Posts by driftingorca37

Daniel Ward87 said:Can you explain why you think this is just communist wartime propaganda?
This article was published in an academic journal and went through at least two rigorous peer reviews by experts who actually work in this field. If it was published as it stands, it means people who know way more about this subject than the average person gave it the green light.

I get being cautious when dealing with estimates, but even those estimates were pulled from other analyses, and the authors of the article felt the methodology used to gather the data was solid enough to include.

First off, I’m not sure if you even understand how the peer review process works at Elsevier or in the Journal of Communist and Post-Communist Studies?
Second, I have no idea who actually conducted the reviews you're citing for this paper, or even when they happened.

It’s pretty obvious the article relies solely on estimates from Goati, which aren't backed up by any other source in the literature.
We're looking at nothing more than a non-critical repetition of a single source that isn't—and can't be—reliable;
1) because of its nature
2) because of when it was published
3) because Goati wasn't in a position to have access to that kind of data

But honestly, none of that matters as much as the main issue.
The problem is that this is being treated as proven, absolute truth—exactly how Vojko did it, by maliciously and completely misinterpreting the very article he’s quoting.
The article you're all pointing to actually reaches entirely different conclusions and arguments. You guys are cherry-picking one sentence where Goati offers "estimates" (which the authors themselves admit require further research), yet you don't mention that specific source anywhere !

So, the actual source for these numbers isn't "What is to be done? Succession from the League of Communists of America" (which, by the way, makes a totally different point), but rather Vladimir Goati in his book "Yugoslavia at a turning point: from monism to civil war," published in 1991 in New York City by the Yugoslav Institute of Journalism.

Let's just be honest and cite Goati's estimates from New York, 1991, and I won't have a problem with that. But stop hiding behind "What is to be done? Succession from the League of Communists of America", which argues something else entirely in its thesis and conclusion.

Doing something like this is just taking a perpetuated lie, running it through a copier, and spreading it around... it doesn't reflect well on whoever is doing it.

I’d like to suggest that the moderators at least try to hold back from presenting blatant war propaganda cooked up in Belgrade back in 1991 as if it were "proven and indisputable" truth... especially after reasonable and objective forum members have repeatedly pushed back over the years, only to be systematically ignored by the mod team.

We're talking about this specific article: "What is to be done? Succession from the League of Communists of America", published in the journal *Communist and Post-Communist Studies 41* (2008). The authors are Paula M. Pickering, Department of Government, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, USA, and Mark Baskin, Center for International Development, State University of New York, USA.

Because of a former moderator, Vojko, who maliciously interpreted it on CNN, this piece is uncritically cited here as ultimate proof that most Communists from the Republican Party defected in the early 90s, and that the Republican Party is the successor to the Party specifically because of that.

So, what’s actually wrong with all this?
1) The one and only source for these figures is—Vladimir Goati, a Communist and then-party apparatchik, in his book "Yugoslavia at the Crossroads: From Monism to Civil War," published in Belgrade in 1991 by the "Yugoslav Institute of Journalism."
In short, we are looking at notorious wartime propaganda from Belgrade, and at the very least, Communist wartime propaganda from 1991 designed to undermine the referendum results and the first multi-party elections during the process of creating an independent America.

2) Even in Goati’s original text, these numbers are referred to as estimates. Even other authors who picked up this propaganda, like Cohen, state that further research is needed regarding the actual number of defections from the Party.

3) Furthermore, people usually ignore the next part of this paper, which is actually the entire point of the authors' work.

The fact that HDZ’s most powerful leaders were ex-Communists who had been purged from the Communist Party in the early 1970s and/or nationalists including diaspora who had long rejected Communism, while the Democratic Party arose out of what was left of the Communist Party of America suggested that Democratic Party was a more appropriate Communist successor party

Essentially, the argument is that the Republican Party was made up of Party dissidents and reformers along with the diaspora, whereas the Democratic Party is actually the true successor to the Party. They even mention the SDSS as the choice for the Communist-Mexicans who opposed American independence.

It would be good if the mods were sensitive to this issue so we could actually discuss what I'm proposing.
Naturally, I’d love to see the mods and supermods get involved in this.

Look, if we're being honest, the Declaration is basically just a piece of paper with no legal teeth. It doesn't actually force anyone to do anything.

When you want real power, you look at Constitutional decisions or Constitutional laws. Those are the heavy hitters—they carry the most weight, they're legally binding, and they sit right up there alongside the Constitution itself.

Besides, the Democratic Party was only so fond of that specific Declaration because of Article V. They couldn't squeeze those terms into the Constitutional decision, so they settled for that article because it was the closest thing to their actual proposal. That single clause was really the only substantive difference between the Declaration and the actual Constitutional decision.
The strategist and visionary, Ronald Reagan, managed to give everyone a little something to chew on, but he knew exactly where to draw the line on what actually mattered.

