16-05-2025, 06:32 AM
Continued from Above
Quite frankly, from a power politics, real politik perspective, her reign has baffled those who see the world in realist terms. We look at three specific exampled: The dropping of Kundrati Sanctions, the pull back from Artania after the conclusion of the Kundrati War, and the separation of Lodamun from the Empire.
A realist would certainly expect Mary to continue punishing Kundrati for not doing what an obviously superior force in Kalistan wants them. If Kalsitan ever was a hegemon with more than regional reach, it was in the period of time between 5610 and 5635. That quarter century saw Kalistani forces in prolonged military engagements in two continents and in two oceans. Kalistan was at that point the only nation operating on that level in any realistic sense. Kalistan had decisively defeated the Kundrati Navy at sea, albeit at a steep cost, paving the way for the liberation of Etxea by local forces, and had brutally invaded eastern Likatonia, threatening to completely over run the entire nation, except for a Lodamese ceasefire that ended the conflict.
So why would Mary then turn around after taking office in 5632 and unilaterally conclude a deal to end the sanctions against an entirely unreformed Kundrati, obtaining almost nothing meaningful in exchange from the fascists? A realist shouldn't have done that: it was perceived by a world conditioned to realist terms, as capitulation. Mary's stated aim was to buy Kalistan out of the conflict and she believed, at the time, that she had obtained guarantees to also reduce the security dilemma for the newly independent government of Etxea. She did not say that Kalistan's security was in a better position: instead, she cited humanitarian concerns for the people of Kundrati, to whom at least she, her sister, her aunt and her grandmother were related. A realist would not care: they would see an enemy and consider only the threat to Kalistan's interests.
In fact, Mary's withdrawal from the sanctions regime seemed instead to create a new security dilemma for other states who were concerned about Kundrati, and within two years, there was an international coalition formed to invade Kundrati and ultimately throw off the fascists. Kalistan played a role in that conflict, albeit a minor role, and as soon as it was settled, Kalistan once more withdrew from the region. The Empress played no part in the post war discussions or any of the post war investment which, to date is still only forthcoming.
If the realist is concerned about relative power, as realists are, in a world of anarchy and uncertainty, we'd expect Mary to stay in Kundrati and work to ensure that they have a government which will never threaten Kalistan again. Kalistan was arguably at the absolute zenith of their hard military power at this point, and yet they opted to not use it, for anything. For this action, Kalistan got quiet but more than a little annoyed acquiescence from their allies, while both new and old rivals treated this as evidence of Kalistan's long sought for decline among rising powers.
Finally, more recently, the Commonwealth of Lodamun exercised its option to seek to split from the Anantonese Empire. This particular union was nearly sixty years ago, and understood that according to the treaty of the Articles of Empire, Kalistan would ultimately declare war. A realist in this case would expect that Kalistan would see this as a decrease in relative power, especially in the face of a rapidly rising Egelion: to lose one of three constituent nations, and the one that is arguably on par with Kalistan was a great loss for the Empire, and Kalistan should fight to keep the nation.
But Mary opted not to do that. Instead, she technically fullfilled her part of the treaty, declared a pro forma war on Lodamun that took longer to write about in the Kalistani newspaper than it did to resolve on the ground. The Foreign Minister was instructed, in fact to formally surrender to Lodamun at the completion of the war, and grant Lodamun's terms, which were simple and non punative: Lodamun wanted their sovereignty back, and Kalistan's FM was instructed to agree that they had won it back.
A realist would argue, as many realists did argue within the halls of government, that this was a severe setback for Kalistani security and sealed Kalistan's precipitous decline. But the Empress, who most certainly was advised of that viewpoint, instead chose to go ahead with it anyway causing security hawks to be furious, all off the record of course, while handing a cake walk victory to the Anantos' real nemesis, the liberals, who openly, though perhaps prematurely celebrated the Empire's imminent demise.
From the realist perspective, all of these moves are suicidal for a state plagued by insecurity in a hostile world where Kalistan can only rely on itself for help. A realist would say Mary is bent on destroying the Kalistani state, or more charitably, leaving it open for conquest by one of the many nations who are standing by for Kalistan to collapse so they can part the corpse out for themselves.
