Here we have two countries A and B with a common enemy C. The red lines to C illustrated "opposed" or conflict and tension.
Country A have a goal - to achieve A(2). And of course it will get help from country B - since B also is enemy of C. In order for this setup to hold A now have to:
- Watch the relation with C. Prepare to attach or defend.
- Continue to work with B and encourage the A-B-relation.
- and also make sure that Country C remain enemy to B
Having an energy drains energy. But as illustrated, having a common enemy drains more energy!
You might not be able to avoid enemies - but keep them few. And to not create a setup where you rely on having "common enemy". You will waste energy and focus. And risk is always there that it will collapse into:
Here B has instead joined C. A do not have any allies - only enemies. And no help to reach the goal. Playing the game with "common enemy" can put you int the place of being the common enemy. It is a delicate balancing act.
Best setup in the above is of course:
Here A will get help from both B and C to reach the goal. And no energy is wasted at all. Maybe a sort of Utopia - but certainly the best to aim for.
Imagine also the original setup when Country D comes into play. What allies, enemies and boundaries will be created? How much energy wil be wasted just to maintain a setup including enemies?
- Avoid creating enemies
- If you have to have enemies: Avoid having "common enemy" (will drain extra energy!)