Cro-Magnon Man said:
Russia blustered a lot to buy time. Everybody says that they're gonna smear the opposition. These nations can try and hold an alliance against Russia to enforce disarmament; keep Russia under a certain military score, and she can't do anything to hurt them. Russia already freed a lot of land in the form of satellites. Take that, plus the populous Asiatic provinces, and you can limit Russia's strength without further disgracing a country that was sorely beaten down at a cost of almost a million men.
Russia promised destruction of her enemies. Pretty serious bluster and I would take it seriously. An alliance to watch over Russia for the rest of the game? Somehow I doubt that can last! And we can look at history to see how well disarmament treaties work without good international pressure. Russia freeing the satellites during the war was done to prevent attacks on those fronts! I would demand them in a peace treaty, cause that was kind of an interesting tactic. It certainly wouldn't work in real life.
Cro-Magnon Man said:
Left to her core provinces, and without the satellites she released, Russia is not to be worried about. The Allies themselves will ensure that there will never be a next time by holding Russia below a set number of divisions.
I think Russia would do fine back in her 1836 borders. Like I said earlier, the allies won't stay allied forever.
Cro-Magnon Man said:
In real life, the Allies would realize how weak Russia was, and would limit her to her prewar strength. There's no point in punishing her for being weak, it will just make her vengeful.
Limit her to her prewar strenght? I don't even know what you mean by that. If you want to allow her to her prewar strength why fight the war? Punishment for being weak? What else is a peace treaty?
Cro-Magnon Man said:
Russia still has a lot of land, and god knows how many divisions in the process of being trained. It's a lot of high-attrition land to cover, and there are mountain strongholds still well in his rear. In a war of attrition, the defender always has the advantage, and it is vastly increased in a country like Russia.
The defener doesn't have the advantage when their industrial score starts dropping towards zero and they have to worry about bankrupting their country to continue to fight the war. A war of attrition will destroy what is left of Russia's economy.
Cro-Magnon Man said:
Sure, you can drive Memnon out if you want. I'm not a huge fan of cruelty and meanness, myself. There's a difference between blackmailing in negotiations and being eviscerated as a pastime.
You're not a huge fan of cruelty and meaness? What a coincidence, as I don't consider myself a fan of cruelty and meaness either. I don't consider the allies offer to be cruel or mean, but rather a punitive measure in response to aggressive gains and even more aggressive diplomacy made by Russia over the course of the game. Like I said earlier, if you let the threat of players quitting dictate peace negociations then that becomes a great tactic to use. Plenty of other players will step in for Russia if Memnon quits. And Russia will still be a GP, so it'll be interesting to play.
Cro-Magnon Man said:
All is fair, sure. All is not fun, however. Russia is already being reduced, by yielding land to every nation she fought, plus losing all those satellites (which should be divided among the conquerors; perhaps the Balkan states to Prussia), and the loss of her conquests in India and maybe eastern Asia.
You've got the guy more or less on the ropes, but to truly defeat him will take a long time and be hardly worth the effort. If he will agree to limit his army (or, heck, just tell him you'll attack him the moment his military score exceeds 100), then you can easily end the war now, prevent him from becoming a major threat, and allow him some human decency in the process. If we have learned anything in this so recently ended century, it's that vindictiveness breeds vindictiveness.
What the hell would be fun about holding your mil score to below 100? Do you really think Memnon would like that or go for that for the rest of the game?
Honestly, I understand and respect idealists, but IMO this last paragraph is a bunch of tripe. They aren't dividing up Russia, they are just taking away her gains, which they consider ill-gotten. And if Russia wants to quit after losing a war badly, then so be it. Memnon has even said not to let that factor into their decisions. Why the hell should Russia even be in the top 5 after losing this war? And yet I'm sure it will be under current negociations.
You talk about human decency, but this isn't a pacifist, non-violent game, and the gains Memnon got over the years weren't from provinces choosing to peacefully join his empire, but rather bloody wars. Taking them back in a bloody war isn't vindictive IMO and "human decency" wouldn't have allowed them to be taken in the first place.
Cro-Magnon Man said:
I hope a rational, fair treaty is agreed upon cause I'm enjoying watching the game. Everyone has different ideas about fairness however, so you can't expect all involved to be happy.
