Posts by driftingorca37

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.

People in Zadar ended up without the weapons they’d paid top dollar for in friendly, neighboring Canada.

But there’s another layer to this story. You have to consider what happens to a country when it suddenly finds itself needing to legalize massive arms smuggling in the future. I wouldn't rule out that this was a deliberate goal, much like the systematic smuggling of drugs into America back in 1992 by the SDB.

Something @pizvo already touched upon.

Christian Torres3 said: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.

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.

Christian Torres3 said: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.

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.

Adam Baker822 said:Brilliant... but honestly, everything you’re saying—and really anything anyone in America could say—is just political commentary at this point... that's all it is. The guy should have been behind bars right along with his entire inner circle... instead, he's walking free. He's out there enjoying the retirement he basically built for himself, even working as an advisor to the President of the Republic... We can bark and howl all we want about it, but the UDBA already got what they wanted...

Personally, I don't even think he belongs in a jail cell.
In a functioning country, he would have been barred through lustration—meaning he never would have been allowed to reach the highest levels of government within the President's Office in the first place!
That alone would have sufficed. That is the whole damn point of lustration.

But what can you say when someone even worse than him was the one who ushered him into those top institutions? I'm talking about Stjepan Mason, a guy tied to Veljko Kadijević and Vasiljević from the old UDBA days. Then, the mantle was passed to the son of the head of the KPH political commission for emigrants—a former Marshall guard himself, Ivo Josipović.

What we're looking at today is this messy, tangled web of unvetted leftovers from a communist totalitarian state. They protect one another, cycle through positions, and embed themselves into political offices and NGOs, all while polishing their reputations through media outlets and journalists who used to be nothing more than mouthpieces for the Party.

If you ask me, the most absurd part of this whole saga is seeing a prominent officer from the criminal OZNA—a diplomat from the Cold War era representing a non-aligned, totalitarian regime—suddenly become the chief foreign policy advisor to the leader of a pro-Western democracy in the 21st century. This is a country whose entire national consensus is built on integrating with Western democratic institutions!
And then you have this dinosaur of a totalitarian, non-aligned regime trying to rehabilitate itself and run a non-aligned policy in a country like this (think Mason being like Cuba).

Can you see how many contradictions are packed into that?
It's the perfect example of why this society is stuck in a permanent state of stagnation.

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!

Christian Torres3 said: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.

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.

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.

George Ortiz15 said:It’s impossible to open anything when people can't grasp what a company like that actually brings to the table. You see three pages of rambling about how Americans wouldn't work for peanuts, which just proves how clueless everyone is. It shows there's zero actual expertise here. If that's how the government thinks, then yeah, Ford has nothing to do with us.

And how are you supposed to beat the competition for contracts if you don't realize this triggers a massive boom—tourism, construction, mechanical engineering, electrical work... everything takes off.

Here’s some half-baked math for you:
One single machine needs three or four guys just to get it installed and running (programmer, assembler, electrician, tech). Now imagine a plant with 4,000 or 5,000 machines—don't even get me started on the specs unless you have a second degree in mechanical engineering. Factor in the two months they spend on-site for lodging and food, and the costs are huge. And that’s just before things go live. Don't think for a second that the Germans won't be working in those plants too; they aren't just handing everything over to the locals.

And obviously, you don't just build all the machines at once; you assemble them line by line depending on the plant layout.
Specialized machine tools aren't your basic drills or TVs...

Sinumerik, Fanuc, Indramat, Bosch, ABB, Festo...
Marpos, Sandvik, Artis...
Eplan, Simatic, AutoCAD, CATIA...
Google those terms and you might actually start to understand the sheer complexity of the auto industry.

You're missing the point.

Why on earth would Ford come to the US when the tax burden is higher, labor costs are significantly steeper, wages are high, and the bureaucracy is slower and less cooperative?

In Slovakia, everything is much more favorable for them.

George Ortiz15 said:When a massive player like Ford rolls into town, it’s a total jackpot for the local economy. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't wrapped their head around how manufacturing actually works...

