How NATO Solves Its Abandonment Problem

[@Gametheory101]

Correction: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed in August 1939, and operation Operation Barbarossa began in June 1941. That is the length of I should have cited for when it was broken, though there were some other things in between that made things dirty.

[@SarahH0g4n]

True that. Thanks for correction update.

[@Smallahz]

Another thing you missed, the alliance with Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy was a defensive one. Since Austria-Hungary was the aggressor Italy didn't need to help

[@richardbarrow4620]

How did WW3 start?

[@beyondrecall9446]

Well, the Brits and French signed a literally same document, "the Peace of Our Time" which was waved by Chaimberlain when he stepped of the plane. And at the same time while the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed, the Soviets were leading heavy battles against Japan in today's Mongolia so a two front war was not what they really wanted. And as foe Serbia and the outbreak of WW1, Serbia had an alliance with Russia. When Austro-Hungary attacked Serbia, Russia honored it's deal and declared war on A-H and it all blew up from there..I find the nuclear sharing is quite an interesting thing. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the agreement was that the Soviets would move their rockets out of Cuba if the US moves their nukes from Turkey.. the Soviets did that, but Turkey still has 50 American nuclear warheads 😅 .. Nato never engaged in a defensive war, despite being a "Defensive" alliance, that's another ineresting thing.. it first started their offensive action as a collective on Serbia (again). Besides, I can't objectivelly see a reason why Russia would attack any other country.. I mean, their actions in Ukraine was a result of a 8 year diplomatic struggle in order to atop the war against the people who stood up against the Western-instigated coup.. I just don't see Finland shelling their Russian speaking provinces whose citizens took up arms against the government.. I mean, there is no such thing as it were in Ukraine. Tthe only place where I sn see it heating up is somewhere in the Baltic States. Litihuania blocking Kaliningrad, maybe .. (Thy should have taken it when Krushchev was just installed to power and was giving regions as they were nothing, as gifts to gain favor from the State's Soviet.. When he gave Crimea to Ukraine, he offered Kaliningrad to Litihuania but they refused.. Russia again tried to get rid of it in 1990, by offering it tou the Germans, but they didn't consider it at the time ..

[@SarahH0g4n]

@@richardbarrow4620 Turkish invasion of Greece.

[@Jondiceful]

The irony here is that before Putin invaded Ukraine, NATO was seen as increasingly obsolete and irrelevant, tensions between "participating" member states was high, and the Trump era disdain for the alliance led to some saying publicly that they should not rely on the USA. Without an outside threat, internal politics was the single most existential threat to NATO's continued existence. If allowed to continue, it probably would have fractured in the years/decades to come. Putin saw that as weakness and thought he could help NATO implode ahead of schedule. Instead, he caused NATO to ditch their internal bickering, unite behind a common cause, and begin investing in the alliance for the first time in decades. Putin accomplished what all of Bush and Obama's rhetoric could not. Even worse, his ill-fated invasion more or less became a billboard advertisement for every nearby nation saying "Join NATO or be next." What began looking like the decade NATO dies of old age became the Golden Age of NATO. NATO couldn't have asked for a better salesman.

[@lefttomboy3068]

Anything related to war activities can be advertisement for Nato, i am waiting for an accident like gulf Tonkin, that give reason for Nato to attack heads on against Russia.

[@hrknesslovesu]

Putler single-handedly caused Europe to openly celebrate German re-armament and caused decades-long neutrality from Finland to end and centuries long neutrality from Sweden to end as well.

[@warlordnipple]

I wonder what the Ukraine War would look like with Trump still in office? Probably would be shaking hands with Putin in Kyiv and congratulating him for defeating the Nazi-Jew and asking for tips on how to become a dictator while running your country into the ground

[@danielsurvivor1372]

@@hrknesslovesu Don't forget Switzerland!

[@quangnhat5345]

Employee of 73 years: Putin, for selling NATO better than any USA or European Presidents ever before. i remember i read somewhere that some CIA agent joke that they should name building after Putin since he did what everyone could not: Selling NATO to Finland and Sweden. AND SUCCEEDED.

[@chairpersonofthecharlotteh5646]

Being estonian I really appreciate our allies, having NATO fighters sometimes do low level flyovers over the city or seeing foreign soldiers really reminds me that this alliance is the reason I'm not dead and my country hasn't been "denazified" by our lovely neighbors yet

[@RealPackCat]

What do you call a bunch of blue helmets on American soil? Target practice.

[@jeremybrowand5941]

I'm glad the Baltic States were admitted to NATO when they were. I'd agree that without this alliance Ruzzia would have likely started with you rather than Ukraine.

[@JamesVaughan]

But unfortunately you have all those Russians living in Narva and the northeast of your country who could make trouble for you in the future, just as all the ethnic Germans living in Nazi Germany's "near abroad", such as Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland, did before (and during) WW II. I believe Narva, before it was wrecked by Nazis and Stalin's forces during the war, had a pre-1940 population that was about two-thirds Estonian. Now it is only about 5% Estonian with the rest mostly Russian. I hope that you Estonians can get your birth rate up and/or persuade more ethnic Estonians to move to Narva to dilute that Russian majority to help preserve the uniquely Estonian character of the nation! Or perhaps pay each of those ethnic Russians enough euros to move back to Russia? At any rate, I am so impressed at your nation's courage and resolve at overcoming half a century of occupation to rebuild your country and make it a modern, prosperous and democratic nation that is a model not just for Europe, but for the rest of the world. And thank God you are now a member of NATO and the EU, and soon will be joined in your defense by your good neighbors Finland and Sweden!

