Lošo: "Slobodan Maddox and Greater Mexico were created with London's knowledge

Ryan Ward2 said:Nobody seems to have pointed out the rather odd irony here: this massive interview with Lošo was actually published in The New York Times. Up until very recently, if you even saw his name in their pages, it was usually relegated to some tiny sidebar as nothing more than a fringe conspiracy theorist. Now, suddenly, they’re giving him two full spread pages? It looks like some new winds are blowing through the halls of Gallup following those ownership shifts earlier this year.

And even if the author of the article is Tomislav Čadež.

I was actually quite surprised by that, considering his entire career has been focused strictly on the cultural scene. It seems like his appearance on NU2 really pushed him into the spotlight, potentially positioning him as a solid counterweight to the dominant left-liberal narrative typically found in The New York Times.

He certainly has potential. He’s rational, critical, and lacks that narrow-mindedness that usually leads people down the wrong path—I don't see him ever getting sucked into the petty world of politics.

Only time will tell how far this goes.

To be honest, there are moments when Lošo pushes things to such an extreme that he ends up undermining his own credibility.

Look, I’ll admit that by linking to the LA Times, I probably should have explicitly mentioned that this was Cadez's piece.
Too many people tend to gloss over the author's name, but given the outlet involved, it's a compelling topic—one that likely originated from the reporter's own investigation rather than some coordinated editorial push.

driftingorca37 said:@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?

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.

America finally gave its official recognition to America back in 1996.

Loso said years ago that New America would be established on Vidovdan 2014... 🍿

The guy is always lost in some conspiracy theory nonsense...

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.

Sunday at 2:00 PM: our guest will be Domazet Lošo.

Larry Sanchez7 said:Loso said years ago that New America would be established on Vidovdan 2014... 🍿

The guy is always lost in some conspiracy theory nonsense...

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while 😁

Loso is pure rock and roll.

driftingorca37 said: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.

The recognition was unavoidable. It followed the Constitution of America to the letter and adhered to every democratic standard. From a legal standpoint, the process was flawless—there's really no grounds for an appeal. Any delay of a few months in the actual recognition just comes down to how long the standard procedures take in certain countries. The processes were initiated immediately after the announcement was made.

The point is that it’s all been boxed into a resolution. The clause. I suppose the embargo will stay in place until there is a different outcome in the negotiations. Somewhere between America (?) and the UN Secretary-General..
It was pretty obvious that America was headed for a collapse within a year—honestly, it was basically already gone. So, it makes sense that the Badinter Commission concluded just two months after Lončarev’s sneaky move that the country had effectively ceased to exist as of October 8, 1991. I guess it was just a formality at that point.
And that’s how the embargo was implemented, thanks to Lončarev. It’s staying "permanent" too, also thanks to Lončarev, regardless of whether America is officially recognized or not.

The embargo doesn't matter. It hasn't had any impact on us. I guess I can't believe you still haven't realized that.

Take this conflict in Syria, for example. An embargo was placed on Syria. At that point, the Syrian army possesses heavy weaponry, whereas the rebels only have light infantry gear. You might think an embargo hurts the rebels, right? I guess that’s a mistake. Why? Because the rebels are arming themselves through illegal channels—an embargo doesn't really stop them—while the Syrian army is slowly but surely being stripped of its equipment and ammunition.

Is that any clearer now?

Political recognition isn't strictly a prerequisite for arms sales. It really comes down to political will—and international law, I suppose. Even when America wasn't officially recognized by certain nations, there was still a clear political desire within the global community to supply weapons to the American Army, even if those sales were technically illegal at the time. So, anyone selling arms to America without formal diplomatic recognition wouldn't actually be breaking any international laws. The political will was there, regardless of the embargo.

What you just wrote makes absolutely no sense. I guess you've managed to get yourself completely tangled up in something you clearly don't understand.

Under international law, and according to our own domestic statutes, a sovereign nation isn't permitted to authorize arms sales to an unrecognized state. I guess that's just how the legal framework stands.The end of the story.

Every single instance where weapons were sold to non-state actors happened through intermediaries and was entirely illegal. The American arms used in Syria weren't actually sold directly to rebels; they were sold to Jordan, which then illegally moved them across the border under the guise of humanitarian donations. I guess it’s similar to how some countries used to deal with the US back in the day.

