On the Doctrines of International Relations

Report by the Royal Envoy Amenemheb Nemtyhotep

Despite that the fact that every ruler has a somewhat different approach to international relations, I believe that most of them could be grouped into one of the main doctrines. This includes most of the current civilized states, as well as those of the previous few centuries, when the age of globalism truly began. To add to that, I believe these doctrines are also not going away anytime soon and would remain in place for decades and probably centuries to come, only expanding in scope and being adopted by more new civilizations.

Of these main doctrines, there are four distinct ones, in my opinion, and I will quickly go over each of them, explaining what they are and what the countries using them seek to achieve. Now, I didn’t make these classifications arbitrarily. I believe that there are three major questions which must be asked when deciding on foreign policy, and the answers to these questions place the country into the appropriate doctrine. First, does the country even wish to interact much with the global community? If no, then it is isolationist. If yes, then we go to the second question – does it wish to interact much with equals, that is, other civilized states? If no, then it is colonialist. If yes, that leads to the final question – when dealing with other civilized states, does the country wish to cooperate with them or subjugate them? If the former, then it is multilateralist, and if no, then it is realist. Those are the four major doctrines in my model, and I believe together they cover almost every country with the capacity to conduct independent foreign policy.

Isolationism

Starting with the first question of whether the country wants to engage much in globalism at all, we are led to the first doctrine, isolationism, whose proponents reject the idea of high international engagement. Isolationists simply wish to focus on their own country and do not care much for what goes outside their own borders. Isolationist political regimes often go hand in hand with isolationist economic systems, but that does not always correlate. For example, more often that not countries will not engage much in international affairs but will still trade extensively with other countries, rather than being completely isolated. Still, isolationist regimes do tend to try to build a larger internal market so that decline of other countries, or even their complete collapse, would not affect the economy of the home country too much.

That means that isolationist regimes would rarely help other countries and would try to avoid getting entangled in any alliances and so dragged into some foreign war. They would also rather try defending themselves on their own if invaded, and would only ask for help from others in the worst-case scenario, such as the existence of the state itself being threatened. On the other hand, offensive warfare would also be limited, and would mostly be used either to secure the country’s borders, set up some buffer puppet states, or cut their opponents down to size so that they wouldn’t be as threatening anymore. Campaigns would be conducted close by and would be rather short, as opposed to overseas campaigns potentially lasting many years. Such an approach means that the focus is mostly on building a small or mid-sized kingdom which could defend itself well against even bigger foes, rather than a large empire or federation of states, the creation of which would inevitably require more international involvement and constant interaction with the other major players.

Such an approach also prescribes a certain way of military organization. In this case that would be a small standing army and large-scale conscription in times of war. Conscription would be often required, as the isolationist regime would not be able to rely on any allies and would need to defend its territories fully by itself, which means that every man is needed to compensate for the, most likely larger, invader’s army. Having a standing army meanwhile, doesn’t matter if its alongside conscription or not, would not make much sense, since for most of the time the state would not be engaged in any warfare and so would only waste resources on feeding and equipping the army which couldn’t do anything. More internationally minded regimes can send their soldiers to allies in need or simply conquer more lands for themselves, but the isolationists rarely have a need for either of these activities and so an actual army is rarely needed. And when it is needed, it is assembled by means of conscription, even if it means a temporary decrease in production, since the other option is often destruction of the state. So the army would fluctuate in its size, but would almost in any case be focused purely on defense – or limited offense which is done to guarantee defense – and would be of rather low quality. However, fighting at or close to home makes supplying and reinforcing it much easier and so it can still be a formidable force. The navy, if it even exists, would also be rather small and focused on defending the coasts, rather than any kind of naval power projection across the seas. Having a more conservative population is also a possible side effect from isolationism, as the people don’t interact with other cultures as much, only focus on established traditions in their own country, and have inventions from abroad spread at a much slower pace.

