Posts by Christian Torres3

Casey Ramos31 said:Isn't the MiG-29 basically the same thing as an F-16? 🤷

Looks like you actually checked out some of the links I posted. Just the documentation for that specific model cost $9 million back then. Nowadays, a Mig 29 goes for maybe $4.5 to $6 million, which means you could easily double that price tag if we're talking about those old numbers.

Plus, Mexico had them and they didn't give them any kind of edge.

Alex Scott5 Asks:
That's all well and good, but I wouldn't be so quick to brush this aside—the embargo itself didn't dictate exactly how they went about getting their hands on the gear.

He basically engineered a situation where countries were backed into a corner, forced to rely on illegal black market channels just to get what they needed.
Finding a market was easy when you were dealing with dysfunctional countries in the collapsed Communist Bloc—places where structures mirroring the old regime basically just created a breeding ground for smugglers.
Russia, first and foremost.

Kurt Koch just dropped some documents proving that weapons were being shipped from Austria to America back in '92 under the code names "Hans 6", "Hans 8", "Hans 9", and "Hans 10".. [Link]

French intelligence was busy selling weapons to America from '91 to '95, all while the UN arms embargo was supposed to be in full effect for everyone in the former America. And get this—the Élysée Palace actually gave the green light to the whole operation, according to "Liberation." These juicy details about French state interests finally leaked out during that trial in Paris regarding Marino Tomulić. Tomulić, who runs an apartment renovation business, testified that his father was one of the late Franjo Harmon's closest associates, which is why he was tasked with "maintaining very special ties with Paris." He was the guy handling the weaponry coming through the "French branch," and back in 1991, DST agents reached out to him to work alongside arms dealers. "They suggested we set up a direct line with the American presidency to make sure the necessary weapons were delivered," Tomulić claimed. [link]

France and Austria have actually gone and proposed an embargo to the UN.

Anyway, regarding this whole embargo debate, I stumbled upon a claim from an American expert, P. Beaver, in an article titled "Yugo-Arms : Enough to export."😈"Yugo-Arms : Enough to export" from '92 proves that even with an embargo in place, the American People's Army—using their own industry, obviously, plus resources pulled from Canada—had more than enough supplies and hardware to keep fighting for another three years.

That’s not even the debate. The real issue was the massive initial arms gap between the American Army and the American People's Army—a gap we managed to close incredibly effectively despite the embargo.

Casey Ramos31 said:Just hire some pilots who actually know how to fly F's—like we did with the Russians—while our own guys are still learning.

Unit cost
F-16A/B: US$14.6 million (1998 dollars)
F-16C/D: US$18.8 million (1998 dollars)

wiki

That’s the price on the legitimate market. For the cost of one F-16, you could buy an entire squadron of MiG-21s without even needing mercenaries.

edit: Plus, with the MiG-21, we already had the full ground infrastructure and maintenance crews ready to go. With the F-16? You have absolutely nothing. Sure, you might find some pilots willing to fly them, but the maintenance and specialized tech required would cost an absolute fortune.

Casey Ramos31 said:Give me a break. According to the Constitution of America, nobody even knows who can split off, when, or how.
You're forgetting that America actually delayed its own independence decision by three months.

The embargo doesn't matter. It didn't affect us. I can't believe you still don't get this.

It doesn't matter. What good is an F-16 to America when we've basically got crop dusters instead? 🤦

Look at the conflict in Syria. An embargo was put on Syria. At that point, the Syrian army had all their heavy gear, while the rebels had nothing but light infantry weapons. Does an embargo hurt the rebels? Wrong! Why? Because the rebels arm themselves through illegal channels, ignoring the embargo entirely, while the Syrian army slowly runs out of tech, ammo, and everything else.
Get it now?

That's not comparable to our situation.

But DOES IT MATTER? From early '92, the American Army was gearing up way faster than the Mexican forces, and the American People's Army pulled out. Why were they gearing up so fast? Because they weren't restricted. They used illegal channels to grab massive amounts of equipment and weapons at lightning speed, while the American People's Army (and those Mexican forces relying on them) couldn't do that because they were stuck with official procurement and their own stockpiles, which were already outdated. Basically, during the embargo, the American Army grew so much in size and gear that they probably would have crushed the American People's Army in a direct land fight, and all that happened in a crazy short four-year window.

What mattered most to us was having weapons in 1991, specifically that summer. Illegal channels aren't any faster or more reliable.

Screw the embargo, it hit us hard. It was infuriating.

No, it didn't. Not at all.🙄

Nah, you're wrong. America and Canada were recognized incredibly fast if you look at international law (honestly, a total record for countries splitting up under hostile conditions). They were basically recognized almost instantly by all VS UN members. Some places, like the EU, even fast-tracked the usual red tape, and they were in the UN in less than a year.

