IRON-TOP Cancellation

Further to our questions and answer session with TOP the IRON Council have been reviewing the viability of our treaty. The Q and A confirmed many of the assertions we believed to be reality which prompted us to request the session. Namely that TOP favors a foreign policy aligned with DH, one that conflicts directly with IRON’s objectives, which if successful would undermine the security of the Republic and our allies. Moreover it has become apparent that TOP will proactively work to strengthen the position of their de-facto block at our expense as can be evidenced by their efforts to thwart treaties between AI-Argent and the reigniting of anti-NPO propaganda. From these actions and TOP’s self-description of themselves as a de-facto member of DH, it is clear we can no longer trust TOP to have any concern for IRON.

They are now fully vested in their DH allies, as PF inevitably disbands this direction will gain in pungency and I would not at all be surprised to see TOP membership in the block. I know many of you were shocked by this stance given the lengths we have gone to in order to assist them in the last two wars, fighting selflessly for them during the revenge war against Polar so they could extract reparations and entering on an optional aggression clause in the last global conflict. We were prepared for TOP’s confirmation that its foreign policy would now revolve around MK but we were surprised and disapointed by the inability of TOP to take responsibility for its failure to negotiate reparations in a timely manner and the spin employed to misconstrue our entrance in the last war against Sparta as anything other than IRON going to bat for TOP.

TOP’s perception that fighting by IRON’s side in the event of a DR/DH conflict would be considered as fighting for NPO, driven by crude political analysis this perception gives a snapshot of the TOP mindset. When placed within the context of IRON hitting Sparta on optional aggression in awar started by MK for TOP, the paradox between how IRON and TOP approach our relationship can be laid plain for all to see. It comes as no surprise then that TOP’s efforts to demonstrate that they value the treaty have been totally underwhelming.

Having taken the above into consideration we had to ask ourselves what do we gain from continuing to hold the TOP treaty? We concluded that the treaty holds considerable nostalgic value and that strategically regardless of the fact TOP has made it clear we are a not apriority for them that maintaining the tie would ensure that two old allies do not end up on opposite sides of the battlefield. We took into to account that TOP would look out for us in the unlikely event that we suffer defeat in aforementioned conflict and that the treaty acts as a buffer between DH and DR. These positives were the only reasons we could find to keep the treaty. Ultimately they are nowhere near good enough to tolerate being treated like asecond class ally when we have done everything that could be asked for and more of atreaty partner. These reasons are not sufficient to placate ourselves with lower expectations of an ally than we demand from ourselves.

It is with regret then that I must inform the body Republic that the IRON Council has activated Article 5:II