A Tale of Common Things

[Kraznaya]

ooc: Which is why of course you only made your concerns known, after Thlayli whispered In your non-literal ear when you had had plenty of time to make known any objections, or a desire to join (indeed you posted yesterday after the declaration was posted, without raising an eyebrow).

I will address your other statements in a private message to avoid clogging the thread.

I made my concerns hours earlier in PMs to all three parties of the publicly listed treaty, actually. Thlayli only motivated me to do some public diplomacy since it's fun for the sake of roleplaying. The PM in question:

i wanted in before that went public, and probably france should've been consulted too

as is this looks very insulting for my position in the holy alliance and looks like its targeted at me as well as france

u might want to tell austria to get her ducks in a row before this becomes an official faux pas

yeah. i wanted to add you in. and take it public with france being offered a role. in any case, i'll get you added you in. and blame secretarial staff or something.

And if you don't see why Russia would have a problem with both of her alliance partners entering another alliance which excludes her and claims jurisdiction over affairs which are clearly in her interest, I don't even know what to say to you.

 

[Masada]

I sort of went to sleep before I could follow-up on that PM.

XD

*

The spirit of Talleyrand, that sower of discord, lives on in France it seems.

 

[Jehoshua]

*sigh... This was entirely avoidable if you (Kraznaya) did not just unilaterally revoke the Holy Alliance. I made no comment in my original reply to your statement regarding whether Russia should be involved or not, and merely noted the rationale behind the declaration as it is currently stood (its reasoning, namely that it was idealised as complimentary to the Holy Alliance, and aimed at maintaining stability rather than being aggressively opposed to Russian interests, and an explanation of why Russia was not involved that didn't delve into the foolishness of clerical error) which left the way open to a diplomatic resolution that didn't involve a humiliating back-down from any party. But no, an explanation is responded too with tearing up a treaty and a heated discussion on intentions and non-existent "politics of rivalry and division'.

At any rate, a pacific solution is still possible. Namely if Russia abrogates its abrogation of the Holy Alliance. Then from that we can conclude this episode of misunderstanding and grandfather Russia in on the Berlin Declaration considering you consider it necessary. Austria, Britain and Russia might lose a bit of face from the farce, but its better than letting that Talleyrand Thlayli get the last laugh

 

[Kraznaya]

I didn't revoke it - it would only have been revoked if you went forward with that treaty as it existed.

In that circumstance, we would consider that you have dishonored the memory of our Father and yours, and abrogated the Holy Alliance between Austria and Russia

 

[Jehoshua]

Yes you did, just because Russia (ergo you) consider something to occur does not make it fact. The fact of the matter is that Austria did not abrogate, resign or forsake in any way its treaty obligations to the Holy Alliance, it is Russia that voluntarily chose to do so. Entering in to another treaty does not via media abrogate any other.

Either way, considering this is ongoing, perhaps you have not actually abrogated the Holy Alliance since discussions are ongoing ( I read it that your statements in the sense that because the treaty was signed, you had abrogated the Holy Alliance, although if you meant only if discussions failed than the Holy Alliance would still be ongoing) and we can put this whole confusion behind us by grandfathering you in to the Berlin Declaration. Afterall as I noted, my original statement (prior to you noting abrogation) made no conclusion on Russian involvement or non-involvement and merely noted the rationale of the contemporary state of affairs as it was.

 

[Kraznaya]

Yes you did, just because Russia (ergo you) consider something to occur does not make it fact. The fact of the matter is that Austria did not abrogate, resign or forsake in any way its treaty obligations to the Holy Alliance, it is Russia that voluntarily chose to do so. Entering in to another treaty does not via media abrogate any other.

Either way, considering this is ongoing, perhaps you have not actually abrogated the Holy Alliance (considering the rationale you just said has not been fulfilled) and we can put this whole confusion behind us by grandfathering you in to the Berlin Declaration.

Yes? If I were to consider the alliance ended, I would always put the blame of the abrogation of it on the other party - that's how blame works in disputes. If you would learn how to read, notice how I used "in that circumstance," the circumstance being your ratification of the previous treaty with no amendment. Since that circumstance will not occur, then the Holy Alliance is not abrogated.

You're right that there's no clause in either treaty that precludes one from participating in both, but I already told you above why Russia (and Russians) would be deeply insulted by the posted Berlin Treaty as to consider the Holy Alliance farcical and useless at that point.

 

[Jehoshua]

As I just edited in the above message (right when you posted) I read your statement as saying you had abrogated the Holy Alliance because the treaty (as it stood) had been signed by Austria. Whether Russia is party to the Holy Alliance depends on whether it meant it would abrogate the Holy Alliance due to this circumstance being fulfilled (the treaty existing), or only in the event that discussions failed regarding Russian involvement therein.

At any rate, could you please make up Russias mind on whether it wants to join the Berlin Declaration or not. As I have said in the last two posts, I am perfectly happy for Russia to sign the thing if it feels the necessity to do so. Just say the word and the suitable addition of titles and the Russian Empire shall occur.