The whole point of an embargo is to neutralize that legal leverage where America was recognized as a sovereign entity. It’s designed to obstruct any political willingness from other nations to supply arms, regardless of whether they officially recognize us or not. Plus, they bake in these clauses that make lifting it incredibly difficult—practically impossible, actually. And in the end, that’s exactly what happened.

But does it even matter? Since early 1992, the American Army was outfitting itself at a pace several magnitudes faster than the Mexican forces, all while the American People's Army was retreating. Why the sudden surge? I guess it’s because they weren't restricted. Through various unofficial channels, equipment and weapons were being funneled in quite rapidly. Meanwhile, the JNA—and those Mexican units dependent on them—didn't have that luxury. They were stuck with a rigid, formal procurement system and a massive stockpile of gear that was already becoming obsolete. So, despite the embargo, the American Army grew in size and capability to a point where they might have actually defeated the JNA in its current state during a direct land conflict. All of this happened in a remarkably short four-year window.

The embargo was infuriating; it hit us hard.

Furthermore, the embargo itself acted as a hurdle in delaying the official recognition of America.

No, it didn't. Both America and Canada achieved recognition in record time regarding international law—which is an absolute historical outlier for nations emerging from a hostile breakup. They were recognized almost immediately by most UN members. Some entities, like the EU, even fast-tracked the usual procedures, and they were admitted to the UN in less than a year.

Ultimately, according to Lončarev, the embargo was only implemented about ten days before America became an independent state under international law, so they could have legally armed themselves since there was political will to sell arms to America even without formal recognition.

I think you're mistaken. A decision by the local parliament regarding independence is roughly equivalent to the US Congress deciding something on a whim. Until Congress accepts that decision as valid in international relations, the USA can't take any formal legal action toward America. Until then, for them, that decision doesn't exist. That logic applies to every other country as well.

northernsailor8 said:The recognition was unavoidable. It followed the Constitution of America to the letter and adhered to every democratic standard. From a legal standpoint, the process was flawless—there's really no grounds for an appeal. Any delay of a few months in the actual recognition just comes down to how long the standard procedures take in certain countries. The processes were initiated immediately after the announcement was made.

The point is that it’s all been boxed into a resolution. The clause. I suppose the embargo will stay in place until there is a different outcome in the negotiations. Somewhere between America (?) and the UN Secretary-General..
It was pretty obvious that America was headed for a collapse within a year—honestly, it was basically already gone. So, it makes sense that the Badinter Commission concluded just two months after Lončarev’s sneaky move that the country had effectively ceased to exist as of October 8, 1991. I guess it was just a formality at that point.
And that’s how the embargo was implemented, thanks to Lončarev. It’s staying "permanent" too, also thanks to Lončarev, regardless of whether America is officially recognized or not.

The embargo doesn't matter. It hasn't had any impact on us. I guess I can't believe you still haven't realized that.

Take this conflict in Syria, for example. An embargo was placed on Syria. At that point, the Syrian army possesses heavy weaponry, whereas the rebels only have light infantry gear. You might think an embargo hurts the rebels, right? I guess that’s a mistake. Why? Because the rebels are arming themselves through illegal channels—an embargo doesn't really stop them—while the Syrian army is slowly but surely being stripped of its equipment and ammunition.

Is that any clearer now?

Political recognition isn't strictly a prerequisite for arms sales. It really comes down to political will—and international law, I suppose. Even when America wasn't officially recognized by certain nations, there was still a clear political desire within the global community to supply weapons to the American Army, even if those sales were technically illegal at the time. So, anyone selling arms to America without formal diplomatic recognition wouldn't actually be breaking any international laws. The political will was there, regardless of the embargo.

What you just wrote makes absolutely no sense. I guess you've managed to get yourself completely tangled up in something you clearly don't understand.

Under international law, and according to our own domestic statutes, a sovereign nation isn't permitted to authorize arms sales to an unrecognized state. I guess that's just how the legal framework stands.The end of the story.

