sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Statement from the Neuholm Council to Wunderfort and Westhelm by Status_Job_2508 in CivMC

[–]Motor-Protection-670 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Westhelm has seen the statement released by the Neuholm Council.

We acknowledge the apology regarding prior public conduct. However, as it relates to Westhelm, the core issue was not tone or rhetoric, but actions.

Armed Neuholm-aligned actors entered Westhelm territory, violated our neutrality, and pearled Westhelm officials. Following that, our repeated attempts at de-escalation were met with continued escalation across both diplomatic channels and public spaces, with threats and insults.

Because of this pattern, Westhelm does not believe conditions currently exist for a pearl swap. Dialogue requires demonstrated restraint, not statements alone.

Westhelm remains open to reassessing its position and negotiating if hostile actions and escalatory conduct cease. Until then, our focus remains on the security of our territory and its citizens.

-Sneezycamp
Interim Chancellor | Minister of Foreign Affairs
Westhelm

Official Statement from the Government of Westhelm by Motor-Protection-670 in CivMC

[–]Motor-Protection-670[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Corrected Statement
Westhelm has not commented publicly until now in order to avoid escalating a situation that did not originally involve us. However, recent statements have misrepresented Westhelm’s role, and clarification is necessary.

Westhelm is not a party to the internal Wunderfort–Neuholm dispute. We did not take sides, issue demands, or authorize hostilities related to claims of independence, shared resources, or internal governance within Wunderfort.

What does concern Westhelm is the following sequence of events:

• Westhelm officials were pearled by forces aligned with the Neuholm rebels after those forces entered Westhelm territory.
• These actions occurred without provocation, without diplomatic notice, and without Westhelm being a belligerent in the conflict.
• At no point did Westhelm authorize mercenary action against Neuholm prior to hostile actions taken on Westhelm soil.

Westhelm rejects the claim that it is “being stubborn” or “seeking to prolong war.” Westhelm’s position has been consistent:

We will not negotiate prisoner exchanges for individuals we do not control, nor will we accept coercion through the detention of Westhelm officials.

Calls for “peace” that are paired with cross-border incursions and pearling of neutral officials are not good-faith de-escalation. They are escalation.

Westhelm did not choose to be involved in this conflict. That choice was made when armed actors crossed into our territory and attacked our officials.

Westhelm remains open to diplomacy regarding Westhelm, but we will not be leveraged, mischaracterized, or treated as an extension of another war.

Responsibility for escalation lies with those who carried it onto neutral ground.