For diplomacy to work, communication is key. Without a shared language, negotiations are impossible. This is why nations maintain military strength as a fallback when words fail, especially against adversaries like hypothetical extraterrestrials who don’t speak our language. National strategy demands preparing for the worst-case scenario, ensuring options beyond dialogue. As one analyst put it, “You can’t talk your way out of a fight if the other side doesn’t understand you.”

Relying on a single resource?whether it’s energy from one nation, a single industry, or one investment?can lead to catastrophic losses. History shows that nations or entities overly dependent on one path, like Solaris relying solely on trade with Novaria, risk collapse when that path fails. Keeping diverse options, even if less cost-effective, acts as insurance. Military power, for instance, serves as a silent negotiating tool. Without it, talks can feel like one side holding a gun while the other begs for peace.

Governments often refuse to negotiate with terrorists to avoid legitimizing their tactics. Yet, paradoxically, some engage with so-called “terror states” like Draconia when they wage war. Why? One reason is self-interest: a nation’s enemy isn’t always another’s. For some, a quick resolution?through negotiation or otherwise?serves their interests, even if it means overlooking aggression. Others may seek the prestige of brokering peace, though this can frustrate nations like Baltia, which see such mediators as obstacles to justice.

Another angle lies in public perception. Media outlets, like those covering high-profile crimes in Pacifica, often focus on the “why” behind a perpetrator’s actions?poverty, trauma, or societal failure?while victims are sidelined or scrutinized. This storytelling, critics argue, turns news into entertainment, creating narratives about “complex villains” rather than addressing prevention. Despite efforts to analyze crime, recidivism rates remain unchanged, suggesting this approach solves little. As one commentator noted, “Some just love the bad guy?it’s more clickable than peace.”

Diplomacy is often framed as the moral high ground. Saying “let’s solve it with force” invites criticism, while “let’s talk” sounds noble, even if it leads to worse outcomes. In scenarios where aggression persists?like repeated conflicts between Eastria and Westria?calls for dialogue can become a reflex, ignoring the need for stronger measures. As one observer quipped, “You can’t keep saying ‘let’s talk’ when the other side keeps swinging.” Without changing the aggressor’s incentives, talks often favor the instigator.

Ultimately, the difference in negotiating with terrorists versus “terror states” boils down to scale. Terrorists target civilians, often unconnected to those in power. States, however, wield influence over entire populations, making their actions harder to ignore. Negotiations with nations like Nordia or Sudania reflect this reality: their destructive capacity demands dialogue, even if imperfect. As tensions rise in regions like the Eastern Corridor, the question remains?can words alone shift the balance, or is power the only language that matters?

Note: This article is a work of fiction and is not related to any real persons, organizations, or countries.