[@robbiemitchell1601]

Your lovely neighbours will think many times before invading you. I am so pleased for your sake that your government had the wisdom to join NATO. What is also encouraging is the shambles that their military has turned out to be. Hopefully, going forward, democracy will soon come to your lovely neighbours.

[@johnroach9026]

@@JamesVaughan Thing is, the Russian people aren't naturally evil. Its the government that is full of shit. If us democratic countries treat Russian people well, cut them off from the Kremlin's corrupting influence and teach them the value of democratic ideals, these Russians will make wonderful pioneers for a new Russia that is part of the free world

[@jeffmorris5802]

There is a big one you missed. NATO is largely founded on idealism as opposed to realism, as idealism has historically been a much better glue for alliances. IE, NATO expects its members to be democratic, protect civil rights, and uphold the rule of law. Shared values make it more likely that the wider public will refuse to abandon a country being attacked; this is working for example in Ukraine's favor. Their commitment to democracy is a large part of the driving force behind foreign support. Were they autocratic, it's unlikely the wider west would be nearly as committed.

[@VVayVVard]

@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket There would still be a reason to care, in the sense that the expansion would have to be stopped at some point, so might as well give aid to the ones doing the fighting to stop it at the earliest time point.

[@Tom-kt8lu]

Democracy? Lmfao

[@sirmingusdewiv8325]

@@Tom-kt8lu It's far, far from perfect, but at this point in human history it's the best we've got.

[@sirmingusdewiv8325]

@@Tom-kt8lu Understood. It's still the best we've got at this point.

[@rositasultana3958]

@@Tom-kt8lu Really...and Russia is the pinnacle of civil liberties, isn't it?

[@hamzamahmood9565]

Can we just appreciate the fact that Vladimir Putin single handedly made the best sales pitch for NATO? Even members within the alliance did not contribute so much!

[@maurvir3197]

Putin has done far more than that. By sending all their old Soviet gear to Ukraine, eastern-European nations are now standardizing even further on NATO weapons systems. It will make any future war even easier from a logistics standpoint. No one has done more to strengthen and unify NATO more than Russia has in the last 8 months.

[@christiantroy3034]

NATO should Vote Vlad NATO Man of the year and send him a plaque, that should get his blood pressure up

[@jetserb]

@@maurvir3197 Putin is gonna start with NATO and China is gonna finish …

[@maurvir3197]

@@jetserb You're going to need a bit more practice on that comedy routine before you take it on the road. While that's a pretty solid joke, you really need to work on your delivery.

[@TTORADell]

it would be a better world if putin were stripped of his job. ( or simply erased ) The Russian citizens would be free to choose for themselves. Better then the citizen death / murder administered by dictator Putin.

[@fjuvo]

EU and NATO wasn't as united for a looong time. I hope this unity remains

[@diesenutss]

It'll evaporate pretty damn quick if europeans keep electing borderline facists who Putin feels he can work with and influence.

[@fjuvo]

@@diesenutss Hungary is the biggest problem. Even Italian politicians woke up and are supporting Ukraine (although limited). Hungary is acting like there isn't a war going on on its eastern border

[@joey199412]

@João P K Not really, weather is really warm for the time of the year and we're expecting a pretty mild winter. Gas prices are also already coming down. This is going to be an easy winter for Europe.

[@hovstacoolianz2197]

The European Socialist Union is now planning a price cap on Russian gas while Ursula Von der Biden suggests "instead of outbidding each other, europeans should buy gas together"😐

[@JakubKas]

@@hovstacoolianz2197 Socialist? Says the russian

[@CanalTremocos]

Once it starts raining your umbrella feels a lot less like a waste of money...

[@s_dharni2483]

If that umbrella will leaked out and uncontrolled, then mind will not be that easy.

[@shinybearevidra]

I have a hat. Jokes aside, I completely agree

[@EinFelsbrocken]

@@s_dharni2483 Yeah, so... how's the umbrella holding up? Id say a lot drier below it than with all the other "tools" at hand 🤣

[@jonasliutvinas7294]

I am Lithuanian. If it were not for NATO we would already be "denacified" and "proudly" connected to Ruzzia just like we were after WW2. We knew and tried to warn the rest of the world that Ruzzia after the fall of Soviet Union would not forget it`s imperialistic ideology. Compared to other countries, we are a small nation, so the only hope for our culture’s survival was to join NATO. Sadly, not all nations that were occupied by USSR managed to join NATO in time. We know Ruzzias true intentions and that is why our country is trying to support Ukraine as much as we can. Slava Ukraini!

[@rathersane]

And, shall I add… слава Литві!

[@kingace6186]

Slava Ukraini! And glory to freedom!

[@vapeymcvape5000]

As long as you guys have British and Americans on Lithuanian soil, Sergei will do nothing.

[@S9uareHead]

You guys were right about Russia all along. There were some people who were worried about it over here as well (like me) but sadly not enough. Good to see you guys had the foresight to abandon communism and seek NATO's safety. Best wishes from Finland.