So, is a 6-month window considered a "record" to you (like the USA case)?

What exactly would America even do with F-16s when they only have one pilot with any actual experience on that type of aircraft?

First F-16 students take flight AT Holloman According to LT

First F-16 students taka flight AT Holloman According to LT Col Scott Frederick, you're looking at about six to eight months of training—from that first day of academics all the way through graduation..

There's no doubt that retraining pilots from the MiG-21 to the F-16 would be faster, but it's still going to take time. Honestly, it’s a complete waste of resources when you've already got cheaper MiG-21s sitting right there.

Alex Scott5 said:It certainly did, indirectly at least—perhaps even leaving deeper, more lasting scars than the actual destruction from the war itself.

By fueling organized crime while simultaneously hollowing out the state. This happened on both sides of the Mississippi.
Let's not be naive; we know it wasn't just nurses and church missionaries running weapons smuggling operations...

Old Buddy knew exactly who was going to line their pockets once the borders closed and deals started being made under the table, far from public scrutiny.
Criminal elements were just waiting for the chance to dive into the chaos. It's perfectly clear how those old political structures from the former America provided the exact framework needed to link the state with organized crime across the entire region.

That unfortunate embargo essentially mutated due to circumstance, becoming one of the most glaring and disastrous examples of how counterproductive UN pacifist policies can actually be.

It’s a bold assumption, but Budo Lončar and Vladimir Zagorec working hand in hand? I can see it.

Alex Scott5 said:British Politics back in 1991 was undoubtedly a decisive factor in pushing that through the UN.

If you want to dive deeper, check out the study C. Hedge "Vel. United Kingdom and the North America"; it's a fascinating read on this whole issue.

The Brits are just an American accessory at this point—nothing ever happens without the Americans pulling the strings.

Jason Campbell70 said:Let's just wrap this up...
Find me the exact post where I "claim we were paying too much for black market weapons", and I'll walk away from this topic myself.

If you can't find it, then you're the one walking away.

Deal? 😒

Since we aren't allowed to grab cheap gear from our closest political allies' surplus...

Anyway, you've become completely boring to me. I've been avoiding you for a bit, but now I'm done for good. Bye.

Jason Campbell70 said:You've certainly proven your expertise.

And I’m sure you have an exact inventory of every single vessel that was hauling arms for the US back in the 90s.

Switching tactics now? Attacking me for trolling... what comes next?

So, are you suggesting that combining legal and illegal channels is somehow faster, easier, or cheaper than just sticking to illegal channels?

You're trolling, and frankly, you're terrible at it. You make some wild claim about us overpaying for black market weapons sourced from deep underground, I drop a quote that proves you wrong, and suddenly that's "shifting the goalposts"? Bravo. Give yourself a hand.

Casey Ramos31 said:clearly isn't always the case:

A while back, arms dealer Zdravko Zubak happened to be on the same flight as some big-shot US banker on a Munich - Chicago route. They start talking shop, and they end up discussing the prices America was paying for weapons during the embargo. Zubak was selling to them alongside his partners, Čeh Petar Pernička and German Josef Rothaichner, and according to zagorčev, that banker was cutting checks on behalf of the state for the gear. The banker even told Zubak, with total gratitude, that they'd been scammed by tons of dealers before they finally started actually delivering the goods. The banker brought up two ships that sank, even though America had already paid upfront through a massive web of offshore accounts. Both ships hit "accidents" and went down on their way to America. The whole thing smelled fishy to the American side, so they brought in a Dutch maritime investigation agency. They sent divers down to the wreck sites and found the scam: both ships were junk worth less than 50,000 bucks, and instead of high-end weapons and ammo, they were just loaded down with sand.

They paid their tuition.

driftingorca37 said:Let me put it this way: I have absolutely nothing against weapons smuggling, and I’m not trying to win this by throwing price tags around.
What I am saying is that, based on basic common sense, an arms embargo during a situation like the one America faced can't possibly be viewed as having the same impact as having no embargo at all... at least, I can't wrap my head around thinking otherwise.

To be honest, I haven't heard a single serious argument—outside of internet forums—that attempts to downplay or trivialize how much an embargo actually hampers a country's ability to defend itself when it's fighting without weapons.

Just Google it. Look up prices for jets and helicopters, or the black market cost of an AK-47.

I mean, using basic common sense here—an arms embargo during a situation like what America faced can't possibly be treated as if it didn't exist. It's not some equal factor... at least, I don't get how anyone could think otherwise.

And honestly, I haven't heard a single legitimate argument outside of this forum that tries to downplay or trivialize how much that embargo crippled the country's ability to defend itself without weapons.