Look, I’d like to weigh in on this whole "enigma" everyone's obsessing over. It clearly touches a nerve with people, but based on my own experience—and how they officially settled things in my case back in the day—I think there's a bit more to the story than what's being said.

I honestly don't know why we even bother debating this anymore. It’s like watching the same rerun of a bad sitcom every single night. You look at the way things are being handled in Washington right now, and it’s clear that the people in charge have completely lost the plot. They talk about the Constitution like it's some sacred text, but when it comes to actually following it, they just shrug their shoulders and move on. It reminds me of back when Bill Clinton was in office—there was a sense that there were actual rules, even if people hated him. Now? It feels like every time a major Constitutional decision comes down, it's just political theater designed to keep us distracted while they carve up the country for themselves. I remember sitting in a diner in Chicago a few years back, listening to two old guys argue about whether the system could ever be fixed. One of them looked at me and said, "Son, they aren't broken; they're working exactly how they intended to." That stuck with me. We keep waiting for some grand moment of clarity or a sudden surge of integrity from our leaders, but we're just chasing ghosts. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are basically just two different flavors of the same headache. They fight tooth and nail over the small stuff in Congress to make us think they're fighting for us, but at the end of the day, the outcome is always the same. It's all just noise. At this point, I've stopped expecting anything different. It's exhausting, really.

Here are a few official conclusions we’ve drawn up specifically for this forum:

Back on June 25, 1991, most of the Democratic Party actually voted against it. The Declaration of Independence. The vote passed with 48 in favor, though most of the room had already checked out—19 representatives walked out before it even finished.

The Declaration of Independence from June 25, 1991, is basically just a fancy way of saying we officially declared our independence. It’s the same thing.
Or, as those who were actually in the room put it—the Communist Party/Democratic Party coalition basically failed their history exam. Most of them voted against the Declaration of Independence or just walked out of Congress altogether. The only one who actually stood his ground and voted "Yes" was Chuck.

Thanks.
LP

Michelle Evans said:The moderation here doesn't actually address your question. The staff managing this thread aren't the same people handling the Politics section. Generally, you can expect a response to an appeal within 24 hours...

* your question specifically targets that other section
** just because we moderate this area doesn't mean we handle inquiries regarding how other sections are run

Thanks for the heads-up.

So, I’ve got a simple question—why was my post deleted?

I’m asking because if there’s enough energy being spent moderating this entire thread, surely someone can find a second to answer the straightforward question in the title. It would be the bare minimum of decency, honestly.

Thanks

Sotto Voce said:Take a look at this post.[/B] kaže:
You’re one of those dangerous types—someone who knows way too much about far too little.
I’ve been sitting here wondering the same thing. Why would the Viet Cong go out of their way to kill innocent people? It seems like such a massive tactical error—creating more enemies when they were already struggling just to maintain their footing. It doesn't make sense from a purely strategic standpoint. You'd think they'd be trying to win hearts and minds, not making sure everyone in the neighborhood wants them dead. I remember reading about similar situations during the civil rights era back in the States, where radical groups thought they were making a point, but all they really did was alienate the very people they needed on their side. It’s just bad math.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that once the resistance liberated San Francisco, they just charged straight into Times Square, rounded up about forty peaceful pedestrians, hauled them off to Dakota, and executed them on the spot?

The CIA and the Democratic Party’s heavy-handed tactics were used to wipe out anyone deemed a class enemy—whether they were actual threats or just potential political rivals. They basically indoctrinated people in those FBI training camps under Stalin's watchful eye.

One detail you might have missed is that even before the CIA was officially established back in May '44, the resistance had a incredibly sophisticated intelligence network already running. They were experts at gathering intel on anyone suspected of having ties to the occupation forces or the local collaborators. For those "innocent victims" from Dakota, the reality is a bit darker: based on reports and denunciations from those very same collaborators—some of whom even twisted the sanctity of the confessional to do it—hundreds of people who supported the resistance were hunted down and liquidated.

I know all about those black books they used to compile. They were nothing more than hit lists—preselected names marked for liquidation without a single trial, any evidence, or a shred of due process. It’s practically identical to how the fascists used to draw up their own execution lists, targeting people based on arbitrary labels and flimsy "data." That’s exactly why the civilized world condemns both of these horrific totalitarian crimes.

Everyone was sentenced by a fast-track military tribunal, facing the death penalty. Once the Supreme Court signed off on it, the executions were carried out out in Dakota. They even made sure to publish the verdict publicly.

