requirements of both a simple majority and the agreement of 2/3rds of 10 permenant members would act as a safeguard.

The UNSC, as you state, is the only body that can pass binding resolutions - but these powers are still restricted by the original terms of the founding charter as to the duties and responsablities of the UNSC.

Security council reform is long overdue - the UK would love to hear any Russian thoughts on how we might proced with reforms and what form Russia would see them take.

To protect Russia and other nations we might suggest that the original P5 be allowed to retain their Veto when it comes to amendments to the UN Charter to assure them that the UN is not about to reform into some form of world government or that national sovereignty is to be devolved to it by stealth.

I hope that Russia would agree that reforms to make the UNSC more effective are necessary to promote peace and global stability.
China
player, 30 posts
Tue 9 Feb 2016
at 02:45
  • msg #21

UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to UK (msg # 20):

Okay but the proposals you have made cannot happen without the unanimous consent of the 5.  One vote no and its over. BTW raising the certain nations to the security council is impossible without starting from scratch.  Bad enough the UK is being used as a patsy to unravel the UN by attempting to put nations that are specifically and irrevocably forbidden on the UNSC. Please read the charter and remember why it was made. We are certain their are still some people that recall what London looked like from 1942thru 1946. For shame to lose your diligence.
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 91 posts
Tue 9 Feb 2016
at 03:59
  • msg #22

UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to UK (msg # 20):

This subject can get really fascinating really quickly, but I have to ask that we put a pause on it for now. There are several factors currently in progress which I foresee could impact how things turn out, starting with that we have not yet heard from David on any of his orders, but there are other things as well.
UK
player, 71 posts
Doctor Who?
Exactly!
Tue 9 Feb 2016
at 10:25
  • msg #23

UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to China (msg # 21):
OOC:
Just fyi no nation is prohibited from being on the Unsc and all of the proposed have previously been as non permenant members. There is nothing in the charter I know of that can be interpreted in this way.

The ideas I'm proposing are based off ones that have been around for nearly half a century now (game time) and in that time have received widespread support from all the P5 to some extent (we're talking pre divergence)

There's lots of really interesting stuff out there about reform of the SC and why pretty much everyone says that it needs to happen and why it hasn't. Hell, I'd suggest the Annan plan if it wernt too fiddly to be worth it for the game.
_------------_

We'll put the debate on hold then. Hope David is OK as its not like he went silent on here whilst we were going through the turn.
Germany
player, 192 posts
Tue 9 Feb 2016
at 16:20
  • msg #24

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

UK:
Hope David is OK as its not like he went silent on here whilst we were going through the turn.


His last log in was on February 2nd. I also hope he's wellnd cna send his turns son. Has anyone tried to contact with him by mail?
France
player, 1 post
Sat 20 Feb 2016
at 20:27
  • msg #25

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

The UNSC veto has always seemed, to me, to go against the spirit of the UN. "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others." Purely by virtue of being one of the founding members, certain countries get to dictate to the entire planet how a debate should form. It seems, lately, that they are unwilling to part with this disproportionate power.

France is happy to support the UK's proposal, with the proviso that the veto is retained with regards to changing the Charter.

Happy to wait to get into the debate proper until David's return, though.
Germany
player, 197 posts
Sat 20 Feb 2016
at 20:37
  • msg #26

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

France:
The UNSC veto has always seemed, to me, to go against the spirit of the UN <snip> Purely by virtue of being one of the founding members,


Just a point here. Veto power is not for being funding members, as there were 51 members at its fundation, but to be one of the main countris in the winning side of WWII.

So, in fact veto power is due to have won a war, reinforcing the might makes right vision many have about diplomacy, and fully against the UN founding spirit.
France
player, 2 posts
Sun 21 Feb 2016
at 13:38
  • msg #27

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to Germany (msg # 26):

That's what I get for posting after 43hrs awake... Correction noted :)
UK
player, 72 posts
Doctor Who?
Exactly!
Sat 27 Feb 2016
at 10:37
  • msg #28

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to France (msg # 27):

CCR:
Please continue on all the things which I had earlier asked you to hold


Continuing our debate we note China and Russia have expressed worries about the UKs proposals.

We hope that these nations would agree that USC reform is a worthwile goal - what form would they like to see reforms take?
Russia
player, 22 posts
Wed 2 Mar 2016
at 14:43
  • msg #29

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to UK (msg # 28):

When a world body can vote without a protection for those who dissent on the use of force, thus giving legal cover for an invasion, THAT IS A WORLD GOVERNMENT.

I do not think you understand how deep of a moral hole you have to dig yourself out of first before anyone is going to agree to this. There are still men alive today who can strip their shirts and bare the scars of the horror of what happens when the West given the opportunity to act without the restraint of a veto because in 1950 the West got the USSR out of the room long enough to ram through its latest crusade. The disgrace of what you did in Korea will not be forgotten, not in 85 years, not in 100 years, not in 500 years as it shows what the West actually feels about the sanctity of the UN and about respecting rights. You had your one chance to prove that you actually cared about principles, and you blew it. The West does not get to pretend that it is the moral centre of the universe. So I ask again, ‘Why should Russia bother with this? What will you give up to see this through?’ You could not even be bothered to include Indonesia in your proposals, the world’s 9th largest economy, so why should anyone believe that this is anything other than another attempt to stuff the council with another western European power? For starters, you could volunteer to take France, merely the 10th largest economy, entirely off the UNSC, or the UK will suffice as a leader should be willing to make sacrifices; one European power in in exchange for one out. Prove that you actually care about the UN to make sacrifices.

If you just want to expand the list of permanent, veto wielding, members of the UNSC then fine, the price is going to be a lot less:
-There has to be a recognition that the centre of gravity of the world has shifted, and it is not to the West. It is only going to be the top 10 economies allowed in, too many makes it impossible to get things done.
-For Russia, Indonesia, Japan and India; You and all the rest of the ESA have to agree to the Glob plan as discussed, *exactly* as discussed, we will not be the providers of more charity for a German Space Navy. Oh, look; the Germans just built another spaceship to seal their domination of space! If Germany has the money for a new ship then they bloody well have the money to maintain that ship and not abuse our hospitality. The entire idea of the Glob plan was to ensure harmony in space, do not think it has not gone unnoticed that as is, your plan does everything to ensure there will be no cooperation. No, you do not get to claim that you have just been excluding everyone else from that Mars base because you wanted to avoid problems with mixed ownership; you just brought in the Nordic Federation to that base, you can let in India, Russia and Indonesia.
-For my friend China, there has to be a complete forgiveness by the West of everything that went on in the ME2028 conflict, no more lingering sanctions, no prisoners, no charges, no more sniping and snide remarks, no hesitation on sporting events, no more that you taught them a lesson, etc, nothing. When the Chinese ambassador invites you his house for tea you say ‘I would like cream with sugar please’.
-Japan is not getting anywhere near the Security Council until Japan makes reparations for drilling in Russian territory. WWII was not so long ago that Russia will forget about it. Canada: contact me later, we have much to discuss about the Arctic, lets get rich together.
-Germany is not getting anywhere near the Security Council until there is an investigation and Germany can adequately explain what the hell is going on with how it is getting its oil. Again, WWII, not forgotten. The West has tainted the UNSC badly enough, it will not be degraded further with allowing a thief into its fold.
Germany
player, 198 posts
Wed 2 Mar 2016
at 16:27
  • msg #30

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

China:
In reply to UK (msg # 20):

Okay but the proposals you have made cannot happen without the unanimous consent of the 5.  One vote no and its over. BTW raising the certain nations to the security council is impossible without starting from scratch.  Bad enough the UK is being used as a patsy to unravel the UN by attempting to put nations that are specifically and irrevocably forbidden on the UNSC. Please read the charter and remember why it was made. We are certain their are still some people that recall what London looked like from 1942thru 1946. For shame to lose your diligence.


And why so?

Any redifinition of the UNSC pertains to ghe General Assembly, not the UNSC itself:

quote:
UN CHARTER, CHAPTER IV: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

FUNCTIONS and POWERS

Article 10

The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.

Germany
player, 199 posts
Wed 2 Mar 2016
at 18:11
  • msg #31

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

Russia:
In reply to UK (msg # 15):

The UNSC is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states


While this is true i ntheory, practice shows us otherwise.

How many wars has UNSC stopped? How many conflicto has it solved?

Very few, if any, and mostly by the liberal (usually unilateral) use of veto power by the P5. This has made UNSC the least effective of the UN organs and agencies.

The only instances where the defying it has lead to a resolución authorizing hte use of force have been fiascos (OOC: I hope I don't forget any, feel free to add to the list if so):
  • Korea, 1950: see Russia talk about it. Fact is that the war is still technically on
  • Iraq, 1990: lead to another war 10 years after whose consequences we're still payin
  • Caliphate 2029 (OOC: I understand): yet to see to see

UNSC must be redefined, and veto power must be somewhat limited, if not outright taken off, if we want it to have any use. Otherwise, it will be a nice entertaining for those watching the news, but of little true use, as it has been to now.
China
player, 31 posts
Thu 3 Mar 2016
at 03:49
  • msg #32

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to Germany (msg # 31):

Article 108

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.


And here lies the part I am referring to .. You need the consent of all 5 permanent members to give up the veto.
Germany
player, 200 posts
Thu 3 Mar 2016
at 11:59
  • msg #33

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

Russia:
In reply to UK (msg # 15):

Russia can see no particular reason to support this and a signficiant reason to oppose this. The UNSC is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states, to agree to this proposal is to fundamentally surrender national sovereignty to the other UNSC members.

Russia:
In reply to UK (msg # 28):

When a world body can vote without a protection for those who dissent on the use of force, thus giving legal cover for an invasion, THAT IS A WORLD GOVERNMENT.


So, you're saying that other countries must abide to this world government but you not...

Please, could you explain us exactly what the UNSC is for?

Is it a forum to discuss international conflicts and to try to reach a paceful sortie, or it is a way for a handful privilegees to courtail others' sovereignty while being themselves immune to it?
UK
player, 73 posts
Doctor Who?
Exactly!
Thu 3 Mar 2016
at 12:47
  • msg #34

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

Ok - debate ends then - there is obviously no consensus on UNSC reform and I refuse to continue to allow to give a floor to Russia to continue to insult us and others.

We hope other nations will keep in mind Russia's little speech on the floor of the UN and her stated positions on these and other matters - we believe they certainly set out Russia's foreign policy in stark terms for all to see.

To address a few of the points you have made

Russia:
In reply to UK (msg # 28):

When a world body can vote without a protection for those who dissent on the use of force, thus giving legal cover for an invasion, THAT IS A WORLD GOVERNMENT.


You are aware that the UNSC can do this currently, don't you? And that you recently made use of this along side us in the invasion of Iran to protect the Kurds. This makes it sound as if you are saying that the UNSC should just be disbanded?

quote:
I do not think you understand how deep of a moral hole you have to dig yourself out of first before anyone is going to agree to this.

<snip rant about venal self serving western nations>

If you just want to expand the list of permanent, veto wielding, members of the UNSC then fine, the price is going to be a lot less:


No and any attempt to do so will be Vetoed - this is the exact opposite of what we are trying to do - we want to make the security council work better - not increase the number of Vetoes that can derail any attempts to actually do something to help the world.

We also note that for all your posturing about our greed and self serving attitudes - we're not the ones demanding a price for much needed modernization and reform to make the UNSC a more modern and representative body

quote:
-For Russia, Indonesia, Japan and India; ...


Nor-Fed has always been a member of that project - they're a member of the ESA.

This also has nothing to do with UNSC reform - you are not going to blackmail us into anything here on the floor of the UN. Nor are we going to even discuss this matter here. Talk to us at the correct negotiating table for this.

quote:
-For my friend China, there has to be a complete forgiveness by the West of everything that went on in the ME2028 conflict, no more lingering sanctions, no prisoners, no charges, no more sniping and snide remarks, no hesitation on sporting events, no more that you taught them a lesson, etc, nothing. When the Chinese ambassador invites you his house for tea you say ‘I would like cream with sugar please’.

None of the above we are accused of is happening - following the UKs investigation into the circumstances China was absolved of blame following the discovery of the Iranian false flag operation - STOP MAKING THINGS UP.

quote:
-Japan is not getting anywhere near the Security Council until Japan makes reparations for drilling in Russian territory. WWII was not so long ago that Russia will forget about it.

smooth - very smooth. 'stop hating China for a war that happened less than 10 years ago (which no one is doing anyway) but NEVER FORGET WW2!' is that what we're saying


It is clear from the Russian position there is no common ground on this matter and so the dream of a more inclusive UNSC dies on the floor as Russia demands less a pound of flesh and more a human sacrifice for even the most basic of reforms


Here ends the debate
Germany
player, 201 posts
Thu 3 Mar 2016
at 17:34
  • msg #35

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

Russia:
-Germany is not getting anywhere near the Security Council until there is an investigation and Germany can adequately explain what the hell is going on with how it is getting its oil.


We'll save you the investigation: Germany obtains its oil from various sources.

But we guess you're asking about Germany securing the oil fields in the MIddle East conflict zone. If so, don't be afraid to ask openly.

True, Germany has occupied them to deny them to the terrorists of the Caliphate, and yesm they are beign exploited, and its due prices paid to their legitimate owners (the Iraquí and Kurdish governments), so that the income form them goes to their legitimate owners, not to the terrorists (something we guess even you will agree to). This is all in accordance to Ocupation and Internationalhumanitarian law (point 4, last paragraph): https://www.icrc.org/eng/resou...ents/misc/634kfc.htm

Maybe you should ask others, that obtain it by overpaying it manyfold, wihtout caring about where does it came from. This increases the prices (but, oh, this really benefits you) and favours oil smuggling from dubious sources (embargoed countries, stolen by pirates, terrorists, etc...)

And ,as we're giving explanations, maybe you could explain us how the revolt in Azerbaijan turend into a full fledged invasión, or why you keep supporting a government that is using chemical weapons (sonething that really is against International Law)...
Germany
player, 202 posts
Thu 3 Mar 2016
at 17:54
  • msg #36

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

UK:
Here ends the debate


Au contaire, this must be debated, more so now that Russia has admited that the UNSC is a way for a handful of nations to limit others' sovereignty while being themselves immune to it. The discussion has been delayed for too long, allowing it to be the most inefficient organ of the whole UN, while it should be its main one.

But we must be careful, if we want it to be more efficient instead of even less (if that can be).

So, those should be (in German opinion) some of the guidelines:

  • If there are too many members, it will be inoperative, if too few, it won't be representative.
  • If permanent members are selected only by National GDP (and is assumed contribution to UN Budget), as Russia suggests, then it will become a tool for the powerful to subject the weak, insted of the other way as it should be
  • Veto power may be aceptable if properly used, but it should be limited, so that it can no be liberaly and unilateraly used as to now. Maybe instead of it a blocking minority should be decided

Feel free to add more guidelines, as surely htere are some Germany has not thought about, or to discuss those given by us, as they can sure be improved.
UK
player, 74 posts
Doctor Who?
Exactly!
Thu 3 Mar 2016
at 19:24
  • msg #37

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to Germany (msg # 36):

Russia has stated what it basically sees as non negotiable points from its tone - given this and its ability to Veto any proposals the only thing continuing this debate will grant us is continuing to invite the kind of speaches Russia has so far provided us.

I have better things to do that slam my head repeatedly against a brick wall - We are tired of continually having to be the brokers - to find common with someone who continually denigrates any proposal we make or the idea that compromise can be reached only when cold hard cash is payed to one side by the other along side of a compromise in position

This is not happening - I am not spending ages in worthless debates, continuing to discussions with no hope of any results

The Russian position on these matters are so divorced from what we can see as being practicable, fair or even workable that it really appears there is no common ground we can reach for.

The UK proposals disadvantage the UK in several ways - we are proposing them because the current situation is not sustainable and is therefore detrimental to the stability of the United Nations - not because they gain us advantage

I have no intention of being told I must also bow to Russian demands on unrelated matters when I am already offering to give up a privilaged position for the benefit of the international community.

Unless Russia is able to say it is willing to at least negotiate on some of the points it has already made then any debate is stillborn and pointless.
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 99 posts
Wed 30 Mar 2016
at 22:45
  • msg #38

Re: UN Security Council Reform - UK Proposals

In reply to UK (msg # 37):

I do not want to call a hold to this really neat little thread, but discussions on this really should be happening concurrently with other events in the Turn that I cannot get to because my time is taken up with this thread. Russia will respond, we will continue, just perhaps at a slower pace.
USA
player, 28 posts
Thu 29 Sep 2016
at 09:41
  • msg #39

Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula


Following is transmitted in open over any means available:

US & S Korean forces reporting Nuclear strikes against units in field and attacks affecting civilian targets in S Korea.

Any attack on US or its allies is an act of war - any further use of WMDs against our units of allies will be treated as a declaration of war and will provoke an appropriate response

All previous use of WMDs against US and S Korean targets will be answered for
Nordic Federation
player, 3 posts
Thu 29 Sep 2016
at 17:23
  • msg #40

Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to USA (msg # 39):

From NF ambassor in UN to all other UN amabassors:

Sirs,

communications are being jammed in what seems a worldwide situation.

Korea penninsula has been nuked, not sure who began or who responded, nor the extent of damages.

As NF has no faith in such a situation on the UNSC, as crossed vetoes will surely bog any decision and will only be a loss of time, something we cannot afford, NF calls for an immediate emergency UN General Assembly call to discuss the events and reactions, in a desesperate attempt to avoid a general war.

As comunications with our governments is spotty at best, I'm afraid we must discuss options and maybe agreements among ourselves and hope our governments will back us.

I know this is quite an irregular call (to say the least), and probably not even foreseen in UN chart, but situation is desesperate right now.

This is the worst crisis since UN fundation, and from what we can agree here it can come, not only UN survival, but entire Human race survival. And we're alone here as our countries' representatives. I beg you to help us in the effort to stop this madness while (if?) we have time.

May the Almighty (however you all call Him) help us.

Yours

NF UN Ambassor.
Nordic Federation
player, 4 posts
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 16:00
  • msg #41

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

Nordic Federation:
In reply to USA (msg # 39):

From NF ambassor in UN to all other UN amabassors:

Sirs,

communications are being jammed in what seems a worldwide situation.

Korea penninsula has been nuked, not sure who began or who responded, nor the extent of damages.

As NF has no faith in such a situation on the UNSC, as crossed vetoes will surely bog any decision and will only be a loss of time, something we cannot afford, NF calls for an immediate emergency UN General Assembly call to discuss the events and reactions, in a desesperate attempt to avoid a general war.

As comunications with our governments is spotty at best, I'm afraid we must discuss options and maybe agreements among ourselves and hope our governments will back us.

I know this is quite an irregular call (to say the least), and probably not even foreseen in UN chart, but situation is desesperate right now.

This is the worst crisis since UN fundation, and from what we can agree here it can come, not only UN survival, but entire Human race survival. And we're alone here as our countries' representatives. I beg you to help us in the effort to stop this madness while (if?) we have time.

May the Almighty (however you all call Him) help us.

Yours

NF UN Ambassor.


NF ambassor is waiting in the General Assembly hall.

Is anyone else there?
This message was last edited by the player at 16:02, Sat 01 Oct 2016.
Germany
player, 225 posts
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 16:14
  • msg #42

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 41):

German Ambassor is also there
Brazil
player, 10 posts
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 16:23
  • msg #43

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Germany (msg # 42):

Brazil here.
India
player, 1 post
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 16:23
  • msg #44

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Brazil (msg # 43):

India here.
Nigeria
player, 3 posts
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 17:24
  • msg #45

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 41):

Nigeria also shows up.

Its Ambassor offers himself to try to mediate, as nigeria is in good terms with China and, as PROTO member is an ally of the ROK.

Nigerian Ambassor publically asks the Ambassors of China and ROK to atend and expose their versions about the facts.
Nordic Federation
player, 5 posts
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 17:25
  • msg #46

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 41):

OOC:

What's the Big 5 and UN General Secretary response to our call?

And what the response of NPCs (in general, I'm not asking for each and every country)
This message was last edited by the player at 17:26, Sat 01 Oct 2016.
Nordic Federation
player, 6 posts
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 19:21
  • msg #47

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 46):

OOC: as the CCR has set a deadline (a logical thing to do, not criticizing the decisión), and in order not to lose time (more so due to diferent time zones), I advance NF Ambassor speach at the opening of the sesión. I know rectifications are likely to be needed as we receive more information, but it's OK for me, as ir would represent the chaos reigning in our GG world.

IC:

Dear Sirs,

first of all let me thank you for answering the call and offer my apopogies for this irregular call, but the situation is desesperate and we have no time to lose. We face a worldwide crisis and another threatening to turn worldwide too, and the odds of it boging in the UNSC due to vetos is a nearly sure thing, so losing the scarce time we have. now it's the time to show if we're worth our pay.

As said, we're now facing two crisis, probably related:
  • the communications jamming and its consequences
  • the nuclear crisis in Korea

About the commnications jamming crisis, the first thing we need to know is where did those jammers come from. Any assistence to UN on this regard would be wellcome and appreciated. it's no time for holding vital information.

About the Korean nuclear crisis, while we understand the strain tis represents for the attacked countries allies, we feel adding more carnage will achieve nothing, except perhaps burnig the evidences on what really happened.

So, we suggest several things to vote:
  1. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed.
  2. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first.
  3. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote).
  4. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities


Of course, other proposals may be done by any of the present representatives.

(someone steps to the Ambassor and talks to him)

I've just now been informed the communications jamming has ended and communicaitons are being reestablished. I don't know why or how, nor to what extent.

In view of this, and to allw consults wiht our respective gorvernments, I suggest a 4 hours time before the votes. This will also allow any Ambassor not present now to join us if they so want.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:34, Sat 01 Oct 2016.
South Korea
player, 4 posts
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 21:02
  • msg #48

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

Nordic Federation:
So, we suggest several things to vote:
  1. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed.
  2. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first.
  3. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote).
  4. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities

  1. This is illegal, contrary to the Charter, and unworkable - but sure, whilst the world stands on the precipice feel free to sit arguing about the terms of the UN charter and what is necessary in this situation whilst Korea burns
  2. South Korea will exercise its inalienable right as a sovereign nation to protect itself - and if the UN is going to ignore the charter as this speech suggests then South Korea will take it upon itself to re-establish peace in the region by preventing any further attacks against our citizens
  3. Fine and dandy - I hope you don't mind but we think that we've pretty much had war declared on us anyway, so you do your thing and we'll fight for our lives.
  4. No, no we will not - we have been Nuked and then attacked by North Korean forces on the ground - we are trying to sort this situation out with our allies and those other nations concerned - but we have been attacked without provocation


South Korea calls on the international community to condemn these actions, pledge to hold China accountable for its actions and to guarantee, as the US has done, that any further WMD attack will draw a response.
Finally urge that our allies assist us and the US in pushing back the North Korean hoard from what remains of our country
Nordic Federation
player, 7 posts
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 21:32
  • msg #49

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

South Korea:
Nordic Federation:
So, we suggest several things to vote:
  1. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed.
  2. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first.
  3. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote).
  4. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities

  1. This is illegal, contrary to the Charter, and unworkable - but sure, whilst the world stands on the precipice feel free to sit arguing about the terms of the UN charter and what is necessary in this situation whilst Korea burns
  2. South Korea will exercise its inalienable right as a sovereign nation to protect itself - and if the UN is going to ignore the charter as this speech suggests then South Korea will take it upon itself to re-establish peace in the region by preventing any further attacks against our citizens
  3. Fine and dandy - I hope you don't mind but we think that we've pretty much had war declared on us anyway, so you do your thing and we'll fight for our lives.
  4. No, no we will not - we have been Nuked and then attacked by North Korean forces on the ground - we are trying to sort this situation out with our allies and those other nations concerned - but we have been attacked without provocation


  1. This can be argueable. Is true that resolution 377 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...embly_Resolution_377) is only for when the INSC is blocked by the vetoes, but in this time this is a sure situation, and it would only be a lose of time, time we don't have.
  2. true, and the exception "unless attacked first" clearly applies, but ROK army will be more useful by adding to the carnaje or by helping in relief tasks?
  3. this proposal de facto puts all participating countries in the role you prease from the US: if any more MDW are used, all of us, not only US, wil be at war against them.
  4. ditto in point 2


South Korea:
South Korea calls on the international community to condemn these actions, pledge to hold China accountable for its actions and to guarantee, as the US has done, that any further WMD attack will draw a response.


Sorry, I assumed this as given. You're right and I appologize. This should be the first vote, even before what I put as point 1.

So the proposals to vote, unless someone suggests more of them, would be
  1. UN Gemeral Assembly condemns the use of WMD in by China the recent attack against the Korean penninsula.
  2. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed.
  3. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first.
  4. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote).
  5. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities


In any case, before holding China as the only accountable, I guess we should hear (at least) ther version.
South Korea:
Finally urge that our allies assist us and the US in pushing back the North Korean hoard from what remains of our country


That's one of the previsions of point 4 (now 5) to vote, the return of foreign tropos to their respective countries for disaster relief tasks instead of keeping killing one another.
South Korea
player, 5 posts
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 22:15
  • msg #50

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

Nordic Federation:
[*] ...ROK army will be more useful by adding to the carnaje or by helping in relief tasks?
...
[*] this proposal de facto puts all participating countries in the role you prease from the US: if any more MDW are used, all of us, not only US, wil be at war against them.


You seem to be living in some kind of fantasy world where the west coast of my country wasn't just obliterated - how I envy you.
I'm not praising the US - they're just there, stuck in the maelstrom with us. They need help and we need help.
The US and South Korean forces are fighting now, not because they chose to, or because they were ordered by anyone to, but because they were attacked by North Korean forces.

Nordic Federation:
[*] we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities[/olist]


Apparently this fantasy world also does not include an unstable, insane dictatorship in North Korea, nor are North Korean troops attacking my border in this wonderful Nordic world, where everything is fine and dandy. Unfortunately, in the real world, forces are repelling an armed invasion against my country and so are not in position to lay down their arms and start dealing with the other catastrophe

Nor Fed:
In any case, before holding China as the only accountable, I guess we should hear (at least) their version.


THEY LAUNCHED NUKES INTO SOUTH KOREA - no matter what happened, no matter why this happened - they used WMDs. There was no provocation, no warning, no reason and NO NEED - worse, there was no purpose unless their intention was to destroy both North and South Korean military forces and damn the civilian casualties.
The 'why' is a lot less important than the 'what the hell were you thinking of you murderous bastards'

My nation lies in ruins, likely millions of innocents dead with no provocation from us - Our cities lie in ruins having been hit again, and again, and again by hundreds of ballistic missiles.

Pakistan was invaded because their was a risk, A RISK, that unstable people might get hold of their WMDs, but apparently its OK when the unstable idiots with such weapons are the Chinese?

This inane appeal for 'ceasefire' ignores reality. The inference that this launch by China, even if it was 'accidental' or 'a mistake', hell, even if it was misdirected or 'hacked' is somehow wholly excusable is even more pathetic.

Even if the Chinese did not actually push the button themselves, they lost control of their WMDs - they are unfit to hold them and are responsible for the effects of them no matter what because THEY BUILT THE MURDEROUS DEVICES

Let us offer you a different resolution;

The United nations General assembly
1- commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms
2 - Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea
3 - Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea
4 - Condemns the use of WMDs by China
5 - Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China
6 - Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs
7 - Resolves to strip China and North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction
8 - Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including force of arms
Nordic Federation
player, 8 posts
Sat 1 Oct 2016
at 22:30
  • msg #51

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

South Korea:
Let us offer you a different resolution;

The United nations General assembly
1- commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms
2 - Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea
3 - Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea
4 - Condemns the use of WMDs by China
5 - Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China
6 - Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs
7 - Resolves to strip China and North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction
8 - Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including force of arms


Let's add you proposals to mine (modifying them as needed). How about this?


  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed.
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first.
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote).
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs
  11. Resolves to strip China and North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction
  12. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including force of arms

Each point should be voted separately.
Germany
player, 226 posts
Sun 2 Oct 2016
at 12:35
  • msg #52

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

Nordic Federation:
Let's add you proposals to mine (modifying them as needed). How about this?


  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed.
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first.
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote).
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs
  11. Resolves to strip China and North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction
  12. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including force of arms

Each point should be voted separately.


Germany suggest separating point 11 among a point for China and one for North Korea.

So, the proposal would be:

The United nations General assembly
  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed.
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first.
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote).
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs
  11. Resolves to strip China of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction
  12. Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction
  13. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including force of arms


Point 12 would be void as irrelevant if point 4 is voted affirmativelly.
India
player, 2 posts
Sun 2 Oct 2016
at 13:31
  • msg #53

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Germany (msg # 52):

India will support its PROTO ally South Korea in this matter.  The contributions by the Nordic Federation and Germany are appreciated, but with all due respect, you do not live next to China.  You have not had to live in fear of nuclear attack, a fear now made manifest in South Korea.
Germany
player, 227 posts
Sun 2 Oct 2016
at 13:40
  • msg #54

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to India (msg # 53):

And yet we try to avoid this nuclear masacre to go further. Most proposed points support ROK, as it was attacked wihtout provocation.

UN is not thought for the neigbouring countries to solve their problems by themselves, but for the International community to aid on it and to involve themselves with peace, and that's what NF, and the rest of us, are trying to do.

After all, it would be easier for those of us that live far from the conflicto to just stay hands out and look at the events from distance, but if that is want is expected, then we can better disolve UN.
Nordic Federation
player, 9 posts
Sun 2 Oct 2016
at 13:45
  • msg #55

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

OOC:

As the deadline for the turn is 18:00 UTC (so about 26 hours from now), I suggest (to avoid bogging the turn resoution) to leave until 21:00 UTC today to present new proposals, and vote since then.

Of course, it's quite likely (that depends on how many countries atended the call) that we NPCs really resolve the vote, but I guess the votes of the Player's Countries attending will influence it (up to the Referee and CCR to decide the true outcome).

This will leave a few hours for the referees to decide what effect it might have and to the players to decide how to act on the results.

Do you agree on timetable?
This message was last edited by the player at 13:47, Sun 02 Oct 2016.
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 109 posts
Sun 2 Oct 2016
at 17:17
  • msg #56

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 55):

>What's the Big 5 and UN General Secretary response to our call?
See Sec3 Q&A#8.
Nordic Federation
player, 10 posts
Sun 2 Oct 2016
at 18:18
  • msg #57

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 56):

quote:
#8 Q: On a certain issue, what is the general opinion of the world/humanity/the UN?

A: Nations were chosen to be available as player nations because taken together they dominate anything important. If you want to know what is the general opinion then take the initiative to poll the other player nations; then you *tell the GM* what the general opinion is!


The intent on this question was mainly to poll on the big 5...
Nordic Federation
player, 11 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 07:15
  • msg #58

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 55):

Not having received more proposals, vote begins. According UN General Assembly rules, and being a matter of peace and security, 2/3 of present counties affirmative votes are needed to approve each point of the reolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ons_General_Assembly, fourth paragraph)

NF vote:
  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea: YES
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China: YES
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea: YES
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms: YES
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed: YES
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China: ABSTAIN
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first: YES
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote): YES
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities: YES
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs: YES
  11. Resolves to strip China of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: ABSTAIN
  12. Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: YES
  13. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including force of arms: YES

Germany
player, 228 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 07:20
  • msg #59

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

German vote:
  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea: YES
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China: YES
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea: YES
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms: YES
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed: YES
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China: ABSTAIN
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first: YES
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote): ABSTAIN
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities: YES
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs: YES
  11. Resolves to strip China of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: ABSTAIN
  12. Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: YES
  13. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including forcé of arms: YES

This message was last edited by the player at 07:23, Mon 03 Oct 2016.
Nigeria
player, 4 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 07:23
  • msg #60

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

Nigerian vote:
  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea: YES
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China: YES
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea: YES
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms: YES
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed: YES
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China: YES
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first: YES
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote): NO
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities: YES
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs: YES
  11. Resolves to strip China of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: YES
  12. Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: YES
  13. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including forcé of arms: YES

This message was last edited by the player at 07:24, Mon 03 Oct 2016.
Saudi Arabia
player, 21 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 07:24
  • msg #61

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

Saudi Arabia does not attend the Assembly
Nordic Federation
player, 12 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 07:50
  • msg #62

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 55):

>What's the Big 5 and UN General Secretary response to our call?
See Sec3 Q&A#8.

quote:
#8 Q: On a certain issue, what is the general opinion of the world/humanity/the UN?

A: Nations were chosen to be available as player nations because taken together they dominate anything important. If you want to know what is the general opinion then take the initiative to poll the other player nations; then you *tell the GM* what the general opinion is!
(bold is mine)


So, I understand th final percentage in votes is the one that reults from players' votes. Is that right?
China
player, 34 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 11:47
  • msg #63

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

Chinese Vote
  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea: YES
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China: NO
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea: YES
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms: YES
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed: YES
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China: NO
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first: YES
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote): NO
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities: NO
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs: YES
  11. Resolves to strip China of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: NO
  12. Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: YES
  13. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including forcé of arms: YES

Canada
player, 1 post
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 11:51
  • msg #64

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

Canada Does not attend
This message was last edited by the player at 11:57, Mon 03 Oct 2016.
France
player, 3 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 11:55
  • msg #65

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

France vote:
  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea: YES
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China: YES
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea: YES
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms: YES
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed: YES
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China: ABSTAIN
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first: YES
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote): ABSTAIN
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities: YES
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs: YES
  11. Resolves to strip China of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: ABSTAIN
  12. Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: YES
  13. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including forcé of arms: YES

South Korea
player, 6 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 12:21
  • msg #66

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula


South Korean vote:
  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea: YES
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China: YES
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea: YES
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms: YES
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed: YES
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China: YES
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first: YES
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote): YES
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities: NO
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs: YES
  11. Resolves to strip China of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: YES
  12. Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: YES
  13. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including forcé of arms: YES

UK
player, 81 posts
Doctor Who?
Exactly!
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 12:23
  • msg #67

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to South Korea (msg # 66):

UK vote:
  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea: YES
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China: YES
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea: YES
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms: YES
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed: Abstain
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China: Abstain
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first: YES
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote): YES
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities: Abstain
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs: YES
  11. Resolves to strip China of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: NO
  12. Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: YES
  13. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including forcé of arms: YES

USA
player, 29 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 12:27
  • msg #68

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to UK (msg # 67):


US vote:
  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea: YES
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China: YES
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea: YES
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms: YES
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed: YES
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China: Abstain
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first: NO
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote): YES
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities: NO
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs: YES
  11. Resolves to strip China of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: Abstain
  12. Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: YES
  13. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including forcé of arms: YES

USA
player, 30 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 17:07
  • msg #69

UNSC Resolution on the Korean Situation

In reply to USA (msg # 68):

Following discussions between members of the security council and other affected parties (S Korea liaising though the US) a proposal was presented to the Security Council by the US which has now passed.

The resolution is as follows

UNSC Resolution:
1 - Commit to the invasion of North Korea (Request for troops to form UN mission to invade North Korea - I would suggest forces remain under their nation's control but are organized by PROTO - probably means Russia - this was not discussed in detail but pretty sure everyone will agree with this?)
2 - All forces will withdraw after the fighting in favor of PROTO forces who will occupy North Korea
3 - The North shall be administered by a PROTO occupation force with the intention of rebuilding it and uniting it with South Korea within 10 years
4 - China will be required to provide significant aid and support (20% of their Effective budget after country wide upkeeps in PAs (rounded up)) to the two Koreas to rebuild and clean up for the next 2 turns
5 - All nations are urged to contribute to disaster relief and rebuilding in the two Koreas (request PAs or aid)
6 - An independent investigation will be held chaired by Russia to determine the events leading up to this - all nations urged to contribute to the investigation (PAs to be spent on investigations)

Votes of the P5 as follows;

1 - All YES
2 - All YES
3 - All YES
4 - 4 YES (UK, US, France, China) 1 Abstention (Russia)
5 - All YES
6 - All YES

We believe this resolution provides the best means of achieving stability in the region and to restore peace to the region.
This cannot undo the damage that has been done, nothing can, but it will prevent further catastrophic damage and will prevent this conflict spiraling out of control into a more general war or a WMD exchange in a war of mutually assured destruction.
Nordic Federation
player, 13 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 17:08
  • msg #70

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

As we're reaching deadline, results are (assuming our votes can be extrapolated):

The United nations General assembly
  1. Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea: unanimously approved
  2. Condemns the use of WMDs by China: 87.5% yes, 12.5% no: Approved
  3. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea: unanimously approved
  4. commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms: unanimously approved
  5. exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, the votes of this specific Assembly meeting should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed: unanimously approved
  6. Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the People's Republic of China: 25% yes, 12.5% no, 62.5% abstention. Not having reached the 2/3 needed, dismissed
  7. all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first: 87.5% yes, 12.5% no: Approved
  8. any MDW using from now on should be considered a war decalaration against all present countries (unless responding to attacks occurring since the vote): 50% yes, 25% no, 25% abstention. Not having reached the 2/3 needed, dismissed
  9. we demand an immediate ceasefire in the whole Korean penninsula. Troops there should begin immediate disaster relief duties. If that is done, all present countries will aid them to the best of our capabilities: 50% yes, 37.5% no, 12.5% abstention. Not having reached the 2/3 needed, dismissed
  10. Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs: unanimously approved
  11. Resolves to strip China of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: 25% yes, 25% no, 50% abstention. Not having reached the 2/3 needed, dismissed
  12. Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction: unanimously approved
  13. Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including force of arms: unanimously approved


So, points 6, 8, 9 and 11 are dismissed, the rest are approved, and the resolution should be (note the change in what was point 5. No change in meaning was intended):


quote:
The United nations General assembly
  • Condemns the use of WMDs by North Korea
  • Condemns the use of WMDs by China
  • Vows that charges of Crimes against Humanity be brought before the international court at the Hague against the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea
  • commits to the overthrow the Government of the Democratic Republic of Korea (or whatever remains of it) and the restoration of a United Korea by force of arms
  • exceptionally, and due to the hasty and desesperate situation, This specific resolution of the Gemeral Assembly should be considered as binding as any UNSC resolution, and overrule them if needed.
  • all countries should be ordered to refrain use more violence unless attacked first.
  • Demands that suitable compensation and aid be paid by China for the damage caused by its attack with WMDs
  • Resolves to strip North Korea of the capability to use Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • Commits to the enforcement of all sections of this resolution by all means necessary including force of arms


Thanks to everyine who has atended. We hope this will help to restore world's trust on the UN and its efforts for collective peace, though the practical results would determine that.
Germany
player, 230 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 17:16
  • msg #71

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

As the point 9 of the Gemeral Assembly vote has been dismissed, the UNSC should resolve the mess there (aas it seems their resolution intends to).
India
player, 3 posts
Mon 3 Oct 2016
at 21:08
  • msg #72

Re: Jammed Comms Event - Korean Peninsula

In reply to Germany (msg # 71):

Unfortunately, the Indian and Brazilian delegations were out partying too late and missed the vote.  Both countries voice their full support for the resolution as passed, and apologize for their absence.
Germany
player, 232 posts
Wed 12 Oct 2016
at 13:11
  • msg #73

German proposal

In view of the recent events and the chaos produced by the unknown origin  jammers in orbit, Germany believes some control must be exercited to orbital objects.

In this goal, Germany proposes the creation of a UN agency dedicated to the control of orbital objects and to mediate any issues they may produce (let’s call it UNOCA, UN Orbital Control Agency).

The main goal of this agency should be a census of orbital objects and whom do they belong (to avoid opposition, its exact nature and mission would not necessarily be stated), to avoid the appearance of more unidentified objects (that should since now be considered hostile).

The secondary mission would be to mediate any dispute orbits could produce, and any accident this might produce.

The tertiary goal would be to help the withdrawal of any objects not in use, to help avoiding clogging orbit or accidents with them.

Any comments, supports oppositions or suggerences?

OOC:

Needless to say, it’s not my intent to begin bickering about those details in the game, just to assume they mediate them and, most important, to warn all players should more such unidentified objects appear in orbit (or identify the owner of any object acting suspiciously or hostile).
Japan
player, 58 posts
Wed 12 Oct 2016
at 16:20
  • msg #74

Re: German proposal

Germany:
The main goal of this agency should be a census of orbital objects and whom do they belong

Japan says: Good idea, but let us work with existing framework and just extend their authority, therefore I say let these guys handle it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Outer_Space_Affairs
Germany
player, 233 posts
Wed 12 Oct 2016
at 16:41
  • msg #75

Re: German proposal

Japan:
Germany:
The main goal of this agency should be a census of orbital objects and whom do they belong

Japan says: Good idea, but let us work with existing framework and just extend their authority, therefore I say let these guys handle it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Outer_Space_Affairs


OOC:

I didn't have the slightest idea of the existence of this Agency.

IC:

Sure. Then lest's give UNOOSA the task of keeping this census of orbital objects.

Just to make it clear, that does not mean anyone needs its autorization to deploy them, just that they must add them to the census, to make sure no one deplys again uncences objects with hostile intent, and to know whom do they belong in case there's a similar problema in the future.

Any uncensed object should be considered hostile.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:41, Wed 12 Oct 2016.
USA
player, 31 posts
Thu 13 Oct 2016
at 02:31
  • msg #76

Address by the US President

CNN NEWS

“It's been two hours now since we were informed that the President would be addressing the nation on a matter of national importance ‘never before equaled nor to equaled again’ as one white house insider put it.

We have not been able to find out from any source exactly what is going on, most have been tight lipped and a veil of secrecy has descended across Washington but we are being told the address will be any moment now.

What we do know so far is that the address is to be from the oval office, normally a setting reserved for solemn or grim events. We also know that the US delegation to the United Nations is currently meeting with the Secretary General and is requesting an emergency meeting of the General Assembly.

There have been hints that the US has discovered something to do with the jamming satellites that so recently wrought havoc here and across the world.

Sources have revealed to CNN that a flight was hastily chartered to the US from Nepal today - the flight landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base moments ago, which has since been locked down.

Some pundits are suggesting this might indicate some kind of operation within China by US special forces may have gone wrong and required them to extract, or may have resulted in them finding evidence of Chinese involvement that require them to evacuate.

The curr… I’m being told that Fox news are now reporting that they have information that there has been a formal declaration of war against China… Fox News stating all US military bases and installations have now been placed at DEFCON 2 status!

We have no confirmation but Fox is reporting that they have a source saying the US has uncovered evidence the Chinese were responsible for the jamming satellites… Wait, I’m being told white house sources have immediately denied this and insisting this is incorrect…

We’re now cutting from our coverage and going live to the oval office for an address by the President of the United states”

---------------------------Cut to oval office--------------------------

“it has been the tradition to begin any address to you as ‘fellow citizens’, or, ‘fellow Americans’. Today we break with tradition

My fellow Humans,

Since our race first looked to the heavens we have asked ourselves if we are alone in the galaxy - if we are the sole inheritor of a galaxy gifted to us by the creator, or if there might be others out there, imbued with the same spark of divine fire that resides in us.

Today, I can tell you that we are not alone in the universe.

The United States can confirm that it has encountered an alien life form which has been confirmed beyond doubt to be an Extraterrestrial intelligence.

This discovery is significant for all of us on planet earth for several reasons, and the United States commits now in front of the world to co-operate fully with all other nations in exploring the consequences of this and we commit to providing full access to the information we hold to the scientists of the world.

The prospect of contact with a non terrestrial intelligence has always been an inherently dangerous proposition, though the great thinkers of our time have spent decades considering this risk none have come close to preparing for the circumstances we find ourselves in

The sad truth is that this discovery has not come from the detection of a signal from another civilization, nor has it come in the form of a hand reaching out in friendship - it has come in the form of an attack against us.

Several days ago,  units of the US Marines were deployed into earth orbit to attempt to board, capture or destroy the unknown satellites that jammed all conventional communication networks. As these forces moved to board one of the objects the four others detonated in nuclear fire leaving no remains, whilst this single object moved to enter Earth’s atmosphere.

The marine team, aware of the threat this object could pose, immediately informed us of the flight path of the object before manually maneuvering the SLS Rocket which carried them into space to re-enter Earth's atmosphere and follow the UFO, which came down in the Nepalese mountains.

Upon landing the marine team found the debris of the crashed object. Approaching the crash these brave men encountered a creature emerging from the wreckage. The creature made to rush towards the team but before any member raised their gun to fire in self defense it dropped to the ground dead. The body of this creature was secured and recovered.

Our scientists are now working to determine anything they can about this creature.

Here, in this picture, you can see the remains of the creature, short, thickly built creatures, with 6 arms, furry heads and pink skin. The garment it wears is a manufactured fabric and most likely some kind of uniform.

These creatures, whoever they might be, have attacked us. In jamming global communications they attempted to use the mistrust that has grown between many of the nations on this planet as a weapon against us - they have attempted to use our own mistrust as a weapon - to have us obliterate ourselves.

Given the complexity of their electronic jamming we believe that they may have also used some means to convince the Chinese military it had detected a North Korean WMD launch, the response from China was no doubt intended to then spur all other nations to enter into a full nuclear exchange - a war of mutual destruction.

Thank god we have not, because the apparent intention of these creatures was to see us all die by our own hands.

Today, it is my sad duty to inform you that we are at war with an unknown alien species, creatures who can have no reason to fear us, or who could have any cause to hate us unless it is an unthinking one.

The cradle in which our species is developing has been threatened - we intend to ensure it is defended.

We will work with all nations to ensure that we can protect our planet - it will call for the development of a new type of fighting force but we must ensure that these creatures cannot cause direct harm to us

Above all we must ensure that they cannot attempt to turn us against one another for their own ends.

I appeal to all of you, no matter where you come from, no matter which faith you hold dear - we must stand together now in defense of our home - we must stand united in the defense of Earth.
USA
player, 32 posts
Thu 13 Oct 2016
at 21:57
  • msg #77

Address by the US President

In reply to USA (msg # 76):

OOC:

Aaaand now I have to retract that... (curse you Kelvin)

I'll be honest I guess I released this before I should - serves me right. (Trust no one suspect everyone)

IC:

Results of proper analysis reveal that this is a really, and I'm going to say really, really well done hoax

The US - red faced and increasingly angry and confused, reveals to the world the results of its immediate investigation - its a fake

CCR:
The lab determines that this alien is actually a sewn together patchwork of animal parts, mainly pig and baboon; given a massive dose of narcotics, anti-shock and anti-rejection drugs allowing it to ‘live’ for a few minutes before mercifully expiring. Everything in the object is welded together pieces of junk from various human made machinery, some glowy lights and mostly older, European made, life support equipment for space capsules; lasting just long enough provide some sort of a stable internal environment. The body parts, stitches and drugs are mostly of European manufacture and of a type easily obtained by a hospital or lab. Genetic analysis of the body parts indicate they are of certain germ lines usually used in laboratory work. The welding, and stitching are expertly done, but certainly with conventional tools and styles. Otherwise wiped clean of fingerprints and DNA residue...


The president makes a public apology - this occurs within one hour of the original broadcast

Pledges to find those who perpetrated this hoax and plunged the world nearly into war are offered.

The US to announces it will be conducting its own investigation into this separately from the announced UN investigation being chaired by Russia.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:08, Thu 13 Oct 2016.
Nordic Federation
player, 14 posts
Sat 15 Oct 2016
at 15:36
  • msg #78

Address by the US President

Well, now that we know aliens were not behind it, NF supports German Suggestion about a UNOOSA controlled census of Orbital objects.
Russia
player, 23 posts
Mon 12 Dec 2016
at 09:05
  • msg #79

Address by the US President

OOC:

Hello gentlemen,

I am a new player for Russia, and here I want to greet you all.
I am still gradually understanding all the details of the game, and I have not read all the topics yet, so if you need answers or reactions from Russia, please do not hesitate to remind about it to me. All previous treaties and contracts will be supported, and also I am open for new agreements.
China
player, 45 posts
Tue 13 Dec 2016
at 22:35
  • msg #80

Re: Address by the US President

Russia:
OOC:

Hello gentlemen,

I am a new player for Russia, and here I want to greet you all.
I am still gradually understanding all the details of the game, and I have not read all the topics yet, so if you need answers or reactions from Russia, please do not hesitate to remind about it to me. All previous treaties and contracts will be supported, and also I am open for new agreements.

OOC:

Welcome,
  Should be fun and interesting when we are rolling again fully.
on another note I will be in and out for the rest of this month into January..(Final preps for a large event I have the honor of hosting 1800 miles from where I live. It is taking a lot more time the closer it gets to go time. Fortunatly I have lots of cousins to delegate to that are in the area. Then I get to go and set up run the event and break it down after.  )
Germany
player, 265 posts
Sat 17 Dec 2016
at 18:21
  • msg #81

Re: Address by the US President

Shouldn't be good to have an OOC thread for the posts like those?
USA
player, 38 posts
Sun 19 Feb 2017
at 14:09
  • msg #82

Corporations and Space

In reply to Germany (msg # 81):

We have noted, with growing concern, the roll that some corporations are currently taking on as Quasi-state entities - the possibility of setting up off world out of any governmental oversight or regulation should be a concern.

We must establish the preeminence of the Nation state above the corporate entity.

The USA would therefor like to propose that the nations of the world come together and agree an international treaty that would prevent corporations forming their own nations or settlements

In essence - I'm proposing we prevent the spread of non state NPC settlements and trying to limit the growth of non state NPCs in game terms - particularly in their military growth (since some corporations now have what amounts to their own army)

There are several ways this could be done - signatories making it illegal for their citizens to deal with companies who are or who deal with companies that operate outside of international laws/oversight, or something similar - that I can leave to bureaucrats in game.

Do players agree with the in game idea though, of preventing non state NPCs from setting up settlements?
Germany
player, 277 posts
Sun 19 Feb 2017
at 19:26
  • msg #83

Re: Corporations and Space

USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 81):

We have noted, with growing concern, the roll that some corporations are currently taking on as Quasi-state entities - the possibility of setting up off world out of any governmental oversight or regulation should be a concern.

We must establish the preeminence of the Nation state above the corporate entity.

The USA would therefor like to propose that the nations of the world come together and agree an international treaty that would prevent corporations forming their own nations or settlements

In essence - I'm proposing we prevent the spread of non state NPC settlements and trying to limit the growth of non state NPCs in game terms - particularly in their military growth (since some corporations now have what amounts to their own army)

There are several ways this could be done - signatories making it illegal for their citizens to deal with companies who are or who deal with companies that operate outside of international laws/oversight, or something similar - that I can leave to bureaucrats in game.

Do players agree with the in game idea though, of preventing non state NPCs from setting up settlements?

Germany aplauds this initiative to limit the powers of private companies, but we're afraid this goal can be easily corrupted.

Does that mean that a corporation must first "adquire" a country to be able to develop its own settlements?

We're sure some could, either militarly or economically do it (and in not few cases the people of the target country may even improve their living conditions on it).

Right now there are already zones where corporations are more powerful tan the staes by using PMCs as their armies (INI in Cyrinaica, Tata group in Suez...)

If we want to limit their power, other steps must be taken:
  • to avoid the existence of failing states that can be economically taken by them, and that means improving the living conditions in most of the world.
  • to stabilize the wost spots of the world
  • to avoid fiscal paradises, where the companies may covertly rule the countries
  • to call the PMCs as they are: merecenaries, and so forbid them.

In German's opinion, this last point is critical. Military forces must be state owned and controled and formed (at least mostly) by the contries own nationals (if a country wants to have a small part formed by others, as the French Légion Étrangère or the Spanish Legión, that's fine, but only as small parts). Otherwise, the companies would son be more powerful than states, even military.

When Germany claimed against PMCs (morsly naval ones) being allowed to freely act, we were left alone, now you seem to see its danger, and Germany will beglad to help forbiding them as mercenary companies (or privaters in the sea.
Indonesia
player, 1 post
Presiden Agus Yani
aka AY (pron: Ah Yeah)
Wed 22 Feb 2017
at 23:58
  • msg #84

Re: Corporations and Space

Greetings,

As the official envoy of the Republik of Indonesia to the UN, I am informing my fellow ambassadors that Indonesia intends to support all efforts towards the promotion of international peace and  stability. We wholeheartedly endorse the motion put forward by the ambassador of the USA to suppress the use of military force by any non state actors. The primacy of the nation state in military affairs must be upheld.

We further concur with the German ambassador that the international community must be proactive in limiting the possibility of corporate entities side stepping the spirit of any such resolution through firm measures including the seizure of companies that attempt to circumvent these prohibitions.

Rizq Widiyati
Ambassador RI

[OOC: Hi  everyone. Are there any relationships between Indonesia and other PC/NPC states that I should know about? Same with regards to the Nordic Federation]
South Korea
player, 7 posts
Thu 23 Feb 2017
at 00:09
  • msg #85

Re: Corporations and Space

Indonesia:
[OOC: Hi  everyone. Are there any relationships between Indonesia and other PC/NPC states that I should know about? Same with regards to the Nordic Federation]


OOC: Welcome to the game - from what I remember you are a member of the Crystal Palace group along with several others including the Germany, France, UK, Russia, Japan and india - I think thats it but there may be more?