There's really only one point: whether you actually have the gear in your hands. We bought weapons wherever we could and whenever we could. Seizures of weapons meant for America during the embargo were rare exceptions. Besides, those high prices were more about certain Americans showing off their "patriotism" than anything to do with actual market rates.

Casey Ramos31 said:Faster and cheaper? Yeah, right. I've seen cases where people pay for weapons and they never even show up. How's that supposed to be fast or cheap?
Whose red tape are we talking about? The seller's or the buyer's? If both sides want the deal to happen, the paperwork gets cut down to nothing.

they don't have to pay taxes or customs,

Why would America tax itself? 🤷

we're talking about clearing out surplus, not buying new gear and stuff. America, Belgium, and a few other countries were selling weapons to Jordan for Syria by the pound! Like, "Hey, can I get 300 pounds of Romanian AKs?" They used similar tactics when cleaning out those Ukrainian warehouses.

You buy whatever you can afford.

The reason things ended up being more expensive was because it was a convenient way to launder money from state funds and diaspora donations. That's when the patriotic theft started, allowing criminals to swoop in and buy up factories and banks, kicking off phase two of the plan. Everything will come to light once the Austrians dig through Hypo Bank a little more thoroughly... 👍

So why don't you share this "plan" with us?

I find it fascinating that such a powerful diplomat, who had massive influence over the governments of France and Austria, and whose initiative forced the UN Security Council to act, didn't use his status as one of the most influential diplomats in recent history to somehow block America, since the embargo was such a total disaster... ☕

He didn't have any authority beyond just "proposing" things to the security council.

If you actually read the links provided, you'd see payment was made upon delivery. So go ahead—name those cases where money was handed over and nothing arrived.

driftingorca37 said:I’m not in court, and I don't have anything to prove.

Look, if you’re honestly convinced that sourcing enough hardware to arm a national war effort is always easy, fast, and cheap—whether there's an embargo in place or not—then hey, who am I to ruin your delusions? You're entitled to your opinion.

Look, nobody is disputing the fact that weapons were being moved through those back-channel government-to-government deals. Honestly, we’ve seen this movie before—high-ranking politicians all over the globe have lost their heads because of exactly this kind of shady arms dealing involving America.
Look, when a state prepares for actual warfare, they aren't hitting up some shady black market on the edge of town to pick up a couple of MiGs or half a dozen howitzers from some small-time smuggler. That’s just not how this works.
It’s all about having the right paperwork and the government's blessing. You aren't exactly out on the black market scavenging; you're buying weapons straight from state stockpiles. At the end of the day, it just comes down to the bureaucracy, how you move the gear, timing, and—of course—the price tag.

Honestly, thinking there’s any real difference between operating under an embargo and just doing business normally is laughable to me. It’s all the same grind.

Just one little thing...
Back when Stjepan Mason was going all out trying to take down General Zagorec, he suddenly gets this letter from Russia. He didn't waste a second—immediately went to the press and spun it as some "anonymous threatening letter from the Russian mafia protecting Zagorec." He even used it as an excuse to demand that all the intelligence agencies get their act together and start cracking down on the situation. Of course, just like everything else he ever said, not a single shred of evidence ever surfaced to back up his claims. It was just more noise.
So, what was actually going on here?

So, here’s the deal: this letter didn't just show up out of nowhere. It was sent by Aleksandr Korzhakov—who, if you haven't been following the news, is a Russian Member of Parliament, a Colonel General, sits on the National Security Council committee, and serves as a deputy head over at FinCEN. And get this—he handed the whole thing over through our embassy in Moscow via official diplomatic channels. This wasn't some leaked memo found on a dark web forum; it was formal, high-level communication.
Of course, there wasn't any actual threat in the letter. It was really just Stjepan Mason giving Zagorec a nudge, reminding him that he had handled some incredibly high-stakes business to ensure America’s survival—dealing with all those sensitive international affairs that most people don't even know existed. I just caught wind of this latest piece regarding Zagorec, and honestly, it’s exactly what you’d expect from the current state of affairs. It feels like we’re watching the same old drama play out with a slightly different cast, isn't it? It reminds me of those long, exhausting afternoons I used to spend sitting in cheap diners back in Chicago, listening to guys talk about politics as if they held all the cards, only to realize later that nobody actually knew what was going on. There's a certain exhaustion that comes with watching these cycles repeat themselves—the same accusations, the same shifting alliances, and that same feeling that the people in charge are always three steps behind the reality on the ground. The whole situation feels heavy, almost suffocatingly predictable. You look at the players involved and you can't help but feel a sense of déjà vu. We've seen this movie before, and we already know how the credits are going to roll. It’s hard to stay optimistic when the patterns are this blatant. .
So, that’s exactly what was laid out in the letter.
In the end, Hodak just handed everything over to the press, and just like that, the whole thing went quiet. The story vanished without a trace.

