Quite frankly, it can also be turned the other way around. The Empire doesn’t trust the Republic to not murder, bomb, kidnap and torture, etc. Amarr citizens or to not sanction (officially or unofficially) any such acts against her citizens.
Neither nations trust each other.
It is the main reason why I keep bringing up CONCORD as the wielder of the big stick to get both nations to behave. The other reason was the understanding that CONCORD has no reason to screw everything up for both nations and stands to benefit more especially in terms of standing, prestige and confidence towards the organisation if they actually pulled this off.
Of course, nothing’s going to happen if neither nations make the attempt to initiate this in the first place.
Exactly. If we made CONCORD, we ought to be bound by it, or then unmake it. CONCORD can be and should be the international, neutral arbitrator our nations need. They can be held to their job, and both the Empire and Republic can be made to abide by it. They are already the dam that holds back the wall of water that is total war; they can be strengthened to shore up the leaks and cracks as well.
CONCORD should prosecute illegal slavers if the Empire does not. CONCORD should track down Minmatar terrorists and renegades harbored if the Republic does not. It is not like it is that difficult to conceptualize.
However, I still do not agree with letting CONCORD do all the work. Both nations are responsible for the diplomatic quagmire they are stuck in, so they also have to pull their weight. CONCORD will be there to make sure that both nations aren’t going to be pushing each other further down into the mud during the attempt to get out of the said mud. They have the tools and the people. Now they have to find the will.
All solutions offered so far assume a co-operation between entities full of Mizzies on one side and a bunch of Sarumites on the other. I just don’t see that as feasible.
I’ve spoken of this before, but you see - I don’t think the conflict is possible to end as long as the idea of Reclaiming lives in the Amarrian, or the idea of Our People on Minmatar side. Even if an immediate military Reclaiming or an immediate conquest for freedom is not on the menu now, as long as the ideas live, they will become back on it, eventually.
And for either idea to die, such a major cultural shift would have to happen, that that in itself would mean the end of the nation in question.
Any talk of peace from the Empire is a way to keep the horde of Matari terrorists at bay while they have more important political matters to consider. While individuals certainly exists who are completely sincere, while they come from the Imperial culture, it is not and it will never be possible for them to guarantee a lasting end to hostilities.
And thus, any talk of peace from the Republic’s side is a ruse; is a way to bide our time; to keep aggressive Reclaiming hushed up; until we are ready.
And yes, this was always so. Sue me.
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Still not a diplomat, trust me
CEO of SoE Roughriders
Yeeessss, well… the thing is, that such a move, would give all the old fart admirals in both the Republic fleet and the Imperial Navy the opportunity to demonstrate whether or not their grandiose plans would have actually worked.
You know, the thrust down the tube from Jark through Lashesih to Ohide, then branch, one goes through Kamela heading for Mahrokht, the other goes to Hati heading for Yuhelia, and then they both head for Amarr.
Ofc, that places Sarum Prime as the final bastion before Amarr, which the Imperial Navy have set as the rally point in such an event. Decisive Action and all that.
So … this is an insightful post. I can’t quite “Like” it, though.
I’m not sure the ideas you point to necessarily need to die fully for peace to become possible, Cpt. Rhiannon. The Reclaiming doesn’t have to be carried out by paladins; believing in “Our People” doesn’t necessarily mean not becoming part of any larger community. (Families usually are part of something larger, after all; it’s hard to avoid having neighbors.)
These ideas are kind of at loggerheads, sure, especially with all the history between your peoples. But there are ways of “fighting” that don’t involve, you know, eviscerating or vaporizing people.
It seems like the real obstacle is the bitterness, anger, and blood-lust on one side … and a certain continued practice, by the other.
Maybe, but … there are probably places on most of our homeworlds that were like this: families, tribes, city- or nation-states with deadly feuds that seemed like they’d last forever.
… each now a bit of local history, a curiosity, a draw for tourists.