[@karnovtalonhawk9708]

im an old aussie now days. sadly people forget far to quickly about things that linger in a countries politics. governments change names but the people who back them never change their ideals. no matter where you are make sure to only back those who actually want to make all people in your country better off. love Lithuania, you have an amazing culture and history. actually dated an australian Lithuanian girl for awhile, beautiful and smart, probably why she dumped me :P Slava Ukraine

[@OneOnOne1162]

I will add to these reasons, that while it's true that a country may be more willing to sacrifice its short term interests for maintaining the alliance when it's low risk, I'd say countries also have a strong incentive when the other power is VERY powerful. If Russia attacked the Baltics, for example, then Poland would be very likely to honour the commitments of the alliance over being kicked out of it. That's because Poland thinks that Russia invading it somewhere down the line at that point would be rather likely. If Poland doesn't honour its NATO commitments and the alliance falls apart or it gets kicked out, then that means if Russia later invades them they're on their own and have a much higher chance of losing. Whereas if Poland does honour its NATO commitments and the alliance stays upright then it has a much better chance of winning against Russia. In other words, not honouring the alliance can open the members up to being picked off piecemeal later which reduces their chance of victory even if it's less certain that will actually happen. Whereas honouring the alliance does mean a certain fight now, but it also means that that fight is much more likely to be won. So if a fight is expected later anyway, even if it's not certain, then the alliance partner has an incentive to act now rather than later because it boosts their chances of victory.

[@KasumiRINA]

If NATO doesn't destroy russia when it attacks NATO territory, then NATO is effectively dead. There's no discussion further, it has only ONE purpose: to defend against russian invasion. The problem with NATO not defending Ukraine shows it as hypocritical and selfish, it not defending an actual member would be the end of it, period.

[@vanshjain3207]

Ah it's basically not repeating mistakes of the phony war. Someone deranged enough to launch offensive on a NATO member is deranged enough to do it again.

[@huwenkai440]

Alliance abandonment. This quote seems perfectly illustrated the history, since no alliance is strong enough to be committed. This is why NATO's unity has been a rather rare case, though it is also helped by the fact that Russia has largely failed to fulfil its mission as an ally. And this led to four infamous cases about Russia's alliance abandonment has led to the popularity of NATO: the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Chinese-Vietnamese War of 1979 and 1988, and recently, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in 2022. In all cases, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Vietnam and Armenia have been on part of Russia, either by Warsaw Pact, or either by military treaties and CSTO. But Russia has failed to do so. Back in 1979 and 1988, when Vietnam requested Russia to make military actions, Russia did not respond - which was a triumph for China as Deng Xiaoping predicted clearly that Russia would not defend its allies when he waged the short invasion back in 1979 (to test the Russian resolve). Since Russia cannot prove herself as a worthy partner, it has to witness NATO's enlargement. And Russia's typical alliance abandonment problem is one of the reason why NATO still stands.

[@ALMAZ157]

Recently CSTO helped Kazakhstan to help against coup and Russian peacekeepers present in Artsakh, and answered call for help from Syria Modern Russia has changed

[@huwenkai440]

@@ALMAZ157 Russia doesn't change and has not changed. Kazakhstan, being a member of CSTO, had only faced a public uprising akin to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, not fighting a common enemy. Syria is hostile against the West, but Russia only came to aid them against the rebels, not a regular army. Mother Russia has changed? The Armenian war with Azerbaijan recently has proven much is disproved.

[@ALMAZ157]

@@huwenkai440 CSTO defends territory of Armenia, not Artsakh Armenia was slacking military-wise and then shifts blame to Russia, but we are the ones who helped make peace and protect region from conflict

[@huwenkai440]

@@ALMAZ157 Armenia has requested Russia for help when Azerbaijan shelled their interior, not just Artsakh, and Russia didn't. You broke your obligation, but you shifted the blame to Armenia, which, in response, the Armenians decided to seek EU, NATO and USA, ultimately came with Nancy Pelosi arriving. Russia detested such a development, right? I think you forget that unlike you, we knew no alliance last forever. Russians are very naive when they think they can become friend with their self-centric attitude. This is why Russia continues to lose friends, lose allies and lose partners. Russians can see how China grows up, you should have chosen the path of China - but Russia didn't.

[@kingace6186]

For me, when I hear alliance abandonment, I think of the CSTO and how Armenia was left out in cold.

[@john36855]

A current example of the abandonment principle in action is Armenia and Russia. They have asked Russia twice to help with territorial disputes and Russia didn’t help. Very impactful to see what can happen if your alliance partners don’t have abandonment remedial.

[@assertivekarma1909]

Armenia deserves more sympathy & support, unfortunately the only country willing to provide any assistance was Russia, likely for selfish reasons, but their association with Russia shouldn't be held against them...

[@john36855]

@@assertivekarma1909 I agree. I think all people should have their choice of governance based on their preferred living location and not be forced by a gun to move or decide to switch allegiance. Anyone in that scenario does deserve sympathy and ideally support. Which is my point, sadly their choice of support is lacking at this moment. Which falls inline with the video that treaty abandonment can be catastrophic if you were relying on it for your protection (like Armenia kinda was forced into).

