[SaltyWaffles]

Nothing against canon (which works just fine in this regard); just a thought exercise speculating about the 'what if' notion that, rather than resorting to war (even if hopefully bloodless), the GTVA security council had tried to negotiate a joint solution to the Terran problem with the UEF's leadership. In essence, would some kind of feasible, effective solution have been possible, even theoretically, or was the situation just too much for both sides to reconcile satisfactorily?

Now, knowing that there could very well be 'X' unknown unknown factors that are currently hidden from the players that change the entire dynamic significantly (and moving forward with this exercise regardless, as short of the dev team telling/hinting to us, it's pointless to get caught up in them), the major goals of both sides are at least moderately capable of coexisting/coinciding.

GTA:
1) Prevent ideological splintering/rifts
2) Prevent large-scale abandonment of newer/outer colonies
3) Prevent massive exodus from many GTA colonies to Sol
4) Prevent GTA (and GTVA by extension) from splintering into several factions
5) Avert the spread and growth of Ubuntu's pacifist, antimilitary policies/mentalities
6) Ensure that Council of Elders does not achieve/maintain major decision-making power in government (at least in a legal, effective sense)
7) Prevent and curtail potential Vishnan (and/or Shivan) influence over leadership, military, and culture.

UEF:
1) Maintain/preserve the key aspects of its culture, workings, and philosophies
2) Preserve the Council of Elders as a cultural (and indirectly political) entity--not so much for actual authority or power, but as its core purpose as a long-term, culturally-mandated guiding committee that works primarily via cultural influence and not legal authority
3) Preserve its general methodology of neocapitalist (or something similar enough) economic models, science/data-based approach to economic management, improvement, and development.
4) Coinciding with #3, preserving the mandate of working to achieve everyone's full potential
5) Retain enough political/cultural security to ensure that these things are not simply chipped away at or suddenly removed by legal/military acts.

There's a lot of broad interpretation here, and the devil could very well be in the details. However, hypothetically, a joint solution may be possible:

A) The UEF, Council of Elders, et al, actively supports (both culturally and legally) an emigration from Sol, rather than a mass immigration, to (in a sense) bring the figurative 'utopia' of Sol to the rest of the Terran worlds. Not only is a much-needed cultural boost provided to many Terran colonies, a massive morale boost is brought as well--figuratively speaking, the Petrarch Doctrine finally pays off and Sol/home is brought to the Tevs, rather than the Tevs going back to Sol.
B) The UEF, Council of Elders, et al, makes a public proclaimation/shift in official policy of a greater focus to strengthening the defense of the GTVA/Sol against the Shivans, with Sol specializing in aiding the economic recovery of the Terran half of the GTVA and boosting the military and civilian infrastructure. Mention could be made of deferring to the highly experienced, well-proven military expertise and skill with defending against the Shivans, for the time being.
C) The UEF would become something of a third component of the GTVA (or at least start out as such, as part of a gradual transition), maintaining a degree of autonomy/federal sovereignty while ultimately being part of (and subject to) the GTVA.
D) Privately (but legally), the Council of Elders would agree to work with and vocally support the will of the GTVA Security Council for at least the near future, working to prevent the (valid and significant) fears of the GTVA SC (diaspora to Sol, cultural splintering, etc) from coming to pass.


Would anything like that have worked? I know that it's hard to imagine the Security Council and UEF taking such risks to give something like this a shot (even to talk about the possibility) under the circumstances, but for curiosity's sake, how might have such a hypothetical direction have turned out?

And would Laporte still have been made Requisitions Officer for Admiral Byrne's Testicles?

[General Battuta]

This is a very cool concept. I suspect the Security Council probably spent a while working on this problem itself.

[CT27]

You kind of mentioned this in point B, but the GTVA would likely like access to UEF military technology to see what could better their own arsenal against the Shivans.

[General Battuta]

Since nobody's arguing the other side, I'll advance a pretty high-level theoretical objection here, one that's likely been granularized and reified a bit by GTVA analysis: when the periphery attempts to integrate the center, the center assimilates the periphery. It happened to the Mongols in China.