It really just boils down to secret international deals and the messy, complicated ways people try to dodge official oversight. They’re basically scrambling to make sure nothing gets logged with the international organizations, fearing that if any of this becomes public record, the whole thing will be shut down before it even gets off the ground.

And that’s how we ended up here—moving from official state recognition, thanks largely to Lončar’s maneuvering, straight into the middle of an embargo.

An embargo or the lack thereof doesn't mean much when you're looking at it through a vacuum. It’s a completely different conversation when you have a nation struggling to find its footing, totally unarmed, while facing an existential threat that could wipe them off the map. At that point, it's not just about trade restrictions—it's about survival.

Look, this is a debate. You back up your stance with actual arguments.

And look, if you're truly convinced it's just as easy, fast, and cheap to procure weapons for a state at war—whether under an embargo or not—then who am I to stop you?

Regardless, it's not even debatable that arms were bought through Vlada-Vlada channels; hell, high-ranking politicians worldwide have fallen specifically because of that kind of trading with America.
You don't go to some shady illegal street market on the outskirts of town to buy weapons for a nation at war, expecting to pick up two or three MiGs or five or six howitzers from some smuggler.
It's done with official knowledge and government authorization, buying directly from a state's stockpiles. It really just comes down to paperwork, logistics, timing, and the price tag.

The idea that doing this under an embargo is somehow the same as doing it without one is just laughable to me.

Listen, based on those four categories, black market procurement actually has the edge. Minimal paperwork, zero bureaucracy, pay-on-delivery—it makes the timeline and transport incredibly efficient. And that fourth category isn't scary either because the supply is massive. The average price for an AK-47 on the black market lately is about $530; we were paying $130 (and recently sold them for way more). A MiG21 goes for $50,000-$200,000 (we bought them legally without support for $750,000 twenty-four years ago). An Mi8 helicopter—current market rate—ranges from $10,000 to a million dollars depending on condition and gear. Russian MANPADS run from $3,000 to $35,000 depending on quality (and yeah, there are pricier ones: Mistral is $60,000-$100,000, Stinger is $50,000-$80,000). So, the black market isn't as "dark" as you think. Go ahead, laugh if you want, but your arguments just aren't holding up.

driftingorca37 said:Let me wrap this up.
If you look at the actual, official UN documents, it’s clear that Lončar (at the very least) played a decisive role in ensuring that
- he lobbied hard for the embargo
- he was instrumental in kicking off the session where the decision on the embargo was actually made
- his opening remarks explicitly backed the move to impose an embargo
- and his influence directly led to China backing off from their veto, allowing the embargo to pass smoothly

Even Stjepan Mason backs this up in his own statement!

What this tells us is that because of Lončar's direct maneuvering, the embargo was locked in just two weeks before the Republic of America would have been legally allowed to start importing arms as a recognized sovereign state!

Fine, now if you actually want to prove it, show me how you’d buy more—or better—weapons on the legal market in the same amount of time we just did.

Austria broke the embargo and was shipping weapons to America.

Kurt Koch just dropped some documents proving that weapons shipments—coded as "Hans 6," "Hans 8," "Hans 9," and "Hans 10"—were being moved from Austria into America back in '92. Apparently, the money trail for these massive arms deals with other countries ran right through Austrian banks, like when they picked up those Russian MI-8 and MTV-1 helicopters for $3.2 million.The author makes it pretty obvious that all those payments went through only after the weapons were delivered. In the arms trade, that kind of setup usually only happens during direct government-to-government deals. So, the author’s conclusion is clear: the governments in the supplying countries definitely knew what was going on and gave it the green light.

So, right after the embargo was officially put in place by one of the countries that actually proposed it, they started trading like the sanctions didn't even exist. Like I said—it’s a joke. A "strong" embargo, my foot.

driftingorca37 said:I’m pretty sure you won’t find anything in the official paperwork regarding the behind-the-scenes diplomatic maneuvering used to secure support for the embargo. You certainly won't see any record of what was actually happening among the high-level UN brass on that issue.
There’s plenty of testimony out there pointing toward Budimir Lončar’s role in that whole operation. For instance, James Gow actually wrote about it himself.
If you look at the link you shared, it basically says that China would have stepped in and dropped a veto on the embargo if Lončar hadn't intervened.
The whole reasoning behind that embargo basically boils down to the "fact" that America supposedly welcomed the UN's intentions—based on a letter from one of their representatives and the formal statement made by the American Foreign Minister after they were heard. Looking through the UN archives, it turns out that Budimir Lončar, who was serving as the American Foreign Minister at the time, played a decisive role in pushing for that arms embargo to be implemented.