[@av199]

Thats what I thought! The ODKB treaty was a political tool by Russia to exercise its imperial reach. Without obligations, obviously. Armenia got to feel it firsthand

[@av199]

@@assertivekarma1909 yes and no. I'm ready to forgive Armenia for siding with Russia, if it does come forth under a EU/western umbrella. But if Armenia does not and still tries to be cozy with Russia, I'm not ready to forget (diplomatically Armenia is heavily stained. It openly recognized Crimea as a part of Russia and has close ties with Iran. That's a lot of baggage). Armenia should rid itself of any claims to Azerbaijan territory too.

[@KasumiRINA]

@@assertivekarma1909 why would we NOT hold someone selling out to the devil against them? Anyone ever supporting russia in any capacity decides to be ridiculed for it. That includes Israel selling russia weapons, Germany sucking oily pipes, France... just being their white flag-waving selves. US having "reboots" less a year after russia invaded Georgia is also to blame. If any country supporting russia was embargoed by entire world there would be no war, period.

[@diomuda7903]

I live in Czech Republic and I say that our decision to join NATO is entirely a correct decision. We joined NATO in a free, democratic manner, not like being forced to join the Soviet-backed Warsaw Pact. We joined NATO because we want freedom, we remember the time the Russians imposed their colonial rule on Czech nation back in 1945. We don't forget. My family, who were Vietnamese migrants in 1980s Soviet Empire, left Russia in 1991 because living condition in Russia was horrible (and still is), moved to Czechia and they never regretted moving there. If anything, Finland and Sweden have seen how Putin showed his "humanism" to Ukraine, and they are right to go to NATO.

[@DigitalNomadOnFIRE]

I live here too and concur.

[@JakubKas]

@@Salarat You can't even write bot

[@Smytjf11]

NATO is happy to have you as well. We've all got each other's back. 😁

[@stasacab]

Finland has not joined NATO in democratic manner. Our representatives turned their coats in many issues. We were promised a referendum, which hasn't taken place.

[@jarkkoasukas7287]

@@stasacab Most of The Finland people IS willing For Nato

[@fetlix]

As a Swede, i feel honored that my country aswell as our beloved and close neighbour Finland are welcomed into Nato with Open arms (from most of the Nations) We share the same civilized values and a future sight for a more equal and fair world in balance

[@jgzales1]

USA wants an unequal an unfair world. They killed presidents of my country when they didnt like them. They brought dictators to ensure they económic domimance. They own our resources and a USA commision comes every month to tell us what to do. You dont want to be a USA allied. They are evil

[@westtgd]

We welcome a friend, especially one who add so much, and is already such a valuable partner on the world stage already.

[@MrGenenmi]

Welcome friend. Good to have you on board. You guys are a power to be reckoned with. Vikings in arms. Valhalla for ever!

[@eriksleeking8859]

I’m from the Netherlands and personally think that Sweden and Finland are both great partners for the alliance. Both nations already participated in joint exercises (if I’m not mistaking). Welcome to Nato 😊

[@Scalemailmailmail]

Welcome to the team brother! We've got each others back now!

[@deathbroom]

Italy had no obligation to join Germany and Austria-Hungary in their war against the Triple Entente in WW1. The Triple Alliance was a defensive pact, whereby the members would defend each other against aggression from another nation. Italy, like most of the world, considered Austria-Hungary the aggressor at the start of the war and had no obligation to assist the Austrians or Germans because of it. The whole point of the Triple Alliance was to prevent France from declaring war on Italy or Germany and limiting their influence in Europe, but that point was made moot when Germany themselves declared war on France.

[@alexa-wh4en]

Italy had obligation to not enter war against Germany and Austro-Hungary, which it did. Staying out of war would be fine, joining against - no no.

[@mrbisshie]

Should have just stayed neutral then. Instead you got a meat grinder war against your former ally, lol.

[@kingace6186]

Actually, the Austro-Hungarians and the Germans saw the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb (Serbians were backed by the Russian Empire) as the start of the war. Therefore, the Kingdom of Italy was obligated to join in on the war as the defensive pact was triggered. Instead, Italy broke that promise, declared "nEuTrAlItY" and only joined in 1915 for its own territorial interests -- ultimately switching sides, again, for its own territorial interests. These are the objective facts.

[@diegodessy9700]

@kingace I am Sorry for you but what Is and armed Attack Is not defined by germans and austrians. Austrians stretched the notion of Attack and foolish germans let them do It instead of refraining them as Bismarck would have done. It the killing of Franz Ferdinand was an Attack what the Jugoslavian should have done then After the assassinaton of Alexander I?

[@Real_MrDev]

@@kingace6186 the rest of the world didn't thought as the assassination of the Archduke as an aggression (and rightfully so since Serbia wasn't involved at all), therefore Italy was free from the CeP's obligations. It was just Austria and Germany's view of an assassination by a terrorist as an aggression from another country that is just epicly stupid, just because Austria wanted to be even larger.

[@inhocsignovinces8061]

The abandonment issue has been raised with regards to the NATO rapid deployment forces. Estonia and other Baltic states have been very vocal about changing the NATO doctrine, where rapid deployment forces for the Eastern flank have been about 40,000 strong. In response, NATO's Madrid Summit concluded with the aim of improving to have ships, warplanes and a total of more than 300,000 troops ready to deploy, with graded response times starting from the opening hours of any attack.