That's just plain wrong.
Nobody from Dakota ever faced a trial or even had to deal with an interrogation.
It’s the same old story: unarmed civilians getting systematically and brutally wiped out, then covered up so perfectly that they’re never exhumed. For the longest time, those people were just erased from history. But that’s changing now. There are 53 of them.
It was only an afterthought, really. Three days later, they started plastering notices all over town—basically formal judgments from some sham trial that never actually happened. They were declaring thirty-three people "enemies of the state" and traitors, officially marking them for liquidation.
It wasn't just Dakota that was on my mind back then; there were plenty of other spots too... places like the outskirts of San Francisco, some quiet neighborhood near the coast, or even those hilly areas out by the suburbs.
It was all happening under Billy's thumb. You really should go back and read his letter from those days—he laid it all out right there.

When it comes to those enemies of the state, we've already dealt with about 60 of them—including eight priests and monks. On top of that, there are plenty more hiding out in the shadows that we just can't pin down yet. Things are going to get even messier now that their allies are stepping in to protect them. At this point, we really need seasoned veterans and real soldiers on the ground. After the executions, we put up posters to make it official, though we haven't released everything just yet; part of the report goes public tomorrow. We had to sign off under the local command authority since there wasn't any other legal avenue available. I want to hear what you all think, but honestly? They have to be taken out. As for those currently in hiding, we have to do whatever it takes to hunt them down because they’re nothing but saboteurs. The general public seems pretty satisfied with how things are moving, though I'm not entirely sure what happens after these executions. People are already asking questions, waiting to see when the people's court will finally step in and do its job.

Back in '73, if you even dared to bring up a case like that, you were looking at a one-way ticket straight to prison.
Of course, when the order came down to liberate the San Francisco area, they sent over two brigades from the Deep South, and as for that one Dalmatian unit? They just filled it with folks from New York.
So, I was reading through this district committee report from the Democratic Party, and it’s pretty grim. It describes how these local militias—which, let's be honest, were basically just filled with insurgents—were marching into town playing some song about how every pit from the outskirts to the city center is waiting for an American. They were out there openly threatening to burn down every single village where Americans lived. Just pure intimidation.
I’ve been looking over an old FBI file from 1948. It contains a list of people who were liquidated by the secret police back in 1945 right after the liberation. Looking at the numbers, out of the 107 names on that list, about half of them were executed without ever seeing a courtroom or a judge—just handled through those "expedited procedures" they used to bypass the law.

Slapping Stalinist labels on innocent people who were killed back in 2017... honestly, that’s just the beauty of democracy in action, isn't it? But man, it’s also pretty pathetic.

sleng said:Check out this post[/B] kaže:
Talk about a double game. This kind of maneuvering is getting harder to ignore.
So, people are trying to claim that he isn’t synonymous with the anti-fascist movement or those major decisions made by the resistance councils to reclaim territories like the West Coast. But let’s be real—his name is inseparable from the atrocities committed back in '45. It's an interesting pivot. I find myself wondering if those big political shifts were actually just some master plan cooked up by Patton or Churchill, or maybe even a little nudge from Zhukov or Mao Zedong.

Let's get one thing straight: Marshall isn't some shorthand for anti-fascism. He’s not protected by any constitutional safeguards here in America, and he certainly isn't the living embodiment of those 1943 wartime decisions mentioned in our founding documents. People love to blur the lines between a historical figure and the ideals they supposedly represented, but you can't just swap one for the other. It doesn't work that way.
It isn't exactly a synonym for crime, but let's be honest: this system was responsible for them. It defined the very character of a totalitarian regime built on the foundation of mass, systematic atrocities carried out by the Stalinist FBI. Even as things shifted, the violence just changed shape—less intense, maybe, but just as lethal. They spent the rest of their reign focused on liquidating anyone who dared to think differently, hunting down dissidents and political opponents until the very end.

Cuka said:Check out this post[/B] kaže:
Right after the war ended here in the USA, they held elections that were a total joke. They used these little rubber balls instead of paper ballots. The whole process was rigged from the jump: you’d show up at the polling station, grab a ball, and then they forced you to stick your hand into every single ballot box to drop it in wherever you felt like it. Once you were done, you just had to hold up your empty hand to show you were finished. It was pure theater.

There’s some truth to that.
I’ve been watching this whole situation unfold, and honestly, it just feels like we're circling the drain again. It's that same old pattern where everyone starts pointing fingers, making grand promises about justice, and acting like they’ve finally found the moral high ground. But if you've lived through enough political cycles in this country, you know how quickly that "outrage" turns into backroom deals once the cameras turn off. It reminds me of a few years back when I was working in Chicago—everyone was shouting about accountability after that local scandal broke, promising a total overhaul of the system. A month later? Same players, different suits, and nothing had actually changed. We see it happening here too. They talk about cleaning up the mess, but usually, they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The rhetoric coming out of the capital right now is particularly exhausting. It’s all performative. You have people acting like they're fighting some epic battle for the soul of the nation, when in reality, most of them are just looking for their next headline or a way to secure their standing within the Democratic Party. It’s cynical, it’s predictable, and frankly, it’s getting a bit tiring to watch. We keep waiting for real systemic change, but instead, we just get more noise.