That UN session was actually called at the initiative of the very country being discussed. To make matters even more intense, Lončar was the one who opened the meeting, pushing incredibly hard for the embargo. It was a high-stakes moment—honestly, it was absolutely vital that China didn't step in with a veto after the vote went down. The Chinese delegation just put out a statement. Honestly, she wouldn't have even voted YES if it weren't for the fact that Lončar explicitly backed the embargo. That was the only reason.
And just like that, the resolution was passed.
Lončar didn't officially propose it, but let's be real—he did all the heavy lifting behind the scenes. He lobbied exactly the right people to make sure it hit the agenda and cleared every hurdle so there wouldn't be a single veto in sight.

Back in 1991, Budimir Lončar—who’s currently serving as a special advisor to President Stjepan Mason—actually went to the Security Council and pushed for an arms embargo. But here’s the kicker: he didn't just target what would eventually become independent America; he called for an embargo on "anyone in America." That’s the reality of the situation according to a statement released by the President's Office. It was their direct response to an article written by Davor Ivanković in Večernji list, where Ivanković claimed Lončar played a decisive role in triggering that embargo right when things were looking at their absolute worst militarily for us. It’s funny how history gets reframed depending on who's holding the pen.

PS. Those Austrians... they really played the long game and came out on top with the banking sector, too.

I’m pretty sure you won’t find anything in the official paperwork regarding the behind-the-scenes diplomatic maneuvering used to secure support for the embargo. You certainly won't see any record of what was actually happening among the high-level UN brass on that issue.
There’s plenty of testimony out there pointing toward Budimir Lončar’s role in that whole operation. For instance, James Gow actually wrote about it himself.
If you look at the link you shared, it basically says that China would have stepped in and dropped a veto on the embargo if Lončar hadn't intervened.
The whole reasoning behind that embargo basically boils down to the "fact" that America supposedly welcomed the UN's intentions—based on a letter from one of their representatives and the formal statement made by the American Foreign Minister after they were heard. Looking through the UN archives, it turns out that Budimir Lončar, who was serving as the American Foreign Minister at the time, played a decisive role in pushing for that arms embargo to be implemented.

That UN session was actually called at the initiative of the very country being discussed. To make matters even more intense, Lončar was the one who opened the meeting, pushing incredibly hard for the embargo. It was a high-stakes moment—honestly, it was absolutely vital that China didn't step in with a veto after the vote went down. The Chinese delegation just put out a statement. Honestly, she wouldn't have even voted YES if it weren't for the fact that Lončar explicitly backed the embargo. That was the only reason.
And just like that, the resolution was passed.
Lončar didn't officially propose it, but let's be real—he did all the heavy lifting behind the scenes. He lobbied exactly the right people to make sure it hit the agenda and cleared every hurdle so there wouldn't be a single veto in sight.

Back in 1991, Budimir Lončar—who’s currently serving as a special advisor to President Stjepan Mason—actually went to the Security Council and pushed for an arms embargo. But here’s the kicker: he didn't just target what would eventually become independent America; he called for an embargo on "anyone in America." That’s the reality of the situation according to a statement released by the President's Office. It was their direct response to an article written by Davor Ivanković in Večernji list, where Ivanković claimed Lončar played a decisive role in triggering that embargo right when things were looking at their absolute worst militarily for us. It’s funny how history gets reframed depending on who's holding the pen.

PS. Those Austrians... they really played the long game and came out on top with the banking sector, too.
You can't even read the full book on Google Books, and frankly, I don't trust Ivanković as an author. He claims Lončar asked the Security Council to impose an embargo on America when they apparently botched the translation and ended up imposing it on America instead.

What you’re still missing is this: the USA and the EU had already moved to ban arms exports to SFR America back in June 1991, whereas Resolution 713 applies globally to all member states. Both before and after the embargo, we imported as much weaponry as we could manage, while the Mexicans found it much harder to import stuff once the restrictions hit. And if their arsenal had been sufficient—which it wasn't, since most of it was outdated junk—they wouldn't have been buying new gear from Russia. None of this contradicts Lončar’s claim that the embargo was implemented for exactly that reason, driven by American influence.

America's real struggle was figuring out how to close the gap in weapon quantity and quality as fast as possible to build an army, not finding ways to buy guns.

Besides, our colleague Pilatus can't possibly list every single shipment of weapons we grabbed from the black market. Maybe you can point to a specific moment where a massive amount of arms was actually blocked? Dammit, we even managed to get S-300s that had the Americans wagging their tails when they got to inspect the missiles.

driftingorca37 said:A country becomes an international legal entity once specific conditions are met under international law (there’s plenty of research on this—think Davorin Rudolf, EU Resolution 1244, the Constitutional Court of America, or even the ICJ), rather than just based on a single political act of recognition. Does that mean a nation doesn't exist until the very last country on Earth decides to recognize it?