[CommanderDJ]

when the periphery attempts to integrate the center, the center assimilates the periphery.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? What exactly does this mean?

[General Battuta]

Center/periphery is a slightly simplistic historical model which - I am slightly tied down so I'm gonna be super lazy and just post up something from Google:

This particular approach to political analysis comes in three forms. First, the commonly called modern world system analysis is a theory of the international political economy rooted in a perspective which argues that since the rise of capitalism and the nation state in the sixteenth century global market forces, not domestic ones, have determined national economic development or underdevelopment. The structural form of this process, which has persisted over time, is one in which core manufacturing states dominate, exploit, and make dependent, peripheral (and sometimes semi-peripheral) states which operate primarily as raw material producers for the core. In short, peripheral countries exist, and have always existed, to service the economies of core countries. World politics must be understood in terms of this unequal division of labour. Hence capitalism, rather than contributing to the development of the global periphery, ensures the ‘development of underdevelopment’. The theory does allow for dominant centres within the core. Examples would be Britain in the nineteenth century and the United States in the twentieth century.

Second, the theory of internal colonialism is in many ways an offshoot of the first. Here the stress is on the unequal division of labour, exploitation, and dependency within singleton core or peripheral countries. Internal colonialism is concerned with patterns of domestic territorial inequality and with the various ways (not just economic) a core, or centre region, controls and exploits a peripheral region or regions.

Thirdly, the centre-periphery framework has been employed by some analysts as an approach to central-local relations, alternative to the intergovernmentalist bias of the traditional literature. Here the emphasis is on the variety of mechanisms by which the political centre seeks to control, or manage, or avoid dealing with, the rest of the national territory (the periphery or peripheries). This certainly opens up the study of central-local relations and inserts a much-needed concern with the centre. On the other hand, it suffers from a degree of uncertainty about the precise principal actor focus in the periphery.

[-Norbert-]

I think a pure emmigration from Sol wouldn't work.
The Terrans were promised Earth and what they really get is a neighbor from Earth?

If they open the portal both ways - a "citizen exchange programm" if you will - I think it has better chances of working. The GTVA could either make a lottery (for the satisfaction of the masses) or handpick the ones believing most in the GTVA philosophies (in the hopes of spreading their own philosophies inside Sol) to be sent to Sol.

One thing that might work in the favour of the GTVA is, that the "outer powers" - the martians and jovians - seem to be the more adverturous of the Sol citizens and thus more likely to take up the offer of living outside Sol. Since they aren't "true believers" of Ubuntu, so to say, they are less likely to be the source of any rift, if they settle in GTVA terretory.

I doubt the technological side of the treaty would be problematic.
If anything I would expect them to collaborate (with them I mean UEF, Terrans AND Vasudans, if they are willing to play along) in this regard. Now that they are no longer sheltered, the UEF has a vast interrest of being as prepared as possible for a Shivan attack. The UEF might try to find a different way of dealing with the Shivans, but in my opinion the existance of their fleet (especially the Solaris and heavy bombers) shows they aren't taking it for granted that a conflic with the Shivans can be avoided and try to be prepared for them.

[NGTM-1R]

Since nobody's arguing the other side, I'll advance a pretty high-level theoretical objection here, one that's likely been granularized and reified a bit by GTVA analysis: when the periphery attempts to integrate the center, the center assimilates the periphery. It happened to the Mongols in China.

Question: How does having a war necessarily prevent this? (The Mongols example again.) I mean, we can't really have the GTVA just throw a war because they don't know what else to do.

[Luis Dias]

It may not prevent it in the actual historical timeline, but computers may have calculated it as the best shot they had against Ubuntu's pacifistic Ghandian disease.