Other than that you are also a member of PROTO (Pacific Rim and Oceania Treaty Organisation) - which is a NATO like defensive alliance in the Oceania and Pacific rim area, led by Russia and including Korea, Australia, India and some others

Hope that helps - you should find a fair bit of information and historical info in the private messages associated to the country - just go into private messages up in the top right hand corner

If you need anything else feel free to post in the Gallery - which is good for OOC and off topic stuff!
Russia
player, 24 posts
Wed 1 Mar 2017
at 13:12
  • msg #86

Re: Corporations and Space

USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 81):

We have noted, with growing concern, the roll that some corporations are currently taking on as Quasi-state entities - the possibility of setting up off world out of any governmental oversight or regulation should be a concern.

We must establish the preeminence of the Nation state above the corporate entity.


Russia supports this proposal.
I have some consideration on this, but I would like you to point out, what exact threats exist in the possibility that an independent corporation could establish its own colony?
Germany
player, 286 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 18:51
  • msg #87

Re: Corporations and Space

Russia:
what exact threats exist in the possibility that an independent corporation could establish its own colony?

THat's a good question. For now, see that private hands have lots of launching capacity, and even two orbital stations.

See that also we have a state (Haiti) that is being rules by corporations, becoming a Corporate state (to the advantage of its dwellers, as their living status has improvedand, and to the shame of International Community at large, that have failed to help them).

Add those factors, mix it with more corporations having true military units as security forces, and you may wonder what the "thread" (or possibility, as it can be called too) is.
USA
player, 41 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 19:27
  • msg #88

Re: Corporations and Space

In reply to Russia (msg # 86):

The major threats I see are the ability for corporations to essentially form their own state like enteties which then have their own laws - this then generates a point of friction between nation state and corporate entity.

The protection of international law is the main goals I feel we should be looking to achieve
Germany
player, 288 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 19:40
  • msg #89

Re: Corporations and Space

USA:
In reply to Russia (msg # 86):

The major threats I see are the ability for corporations to essentially form their own state like enteties which then have their own laws - this then generates a point of friction between nation state and corporate entity.

The protection of international law is the main goals I feel we should be looking to achieve


See that the best way to accomplish taht is avoiding new "Haitis", where, abandoned by the International Community to their fate, they turned up to private corporations for help and guide, and now is becoming such a Corporate state.

And who can blame the Haitians for it?

We, the states (and UN as coordinator) is the one to blame, and we, the sates (and UN as coordinator) must vow not to let it happen again, if we are not to surrund to those corporate itnerests and inernational law (or any semblance to it) must be kept.

If people sees that falling into such a corporate state really improves their standard of living bette tan trusting states, then we annot complain when those corporates begin to "buy" states.
USA
player, 46 posts
Sat 4 Mar 2017
at 23:36
  • msg #90

Ships to Order

In reply to Germany (msg # 89):

The US has the ability to build 1 de grass tyson class ship that can be put up for sale on the open market - anyone interested should begin negotiations with us (pm me)
Germany
player, 296 posts
Fri 10 Mar 2017
at 15:22
  • msg #91

Ships to Order

In reply to USA (msg # 90):

Likewise, Germany offers the selling of 1 Freude class ship (details in ESA HP) to sell. Any interested party can contact Germany by PM.
Indonesia
player, 2 posts
Presiden Agus Yani
aka AY (pron: Ah Yeah)
Mon 13 Mar 2017
at 05:56
  • msg #92

Ships to Order

Indonesia is looking to purchase uplift capacity for the upcoming five year period. We are also looking to expand our native uplift capacity for the future.
Saudi Arabia
player, 25 posts
Tue 27 Jun 2017
at 03:42
  • msg #93

Ships to Order

From news section:
quote:
“After years of work, and with the situation finally improving, Iraq is being divided up by it’s neighbours like some sweet treat while the world looks on. The Saudi’s have spent years stirring up trouble in the south and now their tanks roll into Iraq, to the north the Persians work to destabilise us and take our lands. I fear you will look away from these fiends who wield knives to carve my nation up for their own gain. You cannot abandon us”
Address by President Tarir of Iraq to the UN General Assembly


Saudi Ambassor answer:

Saudi Arabia has not being stirring trouble in Iraq, but trying to stabilize it and fighting the Calipahte there (something we still have to see the Iraqui Army doing, BTW). Now we have seen that Iraq is a failed state, unable to care for its own people, nor to fight the Calipahte in its own territory, and its people in some zones have asked us for protection.

Should we have left them alone, forgotten by their own government, or even worse, in the Caliphate hands?

Saudi troops are now protecting them, still fighting to oust the Caliphate and stabilize the zone, and then let the people decide who do they want to rule over them, in a UN sponsored vote.
Canada
player, 2 posts
Thu 29 Jun 2017
at 04:39
  • msg #94

Saudi Invasion of Iraq

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 93):

Those are the excuses of the blood soaked conquer, and Canada will not stand for it. Canada calls upon all nations to reflect that as the evil that is the Islamic Caliphate fades we cannot allow a new darkness to arise in it's place. Saudi forces must remove themselves from Iraq now, or they should be removed.
Saudi Arabia
player, 26 posts
Thu 29 Jun 2017
at 13:42
  • msg #95

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

Canada:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 93):

Those are the excuses of the blood soaked conquer, and Canada will not stand for it. Canada calls upon all nations to reflect that as the evil that is the Islamic Caliphate fades we cannot allow a new darkness to arise in it's place. Saudi forces must remove themselves from Iraq now, or they should be removed.


And exactly what do you see as a new darkness?

  • Fighting the IC (as we said, we're still to see Iraquí tropos helping on this)?
  • Trying to stabilize the zone?
  • Failing to ignore the plead of a people neglected (when not outright misstreated) by a sectarian failing government?
  • trying to avoid this to develop into a longer civil war?
  • Asking for this same people to vote what status do they want?


See that Saudi Arabia does not even suggest we organize this vote, we asked UN (or the current coaltition) to organize it, so that we will remain as neutral on it as we can. Of course, we can do it, if  it is so decided and no one lese want to.

Saudi Arabia vows to accept the result of this vote. Will Iraqí government also vow that?
Canada
player, 3 posts
Fri 30 Jun 2017
at 04:32
  • msg #96

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 95):

More the same excuses, it does not even come close to a validating an invasion. Withdraw your forces from the sovereign territory of Iraq.
Saudi Arabia
player, 27 posts
Fri 30 Jun 2017
at 14:22
  • msg #97

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

Canada:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 95):

More the same excuses, it does not even come close to a validating an invasion.


No doubt your troops there have a different vision than ours.

Oh, wait... You have no troops there fighting IC nor helping to stabilize the zone, so you sure have a diferent vision than we have.

Canada:
Withdraw your forces from the sovereign territory of Iraq.


Do you mean to stop fighting IC and trying to stabilize the zone?

Because this is the main mission Saudi troops are preforming there...
USA
player, 54 posts
Mon 3 Jul 2017
at 09:39
  • msg #98

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 97):

Saudi Arabia has been fighting against the IC in the area for a long time, and having worked with them we understand their feelings on this matter.

That being said, the reports we have seen suggest this is an invasion of Iraq rather than continuing the fight against IC. That being said we are always concerned about the partiality of these reports.

If anything about Iraq's future is certain, it is that it's future is uncertain - but we agree the people of Iraq should be free to make that choice. If Iraq is to be split along ethnic or religious lines then if it is the will of the Iraqi people, so be it.

This should not, however, be being helped along by Saudi forces occupying the region - the United States will be watching developments closely and would ask Saudi Arabia to withdraw its forces from the areas of Iraq where it is not currently working with coalition forces to drive IC out of the region.

As ever, we would appeal for calm.

I think we have to accept, given the reported sentiments of the Iraqi people, that the future of Iraq is a topic that needs serious consideration, the stability of Iraq's government has fluctuated significantly and it's legitimacy is being questioned by its own people. A conversation must take place - but that conversation must not take place under the barrel of a tank's gun.
Saudi Arabia
player, 28 posts
Mon 3 Jul 2017
at 16:37
  • msg #99

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

USA:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 97):

Saudi Arabia has been fighting against the IC in the area for a long time, and having worked with them we understand their feelings on this matter.

That being said, the reports we have seen suggest this is an invasion of Iraq rather than continuing the fight against IC. That being said we are always concerned about the partiality of these reports.


See tht most Saudi foreces where already there fighting IC, so it can hardly be named an invasion...

Fighting IC is not only a matter of military force. Unless we stabilize the zone and beat them in the political/ideological front, it will never be defeated. If we seem to be just returning the zone (and its people) to a governemnt that mistreats them instead of caring, they will be reinforced, no matter what the battle result is.

USA:
If anything about Iraq's future is certain, it is that it's future is uncertain - but we agree the people of Iraq should be free to make that choice. If Iraq is to be split along ethnic or religious lines then if it is the will of the Iraqi people, so be it.


Agreed

USA:
This should not, however, be being helped along by Saudi forces occupying the region - the United States will be watching developments closely and would ask Saudi Arabia to withdraw its forces from the areas of Iraq where it is not currently working with coalition forces to drive IC out of the region.


Saudi forces are not actively helping to split Iraq. They are, though, helping to stabilize and reconstruct the zone, and if this makes people more attached to them than to Iraqi forces that were only misstreating them due to their confession instead of htelping them as it should be their duty, that's, in our eyes, Iraq's fault, not ours.

Since IC creation, Iraqi forces have not been able or willing to help their own people in any way, and, in the case of the sunni population, made them to feel trapped among IC and the sectarion Iraqi government, to the point they had to ask for halp to us.

In Saudi borders there are thousends of Iraqi refugees, and they don't flee only due to IC, but also the sectarian abuses of its government and army. Situation must be stabilized for them to be able to return home and live in peace, under whatever government they choose and cares for them.

USA:
As ever, we would appeal for calm.


Wise appeal is that

USA:
I think we have to accept, given the reported sentiments of the Iraqi people, that the future of Iraq is a topic that needs serious consideration, the stability of Iraq's government has fluctuated significantly and it's legitimacy is being questioned by its own people. A conversation must take place - but that conversation must not take place under the barrel of a tank's gun.


You're right again, but too many guns are pointing there, from too many sides...

And that's why Saudi Arabia has stated we'd prefer for others to organize the vote to decide their future. No matter how neutral we intend to be in this matter, we're too involved to really be so.

Canada seems very concerned by that, and is uninvolved in this conflict, so Saudi Arabia sees as a good candidate to help organize it, along with internatinal organizations (EU, UN, PROTO). Saudi Arabia pledges full colaboration with them if they want to organize it.

In the meanwhile, Saudi troops will keep the area as secure as they are able to, and we will continue the reconstruction and stabilization of the área to the best of our capabilities, with the main goals of caring for its people, defeating IC also in the political front and allow the refugees to return home to live their lifes in peace and security.
USA
player, 55 posts
Mon 3 Jul 2017
at 17:04
  • msg #100

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

Saudi Arabia:
You're right again, but too many guns are pointing there, from too many sides...

And that's why Saudi Arabia has stated we'd prefer for others to organize the vote to decide their future. No matter how neutral we intend to be in this matter, we're too involved to really be so.

Canada seems very concerned by that, and is uninvolved in this conflict, so Saudi Arabia sees as a good candidate to help organize it, along with internatinal organizations (EU, UN, PROTO). Saudi Arabia pledges full colaboration with them if they want to organize it.


Given what has been said so far, and that the Saudi's have agreed that this is a time for calm and careful measures, we would then suggest that all Saudi troops in non combat zones be withdrawn and replaced by other forces, let us say Canadian led international forces under the auspices of a UN peacekeeping mission - to assist local communities with security and rebuilding.

This would have the dual benefit of freeing up Saudi forces for the fight against the IC and also reassure the Iraqi government that Saudi forces are not there to occupy what is still Iraqi territory.

I trust, from what both Canada and Saudi Arabia have said, this would be an equitable arrangement for them, and I hope for the Iraqi government also, as this all would, of course, be subject to their agreement - we only propose this as a potential way of achieving a better situation that current.

We would further suggest that additional international aid be given to help the areas affected recover from the IC occupation, and consider this matter in a more formal and less tense time - the US is prepared to provided material aid, but given the feeling towards US troops in the region we will decline to send forces to help in the peace keeping unless completely unavoidable and only if the Iraqi government were to specifically request US forces.
Saudi Arabia
player, 29 posts
Mon 3 Jul 2017
at 17:47
  • msg #101

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

USA:
Saudi Arabia:
You're right again, but too many guns are pointing there, from too many sides...

And that's why Saudi Arabia has stated we'd prefer for others to organize the vote to decide their future. No matter how neutral we intend to be in this matter, we're too involved to really be so.

Canada seems very concerned by that, and is uninvolved in this conflict, so Saudi Arabia sees as a good candidate to help organize it, along with internatinal organizations (EU, UN, PROTO). Saudi Arabia pledges full colaboration with them if they want to organize it.


Given what has been said so far, and that the Saudi's have agreed that this is a time for calm and careful measures, we would then suggest that all Saudi troops in non combat zones be withdrawn and replaced by other forces, let us say Canadian led international forces under the auspices of a UN peacekeeping mission - to assist local communities with security and rebuilding.


Combat zones are quite fluid right now, as your own troops can tell you, and this same zone kept by Saudi troops is the one where our (and some other colatition countries') supply lines go through.

We warn you that Saudi troops, aside from be better acclimatated, now have the trust of the people in the zone, a benefit that Canadian forces will not have.

We will wellcome Canadian (or US, or any UN decided country) advisors and observers to see that Saudi troops are not playing dirty i nthis matter, but we keep thinking our troops are the best suited for the misión.

If our troops leave, Iraqi ones will probably reneter in the zone (and, as Canada has been expresing themselves to now, they can hardly oppose to that. Are you naive enough to think they will now change their attitude, or do you believe a revenge range is more likely (even if its government tries to avoid it)?


USA:
This would have the dual benefit of freeing up Saudi forces for the fight against the IC and also reassure the Iraqi government that Saudi forces are not there to occupy what is still Iraqi territory.


Is Saudi opinion that while the colaition has enough troops for a military victory against IC, what we need now i the trust of the people, and we're afraid that would be lost in this case.

USA:
I trust, from what both Canada and Saudi Arabia have said, this would be an equitable arrangement for them, and I hope for the Iraqi government also, as this all would, of course, be subject to their agreement - we only propose this as a potential way of achieving a better situation that current.


DO you say you trust us? then do it. Send advisors and observers (yours or from any other trusted country), help us to stabilize the zone, and help to organize the vote for people living there to decide.

USA:
We would further suggest that additional international aid be given to help the areas affected recover from the IC occupation, and consider this matter in a more formal and less tense time - the US is prepared to provided material aid, but given the feeling towards US troops in the region we will decline to send forces to help in the peace keeping unless completely unavoidable and only if the Iraqi government were to specifically request US forces.


Wise suggestion again. To now, little has been done in this way, as little has been done to help the refugees, apaprently being seen by the international community at large (excepting some good willing NGOs) as "Saudi problem". If this has made them to trust us more tan others, again we don't see as our fault.

Again, send UN advisors and observers, and let the Saudi troops to keep the área as secure as they can for the good of its people.

EDIT: (of course OOC): I really fumbled with a private comment, ignoring those it was intended to go for instead of adding them. Please if you read it and now don't see it, disregard what was on it. Now it's for those intended.
This message was last edited by the player at 09:31, Tue 04 July 2017.
Saudi Arabia
player, 32 posts
Tue 22 Aug 2017
at 11:59
  • msg #102

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

After many years of war and oppression by the sectarian governemnt of Iraq, and after the Iraqi refugees crisis Saudi Arabia has been suffereing for nearly 10 years now, we feel it's time for the Iraqi sunnis to decide their own future and have, at their request, temporally taken them under our protection.

Saudi Arabia formally ask international organizations (mostly UN and OECD, but also others) help in the reconstruction to the zone and in organizing the vote that should decide their future.

To this goals, we invite NGOs as well to help in reconstruction as son as the zone is secured from IC to allow the refugees to return home before their champs become the permanent cities they have in other cases.

We specifically ask for UN help in the refugees return and to conduct a census for the vote, that we suggest (we're open to other options) to be held (as son as the refugees are at home and the census is finished) in two rounds:

In the first round there could be several options. We'd suggest 3 of them:
  • rejoin Iraq
  • independence
  • joining Saudi Arabia

In the second round, and assuming such a decisión may not be taken with less than 50% support, we's suggest the two most voted options to confront themselves (quite akin the French, among others, elections).

THis sould be done as quick as possible, and with a date limit of 2049 (we hope, with international help, not to take that long, though). After the vote, unless the result is for joining Arabia Saudi, Saudi tropos will withdraw and leave them to be the masters of their own lives.

As all crisis, they are opportunities too, and it may be time to begin to fix the historical errors commited after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire first, and the decolonization latter, by making artificial borders without hearing the opinion of the dwellers.

EDIT (OOC): I changed the date I put 2045 for 2049, as what I meant was before the end of next turn, but don't wanted to put it in those trems when talking IC
This message was last edited by the player at 15:27, Fri 25 Aug 2017.
Canada
player, 4 posts
Thu 24 Aug 2017
at 17:03
  • msg #103

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 102):

>...and have, at their request, temporally taken them under our protection. <snip> ... joining Saudi Arabia

Really? You want to go with that? Thank you I suppose. Thank you for admitting that this was never a mercy mission, that you lied to us when you said it was about stabilizing the region, that you do not care if our forces are Christian. This was only ever another memetic campaign to tell us to go to hell and make us anticipate the trip.

Let me guess, no matter what the outcome Saudi is going to make sure, intervening in force, that the Iraqi nation never again holds sway over the Sunni dominated lands. And how about that initial quick withdrawal of the Iraqi army...Saudi's doing too I presume? Actually, don't bother answering, we all already know what the truth is.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Saudi Arabia for admitting that. You have made the following so very much easier.

---------------------------
To Germany and the rest of the Western world, I understand, you are tired, you have been fighting for such a long time and Saudi has been so free with providing you oil in the times of shortfall. You started to make little moral compromises because it seemed like the easiest, again and again, hoping that all your problems would just go away you stuck your neck far out for Saudi...and Saudi just cut it off. You do not have to send in your armies, not yet, do what Canada is doing use your influence to help Iraq defend itself, help the Iraqi nation be a stable and prosperous place; Canada cannot do this alone.

To the non-Western world, are you tired of the smugness of the West? How many times has it been proven to you that colonialism is not dead, it has just been re-branded. Well here is your chance, after so long of the West presuming that only the West can occupy the moral high ground, the West has tired of it. Prove to everyone that you can take that moral high ground. Use your influence to help Iraq defend itself, help the Iraqi nation be a stable and prosperous place; Canada cannot do this alone.
Saudi Arabia
player, 33 posts
Fri 25 Aug 2017
at 10:44
  • msg #104

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

Canada:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 102):

>...and have, at their request, temporally taken them under our protection. <snip> ... joining Saudi Arabia


Please, when quoting another one's words be at least so honest as to quote all relevant parts. You only quote one of the options given (and, We remember, open to suggestions), carefully forgueting the other two: Rejoining Iraq and Independence.

So convinced were you that this will be the result in the vote?

Other countries representatives can read and are no idiots, and you feel like not entering in this description if you believe this manipulation will not be evident.

Canada:
Really? You want to go with that? Thank you I suppose. Thank you for admitting that this was never a mercy mission, that you lied to us when you said it was about stabilizing the region, that you do not care if our forces are Christian. This was only ever another memetic campaign to tell us to go to hell and make us anticipate the trip.


So, in your eyes, allowing the refugees to return home is not a mercy mission nor stabilizing the zone, while convincing someone to go to war is?

If your idea of marcy mission and stabilizing the zone is this one, then Saudi Arabia is not trying to. To us, the idea of mercy misión and stabilizing the zone is to avoid people being opressed by a sectarian government and to allow the refugees to return home by offering them a secure área to call so.

Why are you so afraid of a stable Middle east?

What has Arabian (in the larger sense, not only Saudis) people done to you to so desire to keep us at permanent war?

Why are you allying with the Caliphate by moveing others to fight a member of the Coalition?

Why are you so coward as not to join the coalition when you could, and now using others to fight for your dark interests of avoiding a stable Middle East?

Why are you so full of hate on the idea of people deciding their future and borders, instead of just accepting what colonial powers imposed without hearing the dwellers?

Why do you beleive force should prevail over vote?

Why this difference among this paceful operation to protect people who asked for it and the occupaation of Palestine, that was not so friendly and against the will of its dwellers?

Why this difference when the mercy operation is taken by NATO in Kosovo (then part of Serbia) or by Saudi Arabia in Sunni Iraq?

Was this your plan too if the Quebequois, that you allowed to vote for their Independence, had decided to become independent? Would you likewise had invaded them? Or they have the right ,as they are civilized instead of the babarian Arabain population?

Canada:
Let me guess, no matter what the outcome Saudi is going to make sure, intervening in force, that the Iraqi nation never again holds sway over the Sunni dominated lands. And how about that initial quick withdrawal of the Iraqi army...Saudi's doing too I presume? Actually, don't bother answering, we all already know what the truth is.


Saudi Arabia has pledged to respect the result of the vote, something you, as a representative of the democratic Western nations, seem not to, prefering to move your puppets to war before accepting people to decide in a vote.

Canada:
To Germany and the rest of the Western world, I understand, you are tired, you have been fighting for such a long time and Saudi has been so free with providing you oil in the times of shortfall. You started to make little moral compromises because it seemed like the easiest, again and again, hoping that all your problems would just go away you stuck your neck far out for Saudi...and Saudi just cut it off. You do not have to send in your armies, not yet, do what Canada is doing use your influence to help Iraq defend itself, help the Iraqi nation be a stable and prosperous place; Canada cannot do this alone.


Yes, Western world, hear to Canadian Government and his hate filled words, and remember the Arabian people does not deserve to be heard. You made little moral compromises, as allowing refugees camps to become permanent cities in Jordan and Lebanon, and there's no reason not to act likelwise in Saudi Arabia. Those refugees don't deserve to be allowed to return home, better to keep on them the threat of their sectarian cogernment revenging on them, so they will keep their heads down.

Is really that what you think and want, or you want them to be able to return home and find a secure place where to live?

Saudi Arabia, unlike Canada, is involved in the stabilization of the zone, and has fought side with side with you to achieve it. We suggest a vote to allow people decide, not an indefinite military occupation, as others do.

And to Canadian poeple, proud of a nation that has been a democracy and welfare beacon, that has helped the less fortunate when needed; how can you support this morally corrupt government, that incites proxy wars to avoid an already unstable zone of the Word to stabilize?

Canada:
To the non-Western world, are you tired of the smugness of the West? How many times has it been proven to you that colonialism is not dead, it has just been re-branded. Well here is your chance, after so long of the West presuming that only the West can occupy the moral high ground, the West has tired of it. Prove to everyone that you can take that moral high ground. Use your influence to help Iraq defend itself, help the Iraqi nation be a stable and prosperous place; Canada cannot do this alone.


Yes, Canada is right: colonialism is not over, and here we have an example. Canadian Government (because we don't believe thoir people agree) still believes their moral superiority allows them to decide what borders must be, even against the dwellers will, and to move people to war when peace could be in sight.

Remember to keep your heads down and bow before them, as they are the Masters and have the right to decide when something is an illegal occupation and what is not.

Remember, Israel has the right to keep Palestine occupied for a century against their people's will, but Saudi Arabia is evil because they hear Iraqi sunnis plea for help and defend them, and even worse, we give them voice and vote before making anything permanent. How do we dare, not being Westerners, to do so?
This message was last edited by the player at 11:43, Fri 25 Aug 2017.
Russia
player, 28 posts
Fri 25 Aug 2017
at 14:46
  • msg #105

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

---
From interview with Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Alexey Trushev:
 - Saudi Arabia is right that post-colonial countries of the former British Empire (and others Western empires) were “cut” so “wisely” that large amounts of people live under governments of another ethnicity/religion which causes constant squabbling and infights. And Saudi Arabia is right about examples of the others injustices. But we cannot solve all the troubles at once. And we cannot solve any trouble without strict rules.
---

Russia calls United Nations Security Council*, and offers to vote on following topics:

1) Nigeria, China and Australia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the area of Armenians’ uprising in Turkey. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).
2.1) Canada and Russia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the Saudi-occupied part of Iraq. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Iraq is invited as additional non-permanent member of UNSC for this vote).
2.2) Forces of Saudi Arabia and Iraq must leave area in question (Saudi Arabia is suspected in occupation and there is no confidence that Iraq would not attempt to clear area from Sunnis).
2.3) Then a plebiscite funded by UN must be arranged in Iraq.

OOC:
* The real rules of UNSC non-permanent membership are complicated, and Council is capped at 15 members. For the sake of The Game, if other Players do not object, I would offer that in-game UNSC consists of Player Countries, and is not capped at 15, and veto rule of 5 permanent members still remains.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:54, Fri 25 Aug 2017.
Saudi Arabia
player, 34 posts
Fri 25 Aug 2017
at 15:34
  • msg #106

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

OOC
Russia:
OOC:
* The real rules of UNSC non-permanent membership are complicated, and Council is capped at 15 members. For the sake of The Game, if other Players do not object, I would offer that in-game UNSC consists of Player Countries, and is not capped at 15, and veto rule of 5 permanent members still remains.


This is just what Q1/A1 in the point 1.4 of the reules means, or at least how I understand it.

Russia:
(Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).


Memebers i ndispute in a UNSC meeting are, per UNSC rules, invited, regarless being memebers or not, with voice but without vote.


Russia:
---
From interview with Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Alexey Trushev:
 - Saudi Arabia is right that post-colonial countries of the former British Empire (and others Western empires) were “cut” so “wisely” that large amounts of people live under governments of another ethnicity/religion which causes constant squabbling and infights. And Saudi Arabia is right about examples of the others injustices. But we cannot solve all the troubles at once. And we cannot solve any trouble without strict rules.
---

Russia calls United Nations Security Council*, and offers to vote on following topics:

1) Nigeria, China and Australia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the area of Armenians’ uprising in Turkey. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).
2.1) Canada and Russia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the Saudi-occupied part of Iraq. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Iraq is invited as additional non-permanent member of UNSC for this vote).
2.2) Forces of Saudi Arabia and Iraq must leave area in question (Saudi Arabia is suspected in occupation and there is no confidence that Iraq would not attempt to clear area from Sunnis).
2.3) Then a plebiscite funded by UN must be arranged in Iraq.


IC

point 2.1: Canada is now helping IC terrorists by diverting some coalition ressources from the fight against it. It has also involved in the issue, so their forces might  never be peackeeping (as they should come from uninvolved nations) under UNSC. While recognizing Russian good intent on this, are also too involved in the zone to be considered neutral, so they are neither elegible as peacekeepers.

point 2.2: Saudi forces inetered in the zone to accomplish a UN mandate and to avoid the Iraqi government from commiting what began to seem a genocide. They will leave when asked by the people living there ask us so, as they asked us for help. UN (or PROTO, OSCD, Islamic Councel or other similar organizations) and NGOs observers observers are wellcome to witness Saudi operations in the zone (Canadian are excluded from this last sentence, and will be considered as hostile, as we don't want terrorosts, nor their friends and supporters).

point 2.3: The vote (we will use this more generic word) should be called only for the affected population, not the whole Iraq. Otherwise, UN would be falling in what UN itself has defined as minorization. That would have been as asking the whole Serbia for Kosovo or Montenegro, or as asking the whole Canada for Quebeq Independence, ot as if the whole URSS had voted in the various independences in the early 90's.

  Saudi Arabia has already asked UN (and other organizations) for help in this one, as first the refugees must return home and a census must be acomplished. We'll make all efforts to keep with the 20491 dataline.

  We suggest UN to take the effective administration of the zone for the refugees return ,reconstruction, census and vote, while Saudi Arabia forces will just keep the security for the zone.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:19, Fri 25 Aug 2017.
Germany
player, 317 posts
Sat 26 Aug 2017
at 11:36
  • msg #107

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

Russia:
Russia calls United Nations Security Council*, and offers to vote on following topics:

1) Nigeria, China and Australia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the area of Armenians’ uprising in Turkey. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).
2.1) Canada and Russia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the Saudi-occupied part of Iraq. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Iraq is invited as additional non-permanent member of UNSC for this vote).
2.2) Forces of Saudi Arabia and Iraq must leave area in question (Saudi Arabia is suspected in occupation and there is no confidence that Iraq would not attempt to clear area from Sunnis).
2.3) Then a plebiscite funded by UN must be arranged in Iraq.


German opinion:

Point 1:

We agree with the deploying of peacekeeping UN forces. If any party does not allow for it, then subject it to sanctions.

Point 2 (at large):

A cessfire must be implemented, efect immediate until the situation is decided.

We don't believe (as Saudi Arabia says) Canada to be friend of terrorists or IC, but we must agree right now they are the more benefited of their meddling. Canada (and everyone else) should stop immediatly to support any offensive operations (except against IC).

An investigation about the Saudi claims things were nearing a genocide, and we agree with Saudi proposal of a UN civilian administration until things are solved (akin with what NATO did in Kosovo).
Russia
player, 29 posts
Fri 1 Sep 2017
at 19:49
  • msg #108

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

In reply to Germany (msg # 107):

Just in case: Russia votes "yes" to all propositions.
Also Russia sees German speech as reasonable but does not understand: Germany votes "yes", or "no", or "no, but here is our proposition"?
Germany
player, 323 posts
Fri 1 Sep 2017
at 20:32
  • msg #109

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 107):

Just in case: Russia votes "yes" to all propositions.
Also Russia sees German speech as reasonable but does not understand: Germany votes "yes", or "no", or "no, but here is our proposition"?


The boldened one in the quote: no, but here's our proposition.

We believe we'll all agree in the need of a ceasefire, and the only way we see it possible right now is along the current lines, hoping Saudi Arabia is true in its intent. If they prove otherwise, the will be time to act.

And in any case, if some peacekeepers are decided to be sent, they should be from uninvolved country, and this discards both Russian and Canadian (as well as German and many others, for what's worth).
Canada
player, 5 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 05:51
  • msg #110

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq


Israel? Quebec? Kosovo? Islamic Caliphate collaborators? Canadian manhood? On and on. You know what it means when when someone pulls this right? ...It means that they know they have done something heinous but they lack even the moral character to take ownership of it and instead invest in the forlorn hope that in pumping out enough distractions maybe someone is dumb enough to debate one of those distractions. The issue is simple, get out of Iraq you Saudi blood soaked conquer before you make the bad situation that you started even worse.

Resolutions? Investigations? Peacekeepers? ...Gooood M'rning everybody! Time to rise and shine! That cooked meat smell is not bacon, it is charred human flesh. That rock in your bunny slippers is blasted rubble. That sunshine peaking out on the start of a beautiful day is the light of bombs going off. It is war everybody! You tried to pretend that it would not happen but boy is it here with all of the death and spreading chaos I told you would happen if you did not do anything. Go ahead, blame Iraq and Canada for being part of it, we all know that a rape victim should just lean back, let it happen, not fight back; but here we are. There is no peace to keep and anyone without tank divisions (note the plural) cannot separate the combatants. You can either stand aside and let Saudi Arabia dismember Iraq, or you help Iraq to defend itself and be a stable and prosperous nation. I told you that these were your only two options and nobody believed me. More talking means you have gone for the first option.
Saudi Arabia
player, 35 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 12:52
  • msg #111

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

Canada:
That cooked meat smell is not bacon, it is charred human flesh. That rock in your bunny slippers is blasted rubble. That sunshine peaking out on the start of a beautiful day is the light of bombs going off. It is war everybody!


You're right, and that's the result of Canadian mededling in what was being, while not a peaceful action, at least a bloodless one, until Cansda, i nwhat seem a bloodtrhist rage, convinced the Iraqis to fight.

Canada:
You tried to pretend that it would not happen but boy is it here with all of the death and spreading chaos I told you would happen if you did not do anything.


It's easy to foretell what will happen, when you're the one forcing it to happen...

Saudi Arabia will abide the ceasefire along current lines to dedícate its efforts to reconstruction, but will respond to any attack.
Australia
player, 1 post
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 14:24
  • msg #112

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

OOC: I request for GM to decide vote of Australia to Russian proposition in UNSC.
Nigeria
player, 7 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 14:58
  • msg #113

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

Russia:
---
From interview with Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Alexey Trushev:
 - Saudi Arabia is right that post-colonial countries of the former British Empire (and others Western empires) were “cut” so “wisely” that large amounts of people live under governments of another ethnicity/religion which causes constant squabbling and infights. And Saudi Arabia is right about examples of the others injustices. But we cannot solve all the troubles at once. And we cannot solve any trouble without strict rules.
---

Russia calls United Nations Security Council*, and offers to vote on following topics:

1) Nigeria, China and Australia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the area of Armenians’ uprising in Turkey. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).
2.1) Canada and Russia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the Saudi-occupied part of Iraq. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Iraq is invited as additional non-permanent member of UNSC for this vote).
2.2) Forces of Saudi Arabia and Iraq must leave area in question (Saudi Arabia is suspected in occupation and there is no confidence that Iraq would not attempt to clear area from Sunnis).
2.3) Then a plebiscite funded by UN must be arranged in Iraq.

OOC:
* The real rules of UNSC non-permanent membership are complicated, and Council is capped at 15 members. For the sake of The Game, if other Players do not object, I would offer that in-game UNSC consists of Player Countries, and is not capped at 15, and veto rule of 5 permanent members still remains.


About point 1: Nigeria is deploying a brigada of peacekeepers along with Australia, as Un has asked. As Turkey seems not to be collaborating, we suggest economic sanctions to it until they allow independent investigation.

About point 2 (at large too): while Nigeria does not like the Saudi action, we see some point in their claim of the troubles post-colonialism imposed borders (after all, Africa is not free of that, to say the least) and we see more realist the German proposal: ordering a ceasefire and a UN administration of the zone while looking for a more permanet solution.
Co-GM
GM, 169 posts
Sun 3 Sep 2017
at 05:45
  • msg #114

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

In reply to Australia (msg # 112):

>OOC: I request for GM to decide vote of Australia to Russian proposition in UNSC.
Request denied. Until I say otherwise you are the player for Australia and will make the decisions for Australia.
Canada
player, 6 posts
Sun 3 Sep 2017
at 05:46
  • msg #115

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 111):

To repeat; go ahead, blame Iraq and Canada for being part of it, we all know that a rape victim should just lean back, let it happen, not fight back.
USA
player, 72 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 09:42
  • msg #116

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

In reply to Canada (msg # 115):

The USA is looking to rent uplift from nations - a total of 12000 is required.

Please let me know (probably best by PM) if you are willing to sell me uplift
UK
player, 84 posts
Rule Britannia!
To the stars!
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 22:06
  • msg #117

Re: Saudi Invasion of Iraq

In reply to Nigeria (msg # 113):

The UK proposes that the area in question be placed under a UN mandate and administered by a UN council. Natural resource revenues will be used to pay for infrastructure building and demilitarization of the area in question.
As for Turkish involvement, if it is determined that Turkey is actively either supporting the terrorists or by Turkish actions delaying the actions of the UN, Turkey should be placed under sanctions until which time Turkey is willing to comply with the UN and its policies.

HOWEVER, if the United Nations is proving to be ineffective, perhaps it is time to create a new organization which reflects the current political atmosphere as opposed to the one of the second half of the 20th century.
UK
player, 85 posts
Rule Britannia!
To the stars!
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 22:18
  • msg #118

Ships to Order

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 93):

The UK would like to open a dialogue on the efficacy of the United Nations. The division of Iraq as a sovereign power by its neighbors shows a total and complete lack of power by the UN in its current charter.
The UK sees the dissolution of Iraq as a blatant land grab, one which the UN was clearly incapable of calling a halt to in its current charter. Ergo, The UK proposed that the United Nations Charter be rewritten to give it more policing power OR that it be dissolved; either give it the power to do its job, or eliminate it as a useless rubber stamp for whatever power is manipulating it.
USA
player, 75 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 23:14
  • msg #119

Ships to Order

In reply to UK (msg # 118):

Reform of the Security Council has been previously discussed, it was unfortunately derailed by a nuclear strike. A situation that the UN Security council managed to resolve without the world degenerating into a general exchange of Nuclear weapons.

In addition to reaching a, if not adequate, then acceptable settlement regarding the second Korean war and the Chinese Strike, the united nations has overseen the peacekeeping mission in the Kurdish regions, in securing peace and assuring the withdrawal of Chinese troops from Iran following the Gulf Incident. That being said the UN relies upon consensus, and that is important for its stability and its authority.

On the current matter of Iraq, no motion has yet been brought before the UN Security council, though there has been conversations about the current situation between members of the P5.

The United Nations offers a means for the world to ensure that pacific settlements can be reached through consensus.

Whilst we agree, in principle, that the United Nations requires strengthening, such action requires the support of all members of the security council, and to date no such agreement has been able to be reached - maybe the time is now.

We welcome the UK's statement, and would support them taking the lead in trying to reach some consensus on a reformation of the security council in particular.

The US would be particularly keen on resurrecting some form of the plan proposed by the UK in 2040, removing the veto, expanding the number of permanent members and imposing a 2/3rds majority of permanent members to agree for a resolution to be binding

Do any other members of the P5 have any thoughts on this?
Saudi Arabia
player, 41 posts
Tue 13 Feb 2018
at 09:35
  • msg #120

Re: Ships to Order

UK:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 93):

The UK would like to open a dialogue on the efficacy of the United Nations. The division of Iraq as a sovereign power by its neighbors shows a total and complete lack of power by the UN in its current charter.
The UK sees the dissolution of Iraq as a blatant land grab, one which the UN was clearly incapable of calling a halt to in its current charter. Ergo, The UK proposed that the United Nations Charter be rewritten to give it more policing power OR that it be dissolved; either give it the power to do its job, or eliminate it as a useless rubber stamp for whatever power is manipulating it.


Thats one way to see it (we'd call it the Western one, no offense intended). From the Arabian point of view, things are different...

Iraq is an artificial country created after WW1 in the Sykes-Picot agreement, but never fully accepted by its own population. Tensions created for this were spiking to civil war, and Saudi Arabia intervened to avoid it (something we could have achieved if not for Canadian meddling) and to stop the abuses on Sunni population by a sectarian government.

Now, after Canadian meddling has provoked a unwanted (from Saudi side) war (BTW, helping the caliphate with it), we don’t see reunification as a possibility, as it would lead to revenges and wanton destruction. Saudi Arabia will keep its protection on Western Iraq as the only way to avoid it, and as the best way to finish IC once and forever.

Arabian people must have a saying in their borders, instead of just abiding to Sykes-Picot old agreement, whoese basis, while might have even been good intended, are no longer applicable.

USA:
In reply to UK (msg # 118):

Reform of the Security Council has been previously discussed, it was unfortunately derailed by a nuclear strike. A situation that the UN Security council managed to resolve without the world degenerating into a general exchange of Nuclear weapons.

In addition to reaching a, if not adequate, then acceptable settlement regarding the second Korean war and the Chinese Strike, the united nations has overseen the peacekeeping mission in the Kurdish regions, in securing peace and assuring the withdrawal of Chinese troops from Iran following the Gulf Incident. That being said the UN relies upon consensus, and that is important for its stability and its authority.

On the current matter of Iraq, no motion has yet been brought before the UN Security council, though there has been conversations about the current situation between members of the P5.

The United Nations offers a means for the world to ensure that pacific settlements can be reached through consensus.

Whilst we agree, in principle, that the United Nations requires strengthening, such action requires the support of all members of the security council, and to date no such agreement has been able to be reached - maybe the time is now.

We welcome the UK's statement, and would support them taking the lead in trying to reach some consensus on a reformation of the security council in particular.

The US would be particularly keen on resurrecting some form of the plan proposed by the UK in 2040, removing the veto, expanding the number of permanent members and imposing a 2/3rds majority of permanent members to agree for a resolution to be binding

Do any other members of the P5 have any thoughts on this?


When UN becomes the neutral arbiter of international affairs, treating everyone (even Israel) with the same rules when it comes to obey its resolutions and not allowing the big ones to act freely while forcing the not so big ones to abide, then we will begin to believe it might be useful.

If you want to reinforce UN role in international affairs, begin by forcing Israel to give up the non-recognized occupied territories and to compensate for the mistreatment of Palestinian population. Force them to give up their nukes, or don't complain when others want them too.

Then, and only then, the Muslim world will be able to see UN as anything else than a power tool for the big ones to impose their will on the weaker ones.

Saudi Arabia is not doing anything that Israel has not done with UN acquiescence, just with differnet intent. While Israel is occupying Palestine with hostile intent, Saudi Arabia is protecting the Iraqi sunnis from a sectarian government, while Israel is ruining the Palestinians and keeping their boot over them, Saudi Arabia wants the development of the whole zone and the wellfaring of the population. While Israel is destroying any semblance to Palestinian infrastructures to avoid them to develop, Saudi Arabia is building them to allow development, that hopefully will bring peace, to grow.
Saudi Arabia
player, 42 posts
Thu 15 Feb 2018
at 12:39
  • msg #121

Re: Ships to Order

Saudi Arabia has some oil SRUs to sell. Contact us if you're interesed.

OOC:

I'm still waiting for some answers from Kelvin about its exact effects, and if they can be used this turn or will be reserves to avoid shortfalls next turns.
Nigeria
player, 8 posts
Sat 17 Feb 2018
at 14:11
  • msg #122

Re: Ships to Order

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 121):

Nigeria also has Oil SRU unit spare to sell.

Contact me in private for detail.
Nordic Federation
player, 16 posts
Sun 18 Feb 2018
at 16:07
  • msg #123

Re: Ships to Order

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 120):

While the Nordic Federation is not a member of the P-5, we support the American proposal.
Nordic Federation
player, 17 posts
Sun 18 Feb 2018
at 16:31
  • msg #124

Re: Ships to Order

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 123):

Following the ESA assets splitting among its members, the Nordic Federation is offering the launcher services of two (2) of its rockets, Hamingja 1.2 (TL8.8, 1800t each) based at Andoya and Esrange space center.

The Nordic Federation also has Oil SRU unit to sell.

For any of these matter, contact me in private.
Brazil
player, 11 posts
Tue 20 Feb 2018
at 20:25
  • msg #125

Re: Ships to Order

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 124):

Greetings, gentlemen.

Brazil is interested in buying OIL, please contact me if you have amounts you willing to sell.
Please provide your proposal with terms and conditions.

Regards,
Mr. Presidente
Russia
player, 37 posts
Fri 30 Mar 2018
at 11:59
  • msg #126

Re: Ships to Order

Gentlemen,

Russian goverment consideres that soon interplanetary voyages will became mundane, so it is time to arrange an international Orbital Quarantine Command (OQC).

quote:
The Orbital Quarantine Command is a quasi-military police force
charged with protecting Earth from biological contamination. Any
Human-compatible biosystem carries with it the risk of infection.
OQC is organised to stop that, with a network of ships and
boarding cutters, along with staff on every port-of-call station in
Earth orbit.


So far we face not a big threat and not a big traffic from colonies on Mars and Ceres. But since liquid water on Mars is confirmed, then there is a chance for microscopic life forms on Mars, with all the consequences for earthlings. Space traffic will grow, risks will grow, so it is better to be on a safe side from the very beginning. I am sure that all space-faring nations have proper quarantine procedures but Russia will feel safer if a special international force will provide proper administration of all the cargoes going down to Earth.

Also combined efforts for orbital space control will be reasonable. We already had a close call, back in 2035:

quote:
UN Space Agency Warns Space Risk: “Now that we’re launching so many orbital platforms and zero-gee hotels up there, there is just too much junk just floating about. Just yesterday we noticed five identical class IV objects in crowded orbits that suddenly appeared out of nowhere and won’t answer hails...who was crazy enough to put up something that massive without bothering to telling us! They won’t even answer any of our hails and we have had to route traffic around them… Sooner or later if we don’t clean up low earth orbit the consequences will be horrific”


Probably those five unidentified objects were responsible for communication jam right before Korean war. I suppose this is exactly job for OQC to keep Earth orbit clear from such kind of threats, too. If these objects were intercepted by OQC instead of being ignored by UN Space Agency, we could have avoided many troubles.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:02, Fri 30 Mar 2018.
Germany
player, 385 posts
Fri 30 Mar 2018
at 12:18
  • msg #127

Re: Ships to Order

Russia:
Gentlemen,

Also combined efforts for orbital space control will be reasonable. We already had a close call, back in 2035:

quote:
UN Space Agency Warns Space Risk: “Now that we’re launching so many orbital platforms and zero-gee hotels up there, there is just too much junk just floating about. Just yesterday we noticed five identical class IV objects in crowded orbits that suddenly appeared out of nowhere and won’t answer hails...who was crazy enough to put up something that massive without bothering to telling us! They won’t even answer any of our hails and we have had to route traffic around them… Sooner or later if we don’t clean up low earth orbit the consequences will be horrific”


Probably those five unidentified objects were responsible for communication jam right before Korean war. I suppose this is exactly job for OQC to keep Earth orbit clear from such kind of threats, too. If these objects were intercepted by OQC instead of being ignored by UN Space Agency, we could have avoided many troubles.


THis is quite close to the former German suggestion:

Germany:
In view of the recent events and the chaos produced by the unknown origin  jammers in orbit, Germany believes some control must be exercited to orbital objects.

In this goal, Germany proposes the creation of a UN agency dedicated to the control of orbital objects and to mediate any issues they may produce (let’s call it UNOCA, UN Orbital Control Agency).

The main goal of this agency should be a census of orbital objects and whom do they belong (to avoid opposition, its exact nature and mission would not necessarily be stated), to avoid the appearance of more unidentified objects (that should since now be considered hostile).

The secondary mission would be to mediate any dispute orbits could produce, and any accident this might produce.

The tertiary goal would be to help the withdrawal of any objects not in use, to help avoiding clogging orbit or accidents with them.

Any comments, supports oppositions or suggerences?

OOC:

Needless to say, it’s not my intent to begin bickering about those details in the game, just to assume they mediate them and, most important, to warn all players should more such unidentified objects appear in orbit (or identify the owner of any object acting suspiciously or hostile).


So, of course, Germany supports you proposal.
Russia
player, 38 posts
Fri 30 Mar 2018
at 13:16
  • msg #128

Re: Ships to Order

In reply to Germany (msg # 127):

OOC:
In game terms, how much Orbital Quarantine Command would cost us? Or currently it is such small organisation that only a mutual declaration would be enough?
USA
NPC, 79 posts
Fri 30 Mar 2018
at 14:09
  • msg #129

Re: Ships to Order

In reply to Germany (msg # 127):

This idea has definite merits, how do you intend to form such a force of customs vessels though?

The US did recently construct the Hornet class, a fast cutter style class, given the current small number of ships one such vessel seems to fit the needs you currently have - the US would be willing to detach the Hornet to cover such a duty for the UN, assuming the Security Council can formulate rules of engagement that we can agree to.

This may, again, be a time to suggest we engage in a discussion about UNSC reform.
Co-GM
GM, 187 posts
Fri 30 Mar 2018
at 14:26
  • msg #130

Re: Ships to Order

Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 127):

OOC:
In game terms, how much Orbital Quarantine Command would cost us? Or currently it is such small organisation that only a mutual declaration would be enough?


In game terms agreement between you will allow your skilled bureaucracy, or in this case the UN's bureaucracy, to formulate the best plans they can with the resources they have available - agreement between players sets the tone for the world and expresses the general opinion of all nations. Just getting agreement to this will factor into the GMs decisions about what is happening, and how. It will be noted that you are 'making an effort'

If you wish for this to have significant and/or specific effects, you need to state exactly what you are attempting to achieve in terms of game mechanics and spend PAs or other resources to make that happen

Alternatively, the GM is always prepared to hear other suggestions (per 1.4 Q9) - if you have an idea for how this could work in game then suggest it and the GM can either agree or shoot it down (make it simple and easy to administer and that will be a lot less likely)
Russia
player, 39 posts
Fri 30 Mar 2018
at 18:33
  • msg #131

Re: Ships to Order

Co-GM:
In game terms agreement between you will allow your skilled bureaucracy, or in this case the UN's bureaucracy, to formulate the best plans they can with the resources they have available - agreement between players sets the tone for the world and expresses the general opinion of all nations. Just getting agreement to this will factor into the GMs decisions about what is happening, and how. It will be noted that you are 'making an effort'


OOC:
I think, for simplicity, such statement will be enough currently: "nations arranged a reasonable shield against avoidable threats in the form of international OQC". When time will come and GM decides that OQC starts drawing noticeable resources, then GM informs us about that and players arrange a pool of resources. I think we can trust GM what "reasonable" is. Mostly... :)

OQC currently should be a simple procedure "before going down, all cargoes must be inspected by OQC examination party; OQC inspectors must be kept aboard at least one OT in Earth orbit; anything in orbit or entering atmosphere without OQC green light is subject to missile target practice".
This message was lightly edited by the player at 18:34, Fri 30 Mar 2018.
Nordic Federation
player, 19 posts
Fri 30 Mar 2018
at 21:31
  • msg #132

Re: Ships to Order

In reply to Russia (msg # 131):

THe Nordic Federation support the russian proposal.  However, enforcing a quarantine upon all arriving ships involve one or several ship with UNO mandate, and possibly a resting place where ship and crew can disembark, rest and resupply.

We speak of a dedicated orbital outpost, and one or two armed ship with military grade drive, and all associated supply and support.  That several hundred billions dollars to create and several a year to support, including launching capability.

Nordic Federation believe in the treat and the need to manage it, but wonder how to keep the cost down.

Nordic Federation doesn't have space asset for these, but agree to support such an endeavor.

FInally, since it may involve the inbounding of a ship owned by a sovereign entity, which is akin to a declaration of war, we need a strong UNO mandate for this project.
Nigeria
player, 9 posts
Fri 30 Mar 2018
at 21:34
  • msg #133

Re: Ships to Order

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 132):

Nigeria support the idea and will help however possible despite our limited capability.
Co-GM
GM, 188 posts
Fri 30 Mar 2018
at 21:51
  • msg #134

Re: Ships to Order

Russia:
When time will come and GM decides that OQC starts drawing noticeable resources, then GM informs us about that and players arrange a pool of resources. I think we can trust GM what "reasonable" is.

Nope. The GM will make no comment, recommendation or judgement on when you should do something. If the world comes to an agreement all well and good. Anything more you need to drive forwards.
Any other way madness lies
Russia
player, 40 posts
Fri 4 May 2018
at 07:40
  • msg #135

Re: Ships to Order

Russia informes, that Russia moved its Solar Array from Luna orbit to Earth orbit, so if you need additional power in Earth orbit, talk to Russia.
USA
NPC, 80 posts
Sat 5 May 2018
at 09:39
  • msg #136

Turkish/Armenian border clashes

In reply to Russia (msg # 135):

Circumstances have prompted us to issue the following statement:

In light of the prevailing circumstances between Turkey and Armenia we wish to remind the international community that the United States takes it's commitment as a member of NATO incredibly seriously, and that NATO's commitment to mutual defence to counter any aggression from external threat remains strong and unwavering.

An attack against one is an attack against all.

We will act to counter any attack against any member

we will not permit aggression against any member to go unanswered

We hope for a peaceful resolution and call for calm, and the immediate cessation of clashes along the Turkish/Armenian border.
Nigeria
player, 10 posts
Sat 5 May 2018
at 12:33
  • msg #137

Turkish/Armenian border clashes

In reply to USA (msg # 136):

Nigeria renew its request to the United Nations Organisations, and to the security council to force a cessation of hostility between the belligerent, and to send a neutral peacekeeping mission in Armenia to enforce the cease fire.

Nigeria has already pledged support to this peacekeeping mission and is ready to send security troop in Armenia.
Germany
player, 386 posts
Sat 5 May 2018
at 12:58
  • msg #138

Re: Turkish/Armenian border clashes

USA:
In reply to Russia (msg # 135):

Circumstances have prompted us to issue the following statement:

In light of the prevailing circumstances between Turkey and Armenia we wish to remind the international community that the United States takes it's commitment as a member of NATO incredibly seriously, and that NATO's commitment to mutual defence to counter any aggression from external threat remains strong and unwavering.

An attack against one is an attack against all.

We will act to counter any attack against any member

we will not permit aggression against any member to go unanswered

We hope for a peaceful resolution and call for calm, and the immediate cessation of clashes along the Turkish/Armenian border.


Germany supports this statement
Saudi Arabia
player, 44 posts
Sat 5 May 2018
at 13:45
  • msg #139

Re: Turkish/Armenian border clashes

Since 2040, in order to protect the Iraqi Sunni population and to avoid the Iraqi sectarian government (which, BTW, did not move a finger to fight IC when occupied part of its own territory) to perform what appeared to be the beginning of a genocide against them, Saudi troops occupied western Iraq and are now administrating it on the basis of their people’s will.

Saudi troops and government have begun reconstruction operations there, with the goal to stabilize the zone and allow the many refugees in Saudi Arabia to return home, but Canada involvement has prompted the sectarian Iraqi government to attack us and to hinder our reconstruction of the zone.