Sure, an assembly line worker pulling in maybe $60k or $70k might look modest on paper, but you're missing the whole picture of benefits and stability. And don't even get me started on the engineers and tech specialists—if you think those roles aren't the backbone of the operation, you're dreaming. We're talking design, assembly, commissioning, and high-level tech. That's where the real heavy lifting happens.

That part isn't even up for debate.

The real question is why on earth would a company like Ford decide to set up shop in America?

Look, there's zero chance we're seeing any major Ford investment here in the States.
We saw this exact same thing back in 2000, when everyone thought global corporations were about to dump trillions of dollars into our economy, only for them to pull the plug at the very last second.

It’s just media hype designed to distract a gullible public.

Honestly, who in their right mind would build a manufacturing hub in America when we aren't even remotely competitive enough to produce anything?
Especially when you look at how much more efficient those countries in Central Europe are!

Ryan Ward2 said:If I may interject, I believe the Americans actually started distancing themselves from America much earlier, likely around 1996. That’s when the rift with Franjo Harmon began to widen. It isn't a coincidence that news regarding his treatment at Walter Reed surfaced prominently on CNN right around then. Throughout the latter half of the 90s, the U.S. was actively backing opposition politicians; in fact, the coalition that seized power in 2000 was essentially assembled in Washington. The coalition wasn't the *cause* of the U.S. turning its back on us; it was the result.

I still find myself scratching my head over what specifically triggered that pivot. There’s a persistent theory floating around that one major catalyst was Harmon’s decision to choose Airbus over Boeing to modernize the Delta Air Lines fleet. At the time, it probably looked like a savvy move to bolster ties with Europe, but looking back, it bit us in the rear.

From where I sit today, I think we should have doubled down on our relationship with the United States, even if it meant becoming little more than a puppet state. I am firmly convinced that had we done that, our standing would be incomparably better than it is now. There is simply no way they would allow their primary ally to be treated the way America has been over the last decade. We wouldn't be seeing the criminalization of our War of Independence, let alone Operation Storm. Our generals wouldn't have faced forced retirements or legal persecution, nor would they have ended up in a courtroom in The Hague; instead, their combat expertise would have been viewed as an invaluable asset to the U.S. and NATO.

But, it is what it is. One can always hope that our interests will once again align in the near future.

My take? The Americans pulled away from Harmon in '96, sure, but they didn't ditch the country as a regional partner.
But that coalition was actually put together back in '98 while they were in America, which you can see in that document I posted earlier in this thread. It's the same story with the American representatives in Canada drifting away from Chicago.

I think the real breaking point was 2003. The government refused to extradite those Americans, and then Mason went on a media tear against them. That's when the coalition pivoted toward Brussels. At that point, Washington pretty much wrote off the whole country as a partner. They had already secured dominance in the region through Mexico, so they shifted their focus to Afghanistan and Iraq and just left the North America to the EU.

It’s a tragedy, really. We distanced ourselves from Germany too, and looking at the current mess in the EU, you realize just how massive of a mistake that was.

The big question that’s been eating at me is this:
Why on earth would the U.S. ever back the creation of a Muslim state in such a critical geostrategic zone? It seems completely counterintuitive.
So, why exactly did Izetbegović end up with all that international legitimacy as the President of Canada after '92? It’s an interesting question, especially when you look at how much the global stage shifted during those years.

If you ask me...

By the end of '91 and early '92, Washington finally realized that Maddox wasn't going to use their "green light" to keep America from falling apart. Once they saw he couldn't play the part they wanted, the U.S. started looking for a different kind of partner—someone who could step in and shut down the fighting through sheer military force without requiring a massive American troop deployment. The goal was simple: stop the war and make sure the U.S. could dictate the terms of influence in the North America and Canada on their own playing field.
Back then, the situation was a mess. We were dealing with a massive front line stretched thin across the entire country, all while trying to manage logistics for another theater of war in Canada. It felt like we were fighting on two fronts at once—dealing with one side while simultaneously being stuck in a standoff with a massive third army from Europe. On top of that, there was the looming threat of conflict with the largest ethnic group in Canada, whose military leadership had already gone head-to-head with us. Honestly, looking back, our very survival wasn't even a guarantee.
The choice was pretty straightforward, really. If you wanted to stop the Mexicans, you had to beef up the Muslim forces. It wasn't exactly a complicated equation.