[@znail4675]

The main change is that it used to be that Russia was so strong militarily that it was considered impossible to have enough forces there to effectively defend any of the Baltic states. Ukraine have changed that both due to Russia's losses but also due to Russia under performing.

[@noyopacific]

Thanks for another insightful and engaging lecture professor!

[@Gametheory101]

That is incredibly generous! Thank you so much.

[@lukaszkulasek]

In Poland there are still many people that have doubts if NATO would come help us in case of war (because of 1939 abandonment and then Yalta conference). The good thing coming from that is that we're now arming ourselves to the teeth to be almost completely independent from allied help. I personally think that at least US and UK would join us in the fight almost instantly and some of other countries would follow up soon after. But still, the feeling of doubt among the people is pretty strong.

[@yilbertogomez8451]

No one in Poland should have any doubt. The US and it’s closest allies without question will defend Poland. People of both political parties in the US agree on this. Even NATO members who would be hesitant wouldn’t show their hesitation because it would be the equivalent of leaving the military alliance with the worlds most powerful military power.

[@cameronspence4977]

I totally get that feeling and it makes sense historically but I guarantee you there is no fucking way the US at least is not going to go absolute ape shit on russia if they attack you guys. After ukraine, the US people are not going to tolerate any president who allows any country to attack NATO in europe, many many people have had just about enough of russia's antics lately and given the disrepair their military is in now after ukraine and will be for the next decade+, the 12,000 US in poland and the baltics are going to have a fucking field day with whatever they send, even if you pretend and say its only US forces fighting for purposes of addressing your point (obviously it wouldnt be) even before the rest of US EUCOM, poland and NATO arrive, we would see them coming from 100kms away in belarus and they wouldnt make it 10 feet past the belarussian border. But in case you dont believe me, poland could easily defeat any invasion russia launches even if NATO does absolutely nothing...russia would have to attack through belarus and kaliningrad and if they couldnt handle ukraine after attacking from 3 sides from within russia with their full strength, non depleted military, full munitions stocks, then any attack on poland now....LOL good luck to them

[@kurtwpg]

You probably should have doubts. US, UK, and Russia all guaranteed Ukraine's security when they gave up nuclear weapons.

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

@@kurtwpg i mean it wasn’t military action that was promised just support and respecting the territorial integrity of ukraine which the uk and us are doing by sending boatloads of weapons

[@kennethferland5579]

Ukraine will certainly come to Polands aid after the bond they have forged in this conflict.

[@camilledouglas7991]

Thanks!

[@Gametheory101]

Thanks as always!

[@pawebielinski4903]

Italy wasn't actually required to enter the war on the side of the central powers, as the alliance was defensive.

[@Carewolf]

Depends on how you look at it, at the point where France entered the war, it was to take Alsass Loraine, so France was the wannabe aggressor. Further complicated that this intent leaked and thus Germany attacked them first before they were fully mobilized.

[@georgewash8926]

@@Carewolf Depends on what then ? In the end they were the aggressor, not France, regardless of how sound that strategic move was.

[@devilhard66]

This does not change the fact that Italy betrayed its allies and broke their pact. The alliance was a defensive alliance, yes, that provided for only two instances in which the allies would be required to intervene: In case France should attack Italy or Germany. But this was not the main article of the alliance. (And also the reason why Austria-Hungary was even in the alliance) This was: "ARTICLE 1. The High Contracting Parties mutually promise peace and friendship, and will enter into no alliance or engagement directed against any one of their States." It was a defensive alliance that should guaranteed the 3 states that the other two would not stab them in the back and side with the enemy in the event of a war. When Italy started negotiations with Great Britain shortly after the war began, it had already broken the treaty.

[@eirinym]

France declared war on Germany because Russia did. When Russia declared war on Austria, Germany responded defensively.

[@georgewash8926]

@@eirinym No. Germany declared war on France.

[@pepejooj2401]

1:13 if you want to skip to the important part

[@thomsen256]

im just here for lines on maps

[@KevinLyda]

There's a free software development conference in Brussels every February. It's massive with several dozen tracks of presentations. One of those tracks are projects written in Ada - which is surprising. It's not a common language and is primarily used by the US DoD... And that's where you remember where NATO HQ is. In addition to mutual defense, NATO provides standards for various defense industries and a marketplace for companies to sell their wares. Various US officials - even presidents - have complained that not all NATO members spend enough on defense. But I'm certain NATO has been an economic boom to quite a number of US companies that supply things militaries need - from pencils to missiles.

[@Tom-kt8lu]

NATO is a blood-sucking parasite like the UN.