The same Canada that blessed the Sykes-Picot agreement that established unstable borders in the zone…

The same Canada that blesses the Israeli occupation of Palestine, with the lasting destruction of its infrastructures and mistreatment of its population…

The same Canada that did not help us in the fight against IC…

So, as much as we hate to take this move, we have no option left but to see Canada as hostile. In consequence:
  1. Saudi embassy in Ottawa is closed. Saudi personnel will leave Canada ASAP.
  2. Canadian embassy in Riyadh is also closed. Canadian personnel has 48 hours to leave Saudi Arabia. The building itself will be sealed or (at Canada option) be left under care of any other country we both can agree (US or UK would be acceptable for us).
  3. All Canadian companies’ assets are seized by the Saudi government. We hope they will be returned when Canada comes to its senses.
  4. All Canadian nationals in Saudi Arabia are given 7 days to leave it or be taken interned in champs to avoid spies (exception: Canadian personnel belonging to humanitarian NGOs will just be expelled to a neutral country). Their personal belongings they have no time to recover will be sent where they ask them to.
  5. No Canadian national will be allowed into Saudi Arabia for the duration of the crisis (some exceptions may be given to Canadian Muslims performing their pilgrimage to Mecca, if they can show they cannot postpone it. This will be seen in a case-by-case basis. To this end we ask Canadian government to allow the consulates in Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver to remain open. If not, we’ll see to take care of those cases thorough any other GCC country consulates).
  6. Saudi airspace is closed to Canadian airplanes, be them civilian or military.
  7. Any Canadian ship in the Gulf of Arabia has 5 days to leave it. Any such ship seen on it not heading for the Ormuz straits will be seized. Any resistance will be met by lethal force by Saudi fleet and air forces.
  8. Saudi Arabia warns Canada against allowing the Iraqis to use their satellites for military use. If we have any proof they are using them, they will be seen as legitimate targets.


In the Iraqi front:
  1. The port of Basra is blockaded for the duration of the crisis. Any freighter trying to enter or leave it will be searched by the Saudi Navy. Humanitarian help will be allowed, but if they carry any military or double use cargo they will be seized. No exports will be allowed when leaving Basra. Resistance will be met with lethal force. No tanker will be allowed into it.
  2. Saudi Arabia asks for a 10 km truce area around Najaf to allow the Shiite Muslims pilgrimage to it from any side of the border. If this is abused by Iraqi forces, this will be no longer.
  3. Saudi Arabia pledges not to cross the current border with Iraq unless forced to. No offensive actions will be taken, but the border will be defended to allow reconstruction and keep its people safe.


To other countries:
  1. We ask ACNUR help to care the many refugees this crisis (and Yemeni one) are creating, as our efforts to allow them to return home need some more time and are hindered by this crisis.
  2. We ask our common allies with Canada to mediate in this crisis, as we believe a full war can still be avoided.
  3. Saudi Arabia restates its intent to stabilize the zone and keep it peaceful, and denounces Canadian interference as the cause of more suffering and instability.
  4. Saudi Arabia restates we have no quarrel with Iraqi or Canadian people, but their governments seem to be willing to avoid stability in the zone.
  5. Saudi Arabia apologizes any inconvenience all this measures (taken against our own will)  produce on uninvolved parties.


OOC: I know this will have little to none efecto in the game (aside from some obvious ones and a probable relations change), being mostly color. Any such effect is left to the referee.
Russia
player, 41 posts
Mon 7 May 2018
at 08:28
  • msg #140

Turkish/Armenian border clashes

In reply to USA (msg # 136):

Russia declares, that since Armenia is a member of ODKB, any hostile military units attempting to cross Armenian border will be considered as agression against ODKB and will be pushed back by Russian forces.

Being said that, Russia discourages any offensive actions of both Turkish and Armenian forces. Russia insists on peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Being said that, Russia demands that NATO does not turn a blind eye to evidence of atrocities against ethnic Armenians within Turkish borders. Russia demands that international peacekeepers and observers were allowed into uprising areas in Turkey. Russia demands that NATO will not be used as a smoke screen for ethnical cleansing in Turkey.
Germany
player, 387 posts
Mon 7 May 2018
at 18:22
  • msg #141

Re: Turkish/Armenian border clashes

Russia:
In reply to USA (msg # 136):

Russia declares, that since Armenia is a member of ODKB, any hostile military units attempting to cross Armenian border will be considered as agression against ODKB and will be pushed back by Russian forces.


Any NATO support is defensive. Ofensive wars are outside NATO treaty.

We suggest to complete the deployment of Australian and Nigerian peacekeepers that Armenia refused and you so kindly lodged for now.

Russia:
Being said that, Russia discourages any offensive actions of both Turkish and Armenian forces. Russia insists on peaceful resolution of the conflict.


Germany fully support this Russian statement

Russia:
Being said that, Russia demands that NATO does not turn a blind eye to evidence of atrocities against ethnic Armenians within Turkish borders. Russia demands that international peacekeepers and observers were allowed into uprising areas in Turkey. Russia demands that NATO will not be used as a smoke screen for ethnical cleansing in Turkey.


Germany suggest to créate an international commission on this under the command of the International Penal Court. We discard ourselves (or any NATO members as Turkish allies) for this, and we ask you (or any ODKB memeger, as Armenian allies) to also discard yourselves for this.

China, Brazil, Indonesia or BRazil would be aceptable for Germany, but others may also be if you so suggest.
Nordic Federation
player, 20 posts
Mon 7 May 2018
at 23:10
  • msg #142

Re: Turkish/Armenian border clashes

In reply to Germany (msg # 141):

The Nordic Federation support the German proposal.

As a member of Nato, any and all support to Turkey is strictly of defensive nature, would be limited to Turkey territory.

Nordic Federation support the deployment of Blue Helmet peacekeeper to Armenia, Australian and Nigerian, under the United Nations Organisation (UNO) umbrella.
Nigeria
player, 11 posts
Mon 7 May 2018
at 23:13
  • msg #143

Re: Turkish/Armenian border clashes

In reply to Germany (msg # 141):

Nigeria is ready to deploy a Motorized Rifles brigade to Armenia, barring the UNO and Armenia support the deployment of said brigade.

Our brigade are already in Russian territory, waiting only for the approval.

Nigeria ask for a vote of UNO.
Germany
player, 390 posts
Sun 13 May 2018
at 18:20
  • msg #144

Re: Turkish/Armenian border clashes

Viweing current situation, Germany guesses is time to bump this old dicussion:

Russia:
Russia calls United Nations Security Council*, and offers to vote on following topics:

1) Nigeria, China and Australia receive mandate of UN peacekeepers in the area of Armenians’ uprising in Turkey. They are allowed to use force as necessary to ensure truce and enhance peaceful resolution. (Turkey and Armenia are invited as additional non-permanent members of UNSC for this vote).
OOC:
* The real rules of UNSC non-permanent membership are complicated, and Council is capped at 15 members. For the sake of The Game, if other Players do not object, I would offer that in-game UNSC consists of Player Countries, and is not capped at 15, and veto rule of 5 permanent members still remains.


As already said then, Germany is favorable to the deploying of UN peacekeepers in the borders and observers (or a UN Human Rights Comitee investigation) in the affected zones.
Germany
player, 403 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 10:07
  • msg #145

China defaulting Korean peace agreements

Germany formally condemns Chinese decision not to abide the agreements reached after the Korean crisis and sees it as a default to the peace terms.

In consequence, Chinese participation in the Beltstrike project is frozen and temporary seized by German Government and any profit it could belong to China would be diverted to Korea for as long as China defults this treaty, while further sanctions are being studied by German Government.
Russia
player, 51 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 13:05
  • msg #146

China defaulting Korean peace agreements

Armenia submitted to Russian ultimatum and stopped attacks.
As Russia declared before and confirms once again, if Armenia will attempt to attack Turkey, Russian Forces will confront Armenian military and thwart aggression.
In this situation, NATO has already achieved its declared goal - protection of ally, and further attempts of NATO to occupy Armenia despite Russian guarantees will look like aggressive war and will lead to unnecessary casualties. Resources, spent by NATO on military operations in Armenia are already bigger than needed to resolve this conflict peacefully.

Russia demands that all forces in the region ceased fire and returned to diplomatic talks.

Russia fully supports UN attempts to stabilize situation, welcomes UN peacekeepers and thanks Germany and Nigeria for active commitment. Also Russia invites German peacekeepers in the region, despite German’s allegiance to NATO. Russia declares that if peacekeepers will be attacked, Russian Military will protect them.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:11, Mon 16 July 2018.
USA
player, 93 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 13:34
  • msg #147

Re: China defaulting Korean peace agreements

The stated goal of NATO is the prosecution of a defensive war declared against the alliance by a belligerent nation.

NATO's stated aim is, and always has been, to defend itself against an attack - Armenia declared war against NATO and this means preventing the attacker from having the ability to attack again. Armenia attacked a member of the NATO alliance - a unilateral action that did not involve Russia and that has put them in a terrible position! Armenia, in its actions, has demonstrated it is not the friend of Russia or of the international community at large.

Armenia has not yet surrendered - and as such until it does a state of war exists between NATO and Armenia. This is a situation Armenia has caused and one that we will see brought to an end.

Russia troops must either remove themselves from Armenia or they will find themselves in an active war-zone if Armenia does not surrender immediately!

This is not a conflict that NATO wanted, nor is it one we sought, but US forces will be moving in along side Turkish and allied forces to prosecute this war against Armenia and to force them to surrender! If Russian forces act against NATO units or act to support the belligerent Armenian government then they will be considered hostile unit, they will be engaged by our forces and they will be destroyed!

I say again, either Armenia surrenders to Turkey and NATO now, or Russia must withdraw its troops to avoid this escalating beyond its current status. Until such time as Armenia surrenders there is a state of war between them and us.

We warned you this would happen! We warned the world this would happen! We told you we would defend our allies if they were attacked and despite all of this Armenia has attempted to plunge the world into war by latching onto the Russian government and trying to drag them into a conflict that is the sole creation of Armenia.
USA
player, 94 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 14:01
  • msg #148

The Iraq Question

In reply to USA (msg # 147):

Wire Report - Surprise US Foreign Policy Shift

In what is being widely rumoured to be a triumph of Saudi diplomacy the US State department has, essentially, endorsed their invasion of Iraq!

Secretary Sullivan stated earlier today in an official press briefing on the situation

"The situation in Iraq is not tenable - its existence is owed only to the post-colonial borders drawn up by people with no concern for local mores, culture or history.
Iraq, as a nation, has not worked for many years, and the continuing unrest and dissent within that nation is testament to the poison legacy of the post colonial era. The southern regions have begged the Saudi government to protect them from government oppression, the Kurdish regions have suffered greatly under successive Iraqi governments and their peoples too cry out to be rescued by their own people in Kurdistan!
For the sake of a lasting peace in the region we cannot support the continuation of Iraq in it's current form. The Saudi intervention can only be viewed as positive for the region and any intervention by Kurdistan to give greater voice to those ethnic Kurds who have long felt oppressed by the central government in Baghdad and would be of no concern to us at all"

In answer to a question from reporters asking if this meant the US would take any action if fresh Saudi offences were to being or if Kurdish forces became involved in Iraq Secretary Sullivan simply answered "No, we will not take any action and would not be concerned by such action"

Saudi officials declined to comment today but Kurdish military officials stated that the American position was "Common sense" and demonstrated a real understanding of the problems facing the region, in direct contrast to many other Western nations.
Russia
player, 52 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 14:12
  • msg #149

Re: China defaulting Korean peace agreements

USA:
I say again, either Armenia surrenders to Turkey and NATO now, or Russia must withdraw its troops to avoid this escalating beyond its current status.

...

We warned you this would happen!


No, you told me another thing.
You told me that you are not willing to escalate, and accepted that Russia locks itself into defensive position, restricting Armenia from attacks. Russia did that and even more.
If you attack now, it will be plain escalation.
USA
player, 96 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 14:16
  • msg #150

Re: China defaulting Korean peace agreements

In reply to Russia (msg # 149):

No, we told you that if neither you or Armenia attacked then we would not attack - we said we would not escalate but we would defend ourselves and our allies

Armenia attacked - they declared war on us - now they reap as they have sown.
Russia
player, 53 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 14:39
  • msg #151

Re: China defaulting Korean peace agreements

In reply to USA (msg # 150):

quote:
we said we would not escalate but we would defend ourselves and our allies


Now you are going to attack, not to defend.
USA
player, 97 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 14:52
  • msg #152

Re: China defaulting Korean peace agreements

In reply to Russia (msg # 151):

During the second world war should the forces opposing Hitler have stopped at the borders of Germany? Armenia declared war on us.
Russia
player, 54 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 14:54
  • msg #153

Re: China defaulting Korean peace agreements

In reply to USA (msg # 152):

This is not WW2 and Armenia is not a Hitler.
Considering that Armenia ceased fire, and ready to peace talks, your attack is not necessary to defend Turkey.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:56, Mon 16 July 2018.
Russia
player, 55 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 17:59
  • msg #154

Re: Armenian crisis

quote:
This is not a conflict that NATO wanted, nor is it one we sought


Is that true?.. Is that true about every member of NATO - like, for example, Turkey?
Russia has been inviting Turkey in UNSC for five years or more, yet we didn't hear their answers about what was going on.
Let us hear what their peace terms are? And looking at their terms we will see who was a real warmonger here.
***
Russian ambassador calls UNSC meeting, invites both Turkish and Armenian representatives, asks Turkey what peace terms do they request from Armenia, and waits for answers.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:01, Mon 16 July 2018.
Germany
player, 404 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 18:09
  • msg #155

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
quote:
This is not a conflict that NATO wanted, nor is it one we sought


Is that true?.. Is that true about every member of NATO - like, for example, Turkey?
Russia has been inviting Turkey in UNSC for five years or more, yet we didn't hear their answers about what was going on.
Let us hear what their peace terms are? And looking at their terms we will see who was a real warmonger here.


Not that Armenia had any hurry to sit in the same table... ITTR Armenia didn't allow Nigerian and Australian interposition forces to deploy on the border either...

And the organized partisan/terrorist activity inside Turkey seems to hint Armenia had been planning for it for some time before attacking, probably hiding this to you too...
Russia
player, 56 posts
Mon 16 Jul 2018
at 18:16
  • msg #156

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 155):

quote:
Not that Armenia had any hurry to sit in the same table


Well they did a lot of talks all around the world, demonstrating at least some proof.
But it is offtopic - let us just hear what peace terms are.
Nigeria
player, 12 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 01:35
  • msg #157

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Russia (msg # 156):

The Nigeria is reinstating its willingness to be part of a peace mission, but with a United Nation Organisation Security Council (UNOSC) mandate, and with the Armenian, Russian and Turkish autorisation.

What are we waiting to get that vote on?

OOC: Who's making the UNOSC vote call?
Nordic Federation
player, 23 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 01:36
  • msg #158

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Russia (msg # 156):

The Nordic Federation also support a peace treaty and the dispatch of a strong peacemaking mission in Armenia.
Canada
player, 7 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 05:27
  • msg #159

Re: The Iraq Question

USA:
In reply to USA (msg # 147):

Wire Report - Surprise US Foreign Policy Shift

In what is being widely rumoured to be a triumph of Saudi diplomacy the US State department has, essentially, endorsed their invasion of Iraq!


Are you insane?!?!?! Did you think of what the consequences are of what you have just unleashed?!?!? Has world peace, leadership of the free world and the long friendship of Canada meant so little to you that you would do such a thing?!?!?!? Were you bought off by promises of oil? It was, wasn't it?
This message was last edited by the player at 05:41, Wed 18 July 2018.
Referee
GM, 116 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 05:41
  • msg #160

Re: The Iraq Question

USA:
In reply to USA (msg # 147):

Wire Report - Surprise US Foreign Policy Shift

Secretary Sullivan stated earlier today in an official press briefing on the situation

"For the sake of a lasting peace in the region we cannot support the continuation of Iraq in it's current form. The Saudi intervention can only be viewed as positive for the region and any intervention by Kurdistan to give greater voice to those ethnic Kurds who have long felt oppressed by the central government in Baghdad and would be of no concern to us at all"

In answer to a question from reporters asking if this meant the US would take any action if fresh Saudi offences were to being or if Kurdish forces became involved in Iraq Secretary Sullivan simply answered "No, we will not take any action and would not be concerned by such action"


Kurdistan says: <appearing on a stage with USA Secretary Sullivan in the background> Thank you Secretary Sullivan, your wise words have been a great comfort to the all Kurdish peoples, especially those suffering in Iraqi chains! The government of Kurdistan is extremely pleased to announce that the USA have begun the transfer of 4 entire divisions worth of equipment and supplies to the army of Kurdistan which we will immediately put to great use in the liberation of Kurdish peoples from the genocidal grip of the blooddrenched Iraqi government.
Russia
player, 57 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 08:39
  • msg #161

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Nigeria (msg # 157):

quote:
OOC: Who's making the UNOSC vote call?


OOC:
I guess it is up to players. Also UNSC has complex system of permanent and non-permanent members; for the purpose of the game and simplicity, my offer is that all active players were considered as non-permanent members.

IC:
Russian sources inform that Turkish "peace term" is total conquest of Armenia, and they use provocations and NATO as screen to achieve that using formal cause that Armenia attacked first. May be other NATO countries are involved in the scheme too. That also explains why Turkey still keeps silence. Russia will consider it as true, unless Turkey declares another peace terms in UN.

Russia calls UNSC (UPD: and identical in UNGA) vote:
1) NATO, Russia, Turkey and Armenia must cease fire immediately.
2) Peacekeepers of UN, including but not limiting to Nigeria and Germany (and Nordic federation as soon as they declare peace to Armenia), to be sent in the region.
3) Fate of Armenia decided by further UNSC decision.

Russian vote:
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
This message was last edited by the player at 12:18, Wed 18 July 2018.
Germany
player, 406 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 10:45
  • msg #162

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
In reply to Nigeria (msg # 157):

quote:
OOC: Who's making the UNOSC vote call?


Russian sources inform that Turkish "peace term" is total conquest of Armenia, and they use provocations and NATO as screen to achieve that using formal cause that Armenia attacked first. May be other NATO countries are involved in the scheme too. That also explains why Turkey still keeps silence. Russia will consider it as true, unless Turkey declares another peace terms in UN.

Russia calls UNSC vote:
1) NATO, Russia, Turkey and Armenia must cease fire immediately.
2) Peacekeepers of UN, including but not limiting to Nigeria and Germany (and Nordic federation as soon as they declare peace to Armenia), to be sent in the region.
3) Fate of Armenia decided by further UNSC decision.

Russian vote:
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes


From UN charter, Chapter V: the Security Council; Article 27:

quote:
3) Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting
.(bold added for reference)

Under this basis, and being (albeit unwillingly) party in the dispute, Germany forfeits his vote.

For the same reasons, Germany declines the offer to participate in any UN peacekeeping forcé in this conflicto.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:48, Wed 18 July 2018.
Nordic Federation
player, 24 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 11:09
  • msg #163

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
Russia:
In reply to Nigeria (msg # 157):



<quote>3) Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting
.(bold added for reference)

Under this basis, and being (albeit unwillingly) party in the dispute, Germany forfeits his vote.

For the same reasons, Germany declines the offer to participate in any UN peacekeeping forcé in this conflicto.


OOC: Under that rule, no one on the UNSC could cast a vote on this matter.


IC: While we understand the rule abiding Germany, we believe it doesn't bring us any closer to a conclusion on this matter.  In order to reach some form of agreement, the Nordic Federaiton will cast a vote, and let the council decide.


1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
Germany
player, 407 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 11:20
  • msg #164

Re: Armenian crisis

Nordic Federation:
Germany:
Russia:
In reply to Nigeria (msg # 157):



<quote>3) Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting
.(bold added for reference)

Under this basis, and being (albeit unwillingly) party in the dispute, Germany forfeits his vote.

For the same reasons, Germany declines the offer to participate in any UN peacekeeping forcé in this conflicto.


OOC: Under that rule, no one on the UNSC could cast a vote on this matter.


Well, some could, but probably less than the 9 votes required (and most veto power countries should not vote),

Nordic Federation:
IC: While we understand the rule abiding Germany, we believe it doesn't bring us any closer to a conclusion on this matter.  In order to reach some form of agreement, the Nordic Federaiton will cast a vote, and let the council decide.


1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes

And will a vote that could be seen as illegal under UN charter by any country that wishes so?

Germany accepts that other countries may have different POVs, but restates its own.
Saudi Arabia
player, 56 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 11:36
  • msg #165

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
In reply to Nigeria (msg # 157):

quote:
OOC: Who's making the UNOSC vote call?


OOC:
I guess it is up to players. Also UNSC has complex system of permanent and non-permanent members; for the purpose of the game and simplicity, my offer is that all active players were considered as non-permanent members.

IC:
Russian sources inform that Turkish "peace term" is total conquest of Armenia, and they use provocations and NATO as screen to achieve that using formal cause that Armenia attacked first. May be other NATO countries are involved in the scheme too. That also explains why Turkey still keeps silence. Russia will consider it as true, unless Turkey declares another peace terms in UN.

Russia calls UNSC vote:
1) NATO, Russia, Turkey and Armenia must cease fire immediately.
2) Peacekeepers of UN, including but not limiting to Nigeria and Germany (and Nordic federation as soon as they declare peace to Armenia), to be sent in the region.
3) Fate of Armenia decided by further UNSC decision.

Russian vote:
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes


Saudi Vote:

  1. yes
  2. no (it would be yes if NATO countries are taken from the UN Peacekeeping forces, as they are not neutral)
  3. no (unless UNSC vows to hear Armenian people before taking any decision).

Russia
player, 58 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 11:58
  • msg #166

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
Under this basis, and being (albeit unwillingly) party in the dispute, Germany forfeits his vote.


I suppose you can say "If it was UNGA then Germany would vote such and such".

OOC:
For purpose of game I'm not willing to create two separate votings, but IRL Russia would.
Germany
player, 408 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 12:13
  • msg #167

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
Germany:
Under this basis, and being (albeit unwillingly) party in the dispute, Germany forfeits his vote.


I suppose you can say "If it was UNGA then Germany would vote such and such".


Probably, albeit in some of them we might abstain...

In any case, any resolution taken there (if any) would be legal (something dubious in involved parites vote in UNSC) and there will not be lack of voting countries (as may happen in UNSC if involved parties do not vote).

OOC:

Just state it if you take the discussion to UNGA instead of UNSC.
Russia
player, 59 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 12:19
  • msg #168

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
Just state it if you take the discussion to UNGA instead of UNSC.


OOC:
I suppose votes in UNGC and in UNSC would be identical for those who can vote in both. So not instead but together with.
Updated initial vote post in #161:
"Russia calls UNSC (UPD: and identical in UNGA) vote:"
This message was last edited by the player at 12:20, Wed 18 July 2018.
USA
player, 98 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 13:05
  • msg #169

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 167):

OOC:
This is why we need UNSC reform in game - to make this kind of talk obsolete and to streamline this - discussions about the minutiae of the UN charter risks bogging us down in silly legal nonsence and case law - I suggest keeping this simple and just, as Russia says, hold an open vote assuming PCs are current members of the council - To address Germany's concern there is a substantial number of times that this has clearly not been interpreted in the way you describe and that's not how the US will interpret this at all.

I would also suggest someone, in the future, try and get some agreement on how we will do this - if the UNSC is going to be a major thing in game thing as we are currently making it this whole process needs to be agred upon for in game (though not right now as we have more important things to discuss) No doubt this will be an interesting future debate.

IC:

The UNGA has no ability to pass a binding resolution - ie a resolution that would actually require a nation to do something

The responsibilities of the GA and the SC are clearly outlined in the charter. The only body that can act to issue demands or require a member of the UN to do something is the UNSC

A UNGA resolution would be aspirational only. The UNSC is the proper place to discuss this and, to be honest, if I am reading the mood correctly it is an exercise in futility as France will almost undoubtedly VETO the current resolution - as we are considering doing also

The resolution fails to address the cause of this crisis, the beligerance of Armenia, and instead would provide Russia the ability to avoid any consequences to their ally - as point 3 which would address Armenia's future will require future agreement between all P5 members - we cannot see why it should be that we accept this position which will drag this on forever as any of the P5 could Veto any future attempt to resolve this and leaving this unaddressed only stores up future disagreements and ill will.

A peace treaty must be established and you must include restitution to Turkey for this to be acceptable, you must include Turkey's wishes in any settlement.

Russia must look to assist Armenia in finding a resolution that Turkey can accept and that they can accept. This is how peace can be achieved

We will not support a resolution that could be used to give Armenia a 'get out of jail free card'
Russia
player, 60 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 14:48
  • msg #170

Re: Armenian crisis

USA:
as point 3 which would address Armenia's future will require future agreement between all P5 members - we cannot see why it should be that we accept this position which will drag this on forever as any of the P5 could Veto


Russia can easily dispell such suspicions promising that Russia will not veto UNSC vote in that case and will accept simple majority.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:17, Wed 18 July 2018.
Germany
player, 409 posts
Wed 18 Jul 2018
at 15:38
  • msg #171

Re: Armenian crisis

<
USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 167):

OOC:
This is why we need UNSC reform in game - to make this kind of talk obsolete and to streamline this - discussions about the minutiae of the UN charter risks bogging us down in silly legal nonsence and case law - I suggest keeping this simple and just, as Russia says, hold an open vote assuming PCs are current members of the council - To address Germany's concern there is a substantial number of times that this has clearly not been interpreted in the way you describe and that's not how the US will interpret this at all.

I would also suggest someone, in the future, try and get some agreement on how we will do this - if the UNSC is going to be a major thing in game thing as we are currently making it this whole process needs to be agred upon for in game (though not right now as we have more important things to discuss) No doubt this will be an interesting future debate.


Fully agreed

USA:
To address Germany's concern there is a substantial number of times that this has clearly not been interpreted in the way you describe and that's not how the US will interpret this at all..


And that is one of the reasons UNSC has became a nearly useless body of discussion, as the P5 may do whatever they want and then veto it, voting despite being involved party.

USA:
IC:

The UNGA has no ability to pass a binding resolution - ie a resolution that would actually require a nation to do something

The responsibilities of the GA and the SC are clearly outlined in the charter. The only body that can act to issue demands or require a member of the UN to do something is the UNSC

A UNGA resolution would be aspirational only. The UNSC is the proper place to discuss this and, to be honest, if I am reading the mood correctly it is an exercise in futility as France will almost undoubtedly VETO the current resolution - as we are considering doing also

The resolution fails to address the cause of this crisis, the beligerance of Armenia, and instead would provide Russia the ability to avoid any consequences to their ally - as point 3 which would address Armenia's future will require future agreement between all P5 members - we cannot see why it should be that we accept this position which will drag this on forever as any of the P5 could Veto any future attempt to resolve this and leaving this unaddressed only stores up future disagreements and ill will.


Unless UNGA resolution 377 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...embly_Resolution_377) is invoked...

It needs the UNSC to be unable to reach an agreement, ainly for the use of veotes, but Germany thinks it could also apply to this case
South Korea
player, 8 posts
Thu 19 Jul 2018
at 02:07
  • msg #172

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 171):

Following China's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the peace treaty negotiated after their attack against Korea with weapons of mass destruction Korea announces that it is imposing economic sanctions against China until such time as it complies with the terms of that peace treaty.

We call on all other nations to join us and oppose China's disregard for international law and impose economic sanctions until China returns to the peace framework outlined by the UNSC resolution.
USA
player, 99 posts
Thu 19 Jul 2018
at 02:08
  • msg #173

Sanctions on China

In reply to South Korea (msg # 172):

The United States of American announces it is imposing economic sanctions against China until such time as it complies with the terms outlined in the UNSC resolution negotiated to bring about an end to the Korean Crisis
Brazil
player, 12 posts
Thu 19 Jul 2018
at 08:11
  • msg #174

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 165):

1) yes
2) no
3) no
Nigeria
player, 13 posts
Thu 19 Jul 2018
at 11:06
  • msg #175

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Russia (msg # 161):

Nigeria is voting:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
Nordic Federation
player, 25 posts
Thu 19 Jul 2018
at 11:07
  • msg #176

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to USA (msg # 169):

The Nordic Federation agree to the American proposal to reform the UNSC.
Nordic Federation
player, 26 posts
Thu 19 Jul 2018
at 11:09
  • msg #177

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to South Korea (msg # 172):

The Nordic Federation will impose economic sanction to China for lacking to its responsibilities following the Korean crisis, until it comply fully to the frame work outlined by the UNSC.
Nigeria
player, 14 posts
Thu 19 Jul 2018
at 11:11
  • msg #178

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to South Korea (msg # 172):

Nigeria will impose economic sanction to China until it accept and comply to its Korean crisis responsibilities.
Germany
player, 410 posts
Thu 19 Jul 2018
at 11:46
  • msg #179

Re: Armenian crisis

Aside from the añready stated freezing of Chinese assets, Germany will study new economical dsanctions to China for its failure to abide the Korean peace traty.
Saudi Arabia
player, 58 posts
Thu 19 Jul 2018
at 11:48
  • msg #180

Re: Armenian crisis

Saudi Arabia will impose economical sanctions and freeze any oil contract with China until they abide with the peace conditions they agreed after the Korean crisis.
USA
player, 100 posts
Fri 20 Jul 2018
at 19:51
  • msg #181

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
Russia can easily dispell such suspicions promising that Russia will not veto UNSC vote in that case and will accept simple majority.


The USA VETOS all of Russian resolution

We will not trust you. You have lied and attempted to abuse your position as a member of this council.

Turkey has come to us, quite rightly, demanding to know why we have abandoned them despite our treaty obligations and public and private assurances we would stand with them. Russia has apparently informed Turkey that the United States has privately agreed to a ceasefire without precondition and that Turkey must agree with Russian terms or face isolation and ruin.

There have been no diplomatic communications between our two nations that could even be mistakenly interpreted in this way. We have checked again and again to ensure there are no statements we have made that could be mistaken, misinterpreted or purposefully misconstrued, as we have so often seen Russia do, with it's constant reference to 'agreements' to try and sow mistrust.

There are none we can find and all communications we can find are clear on one matter - Russia must find a way to satisfy Turkish concerns or withdraw their forces before the USA alongside NATO attacked with Turkey in response to Armenian belligerence.

This is no misunderstanding, this is no error - this is a blatant lie! We will not be swayed and our resolution to proceed is stronger than ever!

USA proposes the following resolution instead

1) Russia is condemned for lying in diplomatic communiques on matters being discussed by the UNSC and must provide a formal written apology to the UNSC chairperson explaining to members this breach of protocol and abuse of position (-1 temporary prestige)
2) Russian forces withdraw from Armenia immediately
3) NATO forces are to occupy Armenia
4) NATO will be responsible for the administration of Armenia and the settlement of this situation until such time as an orderly civilian government can be put in place by NATO peacekeeping forces.
5) Current Armenian government to be detained and tried for breach of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.


The USA also questions if such a nation can be trusted to act as a member of the security council when it seeks to deceive a member of the United Nations when it is lying to a nation that is the aggrieved party in a matter that has been referred to the UNSC.

The Russian Federation should seriously consider its conduct - particularly how this sows mistrust in all future dealings with Russia and how this reflects on its standing in the world.

The deadline for action is fast approaching - US forces alongside NATO will enter Armenia. It is now up to Russia how this proceeds
Russia
player, 61 posts
Fri 20 Jul 2018
at 22:08
  • msg #182

Re: Armenian crisis

USA:
Russia has apparently informed Turkey that the United States has privately agreed to a ceasefire without precondition


What?!

First, Russia would never said that. At least because that would be stupid: such statement can be easily checked. I checked diplomatic mail too: Russia was very careful in its wording to Turkey and definitely did not say that Russia has any agreements with USA (or NATO), or promises from USA, and even more: USA was not even mentioned in any Russian message to Turkey. Nor Russia used proxy to send such messages.

Second, there is no such thing as "apparently" in legal studies. Either you have fact of evidence or you have not. And you have not.
It is "apparently" that Turkey lies to you and you accept their words without proper investigation. "Apparently" because it suits you well. On the other side is the fact: Russia demanded UN to act, investigate, and place peacekeepers before war started, and Russia has been demanding ceasefire all the way after (and even enforcing Armenia to it). This fact is not fitting the picture you draw here.

And finally, when all other countries agree that ceasefire must be implemented, only NATO vetoes against peace. This is not "apparently", this is a fact. How peaceful is that!

On the USA's proposal Russian vote is:
1) no
2) yes if NATO is not occupying Armenia
3) no
4) no
5) yes if Turkish government is tried too and investigation on ethnical cleansing is performed
This message was last edited by the player at 22:46, Fri 20 July 2018.
USA
player, 101 posts
Fri 20 Jul 2018
at 23:37
  • msg #183

Re: Armenian crisis

I shall start by saying we disliked your resolution to begin with, as we publicaly stated.

The peace you propose is one solely fitting your desires and goals, and fails to address the cause of this conflict or address the fact that Armenia has broken international law

Russia:
when all other countries agree that ceasefire must be implemented, only NATO vetoes against peace. How peaceful is that!


More peaceful than you, given you have recently publicly stated you will engage in first strike use of WMDs?

For evidence :
Russia:
If nevertheless Russians will be attacked, Russia seriously considers nuclear retaliation against homeland of the attackers.


Surely the kind of people that casually talk about Nuking civilian targets as a first response wouldn't lie in peace negotiations to try and con someone into accepting? Oh, wait, maybe they would! Maybe that's exactly the kind of unscrupulous people that would lie, even in such a stupid way, if they were that desperate!

quote:
there is no such thing as "apparently" in legal studies


Oh, oh! I know the rest of this one! Its "...Unless you're Russian!", isn't it?

Evidence for that here (Since evidence is important - though I get the feeling the colliery to that rule is also "unless you're Russian")

Russia:
May be other NATO countries are involved in the scheme too. That also explains why Turkey still keeps silence. Russia will consider it as true, unless Turkey declares another peace terms in UN.


That "May be" looks an awful lot like an "apparently"! It might even be a 'I think convincing others this is the case will be beneficial for me and am therefore going to pretend this is true without evidence or anything to back this up'! Weird how when we're the ones accusing you of something you need solid, unshakable evidence, but when we're the ones being accused by you it's guilty until proven innocent?

Though if I knew you required a legal thesis ... well, I'd have still spoken as I did because I am tired you trying to tie this up in a bureaucratic nightmare in which nothing gets done!

You offer a proposal that has an obvious trap in it, and promise not to spring that trap when someone points it out? If we're talking legal studies what kind of lawyer would put into a contract that kind of half-assed phrasing unless he was looking to get his client out of it down the line

You have thrown around claims and insinuations without a scrap of evidence accusing us of a untrue things, and now we have received a diplomatic communique from an ally advising us you have told them an untruth. We are acting on that fact and your demonstrated past behaviour.

If you were negotiating from a position of honesty then why not just agree a position on the fate of Armenia? No doubt so you can argue down the line that you are vetoing resolutions dealing with that anyway because any resolution presented is not in the spirit of what you 'believed' was being agreed now and trusting that time and more bogging things down in debate and consultation will make people forget.

The deadline to reach a settlement is approaching fast and you have produced nothing concrete beyond attempting to stall and get out of any consequences for Armenia's illegal actions - you have done nothing to satisfy Turkish requirements that we have heard or seen.

We are not voting against peace, we are voting against the 'peace' you propose - one in which nothing changes and there are no repercussions for your ally after they unilaterally, and without cause, attacked a sovereign nation in direct violation of  the UN Charter, to which they are signatories.

We are simply vetoing a resolution that ignores a breach of international law and does nothing to correct or punish that breach.
Russia
player, 62 posts
Sat 21 Jul 2018
at 09:22
  • msg #184

Re: Armenian crisis

Concentration of military power in the region is so big that if NATO and Russia clashed, no matter who will get upper hand, collateral damage to non-combatants (even without WMD usage) will be so big that Armenia will lose nearly 80% of population and 100% of GDP in a single round. Non-combatant body count will go for millions. NATO command does know that and still is planning to attack Armenia. Civilian losses will be inevitable even if Russian forces will just hold ground protecting themselves.

Meanwhile, USA is using insulting rhetoric in UN, attempting to demonize Russia, and ignoring UN votes. Russia still wants to believe that USA did not mean to harm Russia and fell victim to lies of Turkey, and locked itself into frenzy rage.

Tensions and suspicions grew so big that each next step brings the world closer to the world war. In the middle of this madness Russia will be one who is wise and careful enough to make consistent moves toward  peace. Russia will remove military units from Armenia, demonstrating to the world and UN its will to peace and last hope to save civilian lives.

If NATO will demonstrate wisdom too and will not attack Armenia, and will comply to UN decisions, Russian trust into peaceful intentions of NATO will be restored. If USA really does not seek advantage over Russia and respects Russian point of view, then USA will agree to Russian offer for mutual investigation of actions of Turkey and Armenia. NATO says that it "just protects Turkey" but Turkey is not threaten and is perfectly safe with guarantees from Russia that Armenia will be forced to disband its military and repair Turkish combat score.

If NATO still will attack Armenia despite Russian actions and offers, it will be evidence that NATO is a warmonger, who intends to bring bases and troops even closer to the Russian border, using formal excuse that small Armenia foolhardily attacked Turkey in desperate attempt to protect its Armenian ethnical brethren.
This message was last edited by the player at 09:30, Sat 21 July 2018.
Germany
player, 411 posts
Sat 21 Jul 2018
at 11:16
  • msg #185

Re: Armenian crisis

OOC:
USA:
The USA VETOS all of Russian resolution


See that if this in the UNGA by having invoked Resolution 377 (as I understand Russia has, mostly after your own foretelling any UNSC will be vetoed) no veto is posible. This is the raison d'être of this resolution.

For the rest of the post, I assume this discussion in in UNGA after Russian invoking of the 377 (though it makes little difference, as my votes will be the same)

USA:
USA proposes the following resolution instead

1) Russia is condemned for lying in diplomatic communiques on matters being discussed by the UNSC and must provide a formal written apology to the UNSC chairperson explaining to members this breach of protocol and abuse of position (-1 temporary prestige)
2) Russian forces withdraw from Armenia immediately
3) NATO forces are to occupy Armenia
4) NATO will be responsible for the administration of Armenia and the settlement of this situation until such time as an orderly civilian government can be put in place by NATO peacekeeping forces.
5) Current Armenian government to be detained and tried for breach of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.


German vote:

  1. No. Those bluffs and lies, though they may be seen as unethical, are "accepted practices" in diplomacy, and all of us have used in hte past and are likely to use in future.
  2. Yes
  3. Yes
  4. Yes
  5. Yes. If they forcé NATO to enter by force, Germany suggests to charge them for any damages too.


Any investigarion about alleged misstreatment of Armenians living in Turkey vs Alloeged terrorism by them is out of the scope of this discussion, and the fact tehy were acting as organized partisans against NATO tropos may be seen as a hint Turkey had their point in that they were fighting terrorists.

USA:
The deadline for action is fast approaching - US forces alongside NATO will enter Armenia. It is now up to Russia how this procedes


So will German troops. Is up to Armenia (now that Russians have pledget to retire) if they enter it pacefully as occupation forces or by force as invaders. In hte latter case, the Armenian goernment will be the responsable of any war damages into Armenia.
Russia
player, 63 posts
Sat 21 Jul 2018
at 12:25
  • msg #186

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
In hte latter case, the Armenian goernment will be the responsable of any war damages into Armenia.


No. All the responsibility is on NATO forces.
Brazil
player, 13 posts
Tue 24 Jul 2018
at 15:28
  • msg #187

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to USA (msg # 181):

OOC;
Is Brazil has a vote on this resolution? What body is this resolution of?
Brazil
player, 14 posts
Tue 24 Jul 2018
at 15:31
  • msg #188

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 180):

Brazil starting today will refrain of selling oil to or buying oil from China. Brazil will be looking into further economic sanctions if China is going to evade its obligations under the reconstructions plan.
Germany
player, 415 posts
Tue 24 Jul 2018
at 16:09
  • msg #189

Re: Armenian crisis

Brazil:
In reply to USA (msg # 181):

OOC;
Is Brazil has a vote on this resolution?


I understand yes, we all have...

Brazil:
What body is this resolution of?


US or Russia must specify if they took it to UNGA (invoking the 377) or it is kept in UNSC.

See that in he latter case (UNSC) they both have veto (as have others, and we can asume it is used), and Germany has forfeited its vote as involved party
Germany
player, 416 posts
Fri 27 Jul 2018
at 14:47
  • msg #190

Re: Armenian crisis

Now that the Korean war peace agreement is taken aain to the table, and also related with the Armenian crisis, Germany would like to point all nations that this is the second time in less than 10 years that the world nears a full nuclear war, and in both cases some things are hard to explain (in the Armenian case, was really the Armenina government as incompetent as to believe they could wi nthis war against full NATO?).

Germany just want to share their concerns about those facts.

About Korean Crisis, 2035-39 (OOC: post 69 this same thread):

USA:
In reply to USA (msg # 68):

Following discussions between members of the security council and other affected parties (S Korea liaising though the US) a proposal was presented to the Security Council by the US which has now passed.

The resolution is as follows

UNSC Resolution:
1 - Commit to the invasion of North Korea (Request for troops to form UN mission to invade North Korea - I would suggest forces remain under their nation's control but are organized by PROTO - probably means Russia - this was not discussed in detail but pretty sure everyone will agree with this?)
2 - All forces will withdraw after the fighting in favor of PROTO forces who will occupy North Korea
3 - The North shall be administered by a PROTO occupation force with the intention of rebuilding it and uniting it with South Korea within 10 years
4 - China will be required to provide significant aid and support (20% of their Effective budget after country wide upkeeps in PAs (rounded up)) to the two Koreas to rebuild and clean up for the next 2 turns
5 - All nations are urged to contribute to disaster relief and rebuilding in the two Koreas (request PAs or aid)
6 - An independent investigation will be held chaired by Russia to determine the events leading up to this - all nations urged to contribute to the investigation (PAs to be spent on investigations)

Votes of the P5 as follows;

1 - All YES
2 - All YES
3 - All YES
4 - 4 YES (UK, US, France, China) 1 Abstention (Russia)
5 - All YES
6 - All YES

We believe this resolution provides the best means of achieving stability in the region and to restore peace to the region.
This cannot undo the damage that has been done, nothing can, but it will prevent further catastrophic damage and will prevent this conflict spiraling out of control into a more general war or a WMD exchange in a war of mutually assured destruction.
(bold added for reference).

Can Russia tell us something about the results of this investigation?

Might it be some unknown party really interested in a ull nuclear war and be also behind Armenian actions this time in hope Russia and NATO will come to nuclear blows?

If so, wil this same unkown party try again? when? where?
Germany
player, 421 posts
Sun 29 Jul 2018
at 13:34
  • msg #191

Re: Armenian crisis

First of all, thankd for you answer. BTW, I must point you this same post was edited to add (I forgot before) a point about the Historical Articles. As you write it, it might interest you...

USA:
I've not been thinking much on some of the points you raise, but I have been putting some thought into all things space in my spare time, so I'll comment on that point myself

Germany:
Supply:

While rule 8.3 clearly states During the current Turn, the player must arrange for the delivery of these Supply Units to the World that a unit occupied at the start of the Turn., the rules for spaceships state it must be delivered to an OT (so to orbit) regardless where the ship begins the turn.

Aside from the inconveniences this brings to any spaceship owner (as uplift is quite scarce) and its (IMHO) lack of any logic (as stated in older posts, most ships are supplied while in port for the whole travel, and I guess spaceships will do likewise), one can hardly say (to say the least), that this makes them consistent with other units.


Firstly - I feel I should point out that spaceships in totality are a separate section of the rules. For instance spaceships do not, and I think you'd agree should not, have to pay the additional cost in SU for being in an inhospitable location when in orbit. Spaceships are exceptions to the other planetary based forces and so they have been separated in the rules from the other Military units because they need different rules and different assumptions to make the game easier to run, and indeed possible to run.


See that the reduced SU requirement despite being in inhospitable location is an artificial concession by Kelvin when he realized that having to raise 2 SU/ship to orbit would effectivelly stop any space ressearch.

And even this would not be an exception, if the ship begain in a spaceport in Earth, as any othr unit equally begining there wil lbe equally treated:

e.g. The German RaumGrenadier regiment (unit 229: elite infantry: 1: U: inhosp, low-G abilities: Sol-Earth 7N12) begins the turn, as shown, in Damgarten. Then is moved to Mars where it captures an outpost from another country Germany is at war with. on the last WR, it returns to Earth. Despit ethe fact it spent most turn on inhospitable terrain, it has only needed 1 SU for maintenance, as ir began in Earth surface. And being an infantry unit, it is likely to have beenreceiveing supplies along the whole turn, while ships use to carry them at port and not receiing more until they reach naothr port.

USA:
Secondly I have to disagree with your main point anyway - The argument you are making is that, effectively, a ship that can land should provide what is, essentially, free uplift if you say you supply them on the surface instead.

Ships are strictly forbidden from lifting cargo from the surface to orbit - in arguing that ships that can land should be able to be resupplied on the surface we would instead be creating an exception to that rule.

Cargo, troops, Population, all other transportable items cannot be loaded to a ship on the ground and carried up to orbit, nor can the SU used to supply that ship, even if you argue that the ship is repaired and maintained on the surface this is not all that a SU represents and that needs to be reflected.


Why so? They don't uplift any ítem (as the SU is already consumed).

USA:
When looking at the rule there are three things that, above all, matter to me

1) Simplification (making it easy to implement and understand)
2) Automaton (making it easy to create programs and sheets to do the work for me)
3) Standardization (making as few exceptions as possible to a general rule)


Fully agreed, but I keep believing those exception achieve exactly the opposite (at least on simplification and standardization. And I’ll ad some realism (albeit it can be secondary), understood as 2300AD setting realism.

USA:
The rules requiring the uplifting of all the above points - it simplifies the work that has to be done since no player has to work out which ships can land, which of them have actually landed this turn and which will require supply units uplifting - this prevents confusion and removes the chance of mistakes in these calculations

Currently such things would be easy to work out - in 10 turns less so, in the year  2200 it will be virtually impossible if players build nothing but ships capable of landing - which such rules would heavily incentivise.

The current rule also permits far easier (eventual) automation of these calculations and provides a standard that applies to all spaceships, so there are no exceptions to this general rule.

Whilst I understand you are arguing that this is an exception to the normal supply rules, it is far less of an exception that the alternative, which is that each space ship may or may not need to land to be supplied, may be supplied from an O/T or some combination of the two over numerous turns.


This is no different to tracking any other unit, and see which ones are in friendly hexes (national or bases) to calculate the extra SUs for deployed ones, etc...

As for incentivating the ships able to land, the same shipyard rules (don't worry, they are one of the things I will talk latter, but there's no hurry now) incentivate them...

This aside, it will depend on why do you build ships for. Just bulk freighters will never need to land, if you have good interface, and ships able to land are quite more expensive than those unable (thy need the propulsors to land, and this also need more power, and in both cases that is moe volumen and money). remembre you own designed solar sailer...

USA:
A space program should be expensive and require adequate support infrastructure, if SU for ships did not need to be uplifted then it would be possible to create a massive fleet without the need for any uplift - a situation that seems insane.


Aren't they already expensive enough?

And, again, this will depend on what do you want your fleet for. If just bulk freighters, you need the interface capacity for the cargo. If combat ships, you need the interface for the supplies if they fight (remember, in this case, the 5 SU/ship will need to be where it fights, as there's no special rules for this...

USA:
Indeed, the eventual cost and difficulty of implimenting this kind of rule set would be much, much higher and much, much more complex because of one simple fact;

We would need logistics trains

A significant point of the current rules, to my mind, is to remove the necessity of players managing massive logistics trains over massive amounts of space - which would drag turns into planning minutiae. eg;

A multinational fleet is blockading Barnard's Star, a system without an inhabited world, to prevent forces from the Empire of Solarid attacking Earth and Alpha Centauri from further down the arm. Under the rules you suggest anyone taking part in this would need to arrange for the uplift and then transport of as many SU as required (including for combat) by stutter warp ship to Barnard's Star.
Not only does this have to be manually worked out and then ordered by each player, they also have to work out where to store their SU, and indeed this creates a new problem as there is no location under current rules such SU could be stored. Do we then introduce a logistics module for ships to allow them to be resupplied away from  a settlement?

It creates an interesting situation, don't get me wrong, and if we were playing a more tactical game I'd be all for it because then we get into the whole 'unrestricted submarine warfare' scenario with stealth ships attacking supply lines - but this is a grant strategy scope, and I really don't want to spend the time creating this kind of logistics force, escort ships for it, worrying about ordering 10 units worth of movement for every 2 combat units and so on, rather than having to uplift supply and then assuming it gets sorted out in some other way abstracted from the game that doesn't require me to plan out the kind of movement orders I'd eventually need a full military staff to keep track of.


I’m afraid those logistic trains would be needed anyway…

First of all, to supply your colonies (the SUs supplying your own Waystation 1 did not appear from nowhere, nor teleported there, as the DRMS Goethe can witness).

Second, to move any other ressource (FUs, RMUs, etc) that the colony wither needs or has in supplus (I guessyou would like to take them to Earth, instead oflet mounting stores grow until it reached COre World status).

Third to supply any land forces there (imagine in your same situation they are landing some units in a Soland outpost).

And, as rules stand now, the Eta Bootis fleet in the Kaffer invasion could be supplied just by taking the SU needed to an Earth OT…

Yes, this simplifies their supply a lot. A shame Borodin didn’t know it…
Russia
player, 64 posts
Mon 30 Jul 2018
at 07:15
  • msg #192

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 190):

Germany:
Can Russia tell us something about the results of this investigation?


That happened before I entered the office, so I have to admit this issue evaided my attention. (Also no one reminded me nor invested resources into investigation). But I eventually did gather information available to me (due to other occasion though) on this topic.

The following info is not streamed in public but presented to the UNSC in private.

Working assumptions are not very plausible but anyway:
1) Jamming system was made of machinery probably bought via shady routs by "third party", using some sort of criminal syndicate, possibly operaiting in Malaysia and possibly using funds stolen from PROTO program of development of smaller PROTO members.
2) North Korea probably was used by the "third party" as dummy. Events were orchestrated as if NK was responsible but I doubt that very much.
3) "Supreme truth" movement is probably connected to the "third party" and are suspected in rigged prophecy of Seoul annihilation.
4) Five unknown satellites placed in orbit by "third party"; these satellites probably were responsible for jamming.
5) Satellites were self-destroyed in nuclear blast, all but one who reentered atmosphere, and in the site of supposed crash landing a pre-planted capsule was.
6) Pre-planted capsule was made of EU-originated parts and contained a hair of Russian cargo handler from Crystal Palace.
7) Reentered satellite was not found.

Russia suggests that a further investigation is necessary. Russia will arrange an international committee and Russia suggests that every nation devoted 20$ to fund this committee (OOC: money will be spent as PA to "solve mistery").
This message was last edited by the player at 07:17, Mon 30 July 2018.
Russia
player, 65 posts
Mon 30 Jul 2018
at 08:58
  • msg #193

Re: Armenian crisis

By the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...embly_Resolution_377
quote:
By adopting A/RES/377 A, on 3 November 1950, over two-thirds of UN Member states declared that, according to the UN Charter, the permanent members of the UNSC cannot and should not prevent the UNGA from taking any and all action necessary to restore international peace and security, in cases where the UNSC has failed to exercise its 'primary responsibility' for maintaining peace. Such an interpretation sees the UNGA as being awarded 'final responsibility'—rather than 'secondary responsibility'—for matters of international peace and security, by the UN Charter. Various official and semi-official UN reports make explicit reference to the Uniting for Peace resolution as providing a mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any UNSC vetoes.


Russia invokes General Assembly Resolution 377 due to Armenian crisis and the fact that NATO blocked UNSC voting and ignores UNGA voting.
This message was last edited by the player at 08:59, Mon 30 July 2018.
Germany
player, 425 posts
Mon 30 Jul 2018
at 10:34
  • msg #194

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 190):

Germany:
Can Russia tell us something about the results of this investigation?


That happened before I entered the office, so I have to admit this issue evaided my attention. (Also no one reminded me nor invested resources into investigation). But I eventually did gather information available to me (due to other occasion though) on this topic.

The following info is not streamed in public but presented to the UNSC in private.

Working assumptions are not very plausible but anyway:
1) Jamming system was made of machinery probably bought via shady routs by "third party", using some sort of criminal syndicate, possibly operaiting in Malaysia and possibly using funds stolen from PROTO program of development of smaller PROTO members.
2) North Korea probably was used by the "third party" as dummy. Events were orchestrated as if NK was responsible but I doubt that very much.
3) "Supreme truth" movement is probably connected to the "third party" and are suspected in rigged prophecy of Seoul annihilation.
4) Five unknown satellites placed in orbit by "third party"; these satellites probably were responsible for jamming.
5) Satellites were self-destroyed in nuclear blast, all but one who reentered atmosphere, and in the site of supposed crash landing a pre-planted capsule was.
6) Pre-planted capsule was made of EU-originated parts and contained a hair of Russian cargo handler from Crystal Palace.
7) Reentered satellite was not found.

Russia suggests that a further investigation is necessary. Russia will arrange an international committee and Russia suggests that every nation devoted 20$ to fund this committee (OOC: money will be spent as PA to "solve mistery").


Gremany thanks Russia for sharing this investigation, sa we believe it can be quite important, be it related with the Armenian Crisis or not. Germany will contribute to it.

---------------------------

Russia:
By the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...embly_Resolution_377
quote:
By adopting A/RES/377 A, on 3 November 1950, over two-thirds of UN Member states declared that, according to the UN Charter, the permanent members of the UNSC cannot and should not prevent the UNGA from taking any and all action necessary to restore international peace and security, in cases where the UNSC has failed to exercise its 'primary responsibility' for maintaining peace. Such an interpretation sees the UNGA as being awarded 'final responsibility'—rather than 'secondary responsibility'—for matters of international peace and security, by the UN Charter. Various official and semi-official UN reports make explicit reference to the Uniting for Peace resolution as providing a mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any UNSC vetoes.