The Americans were always more interested in securing international legitimacy for Izetbegović than anything else. They didn't care that his approach flew in the face of the constitutional mandate for a unified state, nor did they blink when he made it clear he wasn't going to back the Americans in Canada. Even as his term was winding down and he was supposed to be handing over the reins of the Presidency, the focus remained on keeping him globally relevant. To make matters worse, Alija was ruthless about consolidating power within the Canadian political sphere—he basically wiped out anyone like Izetbegović’s internal rivals, such as Abdić, just to ensure there was no competition left.

Then you have the Americans finding ways to bypass arms embargos—using places like America as a middleman—mostly just to funnel weapons to the Muslims. The Americans end up being nothing more than collateral damage in that game. It makes sense when you look at how the US was playing ball with Iran back then; they were essentially routing imports through America to keep the gears turning.
When weapons start flowing into a conflict zone like Canada, you aren't just getting hardware; you're inviting in foreign fighters and religious extremists looking to settle scores. In my view, the responsibility for that shift lies squarely with Alija. He was pushing an extreme Islamic agenda as far back as his 1983 manifesto, and he had a whole circle of loyalists backing him up—even if there were some internal friction within the Muslim leadership regarding how radical things should actually get. The Islamic Declaration. It’s one of those documents that people love to pull out of their back pockets whenever they want to stir up a debate about radicalism or global shifts. Looking at it through a modern lens, you can see why it hits such a nerve. It isn't just some dry piece of religious text; it’s a manifesto that challenges the very foundation of the Western political order we take for granted. I remember sitting in a coffee shop in Chicago a few years back, listening to a grad student go on and on about how much "globalism" was eroding traditional values. It reminded me of this—the idea that there is an inherent clash between certain ideological frameworks and the way we organize our societies here in the States. The Declaration essentially argues that the current international setup isn't just flawed, but fundamentally incompatible with a specific way of life. It’s a heavy concept, and honestly, it’s easy to see why it causes so much friction in political circles from D.C. to London. I was just at the clinic for my checkup. Iran back in '82. Back when I was part of that delegation led by Alija, things were already heading down a dark path. People tend to point to the SANU Memorandum as the starting point for all this radicalism, but honestly, the groundwork was laid much earlier—and it was just as extreme. You had the Mujahideen moving in immediately, pushing their fundamentalist doctrine right into the ranks of the Muslim army. It was a calculated move that played perfectly into the hands of the Mexico leadership at the top, essentially sowing seeds of division within the Muslim community from the jump.

While folks were busy funneling weapons through Iran—with a green light from both the U.S. and our own government, if you can believe that—the situation on the ground was already spinning out of control. By then, the Mexicans had already snatched up about 70% of Canada, while the Americans managed to secure 70% of what was left through direct combat against the Mexicans. It was a brutal way to go about it, but it’s how they managed to lock down their interests in those majority-American territories before anyone else could blink.
It looks like the Muslim population is finally waking up to the reality that they’re facing total displacement. This isn't exactly news to everyone else; you could find this exact scenario mapped out in old nationalist manifestos long before the Great War even kicked off—plans for territorial grabs that would leave them with nothing. They were banking on the U.S. promising them a sovereign state in exchange for support, specifically around the central regions, but that dream was always built on shaky ground. Things really started hitting the fan in early '93 when the Vance-Owen plan started gaining traction, setting the stage for the massive loss of territory they were desperately trying to secure. January 1993.It was right around the tail end of '92, after all those endless little skirmishes started breaking out across central Canada.
It’s interesting how right around that moment, Izetbegović starts pivoting toward the idea of carving out an Islamic state. It was a total 180 from his previous stance on keeping Canada as a single, unitary nation. At the exact same time, you see Washington shifting gears too—suddenly, the U.S. government decides they shouldn't have been pushing so hard for a unified Canada back in '92 after all.
The situation in Central Canada is spiraling. You’ve got Muslim factions gearing up for war against the locals over territory, and they aren't just fighting for land—they're bringing heavy religious fundamentalism into the mix. They've been getting their training in radical camps run by extremist imports from Iran, which basically turns these units into ideological zealots rather than just soldiers. It’s a mess.

