Icarus Conflict Solutions to Withdraw from Intaki Prime

It is with both disappointment and aspiration for a greater future of Intaki Prime, her people, and her culture, that Icarus Conflict Solutions announces its withdrawal from the planet’s surface. We feel that we have played our part well enough in the aid of the Intaki Militia and trust them to hold fast in our absence, limited as our involvement may have been. We look forward to the coming diplomatic and judicial negotiations in the near future as the Ishukone corporation, Mordu’s Legion, Condotta Rouvenor, and the myriad other supporters of the Intaki people make their immediate contributions.

At 18:00 hours, 8/16/121, approximately nineteen (19) hours from now, our troops will exfiltrate the outskirts and lowlands around the cities Nayvii Akat and Lenoika; our bases removed from the planet’s surface. All relief assets will be transferred to the ownership of the Intaki Liberation Front.

Our reasons are our own: We at Icarus Conflict Solutions place high value on the anonymity of both our direct employees and our contracted individuals, and it is with regret that we must now place their anonymity over the conflict at hand. Unmarked, without banners, and without borders, these elite individuals are greatly vulnerable should their identities be discovered, and must be protected from those who look to bureaucracy and legislation as a means of hampering their livelihood and wellbeing. Nevertheless, we place great confidence and high esteem that those who arrive in our wake will do right by the Intaki and Ida practitioners among them.

Phirm ilenge.
Neramav Aurora Amadi
Icarus Conflict solutions

6 Likes

Uhm… what? Cuz this reads kinda like ‘we have to protect our mercs from people who want to make shooting other people a crime’.

4 Likes

Madam, one doesn’t have to agree with them to recognise the tenets of anarchism, and these are not incompatible with making it a crime to shoot other people. In fact Icarus, by fighting unmarked, eschews the protection of the laws of war such as they are. Its troops are open to arbitrary force from other combatants.

2 Likes

Well… yes, actually, the tenets of anarchism are incompatible with making it a crime to shoot other people. It’s anarchism. No laws.

1 Like

It’s anarchism, no hierarchy. It is not anomie - no norms. They teach this stuff in Political Philosophy 101 at the Centre for Advanced Studies, if only to dismiss it in favour of the Federation’s understanding of Rule of Law.

2 Likes

Anarchy is the lack of government. Laws stem from government. Without a governing authority, they are simply norms, not laws. There can be no crime without laws. There can be no bureaucracy and legislation without hierarchy and laws.

Yes, anarchism is fundamentally incompatible with with making it a crime to shoot someone.

1 Like

Take it to off-topic if you insist on philosophical debate.

1 Like

Heh.

It’s almost like Icarus Conflict Solutions would benefit from the assistance of a major union of independent warclones that choose to live “unmarked and without borders.” Perhaps a union or organisation that was very specifically formed with the purpose of cooperating together to protect ourselves from the very same “bureaucracy and legislation as a means of hampering their livelihood and wellbeing” of warclones that has lead to numerous purges and consistently devalued the livelihood of our kind since our creation. Maybe an organisation that has been attempting to combat that threat to our community since YC118?

Actually, let me be explicate here. I’m a bit too urked by this whole affair to maintain the sarcasm and truely hammer home the sense of irony in all this.

Icarus Conflict Solutions was repeated warned of the inevitability of exactly the same situation that has played out for them on Intaki. They were repeatedly invited to cooperate with the Bosena Accords on multiple occasions so we could provide community support and backing, and all we asked in exchange is that they agree to our fairly barebones charter that was made to prevent all of the mistakes that Icarus has made on Intaki. Stipulations like avoiding direct conflict with Empire regulars, and determining basic acceptable behavior for mercenaries in the field when working in close proximity to civilians.

Icarus has repeatedly refused to enter the fold based on arrogance, pride, and principle. They frame things as not wanting to “bend the knee” to an outside organisation, when in reality all we have ever done is offer them support as a part of a trade union so long as they follow simple procedures designed to protect warclone mercenaries and baseliners alike but they just couldn’t bring themselves to do that could they. Instead they were perfectly fine to refuse our services, as is well within their right, but then seem defeated and shocked when exactly what we’ve repeatedly insisted would happen to independent warclones without a support network or union finally happens.

I believe Icarus’s heart was in the right place when they intervened in Intaki, and many of their operatives did fine work in protecting locals. But there were clearly missteps taken that has culminated in them being run off the planet. I can’t help but think those missteps wouldn’t have happened if they were following the Bosena Accords charter and had the full support of Avalon. The Intaki people have my sympathy, but Icarus does not.

1 Like

Mr Eskola-Fae

No.