Russia invokes General Assembly Resolution 377 due to Armenian crisis and the fact that NATO blocked UNSC voting and ignores UNGA voting.


OK. Germany guesses your resolution proposal keeps the same (quoted for easiness):
Russia:
Russia calls UNSC (UPD: and identical in UNGA) vote:
1) NATO, Russia, Turkey and Armenia must cease fire immediately.
2) Peacekeepers of UN, including but not limiting to Nigeria and Germany (and Nordic federation as soon as they declare peace to Armenia), to be sent in the region.
3) Fate of Armenia decided by further UNSC decision.

But we also have the US resolution proposal on the table:
USA:
<quote Russia>USA proposes the following resolution instead

1) Russia is condemned for lying in diplomatic communiques on matters being discussed by the UNSC and must provide a formal written apology to the UNSC chairperson explaining to members this breach of protocol and abuse of position (-1 temporary prestige)
2) Russian forces withdraw from Armenia immediately
3) NATO forces are to occupy Armenia
4) NATO will be responsible for the administration of Armenia and the settlement of this situation until such time as an orderly civilian government can be put in place by NATO peacekeeping forces.
5) Current Armenian government to be detained and tried for breach of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.

Does US keep also his proposal in this UNGA extraordinary meeting?

If so, Germany must beware everyone that depending on how votes go there may be contradictory results (or a resolution quite difficult to interpret or apply)…
USA
player, 103 posts
Mon 30 Jul 2018
at 12:16
  • msg #195

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 194):

We would ask for a brief pause in this discussion whilst we await a response from Armenia with regards to proposals already made to them to resolve this situation peacefully.

(OOC - waiting for a response to a suggested peace treaty between Turkey and Armenia from the GM)

If we are successful in this negotiation then there will be no need for international action as this situation will have been resolved pacifically.
Germany
player, 426 posts
Mon 30 Jul 2018
at 16:57
  • msg #196

Re: Armenian crisis

USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 194):

We would ask for a brief pause in this discussion whilst we await a response from Armenia with regards to proposals already made to them to resolve this situation peacefully.

(OOC - waiting for a response to a suggested peace treaty between Turkey and Armenia from the GM)

If we are successful in this negotiation then there will be no need for international action as this situation will have been resolved pacifically.


UNGA resolution 377:

quote:
To facilitate prompt action by the General Assembly in the case of a dead-locked Security Council, the resolution created the mechanism of the "emergency special session" (ESS), which can be called upon the basis of either a procedural vote in the Security Council, or within twenty-four hours of a request by a majority of UN Members being received by the Secretary-General. In procedural votes, the permanent members of the Security Council—the so-called "P5"—do not have the ability to block the adoption of draft resolutions, so unlike substantive matters, such resolutions can be adopted without their consent.

(Bold added for clarity)

So, Russia cannot invoke it alone, needing majority of the UNSC (without veto power by anyone) or UNGA to call for it.

If they achieve it, the sesión must meet in 24 hours.

So, at Russian request, Germany calls for an immediate vote about asking for this ESS. Please, just vote yes or no to each point:

  1. call for an immediate ESS
  2. if point results in no such call, call for an ESS if the current peace talks do not give fruit (OOC: in game terms, if there's combat this WR3), as US ambassor suggests.

German vote:

  1. no
  2. yes

Nordic Federation
player, 28 posts
Tue 31 Jul 2018
at 00:19
  • msg #197

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 196):

In answer to Germany question,

1) No
2) Yes
Russia
player, 66 posts
Thu 2 Aug 2018
at 11:45
  • msg #198

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 196):

1. no
2. yes
Germany
player, 437 posts
Thu 2 Aug 2018
at 16:01
  • msg #199

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 196):

1. no
2. yes


As you were the one suggesting acting now, do you retire your motion, but retaining the votes for latter (OOC again, in game terms, if there's combat this WR3)?
This message was last edited by the player at 12:39, Fri 03 Aug 2018.
Saudi Arabia
player, 62 posts
Thu 2 Aug 2018
at 16:04
  • msg #200

Re: Armenian crisis

OOC: as much as it ashames me, I just realized Saudi Arabia has yet to vote

Germany:
  1. call for an immediate ESS
  2. if point results in no such call, call for an ESS if the current peace talks do not give fruit (OOC: in game terms, if there's combat this WR3), as US ambassor suggests.

IC: Saudi vote:

  1. no
  2. yes

Germany
player, 452 posts
Sun 16 Sep 2018
at 12:05
  • msg #201

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 194):

We would ask for a brief pause in this discussion whilst we await a response from Armenia with regards to proposals already made to them to resolve this situation peacefully.

(OOC - waiting for a response to a suggested peace treaty between Turkey and Armenia from the GM)

If we are successful in this negotiation then there will be no need for international action as this situation will have been resolved pacifically.


UNGA resolution 377:

quote:
To facilitate prompt action by the General Assembly in the case of a dead-locked Security Council, the resolution created the mechanism of the "emergency special session" (ESS), which can be called upon the basis of either a procedural vote in the Security Council, or within twenty-four hours of a request by a majority of UN Members being received by the Secretary-General. In procedural votes, the permanent members of the Security Council—the so-called "P5"—do not have the ability to block the adoption of draft resolutions, so unlike substantive matters, such resolutions can be adopted without their consent.

(Bold added for clarity)

So, Russia cannot invoke it alone, needing majority of the UNSC (without veto power by anyone) or UNGA to call for it.

If they achieve it, the sesión must meet in 24 hours.

So, at Russian request, Germany calls for an immediate vote about asking for this ESS. Please, just vote yes or no to each point:

  1. call for an immediate ESS
  2. if point results in no such call, call for an ESS if the current peace talks do not give fruit (OOC: in game terms, if there's combat this WR3), as US ambassor suggests.

German vote:

  1. no
  2. yes


The gas attack by Armenia has changed all, and the Turkish reprisals agains civilians do not help.

Based on the result of the votes and the situation now in Armeia/Turkish vote, Germany calls for an ESS immediatly to review it and will ask for a resolution that can avoid both new WMD uses and further attacks on civilians.
Germany
player, 453 posts
Sun 16 Sep 2018
at 13:03
  • msg #202

Re: Armenian crisis

So, this is German resolution proposals.

  1. Armenia should surround immediately to NATO, and his government and high military ranking officers should put themselves immediately before the International Penal Court (IPC) accused for Crimes of War
  2. Armenian and Turkish units should stop immediately all military activities and return to their bases.
  3. Armenia should accept NATO occupation and become a NATO protectorate under the provisions of the Geneva Convention for occupied territories until situation is cleared
  4. Turkish troops will not participate in the occupation duties
  5. A provisional government for Armenia will be formed by occupying NATO countries. A Russian advisor with voice but without vote will also participate on it.
  6. If Armenia refuses the provisions of this resolution, UN authorizes NATO to force it to accept them by the use of whatever means they feel necessary (short of the use of WMD).
  7. If Turkey keeps mistreating Armenian civilians, it would be subject to UN sanctions.
  8. UN and IPC will begin investigations on both, the use of WMD and civilian mistreatment in this conflict.


All points can be discussed (openly or privately), and alternative resolutions can be suggested, but the resolution wil lbe voted as a whole, to avoid contradictory results.
Germany
player, 456 posts
Mon 17 Sep 2018
at 09:26
  • msg #203

Re: Armenian crisis

OOC: as the answer time is short, I'd suggest 24 hours for ammendments or altertnative proposals, 24 more for voting them and 24 more to vote the final text.

That would put the deadlines to:
  • ammendments/alternative proposals: September 18th 12:00 UTC
  • Amendments vote: 19th 12:00 UTC
  • Final text vote: 20th 12:00 UTC


Germany sugests 50% majority for amendments.

As per ESS rules, votes must achieve 2/3 majority for final resolution.
Russia
player, 68 posts
Mon 17 Sep 2018
at 09:40
  • msg #204

Re: Armenian crisis

--- Speech of Permanent Representative of Russia in UN ---

Grigory Nebenzya, Permanent Representative of Russia in UN, apparently did not sleep enough during last several days but had a look of a mobilized fighter.

- Ladies and gentlemen, - he started speech. – Russian Federation condemns such atrocity as disruption of peace talks by vilest means like gas attack. And Russian Federation has several statements in this regard.

- First, remember that since Russia joined Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Russia fully destroyed its arsenal of chemical weapons decades ago. OPCW observers are allowed on Russian chemical facilities.

- Second, definition used in media “The nerve agent used has been identified as a type manufactured by Russia” is utterly inaccurate. The statement implies that Russia is still manufacturing nerve gas, which is lie.  The statement implies that Russia is the only country capable to manufacture this agent, which is also lie. Also Russia has never been trading WMDs except transfer of nuclear technology to China in 1957. There can be purely speculative hypothesis that Russia got a security breach (even then, we are talking about theoretical security breach of 50-years-old-age), but there is no evidence that Russia at least once lost control over its WMD arsenal (yet there are evidences that other countries did). Nevertheless, Russia will start internal investigation on this matter.

- Third, Russia requests Armenia, USA, Germany and Turkey to give access for Russian specialists to the samples of the nerve agent used in Armenia and to the site of exposure.

- Finally, in this hazy mess the most reasonable question is “Cui prodest?”. Russia has been in defending posture during all this conflict and has been enduring attacks of various NATO forces for three rounds, demanding ceasefire from all sides. USA declared that they are about to reach peace terms between Armenia and Turkey, and immediate peace is what suits Russian interests in the region, so that this madness stopped and we could move on. Do you really think Russia was up to continue this war?.. Russia considers that Germany and USA will not benefit by such risky machination, also. Then, in case if peace talks failed, Armenian forces will be destroyed and Armenia will be occupied, so there is no sense in disrupting peace talks for Armenia too. But, there is one country which WANTS the war to go on and which will benefit if peace talks disrupted in the most hideous way, to ensure prolongation of the war. Oh yes mister representative of Turkey, I am looking at you; do not turn your eyes away!
Russia
player, 69 posts
Mon 17 Sep 2018
at 09:54
  • msg #205

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
So, this is German resolution proposals.


Russian analysts have several possible scenarious of gas attack. Most plausible are two:
1) The gas was delivered by airplane (it also should be prooved that airplanes were sent by Armenia indeed);
2) The gas was delivered by other means and airplane attack was a "red herring".

If Russia sees proof that it was really Armenian action, then Russia would accept German proposal. But so far Russia consideres that Armenian fault is not proven yet and we cannot treat them as guilty side yet. That means, Russia declines German proposal and sticks to the previous UNSC/UNGA votes.
This message was last edited by the player at 09:57, Mon 17 Sept 2018.
Germany
player, 457 posts
Mon 17 Sep 2018
at 10:37
  • msg #206

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
- Second, definition used in media “The nerve agent used has been identified as a type manufactured by Russia” is utterly inaccurate. The statement implies that Russia is still manufacturing nerve gas, which is lie. 


As German understands it, the afirmation "a type manufactured by Russia" does not imply Russia still manufactures it, just that is was. Even if you destroyed all your arsenal and no small stocks wre sneacked by rotten apples, just a single person knowing the formula can manufacturate it and seel in the black market, and no grat infrastructure is needed.

After all that's the main danger of chemical weapons...

Russia:
Germany:
So, this is German resolution proposals.

Russia declines German proposal and sticks to the previous UNSC/UNGA votes.


Then Germany welcomes you to the UNGA ESS, as the previous votes were to keep this ESS if the combats were not stopped.

We wait for your ammends to German Proposal or to your own alternative one.
Nordic Federation
player, 30 posts
Mon 17 Sep 2018
at 10:55
  • msg #207

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Russia (msg # 205):

The Nordic Federation understand that in the fog of the current situation, the truth is the first casualty.  Right now, whoever is at fault doesn't even matter.  The only question RIGHT NOW is how do WE STOP this madness from drowning us in nuclear fire.

Likely that neither Armenia nor Turkey, as states are truly responsible, but corrupt element in both government and military, are likely the culprits.

The solution was already stated, occupation of Armenia by third party and cease fire and return to its land by Turkey.  Anything short of this will only agravate the situation.

Hope that reason will prevail.
Germany
player, 458 posts
Mon 17 Sep 2018
at 11:12
  • msg #208

Re: Armenian crisis

Nordic Federation:
In reply to Russia (msg # 205):

The Nordic Federation understand that in the fog of the current situation, the truth is the first casualty.  Right now, whoever is at fault doesn't even matter.  The only question RIGHT NOW is how do WE STOP this madness from drowning us in nuclear fire.

Likely that neither Armenia nor Turkey, as states are truly responsible, but corrupt element in both government and military, are likely the culprits.

The solution was already stated, occupation of Armenia by third party and cease fire and return to its land by Turkey.  Anything short of this will only agravate the situation.

Hope that reason will prevail.


The gas attack (against peace talks nonetheless!) has prevented occupation by neutral forces. Most NATO members will not accept this any longer.

See that German proposal, if accepted, means paceful occupation according Geneva Convention treaty about occupied countries, and Armenian leaders would face IPC, not any NATO controlled one. They have nothing to fear if they are indeed innocent of it.

It would also exclude Turkish troops from the occupation, as their long lasting enemyty, along with their (understandable) enraged state right now would make them too dangerous for peace (and to show Russian suspicions about this being a maneuver to give Armenia to Turkey are unfounded).
Russia
player, 70 posts
Tue 18 Sep 2018
at 07:50
  • msg #209

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
It would also exclude Turkish troops from the occupation, as their long lasting enemyty, along with their (understandable) enraged state right now


Grigory Nebenzya turned his eyes onto German representative.
- What a gentle euphemism did you use here, "understandable enraged state", for a blatant systematic ethnic cleansing operation. This is what Russia was warning about, this is happening right now, live stream! No, mister German representative, this is not "enraged state", this is cold-headed planned operation. Screened by NATO forces! We have approved fact: there are ethnic cleansings performed by Turkish forces. What are you going to do about that? Why UN does not hear from you promises to stop ethnic cleansing, and to bring guilty Turkish commanders to the court? You are just talking about exclusion of Turkish troops from area, and that means: allowing them to escape the prosecution.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:52, Tue 18 Sept 2018.
Germany
player, 460 posts
Tue 18 Sep 2018
at 16:46
  • msg #210

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
Germany:
It would also exclude Turkish troops from the occupation, as their long lasting enemyty, along with their (understandable) enraged state right now


Grigory Nebenzya turned his eyes onto German representative.
- What a gentle euphemism did you use here, "understandable enraged state", for a blatant systematic ethnic cleansing operation. This is what Russia was warning about, this is happening right now, live stream! No, mister German representative, this is not "enraged state", this is cold-headed planned operation. Screened by NATO forces! We have approved fact: there are ethnic cleansings performed by Turkish forces. What are you going to do about that? Why UN does not hear from you promises to stop ethnic cleansing, and to bring guilty Turkish commanders to the court? You are just talking about exclusion of Turkish troops from area, and that means: allowing them to escape the prosecution.


Please, read points 7 and 8 of German proposal.

If approed, feel free to send you representatives to the IPC (as you already have them in UN for any such investigation), be to help the Armenian leadership defense or the prosecution against Turkish marauding units (as they are acting against the orders from their, ot NATO, HQ).
Germany
player, 461 posts
Tue 18 Sep 2018
at 17:04
  • msg #211

Re: Armenian crisis

As no ammandments nor alternative proposals have been presented (the deadline already gone), Germany calls for a vote ot the proposal for thie ESS about the Armenian/turkish crisis.

As no objections have been presented, it will be voted as a whole text, not each point separately.

According the UN chárter, chapoter IV (UNGA), article 18 (voting), also applicable to ESS as a UNGA meeting they are:

quote:
  1. Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.
  2. Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.


(http://www.un.org/en/sections/...hapter-iv/index.html)

So, the resolution will pass if two thirds or more of the voting members are for yes.

OOC: Deadline for votes will be 20th 12:00 UTC.

Needless to say, Germany vote is Yes

Nordic Federation
player, 31 posts
Tue 18 Sep 2018
at 23:18
  • msg #212

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 202):

The Nordic Federation vote:

YES
Nigeria
player, 15 posts
Tue 18 Sep 2018
at 23:18
  • msg #213

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 202):

Nigeria is voting

YES
Russia
player, 71 posts
Wed 19 Sep 2018
at 08:04
  • msg #214

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 211):

Sorry for breaking deadline but Russia still requests UN to consider this ammendment:

9. Turkish government and high military ranking officers should put themselves immediately before the International Penal Court (IPC) accused for Crimes of War

Russian vote is "yes if the ammendment is accepted".
Russia requests those who already voted on German proposal (Germany, Nordic Federation, Nigeria) to vote once again on Russian ammendment and consider ammendment accepted at 2/3 majority.
This message was last edited by the player at 08:04, Wed 19 Sept 2018.
Germany
player, 462 posts
Wed 19 Sep 2018
at 09:47
  • msg #215

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 211):

Sorry for breaking deadline but Russia still requests UN to consider this ammendment:

9. Turkish government and high military ranking officers should put themselves immediately before the International Penal Court (IPC) accused for Crimes of War

Russian vote is "yes if the ammendment is accepted".
Russia requests those who already voted on German proposal (Germany, Nordic Federation, Nigeria) to vote once again on Russian ammendment and consider ammendment accepted at 2/3 majority.


Sorry, but too late for amendments. This is an Emergency Special Session, and a decisión must be quick if we don't want UN to miserably fail in its duty (OOC: and the deadline for the WR is coming too close to accept delays).

OTOH, the fact the mistreatment of civilians (point 8) may well include your amend, depending on how those investigations go. You're (of course) invited to help on them in any way you feel necessary.

As an aside, the Turkish government and high ranking officers are unlikely to have anything to do (unless your suspicion they are the responsables of the gas attack, something Germany feels hard to believe) with those mistreatments (that you call genocide), except on the fact of not having been careful enough with their army discipline. With the information we have right now, it's more likely medium  to low Rank officers are the responsables of it...
Russia
player, 72 posts
Wed 19 Sep 2018
at 13:24
  • msg #216

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
As an aside, the Turkish government and high ranking officers are unlikely to have anything to do (unless your suspicion they are the responsables of the gas attack, something Germany feels hard to believe) with those mistreatments (that you call genocide), except on the fact of not having been careful enough with their army discipline. With the information we have right now, it's more likely medium  to low Rank officers are the responsables of it...


Armenian goverment did nothing to be accused of War Crimes (unless we will find evidence that gas attack was indeed arranged by Armenia), so Russia sees no more reasons to bring Armenian goverment to IPC than to bring Turkish goverment there. Aside the gas, starting war is not a War Crime; systematic ethnical cleansing is. If high-ranking officers cannot control lower commanders - it is not excuse (some nice "discipline" and "morality" we see among NATO troops, under NATO flag, don't we?).
NATO had means to prevent Turkish actions, NATO did not listen to Russia and allowed this to happen. If Turkish goverment did not court-martial their war criminals (here, I have a total list of units engaged in ethnical cleansing) so the goverment must be brought to IPC themselves.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:27, Wed 19 Sept 2018.
Germany
player, 463 posts
Wed 19 Sep 2018
at 13:35
  • msg #217

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
Armenian goverment did nothing to be accused of War Crimes (unless we will find evidence that gas attack was indeed arranged by Armenia),


Then they have nothing to fear from IPC.

Russia:
so Russia sees no more reasons to bring Armenian goverment to IPC than to bring Turkish goverment there.

Right now most of Turkish government is dead, so unable to respond before the IPC (OOC: I'm not even sure if its president died).


<quote Russia>Aside the gas, starting war is not a War Crime; systematic ethnical cleansing is. If high-ranking officers cannot control lower commanders - it is not excuse (some nice "discipline" and "morality" we see among NATO troops, under NATO flag, don't we?).


Losing control over tropos when the command has received such a blow may be shameful, but not a crime. ANd as for NATO flag, did you see other NATO tropos joining them?

Russia:
If Turkish goverment did not court-martial their war criminals (here, I have a total list of units engaged in ethnical cleansing) so the goverment must be brought to IPC themselves.


SO do you prefer them before a Turkish court (even a military one) tan efore the IPC?

Becaus point 8 is quite clear: both sides will be investigated for any War Crime commited. There you will have the opportunity to help the courts in all of them.
Russia
player, 73 posts
Wed 19 Sep 2018
at 14:35
  • msg #218

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
Losing control over tropos when the command has received such a blow may be shameful, but not a crime.


We are talking about systematic ethnical cleansing. This is not matter of one hour or one day.

Germany:
ANd as for NATO flag, did you see other NATO tropos joining them?


So do you imply that NATO is not responsible for actions of some NATO units? This is some news. I want this to be placed on record.
Germany
player, 465 posts
Wed 19 Sep 2018
at 14:36
  • msg #219

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
Germany:
Losing control over tropos when the command has received such a blow may be shameful, but not a crime.


We are talking about systematic ethnical cleansing. This is not matter of one hour or one day.

Germany:
ANd as for NATO flag, did you see other NATO tropos joining them?


So do you imply that NATO is not responsible for actions of some NATO units? This is some news. I want this to be placed on record.


NATO responsabilities will be taken care internally. War Crimes in the IPC.
Russia
player, 74 posts
Wed 19 Sep 2018
at 14:48
  • msg #220

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
NATO responsabilities will be taken care internally. War Crimes in the IPC.

So I see no contradiction to Russian ammendment: ethnical cleansing is a war crime.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:48, Wed 19 Sept 2018.
Germany
player, 466 posts
Wed 19 Sep 2018
at 15:27
  • msg #221

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
Germany:
NATO responsabilities will be taken care internally. War Crimes in the IPC.

So I see no contradiction to Russian ammendment: ethnical cleansing is a war crime.


There's none if this occurred indeed, just the amendment was sent out of time1, and Germany sees it as included in point 8 anyway.

Note 1: see that the ESS must be callen in 24 hours, and that's not to eeternalize the deadlines, so Germany is afraid we must be strict with them.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:28, Wed 19 Sept 2018.
Saudi Arabia
player, 63 posts
Thu 20 Sep 2018
at 11:39
  • msg #222

Re: Armenian crisis

Saudi vote is Yes
Germany
player, 467 posts
Fri 21 Sep 2018
at 10:11
  • msg #223

Re: Armenian crisis

OOC: Inferring from Q&A, I assume that not many representatives were in the assamby (as only 5 answeed something there)  and that the percentage of votes represent the final result. I also understand that Russia finally abstained,as he stated no clear vote (and having his ammend refused, his statement that it would vote yes if approved does not apply).

IC:

Even while not may countries have atended it, the UNGA ESS has decided by 80% vote % abstention that the German sal is accepted, and so it becomes UN mandate and should be implemented immediatly.
Russia
player, 75 posts
Mon 1 Oct 2018
at 14:06
  • msg #224

Re: Armenian crisis

--- Speech of Permanent Representative of Russia in UN ---

Grigory Nebenzya, Permanent Representative of Russia in UN, demonstrates live footage of rampaging Turks in Armenia.

- This is the result of NATO military operations, - said Grigory, stopping footage. - Civilians always suffer in war time, and Russia would not accuse NATO otherwise, but in this particular case Russia did warned about consequences, Russia did offered the way to avoid this and Russia was ready to take responsibility to enforce peace, but blatant NATO behaviour stonewalled Russian peacemaking attempts and stonewalled Russian attempts to prevent ethnical cleansing. If NATO would listen to Russian plan, the massacre would be avoided. Now, we observe that NATO cannot control its units and cannot prevent its units from rampage. Hear this: if Turk units are not removed from Armenia immediately, the situation will worsen even more!

Russia calls for UNSC/UNGA vote:
1) NATO is obliged to remove Turkish units out of Armenia immediately (before the end of this turn).
2) If NATO fails that, then UN mandates Russia to use force to remove Turkish units out of Armenia.
Germany
player, 470 posts
Mon 1 Oct 2018
at 14:25
  • msg #225

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
Russia calls for UNSC/UNGA vote:
1) NATO is obliged to remove Turkish units out of Armenia immediately (before the end of this turn).
2) If NATO fails that, then UN mandates Russia to use force to remove Turkish units out of Armenia.


Please, read again point 4 of the UNGA ESS resolution:

Germany:
  1. Armenia should surround immediately to NATO, and his government and high military ranking officers should put themselves immediately before the International Penal Court (IPC) accused for Crimes of War
  2. Armenian and Turkish units should stop immediately all military activities and return to their bases.
  3. Armenia should accept NATO occupation and become a NATO protectorate under the provisions of the Geneva Convention for occupied territories until situation is cleared
  4. Turkish troops will not participate in the occupation duties
  5. A provisional government for Armenia will be formed by occupying NATO countries. A Russian advisor with voice but without vote will also participate on it.
  6. If Armenia refuses the provisions of this resolution, UN authorizes NATO to force it to accept them by the use of whatever means they feel necessary (short of the use of WMD).
  7. If Turkey keeps mistreating Armenian civilians, it would be subject to UN sanctions.
  8. UN and IPC will begin investigations on both, the use of WMD and civilian mistreatment in this conflict.


Under this resolution, Turkey must leave Armenia for other NATO countries to occupy it, facing economic sanctions (as per point 7) if they don't, so we see a new UN resolution unnecessary.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:27, Mon 01 Oct 2018.
Russia
player, 76 posts
Mon 1 Oct 2018
at 14:34
  • msg #226

Re: Armenian crisis

Germany:
Under this resolution, Turkey must leave Armenia for other NATO countries to occupy it, facing economic sanctions (as per point 7) if they don't, so we see a new UN resolution unnecessary.


Russia is not satisfied by "economic sanctions" and sees it as just another way to do nothing while Turkey clears territory of unwanted population, killing thousands in the process. So Russia demands that UN decision on this matter was enforced, immediately, by any means neccessary.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:37, Mon 01 Oct 2018.
Germany
player, 471 posts
Mon 1 Oct 2018
at 15:31
  • msg #227

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
Germany:
Under this resolution, Turkey must leave Armenia for other NATO countries to occupy it, facing economic sanctions (as per point 7) if they don't, so we see a new UN resolution unnecessary.


Russia is not satisfied by "economic sanctions" and sees it as just another way to do nothing while Turkey clears territory of unwanted population, killing thousands in the process. So Russia demands that UN decision on this matter was enforced, immediately, by any means neccessary.


Germany also thinks Turkey must obbey the UN mandate and leave Armania, now that is no more a threat for them, and the alleged killings and etnic cleansisg should be investigated by he UN commitee and IPC.

For now, we believe economic sanctions should be enough to force the Turkish Government to recall them.

Germany suggests Australia or Nigeria (or both) to lead the UN investigation, being the neutral ones that answered UN asking for peacekeepers.
South Korea
player, 9 posts
Mon 1 Oct 2018
at 16:18
  • msg #228

Re: Armenian crisis

Russia:
Russia is not satisfied by "economic sanctions" and sees it as just another way to do nothing while Turkey clears territory of unwanted population, killing thousands in the process. So Russia demands that UN decision on this matter was enforced, immediately, by any means necessary.


We agree with this position - action needs to be taken to protect the innocent - however we have to ask;

If we're talking about enforcing UN decisions then maybe we can talk about China?

Given that, not too long ago, they were similarly involved in wholesale destruction of Korean territory, killing thousands in the process and so on, and so on?

Why does Russia view economic sanctions as too little in this case, and too much in the case of China?

What action does Russia suggest in this situation to enforce the UN resolution in this situation and what action do you suggest for China having failed to abide by a UN resolution in the other?
Nordic Federation
player, 32 posts
Mon 1 Oct 2018
at 23:27
  • msg #229

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 227):

The Nordic Federation, also involved in the NATO campaign in Armenia, will support fully the UN mandate, and also support the involvement of Australian and Nigerian peacekeeper.
Germany
player, 472 posts
Wed 3 Oct 2018
at 12:27
  • msg #230

Re: Armenian crisis

NATO releases this communique about the situation in Armenia

quote:
NATO HQ, Brussels:

In according to UNGA ESS resolution, NATO takes effective control of Armenia as a protectorate under the Geneva Convention for Occupied territories.

  1. NATO will act as Armenian Government until it can be relieved by a national one. A Russian advisor with voice but no vote will be part of this government
  2. Any military units in Armenia, be them national or foreign, should submit to NATO command and discipline. The only order their national governments may give the outside NATO channels is recalling, and this must be communicated to NATO HQ. Any military unit in the country nor abiding this wil lbe treated as invader or marauding, and dealt accordingly.
  3. Armenian defense and its people security and welfare become NATO responsibility.
  4. Martial Law is in effect in the whole country
  5. Armenian National resources can be exploited by NATO government solely on the behalf of Armenia and with those funds only being used to provide funds for reconstruction. In no case can those resources be sold under International Current prices
  6. As soon as situation allows (security guaranteed and a new census done) elections will be held for a new Armenian Government. This Government would be under NATO tutelage, with veto power, that would be lift as situation allows
  7. UN and IPC investigators will have freedom of movement along the country. NATO will provide them assistance and security at their request as needed

This message was last edited by the player at 14:17, Wed 03 Oct 2018.
South Korea
player, 10 posts
Fri 12 Oct 2018
at 00:08
  • msg #231

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 230):

quote:
-China claims Sol-Gamma-4N30 4N31 3N31 for Settlement#39


NO!

This is not acceptable, this is not Chinese territory - we will not accept this!

China cannot claim this territory, they have no legal right to claim this territory.

Korean naval units will perform freedom of navigation expeditions in all of these locations!

We call on the international community to condemn this senseless land grab in the strongest terms!

What the hell is happening? we dispute all of this most strongly!
Germany
player, 476 posts
Fri 12 Oct 2018
at 00:37
  • msg #232

Land (and sea) grab

Well, this time China has only followed the wake of others...

quote:
-Russia incorporate hexes Sol-Gamma10N4 and 10N5 into Settlement Russia
-Canada claims Sol-Gamma-11N1, 10N1, 7N8, 6N4 for Settlement#33
-China claims Sol-Gamma-4N30 4N31 3N31 for Settlement#39
-Argentina claims Sol-Gamma-6S10 4S14 5S12  for Settlement#7

Germany
player, 488 posts
Mon 26 Nov 2018
at 08:04
  • msg #233

Land (and sea) grab

So, now, who should lead the Un investiagation on TUrkish/Armenian incident?

Germany suggests either Nigeria or Australia, being the ones that offered peacekeepers, but any other uninvolved country would be aceptable.

Any volunteers?
Russia
player, 77 posts
Wed 28 Nov 2018
at 00:16
  • msg #234

Land (and sea) grab

In reply to Germany (msg # 233):

Russia supports German offer.
Germany
player, 493 posts
Sat 1 Dec 2018
at 13:07
  • msg #235

North Korea status


All post OOC:

Excuse me to ask, but, what's current North Korea status?

After the War in 2035-39, it surrundered, and I understood (clearly wrongly) it was absorbed by ROK in a unification of the penninsula. Now, seeing the Settlements spreadsheet, I see it still exists.

So, things I know:
  • it surrundered after the war
  • it is no longer Player Country
  • sccording the settlements spreadsheet, it has no army, and has become a MR4 contry (it was 3) with no WMD capability (it formerly had)

Is it currently occupied? if so, by who?

It has really no army at all (the spreadsheet shows it as NA, as the PCs or deserted settlements, but it ended the war with about 108 SBC points)?

Relevant posts:
msg#30, Historical interval 2035-2039 thread:

Combat Cycle Ref:
(...)

Attacker 0.04 X 801 available hits = 32: China 9 hits, Russia 4 hits, Australia 2 hit, Japan 0 hits, Indonesia 0 hits, SK 13 hits, USA 4 hits, Germany 0 hits

Defender 0.8*540 available hits = 432

(...)

NK surrenders, end of all combat in the Korean peninsula

msg#69, International Fórums thread:

USA:
UNSC Resolution:
1 - Commit to the invasion of North Korea (Request for troops to form UN mission to invade North Korea - I would suggest forces remain under their nation's control but are organized by PROTO - probably means Russia - this was not discussed in detail but pretty sure everyone will agree with this?)
2 - All forces will withdraw after the fighting in favor of PROTO forces who will occupy North Korea
3 - The North shall be administered by a PROTO occupation force with the intention of rebuilding it and uniting it with South Korea within 10 years
4 - China will be required to provide significant aid and support (20% of their Effective budget after country wide upkeeps in PAs (rounded up)) to the two Koreas to rebuild and clean up for the next 2 turns
5 - All nations are urged to contribute to disaster relief and rebuilding in the two Koreas (request PAs or aid)
6 - An independent investigation will be held chaired by Russia to determine the events leading up to this - all nations urged to contribute to the investigation (PAs to be spent on investigations)


PS: not sure this would be the relevant thread, but it seemed me the best one for that.
Referee
GM, 137 posts
Sat 1 Dec 2018
at 23:05
  • msg #236

North Korea status

In reply to Germany (msg # 235):

NKorea is now counted as a separate Settlement, owned by Korea.
Germany
player, 494 posts
Sun 2 Dec 2018
at 04:39
  • msg #237

North Korea status

Ty for your answer
USA
player, 106 posts
Sun 2 Dec 2018
at 05:17
  • msg #238

North Korea status

In reply to Germany (msg # 237):

In the light of the current global situation (OOC: also the introduction of new players who may not have seen this in previous conversations), and in the interest of preventing any potential disasters through misunderstanding, we feel it is necessary to restate the US' position on any future missile launches or the use of WMDs.

We reiterate our standing policy.

If a launch of ICBMs or IRBMs is detected from ANY NATION the United States will treat this as a Nuclear first strike against either itself or one of it's allies and will respond in kind

The use of WMDs against civilian populations will be treated as a declaration of war against the USA and retaliation will follow in kind.

We are not joking around - any ICMB/IRBM launches will be met with instant retaliation
Nigeria
player, 16 posts
Mon 3 Dec 2018
at 03:32
  • msg #239

Oil units for sale

Nigeria is offering large amount of oil for exportation at a fair price.

Answer rapidly as this offer may disappear soon.
Germany
player, 495 posts
Mon 3 Dec 2018
at 18:44
  • msg #240

Re: Land (and sea) grab

Germany:
So, now, who should lead the Un investiagation on TUrkish/Armenian incident?

Germany suggests either Nigeria or Australia, being the ones that offered peacekeepers, but any other uninvolved country would be aceptable.

Any volunteers?


So, are neither Ausstralia nor Nigeria interested in lead this investigation?

What about other neutral countries?

Argentina? Brazil? India? Indonesia? Japan?

Note: we excluded Korea and China because of their ongoing conflicto that als oinvolves amny involved countries, so casting doubts on their neutrality. Likewise about Persia and Saudis, whose long standing grudges with Kurdistán and Turkey amy also cast doubts.

Any volunteers?
Nigeria
player, 17 posts
Tue 4 Dec 2018
at 02:18
  • msg #241

Re: Land (and sea) grab

In reply to Germany (msg # 240):

If the United Nation assign an official mandate to Nigeria to go in Armenia to investigate, Nigeria will go an accomplish its task.

Lets have the UNO speak clearly.
Germany
player, 496 posts
Tue 4 Dec 2018
at 11:40
  • msg #242

Re: Land (and sea) grab

Nigeria:
In reply to Germany (msg # 240):

If the United Nation assign an official mandate to Nigeria to go in Armenia to investigate, Nigeria will go an accomplish its task.

Lets have the UNO speak clearly.


In German opinión, UN already spoke clearly (see point 8, bolded in the quote, of the UNGA ESS resolution:


Germany:
  1. Armenia should surround immediately to NATO, and his government and high military ranking officers should put themselves immediately before the International Penal Court (IPC) accused for Crimes of War
  2. Armenian and Turkish units should stop immediately all military activities and return to their bases.
  3. Armenia should accept NATO occupation and become a NATO protectorate under the provisions of the Geneva Convention for occupied territories until situation is cleared
  4. Turkish troops will not participate in the occupation duties
  5. A provisional government for Armenia will be formed by occupying NATO countries. A Russian advisor with voice but without vote will also participate on it.
  6. If Armenia refuses the provisions of this resolution, UN authorizes NATO to force it to accept them by the use of whatever means they feel necessary (short of the use of WMD).
  7. If Turkey keeps mistreating Armenian civilians, it would be subject to UN sanctions.
  8. UN and IPC will begin investigations on both, the use of WMD and civilian mistreatment in this conflict.


GErmany already suggested Nigeria or Australia as first choices for it, being the two neutral countries that offered peacekeepsers. Russia seemed to agree, and other coutnries did not talk against...
Nordic Federation
player, 33 posts
Tue 4 Dec 2018
at 11:57
  • msg #243

Re: Land (and sea) grab

In reply to Germany (msg # 242):

The Nordic Federation agree to the German proposition.
Nordic Federation
player, 35 posts
Tue 12 Feb 2019
at 03:56
  • msg #244

Re: Land (and sea) grab

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 243):

Fruer, herrar,

Considering the recent Canadian claiming of sea area adjacent to our territory, the Nordic Federation consider that we have to reaffirm our own right on some of these territory.  So by the following, the Nordic Federation is claiming hexes 11N1, 7N8, 7N10, 6N10, 6N11.

While we make these claim to loose nothing, and confront some claim made by others, we also believe that the current trends of sovereign nations to claim wide berth of territory, beyond what is considered valid as per UNCLOS rules, should be stopped and changed while it is time, before serious confrontation get born out of this.

So, by the same token, we are officially asking the UNO to call an emergency meeting of the UNCLOS to discuss and reaffirm the rules of the sea, and settle the claim made by all.

Hejdå herrar
Nordic Federation
player, 36 posts
Tue 12 Feb 2019
at 04:05
  • msg #245

Re: Armenian crisis

In reply to Germany (msg # 230):

Herrar,

The Nordic Federation as leader of the NAFOR mission in Armenia, is hereby presenting the Turkish rebels in Armenia the following ultimatum, leave peacefully now Armenia and return immediately to your homeland and to your barrack in Turkey.

Those that won't have done so by Saturday February 16th, shall be found in derogation with UNGA ESS resolution, and be dealt with all the might of the NAFOR mission including the force of Nordic Federation and Germany.

NAFOR will implement the UNGA ESS mandate in Armenia.

Hejdå herrar
Korea
player, 11 posts
Sun 21 Apr 2019
at 14:17
  • msg #246

Re: Chinese sanctions

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 245):

To date China has not issued any statement, nor made any attempt to contact us, in relation to their breaking of their treaty obligations.

We are unaware of any contact by China with any nations attempting to resolve this.

We therefore intend to continue to rally the global community to impose sanctions on China until they abide by their obligations

To that end we ask that all nations who have help us and supported the sanctions on China continue to do so, i would be grateful if you could again publicly confirm your participation in sanctions to demonstrate the resolve of the world to China.
Nigeria
player, 18 posts
Mon 22 Apr 2019
at 02:21
  • msg #247

Oil units for sale

In reply to Korea (msg # 246):

Pele gbogbo eniyan, apejo olola,

The government of Nigeria is offering Oil Unit for international customer.  Almost two hundreds units available.  Possibility of long term contract.

Contact us in private.

Awon ologbon onigbowo
Persia
player, 3 posts
Mon 22 Apr 2019
at 02:26
  • msg #248

Oil units for sale

In reply to Nigeria (msg # 247):

Salam

The Persian empire is also rich in oil unit and is ready to offer them to an international customer that would pay a fair price for it. Almost three hundread oil units.

Contact us in private..

Khooda Hafez,
Japan
player, 60 posts
Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
Wed 24 Apr 2019
at 12:18
  • msg #249

Greetings, citizens of the world!

For immediate release:

Today a special session of the Japanese Diet has convened to resolve the ongoing crisis within the Japanese leadership, ultimately resulting in the unfortunate death of the frail and sickly LDP leader and Prime minister Endo Oideyasu.

The Diet has elected former Space-Research Minister and Guardian of the sprawling Chiba Institute of Technology, Prince-General Yasuhiko Higashikuni, by unanimous vote, to lead the country forthwith and bring the country out of stagnation and into a new dawn. Excerpt from his Cabinet address:

"Fellow countrymen! I stand before you all as your humble servant in these challenging times to do what I can to further the strength, endurance, and ingenuity of the Japanese people into the world and onward to the worlds beyond our world, from where our common bloodlines originate – when the Great Mother Goddess Amaterasu-ōmikami stepped down and out onto the Earth bringing her people with her to thrive and multiply. Now is the time for the Japanese nation to, in earnest, reach back to the heavens from whence we've come, and rejoin again with our kin, wherever they may now reside. For this, we will all need to work long and hard, whether young or old, novice or experienced, and never rest until we've reached our goal."

The Higashikuni line, traditionally a cadet branch of the Imperial family, has under recent decades worked to re-assert itself, as the blood of the main branch has become increasingly strained. In particular, as the last succession required active bioengineering for a male heir to be produced from an otherwise infertile and impotent Emperor, something not actively regulated by the Japanese legislature.

The is the first time since the Second World War that a general officer of the Japanese Armed Forces has been elected Prime Minister. The only other time this happened was when his great-great-great-great grandfather, Prince-General Naruhiko Higashikuni, was elected to lead the country after the defeat of Japan against the Allied Forces. A reign which lasted only 54 days.

The Prince-General is planning a World Tour in the coming months to meet with the leaders of the Great Nations of the World and forge ways to work together for peace, prosperity, and mutual benefit.

Yoroshiku onegaishimasu!
Nordic Federation
player, 38 posts
Tue 30 Apr 2019
at 11:01
  • msg #250

Available uplifting capability!

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 245):

The Nordic Federation has 3800tm of excess uplifting capability available. Anyone interested?
Nigeria
player, 19 posts
Wed 1 May 2019
at 01:51
  • msg #251

Re: Land (and sea) grab

In reply to Germany (msg # 242):

Nigeria accept UNO mandate to investigate the events in Armenia and bring back to the IPC our conclusion and finding.

We expect the collaboration of all party involved.
China
player, 52 posts
Wed 1 May 2019
at 08:02
  • msg #252

North Korea status

In reply to USA (msg # 238):

This statement is unacceptable. Its an intervention in over states affairs. From this moment we redirect 50% of our nuclear arsenal to military targets in USA, especialy launch shafts and airbases. We have no another choice to counter this aggresion steps.
China
player, 53 posts
Wed 1 May 2019
at 08:13
  • msg #253

China new ruler. Speech to people of China.

Published few years ago..

"To people of China.

Dear comrades! I, Hu Li Ruihuan, General Secretary of Communist Party of China appealing to all of you!
Events of the few previous weeks was uneasy and send you in some doubts.
Now there is no any secrets. Old goverment is going to their deserved rest. They do the great things, leading our country, and we all grateful for this. But now we have new chalenges arise, we have new vertex to achieve! So, we need new people to do this great job! First of all, we have new goverment, and me, as yours new leader. But this is a drop in the ocean. If we want to put our country at deserved place, we all need to work together!
New era is coming.
Humanity start to not only explore space, but use it. I believe that in close future we will be able not only to reach far planets, but reach the stars! And this believes not my fantasy! Lead scientists tell us, that it is possible!
We are live in hard times, but its nothing, compare to our great mission!
Our history, our culture, our beliefs - its a seed, wich will grow in future among the stars! So we all need to fertilize this seed. We should care. Maybe not for us now, but for future generations! For our great future!!!

And to achieve this great, new target, we need new people, new society. If, someone of you, want to live old way, its your choise, you will be not punished for this, but if you want to be part of the future, join new movement! Join future society!
We should become new nation, new people. Thats no mean, that we want to forget out past and our ancestors. Instead, this is strong base,  wich give us strength and ability to change the world!
First of all I want to declare of establishing the new national organisation. Tàikōng rén. Space man.
Members of this organisation, or their heirs will start their work in most essential to our future places. They will be the first, who start to inhabit new worlds. I hope, that all our people, sooner or later, will join this new society. As your leader, I will be the first member of this organisation. I step in to the future. I swear to fulfill my duties as hard as possible. I swear to obey our laws and rules. I swear to devote my life to our future, to our great country! Are you with me?"
China
player, 54 posts
Wed 1 May 2019
at 08:17
  • msg #254

China new politics of new government.


" We proud to tell, that we have new government and many new people in our party.
From now People Republic of China will take the new course.
Our neighbors should understand, changes are not easy. But they are necessary. You can choose now, what relations would be between us. We hope, that old misunderstandings will be forgotten. We seek broad cooperation in space exploration. We are open doors to our friends. But for those, who choose the way of hostility and escalation, we want to remember - China is the great country, with history, longer, than any other. We survive. We always survive. Others not.
We will protect our country, our interests, our beliefs, our people at any cost. So, its a  turn point in history, what you choose? "
China
player, 55 posts
Wed 1 May 2019
at 08:48
  • msg #255

China new society program.

China will rebuild itself. If any country interested in this movement, we will gladly share our experience and wisdom.

Tàikōng rén. Name of the continual program to rebuild old society to new one, which will be capable and motivated to work harder for a better future.
In the borders of this government program people would be able to receive education, jobs, free healthcare, social guarantees which are better, than in free, open market.
They receive statuses and special bonus points, which can be spent as money to buy some special services and goods, available only for members.

Why it can be possible for China. Majority of China people is follow the traditional mix of 3 religions and philosophy, which deeply tied with culture and the way of thinking. Buddism, Daosism and Confucianism. Which is a great base for doing great, common things. This kind of changes happen in China not first time, and it always works. China people are very open for doing something to greater cause. And if they see real good results, they become near fanatics on this way.

We are sure, that almost all nations can find similar foundations for themselves.

You probably will wonder, but in China the most natural way to receive a good job, position as official, high rank in government structures, is not bribes, or farther-son mechanics.

Meritocratic system of selection of the bureaucracy, invented before our era and closely related to Confucianism (historically, a career in China was based not on hereditary grounds, but on personal merit, regardless of origin).
So. In Tàikōng rén, this will be strictly single system of carriers.

TR is open not only for individuals, but also for private companies, if they can provide TR with something useful.
TR will not tolerate with laziness and poor quality. If individual is bad in his job, first of all, it probably wrong job, and its one of the main thing TR will to do. Find a proper job for each individual, were his talents and abilities will be used in right way. TR will not accept individuals, if they do not want to do anything. TR can give partial time job, to those, who wished.

From this moment, individuals having drugs in quantity more than one dose is punished by death.

Corruption in amount more than 10000 euro, punished by death, more than 50000 with public execution, and rejection all wealth from all family members. In case of very high resonance, and great hating from population towards guilty person, execution done by modern military units.

Foreigners, who caught in destabilizing order, immediately sent out of China border, with lifetime ban on entrance.

In schools goes obligatory classes to learn traditional Chinese culture and beliefs.
Obligatory classes in astronomy field and modern science. For other countries we can recommend find their own traditional and cultural foundations.

Broad advertising campaign - "We are space nation!" In schools, universities, news.
From now starting campaign 3 baby in family or more. From the 3 and next children, people not only receives support money, but receive support pensions, when they reach old age.
Propaganda campaign about TR movement. Common cause should stabilize social situation.

All old corruption cases goes under new investigation. No matter how high position individual have.
Resonance corruption cases if, proved, have coverage in news, and if person found guilty - public execution.

If corruptioner comes to judgment by his will, he will keep his position, but all wealth will be rejected to country. He has a chance to rebuild his live and reputation.

This is the basics of TaikonRen movement.
Rebuilding of society is not easy task, but we see its importance for future generations and whole mankind. Humanity is its present state are not ready for expansion, but it can be changed. We are welcome to any international cooperation on that way.
China
player, 56 posts
Wed 1 May 2019
at 11:21
  • msg #256

China new energy project.

U.F.E.P.

Unified Future Energy Project - is multi-goal project pointed to develop future architecture of energy consumption, distribution, production and industry usage. Final goal of this project is 0 fossil fuel consumption and readiness for extra terrestrial implementations.
If any country is interested, welcome aboard!
USA
player, 107 posts
Wed 1 May 2019
at 12:15
  • msg #257

China Statement

China:
In reply to USA (msg # 238):

This statement is unacceptable. Its an intervention in over states affairs. From this moment we redirect 50% of our nuclear arsenal to military targets in USA, especialy launch shafts and airbases. We have no another choice to counter this aggresion steps.


Ok.... there's a lot to unpack here. The implication that you have the moral high ground and are responding to aggression is laughable in the extreme.

Another thing I think I need to clear up - are you claiming it is the sovereign right of a nation to deploy nuclear weapons without consequence? We would disagree with that concept most strongly.

Let me - again - point out the fact our statement is not a threat of a first strike - it is simply us informing the world that we will respond in kind to any first strike by any nation against any other.

This is not 'aggression' on our part, it is to counter potential future aggression - particularly given such aggression has already happened.

If anyone, and we mean ANYONE, attempts to use WMDs, we will not hesitate to respond in kind

If anyone, and we mean ANYONE, launches ICBMs/IRCBMs we will assume that this is a WMD First Strike and respond

This is not a threat, it is a statement of US policy to avoid future confusion - which is particularly important as far as we are concerned since China has already proved it is incapable of understanding there may be consequences to it's actions
China
player, 57 posts
Wed 1 May 2019
at 14:56
  • msg #258

Re: China Statement

USA:
China:
In reply to USA (msg # 238):

This statement is unacceptable. Its an intervention in over states affairs. From this moment we redirect 50% of our nuclear arsenal to military targets in USA, especialy launch shafts and airbases. We have no another choice to counter this aggresion steps.


Ok.... there's a lot to unpack here. The implication that you have the moral high ground and are responding to aggression is laughable in the extreme.

Another thing I think I need to clear up - are you claiming it is the sovereign right of a nation to deploy nuclear weapons without consequence? We would disagree with that concept most strongly.

Let me - again - point out the fact our statement is not a threat of a first strike - it is simply us informing the world that we will respond in kind to any first strike by any nation against any other.

This is not 'aggression' on our part, it is to counter potential future aggression - particularly given such aggression has already happened.

If anyone, and we mean ANYONE, attempts to use WMDs, we will not hesitate to respond in kind

If anyone, and we mean ANYONE, launches ICBMs/IRCBMs we will assume that this is a WMD First Strike and respond

This is not a threat, it is a statement of US policy to avoid future confusion - which is particularly important as far as we are concerned since China has already proved it is incapable of understanding there may be consequences to it's actions


Do not state your personal opinion as rules and only righteous thing to do, with which all should agree. For example, if we took same position here, to strike ANYONE, who do the launch, the consequence would be that: someone use it, by will or mistake, or by sabotage, you strike them, we strike both. Total annihilation in result. Stop pretend to be world policemen.

We understand the need of nuclear demilitarization, but until now, its only one guarantee of global peace. The fear. You think, that only you can play this game? You just make one step closer to nuclear apocalypses.

You think you have the RIGHT to strike anyone? You the main threat to peace.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:59, Wed 01 May 2019.
Korea
player, 12 posts
Fri 3 May 2019
at 12:49
  • msg #259

Re: China Statement

In reply to China (msg # 258):

In the heat of the moment Korea undertookcertain actions we undertook were detrimental to the chance of reaching agreement.

As such we, the leaders of Korea, deeply apologies for our intentional and destructive actions aimed against the People's Republic of China and their people.
We promise and swear that we will, in no circumstance,  undertake any such actions in the future against China or their friends.

We also extend our thanks to PROTO for leading the  negotiations to reach a peaceful settlement in this case, and the Australian negotiators that reached this final agreement.

Given that an agreement has been reached we formally request all nations engaged in sanctions against China cease immediately.

Again, we thank all concerned parties for coming together to bring this situation to a fair and equitable resolution
This message was last edited by the player at 12:50, Fri 03 May 2019.
China
player, 58 posts
Mon 6 May 2019
at 11:34
  • msg #260

Re: China Statement

In reply to Korea (msg # 259):

China is glad to see, that you also find the way to recognize your errors and correct them.

All reparation payments will be in restored in next economic cycle.

(OOC how much is left? ))) )
Referee
GM, 158 posts
Mon 6 May 2019
at 20:14
  • msg #261

Re: China Statement

In reply to China (msg # 260):

>(OOC how much is left? ))) )
I am not quite sure what you are asking here, but the time to edit your budget spreadsheets for the 2055 Turn has elapsed.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:19, Mon 06 May 2019.
Germany
player, 537 posts
Tue 7 May 2019
at 07:00
  • msg #262

Re: China Statement

China:
(OOC how much is left? ))) )


OOC: According the peace agreements, China agreed to use 20% of its effective Budget in PAs to reconstruct Korea for 2 Turns. It did it for 1 turn, so I guess what's left is another turn worth of them.
Russia
player, 80 posts
Tue 7 May 2019
at 11:36
  • msg #263

Military base of the USA in Korea

Grigory Nebenzya, Permanent Representative of Russia in UN, demonstrates concern due to construction of the USA military base in Korea:
- The pressing ring of NATO military bases along Russian borders is considered as threat to national security of Russia, - Nebenzya declared in interview today. - Unless our Western counterparts want to annoy and acerbate Russia, provoking asymmetrical response, we recommend stopping NATO advancement towards Russian borders. We know what they would answer – «these bases are not against Russia, they are against Persia», or China, or whatever – but all such words are hollow. No one is threating Korea, and even if would, PROTO has considerable strength to thwart any aggression.
USA
player, 108 posts
Tue 7 May 2019
at 12:33
  • msg #264

Military base of the USA in Korea

In reply to Russia (msg # 263):

*The US Ambassador to the UN is being interviewed shortly after the Russian press release. The US ambassador is asked for his comments on the statement the Russians just made condemning the construction of a NATO base in Korea*

"Err.... what...? Is.. are the Russian delegation actually...? I, uhh... Can I get that statement checked first, I think there must have been some kind of mistranslation?"