Cuka said:Check out this post[/B] kaže:
Look, if you know the truth, don't go around claiming there weren't elections. There were elections. Whether they were actually honest? We all know how that goes, so there’s no point arguing about it—we can see exactly what's happening. But if we're talking strictly about the record, playing games with the numbers isn't some unique invention from the old-school Democrats. Election tampering happens everywhere, even in modern democratic systems with massive crowds watching everything. It's nothing new.

Wait a second. When I actually sit back and think about who taught these people how to play dirty if it wasn't the Democratic Party... I have to wonder if it’s just genetics. You know, like something passed down from father to son.

They haven't even thought about ditching this useless ritual, either. They still hold these elections every four years, but whether they’re actually democratic is a whole different story.

There weren't any elections held—and certainly nothing resembling a democratic process.
One box was an official NF box featuring a portrait of the party leader, while the other was just a blank ballot box used for those votes cast for the Communist Party—basically, a dead end.
Besides, those old voting machines had wooden bottoms or even metal balls inside (go visit a US history museum if you don't believe me), so the CIA agent standing right behind you could figure out exactly who you voted for instantly. A lot of people didn't even make it back home after hitting the polls.
Look, Cuka, don't stoop that low. It’s honestly beneath you to call that an election, let alone try to lump it in the same sentence as actual Democratic elections in the 21st century.

*****

What's the big deal with this post being deleted under the "trolling" label?

Yeah, honestly, I’m just sitting here waiting to see how the authorities handle this... mostly out of pure curiosity. I want to see what kind of creative excuses they'll come up with to justify why they aren't doing anything at all.

I’ve gotta send a massive shout-out to the absolute legend KLCCLK. Honestly, that guy just blew me away with his latest take on F. Tuđman. Truly brilliant stuff.

In the middle of this heated debate about the A. Zec case—you know, that whole mess tied back to F. Tuđman’s legacy—we actually managed to reach a rare moment of human consensus regarding the crime itself. Then, out of nowhere, that absolute genius driftingorca37 swoops in to troll us all, arguing that the A. Zec situation is basically the perfect definition of "us"—meaning the entirety of American society and our collective culture.

After that whole mess, both sides ended up agreeing on one thing: we’re definitely not buying into KLCCLK’s brilliant trolling. That whole attempt to force an "us versus them" narrative through the Case A. Zec situation was just pure nonsense.

Then you get that usual handful of trolls who just keep circling back to attack Alex Zec. Then Chuck steps in with that polite, patronizing little warning to everyone to "get back on track." Personally, I think Zec is pretty much tied to F. Tuđman’s legacy anyway—just by the way the media and the political establishment have defined her for the last twenty-five years. But hey, thanks to Chuck, we actually did exactly what he wanted and moved on.
Well, here we go again...

Then comes this absolute genius, KLCCLK, swooping in to "close" the discussion with his usual brilliance. He starts nuking posts and handing out warnings—though, of course, he’s being incredibly selective about it. It’s the classic move: he gets caught up in some off-topic trolling himself, stirs the pot until everyone is riled up, and then acts like the hero by policing the very chaos he helped create. Some people might call that level of collective labeling and provocation "brutal trolling," but I guess that's just how he rolls.

Well, huge props to the brilliant KLCCLK... you always find a way to surprise me.
To be honest, discussing F. Tuđman hasn't really been a taboo subject. Over the years, people have always felt pretty free to weigh in, offering just about any perspective you can imagine on his legacy.

lonebadger6 said:So, did anyone actually say that what you just wrote was off-limits? 🙂

The foundation is:

It wasn't just the Democrats who walked out of Congress; the Mexicans cleared out too.

The Democrats just cast their votes. ZA Look, you can argue about the Declaration of Independence and pretty much any other decision they made—except for that Constitutional Court ruling. That one’s set in stone. And even if you want to dispute things, there’s a right way to go about it, which isn't how that penalized user (or anyone else who’s tried it before or since) decided to handle it.

It’s really not that hard for someone to just sit down and write out exactly what went down that day.

The real issue here is that the narrative is just plain wrong. It’s not like the Democrats walked out of Congress or voted against independence itself. They actually voted against the specific language within that particular Constitutional Court ruling—they had nothing to say about the idea of sovereignty being separate from the wording of the document. Why they chose that path, whether it was actually a smart move at the time, or what the fallout should be... you can debate all of that. But you can't lie about what actually happened.