Icarus Conflict Solutions were specifically invited to participate in the ISS discussions, and their troop deployments were discussed in advance, to the extent that local militia troops that I personally sponsor were deployed alongside them, all in support of local Intaki Assembly militia forces.

In stark contrast, Bosena Accords were not.

That you have not been part of the conversation in Intaki, and are not counted among the individuals or organisations with established vested interests on Intaki Prime, has resulted in you making a number of assumptions and claims, all of which are inaccurate.

There were no mistakes by Icarus Conflict Solutions personnel on Intaki Prime.

Neither I, or any other organisation, including ICRS, that has deployed assets in the Intaki system have received any communications from the Intaki Assembly, or Mordu’s Legion requesting that we withdraw, and there are no reports that Icarus troops have had any negative impact on local civilians what-so-ever.

Clearly not.

ICRS have not been “run off” the planet. Their ongoing redeployment has been stated to be in the interests of maintaining the anonymity of their personnel. This is quite normal from an operational/strategic perspective for security contractors that may accrue enemies in the field, and many PMCs maintain the same standard. Their departure, coinciding with the arrival of UNF assets, comes in the wake of ongoing private discussions that have involved both Icarus and UNF leadership.

On behalf of the Intaki Liberation Front, and the delegates of the Intaki Security Summit, I can confirm that there is zero interest in posturing and point scoring on the part of Bosena Accords.

Your sympathy has my gratitude, your opinion does not.

4 Likes

Our withdrawal has concluded as of 1830 hours, given the permitted delay by the ever patient Miss @Lauralite_Anne_Brezia of the United Neopian Federation. As promised, our relief stockpiles have been contracted to the Intaki Liberation Front, and we return home; our contract assumed void.

Phirm ilenge.
Neramav Aurora Amadi
Icarus Conflict solutions

1 Like

Bataav-haan,

With respect… No you.

I have immense respect for you and the Intaki militia but frankly I feel like you are involving yourself in a conversation that extends a bit beyond your depth and has more to do with the warclone community at this point than the situation on Intaki. I don’t expect you to know the nuances involved in that, just as you don’t expect me to fully account for every conversation that’s been had in the Intaki Security Summit. If I can begin to explain…

The assertion that the Bosena Accords may not be aware of the nuance involved behind closed doors on the Intaki crisis is fair, but if the intention in that comment was somehow meant to imply that we weren’t invited and should just butt-out of this whole situation then the that sentiment is flawed.

The fact of the matter is that the Bosena Accords had ample opportunity to get involved in the conflict through way of acting as a contracted force for the forces involved in the Intaki Security Summit, many of which Avalon has maintained strong diplomatic ties with. In fact, at this very moment we have Bosena Accords liaisons working closely with our allies in the UNF to document, report, and curtail rogue warclone activity on Intaki.

Not being more involved in the crisis was a conscious choice made by the Round Table, our trade unions congress, as we believed the possibility of collateral damage, escalation, or being forced into a position where we engage Empire-affiliated regulars was too great to justify direct entry into the conflict. It was decided early on that injecting independent, non-state warclones into Intaki was fundamentally an act of escalation that would not benefit the soldiers of Avalon or the Intaki people.

You can imagine then, why it can be frustrating when that forethought is then vindicated despite our consistent attempts to advise other warclones to not involve themselves. Or, at the very least, subscribe to our charter in exchange for logistical support so we can ensure basic oversight within our own community.

Our philosophy on Intaki was a direct result of our experience in the Kahah Crisis. Whats proven itself true then is proving itself true in Intaki, just as we predicted. You can hardly fault us for wanting to deliver a swift “told ya so.”

I’m curious to hear what the Caldari’s opinions on this are, and how they feel about injecting stateless, immortal, unmarked paramilitaries into an armed conflict? I’m not saying this to be sympathetic to LDPS, but there is a point to be made about escalation when a non-state militia with no formal ties to the Intaki Assembly invites non-state paramilitaries into a conflict. Even if ICS was not evicted directly by the Intaki Assembly or state militia they have undeniably escalated the conflict and have now been forced to retreat due to the nature of how they operate and the danger it represents to the region.

Their involvement in the conflict at all, regardless of their actions, represents an existential threat and an increase in world tensions that our neutrality laws were developed to avoid.

1 Like

Mr Eskola-Fae

Thank you for your comprehensive perspective on the matter.

No, this is about the military response to illegal raids, and violence on Intaki Prime, committed by Lai Dai Protection Service and their contractors, the Onikanabo Brigade.