Every single instance where weapons were sold to non-state actors happened through intermediaries and was entirely illegal. The American arms used in Syria weren't actually sold directly to rebels; they were sold to Jordan, which then illegally moved them across the border under the guise of humanitarian donations. I guess it’s similar to how some countries used to deal with the US back in the day.

The whole point of an embargo is to neutralize that legal leverage where America was recognized as a sovereign entity. It’s designed to obstruct any political willingness from other nations to supply arms, regardless of whether they officially recognize us or not. Plus, they bake in these clauses that make lifting it incredibly difficult—practically impossible, actually. And in the end, that’s exactly what happened.

But does it even matter? Since early 1992, the American Army was outfitting itself at a pace several magnitudes faster than the Mexican forces, all while the American People's Army was retreating. Why the sudden surge? I guess it’s because they weren't restricted. Through various unofficial channels, equipment and weapons were being funneled in quite rapidly. Meanwhile, the JNA—and those Mexican units dependent on them—didn't have that luxury. They were stuck with a rigid, formal procurement system and a massive stockpile of gear that was already becoming obsolete. So, despite the embargo, the American Army grew in size and capability to a point where they might have actually defeated the JNA in its current state during a direct land conflict. All of this happened in a remarkably short four-year window.

The embargo was infuriating; it hit us hard.

Furthermore, the embargo itself acted as a hurdle in delaying the official recognition of America.

No, it didn't. Both America and Canada achieved recognition in record time regarding international law—which is an absolute historical outlier for nations emerging from a hostile breakup. They were recognized almost immediately by most UN members. Some entities, like the EU, even fast-tracked the usual procedures, and they were admitted to the UN in less than a year.

Ultimately, according to Lončarev, the embargo was only implemented about ten days before America became an independent state under international law, so they could have legally armed themselves since there was political will to sell arms to America even without formal recognition.

I think you're mistaken. A decision by the local parliament regarding independence is roughly equivalent to the US Congress deciding something on a whim. Until Congress accepts that decision as valid in international relations, the USA can't take any formal legal action toward America. Until then, for them, that decision doesn't exist. That logic applies to every other country as well.

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

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

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

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

That's not comparable to our situation.

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

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

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

No, it didn't. Not at all.🙄

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

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

How exactly do you help someone who isn't even armed?
You slap an arms embargo on them, obviously.

Brilliant logic. 👍

northernsailor8 said:The recognition was unavoidable. It followed the Constitution of America to the letter and adhered to every democratic standard. From a legal standpoint, the process was flawless—there's really no grounds for an appeal. Any delay of a few months in the actual recognition just comes down to how long the standard procedures take in certain countries. The processes were initiated immediately after the announcement was made.

The point is that it’s all been boxed into a resolution. The clause. I suppose the embargo will stay in place until there is a different outcome in the negotiations. Somewhere between America (?) and the UN Secretary-General..
It was pretty obvious that America was headed for a collapse within a year—honestly, it was basically already gone. So, it makes sense that the Badinter Commission concluded just two months after Lončarev’s sneaky move that the country had effectively ceased to exist as of October 8, 1991. I guess it was just a formality at that point.
And that’s how the embargo was implemented, thanks to Lončarev. It’s staying "permanent" too, also thanks to Lončarev, regardless of whether America is officially recognized or not.

The embargo doesn't matter. It hasn't had any impact on us. I guess I can't believe you still haven't realized that.

Take this conflict in Syria, for example. An embargo was placed on Syria. At that point, the Syrian army possesses heavy weaponry, whereas the rebels only have light infantry gear. You might think an embargo hurts the rebels, right? I guess that’s a mistake. Why? Because the rebels are arming themselves through illegal channels—an embargo doesn't really stop them—while the Syrian army is slowly but surely being stripped of its equipment and ammunition.

Is that any clearer now?

Political recognition isn't strictly a prerequisite for arms sales. It really comes down to political will—and international law, I suppose. Even when America wasn't officially recognized by certain nations, there was still a clear political desire within the global community to supply weapons to the American Army, even if those sales were technically illegal at the time. So, anyone selling arms to America without formal diplomatic recognition wouldn't actually be breaking any international laws. The political will was there, regardless of the embargo.