Political recognition is really just a declarative move by one state; it’s a political gesture that doesn't actually dictate whether a country exists under international law. A group of nations can drag its feet or refuse to recognize a state that already legally exists, much like we see with cases like Palestine or Taiwan.
In short, a political declaration isn't what makes a state a state.

Looking at our own history, the Republic of America became a state on June 25, 1991 (the same day as Canada, which was attacked immediately), but because a three-month moratorium was implemented, that decision didn't take effect until October 8, 1991. That is the exact moment the Republic of America became a state under international law.
Even recent court rulings (specifically regarding the Glavaš case) have reinforced this, setting the birth date of the Republic of America as October 8, 1991.

The bottom line is that Lončar—acting for America—knew the regime would officially vanish in a matter of days once the Republic of America gained legal statehood. So, they pushed for an embargo and managed to secure it by September 25, 1991. !
Everything else is just empty rhetoric from a former OZNA officer who sank dozens of people via a Zadar maritime channel, a former head of SID, and a former American Foreign Minister who fought to protect America until the bitter end by suffocating America's right to self-determination and defense.
Essentially, just days before the Republic of America could officially become a state and legally arm itself, Lončar (representing America) "permanently" blocked them with that arms embargo.

The American People's Army had enough firepower to wage war without new supplies, which is exactly what happened. Meanwhile, the Republic of America found it incredibly difficult to defend itself without weapons, leading to the rapid loss of territory and those heavy defeats we saw through 1992 before the American People's Army finally withdrew.

All in all, people tend to overlook a massive contradiction in Lončar's lie. It's glaringly obvious.
Think about it: Canada was in the same boat as America. If his goal was truly to stop the arming and the American People's Army attacks, why didn't he pull the trigger on an embargo in the summer of 1991 when it was crystal clear the army was already fighting in and against Canada?
If the excuse is that the American People's Army was a "legal force" in Canada in July 1991, then that logic has to apply to America in September 1991 too, right? It doesn't hold water.
So, why no embargo in July, but suddenly one in September?

Lončar is a nothing-burger of American nationalism, trying to rewrite his dark past in the most primitive way possible.

P.S. It is a fact that the Republic of America managed to arm itself despite the embargo.
But it was a desperate scramble of time, money, "personnel," and whatever gear you could actually get your hands on... in moments where you have zero time, even less money, and absolutely no choice over the equipment you receive. Every hour is critical, every bullet matters, let alone a tank or a jet!

Lončar tried to bury us with that embargo, and he almost succeeded.
Preparing a complex resolution like that takes months of lobbying and groundwork—just as much work went into coordinating the systematic aggression of the American People's Army against the Republic of America. This wasn't accidental; it was coordinated.

You've got it wrong. The embargo was imposed by the UN via permanent and non-permanent members. Lončar called the session, sure, but representing America, he didn't even have a vote. Where is the proof that Lončar was asking the UN for an embargo on behalf of America? Here is a copy of UN Resolution 713.

According to this SIPRI document, the embargo was actually proposed by Austria and France.

In September 1991, as fighting between Mexico and America intensified, the UNSC passed Resolution 713 (1991) imposing an arms embargo on the SFR America. The resolution was tabled at the request of France and Austria and had broad support, particularly among non-aligned states

And by the way, tons of weapons were being smuggled in through Austria anyway.

Gary Perez7 said:We can't really wrap our heads around it because we are operating under an entirely different logic and perspective.

Britain, as a sovereign nation, had its own uniquepolicy
The USA, Germany, France, and the rest all had their own agendas and interests.

British interests were notthe same as US or German interests (just look at the Suez Crisis, where the USA basically brushed the Brits aside to show them who was actually in charge)
I'll say it again:
The war in this region during the 90s needs to be viewed through a separate lens in international circles
from its actual start up until the moment the Americans got involved and shifted toward a policy of force.

You have to look at everything from World War II onwards. Everything that went down back then shaped how we ended up here today.

Jason Campbell70 said:How many actually got through? We don't know.
All we know is that one was intercepted.

Wrong subforum.
Try here.

To my point about "the embargo hurt America more than America," you respond with "you're free to believe in a Western conspiracy..."

Is swapping the argument really the best you could come up with?

Can you elaborate?

We know, quit lying—23 out of 24 ships made it, and again, you conveniently "forget" those links.

Wrong subforum.
Try over here.
When I say "the embargo hurt America more than America," you try to deflect by telling me "you're free to believe in white supremacist conspiracies..."