 

[Kraznaya]

Okay, since you need it spelled out for you like a three year old:

1.) We didn't abrogate the Holy Alliance.
2.) We would have considered it abrogated if the previous Berlin Treaty is ratified.
3.) That treaty will not be ratified since a new treaty will be ratified, with Russia rightfully in it.
4.) You seem to be under the impression that you have sole authority to determine who is party to this treaty, given your comments in this thread, such as "I am perfectly happy for Russia to sign the thing if it feels the necessity to do so. Just say the word and the suitable addition of titles and the Russian Empire shall occur."
5.) You might want to deflate your ego and read some Schroeder before you trip all over yourself again. Also brush up on how multi-party treaties work. Hint: speak for yourself.

 

[Jehoshua]

Okay, since you need it spelled out for you like a three year old:

1.) We didn't abrogate the Holy Alliance.
2.) We would have considered it abrogated if the previous Berlin Treaty is ratified.
3.) That treaty will not be ratified since a new treaty will be ratified, with Russia rightfully in it.
4.) You seem to be under the impression that you have sole authority to determine who is party to this treaty, given your comments in this thread, such as "I am perfectly happy for Russia to sign the thing if it feels the necessity to do so. Just say the word and the suitable addition of titles and the Russian Empire shall occur."
5.) You might want to deflate your ego and read some Schroeder before you trip all over yourself again. Also brush up on how multi-party treaties work. Hint: speak for yourself.

*sigh. Lets just deal with the necessities.

3) Which is what I am saying should occur , You want to be involved in the arrangement established in the Berlin Declaration so I am saying that Russia should be included and if it states it wants inclusion than we can get this whole thing over and done with.

4) No I am not, since as you yourself noted Masada agreed to your inclusion, and in a PM to me Prussia inquired about the same thing. Ergo, there is no obstacle to your inclusion since no party objects. I was making a statement of how this whole debacle can be easily resolved if you requested to join the treaty since there is no obstacle in the way, and the suitable declaration that includes Russia alongside Prussia, Austria and Britain can be signed and ratified without any problem... I was not speaking for any other power, or claiming authority over the treaty as you seem to think.

 

[Tsoate]

From Paraguay
To South American nations

Would any of you be interested in an alliance?

Argentina would be interested in strengthening our ties. Perhaps not a full alliance, but we can certainly begin the waltz with that intention. We would like to offer a trade pact as well as a non-aggression pact.

From: Peru
To: UK, France, Prussia

In exchange for preferential trade rights and rights to make use of Peruvian port facilities, we request an alliance.

If concerns Argentina that you seek to bring other major players in the South American Sphere.

From: Empire of Brazil
To: Argentina, Uruguay
CC: Great Britain
On behalf of His Imperial Majesty the youthful Pedro II the government of the Empire of Brazil wishes to accord with the nations of Argentina and Uruguay, as well as the observing party to the original treaty Great Britain, continued respect by all parties of the Treaty of Montevideo and the independence of the Republic of Uruguay. Brazil regards the Treaty of Montevideo, and the relationship it establishes between Brazil, Argentina and the Uruguayan Republic as the cornerstone of its foreign policy and international commitments south of its borders. It is the hope of this government that peace and prosperity may be had between Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay so long as all three parties continue to respect the terms of the treaty and the commitment to peace and prosperity which it represents.

We await word from the governments of the Argentine Confederation and the Republic of Uruguay that they continue to abide by this treaty and respect its terms. The Empire of Brazil continues to have every interest in an independent and self-sufficient Uruguayan state, and will support such an entity as it is bound to do so by the aforementioned compact.

From: Argentina
To: Empire of Brazil, Uruguay
Cc: Great Britain

We agree to continue abide by the treaty and respect its terms, let peace may continue between our three nations.

While Brazil is disinterested in foreign entanglements, or conflicts with foreign powers over allegiances to other nations, on behalf of the youthful Pedro II the Lord Regent is willing to offer Paraguay various preferential economic agreements and trade compacts in exchange for free navigation of the Parana and Paraguay rivers by Brazilian ships.

Might it be worth working to an agreement of who of the foreign nations can access and trade with our glorious nations in South America? Quite the bargaining chip if we could all be in agreement.

 

[Kraznaya]

4) No I am not, since as you yourself noted Masada agreed to your inclusion, and in a PM to me Prussia inquired about the same thing. Ergo, there is no obstacle to your inclusion. I was making a statement of how this whole debacle can be easily resolved if you requested to join the treaty since there is no obstacle, and the suitable declaration that includes Russia alongside Prussia, Austria and Britain can be signed and ratified without any problem..

I said this:

We urge the immediate abrogation of the treaty or amendment to include the other guarantors of the Concert of Europe. If Britain's aim to preserve the peace is sincere, we suggest that only the shared consideration of each and every power without alienation of any may see the fulfillment of this goal.