[@CharliMorganMusic]

I am absolutely pleased that so many ppl enjoy lines on maps as much as I do

[@MattBellzminion]

There's a lot of angst expressed within NATO members about their fellow members' reliability, motives, trade deals, etc. with respect to helping Ukraine and other prerogatives, but arguably the greatest instance of alliance abandonment in recent years was just perpetrated by Russia against its CSTO ally Armenia. [Collective Security & Trade Org. -- at its maximal size, it comprised the Russian Fed., Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan/Qazaqstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan -- but today really only encompasses the RF, Armenia, & Belarus.] This betrayal, no doubt mostly due to the RF's military being taxed to its limit in Ukraine, effectively sealed Armenia's fate during the latest flare-up of the long-simmering, intermittent war between that nation and Azerbaijan. Armenia was attacked* and requested military intervention, and Russia did... nothing. And if that wasn't enough to demoralize and delegitimize the Russian-led CSTO, two of its former members (Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) have been fighting each other in sporadic border clashes since April 2021 -- most recently a month ago. So for all practical purposes, the CSTO alliance is now nothing more than big bully Russia and his weak punk sidekick Belarus, but the big bully is currently getting his teeth kicked in by Ukraine, and if Belarus actually caves in to Russia and joins its war on Ukraine in a more substantial way (i.e., openly mobilizing the army and committing more of its military to aiding its "krysha" ally & so-called protector), then the people and the army are expected by many analysts and Belarusians (both there and living in exile) to rise up and forcefully depose the dictator Lukashenka, and Luka knows it. In which case the Belarusians would have a chance of finally having the democratic administration they voted for two years ago, and Russia would lose its last remaining CSTO ally. * Not without reason or legal justification; the historical context is insanely complicated, with many instances of lands being lost and "liberated", of seccessionist enclaves and exclaves, and credible allegations of localized genocide against both countries; and Armenia had been occupying some land which the international community [minus Russia & a few others] had long recognized as belonging to Azerbaijan.

[@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music]

If China invades Russia what would the CSTO do?

[@HepCatJack]

At 4:02, the Allies ended up helping the Soviet Union notably the U.S Lend Lease however Stalin allowed Germany to wipe out partisans in Poland even though he easily could have sent troops to help the. His claimed reticence at joining an alliance for doubting they would help was more due to his own shifty and untrustworthy character than those of the Allies.

[@juanferandrade2117]

Have international private law class in University and just today had to give an exposition on what Complex interdependence is, fumbled the bag a bit as i got nervous but was ok expo overall, love your vids and they helped me a lot with the class to understand certain stuff. Keep up the great work ❤

[@SarahH0g4n]

I feel like I just attended high level IR/PolScie/MilScie lecture. Never knew about trip wire concept etc. Extremely informative as always. Well done.

[@SarahH0g4n]

@@petergriffin9931 1453

[@andresmorales5807]

I really enjoy your videos. It would be great if you could also get into the issue of Taiwan. When you mentioned the United States' dilemma to invest or not to invest in its military, I couldn't help but think of Taiwan.

[@kingace6186]

i agree

[@bigbigmurphy]

🤔the thing is, PRC and ROC are by all technicality, still at war. 🤔Another question, what will ROC be after the war had ended? Let's say US forced a defeat to the PRC, then what? There is no guarantee ROC will continue to be an American ally. With it's semiconductor industry wiped out, how will they recover?

[@kkjoe1911]

This is how the USA patrols/handles taiwanese airspace kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKexf5KbnamSZq8

[@j4nv]

8:42 I'm horrified when I see these 4 together. Beyond imagination. The fact that Macron sits next to Putin is just revolting.

[@jgzales1]

Why? Putin was on every international meeting the last 20 years. He was bff with trump

[@TalmadgeGray]

Been waiting on a new video. Always stellar content!

[@barryon8706]

Here's an odd question: since a German embassy suffered an attack, could that be considered an attack on German soil, triggering Article 5? Edit: A bulding housing a German consulate (not embassy -- my mistake) in Kyiv was attacked, but the consulate was empty at the time.

[@MrCow579]

Was the embassy occupied at that time? If yes, they technically should be able to

[@Gametheory101]

I am not a lawyer, but at minimum NATO defines the area it covers as North America and Europe. So this might apply to an attack on the German embassy in Mexico, but it would not on the US embassy in Kenya. The latter seems to be what happened in practice given the 1998 African embassy bombings not triggering Article 5.

[@invincible_hl3631]

@@MrCow579 to my knowledge the embassy wasn’t attacked. It was I think just a building where a german office was before the war. If it really was the case our media and news would have gone crazy

[@jeffmorris5802]

There's a calculus to it. Germany would have to invoke article 5, and there is a political cost to invoking collective defense.

[@MrCow579]

@@invincible_hl3631 yeah then it was probably already abandoned. That is also why all embassies recalled their ambassadors from ukraine at the start of the war I think

[@Markfr0mCanada]

6:15 Gonna slap a big ol' "Citation needed" here. These countries, particularly Finland, had resistance to joining NATO partly because they didn't want foreign military assets in their country. This resulted in leaders of NATO countries reiterating that NATO is a collective defense agreement, not an empire, and that member states retain their sovereignty including the right to refuse entry to foreign, even allied, militaries.

[@Tom-kt8lu]

This channel has an agenda.

[@azkon7975]

If I recall correctly, Finland was playing the "We're Neutral" game to Russia. This would naturally include keeping out foreign assets to maintain that stance. Now that Finland has dropped all pretense of being Neutral, there is no reason to keep up with the refusal of foreign military assets.

[@joshuacampbell1625]

@@azkon7975 the thing with neutrality is that it only works if other countries respect it. And its very clear neutrality to Russia is just an open door to attack. Its a weakness to them not a strength.

