Cases in point:
- These NATO Generals Had Unusual Backgrounds: They Served in the Third Reich
- When the CIA Bankrolled a Nazi Spy Chief
- (Said spy chief and his organization)
- Documents: CIA concealed Nazi war criminals
- Revealed: How the CIA protected Nazi murderers
- How [CIA-hired] Nazi butcher Klaus Barbie helped kill Che Guevara and unleash global cocaine scourge
- CIA ORGANIZED SECRET ARMY IN WESTERN EUROPE
- How Nazi Billionaires Thrived in Postwar Germany
- Loyal to their Class, Unhinged from Democracy [US political economic elite connections with German Industrialists & Nazis]
- Revealed: How Israel Turned Nazi War Criminals Into Mossad Agents
There’s a long and ongoing history of this; for the US, UK, and Israel.
- [DECLASSIFIED] - CIA INVOLVEMENT IN UKRAINIAN NATIONALISM
- {2014: Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call [where they hand-picked new regime; Oleh Tyahnybok is Nazi leader of Svoboda party]
- [2014:] How the far-right took top posts in Ukraine’s power vacuum
- [2014:] TORCH-LIT MARCH IN KIEV BY UKRAINE’S RIGHT-WING SVOBODA PARTY - BBC NEWS
- [2016:] Congress Has Removed a Ban on Funding Neo-Nazis From Its Year-End Spending Bill
- [2018:] Israel is arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine
- [2018:] Ukrainian neo-Nazi C14, known for racist and homophobic attacks, gets public funding for ‘patriotic education’
- [2018:] Ukrainian Militia Behind Brutal Romany Attacks [Nazi group ‘C-14’] Getting State Funds
- [2019:] The Russians and Ukrainians [operating out of Ukraine] Translating the Christchurch Shooter’s Manifesto
- [2019:] How to Mainstream Neo-Nazis: A Lesson from Ukraine’s New Government
- [2019:] MASS Neo-Nazi Marches in Ukraine today to honour Stepan Bandera
- [2020:] Nationalist marchers [including Tyahnybok’s Svoboda] in Kyiv say Ukraine is under ‘occupation’ by ‘Jewish clan’
- [2021:] Like, Share, Recruit: How a White-Supremacist Militia Uses Facebook to Radicalize and Train New Members
And just for fun, and just in case
As far as I know it’s because both sides had pretty banal low-level and straightforward stated goals that were all “met” so there wasn’t a clear “winner” and a “loser” in those strategic goals. It was really more of a 3 week skirmish than a full war. Vietnam obviously wanted to force China out of their country, and China said they wanted to bat Vietnam on the nose and force them to pull out of and not occupy Cambodia, or Laos or Thailand.
Which China left meaning Vietnamese succeeded in their strategic goals, and the Vietnamese diverted major resources and pulled out of Cambodia and didn’t occupy Thailand and Laos meaning the Chinese succeeded. There weren’t really any major strategic goals that were stated by either side that showed blatant failure; like China never said they intended to fully occupy Hanoi and create a Chinese puppet state and failed. Vietnam as far as I know never said they intended to continue occupying Cambodia or occupy Thailand and then failed to. So in a way they both got what they wanted and it was a status quo antebellum situation. Thus indecisive in the context of if it weren’t ‘indecisive’ there would have been a winner or loser.
Thailand and Laos were under multi-factional civil wars whose royal governments were also US proxies; so the Vietnamese were also involved there (and involved with their local communist parties), prompting Sino-Soviet-split-related concerns with China since even though both China and USSR provided support to Vietnamese communists; the USSR became the dominant supporter and ally of Vietnam and continued to be. China also had an alliance with Cambodia dating before Khmer Rouge even; which was in part because Cambodia wanted assurance against the larger Vietnam and Thailand. The split in the Chinese Cultural Revolution era between the ultra-lefts and others had half of the CPC supporting the Prince and half of it supporting the Khmer Rouge against the prince. North Vietnam and Khmer Rouge provided support for each other for a while too. The politics were a mess. No idea what other involvements China had with Thailand and Laos other than Sino-Soviet fears.
People overstate the significance of Chinese casualties as meaning a loss when that’s not how war works. Strategic objectives are all that matter. The losses (if you average the wildly disproportionate claims from all sides; impossible to actually know when you look at it) were more even than something like The Winter War between USSR-Finland; and though that war had the Soviets suffer disproportionate losses, it was still a complete strategic victory for the Soviets; they got everything they were after which had refused by Finland in previous requested land-swaps, namely gaining the Karelia buffer region.