It’s Aldrith asking people to discuss how the Empire gets what it wants: an end to the violence. For the Republic, the violence is entirely reactive. It can’t not be: the Empire caused the violence as surely as the Empire caused the Republic. And the aggression continues. The slave raids, however ‘illegal’ they may officially be, however large or small the group within the Navy pursuing them might be, continue. The holding of Matari as slaves continues.
You’re right that the Empire doesn’t trust the Republic not to attack its citizens… but those attacks are a response. The Empire doesn’t need to trust the Republic, it can simply end the attacks by ending the aggression. But it won’t, and suggesting it do so literally violates condition (2) of this thread’s 6 conditionals.
One or the other does. The Reclaiming is cultural aggression. It is not an offer, it is a mandate. All must be converted. And there’s still condition (2) up there from Aldrith.
And each ended only with either one group or the other’s annihilation… or both sides eventual subsumation into a larger whole. Are you really suggesting the answer to Amarr/Minmatar conflict is to unite those nations? Cuz it didn’t work last time they tried.
On the subject of slaver raids being official Imperial business or “renegades”, I asked an associate back home to go looking and within mere hours I received these in return:
She had to bid a retreat from that final fleet, her Thrasher not up to the task of surviving even the cursory attention of that slaver fleet, but was assured by her handler that the matter had been kicked up to higher authorities. Of course, her combat capabilities were sufficient to gather proof of identity from the outlying clusters of both Imperial and State forces one jump out of Rens. That’s quite a lot of “Renegades” from two different nations working together in unison, performing slaver operations deep into Heimatar. Oh, wait a second. Renegades?
My my, the Imperials are sure reacting oddly towards someone clearing out renegade criminals. It’s almost as if she just interrupted and destroyed official Imperial Navy forces or something. How very odd. So are they criminals, renegades or Imperial Navy, I wonder?
My personal theory, having flown a few of these missions, is that the Caldari are being hired to conduct the actual raids. The Imperials can then claim to be innocent of actual illegal slave raiding. They’ve just taken charge of people that their mercenaries have delivered to them.
Likewise the Caldari haven’t technically dealt in slaves. They have just executed a raiding contract with instructions to maximise the number of prisoners taken. Ask Merdaneth if you can find him. He came along as an observer on one run. He didn’t fire on anything, he did try to hail the ships involved but nobody was answering. You’re welcome to some of the Imperial tags if that will help you shake loose some answers from the authorities at your end. But I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Why would you expect anything different from Jenneth, Captain Rhiannon? After all her bread is quite literally buttered by the Imperials these days, she lives and works among them, professes fealty to them and has apparently adopted many of their customs and viewpoints. In other words she’s a water carrier for the slavers.
I recall the “old version” of Aria Jenneth; she may have been a blood thirsty pirate and killer but at least she could be counted on for a mostly objective opinion back then.
Well … you’re not wrong, Cpt. Rhiannon: a feud isn’t a war. Only, I think you and Miz have this backwards.
Maybe you think of a feud as basically prolonged familial bickering, but … that’s a feud the way a fight between children is a war. It’s metaphor.
Wars often tend to end in negotiation and treaties. Personal passions can get wrapped up in it, of course, and often do, but in the end, it’s a relatively cold thing-- impersonal, a contest of nations. Someone pointed out not too long ago that often, after a war, establishing cooperation with (whatever’s left of) the enemy military is often pretty easy, since by the end of it the militaries are quite familiar with each other.
A blood feud on the other hand … deep, personal wounds, marrow-deep and poisoned with festering resentment; grievances and remembered pain guarded and hoarded like treasure. Nuance as weakness, certitude as strength: moral clarity through a fog of hate. Spite served with every meal. Peace as torment, murder as catharsis. To questioning, uncomprehension: how can you not see? Or rage: you will not take this from me! Peace in total victory, and the destruction of all foes … or in death-- to be avenged, maybe, by the next generation, if they survive. A cycle of vengeance, repeated as a sacrament on either side, over and over.
Arrendis understands, though I’m not sure all the endings are as binary as she says.
A feud is not a war, Cpt. Rhiannon, whether between families or nations.