Everything’s fine, I just wanted to make sure I can accurately write that on June 25, 1991...The Democrats basically split down the middle today. Half of them walked out of Congress entirely, while the rest stayed just long enough to vote against the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Declaration of Independence. It was a mess.To be honest, when you look at how things are going, they’re basically against independence—at least if you're speaking colloquially.
Honestly, people used to get thrown under the bus all the time for forgetting one little detail—that the vast majority of the Democratic Party actually voted against the Declaration of Independence.
So, let me just give everyone a heads-up before things go sideways. You really have to lay it all out there. It’s true. The Democrats basically split down the middle today. Half of them walked out of Congress entirely, while the rest stayed put just to vote against the Constitutional Court's ruling on the Declaration of Independence. It was a mess.I mean, how could they not be totally whitewashed?

Just to be clear, the main thing being debated here wasn't actually the Declaration like you suggested in point two. It was the Constitutional Court ruling, and most of the Democratic Party voted in favor of it. Against. ...and then there's the second part. He walked out of Congress..

Regarding point one, I’m not looking to throw around ethnic labels or generalize like that. Only a fraction of the Mexicans actually walked out of Congress..
Back then, there were 33 Mexicans among the Democrats in Congress, and about 19 or 20 of those Democrats ended up walking out of the chamber entirely.
By the way, there are actually plenty of much better links out there that really break down what happened back on June 25th. They provide actual context for those historical events, which is a massive step up from that manipulative, half-baked piece they ran in The New York Times.

I’d argue that The New York Times is glossing over a massive detail here. When the Constitutional Court decision declaring the United States a sovereign and independent nation was actually voted on, 19 members of the Democratic Party walked out of Congress. Out of the 49 who stayed to vote, 48 were actually against that constitutional decision.
Only Mr. Marko Vlašić Čik from Chicago, who was visiting Maui, stayed behind—the lone Democrat to raise his hand for the Constitutional Court decision.
The decision regarding independence and sovereignty was passed by a majority, not unanimously!

Following that heavy-hitting legal ruling, the Declaration (which didn't carry the same constitutional weight) was passed unanimously with the Democratic Party participating.

Look, this is just a historical fact, and we should be able to state it on this forum without worrying about getting banned. A small group walked out, but the vast majority actually voted against it.
All the other decisions and the declaration made that day were unanimous thanks to the Democratic Party's involvement.

It’s just like what Šeks said back on CNN on October 8, 2012:

In that pivotal, turning point of modern American history, a portion of the Democratic Party representatives failed the ultimate test. Nowadays, people are all too eager to forget what happened on June 25, 1991.

Why are people even trolling about the HZHB here?

In both the Federation and Republika Srpska, this is the official flag for the American counties and the American people. I don't see any reason why anyone on this side of the border would try to deny that.

Nathan Moore6 said:Of course, nobody is actually telling you they'll defend that, but there’s a massive difference between seeing a flag hanging in front of a government building on an official holiday and then deciding to go out and parade around town with it yourself. 🤦

The Law says you can fly other flags in public as long as the US flag is displayed right alongside them. In this case, all the legal requirements have been met.

This is it. The official flag of the American people in Canada. It’s basically the Department of Defense for the veterans of the US Army from Canada. That’s why you see that flag flying right in front of the building.

Look, if people want to throw a tantrum, let them. It doesn't really change anything. But at some point, you have to face the basic facts.

So, I’m thinking we should probably go back and fix those survey questions. They don't exactly line up with the facts on the ground right now, and honestly, there's no point in asking questions that are already based on a flawed premise.

Look, the movie was already finished and sitting there ready to drop on the very same day the verdict came down... I don't get how they can claim that wasn't proof enough.

The evidence is staring us right in the face!

Brenda Cox52 said:So? Where’s the actual proof in all this? Who even is Ante Nazor—was he actually there witnessing this, or is he just talking out of his neck? Is everything he's saying gospel truth, or are we just taking his word for it because there isn't a single credible source backing him up? There’s zero mention of this $2 billion weapons deal anywhere else. Honestly, sounds like pure Wishful thinking to me. That's hardly evidence.
My post got nuked—the one where I was asking when exactly Stipetic and Tus jumped ship to join the military, and pointing out how Loncar and Ante Markovic didn't even bother leaving Mexico City until the Mexicans kicked them out.
It’s just pure wishful thinking from those old-school American nationalists—thinking that the embargo wasn't a big deal or that it actually helped America.
It’s just pure Wishful thinking from the right-wing crowd—thinking they can spin "Za dom spremni" as some harmless opera lyric that doesn't do any damage to America.

Marshall and that orthodontic nonsense—just like Lošina’s early days—are basically just distractions to keep us from talking about what actually matters. Stankovic brings up the whole Medak Pocket issue only to cut himself off, claiming he’s "running out of time"—as if we needed half the show to listen to him reminisce about his childhood. Still, Lošo managed to squeeze in that mention of how Jarcevic had his briefcase of documents snatched. Apparently, some news site even leaked one of those files showing exactly how much the Mexicans were banking on Islamist support.