There is a very obvious example of a currently existing major country with a mostly isolationist foreign policy. That is, of course, the Kingdom of Hatti. Most of what I described applies to them perfectly. After all, they have a very well defended mountainous peninsula to themselves, and their military is mostly focused on building fortifications and raising hundreds of thousands of conscript troops in time of war. Yes, Hatti is in the OFK right now, but let’s not pretend they joined because of some change in their values. Muwatalli had literally lost his entire country and was on the run with his remaining troops when he signed the treaty, it was a means to an end for him. Without our help he would not have been able to even get back to Hatti, let alone retake it. In the years during and after the Hittite Civil War Muwatalli did appear to have changed his mind somewhat, and he is now more appreciative of the benefits of being in an international league with us, but isolationism has been entrenched in Hatti for centuries, so it will take time for the changes to become fully accepted. Even now, some Hittite Pankus members and other high-level officials argue for leaving the OFK and returning to a more self-sufficient state. The Hittite army is still mostly made up of conscripts and is hardly integrated with our own.

And Hatti has little appetite for much foreign involvement unless absolutely needed. I am confident that they would honor their OFK obligations and help us if the EC troops crossed the Euphrates, but the Hittites do not seem to care much for crossing it themselves for offensive purposes. We saw that in their reluctance to get involved in our effort to take Assyria, be that at the end of the war or in the years following it. Of course, there is the matter of Hatti conquering Cimmeria, but for me that’s not a valid argument against them being isolationists. Like I said, limited offensive campaigns could be conducted if they are for defensive purposes, and the campaign in Cimmeria was just that in most ways. By conquering Cimmeria the Hittites achieved three things: they punished the barbarians who fought against them in the Hittite Civil War, and so intimidated other tribes to leave Hatti alone for the foreseeable future, they secured their northern coast, as now the Euxine Sea is basically Hatti’s internal lake, and, most importantly, they gained some extremely fertile grounds, which could provide more than enough food for the Hittites. This is very useful for them, since now they won’t need to rely on our or Mesopotamian grain imports to feed their population, and so could detach more easily if needed.

There are a few other examples of isolationist countries. The Kingdom of Lullubum is one, of course, and it interacts even less with the international community. The fact that Lullubum is the only country, other than Elam, which has truly independent foreign policy and army in the EC makes quite a good case for assigning this doctrine to them. And just like we have fears about Hatti leaving us in the future, so do the Elamites have the same fears about the Lullubi leaving them. However, the Lullubi were nothing but a literal barbarian warband just a few years ago, so they may still join the international community and become more involved once they become more civilized. The Kingdom of Karduniash is another example of a, now conquered, country following the isolationist doctrine. Same could be said for the previous regime in charge of the Kingdom of Assyria. Both countries had little international involvement, at least in their last decades, and tried to be self sufficient in order to defeat each other. However, they both met the same fate as the Elamite army marched into both capitals within a year. Of course, both of them had international allies – Assyria being aligned with us, and Karduniash with Hatti – but they cared little for them, with Assyria constantly breaking treaties with us and following their own doctrine, while the Hattusa-Babylon Axis was built on similarly shaky grounds. Both countries had many other faults, of course, but it would still probably not be a wrong assumption to say that building an isolationist regime in the most contested region in the world did not help them.

While for now isolationism still seems to dominate much of the world – all the way from Olmecs in the west to China in the east – it may not stay so prominent for long, especially as globalization only intensifies and the conflict between our two major factions reaches them as well. There will always remain isolationist regimes here and there, but it will not be the default choice anymore, I imagine, as only those rulers who really want it and can afford it would take it up.

Colonialism

We now move on to the second question – whether the country wants to focus on and compete with its fellow civilized states, or with the barbarians around it. The colonialists choose to focus on the barbarians. This may seem like an odd choice to some. After all, what is a barbarian wildland as compared to even a single Mesopotamian city? Indeed, the entirety of Europe probably has a lower population and total wealth than even a mid-sized country such as Assyria. However, the colonialists view it from a different lens. While isolationists view everyone else as a potential enemy who might be out to bring them down, the colonialists are the opposite, in the sense that they view all civilized countries as possible allies, who should be working together to bring civilizational values to the rest of the world and defeat the barbarian menace for good. The colonialists see no need to fight for centuries for the same few cities and plots of land while there is still an entire planet to be explored, conquered, and exploited for their benefit. They are not wrong in their argument about size – after all, the entire area from Mycenae to Elam and from Hatti to Kush only takes up probably about 10% of the world, if not much less, considering we still haven’t discovered everything. So the colonialists want to focus on this remaining part of the world, dividing it between the civilized states, rather than fighting and destroying each other.

