Yes, and my point is that it doesn’t take a genius to realize:
No status quo lasts forever.
Eventually, one of three things will happen:
- We’re going to go into an offensive war, and become everything we hate.
- Our only friendly power will be destroyed, or
- they’re going turn on us.
So what makes more sense as a long-term strategy? Attempt to use the influence the State has, however limited, to reduce the Empire’s willingness to go enslaving people—a strategy that doesn’t actually cost much, over time—or go head-in-the-sand and wait for an inevitable war that can’t help but cost the State in blood and treasure? Even in victory, the State will have lost people, lost resources… and for what? To protect the Empire’s right to decide to enslave them?
Heck, let’s throw another possibility in there, as remote as it might be:
- The Federation and Republic convince the Empire to give up slavery without the State’s help.
In that scenario, the primary cause of conflict between the Empire and the other two powers largely evaporates. Since there’s no formal treaty beyond non-aggression with the Empire and the State, if the Empire’s not actually at risk of military conflict against the Federation/Republic side of the coin… why do they need the State? The Federation’s bigger. It has more people. It aligns well technologically, without being as cutting-edge as the State, which makes it more likely to want advances the Empire might have that it doesn’t. It, the Federation, is clearly the more beneficial economic partner to court, if there’s no significant, ever-present danger of military conflict overhanging everything.
So… in what scenario, exactly, does the State not attempting to nudge the Empire toward ending slavery align with the State’s interests?