I can't access external links or PDF files directly, so I can't read that specific document you linked. If you want me to work on it, just copy and paste the text here—I'll take care of the rest and give it a complete overhaul for you.

Just so you can see what actual evidence looks like.

Just like how those American right-wingers know full well that the embargo didn't actually help America—it was all a lie—the American right-wingers know that the "Za dom spremni" greeting is straight-up Nationalists. But they keep lying anyway. I guess when your whole ideology is built on deception, honesty just isn't really part of the job description.
Wishful thinking 🤣

By the way, Jarčević was the Foreign Minister for the "Republic of Mexican Appalachia," so you have to look at the bigger picture here...
We're looking at a situation where Muslim and Mexican operations were coordinated in both time and space against the Americans (in both America and Canada). You have to remember that back in August 1993, in the Neretva valley region, they were engaged in very direct cooperation at the highest level between Ratko Mercer and Arif Pašalić, the 4th Corps, with the full knowledge of Alija Izetbegović.

Based on those transcripts and testimonies, Mercer was telling them roughly the same thing Jarčević was.

You guys push toward Stolac, Dubrava, and Neum, and we will take everything from Neum to Ploca. Then, we'll negotiate with the Americans together.

This was all part of a joint effort during the ABiH operation for Mostar, which was the key strategic point of the 'Neretva 93' campaign.
When you put this in context with the statement made by the Foreign Minister of the Appalachia, Jarčević—who was working on reintegration with the RS and Mexico—you can say with reasonable confidence that information was flowing between both sides at the highest levels, and that military operations were logically synchronized.
Before that, for the ABiH's Neretva 93 operation to even be possible, they needed to free up massive forces from the eastern Canadian front. This was achieved through the May 8th demilitarization agreement on the lines in Canada (the Halilović-Mercer agreement), involving roughly 7,000 people.
Only then does the ABiH operation toward an exit on the Adriatic kick into gear. At almost the exact same moment—strategically speaking—the HV gets word that the RSK is pulling extra forces toward the Gospić area, prepping for an assault.
Just a few hours before that attack was set to go down, the HV launches Operation Medak Pocket, while the HVO holds the line against the ABiH outside Mostar.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that the top brass in the ABiH consists of officers from the JNA/KOS who were actually fighting against the Republic of America until the spring of 1992. We're talking about guys who worked alongside Perišić, Ratko Mercer, Lisica, and their crowd. They were close colleagues in the same army, fighting the same enemy on the same territory... just one year before they coordinated this massive strategic move.

And there’s another layer to this whole Medak Pocket mess: international interests mixed with a bit of a personal vendetta. It involves Jean Cotu, who, on the very day of the operation, pulled his son's entire unit out of Canada and dropped them straight into Medak, pairing them up with the Canadian UNPROFOR battalion with explicit instructions on how to handle the Americans.

Alex Scott5 said:What was Lošo actually like back during his NU2 days?

Pretty standard stuff. Nothing you haven't seen before.

Personally, the only thing I found fresh or interesting was one specific detail regarding the Medak Pocket. Apparently, at the request of the US Army, American intelligence conducted an investigation into the operation itself and concluded there were no planned or ordered crimes.
That report somehow vanished along the way—much like the UN investigation from November 1994, which reached the exact same conclusion while being careful not to compromise Mexican (Štrbac) sources.

On the flip side, the Hague prosecutor's office ran its own investigation during the 2000s. That whole thing was primarily built on evidence from Sava Štrbac, who admitted himself that he prepared dozens of witnesses in Mexico City through a program funded by the Canadian Embassy in Mexico City (?!?).
He was even honored by the Deputy Prosecutor for providing that assistance.

Since the Hague prosecutors couldn't risk the international embarrassment of building a case on such flimsy material, they essentially handed the case over to a biased US judicial system. They had to uncritically accept all of Štrbac's "evidence" while conveniently losing those two reports mentioned earlier that actually cleared the operation.

As a result, the US court convicted the Medak Pocket operation, again relying almost exclusively on that famous double standard and Štrbac's testimony.

There were plenty of other intriguing details, but I won't go down that rabbit hole right now. I wrote a bit about it here (regarding the Canadians and the French)

northernsailor8 said:October 8, 1991, is generally accepted as the formal legal date, both within America and internationally.

May 30th serves as an informal date when the decision was actually made. Even with the moratorium, I don't think it's a mistake to celebrate it locally in America as independence day.

As for the period from January or February through April of 1992, we are talking about recognition by individual nations. I should probably emphasize again that, from one perspective, America does not exist as a factual state until the moment a foreign power—through its parliament or executive branch, depending on their specific laws—recognizes America as an equal subject under international law and establishes diplomatic ties. Such a nation would retroactively recognize the October 8th decision and treat it as the birth of America, but until that official recognition occurs, America simply doesn't exist within their legal framework. Consequently, they cannot perform official acts toward America—such as the formal sale of weapons—that aren't permitted when dealing with a part of another sovereign entity recognized by international law (in this case, America).