This is a much newer doctrine, as in previous times it was simply impossible to accomplish on a large scale. However, now that we have made advancements in naval technologies and travel times are much shorter, colonization is more feasible. Not to mention that the populations of our civilized states are exploding, and so we would often have not only a technological, but even a numerical advantage over the barbarians. This doctrine is often adopted by smaller states, which cannot compete with the major civilizations, but can still very easily overwhelm barbarian lands and so expand in those directions.

This, again, changes how the armed forces are organized. For one, the navy is now the most important asset by far, as many ships are needed to reach the colonies and keep contact with them, while also keeping the routes clear from any pirates. Regional or even global naval power projection becomes much more important than it is for the isolationists. The army, meanwhile, is downsized, since it is not as useful. Subjugating barbarians doesn’t take many well-trained troops, and having more is just wasteful. As for resisting the stronger states closer to home – that is often downright impossible, with the major civilizations having armies dozens of times larger, so the colonialists deem trying to resist them pointless, and instead focus mostly or purely on colonial affairs. This can still mean having some conscripts, but they aren’t the only part of the equation anymore. Professional full time colonial troops are the focus, and they can be made up of both citizens of the home country, mercenaries, or even some loyal barbarians from the conquered territories. Their focus is on rapid offense, capturing one settlement after another, and population control of the colonized regions. Thus they are something between a regular army and a garrison force. This makes them a great cost-effective option for fighting barbarians, but they would fare rather poorly against other advanced civilizations. Thus, if a colonialist country is engaged in warfare at home, it would most likely be using similar strategies as the isolationists, that is, focusing on defense and conscripts.

We have a few examples right now of the countries adopting a colonialist doctrine. The Mycenaean Confederation is the most obvious one, with their conquests of Illyria, Thracia, Sicily, and southern Italy. The wanax Tirynthius seems really intent on acquiring as many colonies as possible, and so Mycenaean colonization efforts will probably not stop anytime soon. They do have most of Europe right before them, ripe for the taking, and they could even go further, as they have a large and capable navy for the job. Before this, the Mycenaeans mostly followed a mixed doctrine of isolationism and multilateralism, focused on working with us to contain the Hittites, but now that the Hittites have joined forces with us, the Mycenaeans can focus on other regions. The Mycenaeans are always hungry for more lands and resources, and while Hecataeus wanted to continue the old doctrine of fighting the Hittites for that, Tirynthius is looking west rather than east and is ready to find riches for his followers and himself there. The colonialist doctrine makes sense for the Mycenaeans for another reason as well – other than the Hittites, they never had any real enemies, and so they are not that invested in fighting the EC. They have little against Assyria, Babylonia, or Elam, and while they would help us in the event that we were attacked from the east, they are not as enthusiastic about going on the offensive against them, just like the Hittites. The Mycenaeans have always been somewhat distanced from the great powers and found our fights rather pointless. They would much rather have the world divided between the civilizations in the region, so that every country would have more than enough for themselves, than have another OFK-EC War resulting in losses for everyone in the end.

The minor powers also seem to be adopting this approach. This includes Alashiya and Punt from our side and Dilmun and Magan from the EC. The minor states dislike these power plays between the great powers, as they gain little from such conflicts while feeling as if they are being used as puppets by the more powerful allies. Thus, just like the Mycenaeans, they are starting to look outwards for more opportunities, and potentially even options to escape this conflict. Alashiya is planning their first colonies in Europe and discussing this with the Mycenaeans, the Puntites are looking to expand further into Afrika, while Dilmun and Magan want to set up trading colonies in India, east Afrika, and anywhere else where they can. These minor countries are mostly focused on trade, so having colonies along the major trade routes would help them gain even higher profits while at the same time becoming more powerful and respected in their respective factions.