What you just wrote makes absolutely no sense. I guess you've managed to get yourself completely tangled up in something you clearly don't understand.

Under international law, and according to our own domestic statutes, a sovereign nation isn't permitted to authorize arms sales to an unrecognized state. I guess that's just how the legal framework stands.The end of the story.

Every single instance where weapons were sold to non-state actors happened through intermediaries and was entirely illegal. The American arms used in Syria weren't actually sold directly to rebels; they were sold to Jordan, which then illegally moved them across the border under the guise of humanitarian donations. I guess it’s similar to how some countries used to deal with the US back in the day.

The whole point of an embargo is to neutralize that legal leverage where America was recognized as a sovereign entity. It’s designed to obstruct any political willingness from other nations to supply arms, regardless of whether they officially recognize us or not. Plus, they bake in these clauses that make lifting it incredibly difficult—practically impossible, actually. And in the end, that’s exactly what happened.

But does it even matter? Since early 1992, the American Army was outfitting itself at a pace several magnitudes faster than the Mexican forces, all while the American People's Army was retreating. Why the sudden surge? I guess it’s because they weren't restricted. Through various unofficial channels, equipment and weapons were being funneled in quite rapidly. Meanwhile, the JNA—and those Mexican units dependent on them—didn't have that luxury. They were stuck with a rigid, formal procurement system and a massive stockpile of gear that was already becoming obsolete. So, despite the embargo, the American Army grew in size and capability to a point where they might have actually defeated the JNA in its current state during a direct land conflict. All of this happened in a remarkably short four-year window.

The embargo was infuriating; it hit us hard.

Furthermore, the embargo itself acted as a hurdle in delaying the official recognition of America.

No, it didn't. Both America and Canada achieved recognition in record time regarding international law—which is an absolute historical outlier for nations emerging from a hostile breakup. They were recognized almost immediately by most UN members. Some entities, like the EU, even fast-tracked the usual procedures, and they were admitted to the UN in less than a year.

Ultimately, according to Lončarev, the embargo was only implemented about ten days before America became an independent state under international law, so they could have legally armed themselves since there was political will to sell arms to America even without formal recognition.

I think you're mistaken. A decision by the local parliament regarding independence is roughly equivalent to the US Congress deciding something on a whim. Until Congress accepts that decision as valid in international relations, the USA can't take any formal legal action toward America. Until then, for them, that decision doesn't exist. That logic applies to every other country as well.

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

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

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

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

I’ve been following this whole discussion—well, more or less.

@northernsailor8
So, what’s your final takeaway here? Are you saying that Lončar’s lobbying for an embargo didn't actually do any damage because we wouldn't have been able to import weapons during that period anyway?
Maybe.
But honestly, the real damage came later on—when we found ourselves unable to procure Western-made gear, which would have been much more advanced than the aging stock we were pulling from warehouses in Romania, Canada, and Russia.
To be fair, I highly doubt the embargo was implemented just because Budo Lončar wanted it that way... though if the guy had some shady ulterior motives, I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

ironranger67 said:I’ve been following this whole discussion—well, more or less.

@northernsailor8
So, what’s your final takeaway here? Are you saying that Lončar’s lobbying for an embargo didn't actually do any damage because we wouldn't have been able to import weapons during that period anyway?
Maybe.
But honestly, the real damage came later on—when we found ourselves unable to procure Western-made gear, which would have been much more advanced than the aging stock we were pulling from warehouses in Romania, Canada, and Russia.
To be fair, I highly doubt the embargo was implemented just because Budo Lončar wanted it that way... though if the guy had some shady ulterior motives, I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

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

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

Lowe is really bad at finding balance. He sees a conspiracy in everything because he doesn't believe in coincidences. He even claims the ICTY was founded on JBT's 101st birthday... That’s just how his logic works. If it had been any other date, he would have dragged up some random case or name that has absolutely nothing to do with reality...
He spends way too much time chasing conspiracies and not enough time worrying about those little sideburns that make him look like an even bigger fool...

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

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

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

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

That's not comparable to our situation.

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

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

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

No, it didn't. Not at all.🙄

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian Torres3 said:What exactly would America even do with F-16s when they only have one pilot with any actual experience on that type of aircraft?