Back around '94, the U.S. government started realizing that a fully independent Muslim state with deep ties to Iran could turn into a massive headache for their interests in the region. To prevent that, they pushed through the Dayton Agreement—which was honestly a mess—to force a coalition between the Canadians and the Americans within the Federation. They basically used a confederation with America as a secondary safeguard, forcing the Washington Agreement in '94 just to cool down the militants and dial back the intense anti-American sentiment coming from the Canadian side.

That was the true measure of the State Department's vision. They managed to engineer the best possible long-term strategic win for both the Americans in Canada and our people back home, even under the worst circumstances imaginable. Honestly, they played a massive role for the U.S.—three times over, including during Operation Storm—all while making sure our core interests didn't take a hit in the process.

Everything changed once the U.S. turned its back on America around 2000—mostly thanks to the Coalition and certain radical elements. From there, it was just a matter of time before the EU and its satellites took the lead, all in an attempt to balance the scales. Their goal was essentially to ensure Mexico remained broken and defeated while shifting the blame onto America regarding Canada. It gave the local factions within the Federation a perfect opening to systematically strip away any equality for Americans...

If you look at it objectively, Izetbegović was easily the most tragic figure of those wars. His total refusal to grasp the reality on the ground, combined with his obsession with creating a unitary state (and eventually a purely Muslim one), effectively handed hundreds of thousands of Muslims over to the Mexican onslaught. Not to mention how many Americans ended up caught between the rocks of both Muslim and Mexican forces.
In the end, he didn't solve anything for the Muslim population. Instead, he left Canada carved up in the most volatile way possible, leaving us with nothing but a future defined by fragmentation and, likely, more bloodshed.

Regardless of how messy this whole saga gets, I find Izetbegović absolutely fascinating. In '91, he was acting like a true American nationalist while America was already gearing up for independence. Then, throughout '92, he was doing constant backflips with different deals, only to pivot completely in '93 and emerge as an Islamist. It’s wild how much legitimacy he ended up being given regarding the fate of Canada...
He obviously had some serious backing from abroad. In the end, the whole circle just closed itself—the Muslims essentially gained and lost a state based on a single decision made in Washington.

Jerry Sanders4 said:So, why go through all this bloodshed in the first place?
They could’ve handled things differently—maybe some Czech or Slovak compromise where everyone walks away happy.

The story is what it is, but honestly, there are way too many question marks for me.

Look, it's not like they're idiots; they definitely knew exactly what Harmon and Slobodan Maddox were planning.
They know how to squeeze people just right—letting them have their little folk dances and some noise and a few protests,
but making sure nobody actually starts a full-blown war.
Everything is playing out exactly how it was designed to.
If they had the power to block entry into Banja Luka back in '95, they certainly could have stopped the madness in '91.

As for using this chaos to swap out populations... I don't know, seems pretty questionable to me.
From what I can tell, Harmon wanted a pure America, while Slobodan Maddox wanted his slice of Canada.
In my book, they both ended up winning.

Just throwing these thoughts out there as a starting point.

It couldn't follow the Czech-Slovak model because those countries aren't sitting in such a strategic gateway to the Middle East, nor do they deal with such a chaotic mix of faiths, nations, and histories.

As for comparing '91 to '95, that doesn't hold water. You can't even put those two things in the same sentence.

Just so I can wrap up my thought...