The colonialist doctrine seems to be only growing in prominence, and, as more of the world is explored, it will become even more important in the future. In fact, it seems that these days even other, non-colonialist, countries have some limited colonies for one reason or another. The Hittites and the Lullubi are expanding north for border security, while Elam is expanding east and we are expanding west, to further increase the sizes of our countries and gain more resources to remain competitive against each other. Of course, this slow and limited expansion is different from the entire doctrine being based on colonies, but still, it looks like everyone is now interested in securing at least some barbarian lands for themselves. Thus colonialism will probably play a part in every civilized country’s policy, to a higher or lesser degree, and we must be ready to deal with its consequences.

Multilateralism

This leaves us only with the last question, about how a country wishes to interact with its fellow civilizations. There are two possible and almost equally prominent answers, and for the multilateralists it is cooperation. The multilateralist doctrine is built upon treaties, defensive pacts, and multilateral alliances, which seek to bring various small and large countries together for a common cause. Of course, this does not mean that all countries in such an alliance would be equal or even be treated equally, but there is still at least the respect for their sovereignty, independent foreign policy, and other such things allow the participating countries to still remain fully independent and have at least some input into how the alliance should function.

Unauthorized reproduction: this story has been taken without approval. Report sightings.

In essence, multilateralist doctrine is the only one which places some value on the well-being of other states, and not only its own. The isolationists, colonialists, and realists for the most part just decide on how best to serve their home country and nothing else, whereas the multilateralists focus on the larger picture and believe that having prosperous, stable, and friendly regimes in neighboring countries is a much more sustainable strategy rather than continuously trying to bring them down. This strategy has a moral element to it, of course, but that’s not the entirety of it, as, ironically enough, multilateralism is considered to be better for the home country as well, even than the strategy of focusing purely on it would be. This comes from the fact that if some calamity came to the home country, be it a famine, natural disaster, revolution, civil war, invasion, or anything else, the state would have some reliable allies to call upon, which would most likely answer and help, as they had been helped in the past and want to continue maintaining the established alliance. If instead those allies the home country only had conquered regions or puppet states, they might very well break off and abandon the empire when there is trouble in the capital. Yet this is only one possibility and, on the other hand, the supposed allies may not be so trustworthy and abandon the home country just as well, or even take advantage of its troubles by invading it or doing something similar, so all that investment into those allies would have been wasted at best or even extremely harmful. It all depends on the probabilities, and so a doctrine has to be chosen according to what one thinks they are, whether the other states are seen as trustworthy or not.

Truly multilateralist countries have to be quite large ones, as they must have enough power not only to protect their own state, but their allies as well, possibly simultaneously. Smaller countries can have multilateralism in their doctrine, but the commitment to a multilateral alliance would be done for survival for the most part. That is, those smaller countries would still be focused more on their own region and its defense, now done by multiple countries, rather than the expansion of the alliance in other directions and its increasing global reach. The leader, or leaders, if there are other sizeable countries in the faction, of the alliance would still have to be the one to spearhead expansion and bring in new members. Thus, one could say that the smaller countries in the alliance would be a drain on resources, but in this doctrine that is an acceptable tradeoff, as the loss of some resources is seen as better than letting those countries fall to chaos or be invaded by the enemy, which would bring it closer to the home country. The difference from the realist doctrine and the setting up of buffer puppet states is that these states would remain independent and so would have a larger stake in defending the alliance, while also being able to prepare themselves better and so buy the home country some more time, whereas puppet states might either defect to the enemy, be overrun immediately, or have to be constantly maintained and defended by the home country, which means an even higher investment in that state.