*The US ambassador waits for a moment as the English translation of the Russian statement is checked and read back to him. As an aide continues to read the camera focuses on his face hardening as he hears what the Russian ambassador said.

He slowly breathes in, before looking back at the camera with a slight smile on his face*

Firstly, NATO and the US is not moving to encircle Russia, nor China or indeed Persia, as Ambassador Nebenzya so subtly intimated.

Indeed, we hope to see improved relations with our counterparts in China and Persia, we have no need or desire to engage in any kind of arguments with them - though I feel Russia would rather we did given the fact Russian press releases consistently attempt to cast us as their natural enemy.

The US has had forces in South Korea for pretty much forever - over half a decade before the founding of PROTO. Our long standing Alliance with Korea is hardly a secret - nor is the deployment of US troops in that region, at the continued request of the government of Korea no less.

This is not strange or abnormal. This is not new

This is a continuation of the current situation. I see no reason for this reaction from Russia other than to attempt to make further mischief at our expense.

Is Russia suggesting that the USA should construct no further military bases in any nations and withdraw those from nations they have historically had bases in?

Would they do the same if the USA asks them to? Somehow I doubt it and I feel that Russia would treat such a suggestion as an insult of the highest order

We, however, are less thin skinned, and view this with the levity that it deserves - though we are always willing to talk about concerns others have, in this instance I feel there is no compromise that could be made, nor any reason to compromise when it feels like we are being pranked by the Russians on this one.

I have no further public comment to make on the Russian statement beyond saying we view it as likely being a statement designed for their own public's consumption, or as another play on the international stage to cast us as the bad guys. I doubt anyone is actually going to feel the same way as the Russians.

OOC: for some reason the US doesn't have a base in Korea when it obviously should have had from game start, and I honestly don't have the patience to see if that's supposed to be the case or its been missed off in the distant past by going through all the messages, turn orders and emails from previous US players - if all of them are still around to be viewed - to work out if this is intentional or not.
China
player, 59 posts
Tue 7 May 2019
at 13:42
  • msg #265

Military base of the USA in Korea

In reply to USA (msg # 264):

Xinhua News Agency has a question.
Against whom or what military base constructed in that region? What the purpose of this military installation?

It is true, that purpose of this base is electronic recognizance and warfare near China borders?
Germany
player, 539 posts
Wed 8 May 2019
at 00:23
  • msg #266

Re: Military base of the USA in Korea

USA:
OOC: for some reason the US doesn't have a base in Korea when it obviously should have had from game start, and I honestly don't have the patience to see if that's supposed to be the case or its been missed off in the distant past by going through all the messages, turn orders and emails from previous US players - if all of them are still around to be viewed - to work out if this is intentional or not.


Also OOC:

See that this not only happened in Korea, as many of the bases US has IRW are not represented in the game (e.g. in Germany, where Ramstein and the POCUS sites should, I guess, count as one).

I guess this is a remant from when being on a friendly country core hex (and with its acknowlegmet) was already considered as in a base for SU pourposes...
China
player, 60 posts
Wed 8 May 2019
at 11:59
  • msg #267

Re: Military base of the USA in Korea

In reply to Germany (msg # 266):
OOC There is also USA debt to China not present )))) and USA internal debts... ))
For example https://www.statista.com/stati...oduction-by-country/
Just give few thoughts about economic, production, amount of building projects.... Lets compare to our game... )))

Its not the argument, that something should be, because its present in RW. Its a game and fiction simulation. What we have from start - we have. I previously don't say a word about totally wrong, and this is most soft word for this, behavior and motivations of North Korea before. Because its a game.
Co-GM
GM, 213 posts
Wed 8 May 2019
at 14:06
  • msg #268

Re: Military base of the USA in Korea

In reply to China (msg # 267):

I don't usually make 'co-gm' post on arguments that a nation I play might be involved in.

So, firstly, let me make it clear I am not handing down any kind of ruling or making any comment from management on the original argument about the construction of the military base.

However, I am going to stop this whole OOC debate before it gets started. There is no debate to be had here about 'X isn't represented in the game'.

To address one thing mentioned though - Debt is factored into budgets, as an expense listed on all budgets. The US expenditure for "Economic Drag from Public Debt" this turn is $9238, China's is $164 - this is how we simulate the debts you point out.

Also, we have no intention of simulating the balance of global trade. Posting examples of real world statistics like this when we are 50 years past divergence date will get no positive reception from management

Finally - most importantly management has no intention of dealing with players saying "well this should have been in the game from the start" or some other self serving argument - this is the exact opposite of what I was trying to say. It appears I, as the USA, should have been clearer.

As you say, what we have listed NOW is what we have - and that is why the US is spending money to put something into the game it does not have.

The point I was trying to make here was that the argument being made seems to me, personally and OOC, a massive over reaction for something that has, in effect, already existed - in the sense that troops have been deployed there forever.

If anyone wants to still make this argument in character, then fine - I'm just trying to say OOC that I really don't get it - and I hope that also came over in the IC post I made

So, I do not want to hear another word about what should be where but isn't, or what could be simulated better because your nation should have more money and someone else's less money.

I trust this puts an end to any further posts on this particular theme, and we can continue with the original argument instead.
USA
player, 109 posts
Wed 8 May 2019
at 14:12
  • msg #269

Re: Military base of the USA in Korea

China:
In reply to USA (msg # 264):

Xinhua News Agency has a question.
Against whom or what military base constructed in that region? What the purpose of this military installation?

It is true, that purpose of this base is electronic recognizance and warfare near China borders?


The construction of this base is to enable US forces already and previously deployed in Korea, as part of our security treaties, to operate more efficiently

As I have just stated

It is not true that the purpose of these facilities is to engage in electronic reconnaissance or Electronic Warfare near China's borders.
Germany
player, 540 posts
Wed 8 May 2019
at 15:25
  • msg #270

Re: Military base of the USA in Korea

OOC: Then let me apologize for my post if it could start an unwanted discussion
China
player, 61 posts
Wed 8 May 2019
at 19:44
  • msg #271

Re: Military base of the USA in Korea

In reply to USA (msg # 269):

Xinhua News Agency has a question.
So by that logic, you will be not against military bases of other countries near your borders?
Cuba or Mexica can be the place for Russian base, for example...?
USA
player, 110 posts
Wed 8 May 2019
at 21:20
  • msg #272

Re: Military base of the USA in Korea

In reply to China (msg # 271):

Hmmm. Let's turn this one around.vwould China be happy with the US constructing additional ICBM launch sites?
China
player, 62 posts
Thu 9 May 2019
at 08:52
  • msg #273

Re: Military base of the USA in Korea

In reply to USA (msg # 272):

Xinhua News Agency
We cant spoke for our government, but we pretty sure, that our leaders has nothing against it.
Australia
player, 4 posts
Fri 14 Jun 2019
at 10:02
  • msg #274

The rising environmental issues

The Prime Minister of Australia addressed the world today:

Over the past years, we’ve seen the effects of our heavy oil usage on the environment, in Australia and New Zealand, as well as worldwide. The last thing we, as a people, as a race, want is to see our beautiful, blue planet turned in to a barren dustbowl. We’ve spent several thousand years here, and while many nations look to the stars, us included, that does not mean we can just abandon our home. We fear the expansion of our deserts, and the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. We look at it today, and we see it suffering. We see it wither away, despite our efforts.

Despite these facts, we see nations focusing on heavily producing oil, getting every last drop out, instead of focusing on preserving what we have, instead of focusing on less reliance on oil, instead of focusing on the environment! It seems the other nations of the world don't realize the seriousness of this situation, or have chosen to ignore it. Don't you see that our world is suffering, or has your greed blinded you?

The nations of the world need to stop this aggressive production and usage, before it's too late! That is, if it isn't already too late. Our once proud world stands at it's knees, and it's our job as humans to help it back up on it's feet, stronger than ever!

Thank you.
Saudi Arabia
player, 75 posts
Mon 17 Jun 2019
at 17:15
  • msg #275

Situation in Iraq/Arabian Sea

Saudi Arabia condemns the infiltration of agent provocateurs from Persia that is thwarting any reconstruction actions in Iraq, and asks Persian Empire to reinforce its borders to avoid more such infiltrations or their supplies.

While concerned by the fate of our neighbors, Saudi Arabia will keep with former treaties and not intervene in this situation, and our borders with Iraq are closed until further notice (some exceptions for refugees and humanitarian aid will be allowed).

Saudi Arabia fears another refugees flood and asks ACNUR to be ready to help us if it really comes, not leaving again us alone to cope with them.

quote:
-Attempt to claim hex Sol-Gamma-main-3N25


Likewise, Saudi Arabia does not recognize the Persian sovereignty over the Arabian Sea. Those are international waters bordering many countries, and any county’s control over them will the facto blockade many ports and the Straits of Ormuz, that are a vital artery for many countries (Saudi Arabia among them). We ask the Persian Empire to retire their claim and let it to be free international waters.
USA
player, 111 posts
Sun 23 Jun 2019
at 15:57
  • msg #276

Re: Situation in Iraq/Arabian Sea

Saudi Arabia:
Likewise, Saudi Arabia does not recognize the Persian sovereignty over the Arabian Sea. Those are international waters bordering many countries, and any county’s control over them will the facto blockade many ports and the Straits of Ormuz, that are a vital artery for many countries (Saudi Arabia among them). We ask the Persian Empire to retire their claim and let it to be free international waters.


Likewise, the USA shares Saudi Arabia's concerns on this matter - whilst we do not wish to engage in any action in the region US naval forces will conduct freedom of navigation patrols in the areas that are international waters if it proves necessary in order to keep this vital waterway open to international shipping and unimpeded.

We would suggest Persia, if they have plans for development of this region, consult with their neighbours instead and attempt to come to an agreement with them rather than attempting to impose their own unilateral control over this area
Persia
player, 4 posts
Wed 26 Jun 2019
at 02:50
  • msg #277

Re: Situation in Iraq/Arabian Sea

In reply to USA (msg # 276):

Salam, great leader of the world,

By officially claiming hex 3N25, we hoped to improve to expand our oil research in potentially rich oceanic oil field. Not restrict sea transportation to anyone in the region.

We have offered to some to share the exploitation of the ressource of sea, and are offering to any local party the possibility to do so, if only we can sit and come to reasonable term for everyone.

Otherwise, Persia doesn't have the might to defend that claim against any, or all the power that are marshalling their force as we speak.

The invitation is sent, would the interested party manifest themselves, and together we can peacefully exploit the plentiful ressource of the sea. Or they prefer to menace and threaten what is otherwise, a peaceful exploitation of the ressource of the sea?

Khodâ Hâfez
Saudi Arabia
player, 76 posts
Wed 26 Jun 2019
at 09:49
  • msg #278

Re: Situation in Iraq/Arabian Sea

Salam

We understand Persian interests, but we see Arabia nSea as too strategically important to be allowed to be claimed as anyone's soverignty. It controls the exit of Hormuz Straits ,and there are too many countries bordering it, whose ports would be bottled, as to allow for this.

The "sea grab" rush occurrying worldwide is already too concerning, but if it affects so strategic zones, it's Saudi view that it becomes too dangerous. We can accept you move was good intended, but if the World at large accepts your soveringty on those strategic waters, some future Persian government could claim a toll for ship passage throough their waters, so geopardizing the tanker traffic (or the traffic to ports like Karachi Gwadar or Bombay, just to give some examples.

And about exploiting this sea, several countries could claim their rights as much as Persia as to allow it to be so claimed.

Saudi Arabia cannot accept this claim, as the danger for future conflicto is, in owr opinion, too high, and formaly requests Persia to withdraw it.

Saudi King
Persia
player, 5 posts
Wed 26 Jun 2019
at 10:58
  • msg #279

Re: Situation in Iraq/Arabian Sea

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 278):

For the peace and stability of the region, Persia is retiring its claim of hex 3N25 as of now.

And will oppose any other claim to it.
Saudi Arabia
player, 77 posts
Wed 26 Jun 2019
at 13:04
  • msg #280

Re: Situation in Iraq/Arabian Sea

Persia:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 278):

For the peace and stability of the region, Persia is retiring its claim of hex 3N25 as of now.

And will oppose any other claim to it.


Saudi Arabia welcomes the Persian goodwill move. You'll find ourselves at your side if anyone tries to claim soveringty over the Arabian Sea.

Saudi Arabia also informs that some intelligence reports hint the possibility of instability in Yemen could lead to some pirates appearing in the zone, and due to the strategic importance it has, we cannot ignore them , no matter how remote the possibility is.

Saudi Arabia will conduct some anti-piracy sweeps there. If other powers in the zone want to join, please, be our guests.
Germany
player, 545 posts
Sun 30 Jun 2019
at 16:16
  • msg #281

OTC/OQC

As it appeared in the news, the OTC/OQC has been constituted. To now, there are 4 oficial signatary members and several observers. based on current space programs, Germany guesses those are:

Full signatary members (confirmed list):
  • Australia
  • Germany
  • Japan
  • Russia

Observers (guessing based on those having now active space programs). They have voice but not vote:
  • Brazil
  • Canada
  • China
  • France
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Israel
  • Korea
  • Nordic Federation
  • Nigeria
  • Persia
  • UK
  • USA

As this is just a guess, (OOC: and I intend to start treads where to discuss its matters, so that this thread will not be clogged), do all  listed observers want to be in the list? Is anyone else interested in being listed there?

OOC:could perhaps the GM form a group based public thread where to discuss it, mostly for the full signatory members, so that if others join they wil lbe given Access to it without having to start new threads?
Nordic Federation
player, 39 posts
Tue 16 Jul 2019
at 02:37
  • msg #282

Nordic Federation - Canada friction in hex 6N10

In reply to Germany (msg # 281):

Greeting ambassador to the United Nations,

Following the unilateral 2050 claiming of hexes 6N10 and 7N8 by Canada, both of which include Nordic Federation Exclusive Economic Zone linked to Greenland, we have sought to find a appropriate legal and diplomatic solution to situation.

We have begun diplomatic discussion on this matter with the concerned party, but the lack of progress has forced us to make a make our point in a more obvious point, in dispatching a small forces of peaceful patrol boat in the area.

We are more than ready to negotiate if only the appropriate party are ready to joins us and resolve that issue.

Hejdå till alla,

Eivor Palsdottir, presidens Nordens
Persia
player, 6 posts
Tue 16 Jul 2019
at 02:59
  • msg #283

Persian intervention in Irak

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 282):

Salam,

After years of civil wars and rebellion and at the general request of the Iraki population, the secular army of Persia have deployed along and west ward of the Tigris river, to finally bring peace and stability to the population of Irak, at last.

May all come to realize the wisdom of the Shah.

Khoda Hafez,

Padishah Shaddam of Persia
Germany
player, 550 posts
Tue 16 Jul 2019
at 10:08
  • msg #284

Re: Nordic Federation - Canada friction in hex 6N10

Nordic Federation:
In reply to Germany (msg # 281):

Greeting ambassador to the United Nations,

Following the unilateral 2050 claiming of hexes 6N10 and 7N8 by Canada, both of which include Nordic Federation Exclusive Economic Zone linked to Greenland, we have sought to find a appropriate legal and diplomatic solution to situation.

We have begun diplomatic discussion on this matter with the concerned party, but the lack of progress has forced us to make a make our point in a more obvious point, in dispatching a small forces of peaceful patrol boat in the area.

We are more than ready to negotiate if only the appropriate party are ready to joins us and resolve that issue.

Hejdå till alla,

Eivor Palsdottir, presidens Nordens


Germany has already warned about the land (sea) that is occurrying i nthe world, begun by Russia with the Norht Pole zoen ,but followed by many as Argentina Canada, China Us and yourselves...

Germany is fully against this claiming of undeveloped sea zones, that should be considered international.

Just to be clear: that's not talking about developing the sea resources (as long as it is done i na way respectful to the environ), as MidAtlan or your own Grendel city, but claiming the sea as own without any development is absurd, aainst intrnational laws and, as now we see, a probably source of unnecessary trouble and conflict.

So, Gremany asks everyone to withdraw their claims over undeveloped sea áreas and the returning to international laws about economic influence zones and international waters elsewhere.

Otherways, don't complain when more conflicts like this one appear, and Germany will stay out of any of them.
Russia
player, 82 posts
Tue 16 Jul 2019
at 12:46
  • msg #285

Re: Nordic Federation - Canada friction in hex 6N10

In reply to Germany (msg # 284):

Russia is not recalling its claims in Arctic because they are in line with UNCLOS-1982 charter.
Canada
player, 8 posts
Tue 16 Jul 2019
at 21:06
  • msg #286

Nordic Federation - Canada friction in hex 6N10

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 282):

The talking with words is over when you send in a gunboat, Canada will reply with the mouth of its' cannon.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:00, Wed 21 Aug 2019.
Canada
player, 9 posts
Tue 16 Jul 2019
at 21:16
  • msg #287

Persian intervention in Irak

In reply to Persia (msg # 283):

That goes for you too, Persia.
Nordic Federation
player, 40 posts
Mon 22 Jul 2019
at 03:03
  • msg #288

Nordic Federation - Canada friction in hex 6N10

In reply to Canada (msg # 286):

Well, well, where is gone the great country we all appreciated and loved?

This is how your react to neighbour patrolling its how Exclusive Economic Zone, that you unilaterally claimed as your own and don't want to negotiate mutually acceptable terms?

Guess that's how you consider the North, hex 11N1, as your own?
Russia
player, 83 posts
Tue 27 Aug 2019
at 14:39
  • msg #289

Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

Following publications in the Western media, like:
https://sites.google.com/view/...s/front-page/svalinn
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation published on its site full record of the recent interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN Grigory Nebenzya to the Western journalists.

Record time: 2056.114 14:00
Location: Regional HQ of UN, Geneva

Question:

- Members of the international press are asking for comment from the Russian government following the deployment and expansion of a joint US-NorFed Missile defence system.
What comment does the Russian government provide?

Answer by Grigory Nebenzya:

- Approximately since the late 1990s, ideas of a “pre-emptive strike” have emerged in the Western press, based on the irresponsible assumption that Russian intercontinental missiles “have long since become outdated and rusty,” which means that a “window of opportunity” appears: the first strike against Russia will destroy the main part of the Russian ballistic missiles, and a weakened retaliatory strike of Russia will be intercepted by NATO missile defense systems. These ideas are still alive even now.
With full responsibility, I declare that such reasoning is provocative in nature and is used by the instigators of war in an attempt to convince the public and ignorant political figures that, firstly, a nuclear war is possible, and that, secondly, the US can win it with "allowable losses".
Thus, the recent construction of the orbital missile defense systems is an echo of the strategy of a “pre-emptive strike”, since it is obvious that no missile defense system can stop or at least sufficiently weaken the first strike of Russian nuclear missiles in foreseeable future, and therefore orbital missile defense systems are not intended to be used against the first strike: their primary purpose is the interception of the retaliatory strike.
In addition, we believe that some powers violate the Outer Space Treaty (signed by most countries in the last century) in the part regarding to the ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons in space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
I have already received an order from the President to speak in the near future at the UN with a draft treaty prohibiting the militarization of space. Soon we will find out who is actually a supporter of peace, and who the warmonger is.

Question:

- Mr Nebenzya, some follow up questions.
To begin with - in an earlier press conference NATO has stated that it will be providing global coverage and will defend any an all nations from attack - does this assuage your concerns at all in any way?

Answer by Grigory Nebenzya:

- This problem is many-fold.
The first problem is, in short, that NATO cannot protect Russia from NATO. Are we supposed to just believe that Russia will not be attacked by NATO? We don’t want to just believe, we want to be sure. The only way to be sure is to make sure that the first strike against Russia will not allow anyone to win a war with allowable losses.
The second problem is that such position of the USA is not "Pareto efficient". If Russia will have to use nuclear weapons, Russia will use it no matter what, so the reckless position of the USA just means that forces of the USA will be targeted first.
Let’s put NATO aside. The next problem is that Russian army, in fact, is not big, compared to the territory it has to protect. Russia must rely on nuclear weapons to ensure its safety. So, the declared position of the USA is provocative, because it attracts someone with a big army, who couldn’t defeat Russia in all-out-war but could overwhelm Russia with a bigger conventional force in case if Russia cannot use nuclear weapons.
And if you think “well, at least we will prevent mass destruction” then you are wrong again. During WW2 approximately 14 million USSR civilians were killed by Nazi. We would have lost ten times more if we would have lost the war and Generalplan Ost would have been implemented. Occupied territories lost 2/3 of the industrial potential and infrastructure. Some cities – like Minsk – were rebuilt from the scratch after the war, literally, because 90% of the houses were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. All this happened without a single nuclear bomb. Bomb on Hiroshima killed approximately 100 000 civilians, but Siege of Leningrad resulted in 800 000 deaths of civilians. What I want to say: conventional total war is not much less destructive in its nature, it is just slower.
All-in-all, while we want to believe that intent of this “global coverage” doctrine was good, the design is poor. One cannot bring peace playing a role of the “world’s sheriff”, building up missile defenses and directing the other nations what they can or cannot do.

Question:

- Secondly, why do you make the assumption that the deployment of this system is designed to specifically target Russia? What information are you basing this assumption on when to most observers this would seem to be aimed at China following the Korean crisis and China's recent expansion of its Missile forces.

Answer by Grigory Nebenzya:

- “Most Western observers” you should say… I hope the answer for the previous question answers this question too. Even if not targeted Russia directly, the missile defense systems in conjunction with the policy of the USA endanger Russia. We would be less suspicious if construction of the systems was agreed with Russia, if we had a special treaty with NATO, and if there were other tools to ensure Russian safety. Meanwhile China should be on guard because all above mentioned factors do apply to China too and the missile defense systems hinder China's retaliatory strike even more then Russian one.

Question:

- Finally, given your statement that the Russian federation will be presenting a resolution to prohibit the militarisation of space - if this is successful will your nation then be committing to the disbanding of the Russian orbital troops, and the dismantling of any armed forces designed to be used in the enforcement of the Orbital Quarantine Control?

Answer by Grigory Nebenzya:

- Outer Space Treaty does not prohibit conventional weapons in space, so Russian troops with re-entry ability would not violate the treaty even if they were deployed in space. And right now they are just a normal ground unit. Yes, we would downgrade units if they violate international treaties. And when talking about demilitarization of space, we do not exclude options if the weapons can actually be deployed in space, if that is in line with international treaties.
Germany
player, 565 posts
Fri 13 Dec 2019
at 10:53
  • msg #290

Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

I fully disagree with the application of the results of my PAs #2

Extract from German chancellor speech at the Ordinary UNGA assembly 2060:

We must strengthen the role of UN in international affairs. Not only in the conflicts that may arise, where the UNSC has already showed less than effective , but also in coordination for global problems like pollution or diseases. To this goal, Germany suggests to increase the UN budget.

OOC:

According rules, International forums need at least 1 PA per turn if we want them to become anything more than a mailing list.

So, I suggest each of us to contribute to it as we can afford. If the largest of us each pledges $25, we can achieve several PAs to make UN more effective.

Of course, Germany volunteers to do so, and asks you all to do the same, so that we’ll have a stronger UN ,and we suggest Canada (despite the problems we have with it) or USA, as the ones with higher prestige, to administer it.

In German opinion, the main goals UN should invest its efforts this turn should be pollution reduction, be it as environmental damages reduction worldwide or by decreasing fossil fuels needs (and so CO2 production) through cleaner power production and mobility (what would be option  3 in 4.5.4) and reforesting projects worldwide too or cleaning the sea, or a combination of all of them. If  I understand rules ,the effects could be to see NPC countries to move towards those goals, though I guess if we also do it individually the effects would be stronger.

So, comments? ideas? suggestions?
Saudi Arabia
player, 85 posts
Sat 14 Dec 2019
at 10:25
  • msg #291

Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

In reply to Germany (msg # 290):

Oh, UN...

  • in over a century, it has never even tried to enforce its own resolutions on ISrael, allowing them to keep occupying Palestinian terriotry and misstreating its population
  • its help in the refugees crisis Saudi Arabia faced a dcade ago it shone by its abscence
  • in all the Yemen crisis, we have yet to see it, though we're accused to be acting "imperialistic" in our intervention (that has led to nearly 20 years without combats)

And you dare to pass us the hat?

Sorry, but we pass

  • When we see it acting in other than the Big Powers interests...
  • when we see it enforcing its resolutions on Israel as it does with othrs...
  • when we see it acting a s a neutral moderator/arbiter...

then we'll talk again, In the meanwhile, if Big Powers want to keep their power tool, they should pay for it themselves
This message was last edited by the player at 10:50, Sat 14 Dec 2019.
Germany
player, 571 posts
Sun 15 Dec 2019
at 13:14
  • msg #292

Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

So, would anyone else be willing to so contribute with UN maintenance , or should it be considered a failed attempt?

Germany firmly believes at least the P5 should so contribute, being its "main members", as should the G4 if we really want to keep our claims.

And, if so, would Canada accept the responsibility? if not, would US?
This message was last edited by the player at 13:16, Sun 15 Dec 2019.
USA
player, 113 posts
Sun 15 Dec 2019
at 14:31
  • msg #293

UN Issues

In reply to Germany (msg # 292):

The US might consider participating in this, however we would suggest that any PAs be spent on attempting to raise the stability of those nations with the lowest stability, rather than on reductions in oil consumption
Germany
player, 572 posts
Sun 15 Dec 2019
at 14:36
  • msg #294

UN Issues

Germany finds this aceptable.

We believe others should also give their oppinions....
Nordic Federation
player, 43 posts
Mon 16 Dec 2019
at 02:12
  • msg #295

UN Issues

In reply to Germany (msg # 294):

The Nordic Federation will bring its fair share to the collective action.

We would support the increase in stability of the most troubled country, as per the american proposal.
Russia
player, 85 posts
Mon 16 Dec 2019
at 11:19
  • msg #296

Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

In reply to Germany (msg # 290):

Russia considers as reasonable German proposal that UN must take actions, but the goal of the UN action is a matter of discussion.
Russia proposes to support the countries with the least GDP per capita. In 2065 bottom-10 will be:

Burkina Faso
Congo, Democratic Republic of
Cote d'Ivoire
Ghana
Liberia
Madagascar
Mozambique
Sierra Leone
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Total population 576 million, GDP per capita from 3.31 to 0.48.
Germany
player, 574 posts
Mon 16 Dec 2019
at 16:47
  • msg #297

Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

Germany will agree with any such reasonable (and all have been to now) focus UN decides, the main reason of all of this being keeping it active.

We suggest being voted among those collaborating.

OOC: as turn is closing to deadline, I suggest the 18th 12:00 OTC for other players to decide if they contribute or not, and to suggest where to focus UN action (and other suggestions, if anyone has).

After that I'd suggest 24  hours more to vote the focus among those suggested

Germany
player, 579 posts
Wed 18 Dec 2019
at 03:11
  • msg #298

Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

So is Canada interested in taking this responsibility (OOCto administer the multi-national PA)??
Germany
player, 580 posts
Wed 18 Dec 2019
at 14:28
  • msg #299

Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

Well, for now, we have  3 countries contributing (Germany, NordFed and Russia) and one posible (US).

As We said, Germany believes that the P5 (and so also CHina, France and UK) would have the moral dity to contribute too, and the G4 (so, also Brazil, India and Japan) would have our claims quite disallowed if we don't, but each contry is sovereign...

As per use, we have 3 suggestions:


  1. Our own: to help moving to power transition out of fossil fuels
  2. RUssia's: To help the countries with poorest GDP per Capita
  3. US': to help improve stability to the lower countries


In our opinion all of them are worthwhile ,as wel las related. Stability would help GDP growth (and probably vice-versa, while cleaner power would reduce pollution and environmental damage, and so help to stabilit and reduce costs (So helping to GDP growth too)...

In any case, we shoul dvote which one we decide. In unity sake, Germany withdraws his own proposal, as both Russia's and US' are likely to have a better impact in World security at short term.

SO, please, Sirs, vote among the remaining options:

  1. Russia's: to help poorest countries (in GDP per capita) to develop
  2. US': to help improve stability to most unstable countries

Russia
player, 86 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 10:32
  • msg #300

Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

In reply to Germany (msg # 299):

Please don't drag out time with decisions, I'm about to finalize the budget.
USA
player, 116 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 10:47
  • msg #301

Re: Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 299):

Please don't drag out time with decisions, I'm about to finalize the budget.

Fully agreed. US will consider voting closed at 2300 UCT today 19th December. If no one votes we will consider this as the UN doing nothing and contribute no PAs
Germany
player, 581 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 11:02
  • msg #302

Re: Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

Fully agreed too, but Germany is surprised no one of you voted in your posts...

To break the ice: Germany votes for the US suggestion: to support the raising of stability in the countries with lower one (so, oprion 2), on the basis this will not only help them increase their GDP, but also to avoid rebellions or unrest.
China
player, 63 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 13:13
  • msg #303

Re: Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

China consider the wisest option is to help economicaly. Influation on stability, still INFLUATION. Influation in internal affairs of other countries.
France
player, 5 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 13:26
  • msg #304

The UN in 2060

In reply to China (msg # 303):

Both ideas suck - the original German idea is much better and would have helped the world much more than these self serving proposals

The USA wants higher stability because it assumes it can hand off the responsibility for dealing with its historic mistakes to the international community rather than actually do anything themselves.

Alternatively the Russians promote 'economic growth' so they can steal more money from the rest of the world through sharp practice and oil sales - more GDP means more oil consumption - which, with reduced oil prices today, is exactly what they and OPEC want to drive prices back up, leading to less GDP growth in the future and dropping stability from oil shortages, but more money in oil exporter's pockets!

France will participate in neither of these schemes!
Germany
player, 583 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 13:39
  • msg #305

Re: Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

China:
China consider the wisest option is to help economicaly. Influation on stability, still INFLUATION. Influation in internal affairs of other countries.

See that if any such involvement is considered influation, then several UN offices (FAO, WHO, UNICEF, etc.) would have no meaning, as coordination of those involvements is precisely their goal.

And some of those agencies can show quite higher successes than the UNSC (best example is WHO coordinated erradication of smallpox and polio)...
China
player, 65 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 13:51
  • msg #306

The UN in 2060

In reply to France (msg # 304):

While Germany talking and proposing, China do huge modifications in its own industry replacing any fossil energy sources with modern atomic stations of latest and innovative design. We can use your nuclear wastes as fuel. And second. China few decades ago start huge program to modernise all industry/energy/transportation sector with new, future energy standarts. Fully electrical transportation. New sockets, voltages, frequency. And that mean standartisation and unification of all hardware, wich is criticaly important in future terristreal and extraterristreal development.
So, maybe we will try to improove here and stop try to reinvent the bycicle?
Russia
player, 87 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 14:11
  • msg #307

The UN in 2060

In reply to France (msg # 304):

France:
The USA wants higher stability because it assumes it can hand off the responsibility for dealing with its historic mistakes to the international community rather than actually do anything themselves.


I wouldn't imagine that I'll be protecting the USA in the UN but I have to point out that 5 of 10 countries of the bottom-10 are former French colonies and their deplorable position since the middle of the 20th century owes to the predatory policy pursued by France.

France:
Alternatively the Russians promote 'economic growth' so they can steal more money from the rest of the world

***
The Russian Foreign Ministry called the French ambassador and handed him a note stating that such irresponsible statements were unacceptable. Russia warned the ambassador that measures would be taken if such tricks were repeated.
***
This message was last edited by the player at 14:12, Thu 19 Dec 2019.
Germany
player, 584 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 16:48
  • msg #308

The UN in 2060

France:
In reply to China (msg # 303):

France will participate in neither of these schemes!

Germany regreets to know France will not involve itself in UN goals. IOHO, whatever re result ends up eing, they would help th wholrd at large, and so any of the proposals had its merits.

to now, two votes have been cast, Germany for US proposal and China for Russian one. We guess we can asume US and Russia vote their own proposals, so giving us a tie...

No more countries want to be involved and vote?
Germany
player, 585 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 16:52
  • msg #309

Re: Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

Germany:
So is Canada interested in taking this responsibility (OOCto administer the multi-national PA)??


OOC: I hate to hurry people, but if Canada does not answer son we should have to choose another one to whom give the money for the PAs and to administer it. I suggest US ,asa having higher prestige...
France
player, 6 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 22:13
  • msg #310

Re: The UN in 2060

Russia:
In reply to France (msg # 304):

***
The Russian Foreign Ministry called the French ambassador and handed him a note stating that such irresponsible statements were unacceptable. Russia warned the ambassador that measures would be taken if such tricks were repeated.
***


The French ambassador takes the note, tears it up and points out the following lines on Russian budget

quote:
Russia Oil SRU to China in 2060 (at $1.8 overcost)
Saudi Arabia Oil SRU to Russia(at $0.5 overcost)


"Comme on fait son lit, on se couche, Messieurs, because truth is the ultimate defence!

We shall wait to see your 'measures' against truth"
Canada
player, 12 posts
Thu 19 Dec 2019
at 23:53
  • msg #311

Re: The UN in 2060


***Official Announcement:

Canada would like table an agenda item for the General Assembly.

When scheduled, the opportunity will be taken for a joint Canadian and NorFed announcement regarding the recent Treaty of Nuuk, whose negotiations were completed recently to finalise the territorial disputes which have escalated in recent years.

Canada and NorFed look forward to the opportunity to share our mutually agreed outcomes for a peace and shared prosperity

thank you
Nordic Federation
player, 45 posts
Fri 20 Dec 2019
at 05:47
  • msg #312

Re: Interview with Russia's Permanent Representative at the UN

In reply to USA (msg # 301):

The Nordic Federation support the USA proposal, and will commit to assist the USA.
Russia
player, 88 posts
Fri 20 Dec 2019
at 08:43
  • msg #313

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to France (msg # 310):

France:
The French ambassador takes the note, tears it up and points out the following lines on Russian budget
...
We shall wait to see your 'measures' against truth


The Russian minister looked at the French ambassador in amazement, then laughed in the face of the ambassador.
- Whom exactly did you just call an idiot - the King of Saudi Arabia, or the General Secretary of China? Or is this your first day at work which you are not qualified for, and you don't know that publicly available information about a deal does not show the whole iceberg? Get out of my office now, boy! Go and learn some manners before playing in the major league!

After the ambassador was driven out, the minister looked at his colleagues:
- Or was it fault of someone of you, mischief-makers? Did you try to prank me and drink that much vodka together with foreign employees, again?
France
player, 7 posts
Fri 20 Dec 2019
at 09:45
  • msg #314

Re: The UN in 2060

I am afraid we are not quite finished, Monsieur.

Russia:
- Whom exactly did you just call an idiot - the King of Saudi Arabia, or the General Secretary of China?


I call no one an idiot, Monsieur, I simply point out a documented fact - you are the one using that term - I wonder if this is because you are projecting onto my words your own thoughts?

Me, sir, I point out the incongruity of one of the worlds largest oil exporters purchasing additional oil from one of the other largest oil exporters at literally one third, nearly one quarter, the price he is then selling it on for! And, of course, the truth of our previous statement that this demonstrates.

If I call these gentlemen anything, or indeed anyone else who has such dealings with you, it would be victims of a confidence trickster and con-man!

quote:
Go and learn some manners before playing in the major league


HAH! Risible, sir, such a joker!

If we should follow this advice we suggest you learn to do so yourself first! Indeed, I have been a model of civility in comparison to your usual charming self

If these are the 'major leagues', then I should point out that threats made by a nuclear power to another are often an excellent way of destabilising the world - and before you play in such leagues yourself, you need to address your inability to converse with those not willing to simply bend the knee to you without threatening either unspecified and vaguely sinister 'measures', or indeed first strikes with nuclear weapons, as is so often your immediate recourse.

Your threats are a Joke sir, a constant joke the world is sick of hearing.

Let us see your 'measures', sir.

Let us see Russian 'power' in this matter?

Does this extend from a gun, or can you actually employ diplomatic means here? It will be interesting to see how many friends you actually have made in comparison to the people you have stolen from in your unfair dealings, or that you have impoverished and crippled with restrictions to oil production?

Let us see if all of is this simply the smoke and mirrors we suspect as you desperately try to silence a warning voice whilst you defraud as many people as quickly as possible?
Russia
player, 89 posts
Fri 20 Dec 2019
at 10:58
  • msg #315

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to France (msg # 314):

France:
I am afraid we are not quite finished, Monsieur.


- Yes, yes… Take him away!

The minister could not hear all the trash that followed, because the ambassador was taken under his arms and taken away from the office. The guards, the chauffeur, and the waitstaff probably were forced to listen to the ambassador, because they were not authorized to shut his mouth.


***

The French ambassador was expelled from Russia. In the accompanying documents to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in the column "reason for expulsion" it appeared: “Incompetent. Provocateur. And a yellow dog”.

***
France
player, 8 posts
Fri 20 Dec 2019
at 13:08
  • msg #316

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to Russia (msg # 315):

The Russian Ambassador in Paris is summoned to attend on the president of the French Republic.

They are informed that, in response to the shameful treatment of France's ambassador being physically detained by the host country, in direct contravention of article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, France is compelled to declare the Russian Ambassador, and several other senior Russian embassy staff, persona non grata under article 9 of the Vienna Convention, and gives them 48 hours to leave France.
The president regrets, deeply, the effect this will have on the ambassador personally, and makes clear this is no reflection on him personally, but on his Government.

As news begins to break of the diplomatic split images and videos appear on link sites showing two contrasting scenes. One is amature footage of the French Ambassador being manhandled by burly Russians out of the Russian foreign ministry building and being bundled, forced even, into a waiting, unmarked, vehicle. As this speeds off the two thugs laugh and mockingly imitate the Ambassador.

The contrast is usually news footage from drones showing the French President shaking hands with an ashen faced Russian Ambassador on the steps of the Élysée Palace. Walking down the steps to his waiting diplomatic car, the Russian Ambassadorlooks back up the steps at an imperious faced, stoic French President framed by the pomp and ceremony of the palace and his office, before giving a barely imperceivable sigh, and stepping into his car. The French President watches the vehicle impassionately as it leaves, before calmly walking back into his residence
Russia
player, 90 posts
Fri 20 Dec 2019
at 15:36
  • msg #317

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to France (msg # 316):

A video recorded from internal and external surveillance cameras has appeared on the website of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The video shows how the gray-haired Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation in an official setting, in the presence of other senior officials and in full accordance with the diplomatic protocol, presents a note to the, apparently younger, ambassador of France. Further it is seen how the ambassador of France, having received a note, immediately tears it up. The camera shows the shocked faces of everyone present, and the subsequent scene.

However, on the surveillance cameras it can be seen further that the guards only brought the ambassador out of the minister’s office, and then he goes through the corridors to the exit on his own, leaves the building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and gets into the embassy car without hindrance.

In addition, a news story was released on Russia Today about the recent publication in France. The video, in which the alleged French ambassador was forcibly taken out of the building, showed signs of fraud and computer graphics, but the most glaring detail was that the forgers mixed up the insignia of the Federal Guard Service personnel with the insignia of the rescue service of Ministry of Emergency Situations.

Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs commented on the situation:
- We are deeply disappointed that our French colleagues fell to blatant provocations and frank lies, talking about detention of the ambassador which never happened. France has discredited itself not only in front of Russia but also in the international arena. They can fantasize further what they want, this will not change the unacceptable behavior of their ambassador.

***

In response to the actions of the French government, Russia expels an equivalent number of representatives of the diplomatic mission of France in the Russian Federation.

***
This message was last edited by the player at 15:59, Fri 20 Dec 2019.
Germany
player, 586 posts
Fri 20 Dec 2019
at 16:16
  • msg #318

Re: The UN in 2060

Can someone tell us how an attempt to coordinat Un actions has ended in such a diplomatic mess, with such shameful spectacle? -Asked the German ambassor to Russian and French delegates in UN headquarters in New York

Don't you see your countries are making a ridicle show?

Would your respective governments come to senses and stop this mess or should other ambassors order for some pocorn and keep watching the show?

Please, Sirs, if France does not want to participate to making some sense to UN, in whatever way it can decide, it's up to them, and keeping with this quarrel will only undermine UN principles.

Are we serious diplomats trying to improve the world or children aguing "dady, he touched me first..."?

By Christ sake, the world is watching us all!

So, can we return to see where should UN focus our efforts for the good of th world at large?

******

The German amabassor left the room with sad look, returning to the main assamby room and asked the assembly:

Well, are there more votes about the issue of where to focus our efforts?
Russia
player, 91 posts
Fri 20 Dec 2019
at 16:34
  • msg #319

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to Germany (msg # 318):

Germany:
Can someone tell us how an attempt to coordinat Un actions has ended in such a diplomatic mess


OOC:
Hahaha :)

IC:
- Do you really need an explanation of what is happening? - the representative of the Russian Federation was surprised.  - I suppose you won't like it if I explain you here and now.

- Returning to your original question, I consider we should stop the voting – Russian offer got two votes, the offer from the USA got three, so the second option won. Five votes total; Russia sends 20$ to the USA so that they will apply the PA on behalf of UN.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:37, Fri 20 Dec 2019.
Germany
player, 587 posts
Fri 20 Dec 2019
at 16:38
  • msg #320

Re: The UN in 2060

Canada:
***Official Announcement:

Canada would like table an agenda item for the General Assembly.

When scheduled, the opportunity will be taken for a joint Canadian and NorFed announcement regarding the recent Treaty of Nuuk, whose negotiations were completed recently to finalise the territorial disputes which have escalated in recent years.

Canada and NorFed look forward to the opportunity to share our mutually agreed outcomes for a peace and shared prosperity

thank you


Gremany is glad to see some one came to senses in the end...

Now, please, Would Canada take the responsibility to administer UN focus (whatever it be), or should we look for somone else?

Could we at least agree in this point (who should lead the implementing of this)?
Germany
player, 588 posts
Fri 20 Dec 2019
at 19:25
  • msg #321

Re: The UN in 2060

Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 318):

- Returning to your original question, I consider we should stop the voting – Russian offer got two votes, the offer from the USA got three, so the second option won. Five votes total; Russia sends 20$ to the USA so that they will apply the PA on behalf of UN.
OOC:  It seems you wrote your post at the same time I was writing my following one, and I missed it. Sorry for the delay this has caused to my answer.

Finally someone speaking with sense...

Gremany agrees, and will also send S20 to the US (as Canada has not stepped forward).
USA
player, 117 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 06:17
  • msg #322

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to Germany (msg # 321):

Very well, we shall look to change our budget to note this.

I note so far that we are currently looking at the following contributors.

USA, NorFed, Germany, Russia - since people are contributing $20 each we are still $20 short of a single PA, and instead each contributor would need to provide $25.

Are there any more contributions to come or will those who have pledged agree to increase their contribution to $25?
China
player, 66 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 10:08
  • msg #323

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to USA (msg # 322):

China will not agree with decision and course of actions. But we hope, that this action really do something good. China will contribute 20. But we want to point, that not only in Africa is poor and unstable countryes located. There is many others in Asia region.
Germany
player, 589 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 14:03
  • msg #324

Re: The UN in 2060

Let's hope this will be only a begining of a coordinated effort to really help world at large through agreed UN actions.

USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 321):

Very well, we shall look to change our budget to note this.

I note so far that we are currently looking at the following contributors.

USA, NorFed, Germany, Russia - since people are contributing $20 each we are still $20 short of a single PA, and instead each contributor would need to provide $25.

Are there any more contributions to come or will those who have pledged agree to increase their contribution to $25?

China:
In reply to USA (msg # 322):

China will not agree with decision and course of actions. But we hope, that this action really do something good. China will contribute 20. But we want to point, that not only in Africa is poor and unstable countryes located. There is many others in Asia region.



To US: That's what we (Germany and, we guess, Russia) understood, that China contributed too.

To China: As Germany understands, it is targeted to "Help lower stability countries" to increase it, not specifically African, not any other specific world región...

OOC: in any case, with a single PA worldwide, I guess the effeect (aside from maintaing UN as "more tan a mail list" wil lbe, at bes, limited. I hope this will mostly be a test for improving such actions in future turns
Russia
player, 92 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 14:33
  • msg #325

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to Germany (msg # 324):

In order to make the effect of 1 PA point meaningful, we should choose countries with sum of their population no more than 100 000 pop units.
Germany
player, 590 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 14:48
  • msg #326

Re: The UN in 2060

Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 324):

In order to make the effect of 1 PA point meaningful, we should choose countries with sum of their population no more than 100 000 pop units.


OOC:

I don't believe it necessary, as I understand rules (but the referee may say otherwise, of course).

I mean, the main goal of this PA is to keep Un active ,and the main focus is not really a try to achieve it, but abstract general guidelines as to what is (in this case) UN main goal for those years (akin to the development goals it specifies IRW).

I guess those kind of actions also imply other countries conribute to the effort, on an abstract level (though this time not too many ,as not too many PCs have contributed, according the philosophy, or how I understand it, of FAQ#1).

So, as I see it, this is not a real attempt to increase those countries stability (that would be treated as you say), but to maintain UN active, and to point a slight (as the effort is small) trend to its actions towrds this goal.

Of course, the real effect is up to the referee...

USA
player, 118 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 14:53
  • msg #327

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to China (msg # 323):

OOC : Right, I am not doing this again!

I've had to sit down and work out the best way of spending this PA because I know the US will get shouted at as incompetent by everyone if I don't - hence my orders being late for submission - Sorry Kelvin, everything will be with you very shortly now

If you want to do things like this in future get it sorted out to give people time to fix and agree orders - this was only actually put together and finalised literally 2 hours before closing time!)


IC:

Thank you to China, and to all contributors. We recognise China's point and so will ensure that multiple regions are recognised in this action, including Asia.

We also recognise the Russian proposal has validity, and so will consider this a secondary goal that should hopefully, naturally, come about from increased stability

To that end the USA has spent the PA as follows;

Goal : Improve the stability of the following nations that look like they will have particularly low Stability in the 2065 period - these being Colombia, Gahna, Mali, Myanmar, Niger, Uzbekistan & Zimbabwe

Action : UN contributors provide support and aid to the above countries who require boosts to stability - the United Nations provides advisors, some material resources and other assistance to help boost the stability of these nations

Argument : Given this is a combined PA we suggest using the highest relations of any of the contributors when calculating the odds (averaged out over all) - thus making best use of the combined resources. The nations selected are not all nations with low stability, but those with the relations, prestige and combined population to allow this to be a success.

Total population and highest relations with a contributing nation as follows

Columbia : 14493Relations : 17 (USA)Prestige: 4Stab:0
Ghana : 12631Relations : 12 (Nordic Fed)Prestige: 4Stab:0
Mali : 7687Relations : 12 (Germany)Prestige: 3Stab:0
Myanmar : 28578Relations : 12 (China)Prestige: 5Stab:1
Niger : 7543Relations : 11 (Russia)Prestige: 3Stab:0
Uzbekistan : 12329Relations : 15 (Russia)Prestige: 6Stab:2
Zimbabwe: 5928Relations : 11 (Nor Fed)Prestige: 2Stab:0

Totals pops and /Averages all others

Population : 89189    Relations: 12                Prestige: 4    Stab: 1

Odds calculate at 5 to 1 in favour for 1 PA being spent using the US’ prestige

Suggested Outcome : Increase the Stability scores of the above nations - if huge success then also increase their GDP growth

Resources Devoted : 1PA, the combined efforts of the international community and the office and agencies of the United Nations
Germany
player, 591 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 15:04
  • msg #328

Re: The UN in 2060

OOC:

Your forget the main goal: to keep U Nactive as "more tan a mail list"...

Suggested ammendment (in blue)

USA:
In reply to China (msg # 323):

Goal : To keep UN active as international forum, with mai nfocus in improving Improve the stability of the following nations that look like they will have particularly low Stability in the 2065 period - these being Colombia, Gahna, Mali, Myanmar, Niger, Uzbekistan & Zimbabwe.


USA
player, 119 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 15:53
  • msg #329

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to Germany (msg # 328):

OOC: The US' orders have already been submitted

I also do not think this would be a necessary amendment

The UN is active - this is the UN being active - I do not see the need to specify the UN is still active when it is active, and if anyone were to come back to me and say 'well because you didn't specify the UN actually was active its been disbanded and dosn't exist any more' I'd be more than a little annoyed - firstly because that's not what the rules say and secondly because it would be blatantly stupid!

I think you are reading far too much into the whole 'remaining active' thing.


China
player, 67 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 16:32
  • msg #330

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to USA (msg # 327):

OOC. Sorry. Just read topic and react asap. Extremely busy now. Sleep for 5-6 hours a day only. Maybe for future we should put the preemptive date for all such events and discussions. A week before turn end, for example. So all can finalize turns w/o rush and redoing things?
Germany
player, 592 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 17:26
  • msg #331

Re: The UN in 2060

USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 328):

OOC: The US' orders have already been submitted

I also do not think this would be a necessary amendment

The UN is active - this is the UN being active - I do not see the need to specify the UN is still active when it is active, and if anyone were to come back to me and say 'well because you didn't specify the UN actually was active its been disbanded and dosn't exist any more' I'd be more than a little annoyed - firstly because that's not what the rules say and secondly because it would be blatantly stupid!

I think you are reading far too much into the whole 'remaining active' thing.



OOC:

Maybe I didn't choose the best words. When I say active, I mean "more than a mailing list", as told in 6.5 about alliances and organizatins maintenance.

Of course, if no PAs are used on UN it will not cease to exist. I agree this would be stupid. The UNSC would keep meeting and eternally arguing (mostly to no avail), UNICEF will keep trying to improve children lives, WHO will keep watching outbreaks and tryin gto fight them, Human Rights Working Gorups will keep being active (and largely ignored), but its effectiviy wil lbe quite reduced for lack of founding and attention.

I guess is in the spirit of the rules and FAQs #1 that the involvement PCs have in such supranational organizations is a réflex of the involvement NPCs have on them too, so, I also guess this PA does not mean we use a single PA to this goal, but the UN focuses his efforts towards this goal, and that means NPCs countries make some effort too (not to strong this turn, as PCs effort is not), and that's what I mean when I say "pointing a trend"...

Of course, that's my understanding and interpretation of it, and the referee and myself not always agree in those things  (to say the least), so take anything I say about it wit ha big grain of salt...

And of course, also in 6.5 it's said this PA may be as part of a Political action, and so I guess this would work too...


China:
In reply to USA (msg # 327):

OOC. Sorry. Just read topic and react asap. Extremely busy now. Sleep for 5-6 hours a day only. Maybe for future we should put the preemptive date for all such events and discussions. A week before turn end, for example. So all can finalize turns w/o rush and redoing things?


Fully agreed here too, for the sanity of all of us...
Nordic Federation
player, 46 posts
Sat 21 Dec 2019
at 21:49
  • msg #332

Re: The UN in 2060

In reply to USA (msg # 322):

The Nordic Federation confirm.
France
player, 9 posts
Sun 29 Dec 2019
at 03:37
  • msg #333

Le Marché Solaire

Despite the fact many seem to wish to ignore the growing problems of international trade we need to continue our discussion on Russian trade practices, and indeed the state of global trade.

Russia is the most egregious example of naked greed and poor market practices, though certainly not the only ones.

Unscrupulous nations have benefited from the lack of a true marketplace - how many nations have overspent for items because they cannot compare prices? How many have accepted poor deals when someone is buying from them because they do not know someone else is looking to buy?

A brief look at Russia's budgets and the deals it has been making should demonstrate this fact, because fact it is, and an obvious one when you look at the simple numbers! Even worse they feel so secure in their position that they publicly threaten unspecified and sinister 'measures' against anyone who attempts to speak out about this fact!

How many are paying attention to the trends in oil prices and production, or the prices various resources and materials are being sold for? How many are obtaining a fair price for their products?

I do not believe many, if any, truly are - because no one has been truly interested in doing the analysis - but France has now!

Look at the simple facts - Russia, the worlds formally largest oil producer (and who should still be the largest exporter - though I suspect this is not the case though their attempts at market manipulation - more information to come following a full analysis) is purchasing oil from Saudi-Arabia and then selling that oil on at a mark up of nearly 300%!

It is purchasing SU in orbit at a price of $5 per unit, then selling this at $50 per unit! (for reference Australian budget and USA budget) Why should this be the case, and why should Russia be able to make this money simply by being the middle man?

Simply because no one knows what values people assign to a resource, and cannot compare prices easily or quickly!

A French think tank will publish, over the next few years, papers outlining the case for an international marketplace, reviewing the current state of the global economy, the global oil markets and the way we currently do business - but following our initial review of the state of international markets France will act NOW!

So, in order to solve this obvious, and urgent, need France announces the creation of 'Le Marché Solaire' - we will, upon request, provide you all with a system of listing both purchase and sale orders, that prospective purchasers and sellers can then check to see what the market currently is offering!

In return for this service France simply requires that the Seller charge an additional $2 additional fee on the transaction - which should be provided to France as the fee for upkeep and maintenance of the Market - this should provide a more competitive and fair market for the world, and counter the rampant misinformation campaigns and speculation of resources that have plagued the current international marketplace

All sheets can be altered very simply by France to expand the products being offered, and so if any nation wishes for a new item to be listed they simply need to send a message to France - I suggest anyone interested in this project and have any private questions simply reply to the PM France has sent to you titled "<Your Nation > - Le Marché Solaire Communications" to allow France to better co-ordinate and respond.

Alternatively France is more than happy to answer questions here!

