Now, saying "My word cannot be trusted" to the face of your largest neighbor (from whom you have taken land) is not usually considered good foreign policy. You and Denmark could have weaseled your way out of the NAPs by deciding to follow the text of the treaty and not the spirit, then Denmark could have attacked me/oddman and you OY/vR without technically breaking your word. Instead you declare your oaths null and void the second it becomes inopportune to keep them. How am I supposed to treat such a neighbor but assume his every word is a lie? You are working quite hard at unnecessarily escalating a peaceful coexistence into a relation where both sides feel pressured to launch preemptive strikes because of lack of trust.
Realpolitik is one thing, lying as instituted state policy quite another. The Byzantine Emperor is a notorious backstabber and circumventer of treaties, but his word can be trusted. Mistaking subterfuge and oathbreaking for each other is a swift road to a nations demise.
I would like you not spreading blatant lies and misinformation about me, thank you. Also making quotes about what I have supposedly said is quite a bad style.
Statement : ''why would I tell you I if was going to attack '' was just a rhetorics, if the word ''why'' in the begginning doesnt give you the hint. And I thought I made it quite clear afterwards anyway.
When we decided to intervee we said it plain and clear - we are going to attack you if these demands doesnt change.
I am sorry, maybe my English is too bad to understand.
I never have lied to you, never. So please, do not spread misinformation.
Regarding our intervence I said:
Jakalo said:
I assume you and Croatia/Russia all in one alliance so attacking one would essentially mean attack on all. But it is all semantics
(Oh wait, where did you get that brilliant idea about circumventing nap) So yes, we could have weaseled our way out and not ''break our word'' but I decided to treat treaty by spirit not words, partly because I knew we wouldnt have to break NAP anyway, partly because I do think our cause was just and demanded intervention despite NAP.
I`ll elaborate - NAPs (as almost all treaties) affects only perceived righteousness of its participants (there is exommunication effect but I suppose it there to simulate in non-existant dissent of digital people), Two superpowers and two/three small powers demanding huge swaths of land from two medium powers to nerf them into submission was a cause moral enough to intervee. (Please dont start about them being agressors, yes we all know they are the bad guys, but its not like you didnt get your revenge, it just wasnt big enough for you)
I think the fact that ALL neutral powers decided to participate (all by themselves, mind you) is telling enough for you or anyone. You may disagree but your opinion of that fact is undoubtedly influenced by the fact you didnt get all what you wanted.
And to add, it would have been more profitable for me to stand aside and watch the fun.
Frosty said:
No? Compensating myself for Sicily with Baghdad means I am giving up Sicily, isn't that what you want?
Now, saying "You are a liar" to the face of your largest neighboris not usually considered good foreign policy. Is it?
edit: In short saying ''why would you think you can trust me'' does not mean - you can not trust me.