This means that the multilateralist states must have a rather powerful army and navy as well. The large and mid-sized states must have them to project their power, and bring in and defend new allies, whereas the smaller states still must have a reasonably sized army to defend themselves until larger allies can come to their aid. The only exception would be small states away from any contended border, as they wouldn’t need to defend themselves and wouldn’t be expected to expand the faction’s reach either. Of course, such a state would still be expected to provide at least something militarily to the alliance, as otherwise it would be rather useless. If it has no serious army or navy, it would have to have another very good reason to be included into the alliance, such as its financial support or even just preventing the enemy from gaining them as an ally. In any case, the multilateralist countries for the most part need professional armies, as there would always be a use for soldiers and so conscription wouldn’t work. Not to mention that the soldiers would have to be more experienced and trained to project the faction’s power even better and dissuade anyone from acting against it. The army, or part of it, would always be busy with something, be it fighting barbarians, suppressing revolts, helping allied countries, fighting proxy wars, or toppling foreign regimes to bring in a more friendly government to the faction, and during these activities the army would gain experience, test out new weapons and strategies, and prepare for a confrontation with other great powers. The navy is similarly important, as it has to connect all the allied countries and maintain control of the seas or even oceans, just like the armies maintain control of the land. Smaller countries also need professional armies, as they still need to be ready to help their allies, not to mention that they wouldn’t have enough time, due to their small size, to assemble a conscript army if they were invaded.

The most notable example of a multilateralist country is, of course, our own great Commonwealth of Kemet, Kush, and Retjenu. Even in previous centuries the Kingdom of Egypt was quite multilateralist, establishing alliances with the Mycenaeans and Assyrians to combat Hatti, and now with the OFK we are doing it on an even bigger scale, as we are facing a much bigger enemy now. We are also doing it somewhat internally too, actually, now that we have Kush and Retjenu autonomy and so made them countries within a country, rather than continuing to trample on them. Unlike Elam, which is trying to maintain a tight grip on the entire EC, we are giving our allies more freedom. I believe that to be the correct approach, allowing those countries to grow and be able to pull their weight, as well as having allies to call on if we had trouble at home. Just like we helped Muwatalli win the Hittite Civil War, I believe he would help us if such an event occurred here, for example. Hatti itself also seemed to be heading in the direction of multilateralism before the Great Powers’ War, as it was interested in establishing its own faction with many other members (other than just the lackluster deal with Karduniash), but that was, of course, cut short with the war and the change in leadership. Still, Muwatalli now seems to be more appreciative of multilateralism and may be returning to his father’s ways. If this continues, Hatti may become the second truly multilateral state in the alliance in the coming decade, which would greatly help us. The Mycenaean Confederation could also join this club, as its colonial ventures could help us bring in new allies and project our power further, thus serving the OFK’s interests as well and not just those of the Confederation. The remaining OFK states, and, I imagine, most of those which we will bring aboard in the future, are and will remain those small states I talked about. But again, I believe they are worth having, as we still gain some value from them and, if nothing else, prevent the EC from subjugating them.

Multilateralism is a complicated ordeal, I will admit that, and many often say that it is not worth pursuing. I, however, believe the costs are worth the end results, and that the Commonwealth should not abandon its pursuit of freedom for other states. After all, the world is only large enough for a few major factions, and each of them for only a few sizeable states, which means that we are the only ones, at least for now, who are powerful enough to defend the freedom of the smaller states and prevent the EC from subjugating the world. Multilateralism might remain a doctrine adopted by relatively few, as it doesn’t sound as sure and exciting as the others, but I believe we can change it in time and prove its critics, constantly decrying it as a philosophy of weakness, as completely wrong.

Realism

The alternative for great powers to multilateralism, to cooperation, is realism, that is, subjugation. While multilateralists see the world full of potential allies, realists see it as full of enemies, except unlike the isolationists, they do not choose to entrench themselves at home and remain in defensive mode. They choose going on the offensive. For the realists, territories are not to be liberated, they are to be conquered. Allies are not to be trusted and their sovereignty is to be diminished. Small states are to be made into puppets and serve as extensions of the home country. It is, ultimately, a doctrine of “might makes right”, and if a country isn’t strong enough to defend itself, it must fall or serve a stronger state. No value is placed on any other realm and utility is only to be gained from the strengthening of the home country.

