In reply to China (msg # 483):



I have gone back through the message history in the International Forums and you are technically right.



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.



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?

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.

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.

In reply to Korea (msg # 482):



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.



(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.



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.

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.

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)"

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 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 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.

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... )))

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

In reply to China (msg # 505)

Dear China,



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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.