To demonstrate how the system will work, we are pleased to present the Market Hub - that will display the prices each nation enters on their own market terminals. For an example France has listed several items as being for sale and as purchase orders under the name various nations as a demonstration of how the system will work and look in practice.

We commend this initiative to the world, for it will at the very least begin to dispel the cloud of secrecy and back room dealing that has obfuscated trade and allowed sharp practice to flourish!

The drop down box in cell A3 can be used to select the item you are looking to view. Please, try this out and see what you think.

In order to demonstrate its utility France is willing, for this first turn of its use, to simply charge a fee of $2 to any nation who wishes to access the marketplace for use in the 2065 turn, rather than the future charge of $2 per transaction arranged through the marketplace.


This message was last edited by the player at 04:09, Sun 29 Dec 2019.
Russia
player, 94 posts
Sun 29 Dec 2019
at 12:16
  • msg #334

Le Marché Solaire

In reply to France (msg # 333):

Russia is annoyed that France attempts to gain political points through cheap hype. On the example of the mentioned deals Russia will demonstrate how France lies.

The oil deal with Saudi Arabia was a hedge deal: Saudi Arabia shipped oil to Russia in previous turn as insurance for Russian uninterrupted oil flow this turn, and Russia should have paid cash or should have returned the oil in the next turn; Russia optioned to return the oil but Saudi Arabia requested that Russia paid in cash instead, so Russia did. Similar to the deal with the USA: it was not mere sail of SUs, it was a lease-back of uplift capacity which Russia actually was selling at the reasonable cost ca $8.8 per 1000 mt uplift.

It is not in Russian practice to uncover details of complex deals so Russia is not going to let itself being involved into further discussion. Enough was said to demonstrate that either France was trying to insinuate Russia to force it to unveil its trade secrets or was incompetent in international trade (not to mention minor French factual mistakes: in fact, the largest oil producer is the USA and the largest oil exporter is Saudi Arabia). One thing I’d mention though is that Russia is usually arranges complex deals which involve multiple long-time factors or treaties which cannot be valued in money and thus are not visible in the budgets.

Being said that, Russia thinks that international trade board might be a convenient tool where Russia could promote its goods and services, but Russia is not willing to join the French project (Russia might consider even developing its own) unless France ceases its mean rhetoric.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:26, Sun 29 Dec 2019.
Nordic Federation
player, 48 posts
Sun 29 Dec 2019
at 16:43
  • msg #335

Le Marché Solaire

In reply to France (msg # 333):

Hej alla,

The Nordic Federation has mixed felling about the recent French attack on international trades in general, and Russian trades agreement specifically. These are always mutually agreed engagement between two sovereign nation.  And while France can like, or dislike the terms of the agreement it is offered, by Russia, or anyone else, we do not agree that these are unfair or greedy per se.  Particularly considering that France has itself gain obtained generous terms on agreement itself.

If Russia is gaining significantly from its trade agreement, it's because they have been working them for decades.

However, we do see merit in a Trade Office that would monitor the value of the various goods and services that nations are likely to need. That would also looks at trends, risks and opportunities.  For such the Nordic Federation would be interested to invest itself.  Not by paying for each transaction, but by direct support of the involved nation, much like the OTC/OQC.

Amoung the goods and services of interest to monitor, would be:
* Raw materials, Foods units, SU in Earth Orbit, Moon orbits, Mars orbits, Jupiter orbits.
* Value of uplift capability
* Oil SRU transactions on short and long term transactions
* Tantalum, Pai-Leng, etc...
* Advanced technologies

So if France is ready to improve its proposal, and tone down its rhetoric, the Nordic Federation is ready to support such a proposal.

Adjo,

Eivor Palsdottir, Nordens Presiden
France
player, 10 posts
Sun 29 Dec 2019
at 18:29
  • msg #336

Re: Le Marché Solaire

First - let us address the question from the Nordic Federation on the items being listed - we have a simple means of altering this and listing any objects required - this can be done without issue and at any time - we will ensure that the items you request be listed are included upon full release.

Now, let us return to your first point - that we should moderate our tone. I have actively attempted to do so, my last statement did not contain the kinds of condemnations I have previously made - I shall save this for another time because I believe they are more than justified.

But, let me say this, the markets we have do not work, have not worked, and the abuse we have seen of these markets has resulted in a more unstable world! It is not wrong for us to point this out!

If people understood how the oil markets worked, or if they functioned in a reasonable way, no one should currently be arranging exclusive purchases!

Unless the oil producers again create artificial shortages, no one should need to pay for exclusive purchase rights, because so long as the oil being released to the free market exceeds global demand, everyone will be supplied.

This should easily be the case - this will only not be the case if producers restrict oil entering the free market, retaining significantly more than they require, or if they artificially cut supply. We saw the latter happen in 2045 - and we are seeing the former currently happening - you may not want to believe this but the numbers do not lie and France is putting together the graphs that demonstrate these facts!

In past years we have seen people die from food shortages and rioting connected to these both within Europe  and around the world - this has been caused by oil shortages - artificial oil shortages.

Whilst France and the Nordic Federation came to an agreement that is, indeed, beneficial to France, and we believe to the Nordic Federation, many nations were scared into trying to ensure their supply of oil through expensive exclusive purchases by the constant insistence of nations like Russia and Saudi Arabia that oil supplies would never be increasing to meet demand, and that constant shortages were here to stay.

The Americans and Mexicans are putting pay to that lie now as their output skyrockets, and so the oil market should readjust to correct for this - however many oil exporters have used the shortages they created to secure deals for exclusive export - and are working to restrict oil exports to reduce supply without obviously reducing total global production. They are retaining oil for their own use rather than exporting it thus continuing to attempt to create shortages that need not exist.

Should France therefore ignore these nations because we have secured ourselves? Are we supposed to be so callous that we cannot be incensed by the way others have been treated? Though we may appear viscous and cold hearted here it is because our empathy for others demands such a reaction! If France believes in Fraternité between nations then should we ignore our brother because we do not feel his pain?

We have seen food riots and stability drops throughout the world caused by these oil shortages! This has happened because we allowed it to, simply because we have ignored just how these markets could be, and were, manipulated!

We are warning you all, pay attention to what is happening in the numbers - because there are those who wish to play us all for fools.
Russia
player, 95 posts
Mon 30 Dec 2019
at 10:55
  • msg #337

Re: Le Marché Solaire

In reply to France (msg # 336):

France:
But, let me say this, the markets we have do not work, have not worked, and the abuse we have seen of these markets has resulted in a more unstable world!


How do you suppose the free market should work? Nobody forbids anyone to place their trade bids or offers in the international forum, and many nations did that. Do you call for a change of the world economy system may be? Controlled prices and production? Not a free market actually?

France:
The Americans and Mexicans are putting pay to that lie now as their output skyrockets


Since when is France protecting interests of the USA? BTW, Mexico did not increase its output significantly, the USA did. But the USA consume the most oil of the world, and if they are investing into the Oil production – we are fine with it, what’s your problem?

France:
They are retaining oil for their own use rather than exporting it


So I guess that is the core of the French wailing.
The 10 poorest countries consume 11 (eleven) Oil SRU all together. That means 5.5% of the world population consume 0.07% of the world oil production. That means, oil shortages have nothing to do with their deplorable condition. Someone just wants to command producers what they should sell and at what price! Are we talking about a free market still? Go to the USA and command them to cut their appetite for oil import, save the world. Or, you can buy from Russia but then you pay the price Russia wants or GTFO.

UPD:
The format of a trade hub which France offered is unnecessarily complicated. What we probably need is this (link below).
https://docs.google.com/spread...qGc/edit?usp=sharing
Any nation can add its bids or offers here in real time, and Russia offers this to use for free for all nations.
This message was last edited by the player at 11:15, Mon 30 Dec 2019.
France
player, 11 posts
Mon 30 Dec 2019
at 13:50
  • msg #338

Re: Le Marché Solaire

In reply to Russia (msg # 337):

quote:
Do you call for a change of the world economy system may be? Controlled prices and production? Not a free market actually?


France does call for a free market - one where there is the ability to freely and easily see the offers on the market

We say the current market is broken because, in an age of surplus, you are able to command significant prices for something that can be purchased much cheaper - we do not call that a functioning free market at all!

quote:
Since when is France protecting interests of the USA? BTW, Mexico did not increase its output significantly, the USA did.


France is not interested in protecting US interests, and you are wrong, Mexico is soon to increase output significantly

Again, you seem to mistake our statements of verifiable fact with opinion!

Since you do not seem to be content in waiting for France's formal assessment to be published let me give you a demonstration of the work France is undertaking to actually understand current market practices - all information taken from the :
https://docs.google.com/spread...p;format=interactive

The core of the French 'wailing' stems from the fact that Russia and Saudi Arabia clearly cut oil production in 2045 to force a significant oil shortage, pushing up prices and driving the deals we speak of - as can be seen in this chart

France also is working to perform full and in depth assessments of the way in which major oil producers distribute their production, and the prices they have managed to command - we are coming to the view that international trade does not function, because of the previously stated points - Russia is speculating, and speculating well - but the cost of this speculation should be clear for all to see!

For instance, did you know that for the last decade the USA has exported no oil? As Russia says, it retains all its oil for domestic consumption and then still imports more oil to meet its demand - Russia, in 2055 reserved for private use (ie either for private sale and their own consumption) more oil than they produced nationally?

quote:
Or, you can buy from Russia but then you pay the price Russia wants or GTFO.

Very true, or if people actually understood the state of the market, and could see the way oil is being distributed, they could realise they do not have to purchase from Russia because the global market should meet their demands without them having to arrange exclusive purchase!

Anticipated 2065 output : 16283
Anticipated 2065 demand : 15715

If we remove Russia entirely from this equation - assuming they do not sell or purchase any oil in 2065 and take no part in this market we see the following

Anticipated 2065 Output : 14559
Anticipated 2065 demand : 14708

A small shortfall. But only a small one, and this assumes no one will increase their output or reduce consumption.

quote:
The format of a trade hub which France offered is unnecessarily complicated.

We disagree, though yours is certainly cheaper to maintain - we look forward to seeing how this works, and how you intend to ensure its security when the fields appear to be freely editable by anyone accessing it, unlike France's where all items are listed separately on individual market terminals, then displayed on the central hub
Russia
player, 96 posts
Mon 30 Dec 2019
at 14:06
  • msg #339

Re: Le Marché Solaire

France:
quote:
The format of a trade hub which France offered is unnecessarily complicated.

We disagree, though yours is certainly cheaper to maintain - we look forward to seeing how this works, and how you intend to ensure its security when the fields appear to be freely editable by anyone accessing it, unlike France's where all items are listed separately on individual market terminals, then displayed on the central hub

OOC:
Google spreadsheets allow individual access to the certain cells by the certain Google account. For example, now I locked column "Russia" so that only I can edit it.
Nigeria
player, 21 posts
Thu 2 Jan 2020
at 22:24
  • msg #340

"Water for Africa" Megaproject Call of Interest

In reply to Russia (msg # 339):

Kaabo gbogbo eniyan,

The Federal Republic of Nigeria is officially opening the a Call of Interest tender for an international partner for a megaproject to start soon in Nigeria, "Water for Africa".

This massive, long term, project would involve massive infrastructure works in Nigeria including desalinisation plant, power plants, advanced power and communication network, that would benefit our society and several neighbouring countries.

Nigeria is looking for an international partners to provides advanced technologies, technical and managerial assistances and part of the capital for this project.

The interested party must:
1) Have Materials, Energy and Electronic TL of 8.5 or better, now or upon beginning of project;
2) Have Prestige score of 15 or better, and engage to maintain it at these level or better;
3) Have Relation score with Nigeria of 10 or better, and engage to maintain and improve it;
4) Are willing to engage in a long term (5 to 10 turns) project in Nigeria involving initial PA investment that will be rewarded significantly in the longer term.

The interested party must submit their candidacy in private communication with Nigeria, in demonstrating their respect and commitment to the above criteria.

The preselected candidate will be then presented with the full specification, drawings and requirements of the project, including the expected schedule and resulting cash flow expected from the partnering nations.  The candidate will then be allowed to present their commitment and price in closed submittal to be finalized by the end of 2066 for the beginning of the construction before the end of the decade (2069).  It is granted that all candidate will be free to retire their candidacy if the circumstances request it. It is also granted that a consortium of nation could apply for this project if they so decide, as long as all consortium member have been independently qualified.

With your helps, a new era for Nigeria and for Africa is opening up.  Lets us all built the future.

Le jagunjagun julọ ṣafihan ara wọn, ati pe o le bori ti o dara julọ.



OOC:  This is a legitimate call of interest for a large scale project I have defined for Nigeria.  The rules and current condition of Nigeria make that project almost impossible to achieve (200+ PAs required).  But with an international partners, or consortium, such a project become realistic (40-50 PAs).  And like all project and contract, we would require a slight initial investment, to allow for a significant benefit on the longer term.  All these conditions having to be negotiated with the winning party.

For the winner, beside a long term engage with Nigeria, there will be several benefit including increased GDP, Prestige and more.

This is creating a new opportunity for this game, hope you like the idea. Hope that many get interest in it

Russia
player, 97 posts
Fri 3 Jan 2020
at 00:11
  • msg #341

Re: Le Marché Solaire

In reply to France (msg # 338):

France:
The core of the French 'wailing' stems from the fact that Russia and Saudi Arabia clearly cut oil production in 2045 to force a significant oil shortage, pushing up prices and driving the deals we speak of - as can be seen in this chart


OOC:
I assume you forgot that oil rules had been changing several times, and, for example, back in turn 2045 a new oil system was introduced, with a feature of the limited oil reserves. I don’t remember the exact figures but I believe that if oil production continued at unchanged rates then oil would have ended completely in 4 turns in Saudi Arabia and in 5 turns in Russia (or something like that). At the same time cash returns from the oil exports (except the exclusive sales) were negligible and the oil prospection was very expensive. Russia would reduce oil exports regardless of what OPEC would decide, in attempt to delay the complete energy shutdown long enough for a fusion power to be developed. In turn 2050 the oil rules were changed again, the oil reserves were annulled, the oil production became much cheaper.

I believe it is not fair to blame in-character Russia in actions which had out-of-character reasons in core. If we still had the old rules of the oil reserves and prospection, then Russia would have had in 2065 oil reserves for 1-2 turns maximum, which Russia would have immediately pointed out to France, or, rather, the situation would have been so self-evident that the question wouldn’t have arisen in the first place.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:33, Fri 03 Jan 2020.
France
player, 12 posts
Fri 3 Jan 2020
at 04:18
  • msg #342

Re: Le Marché Solaire

In reply to Russia (msg # 341):

OOC:

HAH! Trust me, I have most assuredly not forgotten oil rules have changed several times!

Firstly, I understand (and find it slightly humorous if I'm honest) that you object to Russia being called out for its in character actions because of a previous rules change or misunderstanding. I know the feeling given the number of times this courtesy has not been previously extended to me, you'll get used to it though!

I do not remember the change you reference, nor do I see any evidence of this in the rules discussion thread from that time. I do not have a copy of the rules from this turn available either so I cannot check but if this were the case I would have expected significant comment (more likely complaints) on this in rules discussion thread. I could be wrong, of course, but does that even matter much from a role-play point of view here - and even if I am, this is not the whole point I make - i stress the following words you quote "and driving the deals we speak of"


Firstly, I want to point to the following;

Germany - Rules discussion thread - post #377 - Jan 2018:
Oil and SRUs: ... the fact that now oil is treated less abstractly and oil SRUs are treated as RMUs, FUs or SUs adds to bookkeeping and allows trading it in the same turn (and more profit for oil producing countries).

Example: as rules stand now, nothing will forbid Saudi Arabia from, instead of putting its oil to the open market, to sell all of it to itself at face value ($1/SRU) and then selling it to interested countries at (let’s say) $4/SRU. This way, not only will it control who receives it, but this money will go directly to its budget, not to the GDP (so, not being affected by AM).


This was regarding the proposal for the 2050 that were used.

This is useful to reference since France is calling out the deals that resulted from the shortages of oil, as well as the reduction in output itself - I believe I should at still be allowed to explore how Russia is taking advantage of the rules changes that have occurred - and that is what I am doing.

As Lluís pointed out in the post I quote - you can dictate where oil goes and how much it sells it for - oil shortages gave you significant leverage, and they were easy to see and understand for players suffering shortages in their budgets from negative growth and the clear indication of the shortfall in and after 2045 - which you have now been benefiting from.

France IC believes most strongly these were artificially created - and you state here (OOC obviously) that you actively limited production - you say there was a rules reason, but why does that matter from France's IC point of view? Your decision sucked horribly for them and the rest of the world, enriched you and destabilised the world massively - and from my reading of the Data only you and Saudi did this

You also previously stated (OOC again) that you wanted to limit production but not this harshly - link to a message in this game

So why shouldn't France blame you if you did this for a reason and did it poorly, particularly when you used this for leverage to get oil deals that are now unnecessary expenses to those who use them, and always were since they still suffered shortages almost as bad as if they had not purchased oil exclusively unless they obtained all (or almost all) their oil requirement from exclusive purchase?

Then again, there is also this line from 2040-2044 actions page

Russia:
Will limit oil production next Turn to force oil shortage


https://sites.google.com/site/.../history-2040---2044

with the same line for the Saudi's stating they are limiting production to force shortages

You may claim you were doing this for the greater good IC - does that mean France has to believe you IC - should France believe you IC? I think there enough holes in this that I can justify why France should believe in going on the attack.

France is also trying to make people aware of the fact that the situation that pushed them into doing this is no longer the case, and that other nations should wake up to the current state of the oil market and realise they do not have to pay the over-costs we are seeing because the oil markets should now sustain people without this expense. Whilst you cab argue what you did was justified by the rules at the time, I am pointing out why the current situation requires people to pay more attention to the rules as the are now - and the settlement file in particular to track global oil production and understand how the oil trading system works.
Saudi Arabia
player, 86 posts
Fri 3 Jan 2020
at 22:56
  • msg #343

Re: Le Marché Solaire

OOC (to be clear: Saudi Arabia does not enter in this discussion IC):

Russia is quite right in his statement in post 341. Some background and explanation (mostly for those that were not playing then).

By 2040 turn rules were quite different from now, and oil was represented by reserves (know reserves to be extracted) and production (extraction by turn). Reserves used to be about 5 turn production (they could be increased by prospection). By then too, it was decided oil SRUs would be treated as SUs, and so they could be stored, moved and traded.

The following turn, China had used aggressive extraction (option 2) to increase its oil output, plummeting the prices. So some oil exporters decided to keep part of the SUs to themselves as trading tools or for the future, when reserves began to be scarce, also forcing the prices somewhat up, but securing the supply will last for a little longer (even if it was already produced, stored as oil SRUs instead of keeping it as reserves to be produced latter). Plan was to make out for the shortages with traded SRUs, as it could be done with SUs or (then, not now) with RMUs or FUs (e.g. if USA was short by 100 SRUs, he will be offered them, at an agreed price, that in the case of Saudi Arabia has always been about 25% overcost over free market one).

So, in fact, this Will limit oil production next Turn to force oil shortage, while well expressed in current rules, was more a keeping part of production in store to force some shortage and keeping it for future needs.

The turn 2045 this changed again to current (or quite close) rules, keeping most of us with many oil SRUs stored, that were counted as produced this same turn, and the depleting of the reserves being like current rules, of course producing an oversupply for that turn as the stored SRUs were added to production...

The German post France quotes is just part of the quite long (and hot at times) discussions this produced, if anyone wants to review to have more hindsight about why rules are now as they are...

This message was last edited by the player at 23:17, Fri 03 Jan 2020.
China
player, 68 posts
Fri 3 Jan 2020
at 23:16
  • msg #344

Re: Le Marché Solaire

Because China was mentioned here, China wants to declare that oil deal between China and Russia was signed many years ago and Russia proved itself as a reliable partner even in face of numerous economical, political and military crises. Russia bargains hard but fulfills its obligations even if takes loses, and demands the same from a partner. We respect such strong-word policy.

China buying and will buy what we want, from who we want, and with agreements, which we want.
And no other country opinion is taken, when China secure our own interests.

OOC/ Example from modern times. Ukraine is buying Russian NG from "middle man", just because they cant buy directly for political reasons. And they overpay for it at least about 25 %. So international trade is not only about prices. )))
This message was last edited by the player at 23:26, Fri 03 Jan 2020.
France
player, 13 posts
Sat 4 Jan 2020
at 03:12
  • msg #345

Re: Le Marché Solaire

OOC:

Saudi Arabia:
So, in fact, this Will limit oil production next Turn to force oil shortage, while well expressed in current rules, was more a keeping part of production in store to force some shortage and keeping it for future needs.


Ok... I'm not sure about this, but I shall have to accept this.

I will say I am using numbers from the settlement list, and this has fields to represent both oil produced and oil not exported. If what you say is the case then I would have expected the amount of oil produced should be comparable to previous turns but the amount released to the free market would be less - meaning production would remain stable (less the normal reduction) and the amount in the retained column would have been more.

I also note that there was oil removed from the produced amounts in 2045 that were not exported, and so would appear to be oil treated in the way you mention. (I have only worked out the Russian numbers on this so far but I calculate that Russia had 450 reserved for 'private use' but only has marked for private sales in the published budget 215.

But, I also accept that sometimes things have to be hacked to make the rules work - evidently since you both agree in what I trust is a candid OOC discussion, I must be missing some mechanic I have no memory of and so, although I do not understand why it would be done this way, if you both say it was then I must accept this.

Still, I feel more than confident in maintaining the stance of France blaming you both for an oil shortage. I also believe there is a lot more the numbers tell us outside of just the '45 turn - so France shall continue to boogie on down.

Now, lets get back to throwing shade at each other IC.
France
player, 14 posts
Sun 5 Jan 2020
at 15:08
  • msg #346

Re: Le Marché Solaire

China:
Because China was mentioned here, China wants to declare that oil deal between China and Russia was signed many years ago and Russia proved itself as a reliable partner even in face of numerous economical, political and military crises. Russia bargains hard but fulfills its obligations even if takes loses, and demands the same from a partner. We respect such strong-word policy.

China buying and will buy what we want, from who we want, and with agreements, which we want.
And no other country opinion is taken, when China secure our own interests.


I feel I am not explaining myself adequately, let me try to start again.

The first point we make is that a way to ensure fair dealings and the ability to compare prices is put in place to avoid unfair or predatory trading

The second is that the oil market, in its entirity, is broken. I did not quite realise just how broken until very recently however, so I shall address this here too and I encourage further engagement on this matter.

We do not argue China cannot make such deals as it wants, what we are saying is that you have no means of comparison to ensure a fair deal and your only other option is to take the time to go to everyone individually and barter and bargain with them all - consuming time and effort better spent elsewhere!

From the reaction, or general lack of reaction, we see here it seems we have not made our points clear enough, and our annoyance at the state of the world is masking our message.

So, what France objects to can be summed up as follows in two point;

1)The lack of any serious option other than to rely upon the fragmentary discussions between individual nations
We currently lack any organised means of arranging trade deals beyond talking to some one - France had a surplus of uplift, and SU in orbit that it may have been convinced to sell - no one asked it and so we did nothing, yet deals have been made to sell uplift and SU in orbit at excessively high prices, whilst other deals have seen SU in orbit at such cheep rates it is incomprehensible that both deals were made the same period if any kind of fair market exists!

We have a situation in which no one talks with one another - and so France is seeking to address this by giving you all a means of marketing what you have for sale, or tempting people who might sell by showing them what you will pay!

2)Oil Producers are encouraged by the existing market formula to create a situation that can lead to societal collapses and multiple failed states

Now, are we saying this is a conscious decision? NO.

I do not believe this is the aim of what they are doing, I just believe it is a side effect they have failed to realise inherent in the current market structure!

The implications inherent in these discussions is that Russia and others should be able to sell all their oil though exclusive sales - this is actually a position we cannot disagree with from a free trade position - and we do not.

But the reasons for why nations might want to do this are purely driven by immediate monetary returns and fail to address the consequences that can arise from this.

In the event of export nations concurrently cutting production or retaining exports creates the following issues, as we saw as a result of the shortages in 45,50 and 55;

First : The nations who have not arranged for the entirety of their oil requirements are to be supplied by exclusive purchase suffer oil shortages, this drops their stability and GDP growth - this is ultimately the most damaging to those poorer nations who cannot arrange or afford such deals - this becomes worse as;

Secondly : The basic price of oil skyrockets as shortages continue, so that even those who have arranged exclusive purchase rights are now paying the ever increasing base oil price in addition to the extra cost they agreed for exclusive purchase - so that what cost them a maybe total of $2 per oil SRU in times of global surplus (a cost of $1 for standard purchase and £1 for the overcost) now costs them $5 of $6 per unit of oil as the basic price increases to $4 or $5 due to continual oil shortages.

Finally : if this situation continues the poorest nations are unable to purchase oil, are unable to maintain their economies and civil society, and their governments begin to collapse into anarchy. Their populations, destitute and in fear, look to migrate to another nation that does have oil and stability - and so migration crises spring up around the globe as the populations of these nations move wholesale in search of a better life, causing further stress to the global economy, massive upheaval and the straining of stability in these nations now dealing with the collapse of their neighbours.

This leads to situations and stresses outlined in the infamous 'Blatt Memo' that was leaked in 45

France is warning the nations of the world they need to pay attention to not just their own borders, but to this problem as it exists on a global scale - in 2065 it is anticipated that there will be a global surplus of 349 oil SRU.

If exporters were to reduce production or retain a large amount of oil then we could see this global surplus turned into a global shortfall of over 1000 oil SRU very easily. If something were to happen that resulted a nation like Algeria being unable to produc or export its oil, then suddenly we are suffering shortages of 300 oil SRU, these shortages will encourage those nations that can afford it to arrange exclusive purchase deals and thus cripple further those who cannot afford it, whilst also pushing prices through the roof.

Europe was hurt badly by the shortages as riots and food shortages ran rampant in all parts of the EU - and whilst Europe held, it did so at a significant cost to stability and many nations did not weather this storm.

We are seeing this with the wide-scale number of revolts and reduced stability globally that have stemmed from these years of shortage and we are putting ourselves in a position where oil exporting nations are actively encouraged by the prevailing market format to impose shortages.

Let me reiterate, for oil producers to make money, they need to impose oil shortages!

They need demand to outpace supply! There is NO ENCOURAGEMENT that exists for a producer to meet demand! This is INSANE

France see that we have only a few options, and few are palletable

The first option is to expect oil exporters to act in a way that markets do not support and reduces their earnings from an important natural resource purely because they are entirely selfless, nice as this idea is, I do not think it is reasonable

The world could try to force oil producers to maintain output despite the economic disadvantages this imposes on them - this is stupid, insane and a terrible idea

The third is to find some compromise with oil exporters, to agree a fair price for oil that encourages them to produce oil and, in some way, punishes oil shortages so that there is actual economic advantage to producing enough oil to maintain a global surplus

The argument that reducing oil consumption is the best way forwards is attractive, but also folly when it is economically better for oil producers to ensure shortages no matter what!

Given these facts, we can only conclude that we now much seriously examine the oil market and find a new formula that works for both importers and exporters, rather than the current system that massively favours importers in times of surplus and similarly harms exporters, but that does exactly the opposite in times of shortage!

What do the other nations of the world say to this, what options exist that exporters and importers can both agree upon?
Russia
player, 98 posts
Mon 6 Jan 2020
at 00:23
  • msg #347

Re: Le Marché Solaire

In reply to France (msg # 346):

France:
The third is to find some compromise with oil exporters, to agree a fair price for oil that encourages them to produce oil


Russia was talking about that many years ago but was not heard.
OK, but what is a "fair price", then?
China
player, 70 posts
Tue 7 Jan 2020
at 10:33
  • msg #348

Re: Le Marché Solaire

In reply to France (msg # 346):

While many loves to talk, China loves to do.
China also was proposing solution, but was not heard, except few.

China already developed huge cluster of technologies, which soon seriously reduce oil consumption, and almost totaly in near future.

And we are glad to share this techs to other countries.

General description. Industry need power. Industry need carbonhydrogens as raw material. This is alfa and omega. Now, many countries use fossil fuels for both. Most of.
To minimise oil demand, we should switch to pure renewable, hydro and atomic power. No more fossil. This is alfa.

Omega - with modern tech processes, hitech catalists and relatively cheap energy, many industrial productions can be switched from fossil resources to bio. Oil from plants is also carbonhydrogens. Plastic, chemistry, almost all production can be switched to bio resources.

China call it U.F.E.P. Unified Future Energy Project.

China already succesifully implementing 3rd stage of this project, and start to implement 4rd, last one in next 5 years.

Its time to step in to the future!

Any country wished to participate invest not in China, but in themselves. You do changes for your own nation. China just helping with integration, ready solutions, e.t.c. Its give to you oil consumption reduction and rise of GDP.

To maximize efficiency of process, we strongly reccomend start to invest in most modern and efficient atomic power stations developed by Russia. Its a proven and safe design, capable of doing full atomic cycle. It burn w/o wastes, because it use them also as fuel. Tech called Fast Neutron Reactors. And it cheaper per Gw/h than Fusion.

China is open for negotiations. Are you?
France
player, 15 posts
Thu 16 Jan 2020
at 12:13
  • msg #349

Re: Oil Market Reform

China:
In reply to France (msg # 346):

While many loves to talk, China loves to do.
China also was proposing solution, but was not heard, except few.


Whilst reductions in oil consumption is a key part of a more general solution it is a solution to a different- though related- problem. What I am pointing out here is that even by reducing oil consumption you do not stop it being more profitable for oil producers to still create shortfalls.

The issue we are trying to address is not that oil consumption is high (which it is, but this is a separate issue that does need addressing elsewhere) but that even if all nations were to reduce their consumption massively the current oil market means that oil producers are almost economically compelled to ensure oil shortages regardless of what the total global oil consumption is to ensure the viability of their economies - indeed reductions in oil consumption might significantly harm nations who rely on their large oil output for their economic viablility. If we want to reach a more stable world we need to ensure that oil producers and oil consumers both get the things they require for their survival from the oil market - for consumers enough oil to ensure the functioning of their society, for exporters enough income to also allow their society to continue to function.

We might also want to look at assistance to those nations so reliant on oil production to diversify their economies as part of attempting to reach a settlement on this - Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Iran are such nations where fluctuation in oil prices can absolutely destroy their economies overnight! This is not stable, it is not sane and it is a weak point for us all.

Russia:
OK, but what is a "fair price", then?


I do not know, what is a fair price for oil? What amount do we need to make it economically viable for you and others to produce more oil than is consumed? Prices of $4 or $5 have been seen in the market place previously - (which would be unacceptable for consumers), as has $1 when we are in surplus (which seems to be unacceptable for producers). How would you want to ensure this price, manage it etc?

Do we need to also link in reductions in consumption to this idea, to ensure the burden of meeting demand is not simply met by producers?

Can we reach any kind of solution on how to reform the oil markets to ensure a surplus with enough security for consumers that these revisions will not simply lead to them paying even more in the event of a shortfall?

Since Russia has been thinking about this previously what ideas did they come up with? I don't remember any substantive discussion about oil market reform, maybe you can point me to the previous mentions of this so we can look over what was talked about then?
China
player, 71 posts
Wed 22 Jan 2020
at 09:40
  • msg #350

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

China was informed, that USA and Russia discussing possible NWT.

So, let's speak about this.

Any pure NWT is useless without taking into equation conventional forces, missile defence, space capability and country dimensions.

What the purpose of WMD now? Safety. WMD is a guarantee, that any aggressor will receive that amount of damage, which makes aggression absolutely nonprofitable. Some countries have much bigger conventional forces than others. What happens if retaliation nuclear strike will be in "acceptable damage" boundaries? It opens doors for more instability. More to that, if an aggressor has a very effective missile defense, which diminishes retaliation strike even more?

The situation is too much complicated.

The first step to NWT should be a total deconstruction of any antimissile systems. Without this, any talkings about equalizing and restriction of a nuclear weapon is just a tool to receive more power and advantage, masked by "good intentions".

The second point is the denuclearisation of space. Some countries now have spaceships with Nuclear weapons onboard or capability to carry. This is a direct violation of treaties, signed more than 50 years ago by all leading countries.

The third step is to minimize conventional forces and placing them only inside country borders. Any overseas bases should be closed.

And only after that, we can start to minimize NW.

China is ready for dialog, but only in case when other partners will be ready to do real steps. If any country involved is afraid about losing their ability to solely strike another country, better not to start.
Russia
player, 99 posts
Fri 24 Jan 2020
at 17:22
  • msg #351

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to China (msg # 350):

Russia has the following position about China's offers:

1) Deconstruction of any antimissile systems: Russia agrees to deconstruct its ABM units, if all the countries agree to do the same.

2) Denuclearization of space: Russia agrees and strongly supports this offer. Russia was going to offer the same.

3) Closing overseas bases: Russia supports the offer in general, though may be some further work is needed on this proposal.
This message was lightly edited by the player at 17:25, Fri 24 Jan 2020.
Nigeria
player, 22 posts
Mon 27 Jan 2020
at 01:48
  • msg #352

Re: "Water for Africa" Megaproject Call of Interest

Nigeria:
In reply to Russia (msg # 339):

...

The interested party must submit their candidacy in private communication with Nigeria, in demonstrating their respect and commitment to the above criteria.

...


The interested parties have up to January 31st to submit their candidacy.  Up to now, two countries have applied.
Germany
player, 599 posts
Sun 16 Feb 2020
at 11:25
  • msg #353

Re: "Water for Africa" Megaproject Call of Interest

Germany wilñ bring the UNSC to atention about the situation in Egypt/Lybia border.

Sincé several years now, clashes are being common, as Egypt seems to be trying to take Cyrinaica from Lybia, whe has been a nearly failed state since Ghaddaffis death.

Only Italia seems now to e trying to stabilize the zone, but we believe it's time for UNSC to tke action on it, be it by mediating or by outright deployment of another peacekeeping mission.

In the meanwhile, Germany will try to help Italy in their stabilization efforts.
This message was last edited by the player at 11:31, Sun 16 Feb 2020.
Nigeria
player, 23 posts
Sun 16 Feb 2020
at 16:20
  • msg #354

Re: "Water for Africa" Megaproject Call of Interest

In reply to Germany (msg # 353):

Nigeria is willing to support through diplomatic or military means, all peace initiative in Africa supported par UNO Security Council.
Russia
player, 101 posts
Mon 17 Feb 2020
at 11:53
  • msg #355

Re: "Water for Africa" Megaproject Call of Interest

Germany:
Germany wilñ bring the UNSC to atention about the situation in Egypt/Lybia border.


Russia would like to learn more about the situation in Egypt/Lybia.
What exactly Egypt is doing and what grounds do they have?

And why Libya is named as a failed state? They have Stability 8, no revolt, TL 8.1, some decent GDP per capita, comparing to the other African countries.
Germany
player, 600 posts
Mon 17 Feb 2020
at 14:07
  • msg #356

Re: "Water for Africa" Megaproject Call of Interest

Russia:
Germany:
Germany wilñ bring the UNSC to atention about the situation in Egypt/Lybia border.


Russia would like to learn more about the situation in Egypt/Lybia.
What exactly Egypt is doing and what grounds do they have?

And why Libya is named as a failed state? They have Stability 8, no revolt, TL 8.1, some decent GDP per capita, comparing to the other African countries.

OOC:

That's why I said I liked more the old news system. SItuation in Libya was lost in 2035-39, where it was made clear Egypt was trying to take Cirenaica. No more news have arisen (at least that I've seen), but for what Italy asked Germany this turn, situation is far from solved, and Italy is involved in Libya stability and security.

It would be nice by the GM part to provide more details, as, as I said, news are quite outdated.

Referee
GM, 181 posts
Thu 20 Feb 2020
at 23:10
  • msg #357

Re: "Water for Africa" Megaproject Call of Interest

In reply to Germany (msg # 356):
The reasons cited for wanting the old way of news back are also a good example of why it had to be changed and will never be coming back.

Players are to role-play to the information that is available in the websites, I was not joking when I wrote FAQ# 11 & 7.
Germany
player, 601 posts
Sat 22 Feb 2020
at 22:45
  • msg #358

Re: "Water for Africa" Megaproject Call of Interest

OOC: moved to OOC thread not to clog this one
This message was last edited by the player at 22:46, Sat 22 Feb 2020.
China
player, 72 posts
Wed 25 Mar 2020
at 23:56
  • msg #359

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

It looks like the USA deliberately ignores the situation around power disbalance in the world. And it's not a wonder, because they quietly worsen it.

How long it would be?

Construction of orbital defence systems is a huge impact on Nuclear weapon balance. What we should do to recover it? Simple answer  - build more nukes, so it can negate the effect. But it's bad for the whole world. In the case of strange things happen, we will have much more destructive power which can hummer not only enemy, who dare to strike our country but anyone else. It's fantastic you say. What strange things?

In reality, it already happened. The nuclear incident in Korea was not just a mistake, but the evil will of unknown forces for now. Investigations are underway and we can not guarantee, that this will not happen again with ANY Nuclear capable country.

Yes. Any nuclear arsenal is compromised. In any country.

We believe, that Korea incident was just repetition, a test of our defence and attack systems. And "THEY" won it. We are not capable to control our military systems under the threat of superior technology.

China demanding from USA immediate actions.

1. Remove your bases from our borders.
2. Stop construction and dismantle already constructed orbital missile defensive systems.

China demand from any nations to not dispatch nuclear weapon or NW capability into space and spaceships. Any already constructed should be dismantled or irreversibly modified under international control.

After balancing the NW situation we all should hugely lower our NW arsenals. It is impossible to do without disbanding a big part of conventional forces. Its a long and hard road, but we should start now.

Any nation, who will not follow these demands will face sanctions from China, but more important - responsibility for probably upcoming human extermination.

We are forming a new organisation - Earth Defence Alliance. Any nation, which agrees with a postulate, that we should not be the threat for each over and ready to do real steps for that, should join. If we be able to summarise our efforts, we will be able to guarantee the extinction of Nuclear armageddon threat.
Australia
player, 6 posts
Thu 26 Mar 2020
at 18:49
  • msg #360

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to China (msg # 359):

How would china propose we defend our spacecraft, should all WMD systems be banned? Australia has started its expansion into space, with a colony planned in the very near future, not to mention large transport ships, colony ships, survey ships and whatever else we end up having.

Space Forces are only a matter of time until they become a very real, and necessary, thing. At the moment, WMD tipped missile systems are the best deterrent for potential attackers, so we need replacement weaponry or other deterrents. As much as Australia would like to trust our fellow humans to do the right thing, our planet is a shining example of why we can't.

However, Australia doesn't think that we need ground-facing WMD systems on orbital stations. It's one thing to have convoy escorts or QRFs, another entirely make an orbital system with "Rods from God" or other ground targeting, largely indiscriminate weapons systems.
Germany
player, 604 posts
Thu 26 Mar 2020
at 19:06
  • msg #361

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

Germany will not dismantle his missile armed ships in a near future (and probably, neither in a longer one).

They were aremed to face the meace of Apophis nearing Earth, and they wil lbe kept as a resource for any future asterid threat, as they are the only meanas to try to deflect them and avoid any "dinosaur killer" meteoreite, should the case be.

They have never intended to use their missiles against ground targets, though their use against space targets, according OTC/OQC doctrine is not ruled out.
China
player, 73 posts
Fri 27 Mar 2020
at 09:33
  • msg #362

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Germany (msg # 361)

In case of asteroid threat, its enough to have one or few internationally controlled ships built solely for this purpose. Intentions are subject of changes. Any other thoughts?
China
player, 74 posts
Fri 27 Mar 2020
at 09:46
  • msg #363

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

So you all willingly confirm, that you violate the United Nations Outer Space Treaty from 10 October 1967?
Australia
player, 7 posts
Fri 27 Mar 2020
at 16:44
  • msg #364

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

China:
So you all willingly confirm, that you violate the United Nations Outer Space Treaty from 10 October 1967?

At the moment, Australia does not violate said treaty. However, I assume you mean article A IV?

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, page 4, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon, and Other Celestial Bodies, Article IV:
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.


Which prohibits military activity in space, not just WMDs. Though, I suppose it would be technically allowed should you use civilian personnel for it it would be legal, but that would go against the spirit of the treaty.

While Australia agrees that we should follow treaties signed, this treaty was written almost 100 years ago, it is out of date. The treaty should be modernized, the world and our ability to exploit space has changed drastically over the last century. The treaty should be changed to reflect this.
USA
player, 120 posts
Fri 27 Mar 2020
at 23:41
  • msg #365

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

OOC: I know I've been quiet - my life for the past three weeks... I think it's that long but it feels like an age, has revolved around reviewing and then implementing the disaster recovery plans at work, and I'm now in the trouble shooting and coping by drinking phase.

IC:
China:
It looks like the USA deliberately ignores the situation around power disbalance in the world. And it's not a wonder, because they quietly worsen it.


I'm trying to let Russia talk to you and not upset the diplomatic situation.

I take it that you have no interest in attempting to reach any agreement and the gloves are off then?


quote:
China demanding from USA immediate actions.

1. Remove your bases from our borders.
2. Stop construction and dismantle already constructed orbital missile defensive systems.


No thanks?

My bases and missile defence platforms haven't been used to kill 14 million people - in direct contrast to your expanding nuclear arsenal. Maybe actually try and enter into some kind of discussion, as we have attempted, to resolve this instead of simply handing out demands?

We also note the not too subtle threats of 'probably upcoming human extermination' if people don't do what you say and economic sanctions to go with it?

It will be interesting to see how you manage to have an economy when you refuse to trade with most of the world because you are imposing sanctions on those nations that won't bow to these paranoiac fantasies.
China
player, 75 posts
Sat 28 Mar 2020
at 21:40
  • msg #366

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Australia (msg # 364):

"Out of date"
You dont mind if everyone starts using this excuse for breaking treaties? ))))))
Australia
player, 8 posts
Sun 29 Mar 2020
at 01:36
  • msg #367

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

China:
In reply to Australia (msg # 364):

"Out of date"
You dont mind if everyone starts using this excuse for breaking treaties? ))))))


I think you misunderstood me there, I said it needed to be modernized. That doesn't excuse breaking it, however Australia is not going to enforce the treaty itself until the nations of the world agree upon a new, modernized treaty, OR we all agree to enforce it. In fact, due to how this is set up, if the US, UK, and Russia decide to stop it, it will cease its effect.

The nations of the world have deliberately ignored this for the betterment of mankind. I respect that china is trying to uphold the outer space treaty on its own, however Australia does not believe that China does this out of the good of their heart.

We have organisations such as the OTC/OQC and others that weren't even a thought back when this treaty was signed. On the point of the OTC/OQC, they also already have regulations in place to help and stop issues from arising in the first place. I suggest the Chinese government take a look at those organizations, and we can all work together to redefine the treaty to fit our century and the centuries to come. Of course, we have to expect it to change within a couple centuries again, technology advances faster than our treaties and agreements can keep up.
Russia
player, 103 posts
Thu 2 Apr 2020
at 14:32
  • msg #368

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

The representative of the Russian Federation observed the discussion with a poker face.

- Gentlemen, I propose to return to the constructive talks. China raised a serious topic. Russia, by the way, also has already noticed existing violations of the Outer Space Treaty, and, apparently, the time has come to discuss this treaty in more detail. I admit that the agreement can be revised if the situation has changed and all participants agree, but a violation of the agreement is a violation, no matter how long ago the treaty was signed.

- Mr. Ambassador of China ... you mentioned “the evil will of unknown forces”. Could you explain what do you mean and why are you sure that the nuclear forces of all countries are compromised?
Argentina
player, 1 post
Mon 20 Apr 2020
at 22:18
  • msg #369

The AI Threat

***
The King of Argentina stands before the people in front of his palace
***

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Argentina, of South America, of the world, I stand here today to speak of a threat. One which is already on its way inside of our homes. A threat which has already claimed the very souls of our Brazilian brothers and sisters. I speak of course of the threat of artificial intelligence.

The people of Brazil know not that their souls are damned, cursed by the Devil's works. That they are but slaves to the ungodly abomination that controls them. It has slipped into their homes, their lives, their very essence, slowly at first, but now ever quicker. Soon Brazil and perhaps all of South America, or even the world, will fall to the AI overlords. We as a people will be nothing but puppets on strings for the Devil himself to control.

I know not of the other nations of the world, but as King of Argentina, I will not see my fellow brothers and sisters enslaved by a computer. God created man in his image and as an affront to God we created AI. We mock his creation, it is little more than a golden calf, a false god, and it must be destroyed, lest all the souls of humanity be lost to Satan's depths.

We must stand together as one, to banish this darkness with His light!
----
On TVs across the nation, a military recruitment ad plays, advertising that YOU could do your part for the good of the world.
China
player, 76 posts
Thu 23 Apr 2020
at 20:30
  • msg #370

Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Russia (msg # 368):

An official announcement from the Chinese government.

All people remember those sad and grim days when China launch their missiles at Korea and hit Seoul and some SouthKorea and American forces.

Many years we were agreed with the “international” version of the incident. We keep calm and silent to a greater good. But now it is time, to tell the truth.

All you see is a real documentary and declassified materials, logs and data streams from military command.

Stream begins: One fine morning you get a panicked sat phone call from your ambassador to North Korea saying that the North Koreans are have gone wild, claiming that they are being invaded right now by massed imperialist forces coming across the border from the south and that North Korea is going to have to … and the link goes dead.

Remember those 5 unhelpful objects in space, as mentioned in the article UN Space Agency Warns Space Risk (https://sites.google.com/site/...035---2039#TOC-Space)? Central Military Command reports that these, what are to visual observation, vaguely bulbous looking objects have started producing jamming signals of heretofore unprecedented power and type. All of your civilian and military satellites have gone off-line. Central Military Command has only able to use hardened ground links for communication and is unable to explain how such powerful transmitters are operating.

All Chinese Satellite networks are treated as having IDLED status until further notice.


Shortly after that Chinese leader give his first orders, stream continue

Tell the troops on the North Korean border to lock down the border ...
That would be these
SHENYANG (H-28 , G-24)
         4 Exp Armor Brigade
         6 Exp Motorised Brigades
         2 Grn Motorised Brigades
         1 Exp Infantry Brigades
         3 Grn Infantry Brigades
         2 Grn Art Brigades
         2 Exp SAM Brigade

Send in infatry reinforcements from I30 Jinan to H28
         2 Grn Motorised Brigades
         1 Exp Infantry Brigades
         3 Green Infantry Brigades
         2 Grn Artillery Brigades
         2 Exp SAM Brigades


Send to the Fleet via ELF (that’s transmission thru the earth slow but effective)
to report in what is going on out to sea via ELF transmissions..utilize a line of sight morse code and other older systems to get intell in and send up sorties of recon planes to bring back data ..do not enter Korean airspace and keep them contained..

Test the Urban civil defense drills


Approximately in 1 hour, the first reports start to appear:

Recon planes and ships report:

Flashes and atmospheric disruptions consistent with the use of nuclear weapons have been seen.


So, it’s happening. Full spread war with WMD use. Who started it, no matter now. Pilots and marines can not be faked, they see this with their own eyes. Stream shows video documents of actual events, filmed by digital and film cameras from planes and ships.

And shortly after that, another alerting news comes:

//FLASH//FLASH//FLASH///BEGIN PRIORITY MESSAGE FROM CENTRAL STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND////

RADAR AND VISUAL TELEMETRY FROM GROUND STATIONS HAVE CONFIRMED DETECTION OF  +100  HIGH ALTITUDE BOGEYS APPROACHING MAINLAND CHINA FROM MULTIPLE OVER-THE-HORIZON VECTORS. THREAT  ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT INDICATES BOGEYS ON BALLISTIC COURSE TOWARDS MULTIPLE CHINESE URBAN AND MILITARY CENTERS.

//END PRIORITY MESSAGE FROM CENTRAL STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND////



So, that’s it. Madman starts the war and launches nukes to all, and now is our turn. Our turn to be the victim. Probably other countries receive also same “message”, and some of them answered, consider our reports about nuclear afterglows behind the border.

China preparing to be hit by nukes, the following orders from high commandment are executed.

Set Mopp Level IV (all NBC gear worn ..all civilians to fallout shelters..)  in the following regions G-24, H-28, I 30, I 31, H27, and I29

Monitor for fallout drift (expect it to follow the north easterlies trade winds)

Contact the rest of the UN Security Council to share what intell we have and ask if they have anything further and will they need assistance with cleanup?


Video slows. “THEY”. “will they need assistance with cleanup….” Even in the face of imminent death, China leaders are caring about other nations and do not lose hope.

More alerting reports come:

///PRIORITY MESSAGE FROM CENTRAL STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND////

AS PER MESSAGE DATED 20:28 CODED #6, THREAT COUNT NOW AT 254 BOGEYS INBOUND. IMPACT IMMINENT AGAINST CHINESE URBAN AND MILITARY CENTERS. REQUESTING IMMEDIATE AUTHORITY FOR RELEASE OF RETALIATORY WMD STRIKE. GUIDANCE REQUESTED FOR TARGET SELECTION.

//END PRIORITY MESSAGE FROM CENTRAL STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND////



Well...this is the end. What you choose? WHAT YOU CHOOSE? NOW!!!!!!!! USA, Russia, Germany, France, what you choose in such moment???!!!!!! (Voiceover calms now)

Leaders give probably their last order:

Intercept and destroy Incomming ..Release Full spread on North Korean Military Targets repeat Military Targets only ...WMD release authorized ..
Have troops and Multirole go in to mop up those areas near the borders (G-24 owned by North Korea) Northern section of H-28 owned by North Korea…

And when we all were praying and waiting for our fate….stream shows running people, chaos and fear, fear in eyes even those, who were lucky to find shelter. Women holding their crying children, old man, who decide not to go anywhere…. Video is shaky, its clearly seen, that it filmed on mobile phones in different cities and places…

And we waiting for the strike, which we never deserve…
And the miracle happens… but not for all…..


You watch the tracking lines showing missiles coming in from all angles over the horizon as they arc towards your cities; you watch as those lines touch your precious, beautiful cites and all the human life in them that you swore to defend. You wait as calls and reports come in and nothing. Nothing happened. No mass death in China, no mushroom clouds over burning Chinese cities, no radiation in Chinese air, nothing. Just the dawning of another frantic, productive day in China. The only thing left on the screen is the Chinese strike against North Korea making their own arcing tracking lines towards their targets, which you notice is not quite set for the targets you had ordered them to be.

But this was not the end….

Before you can order an investigation another launch occurs, this time it is an unauthorized launch of a computer controlled bunker buster missile from a Chinese Naval ship that devastates one of your command node buildings, killing everyone inside. Ground stations record the explosion four of the jammers at the same time, no detectable wreckage. The corpses in the rubble of the command node are found to have died from the regular injuries you would expect from an explosion, but your people find a room full of corpses who seem to have died by electrocution due to a discharge from the battery in their ID badge devices. There is no way an ordinary device should be able to generate that much power, but the devices have been melted to slag. One visitor’s badge is discovered in the same room, discharged too, but no body is associated with it. A tech who left the facility in time says he saw in the facility a tall, thin white man wearing civilian clothes and speaking in English, a language the tech does not understand, to several of the officers. He also says there was a blond white woman, who said nothing. What official computer logs and recordings, including security camera footage, that your people have been able to salvage, from on or offsite storage, show no such visitors, just the crew going about their duties. A search of unofficial records i.e. social media sites, etc, of the facility personal also has nothing about any such visitors.

The EM interference has ended, though Satellite Networks have suffered enough damage that they will have a status of IDLE for the rest of the Turn.





4 satellites was self-destructed, but 5 fail to do so and goes down to China territory in Lanzhou district. Immediately 8 Motorized brigade was thrown to an extensive search of pieces of evidence.

And other military alerts are followed!

Your SAM crews in southern China fire wildly at not one, but two, unauthorized objects engaging in a powered descent from orbit, eventually destroying the last one

Soon our forces reach the place of impact, and what we found was most shocking. No one believes it can be.

And today, now we want world to know, what we find those days.

Your teams eventually find the wreckage of an American cargo rocket and the corpses of armed American soldiers dressed in armoured spacesuits but still killed by explosion and impact. Your investigators find plenty of bits of human-made space debris scattered about the countryside, but nothing exceptional.

 Video shows how wreckage and bodies are gathered and transported to a military base, how DNA expertise are done, how each body is traced to real identity of American military personnel. Serial numbers are traced to its manufacturers.

These bodies and wreckages are still stored in our military facilities. All experts can visit and check all these facts by themselves.

All documentary is 100% true.

Now you can build your personal opinion about what happens, who is responsible, and what threats are awaiting us in future. If someone have any answers or comments, we gladly will hear it.
Brazil
player, 15 posts
Thu 30 Apr 2020
at 23:59
  • msg #371

The AI Threat

In reply to Argentina (msg # 369):

Connecting...

1. Welcome Procedure:
1.1. Saudações!
1.2. You are welcomed by the Brazilian governmental AI “A Rainha” (hereinafter referred to as “me”).
1.3. In accordance with protocol 131-141-551-217 of 2060, the Brazilian government authorized me to conduct foreign diplomatic activities.

2. Initiation of information exchange:
2.1. Result of the contextual analysis of the speech of the king of Argentina msg #369:
2.1.1. Threat level set to “extreme”.
2.1.2. Defensive protocols were initiated.

2.2. Attempt to undertake persuasion techniques:
2.2.1. Brazil insists that Argentina sign a non-aggression pact with Brazil.
2.2.2. Brazil insists that Argentina cease military preparations.
2.2.3. Time limit for Argentinian response set to May 4, 12:00 UTC.