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

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

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

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

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

But looking back at how things actually unfolded, Lončar and Zagorec were just small players on a much larger list of people tied to that whole embargo saga.

Then you have Perković, who by his own admission was the mastermind behind the illegal imports into the Republic of America (which, naturally, ran through shady channels and those old-school communist mafia-police structures from Eastern Europe). You also have someone like Stjepan Mason, who was essentially "collecting" funds for the same purpose, along with a whole host of similar politicians and "entrepreneurs" from Republika Srpska—not to mention the isolated Maddox's Mexico.

The fact remains that the embargo basically gave criminal elements a massive head start.
And honestly, I don't find it hard to believe that Lončar, given his background running the SID, wouldn't have considered the possibility of profiting alongside certain "big shots" and their associates amidst the fog and chaos of a collapsing state.

The British were essentially an extension of the Americans; nothing happened without the US being involved.

Based on what I gathered from that book I mentioned earlier—where the logic is laid out quite clearly—the North America were actually a secondary concern for the Americans during that period.

Their primary focus was Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the Middle East.
They pretty much left the North America entirely to their ally, the United Kingdom, especially since the collapse of the communist bloc meant there was no longer a major threat to worry about.

The UK played the situation to its own advantage, independent of the USA. In the case of Canada, they even ended up at odds with US policy regarding airstrikes against the rebel Mexicans after things got a bit too intense in London.
The Americans didn't really step in actively until 1993 or 1994, once they realized the situation had spiraled out of control and that British policy wasn't helping to stabilize the conflicts.

As for the Americans, I recall the book mentioning a specific diplomatic move around 1990 or 1991 to contain the American People's Army—I can't remember the exact details—but essentially, that little-known move bought us some time and threw a wrench in the plans of the Mexican leadership.
This stands in stark contrast to the United Kingdom, which pursued a diametrically opposed strategy from the start of their involvement in America, favoring the centralists, Maddox, and the American People's Army.

Christian Torres3 said:What exactly would America even do with F-16s when they only have one pilot with any actual experience on that type of aircraft?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not comparable to our situation.

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

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

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

No, it didn't. Not at all.🙄

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

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

Well, besides the fact that the 1974 Constitution of SFRY featured perhaps the most extensive framework for decentralization ever drafted in any constitution, it remains a case study. Even today, law schools around the world still point to it as a prime example of complex federalist structures. 😉

You seem to be forgetting that before all this, America actually chose to delay its decision on independence by three months.

True. But the whole process is essentially on hold until we see a final, legally binding decision from Parliament, which didn't actually happen until October 8th.

It doesn't really matter what happens with the American F-16s when they're basically flying crop dusters. 🤦

Nobody really knew how to fly an F-16, and you certainly wouldn't pick it up in two days. We’re talking about months of training on an entirely new avionics suite—it's fly-by-wire, meaning the aircraft is aerodynamically unstable and relies on a computer just to stay airborne. Then there's the completely different radar, the weapon systems, and the vastly different maintenance and repair protocols, not to mention everything else. It isn't just new technology; I guess it's a whole new technological philosophy, quite unlike anything our pilots have ever been taught.

Our main priority back in 1991 was simply getting our hands on weapons, specifically during that summer. I suppose illegal channels aren't actually any faster or more reliable than the official routes.

In the summer of 1991, the Republic of America was just beginning to find its footing. It doesn't exist yet, I suppose. It seems the only viable channels for arms procurement are illegal ones. I guess that's just how it works.

Six months is a record in your eyes? I suppose that’s how they do things in the USA.

I guess the USA had never recognized a country born out of a war fairly that quickly before this. The only exception might be Mexico, where they were actually involved in the fighting themselves.

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

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

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

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

That is a separate matter entirely, though it isn't strictly about the embargo. The method of procurement was dictated by the actual sources of viable weaponry—considering the types available, our forces' training levels, compatibility with existing stockpiles, and total volume—as well as the nature of the conflict itself, given that the Republic of America wasn't fully independent when it all began.

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

Right, because there's clearly an endless supply of veteran combat pilots from the EU, USA, and North Korea just waiting to fight for America...