Again, are you arguing all of it failed or are you arguing it was all attempting to maintain the "Status Quo?" Because they are two different things. I won't argue that any or all of it worked as planned or did exactly what it was supposed to do. I WILL argue that none of it was meant to sustain the "status quo" or cement power structures.
If you think Terran leadership is incompetent fine, but to say we only work to maintain the status quo is just simply untrue and a bit insulting to everything Terran has been or is.
+1
I'll note that all of your responses amount to refuting none of my points. You can say Aurvandil and the Astrocracies are bound to conflict: you're wrong, they're not. There is no inevitability. There's not even any real reason they should conflict, especially not now. Maybe in some post-Moot, post-Lurian Dwilight, an Astro-Aurvandi war would be very hard to prevent: but for now, the whole inertia of Dwilight is against war with Aurvandil. Getting Astrocracies to fight Aurvandil is not in any way a "status quo" move.
Sure, we haven't succeeded in accomplishing that. But I will note that
the current state of the Moot, insofar as it is attributable to anything other than the Long Winter, is because of attempts to shake up the status quo. If we'd wanted to create a stable status quo with few threats to our power, we would have pushed Barca to make concessions to avoid war: that was a very real option (and one many in the Moot wanted). But we didn't want to preserve the status quo. We wanted to shake up Dwilight.
And behold! We succeeded. Not in the way I personally wanted (broken Moot, discredited Hireshmont, fractured alliances... not his goal), but I think it's hard to argue that southwest Dwilight is currently in a state of dull status quo-ism. I think that's the furthest thing from the truth.