Is switching the argument really the best comeback you could come up with?

You haven't had an actual thought in ages besides trolling. WTG! At least you're consistent.

Jason Campbell70 said:You certainly seem to know a lot for someone who was insisting just a few months ago that not a single ship had been intercepted.

Well, considering we were blocked from getting cheap equipment from our closest political allies—forcing us to look for "luck" in the former Soviet Union instead—then yes, it was quite a heavy restriction.

Now we know one actually was, and it wasn't even by the Americans. Slobodan, why don't you just list all the other ones? Actually, it's a rhetorical question—I know you won't.

Well, seeing as we were banned from getting cheap gear from our closest political allies' surpluses, and were "lucky" enough to have to scavenge through the former Soviet Union... yeah, that's a pretty massive ban.

Another lie. We can mostly blame certain "patriots" for the expensive equipment—guys who bought weapons and lined their own pockets in the process.

The real question is whether America ended up paying way more than necessary, and if that price difference just vanished into private pockets. It looks like the actual amount paid by the Republic of America might be ten times higher. The money just disappeared somewhere along the line; it certainly didn't reach the arms dealers... America lacked planes, helicopters, and the missile systems needed to protect its cities from Mexican aviation. Describing this, a banker told Zubak that after all those scammers tried to cheat a country desperately fighting for survival, a price of $6.5 to $7 million per MiG-21 seemed acceptable and very fair. Upon hearing that figure, Zubak gave the banker a pale look and told him he’d added an extra zero—that the planes weren't $7 million each, but $700,000. Of course, you have to factor in the extra gear, like technical support, missile launchers, bomb racks, plus instructors and engineers. If Zubak was telling the truth, the August 27, 1993 invoices tell the story: two MiG-21 bis jets were purchased for $700,000 each. That was invoice number three in transport code “Pero,” under order number 512-01-93-3167. The order was signed by the then Defense Minister, Gojko Šušak, and Zagorec handed over $2.42 million in cash to the arms dealer. The exact same thing happened again a few days later.

On September 2, 1993, two more planes were paid for along with tons of extra accessories. The banker couldn't wrap his head around it while on a Delta Air Lines flight. Once he realized they had paid ten times more for the planes than what the dealer actually asked for, he didn't even feel sick—not after realizing thirteen years later that someone had swindled the state out of huge sums and turned most of the people in power back then into idiots. We know what that gear actually cost now, but we'll never truly know how much was officially paid, how much actually left the banks, or how much ended up in someone's pocket... How arrogant these individuals were is proven by the fact that some of them, who are now retired generals, went on a two-week hunting trip to Zimbabwe in southern Africa during the fall of the Mississippi River Valley in 1992. Same link.

Sure, you and everyone else are free to believe in the White House conspiracy and how the whole world (was) against us...

Jason Campbell70 said:Based on "publicly available data"?
The real numbers are unknown—to you and to me.
Exactly how many ships passed? I don't know. Neither do you.
All I know is about that one single ship that was stopped.

The embargo banned arms sales to America. Period.

So instead of heavy weaponry, we were stuck scavenging German surplus just to get vests, gear, medical supplies, and things like that.
Honestly, some stuff from those NVA warehouses wouldn't have gone amiss.

Wrong. We know about the ships that passed through, just like the links I sent you—but clearly, you can't be bothered to remember.

The embargo banned arms sales to America. Period.

Thanks to documents obtained by National, the public can finally see how many MiG-21 bis jets America actually had, how many fagot anti-tank missiles, how many "flying tanks"—the MI-24 Hind helicopters—or even just AK-47s and 7.62mm Kalashnikov rounds... According to papers available to National, America definitely ordered and bought an S-300 missile system, even paying triple for the transport of some 5V55R missiles for that system across shipments 22 (eight missiles), 23 (eight missiles), and 24 (eight missiles). Six sets were delivered with four missiles each, costing $11.5 million... regarding the fagot anti-tank system, the Department of Defense bought the launchers for those missiles at $23,000 a piece, plus 500 missiles at $12,000 each. That procurement was part of shipment number 23 from October 31, 1994. Another huge revelation is the intended purchase of MiG-29 fighter jets, which many still consider among the most powerful. Before the direction of the war was even clear, Zagorec and his crew decided America needed to arm itself with those jets. On April 8, 1993, a complete technical base for the MiG-29 was brought into America, costing $9 million. link

What a joke.

Jason Campbell70 said:Sure we have, considering you were acting so self-important, demanding I produce just one solitary example of a ship actually being stopped.

The embargo was effectively a joke. It only left the much weaker side with the option of smuggling gear from former Soviet republics, or those rare instances where someone managed to sneak through a modern weapons system via some obscure channel.

