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.

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

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.

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.

... 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:

2.1. Brazil objects.

... disconnecting ...

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.

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).

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.

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.

In reply to USA (msg # 471):

Have sent a msg to the GM asking about Hawaii and how it can be handled.

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.

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 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.

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:



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.

In reply to Korea (msg # 476):



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.

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.

Nope, didn't forget - specifically referenced that infact

In reply to Korea (msg # 476):



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.



Russian claims were in line with UNCLOS-1982.

OOC:


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?

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.



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

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.

In reply to China (msg # 483):







Seems an awful lot like the a threat of nuclear destruction of several countries and the entire world to Australia.

In reply to France (msg # 461):

No it's not. Just have pation, and keep neutrality.

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.

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.