Her policy is only confusing if you consider it from a realist perspective. Of course, there are a priori assumptions built into realism, as into every theory perspective. These assumption naturally point to predictable outcomes if they are met. But what if Mary's actions were evaluated instead from a different perspective, with different opening assumptions?
Let's take the dropping of sanctions. The realists say she should have kept them up, to protect Kalistan's position, their reputation and their power projection in the region. Mary did indeed forego those things upon eliminating the sanctions. She even acknowledged herself that she had been duped by the Legion, which always acted in bad faith, and proceeded to take Kalistani aid and horde it for themselves while lying about dismantling their weapons of mass destruction and not being forthcoming about disclosures of their human rights violations (they still have not to this date, by the way). Nor did they come to a negotiating table with Etxea in good faith. They bargained from a take it or leave it position, and Etxea left it, so the Legion began launching missiles at the island for years. It was only ended when the nation was invaded and the totalitarian government was overthrown, to be replaced by a nominally democratic regime made up of nearly all of the same people who ran the place before the war.
Kalistan got nothing from the deal except condemnation from nations all over the world. But: What if Mary didn't really care what Kundrati did, because he aim was to try to prevent famine in Kundrati and help the suffering people there. Yes, Kalistan was indeed tricked into providing food and basic medical aid, and did so in excess of 1.4 Billion rubles before the program was suspended. And Mary even sought to have a third party administer it to try to ensure the aid went to the people, and not to the Government. Her aim was to promote her interest in humanitarian relief, not Kalistani power. For her the humanitarianism was more important.
Circumstantial evidence for that statement comes when comparing the conduct of the irregulars during the actual invasion to the conduct of regulars in Likatonia. Mary flew to Etxea on the eve of the coalition invasion. Sources in the know said she specifically informed the Irregular general that Kalsitani forces were not to commit depredations. But irregulars were sent, and irregulars are not subject to either domestic or foreign laws of war. Her orders and her commissioning General Martinez to a brevet regular commission underscored that she wanted him to follow her orders, not some other governments.
Then when the war ended, Kalistan exited the conflict rather than leaving Kalistani forces in country to continue occupation. A constructivist might understand this not as a tactical withdrawal, but with Mary being concerned with keeping her word and returning Kalistani citizens home once the job is done. Mary gained tremendous respect from both veterans and militia members for her handling of Kalistan's withdraw, at a time when there was maximum coalition forces still in country, and Kalistan could depart safely and securely.
The Constructivist narrative was that Kalistan doesn't gain anything by doing what they were expected to do, which is occupy the nation, perhaps indefinitely. Instead, the Empress who is on record of being committed to peace, pulled her troops out of the country the moment she could, once the war was over. She is concerned about keeping her word, and doing her part not to prolong the suffering of either Kalistani soldiers or the people of her ancestral homeland. These values do not have a material or monetary value. They contribute to security by establishing that Kalistan is a state that honors its commitments, both to its friends abroad and to its own people. The realist doesn't know what to do with this, except to say reputation is a form of soft power. The constructivist will counter and say, true, but focus on reputation doesn't contribute to Kalistani security, but in this instance, security wasn't the only consideration for the Empress.
Finally, if we consider the departure of Lodamun as a failure on the Empress' part, we will be confused as to why she did that, and call her a bad leader because we don't understand it. But shining a different, constructivist light on the departure allows us to make perfect sense of it after all.
To Mary, it was more important to have Lodamun as a friend and a state with whom we can cooperate than it is to force it to stay with Kalistan, where all the benefits were to Kalistan. Had Mary truly attempted to enforce the Articles of Empire, Lodamun would have fought back, and in this case, Lodamun would have at least even odds of winning, and more than zero odds of winning decisively, damaging our relationship permanently.
Instead, Mary considered that Lodamun and Kalistan share such a close identity, Empire or none, that sometimes the two nations are indistinguishable from one another. More than 100 years of near complete integration tends to do that. There is a larger, and growing Northern Seleyan identity that to some degree both states can point to as a grounds for cooperation. If Mary should be taken at her word, she sees Lodamun as a fraternal nation. So much more can be gained from the relationship if Mary DIDN'T act as realists would predict, and instead act as if Kalistan and Lodamun want to be together in trade, culture, and security, and that relationship can be further enhanced if Lodamun knows it is free to do as it pleases, and is given the choice to associate with Kalsitan rather than being made to by an imperial relationship that no longer had any reason to be maintained.