[@Markfr0mCanada]

9:55 same need for citation again.

[@sluxi]

I think he explained quite well why it would be in the interests of Finland/Sweden to have NATO troops within Finland/Sweden. Whether that will happen is another thing entirely and you are right that there may be some political considerations that prevent it. That said, Finland has not ruled out such a thing either at this point.

[@ImTheMan0fSteel]

Thanks for these, man. Really helps me push back against misinformation I see and hear in my own life

[@mxcollin95]

Fascinating. Love your content! Great stuff!

[@BlueHawkPictures17]

Italy only had a defensive arrangement with Germany, and its commitment with neutrality with AH expired and was not renewed by the time the war started. This Neutrality with AH was a reluctant agreement even back when it was signed since Italy had interests in Dalmatia that were far more important than the French Tunisian colony. So, when the war broke out, it was very unsurprising and basically expected that Italy would join the allies.

[@kingace6186]

Actually, the Austro-Hungarians and the Germans saw the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb (Serbians were backed by the Russian Empire) as the start of the war. Therefore, the Kingdom of Italy was obligated to join in on the war as the defensive pact was triggered. Instead, Italy broke that promise, declared "nEuTrAlItY" and only joined in 1915 for its own territorial interests -- ultimately switching sides, again, for its own territorial interests. These are the objective facts.

[@Alblaka]

@@kingace6186 "A man who must say 'I am King' is no true king." I'll leave it to you to figure out how that pertains to your remark.

[@tisisonlytemporary]

I love how you put alliances in context of how each country has incentives

[@dacoolist]

Love the explanation of these things like Trip Wire! I had no idea - Keep up the awesome work!

[@lampionmancz]

The triple alliance was purely a defensive treaty. Since AH and Germany were the aggressors. Italy didn't abandon them. They had no obligation.

[@k34561]

NATO also promotes weapons standards. Interchangeable ammo (bullets to missiles). Communication systems. Joint exercises. Etc. Etc.

[@mikemccarthy1638]

Excellent - plainly & clearly spoken w/o drama & stimulating background ‘noise’ !!

[@judyhawkins6584]

Great explanation of important things I never thought about. It gives me a lot more confidence in NATO.

[@jgzales1]

NATO caused this war

[@goldbullet50]

Confidence in maintaining the global US hegemony, and dragging Europe with them into the abyss?

[@Draculas-knight]

@@goldbullet50 said the russian troll 🤣 not everyone is like you Ivan , a cheast beating guy that ends up as a cowerd when actions are needed

[@UGNAvalon]

@goldbullet50 At least the USA pretends to care about its allies, unlike Russia, who happily kicks its allies straight into the abyss. ;P

[@saviorvx1883]

@@goldbullet50 better in there abyss than a forced one where illusion isnt even allowed to be a disillusion /fantasy but i guess people love seeking aproval from twitter/supreme leader than there able to capatilize themselves while preaching nonsense on how liberal /open thinking others are

[@speedg]

3:15 dont forget about the guarantee france had on czechoslovakia and then just gave up

[@DanielMartinez81]

I'm from Spain... Please notice that the Spain flag that you have used at 05:27 is the flag belonging to the Dictatorship Franco... The modern spanish flag has NO black eagle on it.

[@sonicschall]

Noticed that as well. The current flag was adopted in 1981, which is a year before Spain joined in 1982. 👍

[@kingace6186]

Thank you for clarifying. That's an embarrassing mistake.

[@larsrons7937]

Very interesting video. A few notes( corrections: 4:13 _"Soviet Union pact with Nazi Germany, which Hitler violated after just -ten months- *nearly two years."* The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed in august 1939 and broken in juni 1941. 5:06 US foreign nuclear weapons deployment programme during the cold war, nine countries participated: _"...Denmark." NOTE: Denmark has never allowed nuclear weapons inside its territory in peacetime, both deployed, transported or in any way exist inside the borders. Nuclear weapons could/ can only be allowed the moment Denmark already is at war at home. So f.ex. USSR or Russia could never fear nuclear weapons being used from or even just transported through Denmark unless they already attacked first and thus was at war with Denmark.

[@larsrons7937]

Denmark did know that foreign warships did sometimes transport nuclear weapons through the Danish straits to the Baltic Sea even though they knew they were not allowed to do so. That's why in 1987 Danish comedian (and later for a short period politician) Jacob Haugaard proposed to build a *raft* for storing* nuclear weapons in the Kattegat Sea. There foreign warships could *deposit* their nuclear weapons while they passed through the Danish straits to do their business in the Baltic Sea and collect them upon return to Kattegat to continue their voyage. It was further proposed to fit a small *bar* on the raft so American and Soviet seamen could have a friendly chat *over a drink* while their nuclear weapons were being unloaded or loaded again. While stored on the raft Danish personnel would take good care of the goods, because "they are expensive, such nuclear weapons".

[@burningphoenix6679]

It isn’t just Russia that’s a threat either right now. China and Iran as well are also threats (although Iran might deal with itself). And who knows what else the future holds. A eventual showdown with China could very well occur as it battles the west for control of the world order. So getting everyone on board is important to deal with the Tehran-Beijing-Moscow axis. I could very well see SEATO eventually being reborn in some form as well.

