Holy Roman Empire

London, good news kept coming from the Egypt Area, but Prime Minister Gladstone couldn't feel happy.

The Rebel Army had not proceeded as anticipated; they hadn't reached the Suez Canal Area or threatened the safety of the canal, they hadn't even touched its borders.

There was no way around it, not all members of the upper echelons of the Rebel Army were foolish. At the very least, the leader Mahidi was extremely lucid, knowing that running to the edge of the canal before driving out the French would be deadly.

With the French passionately defending the canal, they would rather watch city by city in the Egypt Area fall than compromise the safety of the Suez Canal.

This hurt the British Government, which wanted to intervene in matters concerning the Suez Canal.

With the canal facing no threat, the British naturally had no excuse to meddle in canal affairs. Even if Britain was formidable, France and Austria wouldn't take their side.

Now that the French reinforcements had arrived in Egypt, the Rebel Army had no chance to advance towards the canal even if they wanted to.

Without achieving their ultimate goal, weakening the French was in vain, especially since France had already ceased to be the primary target of the British Government's suppression efforts.

Gladstone said, "The Egypt plan has failed, and we've lost the opportunity to intervene in the Suez Canal. Continuing would mean going head-to-head directly with France and Austria.

Considering the current situation, now we must think about damage control. Continuing to weaken France is merely aiding Austria and not conducive to the balance in Europe."

Although he hated to admit it, the fact remained a fact. General Jelias's reputation was greatly exaggerated; in reality, he could command the troops primarily because of Mahidi's trust.

But this trust wasn't unconditional; at least, Mahidi had refused to let the Rebel Army block the Suez Canal.

No one is a fool, and Mahidi was well aware of the consequences of blocking the Suez Canal: it wouldn't just offend one or two countries but all the benefactors of the canal.

Even the British dared not descend into such affairs themselves, so Mahidi was even less likely to take such a bold step. Even as a pawn, he was a thinking pawn, not one to be manipulated by a flag-bearer in any scenario.

Foreign Minister George said, "The Prime Minister is right; the arrival of French reinforcements has already sealed the failure of our plan.

Continuing this would only increase our losses without garnering much profit.

However, we cannot simply let go now; missing this chance will make it even harder for us to intervene in canal affairs in the future.

Given the current situation and with our and Austria's support, the Rebel Army might still be able to carve out a territory for themselves.

Planting a stake in the Egypt Area is still necessary for our future involvement in the Suez Canal Area.

Moreover, even if we let go now, the Austrians won't back down.

With their strength in the African Continent, whether we participate or not doesn't make a fundamental difference.

As for the French, we've already offended them, so it doesn't matter if we offend them a little more."

This sentiment was very much in line with Britannia's diplomatic principles, which prioritize interests above all else. As for offending potential allies, that was not a concern for John Bull, who didn't even care about allies.

Hearing this response made Prime Minister Gladstone very uncomfortable.

He was clearly intent on consulting General Jelias, but being ruthlessly rejected by the Foreign Minister would make anyone uncomfortable.

However, the Cabinet wasn't just Gladstone's to command alone; he had to carefully consider the opinion of the Foreign Minister.

If they were to abandon the Rebel Army now and allow the Austrians to take advantage, ending up with the Austrians securing a part of the Rebel territories, Britannia would be the loser.

The Opposition Party would definitely seize the opportunity to strike, and the public's disdain could be enough to bring them down.

Frankly, there never was such a thing as friendship between Britain and France; there was only hatred.

This was a consensus among the people of both nations, whether the London Government liked it or not; the notion was deeply ingrained.

Gladstone furrowed his brow and said discontentedly, "Sir, do not forget that there is already a disparity in the strengths of France and Austria.

Continuously weakening the French and thereby inadvertently strengthening the Austrians will only make the latter's advantage more apparent, potentially disrupting the fragile balance in Europe over time."

Foreign Minister George shook his head, "Prime Minister, these are all just possibilities, not inevitabilities.

In reality, Austria's advantage is only on the economic front. Militarily, they don't have much over the French.

This is evident from the Vienna Government's plan for the unification of the Germany Region. Read exclusive adventures at empire

If they had enough strength, they would have acted long ago, not waiting until now.

And although Russia and Austria are allies, they too have their strategic conflicts. If Austria indeed had the power to dominate the European Continent by overpowering France, the Russian-Austrian Alliance could just as easily become a French-Russian Alliance.