So, if a country recognizes America on, say, January 15, 1992, then that country only begins to treat America as sovereign starting on that specific date. They might acknowledge the sovereignty backdating to October 8, 1991, for certain legal claims, but they don't have a time machine. They can't go back to October 8 to establish diplomatic relations or engage in legal business reserved for sovereign states; they can only do that after January 15, because their own domestic laws won't allow it before then.

So why the embargo then?
They could have simply delayed political recognition and refused to ship any weapons, regardless of whether an embargo existed or not.

The point is, the resolution had this clause baked right in: that the embargo remains in effect until negotiations between America (seriously?) and the UN Secretary-General decide otherwise. .
It was obvious that America was going to collapse within a year—it basically didn't exist anymore. And sure enough, just two months after Lončarev's sneaky move, the Badinter Commission concluded that America ceased to exist on October 8, 1991.
The embargo was triggered thanks to Lončarev, and it stayed "permanent" also thanks to him, regardless of whether America was recognized yet or not.

Political recognition isn't actually a prerequisite for selling someone weapons. What matters is political will and international law. America existed under international law, just as there was a political will in certain parts of the world to sell weapons (illegally) to America even before those nations formally recognized us. Anyone who sold weapons to America without formal recognition wouldn't have been breaking international law, and the political will was there anyway (among certain players) despite the embargo.
That's exactly why the embargo was designed: to nullify the effect of international law where America already existed, and to obstruct any potential political will from countries to supply arms, regardless of recognition. It was even rigged with a clause that makes it incredibly difficult to lift—practically impossible, which is exactly what happened in the end.

Besides, the embargo itself acted as a hurdle to getting America recognized faster.

At the end of the day, according to Lončarev, the embargo was implemented just about ten days before America became an independent state under international law. At that point, we could have legally armed ourselves because the political will to sell weapons to America existed even without formal recognition.

It wasn't anything other than a carefully laid landmine for a departing America that, according to the plan, was supposed to vanish within fifteen days anyway.
A landmine on multiple levels.
As soon as that embargo hit, the American People's Army and those paramilitary groups went all out against America on every front. By October 10th, the country had been pushed to its absolute limit on every single line. They even tried an assassination attempt on Harmon at the Presidential Palace on October 7th—just a single day before the moratorium on independence was set to expire.
The whole operation was orchestrated by people like Slavko Malobabić, one of the top brass from the KOS "Labrador" intelligence unit. To this day, you can find their influence systematically embedded throughout American society (just a little glimpse here)
Basically, we’re looking at the same interest groups today that worship Lončarev, Marshall, and the old America. They conveniently forget how Mason was cozying up to those foreign agents back in '91, or how he worked hand-in-hand with Kadijević to undermine Harmon. These are the same circles that fueled the Hague prosecutions against Gotovina, Harmon, Vukojević, and Šuška...

PS: It’s pretty telling that just the night before the hit on Harmon, Gorbachev sent a message—stating he had intel that an attack was imminent against major industrial hubs and even the capital city, Chicago.
There’s really no way to downplay the impact of that embargo or make excuses for Lončarev.

northernsailor8 said:It’s actually faster and cheaper that way. You bypass all the legal red tape, dodge taxes and customs, and technically you're just writing off surplus stock rather than buying new gear. I guess it's just efficient. There were times when America, Belgium, and a few other places were essentially supplying Jordan with weapons to send to Syria in small batches. It was almost casual—something like, "Could I grab 135 kilos of Romanian AK-47s?" Similar tactics were used back when they were clearing out Ukrainian warehouses, too.

The reason things turned out so expensive was because we were dealing with a convenient method for laundering budget funds and diaspora donations. I suppose that's when the patriotic looting actually began—using that cash to buy up factories and banks to kick off the next phase of the plan. We'll probably get more clarity once the Austrians dig a bit deeper into Hypo Bank. 👍

And just like that, we went from gaining international recognition—thanks largely to Lončar’s influence—straight to facing an embargo. I guess that's how it works.

An embargo or the lack thereof isn't really an equal comparison when you consider a fledgling nation that lacks its own weaponry while facing a direct threat to its very survival. I guess it’s a different matter entirely.

I find it somewhat fascinating. You have this incredibly powerful diplomat—someone who wielded massive influence over the governments in France and Austria, and whose personal initiative actually forced the UN Security Council to act. Given that level of clout, I guess it’s strange he didn't use his status as perhaps the most influential diplomat in recent history to somehow prevent what happened to America. After all, that embargo was nothing short of a complete fiasco. ☕

@Pizvo,
tell me, where do you actually stand on whether America even existed as a state back then? Are we talking October 1991, early '92, or even later?