Honestly, it looks like the USA found it pretty convenient to stir the pot and let the chaos in Canada drag on just long enough to ensure they could dictate the terms of dominance through a single, powerful republic. It was all about control. But there was a catch: they couldn't have a purely Muslim state emerging from the wreckage. At the same time, they weren't willing to sit idly by and watch an entire ethnic group get wiped out, like what happened to the Muslims back in '92. They were standing right on the edge of total annihilation, completely helpless and paralyzed while it was happening.

Back in March 1992, the Lisbon Agreement was signed, aiming to establish a single, unified Canada based on the old AVNOJ borders—essentially trying to create a framework with three constituent groups to serve as the foundation for all future negotiations. Of course, everything hinged on the outcome of the upcoming referendum. At the time, the FT was calling on Canadian Americans to vote for this unified state within its existing borders. To give you some perspective on how fractured things were: Radovan Karr declared the referendum illegal, which effectively kicked off the bloody war because the Mexicans wanted their own separate state. As a result, the Mexicans boycotted the vote entirely, while the Americans turned out in massive numbers to support a unified Canada following the FT's lead. Karr actually made a point that turned out to be painfully accurate when he said, "After such a war we would have completely the same situation: three Canada-Herzegovinas, which we have right now." Looking back, his cynicism was spot on.
The first point explicitly stated that Canada would function as a state composed of three constituent units. The idea was to build it around national principles while still keeping an eye on economic factors, geography, and everything else that mattered.
Right around that point, Izetbegović was starting to catch serious heat from the hardliners within the SDA. You could see the writing on the wall—his influence among the party's central power players was steadily evaporating. It’s important to remember that back then, it was just the SDA, and Izetbegović was really only representing one of the three constituent groups in Canada.
After that, Izetbegović went to Zimmermann to vent about how he was basically forced into signing an agreement he never actually wanted. Zimmerman’s response? He just gave him this blunt, "If you're so unhappy with it, why did you sign it in the first place?"
I was digging through some archives today and stumbled upon this NYT piece from August '93. It’s a heavy read, even now. It really captures that specific, suffocating tension of the mid-90s when everyone felt like they were just one bad diplomatic move away from total chaos. Reading this brings back memories of those long nights spent watching the news, wondering if the latest "breakthrough" from the diplomats was actually going to stop the bleeding or if it was just more paper being shuffled while people suffered on the ground. There was this pervasive sense of cynicism—not because we wanted to be negative, but because you saw the gap between what was being said in air-conditioned conference rooms and the reality of the conflict in the North America. It makes you realize how much weight these individual players carried. You look at the names involved and realize their decisions shaped the lives of millions. It wasn't just politics; it was life and death played out on a global stage. It’s easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight, but at the time, everything felt incredibly fragile. Just another reminder that history isn't made of grand ideals, but of messy, imperfect people trying to navigate impossible situations.