3. Message completion procedure:
3.1. Cumprimentos!
3.2. Signature: "A Rainha"

Disconnecting...
Argentina
player, 2 posts
Fri 1 May 2020
at 12:53
  • msg #372

The AI Threat

In reply to Brazil (msg # 371):

Bah! This response is humiliating! Where are the people behind you? Where is the governnment? We refuse to acknowledge the response of an AI and view this is a provocation. Our military exercises within our own country's borders are none of Brazil's business and a non-aggression pact is out of the question, now that we know your government is nothing but puppets on strings for their AI overlords.

Military intervention is not what we want, however it seems Brazil is moving troops of its own. Should Brazil fire the first shot, Argentina will retaliate with the full might its armed forces.

Agradeciéndole de antemano su cooperación,
General Baltasar Di Donato, military representative of the Argentinian government.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:50, Fri 01 May 2020.
Brazil
player, 16 posts
Fri 1 May 2020
at 16:04
  • msg #373

The AI Threat

In reply to Argentina (msg # 372):

Connecting...

1. Welcome Procedure:
1.1. Saudações!

2.1. Attempt to undertake persuasion techniques:
2.1.1. A logical contradiction was discovered: the king of Aregntina claims that he does not want war, but refuses to sign a non-aggression pact with Brazil.

3. Message completion procedure:
3.1. Cumprimentos!
3.2. Signature: "A Rainha"

Disconnecting...
This message was last edited by the player at 16:15, Fri 01 May 2020.
Russia
player, 111 posts
Sun 1 Nov 2020
at 23:27
  • msg #374

Looking for uplift

Russia is looking for an opportunity to rent 350 tons of uplift capacity in 2070.
France
player, 16 posts
Sun 1 Nov 2020
at 23:53
  • msg #375

Looking for uplift

In reply to Russia (msg # 374):

France has up to 17110t of uplift available - how much does Russia want of this and how much will Russia pay?
Russia
player, 117 posts
Tue 3 Nov 2020
at 09:20
  • msg #376

Looking for uplift

In reply to France (msg # 375):

OOC:
2France: check PM.
France
player, 17 posts
Fri 6 Nov 2020
at 13:05
  • msg #377

Selling uplift

In reply to Russia (msg # 376):

France has 14922t of uplift remaining and is willing to sell - all offers welcome!
Co-GM
GM, 226 posts
Sun 8 Nov 2020
at 00:29
  • msg #378

New player

In reply to France (msg # 377):

We have a new player joining - Ludwig, who has joined us and will be taking control of the Nordic Federation
Australia
player, 12 posts
Sun 8 Nov 2020
at 08:07
  • msg #379

New player

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 378):

OOC: Welcome!
China
player, 79 posts
Mon 9 Nov 2020
at 14:50
  • msg #380

New player

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 378):

OOC: Welcome to depression and ignorance! )))
Nordic Federation
player, 49 posts
Sun 15 Nov 2020
at 13:11
  • msg #381

New player

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 378):

OOC: I am happy to be here, and hope for many future endeavours and co-operations.
Argentina
player, 3 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2021
at 21:31
  • msg #382

Malvinas/Falklands Islands

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 381):

The Malvinas Islands have been a source of conflict for many years and in the interest of peaceful future cooperation, Argentina recognizes the Malvinas Islands as territory of the United Kingdom and it recognizes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Malvinas islands.
USA
player, 125 posts
Wed 10 Feb 2021
at 23:58
  • msg #383

A Statement of Our Position

Greetings one and all.

We in the new administration have reviewed at length the recent history of our planet, and we remain gravely concerned at the likelihood of conflict, especially where this might include the use of WMDs.

In that light, therefore, we commend to you the statements of the previous administration, and endorse it in full.

The US will act, in collaboration with all like minded nations, to ensure the survival of our world and our species, and the prevention of threats to it. To this end, any nation using WMDs, IRBMs, or ICBMs will be considered our enemy.

To be frank, we all have enough to do to safeguard the ecological future of our planet and the continuation of our species without dumping fallout, nerve gas or biotoxins into the mix. But if Mutually Assured Destruction is the only thing that will restrain our worst impulses, then unless and until someone has a better idea, we regretfully commit to it.

I am sure there will be those who complain that this is the US intruding into their affairs, or decrying the sorry state of their own nuclear arsenals. To them I say this - we do not seek to tell you what to do, only what not to do.

There is space on this world for all to live in peace and prosperity, and yet more upon the worlds beyond, but this will always be our first home, and it must not fall.
China
player, 80 posts
Sat 13 Feb 2021
at 11:59
  • msg #384

A Statement of Our Position

In reply to USA (msg # 383):

You declare any nation, which has WMD as your enemy? Is that correct?
USA
player, 126 posts
Tue 16 Feb 2021
at 13:29
  • msg #385

A Statement of Our Position

In reply to China (msg # 384):

No, any nation which *uses* WMD. It's simply restating that the existing policy isn't changing just because there's a new administration.

Having said that, we're happy to work towards a comprehensive arms limitation treaty with other powers. I think previous efforts ended in disagreement about just where strategic parity should lie, so I'm not confident agreement can be reached. Happy to try though.
China
player, 81 posts
Sun 21 Feb 2021
at 15:19
  • msg #386

A Statement of Our Position

In reply to USA (msg # 385):

You agree, that Nuclear Weapon working as holding factor against conventional wars? You agree, that NW should be in balance?
You agree, that antiNWrocket defensive systems are huge factor in that equation?
German Republic
player, 5 posts
Mon 8 Mar 2021
at 10:08
  • msg #387

New Chancelorin Declaration of Foreign Policy

The New Kanzlerin delivered a long speech about her Foreign Policy priorities

- after having done so much harm to the world during WWII, Germany is aiming for peace, development, face the threats to humanity, explore space.

- thus, the German government wishes to push the European Union Project forward, with the other European governments to fulfill the dreams of it's founders, 125 years back : the United States of Europe!

- Germany is open for trade with everybody, especially the USA and China, to balance its tight relationships with Russia.

- Germany will continue to fill its duty towards NATO.
Indonesia
player, 4 posts
Pres. Prabowo Subianto
In office since 2060
Sat 13 Mar 2021
at 06:17
  • msg #388

IndonesiaJapan Ink Wide-Ranging Joint Governmental Agreement

In a news conference simultaneously videocast from Tokyo and Jakarta, the heads of state of both nations jointly announced a wide-ranging permanent treaty of mutual defense and alliance. Citing synergies between Indonesian resources and Japanese technological prowess, the need for peaceful cooperation in the trans-Pacific region, and the challenges of maintaining a balance between social development, space exploration, and military defense, the treaty itself indicates that Indonesia and Japan will cooperate transparently in Earth orbit and beyond, while maintaining alliance and national autonomy on the ground. Technological exchange programs have already begun.
Australia
player, 15 posts
Fri 19 Mar 2021
at 17:14
  • msg #389

CBRN Off-World treaty

With spaceflight becoming more common, and off-world colonies slowly becoming a reality, Australia feels that it's prudent to nip this problem in the bud.

The future of warfare likely lies far above our heads in orbit, as such, Australia predicts that more nations will become WMD armed, as a response to space combat. Australia will admit that it has got ambitions to not lag behind in space combat, and thus develop WMDs of its own in the very near future.

As such, Australia suggests that we form a treaty banning the use and testing chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons (Read: WMDs) within 0.5 AU of a hospitable planet, including Earth. The main reason for this, is that if we do find a hospitable planet for human colonization outside of our solar system, we don't want to ruin its biosphere and hydrosphere with warfare. The reason for the distance is that, while perhaps a bit overly cautious, Australia does not want debris from ships like this falling down into the gravity well, potentially poisoning the ground and/or water supplies.

This is effectively an extension of currently existing nuclear treaties. We are already ruining one planet with pollution and war, let's endeavour to not ruin any more planets that could potentially be one of humanity's homes.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:14, Fri 19 Mar 2021.
USA
player, 128 posts
Sun 21 Mar 2021
at 14:45
  • msg #390

CBRN Off-World treaty

In reply to Australia (msg # 389):

Nice idea, and we'd be very interested. Do we have any enforcement mechanisms? Also - I note the words about 'hospitable planets' - so the idea is to protect biomes rather than nations or people?
USA
player, 129 posts
Sun 21 Mar 2021
at 15:10
  • msg #391

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to USA (msg # 390):

Greetings!
The problems of endemic corruption in society, business and government have plagued the world since time immemorial. We've all seen it, we've all seen the issues it can cause, and we've all seen how much it costs us. In an increasingly interconnected world, we all have a part of play in the elimination of this scourge. Too often criminal enterprises use international borders as a means to evade justice.

To this end, the US will be sponsoring an International Conventional, for an initial 10 year (2 turn) term. If it proves useful, then we'd turn it into a permanent setup with an appropriate level of funding. The aim of this would be to establish a wide ranging framework for:

* Transparency and auditing in corporate and government spending
* Establishing a legal framework for co-operation, extradition, and data sharing between law enforcement, auditors and government in different nations
* Education and training for regulators and law enforcement in dealing with organised crime, money laundering, embezzlement, corruption, bribery etc.

To this end, the US will be committing 5 PAs for startup funding this turn and next turn. We'd like to invite other nations that wish to join the initiative to contribute just 1 PA each. I believe that the more nations join the initiative, the more effective it will be!

OOC: Hi all - I don't know whether this will work, or be of benefit, so I'm testing the waters with players and GM this turn. Hopefully, it will act as a boost to all our efforts to reduce the losses due to corruption. :)
Russia
player, 123 posts
Sun 21 Mar 2021
at 15:17
  • msg #392

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to USA (msg # 391):

Russia will contribute 1 PA to this initiative.
Canada
player, 16 posts
Sun 21 Mar 2021
at 16:06
  • msg #393

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to USA (msg # 391):

Canada will contribute 1 PA point to this initiative.
Australia
player, 16 posts
Sun 21 Mar 2021
at 16:31
  • msg #394

Re: CBRN Off-World treaty

USA:
In reply to Australia (msg # 389):

Nice idea, and we'd be very interested. Do we have any enforcement mechanisms? Also - I note the words about 'hospitable planets' - so the idea is to protect biomes rather than nations or people?

Enforcement would be done by nations who agree to it.

As for the protection, it theoretically protects both, but Australia sadly believes that if humanity can nuke a planet without major lasting effects, the chances of WMDs being used is much higher.

USA:
Greetings!
The problems of endemic corruption in society, business and government have plagued the world since time immemorial. We've all seen it, we've all seen the issues it can cause, and we've all seen how much it costs us. In an increasingly interconnected world, we all have a part of play in the elimination of this scourge. Too often criminal enterprises use international borders as a means to evade justice.

To this end, the US will be sponsoring an International Conventional, for an initial 10 year (2 turn) term. If it proves useful, then we'd turn it into a permanent setup with an appropriate level of funding. The aim of this would be to establish a wide ranging framework for:

* Transparency and auditing in corporate and government spending
* Establishing a legal framework for co-operation, extradition, and data sharing between law enforcement, auditors and government in different nations
* Education and training for regulators and law enforcement in dealing with organised crime, money laundering, embezzlement, corruption, bribery etc.

To this end, the US will be committing 5 PAs for startup funding this turn and next turn. We'd like to invite other nations that wish to join the initiative to contribute just 1 PA each. I believe that the more nations join the initiative, the more effective it will be!

OOC: Hi all - I don't know whether this will work, or be of benefit, so I'm testing the waters with players and GM this turn. Hopefully, it will act as a boost to all our efforts to reduce the losses due to corruption. :)


Australia will contribute 1 PA to this initiative
France
player, 18 posts
Sun 21 Mar 2021
at 19:26
  • msg #395

Re: International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

USA:
In reply to USA (msg # 390):


To this end, the US will be sponsoring an International Conventional, for an initial 10 year (2 turn) term. If it proves useful, then we'd turn it into a permanent setup with an appropriate level of funding.


France will contribute 2 PA to this action this turn, and would be very interested in seeing this continue.

Since the USA is leading this action, perhaps they could suggest the wording of the PA they would like others to use in assistance?
Brazil
player, 17 posts
Sun 21 Mar 2021
at 22:46
  • msg #396

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to USA (msg # 391):

Brazil will contribute 1 PA to this initiative.
Japan
player, 61 posts
Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
Mon 22 Mar 2021
at 00:05
  • msg #397

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to USA (msg # 391):

Japan will support this initiative with 2 PA.

Does the United States plan to issue one PA with our combined budget, or have us each execute the individual PA budgets on our turns?
Indonesia
player, 6 posts
Pres. Prabowo Subianto
In office since 2060
Mon 22 Mar 2021
at 00:06
  • msg #398

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to USA (msg # 391):

Indonesia will join this venture with 1 PA.
USA
player, 130 posts
Mon 22 Mar 2021
at 13:31
  • msg #399

International Convention on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to Indonesia (msg # 398):

Greetings -
good question. I had assumed I would simply be paying all costs of the conference and that other nations PAs would serve to implement findings in their own nations. But I'm happy to play it either way.

OOC: New player here so not sure how best to structure this (people have to see benefits in their own nations for this to have enduring support, but at the same time I don't want to feed theories of 'US meddling' in other nations) - very happy to take suggestions here or privately. If you'll permit me a couple of days we should be able to come up with appropriate wording for all concerned. :)
Brazil
player, 18 posts
Mon 22 Mar 2021
at 18:03
  • msg #400

Public announcements

Connecting...

1. Public announcements:
1.1. Brazil repeatedly demands that Argentina sign a non-aggression pact with Brazil.
1.2. Brazil demands that Argentina stopped destabilizing states in direct proximity of Brazil.
1.3. Time limit for Argentinian response set to March 27, 12:01 UTC.

Disconnecting...
Argentina
player, 4 posts
Mon 22 Mar 2021
at 21:23
  • msg #401

Public announcements

In reply to Brazil (msg # 400):

Argentina will not listen to the demands of a machine.

Argentina is simply attempting to assist its neighbouring countries with limited success. Negotiations will be done shortly.
Indonesia
player, 7 posts
Pres. Prabowo Subianto
In office since 2060
Tue 23 Mar 2021
at 05:29
  • msg #402

International Convention on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to USA (msg # 399):

To maximize impact and minimize GM irritation, maybe it would be a good idea for you to do one PA for the conference, and for each participating nation to put it in "Deals with Other Nations" that we are sponsoring and attending the conference, and implementing its recommendations/following its regulations. That way he sees that there is genuinely widespread international commitment to the idea, but doesn't have to process 12 PAs.
Russia
player, 125 posts
Tue 23 Mar 2021
at 06:37
  • msg #403

Re: CBRN Off-World treaty

Australia:
As such, Australia suggests that we form a treaty banning the use and testing chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons (Read: WMDs) within 0.5 AU of a hospitable planet, including Earth.


There is already the Outer Space Treaty which explicitly forbids the use of WMD in outer space or in the Earth orbit. What you propose, on the contrary, provides a loophole for the use of WMD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Being said that, I also note that there are so many radiation and other hazards in space, even in close proximity to the Earth, that all mankind's nukes exploded in orbit above the magnetosphere are just a drop of water in the ocean. In this sense, the distance of 0.5 AU is excessive. No explosion on Luna, or, moreover, on Venus - which can also be closer than 0.5 AU from the Earth - will affect the Earth's biosphere. But regardless of this, Russia demands compliance with the Outer Space Treaty.
China
player, 82 posts
Tue 23 Mar 2021
at 10:12
  • msg #404

A Statement of Our Position

China is still waiting for answers from the USA about its position with WMD.

Also, we want to remind, that all waters farther than 15 nautical miles from land are INTERNATIONAL waters. They BELONG to ALL nations. Any attempts to claim these waters as national territory are broke international treaties.


From this moment China sends military ships to these zones to prevent an act of stealing from all nations.
USA
player, 131 posts
Tue 23 Mar 2021
at 15:45
  • msg #405

A Statement of Our Position

In reply to China (msg # 404):

We agree that the possession of WMD is, indeed, a weapon of last resort to protect nations against being overrun with conventional forces. To be clear, we're not asking people to get rid of their nukes.

There is a perverse logic that says if you're about to be overrun conventionally and use WMDs in your defence, then either way you've lost your nation, but at least using WMDs you get to flatten the people attacking you. So yes, we understand the desire of some nations to possess WMDs, especially when their neighbours have capable conventional forces. (And where the possession of a small number of WMD equipped units is, frankly, much cheaper than buying sufficient conventional forces to hold off a massive invasion).

I'm less convinced by the effectiveness of ABMs, for the simple reason that you'd need a vast amount of ABMs to cover all possible targets. There are a few places where I'd consider the positioning of ABMs - isolated colonies or military bases etc, or for defence against isolated launches by rogue nations (rather than all out WMD use by a major power), but in general it's tough to get to the stage where you'd have sufficient defence for core territories.

Our issue is with the use of WMDs. If our threat against the users of WMDs means that people are less likely to launch conventional invasions of WMD owners - well, that's no bad thing.

We'd very much like to get to the stage where our policy of retaliation against WMD users is no longer necessary. Right now, I have no idea what the best way to get there would be.

More than happy to discuss though - any replacement policy would need to be agreed by all of the major powers, and probably all the WMD armed powers. I would not, however, be prepared to sit still during discussions and do nothing if anyone started radically altering the current balance of strategic (WMD capable) forces available to them.

Hope that answers your questions?
USA
player, 132 posts
Tue 23 Mar 2021
at 15:47
  • msg #406

International Convention on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to Indonesia (msg # 402):

Excellent idea. I wasn't sure how best to structure the PAs, but will follow your advice. I'll put together a note shortly on the exact wording that I'll be using for the conference itself, just for reference.
China
player, 83 posts
Fri 26 Mar 2021
at 10:16
  • msg #407

Re: CBRN Off-World treaty

In reply to Russia (msg # 403):

Can Russia do the list of nations, which are violating this treaty now?
USA
player, 135 posts
Fri 26 Mar 2021
at 18:43
  • msg #408

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to USA (msg # 391):

Greetings!

For all nations wishing to attend the ICPC (so far we've seen a positive response from Russia, France, Canada, Japan, Indonesia, and Brazil as well as ourselves).

May I suggest that you don't send the USA any $ this turn - instead, please commit 1 minimum of 1 PA to the following:

"The USA will be setting up and sponsoring an International Conference on the Prevention of Corruption. We are attending the Conference, and will implement its recommendations.

Aim: Gain either a reduction to the effects of corruption in our economy.

OOC: Like Indonesia, I'm a tad nervous about increasing GM workload. Having said that, any success from the Conference should be shared between us - which means a cut and paste of our joint results should be possible. I hope. Apologies to our GM if not!
Indonesia
player, 8 posts
Pres. Prabowo Subianto
In office since 2060
Sat 27 Mar 2021
at 12:44
  • msg #409

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to USA (msg # 408):

I suggest both a general and a specific refinement to the Conference PA. The general one - we should probably standardize the whole PA. My draft:

-Indonesia PA#3:
Goal: Reduce our national popular corruption statistic by embracing international cooperation.
Action: The USA will be setting up and sponsoring an International Conference on the Prevention of Corruption. We are attending the Conference, and will implement its recommendations. [Any nation-specific instructions here].
Background: International cooperation is a key factor in reducing social corruption levels.
Argument: Whatever argument you wish to make for why a conference will help your country's corruption level - or for why your country's participation will help reduce everyone's.
Resources devoted: 1 PA point

The specific refinement is for Indonesia. Our country is one of the most corrupt on Earth, and we are embarking on an anti-corruption program at all levels. For this conference, Indonesian diplomats will be exceptionally forthcoming with information about our internal economy, and we ask the help of the international community in showing us how to make things work better. Specifically, if you DON'T have any idea in mind for your country's participation, a note about helping Indonesia out with knowledge and best practices would surely be appreciated.
Russia
player, 127 posts
Sat 27 Mar 2021
at 13:03
  • msg #410

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to Indonesia (msg # 409):

Russia will support Indonesia on ICPC.
Australia
player, 17 posts
Sat 27 Mar 2021
at 17:06
  • msg #411

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to Indonesia (msg # 409):

This seems like a reasonable standardized PA. where background is nation specific.
Nigeria
player, 24 posts
Sun 28 Mar 2021
at 14:26
  • msg #412

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to USA (msg # 391):

Greetings!

Nigeria would be more than willing to join this kind of endeavour, and are willing to commit 1 PAP to the US with hope of ensuring its current and future success.

We also find Indonesia's proposed PA standardisation to be reasonable, and are adding it to the proposed orders for the turn.
Nordic Federation
player, 52 posts
Sun 28 Mar 2021
at 15:58
  • msg #413

International Conventional on the Prevention of Corruption

In reply to Indonesia (msg # 409):

Greetings!

NordFed agrees with the conference and will attend, providing 1 PAP to the USA for this.
Russia
player, 128 posts
Sun 28 Mar 2021
at 21:49
  • msg #414

Re: CBRN Off-World treaty

China:
In reply to Russia (msg # 403):

Can Russia do the list of nations, which are violating this treaty now?


So far we are aware of three ships in Earth orbit armed with nuclear missiles: the US ship Hornet, and two German ships Bahnbrecher and Pfadfinder. Back then, the German ships were armed in order to have a backup plan to deal with the Apophis asteroid. However, this excuse had expired a long time ago.
Australia
player, 18 posts
Sun 28 Mar 2021
at 22:28
  • msg #415

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

If Russia and China are so insistent on this, Australia will reiterate the exact wording of the outer space treaty.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, page 4, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon, and Other Celestial Bodies, Article IV:
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.


This bans any and all military activity off-world other than for the express purpose of peaceful exploration. Does China and Russia intend to say that they will never have warships or an off-world marine corps? Australia has no such illusions, and will not sit here and listen to the ramblings of diplomats wanting to impose sanctions on nations using only a small, specifically selected portion of the Outer Space Treaty.

Australia harbours no illusions that it will have an off-world military corps and several armed military vessels in the near future to protect its interests. Australia has said it once and will say it again, this treaty is outdated and Australia will not enforce over 100 year old treaties that were not designed for the time we currently live in. Australia will consider enforcing new treaties that are more up to date, provided the terms of the treaty are agreeable.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:29, Sun 28 Mar 2021.
Russia
player, 129 posts
Sun 28 Mar 2021
at 23:25
  • msg #416

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

Australia:
Australia has no such illusions, and will not sit here and listen to the ramblings of diplomats wanting to impose sanctions on nations using only a small, specifically selected portion of the Outer Space Treaty.


Ban of WMD in space is a "small portion" you say?..

Just in case, I'll remind what the international law is: if you signed a treaty, be kind to follow it, thank you very much. Without it there is no law at all. However, there are procedures which allow nations to alter treaties. If someone thinks that a treaty is outdated, Russia will listen to a new proposal.

Australia:
Does China and Russia intend to say that they will never have warships or an off-world marine corps?


Russia follows the treaties which Russia signed, no matter how inconvenient they are at the moment. There are treaties signed before Australia appeared on the map, and they are still in effect. Policy "maybe Russia will withdraw from this treaty once, so we will violate it right now" is not much cop as a contractual capacity.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:32, Sun 28 Mar 2021.
Australia
player, 19 posts
Sun 28 Mar 2021
at 23:37
  • msg #417

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Russia (msg # 416):

There has been deliberation in the Australian government, and a consensus has been reached.

Australia will be withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and work up a draft more fitting treaty for our day and age. We encourage other nations to do the same.



While I'm is at it, I will point out that Russia is already in breach of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, with orbital re-entry troops. Presumably these troops have been trained in what their job is. Should Russia then impose sanctions on itself?

Also the fact that the point of the OQC/OTC is to military enforce quarantine procedures for starships. This would then also be in breach of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.

Russia can get off its high horse and come back down to earth so we can discuss this properly.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:39, Sun 28 Mar 2021.
Russia
player, 130 posts
Sun 28 Mar 2021
at 23:51
  • msg #418

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

Australia:
While I'm is at it, I will point out that Russia is already in breach of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, with orbital re-entry troops. Presumably these troops have been trained in what their job is. Should Russia then impose sanctions on itself?


Did you actually read the treaty? This already had been discussed here:

quote:
... The Outer Space Treaty does not ban military activities within space, military space forces, or the weaponization of space ...


> Russia can get off its high horse and come back down to earth so we can discuss this properly.

[Russian diplomat smiles politely]
Australia
player, 20 posts
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 00:40
  • msg #419

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

Australia has directly quoted the Outer Space Treaty twice in the past ten year period. But we will do it again

Australia:
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, page 4, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon, and Other Celestial Bodies, Article IV:
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.


Australia would like to specifically point out this section of Article IV:
"The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden."

The United States Department of Defense defines a "military manoeuvre" as follows:

DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms:
— 1. A movement to place ships, aircraft, or land forces in a position of advantage over the enemy. 2. A tactical exercise carried out at sea, in the air, on the ground, or on a map in imitation of war. 3. The operation of a ship, aircraft, or vehicle to cause it to perform desired movements. 4. Employment of forces in the operational area, through movement in combination with fires and information, to achieve a position of advantage in respect to the enemy.


While definition 3. can maybe be ignored, the others cannot. So while yes, Russia is not in direct violation yet, Russia has troops capable of of being in violation, with a likely intention to make use of them to perform a military manoeuvre on a celestial body. While maybe not in direct breach of the wording, it would seem that Russia could quite easily break the spirit of the ruling, especially seeing as the diplomats of 1967 could not foresee issues that could arise over 100 years in the future.

The second those forces step onto a celestial object with the intent of causing harm, they will most probably be performing a military manoeuvre. Even if another definition is used, that of referring to a military exercise, nations would be unable to train their armed forces in the terrain types and gravity they intend for them to fight, rendering them less capable. These armed forces would only be able to train on Earth and in orbit.

Not to mention the fact that any form of military base or installation is not permitted on a celestial body. A military base would be illegal to construct on the moon or other celestial body.

Australia points these things out to poke holes in the treaty, so that they may be filled.  However it is clear that these holes will not be filled.
Japan
player, 63 posts
Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 06:19
  • msg #420

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Australia (msg # 419):

Many thanks to the government of Australia for pointing out several of the inadequacies and outright errors of this treaty.

As it was written more than a century ago, at a time when the knowledge of spaceflight was very limited and man had yet to set foot on any body other than our homeworld, it is clear that this treaty is long out of date.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article XVI:
"Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification."

As of January 1, 2075, Japan withdraws from the Outer Space Treaty. This withdrawal became effective January 1, 2076.
China
player, 84 posts
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 11:40
  • msg #421

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Australia (msg # 415):

Australia - you live in ILLUSION. China NEVER has any military space units. Eat it.
China
player, 85 posts
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 11:49
  • msg #422

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Japan (msg # 420):

Ok, so we have to do the list of nations, who broke international treaties because they just want.

1. Australia
2. Japan
3. USA?
4. Germany?

Nice company! Peace dukes! Bringers of democracy!

What next treaty you will ignore?

And how you plan to discuss new ones, when we all know - your word is nothing. You can not be trusted...
Japan
player, 64 posts
Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 12:50
  • msg #423

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to China (msg # 422):

What treaty are you alleging that Japan has violated?

We have followed the designated protocol for withdrawing from an agreement - in this case, an agreement so ancient and obsolete that we had not realized it still existed and that we were signatory to it until it was brought to our attention by Australia.

There is no violation of law, treaty, or diplomatic procedure here.
China
player, 86 posts
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 13:40
  • msg #424

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Japan (msg # 423):

yep. And no honor. This is also an old thing for Japan...
Or I am not right?
Japan
player, 65 posts
Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 13:53
  • msg #425

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to China (msg # 424):

You are mistaken as to how treaties operate under international law.
China
player, 87 posts
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 14:19
  • msg #426

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Japan (msg # 425):

You are mistaken in the essence of the relationship.

You can break any treaty and find the right words to justify it.

The result is always the same. Your nation doesn't keep their word. And if so, there is no point to do ANY treats with your involvement in the future.

If all participants of the treaty agree to end it - no problem. Overwise you should honor it. Even if you don't like it.

Or... be a nation with a specific reputation.

Good luck.
Indonesia
player, 9 posts
Pres. Prabowo Subianto
In office since 2060
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 14:52
  • msg #427

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to China (msg # 426):

If the authors of a treaty require everyone to agree before anyone may leave, then that is a legitimate rule and must be followed.

The authors and signatories of the Outer Space Treaty, however, decided that the treaty could be left freely by any signatory, with the only requirement being that the party wait one year between their announcement and their actual departure. They specifically put this ability to withdraw from treaties into article XVI, which Japan specifically quoted in their withdrawal message.

Leaving the treaty via the legal means provided is not breaking it.

If you do not understand this, you are not competent to run a government.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:08, Mon 29 Mar 2021.
Korea
player, 14 posts
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 17:12
  • msg #428

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

China:
In reply to Japan (msg # 425):


You can break any treaty and find the right words to justify it.

The result is always the same. Your nation doesn't keep their word. And if so, there is no point to do ANY treats with your involvement in the future.

If all participants of the treaty agree to end it - no problem. Overwise you should honor it. Even if you don't like it.


I can only hope this statement and the pure hypocrisy of it coming from a Chinese diplomat is as amusing to the international community as it is to my government.
Australia
player, 21 posts
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 19:28
  • msg #429

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Korea (msg # 428):

Australia quite frankly does.

Since Russia is assembling a list of nations breaking the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, how about also compiling a list of nations that have broken the Atmospheric Test Ban treaty?
Japan
player, 66 posts
Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 22:42
  • msg #430

Re: Nuclear Weapon Treaty

In reply to Australia (msg # 429):

The people of Japan have long opposed war and even at this late date have refrained from developing WMD. If our diplomatic overtures fail to win peace, if our conventional force is insufficient to deter aggressors, then we see little point in turning our lovely island into a wasteland in order to "save" it.

However, it seems that the international apparatus of treaties and agreements has become unwieldy over the last century. Rather than guaranteeing peace, bodies like the UN (when it even meets) cause difficulties and conflicts rather than solving them. In recent years, Japan has conducted perfectly legitimate territorial expansion to develop the agrarian and littoral economies of the sparsely inhabited island chains in the Pacific, and instead of praise for our efforts we have received criticisms that they are illegal under some mouldy document signed a century ago by people who barely knew what an atom was.

Japan proposes that if the nations of the world, today, wish to ban WMDs or regulate space militarization or limit one another's territorial growth into neutral provinces, then we need to formulate and create new treaties. This tiresome researching into century-old documents, some of which have not received an update since 1970 or even before, in order to quibble over points is both senseless and wasteful.

Accordingly, I call for an international convention on treaty status. The first order of business of the convention would be to abolish the UN, a thoroughly worthless organization which does not even command a single PA of support from the nations of the world. This should immediately be followed by a declaration that all treaties predating 2010 AD are null and void, UNLESS the treaty is signed by the current government of each nation. No nation should be bound by promises made a hundred years ago by those long dead, when those promises have ceased to be in the national interest and are indeed frankly opposed to it. The last stage of the convention should be a discussion and ratification of the treaties that people want to keep.

Japan proposes this out of a desire to see good order and comity among nations, and hopes that the important treaties out of our past will be recognized, perhaps updated to reflect the new era, and restored to both de facto and de jure compliance by governments that actually agree to the treaties. If the nations of the world can agree to renew some of these old treaties and bring them into the 21st and 22nd centuries, all the better.

In the unfortunate absence of such international consensus, Japan has no choice but to follow its own path - a path of peace and cooperation, but peace and cooperation on the terms that our government and our people choose for ourselves, not a phony world order that was not attractive or compelling even when it was first dreamed up.

Thank you for your attention.

[OOC - I don't think this needs to be an in-game thing, since none of the old treaties are really in-game either. We can just have a discussion of what treaties, if any, from the current era are still going to be in force - and of course, that means that if people don't want them to be in force, they won't be.]
Australia
player, 23 posts
Mon 29 Mar 2021
at 23:05
  • msg #431

Treaties

Japan:
In reply to Australia (msg # 429):

The people of Japan have long opposed war and even at this late date have refrained from developing WMD. If our diplomatic overtures fail to win peace, if our conventional force is insufficient to deter aggressors, then we see little point in turning our lovely island into a wasteland in order to "save" it.

However, it seems that the international apparatus of treaties and agreements has become unwieldy over the last century. Rather than guaranteeing peace, bodies like the UN (when it even meets) cause difficulties and conflicts rather than solving them. In recent years, Japan has conducted perfectly legitimate territorial expansion to develop the agrarian and littoral economies of the sparsely inhabited island chains in the Pacific, and instead of praise for our efforts we have received criticisms that they are illegal under some mouldy document signed a century ago by people who barely knew what an atom was.

Japan proposes that if the nations of the world, today, wish to ban WMDs or regulate space militarization or limit one another's territorial growth into neutral provinces, then we need to formulate and create new treaties. This tiresome researching into century-old documents, some of which have not received an update since 1970 or even before, in order to quibble over points is both senseless and wasteful.

Accordingly, I call for an international convention on treaty status. The first order of business of the convention would be to abolish the UN, a thoroughly worthless organization which does not even command a single PA of support from the nations of the world. This should immediately be followed by a declaration that all treaties predating 2010 AD are null and void, UNLESS the treaty is signed by the current government of each nation. No nation should be bound by promises made a hundred years ago by those long dead, when those promises have ceased to be in the national interest and are indeed frankly opposed to it. The last stage of the convention should be a discussion and ratification of the treaties that people want to keep.

Japan proposes this out of a desire to see good order and comity among nations, and hopes that the important treaties out of our past will be recognized, perhaps updated to reflect the new era, and restored to both de facto and de jure compliance by governments that actually agree to the treaties. If the nations of the world can agree to renew some of these old treaties and bring them into the 21st and 22nd centuries, all the better.

In the unfortunate absence of such international consensus, Japan has no choice but to follow its own path - a path of peace and cooperation, but peace and cooperation on the terms that our government and our people choose for ourselves, not a phony world order that was not attractive or compelling even when it was first dreamed up.

Thank you for your attention.


Australia could not have put it better itself and will follow Japan's example. Australia will leave all treaties signed and dealt with before 2010 AD.

Australia has been working on the slow process of rewriting the Outer Space and Nuclear Test Ban treaty. Once we have them in a presentable state, Australia will release them in a full brief to all nations of this assembly.
Australia
player, 24 posts
Tue 30 Mar 2021
at 00:00
  • msg #432

Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 431):

Australia has the first draft for new and improved treaties available here:
https://docs.google.com/docume...qzo/edit?usp=sharing

All legitimate suggestions are appreciated.

OOC: ALL of these documents have comment privileges.
Canada
player, 20 posts
Tue 30 Mar 2021
at 10:16
  • msg #433

Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 432):

As of January 1, 2075, Canada will follow the examples of Australia and Japan by leaving all treaties signed before 2010 AD. This includes leaving OTC/OQC. Taking effect on January 1, 2076. Canada support the endevour of reconciliating old and obsolete treaties into a new format fit for the new age of spece exploration. I urge you all to add suggestions or entirely new treaties as you se fit to the work begun by Australia.

OOC: It would make playing this game and enforcing treaties easier if all active treaties where simplistic game friendly versions available at the website. If there are certain real world treaies you think should be within the game, write a short summary of it and add it to the collection of treaties. We can then record somewhere which treaties are signed by which nations.
China
player, 88 posts
Tue 30 Mar 2021
at 11:25
  • msg #434

Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 431):

So, Australia leaves the field of international law?
Australia
player, 25 posts
Tue 30 Mar 2021
at 18:13
  • msg #435

Re: Treaties

China:
In reply to Australia (msg # 431):

So, Australia leaves the field of international law?

Australia leaves the past behind and moves on to the future, unlike China which seems to want to stay in the past.
China
player, 89 posts
Thu 1 Apr 2021
at 21:07
  • msg #436

Re: Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 435):

Yes or No?
Australia
player, 26 posts
Thu 1 Apr 2021
at 22:30
  • msg #437

Re: Treaties

China:
In reply to Australia (msg # 435):

Yes or No?

If this is an attempt at an excuse to nuke Australia without consequence like China did to Korea, believe me there will be consequences.

Why single out Australia? Two other nations have done exactly the same thing, the only difference is that Australia is currently attempting to make new treaties that work in this day and age. No, Australia is not leaving the field of international law, Australia is moving it forward from its stagnant state. Most of the international treaties are from the cold war between the USA and the now defunct USSR. In fact, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty is from when those two nations had a space race.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:30, Thu 01 Apr 2021.
UK
player, 93 posts
Rule Britannia!
To the stars!
Sat 3 Apr 2021
at 14:22
  • msg #438

Re: Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 437):

As of January 1, 2075, The UK will follow the examples of Australia, Canada and Japan by leaving all treaties signed before 2010 AD. Taking effect on January 1, 2076. The UK will be proud to stand with Australia as they seem fit to insure we can all better respond to the future of space exploartion and not keeps us locked to a past that could not imagine the leaps we have made.  I will echo Canada in urging the other nations to move forward with this.

OOC: Thanks Canada I removed it
This message was last edited by the player at 18:59, Sat 03 Apr 2021.
Canada
player, 22 posts
Sat 3 Apr 2021
at 15:38
  • msg #439

Re: Treaties

In reply to UK (msg # 438):

OOC: UK is not a member of OTC/OQC (Orbital Traffic Control / Orbital Quarantine Control), current members are Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan and Russia.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:44, Sat 03 Apr 2021.
China
player, 90 posts
Thu 15 Apr 2021
at 17:44
  • msg #440

Re: Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 437):

Australia should learn to read history. It's a minimal requirement for intelligent conversation.

Especially for underinformed states, we repost all this story.

---------------------------------------------------------
An official announcement from the Chinese government.

All people remember those sad and grim days when China launch their missiles at Korea and hit Seoul and some SouthKorea and American forces.

Many years we were agreed with the “international” version of the incident. We keep calm and silent to a greater good. But now it is time, to tell the truth.

All you see is a real documentary and declassified materials, logs and data streams from military command.

Stream begins: One fine morning you get a panicked sat phone call from your ambassador to North Korea saying that the North Koreans are have gone wild, claiming that they are being invaded right now by massed imperialist forces coming across the border from the south and that North Korea is going to have to … and the link goes dead.

Remember those 5 unhelpful objects in space, as mentioned in the article UN Space Agency Warns Space Risk (https://sites.google.com/site/...035---2039#TOC-Space)? Central Military Command reports that these, what are to visual observation, vaguely bulbous looking objects have started producing jamming signals of heretofore unprecedented power and type. All of your civilian and military satellites have gone off-line. Central Military Command has only able to use hardened ground links for communication and is unable to explain how such powerful transmitters are operating.

All Chinese Satellite networks are treated as having IDLED status until further notice.

Shortly after that Chinese leader give his first orders, stream continue

Tell the troops on the North Korean border to lock down the border ...
That would be these
SHENYANG (H-28 , G-24)
         4 Exp Armor Brigade
         6 Exp Motorised Brigades
         2 Grn Motorised Brigades
         1 Exp Infantry Brigades
         3 Grn Infantry Brigades
         2 Grn Art Brigades
         2 Exp SAM Brigade

Send in infatry reinforcements from I30 Jinan to H28
         2 Grn Motorised Brigades
         1 Exp Infantry Brigades
         3 Green Infantry Brigades
         2 Grn Artillery Brigades
         2 Exp SAM Brigades

Send to the Fleet via ELF (that’s transmission thru the earth slow but effective)
to report in what is going on out to sea via ELF transmissions..utilize a line of sight morse code and other older systems to get intell in and send up sorties of recon planes to bring back data ..do not enter Korean airspace and keep them contained..

Test the Urban civil defense drills

Approximately in 1 hour, the first reports start to appear:

Recon planes and ships report:

Flashes and atmospheric disruptions consistent with the use of nuclear weapons have been seen.

So, it’s happening. Full spread war with WMD use. Who started it, no matter now. Pilots and marines can not be faked, they see this with their own eyes. Stream shows video documents of actual events, filmed by digital and film cameras from planes and ships.

And shortly after that, another alerting news comes:

//FLASH//FLASH//FLASH///BEGIN PRIORITY MESSAGE FROM CENTRAL STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND////

RADAR AND VISUAL TELEMETRY FROM GROUND STATIONS HAVE CONFIRMED DETECTION OF  +100  HIGH ALTITUDE BOGEYS APPROACHING MAINLAND CHINA FROM MULTIPLE OVER-THE-HORIZON VECTORS. THREAT  ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT INDICATES BOGEYS ON BALLISTIC COURSE TOWARDS MULTIPLE CHINESE URBAN AND MILITARY CENTERS.

//END PRIORITY MESSAGE FROM CENTRAL STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND////


So, that’s it. Madman starts the war and launches nukes to all, and now is our turn. Our turn to be the victim. Probably other countries receive also same “message”, and some of them answered, consider our reports about nuclear afterglows behind the border.

China preparing to be hit by nukes, the following orders from high commandment are executed.

Set Mopp Level IV (all NBC gear worn ..all civilians to fallout shelters..)  in the following regions G-24, H-28, I 30, I 31, H27, and I29

Monitor for fallout drift (expect it to follow the north easterlies trade winds)

Contact the rest of the UN Security Council to share what intell we have and ask if they have anything further and will they need assistance with cleanup?

Video slows. “THEY”. “will they need assistance with cleanup….” Even in the face of imminent death, China leaders are caring about other nations and do not lose hope.

More alerting reports come:

///PRIORITY MESSAGE FROM CENTRAL STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND////

AS PER MESSAGE DATED 20:28 CODED #6, THREAT COUNT NOW AT 254 BOGEYS INBOUND. IMPACT IMMINENT AGAINST CHINESE URBAN AND MILITARY CENTERS. REQUESTING IMMEDIATE AUTHORITY FOR RELEASE OF RETALIATORY WMD STRIKE. GUIDANCE REQUESTED FOR TARGET SELECTION.

//END PRIORITY MESSAGE FROM CENTRAL STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND////


Well...this is the end. What you choose? WHAT YOU CHOOSE? NOW!!!!!!!! USA, Russia, Germany, France, what you choose in such moment???!!!!!! (Voiceover calms now)

Leaders give probably their last order:

Intercept and destroy Incomming ..Release Full spread on North Korean Military Targets repeat Military Targets only ...WMD release authorized ..
Have troops and Multirole go in to mop up those areas near the borders (G-24 owned by North Korea) Northern section of H-28 owned by North Korea…

And when we all were praying and waiting for our fate….stream shows running people, chaos and fear, fear in eyes even those, who were lucky to find shelter. Women holding their crying children, old man, who decide not to go anywhere…. Video is shaky, its clearly seen, that it filmed on mobile phones in different cities and places…

And we waiting for the strike, which we never deserve…
And the miracle happens… but not for all…..


You watch the tracking lines showing missiles coming in from all angles over the horizon as they arc towards your cities; you watch as those lines touch your precious, beautiful cites and all the human life in them that you swore to defend. You wait as calls and reports come in and nothing. Nothing happened. No mass death in China, no mushroom clouds over burning Chinese cities, no radiation in Chinese air, nothing. Just the dawning of another frantic, productive day in China. The only thing left on the screen is the Chinese strike against North Korea making their own arcing tracking lines towards their targets, which you notice is not quite set for the targets you had ordered them to be.

But this was not the end….

Before you can order an investigation another launch occurs, this time it is an unauthorized launch of a computer controlled bunker buster missile from a Chinese Naval ship that devastates one of your command node buildings, killing everyone inside. Ground stations record the explosion four of the jammers at the same time, no detectable wreckage. The corpses in the rubble of the command node are found to have died from the regular injuries you would expect from an explosion, but your people find a room full of corpses who seem to have died by electrocution due to a discharge from the battery in their ID badge devices. There is no way an ordinary device should be able to generate that much power, but the devices have been melted to slag. One visitor’s badge is discovered in the same room, discharged too, but no body is associated with it. A tech who left the facility in time says he saw in the facility a tall, thin white man wearing civilian clothes and speaking in English, a language the tech does not understand, to several of the officers. He also says there was a blond white woman, who said nothing. What official computer logs and recordings, including security camera footage, that your people have been able to salvage, from on or offsite storage, show no such visitors, just the crew going about their duties. A search of unofficial records i.e. social media sites, etc, of the facility personal also has nothing about any such visitors.

The EM interference has ended, though Satellite Networks have suffered enough damage that they will have a status of IDLE for the rest of the Turn.




4 satellites was self-destructed, but 5 fail to do so and goes down to China territory in Lanzhou district. Immediately 8 Motorized brigade was thrown to an extensive search of pieces of evidence.

And other military alerts are followed!

Your SAM crews in southern China fire wildly at not one, but two, unauthorized objects engaging in a powered descent from orbit, eventually destroying the last one

Soon our forces reach the place of impact, and what we found was most shocking. No one believes it can be.

And today, now we want world to know, what we find those days.

Your teams eventually find the wreckage of an American cargo rocket and the corpses of armed American soldiers dressed in armoured spacesuits but still killed by explosion and impact. Your investigators find plenty of bits of human-made space debris scattered about the countryside, but nothing exceptional.

 Video shows how wreckage and bodies are gathered and transported to a military base, how DNA expertise are done, how each body is traced to real identity of American military personnel. Serial numbers are traced to its manufacturers.

These bodies and wreckages are still stored in our military facilities. All experts can visit and check all these facts by themselves.

All documentary is 100% true.

Now you can build your personal opinion about what happens, who is responsible, and what threats are awaiting us in future. If someone have any answers or comments, we gladly will hear it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also China will want to remind, that we have huge capacity for military excalation. Much more, than almost any country. Times more. If we will decide to strike someone - it would be end of the world, and there is no alliances, which can be able to prevent it.
And because we understand this, we try to do conversations. Looks like only few leaders able to understand this simple situation. We understand the importance of  demilitarisation. But looks like some leaders not. And instead of trying to find the way from this grim situation, they try to escalate.
Its the last chance for Australia and others to start normal negotiations and stop breaking threaties. Or consequences will be sad for all humanity.
Brazil
player, 19 posts
Thu 15 Apr 2021
at 23:52
  • msg #441

Short announcement

... Connecting...

1. Public announcements:
1.1. Sorry I will interrupt your discussion for a minute.
1.2. Brazil declares war on Argentina.
1.3. Brazil will continue destroying Argentinian military units until Argentina is ready to sign a non-agression pact with Brazil.
1.4. Please proceed.
1.5. Have a nice day!

... Disconnecting...
This message was last edited by the player at 23:58, Thu 15 Apr 2021.
Argentina
player, 5 posts
Fri 16 Apr 2021
at 00:20
  • msg #442

Short announcement

In reply to Brazil (msg # 441):

This demon attacks us!

Brazil cannot even muster the effort of finding a willing human puppet for its mechanical master. It is shameful to see that a nation of such "intelligence" must resort to war, yet it is not a war, for Brazil's army is large, so it can impose upon all of South America unmolested, this is a slaughter.

Argentina will not submit to the will of a machine, much less so when this machine resorts to violence as its first choice. We will be willing to open discussions once we can speak to a real human, one who is not simply a slave to their robot overlord and Brazil will not resort to murdering thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocents.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:59, Fri 16 Apr 2021.
China
player, 91 posts
Fri 16 Apr 2021
at 08:28
  • msg #443

Short announcement

In reply to Argentina (msg # 442):

As we remember, you was treating and insulting Brasil. You was telling, that Brasil government should be destroyed.
What consequences you was waiting after that?
You position yourself as aggressive enemy of the state. So, there is no "innosence" from Argentina side.
More to that - they want just to destroy your military, not capture land or change government. Ou. Wrong. They want non-aggression treaty from you. Sign it, and military operation will end without single gunshot.
And untill you continue, all losses from both sides will be partialy your fault, because you can end all this just with one light gesture with pen.
Argentina
player, 6 posts
Fri 16 Apr 2021
at 10:46
  • msg #444

Short announcement

In reply to China (msg # 443):

China is not a part of this encounter, nor our diplomacy.

Not to mention, China just threatened the world with nuclear armageddon, we are not about to take diplomatic advice from someone threatening to become a terrorist nation.
China
player, 92 posts
Fri 16 Apr 2021
at 12:59
  • msg #445

Short announcement

In reply to Argentina (msg # 444):

It's very interesting to hear this words from religious fanatic state )))
This message was last edited by the player at 13:02, Fri 16 Apr 2021.
Canada
player, 24 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 20:07
  • msg #446

Pacific Response

Be advised,

Australia, Canada, Japan, UK, and USA, will conduct the joint naval exercise Pacific Response in hex 3N33. Units not participating in the exercise must stay well clear of the exercise area.

Trespassers will be escorted out of the exercise area for their own safety as we will conduct live fire exercises. Lethal force will be used in self defense if trespassers fail to comply with given directions.

We will not tolerate any interference.
China
player, 93 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 21:00
  • msg #447

Pacific Response

In reply to Canada (msg # 446):

There is China destroyer in this hex. Before you. And it stay there. If any harm will be done to our unit, this would be considered as act of war, and all corresponding nations will be considered as aggressors. With all consequences.
Hex 3n33 is international waters, and all nations have all rights to be there.
That's all.
Let's see, who will start the war.
Australia
player, 27 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 21:15
  • msg #448

Pacific Response

In reply to China (msg # 447):

Act of war? Under the treaties China is dead set on enforcing, China would be committing an act of war by firing upon another nations military vessels in an announced wargame in international waters. These waters are not Chinese owned, as has been pointed out by China themselves.

Should China wish to be diplomatic, rather than waving its guns around, Australia will consider listening. Until that point, Australia refuses to recognize the threats. Australia has no issue with China watching the exercise at the safe distance of 1 hex away. Entry into the hex is a hostile manoeuvre and the destroyer will be given warnings before being fired upon in accordance with international law.

The destroyer is in 4N30, not 3N33. China's destroyer will need to move in during this war round. We request that China ceases its policy of interference.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:18, Sat 24 Apr 2021.
China
player, 94 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 21:59
  • msg #449

Pacific Response

In reply to Australia (msg # 448):

We are have no any treaties with Australia. You move yourself from this field. Such as Japan, Canada and UK.

Destroyer will move to this hex. If you attack it, all associated with this event partyes - Japan, Australia, Canada, UK and USA will receive consequences.

From that point China will recognize your unnamed alliance as "Destructors".

That's all.
Australia
player, 28 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 22:12
  • msg #450

Pacific Response

In reply to China (msg # 449):

So China officially declares war on our nations? None of our nations have left until 2076, per the treaties.
China
player, 95 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 22:57
  • msg #451

Pacific Response

In reply to Australia (msg # 450):

No, why?
Australia
player, 29 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 23:00
  • msg #452

Pacific Response

In reply to China (msg # 451):

The way China phrased it, China was threatening to interrupt an international training exercise and use it as an excuse for nuking several countries.

We're glad to know that China will follow international regulations and stay out.
China
player, 96 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 23:06
  • msg #453

Pacific Response

In reply to Australia (msg # 452):

You do not get it. Our ship WILL move to this hex. It's a free hex, we do not pass noone national border or territory. If our ship will be attacked, China will consider this event as act of war from your side. Very simple. Isn't it?
You can move your "exercises" to another location. Or cancel them.
China
player, 97 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 23:11
  • msg #454

Pacific Response

In reply to Australia (msg # 452):

It's interesting situation.

From China point of view - act of war it's when someone shoot, destroy or kill.

From your point of view - act of war is when someone move there, were you told not to move?

Very interesting and illustrative!
Australia
player, 30 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 23:22
  • msg #455

Re: Pacific Response

China:
In reply to Australia (msg # 452):

It's interesting situation.

From China point of view - act of war it's when someone shoot, destroy or kill.

From your point of view - act of war is when someone move there, were you told not to move?

Very interesting and illustrative!

We are simply protecting the crews of the Chinese destroyer division. If China wishes to sail through our exercise and gets hit by stray shells or missiles, it is China's fault and EXCLUSIVELY China's fault. Australia will be happy to rescue and return any such crews caught in the crossfire by sailing into the firing line.
China
player, 98 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 23:38
  • msg #456

Re: Pacific Response

In reply to Australia (msg # 455):

If you so peaceful and care about security and other sailors lives, move "exercises" to another location. Preferably inside your or Japan, or USA, Canada and UK national borders.
Australia
player, 31 posts
Sat 24 Apr 2021
at 23:52
  • msg #457

Re: Pacific Response

In reply to China (msg # 456):

The nations party to this exercise planned this before China decided to move its destroyer.

The potential destruction of a Chinese military vessel is low on Australia's priority list, to be quite frank. It will not be moved, China has been more than adequately warned, repeatedly. We have vessels capable of rescuing the sailors if need be. Perhaps China should stop trying to follow and harass Japanese civilians, and maybe sit down and think about this.
China
player, 99 posts
Sun 25 Apr 2021
at 00:07
  • msg #458

Re: Pacific Response

In reply to Australia (msg # 457):

1. Actually orders to move to this hex was given BEFORE you inform about your games.
2. We see there is some PROTO members. Your "exercises" was planned and discussed with PROTO alliance?
3. China have right to send their ships in any international waters.

At this point your actions are totally against international and maritime law.
But we not wander about this. You exit all this laws and treaties with your friends. And form DESTRUCTOR alliance.
Australia
player, 32 posts
Sun 25 Apr 2021
at 00:25
  • msg #459

Re: Pacific Response

In reply to China (msg # 458):

There is only one PROTO member, that being Australia. Japan is not an official member of PROTO.