That some of those involved in that response are also engaged in other discussions on other matters is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The only Caldari opinion that is in anyway relevant in Intaki, is that of Ishukone. Their special corporate counsel advised caution, but publically welcomed the suggested deployment of “non-state paramilitaries” (to use your own phrasing) in an effort to improve security within the Intaki system, in defence of Intaki interests, and in the face of destruction, theft and violence by LDPS and Onikanabo troops.

It was in this spirit that Icarus Conflict Solutions deployed into defensive positions, in support of the local Intaki Assembly militia and Mordu’s Legion forces.

Understand, at no point did the sovereign Intaki government, their legally contracted security franchisees, or representatives from the Ishukone Corporation attempted to delay or deny ICRS personnel access to the conflict zone. Nor did they request or instruct them to remove themselves once deployed.

In contrast, the presence of LDPS and Onikanabo troops has been met with force, and a clear intention to deny their operations on the surface.

There is absolutely no evidence that their pesence resulted in any escalation what-so-ever. Unless of course you reference your own interjection here.

But seeing as you have chosen to comment, I do have a question.

Are there ideological or strategic sympathies within Bosena Accords towards LDPS? Or their parent megacorporation?

I’m not going to make any assertions here, but if that is the case, it would appear that the Bosena Accords Charter, and the neutrality laws you referenced have been critically undermined and must be considered unreliable, as would be the basis of your criticism of Icarus Conflict Solutions.

Indeed, if Bosena Accords are aligned with the aggressors in the Intaki system, it may be that is their presence among UNF assets that would exacerbate the situation, and not Icarus at all.

3 Likes

Any statesman will tell you that Ishukone alone is far from representative of the will of the entirety of the Caldari people, and using statements from Ishukone as wider justification for escalation either stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Caldari politics or is purposefully ignorant to justify their own behavior. Ishukone represents just one of the Big Eight that make up the State, and at any given moment relying on the testimony of Ishukone will immediately find you at odds with Lai Dai and Kaalakiota, who I am all sure would be more than willing to contest Ishukone’s claims. This is not to even mention the “Practicals” that may well support Lai Dai’s actions in kind depending on their own ambitions.

I will admit that the nature of the Caldari “government” makes balancing a policy of neutrality complicated. When considering neutrality, we have to consider the opinions of not only the four major empires but the various factions that make up the Caldari State.

This is at least partially why, to simplify the issue of neutrality, as a general rule we avoid open conflict with Empire affiliated agencies in the first place. When Onikanabo Brigade was the only organisation in-theater with no clear empire backing then we might have been keen on the possibility of involvement but we instead decided to wait until it was clear who was backing them. The moment LDPS made their involvement known was the moment we knew that we could not be involved in anything more than as a liaison in the Intaki crisis.

Balancing neutrality is a tricky ordeal, and has been one of the major hurdles in maintaining the Bosena Accords. Therefore, these matters are handled democratically through the Round Table rather than as an executive decision. I can unequivocally deny any bias towards LDPS, be that strategically or ideologically, and I do not care for these entirely baseless accusations.

Ultimately it was decided that regardless of who is backing who in this situation the fact that Lai Dai is a direct empire-affiliated entity and makes up a core pillar of the Caldari State can’t be overlooked. The moment they were proven to be involved is the moment that we’re bound by our own neutrality clause, there’s no getting around that no matter how many “whatabout”-isms.

2 Likes

This is precisely why Icarus Conflict Solutions exists. If you are hampered by regulations, policies, and treatises, you can only ever let the call for freedom ring; never to answer. You bring to light the Kahah massacres - and that is what they were: massacres, not a “crisis” - as though it were evidence supporting the need for such bureaucratic barriers. Quite the opposite. When military forces moved troops to surround the facilities offering humanitarian aid and threatened to destroy them if they violated the SCC Independent Planetary Management Act, who then defends those who were subsequently purged? It will never be the Bosena Accords as long as they deign themselves fit for appeasement of CONCORD’s inaction.

You talk a lot about curtail rogue warclone activity, but at the end of the day you’re no better than they are - you’re just government sanctioned.

3 Likes

I’ll simply remind you that Intaki is not the State.

Ishukone’s inclusion is appropriate due to their status as shipping franchisee, as appointed by the Intaki Assembly. The other megacorporations of the State simply have no reason to involve themselves.

And before any references to the proxy-war of the militias are made, this too is an irrelevance.

Setting aside for one moment that Heth invalidated any and all megacoporate claims of development rights or so-called “ownership” of contested systems in that particular conflict, the Intaki Assembly has remained sovereign throughout.

In Intaki, the dominant militia on any given day controls little more than the infrastructure reserved for them to fight over, anchored and floating somewhere in space. I understand the flags aboard the facility are blue at the moment.

3 Likes