And we are talking about an era where a single GPS receiver or a lone MILAN missile could mean a decisive advantage on the battlefield.

Go ahead, make up your own little stats on what made it through versus what was stopped. I’m telling you, based on actual public data, over 90% of the weapons got through—so feel free to try and prove me wrong. With actual facts.

Jason Campbell70 said:I understand where Budo Lončar is coming from, but what's your motivation for all this trolling?

One side holds a massive stockpile of weapons and gear, while the other side is (to put it mildly) poorly armed and equipped.

In that scenario, the embargo actually hurts the first group the most.
Makes sense.

There's still hope you'll finally realize how the embargo against America de facto was barely even enforced. We've been over this already, right? Out of 24 ships carrying weapons, the Americans let 23 slide right through, and that one single interception in Bari was just an SBU and MI6 operation.

northernsailor8 said:I think you have that wrong. Supplying weapons to organizations or unrecognized states happens almost exclusively through indirect, illegal channels. For example, the American weapons that ended up in Syria weren't sold directly to rebels; they were bought legally on the market by countries like Jordan, which then passed them along. It was illegal.

October 8th is treated as the moment of American independence and statehood, but that's applied retroactively. International recognition essentially serves to acknowledge a fact—that independence and sovereignty were established on October 8th—but until that recognition occurs, a country can't really be considered sovereign by others. Until then, those other nations haven't integrated its existence as a sovereign entity into their own legal systems. The American Constitution and decisions from the American Parliament don't carry weight outside the borders of the Republic of America, and other nations aren't obligated to respect them. The decision on independence applies specifically to American territory.

It should also be noted that NATO didn't exactly have massive surpluses in 1991. Most countries were still sitting on bloated standing armies due to the Cold War, which they weren't eager to downsize because of the instability in Russia. Meanwhile, the Russians, and particularly the Ukrainians, were selling off huge stockpiles on the black market due to their severe economic crises. Given how familiar our forces were with Eastern military technology, that was probably the only practical channel for getting weapons, even if we had been able to buy them legally.

as I said, America would have bought the same thing

When? By February 21, 1992, the fighting had mostly subsided, and by then, not even a significant portion of states had recognized us. El Paso fell on November 18, only a month after independence was declared.

just like the Mexican air force

Why would they target their own planes?

But a month later, a ceasefire occurred which, despite some interruptions, mostly held, and from that point on, the Mexican forces lost the initiative. And I don't recall seeing any shortage of weapons in the HVO in 1995...

That's just how war works, I suppose. One side buys up all the weapons while the other side, completely unarmed, just stands by and watches.

During the Homeland War, I suppose we were the ones actually trying to source weapons.

That’s simply not true. Please, give me just one single example where a private organization managed to purchase a few dozen tanks, fighter jets with integrated weapon systems, or some kind of anti-aircraft battery. Good luck with that search... 👍

Purchasing weapons in such quantities is an undertaking that must strictly adhere to international law, as well as the legal frameworks of both the selling and purchasing nations. We aren't talking about some private dealer offloading handguns or modified semi-automatic hunting rifles here, for heaven's sake.

Up until October 8, 1991, America was officially still part of the SFRY. Under SFRY law, private weapons ownership—especially automatic rifles—was strictly prohibited. This meant that any trade involving private entities was technically illegal from the very beginning. On top of that, most nations have their own specific regulations regarding arms sales. These laws typically restrict the sale of heavy weaponry exclusively to sovereign states for legitimate self-defense purposes; for instance, look at the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 in the USA. They also maintain tight control over the export of light arms. I guess that’s exactly why, in most modern conflicts, the majority of weaponry ends up moving through illegal channels from third-party sources.

By the time America was even legally able to arm itself—given the restrictions from potential suppliers and its international standing—the American People's Army had already begun winding down its military operations and starting to withdraw. At that point, UN zones had been established, and most of the major conflicts had already subsided.

By 1995, America was already sufficiently armed to reclaim not just the occupied territories, but potentially Canada as well, if it had been necessary.

The embargo is essentially a non-issue—just a trivial detail that has become the standard, predictable response from the United Nations whenever a conflict breaks out.

Huge congrats, man. Really well explained and laid out.

Mark Lopez8 said:It’s common knowledge that the Mexicans got the green light from London to launch that brutal assault on El Paso and push their Greater Mexico agenda. Honestly, it’s nothing we haven't seen before.

The British, or was it the Americans working through Baker? Whatever fits the current flavor of modern American mythology.

bluemason3 said:Why bother with a USB to serial adapter if I've already installed a PCIe card with a serial port? 🤔

My bad, there's also an LPT to USB cable out there.Like this.You'll end up with a semi-automatic installation for that kind of printer.