Insecurity, at this moment, doesn't exist between Kalistan and Lodamun. Kalistan is not at all concerned about developments in Lodamun around aircraft, around missile technology, and around naval deployment. One could say that the two nations had, at least between socially constructed a new form of reality where things that Lodamun or Kalistan build that would be seen as threats to other nations, are instead seen locally as enhancements to regional security.
Can we definitively say that Mary operates from a constructivist view point?
Certainly not. We only have about ten years of data, and she has certainly done a lot that makes a lot of sense from various realist perspectives. Taken as a whole, her foreign policy is still in large part dictated by Kalistani insecurity in a world of other nations seeking to rise and create their own international orders at the Pirate Empire's expense and to the Empress' detriment.
But we can also say that Mary's apparent flexibility in her foreign policy, and her proclivity to do unexpected things could be constructivist, or it could just be that she truly doesn't have a paradigm in mind, because she doesn't understand IR theory, having never had the opportunity to study it. But even that "not having a paradigm" sort of fits the Constructivist narrative. She could be said to be creating her policy organically, learning as she goes on, but nonetheless, perhaps she doesn't have any paradigm in mind, but simply lets her responses be governed by the events themselves.
That learning, and that accepting events that happen and taking them and changing is evidence of constructivism at work. Her actions, including in incredibly monumental decision inflection points, is governed by her values, and what she knows of the other nation, rather than some hard and fast calculus of relative power and zero sum gains and losses. Not only do she create her own reality, but then that reality turns around and informs her on how to act. Its a mutual feedback loop between the constructed reality and the constructing individual actor. If Mary remains ignorant to IR theory, she could just be accidentally and habitually acting from a constructivist perspective.
Mary's Foreign Policy as a confusing failure to promote Kalistani security, interests and power
Quite frankly, from a power politics, real politik perspective, her reign has baffled those who see the world in realist terms. We look at three specific exampled: The dropping of Kundrati Sanctions, the pull back from Artania after the conclusion of the Kundrati War, and the separation of Lodamun from the Empire.
A realist would certainly expect Mary to continue punishing Kundrati for not doing what an obviously superior force in Kalistan wants them. If Kalsitan ever was a hegemon with more than regional reach, it was in the period of time between 5610 and 5635. That quarter century saw Kalistani forces in prolonged military engagements in two continents and in two oceans. Kalistan was at that point the only nation operating on that level in any realistic sense. Kalistan had decisively defeated the Kundrati Navy at sea, albeit at a steep cost, paving the way for the liberation of Etxea by local forces, and had brutally invaded eastern Likatonia, threatening to completely over run the entire nation, except for a Lodamese ceasefire that ended the conflict.
So why would Mary then turn around after taking office in 5632 and unilaterally conclude a deal to end the sanctions against an entirely unreformed Kundrati, obtaining almost nothing meaningful in exchange from the fascists? A realist shouldn't have done that: it was perceived by a world conditioned to realist terms, as capitulation. Mary's stated aim was to buy Kalistan out of the conflict and she believed, at the time, that she had obtained guarantees to also reduce the security dilemma for the newly independent government of Etxea. She did not say that Kalistan's security was in a better position: instead, she cited humanitarian concerns for the people of Kundrati, to whom at least she, her sister, her aunt and her grandmother were related. A realist would not care: they would see an enemy and consider only the threat to Kalistan's interests.
In fact, Mary's withdrawal from the sanctions regime seemed instead to create a new security dilemma for other states who were concerned about Kundrati, and within two years, there was an international coalition formed to invade Kundrati and ultimately throw off the fascists. Kalistan played a role in that conflict, albeit a minor role, and as soon as it was settled, Kalistan once more withdrew from the region. The Empress played no part in the post war discussions or any of the post war investment which, to date is still only forthcoming.