To which you responded this:

We hope as such that Russia can see that this declaration in now way is an affront to Russian interests. Considering, Italian, Iberian and Confederate matters are not matters of Russian concern and fall beyond its sphere of influence, considering the serenity of central and Eastern Europe is already guaranteed by the Holy Alliance, and considering Russia is a peace-loving nation with no intentions whatsoever of undermining the status quo in the Turkish Empire, Russian involvement was quite unnecessary.

Sounds like an unwillingness to included Russia and justification of not wanting Russia in the treaty to me.

 

[Jehoshua]

Your interpretation is your own, and as I noted previously the totality of my original reply was an explanation of the modus vivendi of the agreement as it existed then (with the aim of continuing discussion) and a justification of why Russia was not originally involved, considering "clerical error" to me is a clear farce and Masada had not informed me of his intentions on the matter. It made no statement of whether Russia should be included or not via amendment or any other means, and indeed the quotations intent was "that Russia can see that the declaration is in no way an affront to Russian interests", ergo that the intent of the declaration as it was, was not intentionally directed against Russia (as compared to Thlaylis utterances insinuating that it was).

Now, I think it is time to stop debating what we meant by what we said (considering it is clear to me at least that there has been confusion from both of us here) and proceed to resolving this disagreement. As I have noted there are currently to my knowledge no objections to Russian inclusion (via amendment or other means) to the agreement contained in the Berlin Declaration. If you (ergo Russia) wants to achieve inclusion, than the best way to proceed would be to request inclusion. Then the process for inclusion can proceed and we can cease this inane squabbling and confusion.

 

[Kraznaya]

What? My original post called for an amendment inserting all 5 members of the European Concert into the agreement. You posted that long-winded reply arguing why Russia shouldn't be in the treaty. Do you need Masada to tell you that Russia should be in a treaty guaranteeing European peace, or can you not figure that out by yourself?

Since you also seem to be incapable of figuring out my stance on Russia's inclusion in the treaty, here I will repeat what I said again, as you seem to have genuine literacy problems.

3.) That treaty will not be ratified since a new treaty will be ratified, with Russia rightfully in it.

 

[Jehoshua]

Literacy problems? you made me laugh on that one. May I refer you to the following quote regarding Russian involvement in a treaty.

(via amendment or other means)

Ergo, I am happy for Russia to be involved in the arrangement outlined in the Berlin Declaration by whatever road it wants, via the amendment path you originally outlined (although excluding the French, Austria doesn't trust their intentions at present), or via a "new treaty' which is exactly the same as the Berlin declaration in all respects save that Russia is party to it.

 

[Kraznaya]

Yes obviously the amended treaty wouldn't be the same as the objectionable old treaty, hence it being the new treaty. Christ, this stuff shouldn't be hard to understand.

I've discussed France's inclusion with Britain and we've come up with a satisfactory way to them to be included.

 

[Tsoate]

 

[Jehoshua]

Than go ahead and include Russia via the Brittanic Method.

And yes, this whole thing should not be difficult to understand which is why your utterances are most irritating considering they oft seem devoid of any comprehension whatsoever. I mean when you say you want to join an amended treaty, surely you cannot fail to see that that was precisely what I have been saying for some time now with regards to amendment, joining via amendment or other means, or "joining the Berlin Declaration", and so forth. I mean, Russia obviously cannot join the Berlin Declaration, without being included in the text, with the treaty as it currently stands becoming via Russia's inclusion amended to include you in it, thus being transformed into an amended treaty that is not the same as the original declaration. This should be an obvious and self-evident logical progression should it not? But no, apparently not.

Yes I am frustrated, but I suppose best left to flow under the bridge for a few turns.

 

[Masada]

POTSDAM DECLARATION: 1836

Declaration between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia, Kingdom of France and Russian Empire.

-

ARTICLE 1. All signatories to the above declaration agree to support the current political status of Italy.

ARTICLE 2. All signatories to the above declaration agree to support the current political status of the Turkish Empire.

ARTICLE 3. All signatories to the above declaration agree to support the current political status of the German Confederation and its constituent states.

ARTICLE 4. All signatories to the above declaration agree to support the current political status of Spain.

ARTICLE 5. All signatories to the above declaration agree to a pact of non-aggression to last twenty years.

SIGNED,

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

 

[Jehoshua]

POTSDAM DECLARATION: 1836

Declaration between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia, and Russian Empire.

-

ARTICLE 1. All signatories to the above declaration agree to support the current political status of Italy.

ARTICLE 2. All signatories to the above declaration agree to support the current political status of the Turkish Empire.

ARTICLE 3. All signatories to the above declaration agree to support the current political status of the German Confederation and its constituent states.

ARTICLE 4. All signatories to the above declaration agree to support the current political status of Spain.

ARTICLE 5. All signatories to the above declaration agree to a pact of non-aggression to last twenty years.

signed

~ His Imperial Royal Apostolic Majesty, Ferdinand I, Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia and so forth and so forth.

~ Prince Klemens von Metternich

 

[ChineseWarlord]

To Brazil
From Paraguay

Odds are, we would gladly offer you use of our rivers in exchange for economic privileges. We would, however, appreciate knowing what these privileges might be.