The key point here by the GTVA is to destroy Ubuntu's philosophical shenanigans, to show how decrepit and suicidal the whole ideology is, not to "deal with it", to "negociate with it" and so on. GTVA is neoconservative in this regard, it does not believe in full blown liberalism, it believes instead that this Ghandian liberalism is the recipe towards a nihilistic embrace of relativism, of an extreme "understanding" of any enemy, and ultimately towards a total incompetence at self-defense. An incompetence which is amazingly dangerous in an apocalyptic universe filled with Shivans.

Let me Segway slightly here, because I find this parenthesis very interesting and it has occupied my mind recently (when I think about BP): I find the ideological connections very curious, since Ghandi was referenced by Laporte, and Ghandian philosophy was influenced by a letter friend of him, Leo Tolstoi. Now, Tolstoi believed in an extreme version of non-violence and civil disobedience, a belief that was very well written into his account of the Napoleonic invasions of Russia.

In his War and Peace, the overwhelmingly hated general Kutuzov (that apparently got his job of defending Russia from Napoleon because he was the only russian general in Russia, imagine that) kept retreating his troops instead of facing them head on in battle*. Later, he decided to give Napoleon Moscow. Now that was a completely controversial decision. However, it was done in a way not dissimilar to Ghandian thought. Let the bully have what he wants. Let him celebrate. Let him get drunk in satisfaction. And then, when his army is left without purpose or motivation, we will pursue them and avenge our city. And so they did, and without ever actually engaging his army, Napoleon was chased down to Russian borders and when he left Russia his army was but a small contingent of diseased men (all the others had disbanded, deserted, wounded, dead by famine or cold).

Kutuzov was at his best by deciding not to wage Napoleon. And Ghandi proposed an even more extreme version of this, by actually declining to porsue a military victory (like Kutuzov), but a psichological victory. This may sound perverted but these are actual quotes by Ghandi:

Whatever Hitler may ultimately prove to be, we know what Hitlerism has come to mean, It means naked, ruthless force reduced to an exact science and worked with scientific precision. In its effect it becomes almost irresistible.
Hitlerism will never be defeated by counter-Hitlerism. It can only breed superior Hitlerism raised to nth degree. What is going on before our eyes is the demonstration of the futility of violence as also of Hitlerism.
What will Hitler do with his victory? Can he digest so much power? Personally he will go as empty-handed as his not very remote predecessor Alexander. For the Germans he will have left not the pleasure of owning a mighty empire but the burden of sustaining its crushing weight. For they will not be able to hold all the conquered nations in perpetual subjection. And I doubt if the Germans of future generations will entertain unadulterated pride in the deeds for which Hitlerism will be deemed responsible. They will honour Herr Hitler as genius, as a brave man, a matchless organizer and much more. But I should hope that the Germans of the future will have learnt the art of discrimination even about their heroes. Anyway I think it will be allowed that all the blood that has been spilled by Hitler has added not a millionth part of an inch to the world’s moral stature.
Harijan (22 June 1940), after Nazi victories resulting in the occupation of France.

Or in a more damning letter to the Brits in 1940:

I want you to fight Nazism without arms, or, if I am to retain the military terminology, with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these, but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.

The GalTevs will have none of this shenanigan. To them, the world is clearly defined in a binary way: there are good guys (Humans and Vasudans) and the bad guys (Shivans), the story is one of Apocalypse and redemption, of human agency of Good against Evil, of cowboy sheriffs against a mob of evil-doers. The very thought of surrender and let Shivans do as they please is high treason. Ghandi did not know of Hitler's final solution and Ubuntu does not seem to understand Vasuda Prime or Capella.

To force the UEF to respond, to wage war, and then to defeat them anyway is their method of ruining the Elder's pacifistic ideals. If these abandon such ideals and instead resort to a much better violent process of dealing with enemies, then the GTVA has at least destroyed the first-order threat of Ubuntu. This much at least they were able to accomplish already. The UEF fought back, the Wargods were created and defeated. Laporte herself was converted (by both the GTVA and Ken) from Ubuntu towards something else entirely. She now is forced to see the world in black and white (more literally, black and red), and to choose sides. No more "understanding of the enemy". Only one side will be rendered righteous, the other must be named evil. No more hesitation.