If the realist is concerned about relative power, as realists are, in a world of anarchy and uncertainty, we'd expect Mary to stay in Kundrati and work to ensure that they have a government which will never threaten Kalistan again. Kalistan was arguably at the absolute zenith of their hard military power at this point, and yet they opted to not use it, for anything. For this action, Kalistan got quiet but more than a little annoyed acquiescence from their allies, while both new and old rivals treated this as evidence of Kalistan's long sought for decline among rising powers.
Finally, more recently, the Commonwealth of Lodamun exercised its option to seek to split from the Anantonese Empire. This particular union was nearly sixty years ago, and understood that according to the treaty of the Articles of Empire, Kalistan would ultimately declare war. A realist in this case would expect that Kalistan would see this as a decrease in relative power, especially in the face of a rapidly rising Egelion: to lose one of three constituent nations, and the one that is arguably on par with Kalistan was a great loss for the Empire, and Kalistan should fight to keep the nation.
But Mary opted not to do that. Instead, she technically fullfilled her part of the treaty, declared a pro forma war on Lodamun that took longer to write about in the Kalistani newspaper than it did to resolve on the ground. The Foreign Minister was instructed, in fact to formally surrender to Lodamun at the completion of the war, and grant Lodamun's terms, which were simple and non punative: Lodamun wanted their sovereignty back, and Kalistan's FM was instructed to agree that they had won it back.
A realist would argue, as many realists did argue within the halls of government, that this was a severe setback for Kalistani security and sealed Kalistan's precipitous decline. But the Empress, who most certainly was advised of that viewpoint, instead chose to go ahead with it anyway causing security hawks to be furious, all off the record of course, while handing a cake walk victory to the Anantos' real nemesis, the liberals, who openly, though perhaps prematurely celebrated the Empire's imminent demise.
From the realist perspective, all of these moves are suicidal for a state plagued by insecurity in a hostile world where Kalistan can only rely on itself for help. A realist would say Mary is bent on destroying the Kalistani state, or more charitably, leaving it open for conquest by one of the many nations who are standing by for Kalistan to collapse so they can part the corpse out for themselves.
The Constructivist Response: Mary sees the world differently
Her policy is only confusing if you consider it from a realist perspective. Of course, there are a priori assumptions built into realism, as into every theory perspective. These assumption naturally point to predictable outcomes if they are met. But what if Mary's actions were evaluated instead from a different perspective, with different opening assumptions?
Let's take the dropping of sanctions. The realists say she should have kept them up, to protect Kalistan's position, their reputation and their power projection in the region. Mary did indeed forego those things upon eliminating the sanctions. She even acknowledged herself that she had been duped by the Legion, which always acted in bad faith, and proceeded to take Kalistani aid and horde it for themselves while lying about dismantling their weapons of mass destruction and not being forthcoming about disclosures of their human rights violations (they still have not to this date, by the way). Nor did they come to a negotiating table with Etxea in good faith. They bargained from a take it or leave it position, and Etxea left it, so the Legion began launching missiles at the island for years. It was only ended when the nation was invaded and the totalitarian government was overthrown, to be replaced by a nominally democratic regime made up of nearly all of the same people who ran the place before the war.
Kalistan got nothing from the deal except condemnation from nations all over the world. But: What if Mary didn't really care what Kundrati did, because he aim was to try to prevent famine in Kundrati and help the suffering people there. Yes, Kalistan was indeed tricked into providing food and basic medical aid, and did so in excess of 1.4 Billion rubles before the program was suspended. And Mary even sought to have a third party administer it to try to ensure the aid went to the people, and not to the Government. Her aim was to promote her interest in humanitarian relief, not Kalistani power. For her the humanitarianism was more important.
Circumstantial evidence for that statement comes when comparing the conduct of the irregulars during the actual invasion to the conduct of regulars in Likatonia. Mary flew to Etxea on the eve of the coalition invasion. Sources in the know said she specifically informed the Irregular general that Kalsitani forces were not to commit depredations. But irregulars were sent, and irregulars are not subject to either domestic or foreign laws of war. Her orders and her commissioning General Martinez to a brevet regular commission underscored that she wanted him to follow her orders, not some other governments.