Realism has technically existed since the dawn of civilizations, as the first kingdoms to emerge rarely allied and instead mostly fought each other, each trying to establish its own empire. However, that could still be seen as isolationism and the attempt to secure one’s borders. Realism goes much further. It is about global power, about never leaving any other states powerful enough to be able to compete with you – after all, all of them could turn on you and become enemies. This doesn’t mean that a country only has to conquer everything around it all the time, far from it. The realist doctrine is more extensive and power is to be gained and maintained by whatever means are available. Alliances may be established temporarily, but not due to any ideological compatibility or long term gain, mostly for the realist country to gain a temporary advantage, maybe defeat a larger enemy, and then turned on the former ally. For the realists treaties and other such agreements don’t hold nearly as much importance as for the multilateralists, though that also doesn’t mean that the realists always break treaties either. They must still adhere to them often enough to gain the trust of other parties and not find themselves surrounded from all sides at the most inopportune moment.

The realist doctrine means that there can only be one such supremely dominant country in any faction, with all the other being puppets to some degree. A few truly independent and powerful countries can exist in such a system for only a short time, but in the end one would still make a move to subjugate the others, as the realists cannot allow for any competition, especially from the inside. For this to be done, a large army and navy must be maintained, and they must be professional rather than conscript forces, as there is always a territory to be conquered or a rebellion to be suppressed. Many of the same tenets apply as in the multilateralist doctrine, that is, naval power projection, army gaining experience during small conflicts in peace time to prepare for the confrontation with the great powers, and the army having to be the most advanced and well trained to frighten potential enemies and have them back down. However, it is all focused on the home country. Defending border states is not about defending the freedom of such states, it is about defending the empire and its sphere. “Helping” its “allies” is not about actually helping them or anything to do with allies at all, it is about making sure that country remains part of the imperial sphere and doesn’t secede to become independent or join the opposing faction. Having some limited allies and puppet states is still useful to the realists, rather than having a massive consolidated empire, as it makes it easier to control the population and integrate the regions over time, while also giving the subjects a false sense of freedom. It also makes it easier to abandon some border puppet states to be occupied by the enemy, rather than having to suffer a reputation loss of losing core territory.

Elam, is, of course, the quintessential realist country, and this course was started by Shilhak-Inshushinak. He had one goal – conquer the whole known world, and he used every possible realist strategy to accomplish this. He essentially wrote the whole modern realist doctrine. He established contacts with corrupt officials in Ugarit to assassinate our kings, which caused the Great Powers’ War between everyone, while also allowing him to be the only one to enter it prepared. He joined forces with us and the Assyrians to gain our trust, while in reality always seeking to betray us. He used the fear of the Assyrian army and his relative leniency to get the Babylonians to flock to him and so give him most of Karduniash for occupation. He placed Nebuchadnezzar as his first puppet to rule Babylonia supposedly independently, while it was right from the start a massive supply depot and recruitment center for his further campaigns. He assured the Assyrians and had them go north to fight Hatti, while leaving the way to Assyria mostly undefended, while also funding Kushite armies and revolts inside Egypt to weaken us and split our forces. He invaded Assyria, helped by local rebels with whom he had established contact years ago, and before anyone knew of his betrayal, he was already at the gates of Ashur. He established a second puppet state there, one as different from the old regime as possible, so as to prevent it from welcoming the exiled Assyrian army back. He attacked us in the Levant, defeating both our and Hittite armies with a single blow. He had Hakkarpili coup the Hittite government and join forces with him, while also trying the same here in Egypt, though here it failed as we defeated the Sons of Montu. He established a puppet state in the Levant and managed to have the Phoenicians break away from us while promising full control of the Levant both to his man in Ugarit and the Phoenician kings. He had Zubani subjugating other Lullubi tribes while his wife was purging opposition at home and also brought Dilmun and Magan into the fold after funding the pro-Elamite corporatist factions there. He gave token positions to Babylonians and Assyrians to keep them happy, while still having the most important posts be held by Elamites only. This was realism at its core. Funding anyone who will help your cause, betraying all your allies, expanding in all directions and securing your frontiers so that the capital would be safe.