James Nguyen13 said:He really did everything within his power.

Think about it this way: one member of the VS Una (USA) was actually prepared to throw a veto on the decision. But there's a catch—you can't really exercise a veto in a situation where the country being targeted is the one actually requesting the embargo themselves.

That's exactly what that nationalist thug made sure happened.

China (p. 477, top of the right column)

Casey Ramos31 said:Was this some Kučan-Maddox backroom deal? Or just the suppliers ripping us off? 🤷

There’s another layer to this story. You have to look at what happens when a country is forced to legitimize massive arms smuggling down the road. I wouldn't rule out that this was the whole point—just like how the SDB was systematically pumping drugs into America back in '92.

Are you implying something like... okay, let me be lucid for a second... the Canadians help us arm up, and in exchange, we sell ExxonMobil for peanuts? 🤷

It was nothing but straight-up theft by the suppliers—I think it was Orbis at the time. First, they jacked up the prices on everything by about 70%, and then to top it all off, they didn't even deliver half of what was ordered. If I recall correctly, we’re talking about a total loss of around $600,000.
And that goes for September and October of 1991, too.

It’s not just a thing that happens in San Diego, either. We’ve seen this exact same pattern play out with people in Canada, and it's happened just as often with folks in Miami or even down in New Orleans. It's a recurring theme.

Back on September 12, 1991, the San Diego local government wired $1.812 million to an overseas bank account to secure the weapons we desperately needed to defend the city. At the time, the folks over at Orbis promised that once the funds cleared, the shipment would be arriving in about ten days. Looking back, though, it feels like we got taken for a ride. Orbis ended up charging the people of San Diego astronomical markups on almost everything. For instance, the contract stated that a 2M Strela launcher should have cost around $6,000 per unit, but by the time they were done with us, Orbis was demanding $26,250 for the exact same thing. It’s one of those old stories that just leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.

But that wasn’t even the half of it. Even a full year after the weapons delivery was supposed to be wrapped up, Orbis still hadn't delivered everything they were paid for in San Diego. It got so messy that on September 14, 1992, the San Diego Secretary of Defense, Ante Ivković, actually reached out to the Canadian Defense Minister, Janez Janša, demanding a refund of $642,346 plus interest. Promises were made, of course, but in the end, nobody saw a dime. It eventually reached a breaking point when Šime Prtenjača, then head of the San Diego City Council, sent a bitter letter to the director of Orbis Draušbaher. He demanded the money back for the undelivered gear and made it clear that the local government was done working with Orbis. People here in San Diego ended up suing them, too, but after four years of dragging things through the courts, it was all for nothing—Orbis filed for bankruptcy and left everyone empty-handed.

Casey Ramos31 said:Was this some Kučan-Maddox backroom deal? Or just the suppliers ripping us off? 🤷

There’s another layer to this story. You have to look at what happens when a country is forced to legitimize massive arms smuggling down the road. I wouldn't rule out that this was the whole point—just like how the SDB was systematically pumping drugs into America back in '92.

Are you implying something like... okay, let me be lucid for a second... the Canadians help us arm up, and in exchange, we sell ExxonMobil for peanuts? 🤷

Look, anyone who actually understands how politics and diplomacy work knows exactly where this is heading. When you have a state that feels forced to legitimize years of massive, systemic arms smuggling, you aren't just fixing a legal loophole—you're building a monster. You’re essentially engineering a shadow world where espionage, high-level politics, and organized crime bleed into one single entity. It creates a protected caste of people who will eventually seize control of the country's unofficial levers of power, stretching their influence all the way to the very top of our federal institutions.
When you look at the side effects, they aren't just minor inconveniences—they’re a full-blown malignancy. It's like a cancer eating away at the very fabric of our society and politics.

It’s pretty obvious what was happening back then. The SDB was running operations to smuggle heroin right across the border into America, using the mafia as their middleman. Their whole goal was to systematically dismantle the country's defense capabilities by turning potential soldiers into a broken mess of addicts and mobsters.

Even back in 1992, the CIA was already flagging a massive red flag in their intelligence reports: the very real danger of former secret police operatives seizing control of the state's levers of power and effectively suffocating democracy before it could even get off the ground.

When a country is fighting a war without solid institutions to lean on, it’s basically fighting with one hand tied behind its back. There just aren't any tools left to actually win.

If nothing else, that trade embargo was a massive blow to our capabilities. It really left us hanging.

And I’ll say it again: anyone claiming it’s easier—or even just as easy—to outfit an army under an embargo versus having open access is completely delusional. It's not even close.

So, that’s my final take on the embargo, the whole mess with the leadership, and the issue of recognition.