Then when the war ended, Kalistan exited the conflict rather than leaving Kalistani forces in country to continue occupation. A constructivist might understand this not as a tactical withdrawal, but with Mary being concerned with keeping her word and returning Kalistani citizens home once the job is done. Mary gained tremendous respect from both veterans and militia members for her handling of Kalistan's withdraw, at a time when there was maximum coalition forces still in country, and Kalistan could depart safely and securely.
The Constructivist narrative was that Kalistan doesn't gain anything by doing what they were expected to do, which is occupy the nation, perhaps indefinitely. Instead, the Empress who is on record of being committed to peace, pulled her troops out of the country the moment she could, once the war was over. She is concerned about keeping her word, and doing her part not to prolong the suffering of either Kalistani soldiers or the people of her ancestral homeland. These values do not have a material or monetary value. They contribute to security by establishing that Kalistan is a state that honors its commitments, both to its friends abroad and to its own people. The realist doesn't know what to do with this, except to say reputation is a form of soft power. The constructivist will counter and say, true, but focus on reputation doesn't contribute to Kalistani security, but in this instance, security wasn't the only consideration for the Empress.
Finally, if we consider the departure of Lodamun as a failure on the Empress' part, we will be confused as to why she did that, and call her a bad leader because we don't understand it. But shining a different, constructivist light on the departure allows us to make perfect sense of it after all.
To Mary, it was more important to have Lodamun as a friend and a state with whom we can cooperate than it is to force it to stay with Kalistan, where all the benefits were to Kalistan. Had Mary truly attempted to enforce the Articles of Empire, Lodamun would have fought back, and in this case, Lodamun would have at least even odds of winning, and more than zero odds of winning decisively, damaging our relationship permanently.
Instead, Mary considered that Lodamun and Kalistan share such a close identity, Empire or none, that sometimes the two nations are indistinguishable from one another. More than 100 years of near complete integration tends to do that. There is a larger, and growing Northern Seleyan identity that to some degree both states can point to as a grounds for cooperation. If Mary should be taken at her word, she sees Lodamun as a fraternal nation. So much more can be gained from the relationship if Mary DIDN'T act as realists would predict, and instead act as if Kalistan and Lodamun want to be together in trade, culture, and security, and that relationship can be further enhanced if Lodamun knows it is free to do as it pleases, and is given the choice to associate with Kalsitan rather than being made to by an imperial relationship that no longer had any reason to be maintained.
Insecurity, at this moment, doesn't exist between Kalistan and Lodamun. Kalistan is not at all concerned about developments in Lodamun around aircraft, around missile technology, and around naval deployment. One could say that the two nations had, at least between socially constructed a new form of reality where things that Lodamun or Kalistan build that would be seen as threats to other nations, are instead seen locally as enhancements to regional security.
Conclusion
Can we definitively say that Mary operates from a constructivist view point?
Certainly not. We only have about ten years of data, and she has certainly done a lot that makes a lot of sense from various realist perspectives. Taken as a whole, her foreign policy is still in large part dictated by Kalistani insecurity in a world of other nations seeking to rise and create their own international orders at the Pirate Empire's expense and to the Empress' detriment.
But we can also say that Mary's apparent flexibility in her foreign policy, and her proclivity to do unexpected things could be constructivist, or it could just be that she truly doesn't have a paradigm in mind, because she doesn't understand IR theory, having never had the opportunity to study it. But even that "not having a paradigm" sort of fits the Constructivist narrative. She could be said to be creating her policy organically, learning as she goes on, but nonetheless, perhaps she doesn't have any paradigm in mind, but simply lets her responses be governed by the events themselves.
That learning, and that accepting events that happen and taking them and changing is evidence of constructivism at work. Her actions, including in incredibly monumental decision inflection points, is governed by her values, and what she knows of the other nation, rather than some hard and fast calculus of relative power and zero sum gains and losses. Not only do she create her own reality, but then that reality turns around and informs her on how to act. Its a mutual feedback loop between the constructed reality and the constructing individual actor. If Mary remains ignorant to IR theory, she could just be accidentally and habitually acting from a constructivist perspective.
Primary: Institutionalist Party of Kalistan (IPoK), 5146-
Inactive:
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), 2591-
Inactive:
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), 2591-