He claimed he was doing it all for progress, and to unite all the civilization and make that war the last one that would ever be fought between major states. Yet I don’t believe his propaganda one bit. His empire at the end was as unstable as one could be, with every region being promised to at least a dozen individuals or groups simultaneously, in order to gain all of their support. After the war, there would have been civil wars, rebellions, and even if he did win, it would have been only the start of a new age of wars. As for progress – that was never the goal, and when it was, it was only accidental. Shilhak supported and allied with regimes and groups of all possible ideologies, with nothing shared between them, except, of course, the fact that they were willing to help Shilhak win against his enemies. Sure, he supported progressive liberal regimes in Assyria and Babylonia. But what about Hatti, where Hakkarpili was even more of a hardliner reactionary than Muwatalli? Zubani, and his literal barbarian empire? Dilmun and Magan, where monarchies similar to Elam were dethroned for loyal company rule? A backwards agrarian anti-slavery Kushite regime? Random nomarchs and mayors in Egypt who had nothing in common, except, again, were just ready to cause turmoil if bribed enough? Harharran in the Levant, who stood for nothing and was given his position only for helping assassinate the kings and start the whole war? While also promising the whole region to the Phoenicians as long as they left us early enough in the war? And, of course, the most reactionary, anti-Kushite, anti-Hittite, anti-Levantine, anti-women’s rights, pro-conscription, pro-slavery, rural, ex-military terrorist Sons of Montu, who, to top it all off, were also extremely anti-Elamite? Is this a list of allies of a man who values progress? Are these allies of a man who values anything except his own gain? Of course not. This is a list of groups to support for a realist, who cares for nothing but chaos and turmoil in every other country and massive benefit for his own empire.

However, this did not last for long. Soon enough Shilhak tasted his own medicine, as he was betrayed by what he probably hoped would become another one of his puppets, our very own general Horminuter. He underestimated us. He learned a lesson that every realist will eventually be forced to learn – not everyone is willing to betray their country and their values for some temporary benefit. After tricking and betraying his way through Mesopotamia and Levant, Shilhak became overconfident and fell to one of his very own tricks – a poisonous drink being served by a supposed ally. And it all tumbled down from there, with the only saving grace for the Elamites being Shilhak’s wife Lim-Kiririsha, who managed to salvage the eastern portion of the empire which she was in charge of during the war, while Shilhak was on campaign. Her regime is more cautious now, focusing on slower expansion and on the solidification of the existing borders, but the idea remains the same – Elam is to be the dominant force, the other EC states are to serve its interests, and the OFK is to be crushed. Like I said, the other EC states do not really have an independent foreign policy, or an independent army or navy for that matter, except the Lullubi, who I also would not be surprised to see have a change of leadership in the coming years in order to bring it closer to Elam, before the Lullubi grow too powerful. Elam has the same goal as it had for these last fifteen years or so – total domination. And we are the only ones standing in its way.

Of course, I cannot predict the future. I will not claim that we will certainly succeed, and that the EC will fall. But I believe it is more likely than not. Realist doctrine has some uses, of course, and it is often the most appealing one to leaders of major countries. And the start can often indeed be a much smoother one than that of a multilateralist country. But, as time goes on, the situation become more and more unstable, cracks begin to form, the promises cannot be fulfilled, and it all comes crashing down. How many times have rulers from the east tried to conquer the whole known world and failed? Sargon of Akkad, Ur-Nammu and his son, Hammurabi, Tiglath-Pileser and his predecessors, and now Shilhak-Inshushinak. They all went far, that’s true, but their empires collapsed in just a mere century, a few decades, or even a few years. We in the west have always done things a bit differently. Egypt itself was unified through cooperation, rather than pure conquest. I don’t believe we should take up such dreams of quick imperial conquest, even if we are capable of achieving them for the short term. I believe our destiny is of multilateralism. If I didn’t, we wouldn’t have the OFK now, and would still probably have defeated the EC, just now with our own troops in Hattusa, rather than Muwatalli’s. But we both know how that would have ended.