The big question remains: is Ubuntu right at the end, or are the neo-con galtevs?


*He did battle before Moscow against Napoleon, losing more soldiers than the french, but in the novel this was done despite his desire not to. Everyone around him wanted too much to battle Napoleon.

[An4ximandros]

 The problem with thinking about peace is that the GTA already judged such approach as non-profitable, they would be assimilated as battuta put it, so they want to purge the core of the Periphery and replace it with their own.

 The way the Galatevs see things are simple:

-Assimilation by UEF
-Annihilation by Shivans

 Both of them are undesired by what by now has probably degenerated into a semi-imperialist/fascist government out of belief of necessity for survival.

[-Norbert-]

I don't quite get why you bring up the Russians defense against Napoleon. The UEF didn't constantly reatreat without fighting back... they fought and lost all the "ground" the GTVA now occupies. The UEF even went so far that, when it was inevitable that they'd lose a station, they destroyed it, to prevent it from falling into GTVA hands.... untill they failed to do so in time with Artemis station.

And the word "fought" alone should be enough to prevent any comparision with Ghandi. They might have adopted a few ideas, but the UEF are not pacifists. They have an army and they are using it to fight. They might look for alternatives to the fighting, but still they are fighting.
Though the UEF is kind of giving credence to what Ghandi wrote in the letter of your second quote, becuase by fighting against the GTVA they become more like them.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah thanks for violently agreeing with me. That's nice.

EDIT: To be less terse, I am comparing Kutuzov with Admiral Byrne.

[General Battuta]

Another monumental quality post. I guess I'll just jump in to back it up -

Since nobody's arguing the other side, I'll advance a pretty high-level theoretical objection here, one that's likely been granularized and reified a bit by GTVA analysis: when the periphery attempts to integrate the center, the center assimilates the periphery. It happened to the Mongols in China.

Question: How does having a war necessarily prevent this? (The Mongols example again.) I mean, we can't really have the GTVA just throw a war because they don't know what else to do.

You're absolutely right, there's nothing inherent about war that prevents it. But the Mongols were, anecdotally, convinced to rule by tax and to leverage many of the existing Chinese institutions. War solves the GTVA's problem if it gives the GTVA the ability to dismantle whatever power structures make the center capable of assimilation - de-Ubuntification. As far as the GTVA's concerned, there's not really any such thing as soft power; it always comes down to assets, whether shipping, scientific campuses, or individual brains.

Of course the trick is to do this without losing the economic and scientific capabilities of the center.

[Luis Dias]

As Stalin once said, How Many Divisions does the Pope of Rome Have?

[-Norbert-]

Yeah thanks for violently agreeing with me. That's nice.

EDIT: To be less terse, I am comparing Kutuzov with Admiral Byrne.

Oh I see... I put it down to "lost in translation"

[The Dagger]

I like this discussion  . I have a few questions:
How can Gandhi's nonviolence survive an immoral slayer? Nonviolence might give you a moral and psychological victory against those you share your same references (logic, moral, instincts, biology, etc...). But can nonviolence expect any result in a truly relativistic universe? How could it work in the face of a truly alien enemy?

[Aesaar]

Ghandi's strategy worked because the British wanted to actually rule India.  It wouldn't have worked against an enemy that wanted to exterminate India's population.

If an enemy just wants to kill you, all non-violence does is make it easier for them do do so.  If a building's on fire, surrendering won't prevent the fire from burning it down.  Fighting it might.

[CT27]

In regards to the OP:

I think that's a good idea. 

However, by now it's probably too late.



So I just have to hope for an outright GTVA win.

[rubixcube]

Well according to Ken (Bosch) the GTVA is doomed no matter what happens

[NGTM-1R]

Well according to Ken (Bosch) the GTVA is doomed no matter what happens

Assuming he's trustworthy, exists, and knows everything necessary to make that judgement.