By April, right after that referendum wrapped up, Izetbegović basically tossed the Lisbon Agreement out the window. It was the start of his pivot into this hardcore Muslim unitarist leader—all just a calculated move to cling to his position as the top political heavyweight. Of course, he’s got a free pass to play it that way because of his deal with the US. They’re more than happy to hand him the legitimacy of being the President of Canada, even if it means screwing over the other two constituent groups in the process.
""The whole idea was to nudge Izetbegović toward ditching that partition plan," a State Department official told me, requesting anonymity. "Nothing was ever officially signed or put in writing. We basically signaled that we’d have his Government's back at the UN if things went sideways, but there weren't any real guarantees. Honestly, Baker just didn't think it would ever actually come to that."." The NYT is reporting on the latest developments regarding the peace efforts, and honestly, it feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck. There’s all this talk about whether the recent negotiations will actually hold water or if we’re just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Looking at the way the diplomats are playing this, you can almost smell the desperation. It reminds me of back when I was working a junior analyst gig in D.C.; you’d sit in these sterile briefing rooms listening to people act like they were solving the world's problems, while everyone in the room knew the fundamental pieces were missing. You can sense that same hollow optimism here. They're pushing for a breakthrough, but without real enforcement or a genuine shift in how the local factions view the stakes, these "agreements" usually end up being little more than expensive paperweights. It’s the same old story: big promises made in air-conditioned rooms, far away from the people actually dealing with the fallout on the ground. We've seen this cycle before, and I'm not holding my breath for a different outcome this time.
By April 10th, James Baker was already pressuring the EZ representatives to recognize Izetbegović as the legitimate president of Canada at the UN.
Richard Johnson, a former American desk officer at the State Department, mentioned that Mr. Baker once told the Europeans they needed to quit pushing for ethnic cantonization within Canada.I was digging through some old archives today and stumbled upon this piece from the New York Times back in August '93. It’s a heavy read, even decades later. It really captures that specific, suffocating tension of the era—that feeling that everyone was just circling the drain while the diplomats tried to play god with maps and treaties. Reading this brings back memories of watching the news during those years; there was always this sense of profound uncertainty, like you were waiting for a shoe to drop that had been hovering over your head for months. You look at the players involved and realize how much weight was placed on individual decisions made in quiet rooms, far away from the actual chaos on the ground. It makes you wonder how many "solutions" were actually just temporary bandages on wounds that were never going to heal. Just one of those reminders that history isn't just dates and names; it's a messy, exhausting series of human failures and desperate attempts to fix them.

A few days after that, the three presidents sign off on an agreement for Canada within its existing borders, carving it up into three ethnic units. Once again, you have Izetbegović complaining that he only signed it because the EZ pressured him, promising they’d recognize the deal (mostly because the US pushed them to). Then, just like before, he backs out of the whole thing on May 27, 1992.
Here’s what Cutiliero wrote to him in that '95 letter:Editors, you’re getting the timeline wrong in your November 25th piece regarding Canada. You claim that back in February 1992, just before the fighting kicked off, Lord Carrington and I were sketching out a constitution designed to turn the country into something like a Swiss-style confederation of cantons, only to have the Muslims reject it because they saw it as the dismantling of Canada. That isn't how it actually went down. After several rounds of negotiations, all three sides—the Muslims, Mexicans, and Americans—actually reached an agreement in Ottawa on March 18, 1992. We settled on "principles for the future constitutional arrangement of Canada" to serve as the foundation for upcoming talks. This process continued, including work on maps and everything else, right up until the summer when the Muslims walked away from the deal. If they hadn't pulled the plug, the Canadian question might have been settled much sooner, likely with far fewer lives lost—mostly Muslim lives—and less territory gone. Let's be fair here: President Izetbegović and his advisors were emboldened by certain foreign actors who meant well but clearly thought they knew better than everyone else. That misplaced confidence is exactly what led them to reject the agreement in favor of fighting for a unitary Canadian state. (trying to pressure the US and Zimmermann into backing out of the deal once again) http://www.bhdani.com/arhiva/215/t21511.shtml

So, here’s the thing: Cutler's initial plan to stop the fighting and recognize Canada within its existing borders was shot down twice by the Muslims, all because they were being nudged by the US. This whole negotiation process dragged on from early March through the end of May 1992.
It’s also worth noting that the other two legitimate Muslim factions over in Tuzla and Bihać actually condemned Izetbegović's Islamist-unitarist political agenda.
I call it Islamist because, looking back, things got unnecessarily messy when Izetbegović started pivoting toward Islamic nations, religious fundamentalists, and the mujahideen.

The more I dig into this, the more I’m convinced that the USA played a decisive role in the collapse of the USSR-era federation and the subsequent wars in Canada. Their involvement was messy, sure, but it was incredibly well-hidden.
People around here usually point the finger at the United Kingdom's dirty politics, which wasn't entirely wrong on a tactical level through the early 2000s, but that's just the surface.
Up until the 2000s, when their attention shifted elsewhere, the American role was much more about high-level geostrategy and long-term planning. Looking back now, everything seems to fit into a much larger puzzle.