Before the unification of the Germany Region, Austria doesn't have the capability to face two opponents. The Vienna Government is surely aware of this, so the balance in Europe is essentially still stable."

This reason left Prime Minister Gladstone speechless. On the surface, Austria indeed held an advantage on the European Continent; however, its poor strategic location offset this advantage.

If a single power were to dominate, the situation facing Austria would be more than just the France-Austrian Alliance, it could also become an alliance of England, France, and Russia, and might even include North Germany.

Seeing the situation becoming awkward, Finance Minister George Childs reminded, "Gentlemen, we might set aside this issue for now and revisit it later.

Currently, we must seriously consider the self-sufficiency food plan. Recently, domestic calls for food self-sufficiency have been rising.

If this continues, the chance of Parliament passing the proposal is as high as ninety-five percent. It will be difficult to oppose it then."

Without a doubt, the department most opposed to the "food self-sufficiency plan" within the London Government was the Treasury. Britannia was indeed a large estate, but high income was coupled with high expenditures.

The Royal Navy was the largest gold-consuming beast, spending annually an amount not inferior to the total military expenditure of the Austrian land and naval forces.

To implement the food self-sufficiency plan now would be yet another hugely loss-making project. And it wouldn't just be a loss for a year or two but for many years.

As for a venture bound to lose money with no returns in sight, the Finance Minister naturally was reluctant to throw money away.

Colonial Minister Primrose retorted, "Sir, you are too pessimistic. Every coin has two sides, and although the food self-sufficiency plan may not be profitable in the short term, its associated value is not low.

The plan involves not just agriculture but also many infrastructure projects, including water conservancy projects and transportation roads.

Once the supporting facilities are completed, the colonies' attractiveness to immigrants will greatly increase.

The influx of a large labor force will further promote the economic development of the colonies, and the finances of the colonial governments will greatly improve.

Many colonies initially operating at a loss will turn profitable. Looking at it as a whole, our investment is not a loss."

That sounds great, but in practice, it is merely theoretical. While economic prosperity in the colonies might boost government revenue, it could also introduce a mess of ideologies.

Without a doubt, nationalism would surge in the shortest time possible.

Although it was agreed not to spread revolutionary ideas, it's best just to listen to that. Perhaps to avoid self-destruction, there might be restraint on the European Continent, but the colonies definitely would not consider this.

Once nationalism spreads, the rule of the colonial governments would undoubtedly increase.

High income followed by even higher expenditures is really hard to clarify whether it results in a loss or a gain.

However, the spread of nationalist ideologies will take time, and in the short term, it is still beneficial. This means that the troubles are for the future, but the achievements are now.

Finance Minister George Childs reminded, "The Russians have made their stance clear: once we implement the food self-sufficiency plan, they will exit the free trade system.

We cannot disregard the potential chain reactions that the Russians' exit might trigger. If all the food-exporting countries exit the free trade system, the consequences will be severe."

Not all food-exporting countries need to exit; if Russia and Austria withdraw from the free trade system together, this system will collapse.

In this era of survival of the fittest, the free trade system relies more on military support than on political and diplomatic means.

Many small countries join this system to avoid being ostracized and to prevent suppression by the great powers.

This is also why everyone is powerless against the French exit. France is a major power with significant strength, and suppressing it would inevitably involve a great cost.

If the benefits and costs are disproportionate, naturally, no one wants to take the lead.

If Russia and Austria also exit, the land military support of the free trade system would be completely useless. The Royal Navy, as powerful as it is, cannot land on shore, and its deterrence is just not sufficient."

Foreign Minister George said, "This world never has perfect solutions, gains always come with losses.

If we compromise because the Russians threaten to exit the free trade system, where would we put Britannia's dignity?

If similar issues arise in the future, what shall we do? Continue to compromise or vehemently refuse?"

Britannia must also maintain face, and concessions must not harm its dignity; unfortunately, the Russians have not realized this.

Negotiations should have been conducted covertly but were instead brought to the table, making it necessary for the British Government to carefully consider any compromise.

If this provokes the fragile nerves of the domestic population and the Opposition Party seizes on it, then the situation might escalate significantly.

In a sense, the firm stance of the Tsarist Government has somewhat solidified the decision-making of the British Government.

Prime Minister Gladstone let out a silent sigh, resignedly said, "Our trade with the Russians is limited; it would be best to preserve this market.

If that isn't feasible, then there's no need to be polite with the Russians. After all, Austria is also a beneficiary of the free trade system, and the Vienna Government is unlikely to withdraw."

...