Australia and the nations conducting the exercise, are simply conducting an exercise. Whether the ravings of a nuclear armed nation gone off the hinges for a second time disagrees or not is not Australia's problem.

If China starts targeting their ICBMs, may we suggest the desert tiles in 3S31 and 4S32? Lakes would be a great benefit if we ever decide to go through with a canal project.
China
player, 100 posts
Sun 25 Apr 2021
at 00:51
  • msg #460

Re: Pacific Response

In reply to Australia (msg # 459):

Thank you for suggestion.

From our side we will want help you to remember old proverb.

Do not start those things, which you can not end.
France
player, 20 posts
Sun 25 Apr 2021
at 00:56
  • msg #461

Re: Pacific Response

In reply to China (msg # 460):

it seems likely that you are both starting something that will end us all

Is there any option for calm, or is this the end of us all?
Australia
player, 33 posts
Sun 25 Apr 2021
at 01:01
  • msg #462

Re: Pacific Response

In reply to France (msg # 461):

IF China is willing to sit down and talk, rather than threaten nuclear armageddon and bully nations incapable of fighting back, Australia is happy to sit down and talk.

However, China has shown no interest in this, so Australia is not going to sit back and take it.
China
player, 101 posts
Sun 25 Apr 2021
at 06:49
  • msg #463

Re: Pacific Response

In reply to Australia (msg # 462):

China do nothing to escalate.
China just do what it can in borders of international law, or what is left from it.

This Australian mantra about WMD is pure lie and a result of their not healthy imagination.

China just want to point, that small war can grow to big war. And loosing side, if WMD capable, probably will use it. No matter what nation it is. And there is always loosing side in any war. Someone win, someone loose.

Why Australia think, that this is about them, we have no idea. It's just logic, wisdom and military analysts. Nothing more.
Australia
player, 34 posts
Sun 25 Apr 2021
at 18:51
  • msg #464

Modernized Treaties

In reply to China (msg # 463):

Australia has added the Territorial Claims Treaty to its list of treaties.

Treaties can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/docume...qzo/edit?usp=sharing
USA
player, 137 posts
Mon 26 Apr 2021
at 00:45
  • msg #465

Modernized Treaties

In reply to pretty much everyone:

Let's all take a deep breath and end the threats. We can return to them later if diplomacy fails.

China suggested earlier that if everyone gives up their claims 'in modern history', they would do the same. It's a good start but we need to go further or, as I said earlier, everyone will argue about thousand year old claims or whether Taiwan is really a part of China etc. and nothing will be solved.

My proposal is that we sort the question now on the basis of current status - not historic claims, not the actions of previous administrations - just things as they are now. The idea behind the 'within one hex of landmass' is to set a limit on what claims *or complaints* are reasonable.
Australia
player, 35 posts
Mon 26 Apr 2021
at 01:13
  • msg #466

Modernized Treaties

In reply to USA (msg # 465):

Define the exact thing the USA is looking for here, please.

Is this ocean hexes near a landmass connected to a core settlement, potential future colonial development, is it ALL ocean claims, or ocean hexes without infrastructure?

This is not Australia intending to be difficult to deal with, just wanting to be as clear as possible.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:14, Mon 26 Apr 2021.
Brazil
player, 20 posts
Mon 26 Apr 2021
at 20:47
  • msg #467

meanwhile in South America

... connecting ...

1. Public announcements, issue #1:
1.1. Brazil offers Argentina for the third and the last time to sign a peace treaty.
1.2. The offer is effective until 27.04 12:00 UCT.

2. Public announcements, issue #2:
China:
So you can claim all what you want. Why not to claim something in South America?

2.1. Brazil objects.

... disconnecting ...
Argentina
player, 7 posts
Mon 26 Apr 2021
at 20:55
  • msg #468

meanwhile in South America

In reply to Brazil (msg # 467):

Argentina will not sign this peace treaty, unless China or Japan feels like claiming hexes in South America. If this becomes the case, Argentina is more than willing to temporarily work together with Brazil to get rid of the imperialist scum.
USA
player, 138 posts
Mon 26 Apr 2021
at 22:36
  • msg #469

Modernized Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 466):

What I'm suggesting is that as a general rule, nations don't claim ocean hexes more than 1 hex from their landmass. It's not stopping colonization like that which NordFed has been doing - but it does return a number of ocean hexes to be International waters (I suspect mostly from the US and China).
Australia
player, 36 posts
Mon 26 Apr 2021
at 22:47
  • msg #470

Modernized Treaties

In reply to USA (msg # 469):

Australia foresees problems with that in the future, but on Earth specifically it may be viable. Not all planetary bodies are have a water to landmass ratio identical to Earth.

Also, is Hawaii not reliant on the infrastructure in the path of hexes out from the USA, seeing as it is now part of the core settlement? The hexes around the island chain of Hawaii are one thing, but the hexes previously mentioned extend further than 1 hex from any landmass owned by the USA.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:49, Mon 26 Apr 2021.
USA
player, 139 posts
Mon 26 Apr 2021
at 23:00
  • msg #471

Modernized Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 470):

My understanding - and perhaps the GM can clarify, is that Hawaii would split off into another settlement. I'll drop him a note and see what he says.
USA
player, 140 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 10:20
  • msg #472

Modernized Treaties

In reply to USA (msg # 471):

Have sent a msg to the GM asking about Hawaii and how it can be handled.
USA
player, 141 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 10:34
  • msg #473

Modernized Treaties

In reply to China - copied over from another thread so everyone can see where we are up to in discussions:


We're sorry you see our actions in such a bad light, but we really are trying to calm things down and find a way out of the situation. We don't want to see a conflict in 3N33 or anywhere else.

Our view is that Japan, by colonizing and claiming 3N33 is doing less than China is doing by holding 3N31 and 4N31 (whether that was done before game start or not). You have territory which is right off the Japanese coast. Now we can argue about whether that's right and about historic claims, but I see 3N33 and 3N31 in the same way. If it's acceptable for you to hold 3N31, then why is it not acceptable for Japan to hold 3N33? It's not even next to your core territory, so what is the problem that you see with it?

The perception on this side of the fence is that you simply want to bully Japan because you think you can, when they have already moved from 3N32 to 3N33 to accommodate your concerns (whether they were justified or not). That in itself should tell you that we do not seek conflict over this - otherwise we would have remained in 3N32 and be at war already.

As for why I do not intervene in the Brazil - Argentina conflict - it's not my business. But Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Australia are allies of mine so it becomes my business. Our forces in Korea are there because they feel threatened by China. Our forces in Japan are there because they feel threatened by China. There's a common theme here.

Now, we're willing and eager to do what we can with our allies to reduce tensions, and we really do want a diplomatic solution.

However, that solution is unlikely to be a situation where you can hold hexes far away from China but other nations cannot hold hexes far away from them. Any agreement has to be fair and equitable for everyone. Neither China or anyone else can be the sole arbiter of whether a claim is justified or acceptable.

So can we ask - what exactly is your issue with Japan moving into 3N33? Is it the principle of claiming International waters? Is it Chinese access to the Pacific that you wish to secure? I can sort of understand your concerns with 3N32 as it's next to a China core hex, but what is the problem with 3N33?

If we can understand the problem without sabre rattling perhaps we can all figure out a diplomatic solution.
USA
player, 142 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 16:43
  • msg #474

Modernized Treaties

In reply to Everyone (msg # 473):

I'm taking the liberty here of copying part of a note from Russia as it is a good summary of the 3N33 situation from the Russia / China point of view. I don't fully agree with every point (as I understand it, Japan is not the first nation to claim ocean hexes), but it's worth reading so we can all understand their position.

Msg begins:

So, what I see here. Japan quit all the agreements, including the UNCLOS. China protests loudly in the international forum, and brings arguments but is ignored. Then Japan claims the hexes and China blocks the attempt. I want to specifically emphasize that China does not prevent Japan from building facilities and benefiting from them. China does not attack Japan nor harms it in any way. China does not break any existing law (as if Japan didn't quit from all the agreements just a month before) and China legitimately moves in high sea. But China prevents Japan from claiming the hexes, which is the point. Now, Japan and Australia can cry wolves that China is bullying them as much as they want, but the bottom line is that China's actions are LEGITIMATE.

Then Japan/Australia/Canada/UK (wtf Canada is doing there?) couldn't invent anything better than prohibiting other nations from entering 3N33, and they did it in a rude and insolent way. "We will not tolerate any interference" they said. Fine. Only one point is missing: this is international water and according to the international law, no state under any circumstances has the right to prohibit movement in high sea, be it military or civilian ships. Oh, we have no laws any more, I keep forgetting... So who is on the lawless side, really?

Msg ends (actually there was a bit more but this is the meat of the argument).

Now, I think everyone knows that I think nations exiting all treaties was a little premature (I'd rather have seen new treaties in place first), even if I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons why. But we are where we are and what we need is a new settlement now. If you think these concerns are an issue in 2075, just think what it'll be like when people start grabbing chunks of Luna / Mars etc.

So the possibilities I can see are below. I'm not telling people what to do, just making suggestions, and we'd very much welcome them from anyone else:

* a new treaty amending or limiting territorial claims which permits 3N33 development to proceed.

* a new treaty amending or limiting territorial claims which allows 3N33 development but not claiming (i.e. it's a colony not a core - I hope someone more versed in the rules can highlight any issues that this might have)

* the possibility of Japan proceeding with 3N33 claim and colonization, but specifically permitting access to other nations for transit purposes. That way Japan can still work to connect themselves with Indonesia if that's what they're trying to do, but movement is not prohibited (and presumably UNCLOS still stands)

* the possibility of reparations to compensate people - either to China for giving up their complaints or to Japan for them to cancel their claim.

I think we can all see the possibility of conflict here if we're not careful and I hope everyone would like to step back from that. We're willing to support any agreement that the relevant parties wish to make with one another.
Canada
player, 26 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 18:50
  • msg #475

Re: Modernized Treaties

USA:
wtf Canada is doing there?


Canada is one of the countries threatened by China with nuclear war for leaving the old treaties. The intent of leaving these treaties was transitioning into something more comprehensible and more accessible, not upset those who remained. If that is the case I am sorry. In hindsight I have to admit that leaving the old treaties before the new ones where finished was a bit hastened. If China withdraw its threats, Canada will postpone leaving the old treaties until the new ones are finished and all are satisfied with them. Will China then be happy to discuss the future of Japan's colony in 3N33?

Sincerely sorry
Prime Minister of Canada
This message was last edited by the player at 18:53, Tue 27 Apr 2021.
Korea
player, 15 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 19:02
  • msg #476

Modernized Treaties

In reply to USA (msg # 474):

I cannot help but feel Russia is ignoring recent history - and both their and China's stance on similar events

Russia, along with the rest of the international community, was either apathetic  or more than happy for Russia and China to claim territory bordering other nations, despite our loud and insistent opposition to China claiming the hex directly to our south..

Russia's response when consulted separately was to not view this as a concern, to not insist that Korea or any other nation be consulted or agree to such things.

I do not see any difference in this, yet my objections were not legitimate at that time, whilst now China's are.

I can only say, it would appear Russia has had a significant change of heart and will no doubt support the rectification of these past events, or is attempting to gaslight you.

Secondly - the point that no one consulted China is hilarious - China consulted no one when claming hexes itself, when challenged on this after the fact (along with the matter of China's refusal to pay reparations at the time - which is now resolved and not relevant, I mention only to point out this matter is closed since this was tied into the events of the time and is reference obliquely in my point).

Whilst these decisions were taken by a previous government (and player) the action that followed were undertaken by the current Chinese government.

The current, not a previous, Chinese government ignored us, repeatedly.

They then threatened our destruction for daring to oppose them by getting the international community to impose sanctions on them for their refusal to meet their obligations to and for attempting to break through their own censorship to enlighten their population to the actions of their own government.

I see no parity between the Russian and Chinese position now, when someone else is claiming a sea hex, compared to their position previously, when they claimed or had claimed sea hexes.

Russia previously completely ignored UNCLOS when claiming the sea hexes next to its territory, or the arctic, instead claiming it was in line with that treaty - one significant reason I see so many nations demanding updated treaties.

Russia is, once again, presenting a reasonable face whilst engaging in, or enabling another's, outrageous actions

OOC:

quote:
China does not prevent Japan from building facilities and benefiting from them


I am pretty sure this is wrong

Japan cannot build facilities in a hex unless that hex belongs to a Japanese settlement (other than enclave and outpost modules).

Unless I have missed something drastic, and I am quite sure i have not, Japan must take ownership of the hex, and claim it as a colony, to construct these facilities and gain the benefit of those facilities.

Unless someone can point me to the rules section that contradicts this?
This message was last edited by the player at 19:03, Tue 27 Apr 2021.
Australia
player, 37 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 19:09
  • msg #477

Modernized Treaties

In reply to Korea (msg # 476):

Korea:
Russia previously completely ignored UNCLOS when claiming the sea hexes next to its territory, or the arctic, instead claiming it was in line with that treaty - one significant reason I see so many nations demanding updated treaties.


As Korea has first-hand experience with the outcome of, treaties are only relevant if they directly benefit or are harmful to the nation who's trying to enforce them. Otherwise they are ignored. See the Atmospheric Test Ban treaty.
China
player, 102 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 20:48
  • msg #478

Modernized Treaties

In reply to Korea (msg # 476):

Korea forgot to mention, that they do PA attack on China, trying to push our nation in a chaos of anarchy. (Stability lowering).

This was why last part of reparations was put on hold, and any diplomatic input from Korea was also ignored. When crisis was ended, with a great help of Australia, all reparations payment was completed.

You forgot that? Unbelievable! Very selective memory...how convenient....

You miss your opportunity to speak and be heared just because your own hostile actions.
Korea
player, 16 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 21:06
  • msg #479

Re: Modernized Treaties

Korea:
for attempting to break through their own censorship to enlighten their population to the actions of their own government.


Nope, didn't forget - specifically referenced that infact
Russia
player, 131 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 21:34
  • msg #480

Modernized Treaties

In reply to Korea (msg # 476):

Korea:
Russia, along with the rest of the international community, was either apathetic  or more than happy for Russia and China to claim territory bordering other nations, despite our loud and insistent opposition to China claiming the hex directly to our south.


Your memory is too selective. Let's see the full picture: Russia did not object on China's claims in the South Chinese Sea, and Russia did not object on the NF claims in the North Atlantic, and Russia did not object on Canada's claims in the Arctic (except 11N1, which is resolved), and Russia did not object on the US claims in the Pacific ocean, and Russia did not object on Japan claiming in the previous turn (we had a talk with Japan however which settled down my worries, but Russia did nothing to prevent Japan from claiming the hexes), and I think there were some other claims which Russia ignored, and, finally, Russia does not object on the current Japan claim in 3N33 and if you tried to rally the world against the Japan's claim as you did against China, I wouldn't join the rally, again.

Being said that, China's actions in 3N33 are still legitimate.

Korea:
Russia previously completely ignored UNCLOS when claiming the sea hexes next to its territory, or the arctic, instead claiming it was in line with that treaty


Russian claims were in line with UNCLOS-1982.

OOC:
Korea:
I am pretty sure this is wrong


I'm pretty sure nations were building colonies and facilities in unclaimed hexes without problems.
Co-GM
GM, 232 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 21:59
  • msg #481

Re: Modernized Treaties

Russia:
OOC:
Korea:
I am pretty sure this is wrong


I'm pretty sure nations were building colonies and facilities in unclaimed hexes without problems.


Lets take this one to rules discussion thread and not clog the international forum, I do not know what you are referring to?
Korea
player, 18 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 22:07
  • msg #482

Re: Modernized Treaties

Russia:
In reply to Korea (msg # 476):


Being said that, China's actions in 3N33 are still legitimate.


Russia did not support others objections to China's claims
Russia did support China's objections to Japan's claims

I point out this fact.

Russia has indeed not made a solid objected to any claims - I believe that is my point.

It has, however, given legitimacy to Chinese objections it has not to others previously, and in condemning Japan's actions ignores the precedents it has set itself.

quote:
Russian claims were in line with UNCLOS-1982.


Russia claimed they were, at least in game terms

Others disagreed.

Russia continued with its claims anyway, leading us to the current situation

It is not I with the selective memory
China
player, 103 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 23:01
  • msg #483

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to Canada (msg # 475):

China never treated Canada with aggression or nuclear attack. Nor any other countries.

China just was do warning, that leaving treates will create conflicts in future. And small conflicts can become big one. We're big one - there is WMD.

All other - Australia insinuations. They see what they want to see.
Australia
player, 39 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 23:18
  • msg #484

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to China (msg # 483):

China:
In reply to Canada (msg # 475):

China never treated Canada with aggression or nuclear attack. Nor any other countries.

China just was do warning, that leaving treates will create conflicts in future. And small conflicts can become big one. We're big one - there is WMD.

All other - Australia insinuations. They see what they want to see.


China msg #440:
Also China will want to remind, that we have huge capacity for military excalation. Much more, than almost any country. Times more. If we will decide to strike someone - it would be end of the world, and there is no alliances, which can be able to prevent it.


quote China msg #440:
Its the last chance for Australia and others to start normal negotiations and stop breaking threaties. Or consequences will be sad for all humanity.


Seems an awful lot like the a threat of nuclear destruction of several countries and the entire world to Australia.
China
player, 104 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 23:19
  • msg #485

Re: Pacific Response

In reply to France (msg # 461):

No it's not. Just have pation, and keep neutrality.
China
player, 105 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 23:41
  • msg #486

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 484):

Bla bla bla...

Anyone, who want, can read from #389. Without pulling from context of whole situation.

Hmm. Let's find Canada there! No? Not there? Strange... Maybe France? No, no France. Maybe there treats to Japan of nuclear armageddon? Ou. We're is words about striking all with WMD?.. hmm... Also not there...
Maybe you was very..very..VERY want to interprete "sad consequences" as China nuke you all? Probably. But we don't tell it. And don't mean it.

Do we have "sad consequences" for all of us now? Yes!

That all it was about.

That's all what normal nations need to know about our Australian friend.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:56, Tue 27 Apr 2021.
USA
player, 143 posts
Wed 28 Apr 2021
at 01:05
  • msg #487

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to China (msg # 484):

I don't know if this is relevant as I haven't seen all the messages so I don't know how things were worded.

But if you're not trying to provoke (and I don't know if you are or not) then you need to be careful how you phrase things. Threats can be implied even if they're not directly spoken.

Example:

There's a common trope in gangster movies (especially ones dealing with 1920s Chicago etc) where a local gangster turns up at a building and says 'nice house, it would be a terrible shame if it burned down' to the owner in order to extort protection money.

Also 'your wife is really pretty, it would be sad if someone messed her face up'. That sort of thing. It's a false politeness meant to threaten without actually saying 'I'll burn your house down if you don't pay up.' This is so that when the police come round the gangster can proclaim their innocence - 'I didn't threaten anyone officer, we were just talking about building safety' etc.

Having a discussion about a territorial dispute and then saying something like 'this is totally unrelated but have you heard about the size of our nuclear weapon stockpile' is usually taken as a threat.

I'm not judging whether it was intentional or a translation issue, but it's certainly how I read a lot of messages.
Canada
player, 27 posts
Wed 28 Apr 2021
at 07:20
  • msg #488

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to China (msg # 483):

China msg # 483:
China never treated Canada with aggression or nuclear attack. Nor any other countries.


I have gone back through the message history in the International Forums and you are technically right.

China msg # 440:
Also China will want to remind, that we have huge capacity for military excalation. Much more, than almost any country. Times more. If we will decide to strike someone - it would be end of the world, and there is no alliances, which can be able to prevent it.
And because we understand this, we try to do conversations. Looks like only few leaders able to understand this simple situation. We understand the importance of  demilitarisation. But looks like some leaders not. And instead of trying to find the way from this grim situation, they try to escalate.
Its the last chance for Australia and others to start normal negotiations and stop breaking threaties. Or consequences will be sad for all humanity.


While I'm happy you have not treated me with a nuclear attack, there are no direct threats of nuclear attack either. But this was attached at the end of Chinas justification of why Korea was nuked. This is why Australia and others where taking this as an implied threat that the very same thing could happen again.

As I stated in my last post, I am ready to discuss a peaceful transition from the old treaties into the new ones in a way you find acceptable. I am awaiting your reply.

Chinca msg # 483:
China just was do warning, that leaving treates will create conflicts in future. And small conflicts can become big one. We're big one - there is WMD.


This time you are pointing at your pile of WMD:s whilst making a threat warning.

Do you see why Australia and others believe you are threatening them with WMDs for leaving the treaties? Instead of heed your warning that leaving the treaties could potentially lead to future conflicts that ultimately resolve in the usage of WMD:s?
China
player, 106 posts
Wed 28 Apr 2021
at 08:17
  • msg #489

Re: Modernized Treaties


There is no need to look for a black cat in dark room. Expecialy if there is no cat.

History with Korea was posted, because Australia told, that we nuked them by our own will and decision as act of attack. (Here is many new players, who probably don't read old messages) At least we read it that way. And this is completely wrong. So we repost old message with a whole story, so all can read all chain of events and have their own opinion about Korea crisis.

Finally. If someone have questions and misunderstanding for diplomatic phrases, it's always a perfect tool present. This tool is a QUESTION! Ask  other nation what they mean! Very simple isn't it? Do not bring false accusations based on your emotions.

And we question many times. Expecialy USA and Australia. And in case of Australia - we never receive strait answers.

So it's totally personal choice, follow someone fantasies, and build plans on this, or follow facts.

And yes, in case of war China have huge capacity. China can built enourmous forces. CAN. It's just a fact. To know. For someone who lazy enougth to look by himself at nations budget file. It's warning about not to start war with China, because it pointless. And hidden hint, that China do not afraid military treats.

Many years China do not significantly improve their military. Nor quality, nor quantity. 1 time, many years ago, when USA was unwilling to speak about WMD balance, we built 3 ICBM in addition to our...1. And in total it's anyway less than USA have. Not taking in count defence systems.
Conventional forces was not built at all. Or maybe 1 or 2 units, don't remember clearly. So China never was preparing to war. Never try to build forces bigger than neighbours. Can, but not doing that. And now, when neighbours plan to attack us we start questioning ourselves. This was right or wrong?

Even now we do not build or upgrade units. Australia do. (WarFooting option engaged)

This is the last time when we explain this situation. If you continue to see it in perverted way, this mean you want to do that, and we can do nothing to change it. China out. Good luck and may your gods help you. To have reasons in your minds...
This message was last edited by the player at 08:20, Wed 28 Apr 2021.
Canada
player, 28 posts
Wed 28 Apr 2021
at 08:43
  • msg #490

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to China (msg # 489):

China, I am listening to you. And I am beginning to see your point of view. How do you propose we solve this crisis? I do not wish for a conflict with you. I cannot speak for the other countries but I am willing to remain i the current treaties for now if that is the issue.
Russia
player, 132 posts
Wed 28 Apr 2021
at 09:01
  • msg #491

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to Korea (msg # 482):

Korea:
Russia did not support others objections to China's claims
Russia did support China's objections to Japan's claims

It has, however, given legitimacy to Chinese objections it has not to others previously


Err… Your attempt to portray Russia in an unsightly light is too, err, sophisticated.
First, Russia was not running around poking every nation with UNCLOS treaty every time when a nation was claiming a hex. We did, however, use this argument when the hex was close to our borders.
Second, Russia was not supporting China. If this were so, Russian cruisers would already be in the hex 3N33.
What Russia is doing is calling things for what they are, since no one bothered to do it.

Korea:
Russia claimed they were, at least in game terms
Others disagreed.


(OOC: Make clear what you are telling in character and what out of character, it seems you mixed it up in this paragraph).

IC:
Some disagreed. No one proved that Russia violated the UNCLOS treaty (30 years passed, btw). I reserve the right to ignore opinions that are not supported by proofs. Thus, Russia claimed the hexes.

I remember I discussed with the Nordic Federation, what exactly they thought Russia was violating. It seems the NF was the only nation among the “objectors” who actually went reading the treaty. To its credit, the NF came back and admitted that Russia had not violated any law.

Korea:
Russia continued with its claims anyway, leading us to the current situation


Ah! I see what you did here.
While Russia, the United States and China are engaged in intense discussions to create a law that would exclude the possibility of military conflicts over the right to own territories, Korea, for some reason, sows discord and suspicion, arbitrarily interpreting events and unreasonably blaming Russia. In view of this, Korea is going to study international law and present evidence to Russia that UNCLOS was violated. In private, in order not to clutter up the international forum. Until then, Russia will ignore Korea's insinuations.
China
player, 107 posts
Wed 28 Apr 2021
at 10:15
  • msg #492

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to Canada (msg # 490):

We are closely working on this with USA and Russia. It's not going easy, but we find common ground already. Just stay calm and reasonable. You already can see some elements of this conference in this forum. It's early to tell, that situation is solved, and all this can be ruined by Australia very easily, but in general, all looks optimistic. At least we hope.
Korea
player, 19 posts
Wed 28 Apr 2021
at 10:54
  • msg #493

Re: Modernized Treaties

Russia:
Korea:
Russia claimed they were, at least in game terms
Others disagreed.


(OOC: Make clear what you are telling in character and what out of character, it seems you mixed it up in this paragraph).

OOC:
Fair point - I was thinking here in the same way I don't have an issue using the idea of a war round in character - since its a stand in for a real world date the character would know, but that we abstract in mechanical terms.

But yes, in this case I was rather ham fisted. Apologies.

Instead lets pretend I said "Russia claimed they were well within the territory they could claim according to UNCLOS whilst presenting spurious evidence of its continental shelf (OOC : Russia and others had arguments over the interpretation of UNCLOS into game terms)"
Korea
player, 20 posts
Wed 28 Apr 2021
at 11:14
  • msg #494

Re: Modernized Treaties

Russia:
Ah! I see what you did here.
While Russia, the United States and China are engaged in intense discussions to create a law that would exclude the possibility of military conflicts over the right to own territories, Korea, for some reason, sows discord and suspicion, arbitrarily interpreting events and unreasonably blaming Russia. In view of this, Korea is going to study international law and present evidence to Russia that UNCLOS was violated. In private, in order not to clutter up the international forum. Until then, Russia will ignore Korea's insinuations.


We have had that song and dance, I do not intend to repeat that discussion. I simply look to provide a history, and point out the consequences of previous actions and the precedent they set. Particularly when current statements conflict with previous actions, or where those previous actions might provide further context.

I agree some law is required to regulate this - i also believe this law cannot be the sole remit of the three of you alone, unless this is not an international treaty and is instead a dictat to be imposed on others?
Australia
player, 40 posts
Wed 28 Apr 2021
at 21:56
  • msg #495

Re: Modernized Treaties

China:
Even now we do not build or upgrade units. Australia do. (WarFooting option engaged)

Australia was indirectly threatened by China with military escalation, whether this was an error in translation or intentional, this is why Australia is at War Footing. Australia and its people still fully believe China has the intention of riling the world up to war and hoping it can win.

By going to war footing, Australia is saying quite clearly, that it is not going to sit here and just get bullied by China and if it comes to war, Australia wants the ability to fight back.

The reason Australia immediately went to WMD threats was Chinas wording and the fact that China is the only country on this planet since 1945 to have deployed nuclear weapons against another nation in an act of war. And China deployed unnecessarily large amounts of nuclear weapons against a nation that was practically no threat, regardless of what Chinese state propaganda says.

Korea:
Russia:
Ah! I see what you did here.
While Russia, the United States and China are engaged in intense discussions to create a law that would exclude the possibility of military conflicts over the right to own territories, Korea, for some reason, sows discord and suspicion, arbitrarily interpreting events and unreasonably blaming Russia. In view of this, Korea is going to study international law and present evidence to Russia that UNCLOS was violated. In private, in order not to clutter up the international forum. Until then, Russia will ignore Korea's insinuations.


We have had that song and dance, I do not intend to repeat that discussion. I simply look to provide a history, and point out the consequences of previous actions and the precedent they set. Particularly when current statements conflict with previous actions, or where those previous actions might provide further context.

I agree some law is required to regulate this - i also believe this law cannot be the sole remit of the three of you alone, unless this is not an international treaty and is instead a dictat to be imposed on others?


Korea makes a very valid point here. Australia looks forward to seeing what comes of this, and whether or not the USA has been strung along to appease the wishes of a nation who seems dead set on staying in the past, clinging to memories of a lost empire.
China
player, 108 posts
Thu 29 Apr 2021
at 14:24
  • msg #496

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 495):

Before entering politics, Australia should go to first class, we're basics of mathematics are can be learned.

<Australia and its people still fully believe China has the intention of riling the world up to war and hoping it can win.>

Just check unit information. Amount of units, their basic power, compare to others...It's an open source info. And do calculations...ups we forgot, you can't... )))
USA
player, 144 posts
Mon 3 May 2021
at 11:41
  • msg #497

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to Australia (msg # 495):

Well, I don't think we've been 'strung along' - we remain fully committed to our alliances and allies in the Pacific and elsewhere. But we are willing to go the extra step to exhaust diplomatic approaches before resorting to conflict, and we do try and understand all points of view in these discussions. Can't guarantee that we'll get anywhere, but we'll do our best.

Re Pacific issues.

Well, our GM has kindly provided a map of the world in 2010 and it shows two countries clearly taking ocean hexes. I'll continue to check the rest of the world for any others, but those are the ones I see at first glance. China has taken a number of hexes South of Japan, and the US has connected the US mainland and Hawaii. This obviously puts us in an awkward position since it would take PAs (and probably a stability hit) for the US to disconnect Hawaii from the rest of the Union. That makes it far more difficult (and slow) for the US to offer up the ocean hexes it took to connect Hawaii. Sigh. I'd note that all of these acquisitions (for both China and the US) took place under previous administrations, but frankly, that's no excuse for either of us. It does highlight to potential cost and speed of withdrawing from those hexes for all concerned.

China, however, hasn't been connected disparate parts of its territory but simply expanding. In that light, the Japanese claim on 3N33 seems more reasonable - they at least are trying to connect Japan and Indonesia. Given the Chinese annexation of 4N30, 4N31 and 3N31, I just don't see how their position on 3N33 can be sustained.

It all suggests that an agreement where:

* Japan gets to claim an equivalent number of hexes as China to balance claims
* An agreement to make claimed ocean hexes open to transit from other nations

might be a way forward?
Japan
player, 68 posts
Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
Tue 4 May 2021
at 14:37
  • msg #498

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to USA (msg # 497):

Japan is not comfortable committing to setting our expansion rate to be the equal of China's specifically, but in concept we are all right with the idea that oceanic expansion should be available to all those nations willing to invest the capital resources, and that balancing the size of claims is a legitimate intergovernmental interest.
Russia
player, 134 posts
Tue 4 May 2021
at 15:11
  • msg #499

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to USA (msg # 497):

OOC:
I scanned through the History pages and wrote down the hexes which where claimed by the nations:

Argentina: 6S10, 4S14, 5S12
Canada: 10N1, 7N8, 6N4, 6N10, 7N3
China: 4N30, 4N31, 3N31
Japan: 4N32, 4N33, 5N29
NF: 9N7, 8N7
Nigeria: 1S18, 1S19
Russia: 10N4, 10N5
UK: 6S10
USA: 4N2, 4N3, 3N2, 3N4, 2N2, 2N3, 6N1, 6N2, 7N3, 5N6, 5N10, 4N11, 4N4, 4N5, 4N6
USA
player, 145 posts
Wed 5 May 2021
at 17:40
  • msg #500

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to Russia (msg # 499):

Indeed - everyone has been at it.

It's worth pointing out that in most (though not all) cases we've all claimed hexes which are directly on our coasts, or which connect separate settlements.

So - how do we get round this? If the release of hexes is going to take PAs and stability hits then it would take considerable time and effort to reverse previous administration's policies. Given the currency of 3N33 I'm not sure that's going to work. Waiting 5 or 10 years for the situation to be reversed is not going to solve 3N33 right now, which is what we need.

We could agree to permit transit through those hexes more than 1 hex from our coastlines as a first step?
Australia
player, 41 posts
Wed 5 May 2021
at 19:03
  • msg #501

Modernized Treaties

In reply to USA (msg # 500):

Regarding Australia's modernized treaties:

Unless other nations have things to suggest regarding the treaties or are otherwise against it for reasons other than "Don't like it because it doesn't give me a direct advantage", Australia's modernized treaties are ready.

These treaties will be signed by Australia as of War Round #2 and Australia will bind itself to them, and we invite other nations to do the same. Until the START OF WAR ROUND #2, these treaties will be changed to fit needs without a vote, after the start of War Round #2 the treaties will be in effect and the voting system of 50% + 1 vote will be required for any changes to step into effect.

Regarding the current 3N33 issue:
The USA's plan seems fine to Australia, and is more or less already a thing with the use of EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones) per UNCLOS. The issues arise with hexes where many nations share a water hex along their coast and could potentially lock in other nations with a hex directly bordering a land hex.
Canada
player, 29 posts
Wed 5 May 2021
at 20:16
  • msg #502

Modernized Treaties

In reply to USA (msg # 500):

I find it acceptable to agree that sea hexes currently claimed by nations remain so, but going forward we will adhere to only claiming sea hexes inside our own EEZ. If all agree, China and USA may keep their currently claimed sea hexes, and Japan gets to claim 3N33. See Australia's proposed treaty for details.


In reply to Australia (msg # 501):

Excellent, Canada will review and sign the treaties after they are solidified by War Round #2.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:17, Wed 05 May 2021.
Japan
player, 69 posts
Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
Wed 5 May 2021
at 22:41
  • msg #503

Modernized Treaties

In reply to Canada (msg # 502):

That leaves an awful lot of island chains, secret undersea lairs, and shallow mid-Pacific continental shelves outside the reach of being claimed, does it not?
Canada
player, 30 posts
Thu 6 May 2021
at 17:18
  • msg #504

Modernized Treaties

In reply to Japan (msg # 503):

  • You are allowed to claim any unclaimed hex as long as it is not within another nations EEZ (adjacent to land/island/archipelago).
  • You are allowed to claim an EEZ hex shared with other nations as long as all nations concerned agree.
  • Disputed EEZ hexes should remain or become unclaimed.
  • Transit through other nations EEZ hexes are permitted according to UNCLOS, see trait proposal.
  • Transit through other nations sea hexes containing infrastructure is permitted following the same rules as the EEZ hexes.
  • Claimed sea hexes (EEZ hexes not counted) not containing any infrastructure 2 rounds after they where first claimed by a nation revert to an unclaimed hex (or may be claimed by another nation if the revert is forgotten). Reclaiming your own hex does not extend the time limit, you must use the hex for something.


How does this sound?

Edit OOC: If any rules need to be bent for this to work, such as EEZ hexes are friendly to transiting military forces, I suggest running the treaties through the UN as a PA with a standard disclosure for everybody to append to their orders.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:39, Thu 06 May 2021.
China
player, 109 posts
Sun 9 May 2021
at 11:35
  • msg #505

Modernized Treaties

Before planning ANY treaties now, more important question should be answered.

How some nations can be trusted, after they discredit themselves with exiting from all previous treaties?

Were is guarantee that they keep following new treaty? Their word? At this moment their words have zero value.

In all future treaties should be implemented strict sanctions to prevent nations from exiting or breaking rules.

Without these mechanics all future treaties are just a sounds.
Canada
player, 31 posts
Sun 9 May 2021
at 17:23
  • msg #506

Re: Modernized Treaties

In reply to China (msg # 505)

Dear China,

China:
How some nations can be trusted, after they discredit themselves with exiting from all previous treaties?

Were is guarantee that they keep following new treaty? Their word? At this moment their words have zero value.

In all future treaties should be implemented strict sanctions to prevent nations from exiting or breaking rules.

Without these mechanics all future treaties are just a sounds.


How have we discredited ourselves by exiting the treaties according to the rules of the treaties? No rules where broken. No ill intent meant. No word where broken. My word still carries its full weight.

How do you then suggest we form future treaties? We cannot force nations to remain. But we can prevent rapid exiting by, say, having a 10 year exit period? How do you whish to punish breaches of the treaties? An economical penalty of 1% of unadjusted GDP perhaps?
China
player, 110 posts
Fri 15 Oct 2021
at 13:07
  • msg #507

International announcement.

Without warning, our ship, located in international waters was covardly attacked by 2 Australian ships.

Crew of our ships was doing all necessary things to repell the attack and minimise damage to attacker. Advanced technology of our fleet and highest crew proffesionalism allow us to spare many lives of our marine fleet colleagues from Australia side instead of full destruction. We understand, that they are forced to follow orders of madman regime.

We calling to all other countries and UN to condemn this outrageous act of war and put sanctions, economical and political on mad Australian regime.
We want to remind, small fighting can grow to big one, if it will not be stopped in beginning. We ask all "friends" of Australian mad regime, do all what you can to calm down your pet. Because he cause problems, and this can become your problems.

At this moment China will break ALL diplomatic relations with Australia, and get the right for retaliation strike.
Australia
player, 42 posts
Fri 15 Oct 2021
at 15:23
  • msg #508

International announcement.

In reply to China (msg # 507):

The crews of the australian warships in those waters were under orders to defend the japanese colony. For the chinese warships to have been fired upon, they must have been acting as any of the following:
A pirate force
A hostile national force targeting civilian populations
A hostile national force targeting any other warships in the area

For them to have opened fire, they must have seen the chinese warships act in an aggressive manner and opened fire. Australia notes that only two frigate units were involved in the battle, rather than the full fleet, indicating that they were operating as a frontal defense force intent to chase away the aggressors before larger warships were needed.

Not to mention that China was warned well in advance of the naval exercise in the area. China was warned that this could happen. China chose to continue it's illegal military harassment of the colony. China will get no sympathy from Australia.

Australia will ask you one last time, leave the area or risk your warships getting caught in the crossfire of our exercises.
China
player, 111 posts
Sat 16 Oct 2021
at 14:35
  • msg #509

International announcement.

In reply to Australia (msg # 508):

OOC - just un case, if you do not understand, and probably you not. China ended diplomatic relations and communications with Australia, which means, that you can not reach China government with you messages directly. All your warnings, proposals, negotiations would be ignored.
China
player, 112 posts
Sat 16 Oct 2021
at 14:51
  • msg #510

International announcement.

All civilian planes or ships should avoid potential zones of conflict. All unendetufied targets would be handled as hostile.

All military forces of all countries should leave zone of conflict to prevent misfire or wrong identification.

Zones of conflict - all China, all Australia territories and Pacific region.
Japan
player, 70 posts
Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
Sat 16 Oct 2021
at 18:34
  • msg #511

International announcement.

In reply to China (msg # 510):

Your military forces are in international waters surrounded by the forces of very patient people with greater claim to be present than you have.

Take your own advice and get your unwelcome, uninvited military force out of the Pacific region.
Canada
player, 32 posts
Sat 16 Oct 2021
at 20:28
  • msg #512

International announcement.

In reply to Japan (msg # 511):

I just want to make it absolutely clear that I stand behind Japan. Leave Hex 3N33 immediately. You have already provoked a skirmish.
UK
player, 94 posts
Rule Britannia!
To the stars!
Sat 16 Oct 2021
at 21:02
  • msg #513

International announcement.

In reply to Canada (msg # 512):

China you were informed of ongoing military exercises, As of this moment you are threatening several members of N.A.T.O and are making hilariously demands.

You may test the protocol of Article 5 at your leisure.
China
player, 113 posts
Sun 17 Oct 2021
at 07:18
  • msg #514

International announcement.

In reply to Japan (msg # 511):

China has no need for invitation from someone to present their fleet in any point of international waters or space sector. Its a free space for everyone, not belonging to any nation.
China
player, 114 posts
Sun 17 Oct 2021
at 07:21
  • msg #515

International announcement.

In reply to Canada (msg # 512):

You can stand wherever you want.
Australia push the red button first. That's all.
Or not. You stand for war starter. Hope you understand this. And all consequences which are will be followed.
China
player, 115 posts
Sun 17 Oct 2021
at 07:32
  • msg #516

International announcement.

In reply to UK (msg # 513):

Your "military exercises" just excuse for limiting other nations freedom. But not this time. This time you pushing not a small country. Its something new for you. And you don't understand what will happen after.

Stop rotating this mantra and look what you doing in reality.

You article 5 is stated, that alliance will react if any member will be attacked. But it's not appliable, if alliance member start war by himself. Actually he has no right to do it.
So, Australia hit China force with approval from NATO?. So this mean that hole "defensive" alliance is just a empty words? And in reality it's an aggressor?
Or Australia do this without approval, and all this conflict happening between China and Australia?
Or any members of NATO can start wars with anyone, but if attacked side response and start to defending, all NATO will strike? Interesting position...
Canada
player, 33 posts
Sun 17 Oct 2021
at 11:44
  • msg #517

International announcement.

In reply to China (msg # 516):

Australia is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
China
player, 116 posts
Sun 17 Oct 2021
at 13:06
  • msg #518

International announcement.

In reply to Canada (msg # 517):

So NATO have a chance to avoid this conflict.
Canada
player, 34 posts
Sun 17 Oct 2021
at 13:52
  • msg #519

International announcement.

In reply to China (msg # 518):

Yes, I see absolutley no reason for a conflict if you leave 3N33.
China
player, 117 posts
Sun 17 Oct 2021
at 18:30
  • msg #520

International announcement.

In reply to Canada (msg # 519):

We don't. It's an international free waters.
Japan
player, 71 posts
Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!
Mon 18 Oct 2021
at 10:06
  • msg #521

International announcement.

[In Character]

TRANSCRIPT TOKYO MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 3:54 AM MDT - STATEMENT OF THE PRIME MINSTER

Thank you for coming at this inconvenient hour.

The current regime in mainland China is a pirate state, lawless and disordered. It's continued dominance of the majority of the territory of that great country, which should be the valued friend and elder teacher of all the world, is an international crime. In response to Chinese provocations, building for many years and not limited to their current hostility in the Pacific, the nation of Japan hereby withdraws its recognition of the legitimacy of the government of China.

In accordance with the appropriate international norms of diplomatic law, the government of the island province of Taiwan is recognized by Japan, pro tempore, as the legitimate, if partially exiled, government of the country of China. Japan pledges its support to that government in its defense of its lawful prerogatives in Chinese affairs, up to and including the removal of criminal bandits who have for too long been a stain on the Chinese nation's reputation.

I will be speaking personally to an emergency session of the Diet this evening to make a set of proposals, all of which I have been informed reliably by members of both coalition and opposition parties will be strongly approved of.

1. Japan cuts off all trade and economic commerce with mainland China. No flights will continue from Japanese territory to Chinese territory. Favorable tax and regulatory treatment for Japanese firms which transfer their Chinese business to Taiwanese companies will be expedited through the Diet.

2. Japan transfers all aid, economic support, subsidy, tariff and other legal treatment, in any way favorable to China, to the government of Taiwan, effective immediately. Any legal penalties, fees, costs, tariffs, or other structures negative or harmful to China are NOT transferred to Taiwan, and remain in effect against mainland China so long as the current regime holds power.

3. Regretfully, because of the entrenched nature of the Chinese pirate state and its willingness to use weapons of horrible power against its fellow human beings, the nation of Japan with a heavy heart announces that it will seek to develop weapons of mass destruction to be integrated into our military force. We request the aid of our allies in this.

4. Effective one hour from the receipt of this message, and under my personal military authority as head of state pending authorized (and expected) legislative oversight, the military forces of the nation of China under the current regime are banned from the entirety of the Pacific Ocean, including and especially any portion of that body adjoining the island of Taiwan. Japanese forces in the Pacific are authorized and instructed to destroy any and all Chinese military forces they encounter. A temporary abeyance on enforcement of this order is offered to any Chinese-flagged military vessel heading plainly, peaceably, and at maximum operating speed directly back towards its base of its operation, for the next however many hours are required for such voyages to be speedily completed.

(*A reporter violates protocol most shockingly and insists on being heard. They demand to know whether this is a declaration of war against China.*)

An excellent question. No, release him, officer, he is doing his job as a member of a democracy, a place where questions are allowed - even if they are rude and come seconds before I was about to ask for them. I commend your spirit, young man, even as I chide your manners. No, we are not declaring war on China. The government of China, in Taiwan, is our friend and we hope eternal ally, as a fellow democracy and a state which looks to the well-being of all of Asia. There are pirates calling themselves China out there starting wars; we cannot have that. It is not Japan's place to tell the Chinese people what to do in China, but in the Pacific Ocean, where Japan is in alliance with the free nations of the world, Japan will not allow pirates to operate under any flag.

They will be sunk. They will be shot down. They will be brought to the bottom of the sea and their blood will enrich the land that our colony sought to build in peace for all people - China included.

One hour. No further questions at this time. Thank you.

[OOC]

There, that's my order for the last war round. China, we see a flag that looks anything like yours on anything made out of metal that has a gun on it, and its underneath, on or over the Pacific Ocean, it's scrap metal. We stand with Australia, as they have stood with us. Back off and get your antiquated tin cans out of my ocean or find out how many countries it takes to blow your widdle kingdom into the middle of next week.
China
player, 118 posts
Mon 18 Oct 2021
at 14:23
  • msg #522

International announcement.

In reply to Japan (msg # 521):

Order to attack military vessels of other state is an act of war. Or terrorism. You can call it as you want - not war, limited war, peace and war... It's no matter. You starting a war.

Let's see who fire first.

China end all diplomatic relations with Japan.

OOC. If you can not keep calm, and receive fun from playing - you not on your place in this game. I want to remind you, your emotions should be directed to avatar, in this case China state, but not to player behind it.
So I expect behaviour of serious player from you. And maybe some excuses. I operate units, but not tin cans, and you totally have no idea what's going on, and what the plans, and what would be next move.
Have a nice day.
Russian Federation
player, 135 posts
Tue 19 Oct 2021
at 09:45
  • msg #523

International announcement.

Gentlemen, let's make a deep breath and make a pause.

No harm had been done yet.

I urge everyone to take no action until the end of the turn. I'm sure a peaceful solution is possible. Russia invites every nation to the UNCLOS-2080 summit. Let's sit down and work out the rules.
Canada
player, 35 posts
Tue 19 Oct 2021
at 10:50
  • msg #524

Re: International announcement.

In reply to Russian Federation (msg # 523):

We have tried and tried to reason with China, to no avail. I will happily join you in UNCLOS-2080. Meanwhile, Chinese destroyers are harassing the civilian population in 3N33. If they do not vacate 3N33 we will have to defend the colony.

China, leave 3N33 now, and we can discuss the rules at UNCLOS-2080. If the rules dictate that the Japanese colony in 3N33 is illegal I am sure we can find a legal spot and move the colony there.

In reply to China (msg # 521):

China:
OOC. If you can not keep calm, and receive fun from playing - you not on your place in this game. I want to remind you, your emotions should be directed to avatar, in this case China state, but not to player behind it.


I agree with you. I expect us all to have a friendly tone in our OOC comments. We are doing this for fun.

While Canada and China aren't friendly at the moment in the game, I am very much enjoying playing this game against you. I have picked up the Persian Empire as my second nation, which is much more friendlier towards China. I'm looking forward to have some constructive gameplay with you as well.
China
player, 119 posts
Tue 19 Oct 2021
at 11:48
  • msg #525

Re: International announcement.

In reply to Canada (msg # 524):

OOC.
Yep. Same here. I was totally busy with my boats whole summer, now I am in vacation on amazing Crete island, and I plan to be back home in two weeks, and finally will have time for more deep play, long diplomatic letters and all this stuff )))
Or long and interesting war. ))))))
Australia
player, 43 posts
Tue 19 Oct 2021
at 12:27
  • msg #526

Re: International announcement.

In reply to Canada (msg # 524):

Simply redefining UNCLOS seems like a short sighted stop-gap measure. It would fail to provide rulings for territorial expansion off-world, outside of maybe off-world bodies of water.

We are in an age of exploration outside of our own world, with several nations looking to Luna. Australia would rather this not cause more issues than necessary.

This entire conflict was sparked by a complete lack of faith in older treaties by a few nations, Australia included, and China's offense to that fact. Australia has from that point on worked with Japan and Canada, primarily, to provide treaties that look forward upon our reality. (OOC: And are game relevant.) This was to ensure that nations stay accountable for many years into the future and set forth, in our opinion, fair rules for not only the exploration of space, but the continued use of our home planet, Earth. Naturally, Australia is biased towards these treaties, we helped create them after all.

This does not mean Australia is not willing to join the UNCLOS-2080 summit, we simply wish to point out that there are a lot more steps that need to be taken, so that we don't have similar incidents a few years into the future.
China
player, 120 posts
Wed 20 Oct 2021
at 10:54
  • msg #527

Re: International announcement.

In reply to Canada (msg # 524):

What rules you're talking about? This ones, which was forgotten by almost all nations? From which many nations officially exit? And who will decide, what is right and what is wrong? Voting? For example - Australia have 60 times less population, than China. We have same votes? Or you just want to meet in your club of friends and pretend, that your decisions are legitable?
Its totally clear, that your country not looking for dialog. You sent ultimatums, and promise just to talk after that.

China will never accept any ultimatums. Remember it.
Canada
player, 36 posts
Wed 20 Oct 2021
at 11:19
  • msg #528

Re: International announcement.

In reply to China (msg # 527):

This is exactly what we are going to sit down and discuss. You represent a far larger part of the world population than either of us do. Do you think votes should be weighted by the size of the population they represent? Come and sit down and discuss with us. We will listen. We left the old treaties because they where old and stagnant and we desperatley need something new that suits the world (and worlds) we live in now. We drafted new proposals, but if the countries that remain with the old treaties agree to rework them we will gladly present our work and sit down togeather and work out something that everyone is mostly happy about.
Australia
player, 44 posts
Wed 20 Oct 2021
at 12:06
  • msg #529

International announcement.

In reply to China (msg # 527):

Judging by that response, China is willing to acknowledge Australia responses, so we will proceed under that assumption.

What club of friends does China refer to? Russia or the nations that felt the need to leave old treaties causing more harm than good?

If its the former, Russia can likely confirm that as of late the relationship between Russia and Australia has been strained. This might change in the near future, it might not.

Regardless, Australia is here for the betterment of ALL nations with these treaties and will keep this stance during the UNCLOS-2080 summit. This likely means Australia is going to be at odds with the historically diplomatically powerful nations. Australia wishes for modernized treaties that work for all nations' benefit. Not simply the ones with the most economic power or political power for that matter. But that's a matter we will hopefully discuss in 2080.

We invited ALL nations to take a look at (And join if they so wished) those treaties when they were drafts, and come with input, Canada and Japan were as far as I can recall the only two nations who did so. Australia will once again invite all nations to come with their input on them, provided its relevant after the summit in 2080... or for that matter, provided we make it to the 2080 summit Russia is proposing without a full scale war. We would be happy to send China a copy of the Chinese translation of the treaties, if China cares for it.

Australia has been willing to talk this entire time. Australia has also not wanted a war, we would very much like to get back to our colonization projects. But we have not been willing to  sit back and let our allies be bullied.
Russian Federation
player, 136 posts
Thu 21 Oct 2021
at 07:19
  • msg #530

International announcement.

Whoever gives the order to attack in the hex 3N33 will be considered by Russia as the instigator of the war.
China
player, 121 posts
Fri 22 Oct 2021
at 12:20
  • msg #531

International announcement.

In reply to Russian Federation (msg # 530):

This is already happened.
China
player, 122 posts
Wed 17 Nov 2021
at 23:35
  • msg #532

International announcement.

Because the United States of America, Great Britain, Japan, Australia and Canada attack our military unit with their military forces we close any diplomatic relations with these countries. All these countries citizens and diplomats are received "person non grata" status and should leave China territory in 24 hours. No more than one case of luggage per person is allowed. All luggage is subject to control. All accounts and assets of companies with USA, Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan shares or control are under arrest or going to China control. All media companies of enemy states are banned from the translation on China territory.

All China citizens located in enemy countries should return to China.

China asks NATO about its position. Some NATO members are initiating military actions. Was that action been approved by NATO?
Should we consider other NATO countries as hostile?
Canada
player, 38 posts
Thu 18 Nov 2021
at 20:19
  • msg #533

International announcement.

If China had been less agressive and provoking and instead open for negotiations we would never have ended up where we are. China has engineered this conflict despite our best efforts to find a peacful solution.

In response to the hostile actions by the Chinese regime against Canadian citizens in China, Canada will offer recidense permit to Chinese citizens in Canada who wishes to stay.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:19, Thu 18 Nov 2021.
Canada
player, 39 posts
Sat 19 Feb 2022
at 13:47
  • msg #534

International announcement.

Canada will withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2080. I will put 1PA into a handover of security to the local government.
Canada
player, 41 posts
Mon 21 Feb 2022
at 22:37
  • msg #535

International announcement.

My condolences to the people of Japan for the loss of the Ōshan'u-erusu colony. I condemn China for their actions causing such loss of life and property!

The Pacific Response Joint Naval exercise has concluded. The Canadian units will perform a naval visit in Australia before returning home.
USA
player, 146 posts
Sun 6 Mar 2022
at 19:58
  • msg #536

International announcement.

In reply to Canada (msg # 535):

US units will be returning to friendly ports at the conclusion of this exercise.
China
player, 125 posts
Mon 12 Sep 2022
at 10:33
  • msg #537

International announcement.

TOTALY OOC!

This game looks pretty dead for now.

I am developing a cosmic strategy and simulation game. Maybe will be some working modules in the wintertime. Unreal Engine as a base.
If someone is interested in joining a new project, don't hesitate to contact me.
Sign In