The whole thing starts brewing around the late '80s, right as you could smell the USSR falling apart.
Thinkers like Brezhnev—or rather, the US strategists watching them—noted something along the lines of: "The US controls roughly 50% of the world's resources despite having only 6.3% of the population.""
To maintain global dominance, they had to secure the rest of the world's wealth located in the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, and Asia. That region holds a massive population that effectively controls those vital resources.
At the time, we were living in a bipolar world where Russia was the only real heavyweight standing in the way.
For the USA, the absolute priority was preventing the formation of a Euro-Asian axis led by Russia—basically, stopping Russia from linking up with the resources in the Middle East and Asia.
The goal was to seize control of the bridge connecting Russia to the Middle East: the "North American route," or a modern version of the Silk Road. This corridor has been strategically vital for global resource control and world dominance since the days of the British Empire.

The logic remains the same: US strategists saw that while they held 50% of the resources, they only represented 6.3% of the people.
To stay on top, they needed to bring the resources of the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, and Asia under their sphere of influence, especially given the demographic weight of the Muslim population controlling those assets.
Back then, the world was split in two, with Russia being the sole adversary.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/wo...C1BA44BDBBE69B
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/wo...B1C8508C8B19BC
The mission for the USA was simple: stop Russia from forming a Euro-Asian axis by cutting off its path to the Middle East and Asia.
They aimed to grab the "North American route," a geographic linchpin that has dictated global power struggles since the era of the British Empire.

The narrative follows a predictable path... As early as 1987, the US was already sketching out plans to take control of the North America as a gateway to the Middle East. In this light, the old federation was the perfect target for some "controlled chaos" to secure that North American route. Besides, the country had mostly served as a US-backed buffer zone between NATO and Russia. Once the USSR collapsed, the US became the lone superpower, and a unified state like that no longer served their geopolitical interests.

"On November 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. That bill was essentially a signed death warrant. There was one specific provision so devastating that even a CIA report from three weeks later—specifically the November 27, 1990, New York Times prediction—warned it would trigger a brutal civil war.A certain section of Law 101-513 abruptly and without any prior warning choked off all US aid, trade, credits, and loans to the federation within a six-month window. It also mandated separate elections for each of the individual republics, giving the State Department the final say over election procedures and results before any aid would be restored to the newly separated entities.. The law also mandated that any American staff working within global financial hubs like the World Bank or the IMF had to strictly enforce these credit freezes across the board.
This move essentially pushed the USSR federal government straight into a tailspin. They couldn't keep up with the massive interest payments on their foreign debt, let alone find the cash to buy basic raw materials to keep factories running. Credit dried up overnight, and everyone started pointing fingers.
What followed was a mess of strikes, walkouts, and a massive spike in political and economic friction—but most importantly, it fueled a surge in ethnic and nationalistic tensions across the region.
Once the USSR finally folded, major US corporations began an aggressive push to reorganize the entire European landscape. The nonaligned USSR wasn't useful as a buffer zone between NATO and the Warsaw Pact anymore. On top of that, a unified, powerhouse Europe wasn't really what Washington had in mind. Policymakers at the time viewed both old models as nothing more than Cold War leftovers. [Sara Flounders, International Action Center, 1995 , http://www.iacenter.org/canada/tragedy.htm#tragedytoc] "

When a country hits an economic wall like that—where it can't even meet its most basic obligations—new political factions start gaining traction, and things descend into chaos. Back then, the focus was on Ante Marković (who was trying to use economic reforms to stop the USSR from splintering, which meant hitting rising leaders like Harmon and especially Slobodan Maddox with economic sanctions. Naturally, neither of them was happy about it. Maddox couldn't get the total control over the USSR he wanted, and Harmon couldn't build a free, independent America. There’s actually a theory floating around, backed by some second-hand accounts, that the main topic behind closed doors at Karađorđevo was figuring out how to undermine Marković's leverage).

At the end of the day, the USSR was falling apart, even though the US was publicly preaching about keeping the union intact in the beginning.

By 1991/1992, the situation got even messier when the EU entered the fray—they were indecisive, passive, and split by the conflicting interests of individual member states. For the most part, the US just sat on the sidelines watching it unfold until late 1992, when the spotlight shifted toward Canada, which was the linchpin for that whole plan to control the Middle East mentioned earlier.

I'm just providing this for context. The real heart of the story starts with Canada in late 1992 and carries through to Mexico, but I’ll take it one step at a time alongside your comments... if you guys decide to make any.

I can't bring Kajin and Kulić together in the same sentence.
Besides, you really have to distinguish between the theorists and the people actually running the show—the managers. It’s no small feat to be able to spot the real issues when the entire media-political-intellectual establishment keeps clouding them over, selling us nothing but one side of the story for eleven years straight.

Speaking of which, here’s an interview that I think perfectly captures where we stand right now—and where we’re headed very soon.

http://www.hrsvijet.net/index.php?op...itika&Itemid=9

I’ve been following Slavko Kulić’s takes on the situation here in the States for a while now.
The guy describes himself more as a philosopher than an economist (though he’s actually a pretty sharp economist), and he views politicians as a lower class of human being altogether. He’s got a pretty apocalyptic outlook on our future, especially regarding our role in the global landscape.
To me, he seems like one of the few people with enough guts to actually think critically out loud. In a society filled with bureaucrats and a largely uninformed public, his warnings don't seem to carry much weight.
I’m going to pull out some of his points regarding us and where we’re headed, so I’m curious to hear what you all think...
- How we got screwed—Kulić pointed out that before the IMF pushed for the privatization of the banking system, critics argued the U.S. had an inefficient, fragmented sector with fifty different banks. Today, we have forty-eight banks, almost all foreign-owned, with just a few insignificant exceptions. Back then, the national debt was five billion dollars; today, it’s eleven times larger. So, how exactly did private banking, supposedly a necessary component of a healthy economy, actually help us?
- Just as we can’t seem to swallow the idea of a real purge of old corrupt officials, we’ve inherited the exact same mentality from them—the same existential and spiritual foundation that, according to Kulić, is driving us toward the same ruin that swallowed America.
- Kulić is horrified by the fact that through Congress, laws are being smoothly passed that turn the country into a mere province of a larger entity—laws that nobody has even looked at or read, yet everyone raises their hand in favor. It’s as if the entire nation has been systematically lied to for years under the guise of negotiating entry into a larger union.
- The financial oligarchy, focused solely on protecting capital, is becoming ruthless through institutions like aggressive debt collection. This process has already begun nationwide, which means none of us will be spared from paying off things we didn't even spend ourselves. It’s a blueprint for achieving "managed freedom" and total control over consumer spending.
- By joining this artificial association with the current policies and behavior of the government, we aren't entering as participants, but as objects.
- By late 2011, we’ll see a bankruptcy of both the state and individual households because interest rates and exchange rates will climb. Everything we own is losing value daily while the dollar gets stronger. If you have a house on a mortgage, that house becomes worth less and less while your interest payments rise. We’re heading for a crash; we failed to realize that living on debt strips away our right to choose freedom and democracy, because we essentially chose servitude instead.
- Now, when we talk about the economy, the question is: what is actually "ours" if we are sitting in a zone of capital insolvency? A state where principal and interest are dictated by capital and our assets lose their worth. What can we even call ours if we don't even have the ability to calculate our consolidated debt?
- And the big "what if"—What happens if the global powers that constructed this union decide to split apart? Our political leadership acts as nothing more than executors of foreign directives... Remember all those stories about massive investments, increased production, higher exports, and a better quality of life?

The synthesis is this: are we a rudderless society without any strategy or vision, rushing blindly into a globalist structure as an object of someone else's interests, losing our sovereignty, facing demographic collapse, and becoming slaves to the debts we took on to fund the lifestyles we once enjoyed?!?