[@kingace6186]

I wouldn't hold my breath on the "Tehran-Beijing-Moscow" alliance.

[@KasumiRINA]

China, the biggest exporter, fighting against literally people who pay money to get their stuff makes no sense. Chinese might go at war against India or what's left of russia, but not the West. That's like bridal gown makers declaring a war against marriage. Incomprehensible. The russia is only threat and their puppets like Iran, Belarus and Israel who give them drones, should be destroyed after moscow is bulldozed.

[@burningphoenix6679]

@@kingace6186 yeah. Given Russias problems and the IRI facing revolution, hopefully NATO won’t have to directly deal with either. It would leave just China against a growing alliance, not even counting the US allies in the pacific.

[@kingace6186]

@@burningphoenix6679 Even if Moscow and Tehran maintain control underneath the same regime, there is no way they would join an alliance together. It doesn't matter if all of them find NATO to be an enemy. China and Russia's relationship is one of economic convenience. Iran and Russia's relationship is one of geographic convenience -- both want to stifle Turkey and the Caucasus. And Iran and China's relationship is frosty at best -- particularly because of Beijing's treatment of Muslims.

[@kingace6186]

@@TN-bp2cf Yes. But China can't wait forever. Because its hard power is projected to begin waning at the end of this decade.

[@JingleJangle256]

I prefer the idea of NATO serving as a deterrent. I don’t want to go to war with Russia, nor do I imagine Russia wants to go to war with the Compass Club. So if all parties involved recognize that war would be undesirable, irregardless of who won, peace can be maintained.

[@jakobrosenqvist4691]

Problem is that it only works if Russia belives the alliance will act. So in order for the deterrant to work the alliance must be ready to act, and if Russia tries something the aliance must respond to keep the deterrant.

[@LukeIngels]

We have to stop meddling with Ukraine if we want peace.

[@JingleJangle256]

@@jakobrosenqvist4691 pretty much. That’s the payoff. Instead of fighting a horrific war on your own home turf, you fight proxy wars to try and destabilize your enemy. This is why China supported the Viet Kong, why the USA supported the Mujahideen, and now NATO is supporting Ukraine. It keeps the enemy over there instead of over hear.

[@OneEyeShadow]

@@JingleJangle256 Ukraine is in Europe, bordering NATO countries. That's about as "over here" as you can get.

[@JingleJangle256]

@@OneEyeShadow It isn’t “over here” for NATO countries. Is it closer for some NATO countries than others? Yes, but it isn’t on your borders and it isn’t your people fighting.

[@Misharyo]

I can’t imagine this guy’s channel if the war has stopped

[@PahaLukki]

War never changes. This is the conflict that won't end in our lifetimes... the infinite resource war over gas supplies has begun or something..

[@darnit1944]

Peacetime politics are boring

[@kingace6186]

fr

[@KasumiRINA]

In its entire history russia had maybe like seven years in a row of no full scale wars, from 2000 to 2008. Don't worry, it will be invading everything it can for as long as it exists - hopefully, not for long, so we can move to finally enjoying the russian civil war.

[@ronmka8931]

he loves that the war is going on, its good for bussiness

[@opiuchi864]

yooo I actually understood that very clearly, you're very good at presenting these complicated and confusing geopolitical concepts in a simple way so that even lay people like me can understand.

[@lacdirk]

One really big mistakes: foreign nuclear deployments do not offer any protection to the country being attacked, as they remain under US control. The deployment of nuclear weapons to Europe was done to speed up a US response to a Soviet attack on the US (and NATO). In doing so, the actually INCREASED the danger to the countries where they were deployed, as known nuclear deployment sites were targeted by Soviet nukes. They also increased the fear of first-strike capacity, a major destabilising factor. In general, having a foreign military on your soil makes no difference anyway: they do not have to intervene if they are not directly attacked by the invading force (or domestic coup/rebellion). The fact that many US bases are on the soil of dictatorships and non-allied countries is proof positive that their actual presence is not a sign of a military alliance.

[@ritemolawbks8012]

It's great to hear a video describing the economic and geopolitical incentives of the US relationship between America and its transatlantic partners. A lot of times, NATO and other mutual-security alliances are incorrectly explained as if it's a philanthropic organization or the US providing foreign aid to other richer countries too cheap to pay their defense bill. The current conflict has given NATO the opportunity to be relevant. There are complaints about US hegemony and imperialism in Europe, but although the alliance is far from perfect, the _de_ _facto_ US leadership is what makes the US president considered the "leader of the free world."

[@kmmmsyr9883]

Turkey is a weird case. Turkey is among the most important NATO allies, she has a huge army, population and an extremely important geopolitical position. If needed, Turks could easily cripple Russia by blocking the Turkish Straits, also Russia would definitely not want to attack Turkey proper, since Turkey's terrain would make a war Afghanistan 2.0. Also, Turkey has many reasons to be very anti-Russian. A strong Russia that is active in the Eastern Europe, Black Sea, Caucasus and Middle East is extremely threatening for Turkey. Turkey and Russia always fought since Russia became a thing. Which is why Turkey joined NATO in the first place. Well, for some reason, her Western allies chose to annoy Turkey. After Turkey shot down a Russian plane, Western countries supported Turkey but it was quite minimal. It hasn't been long since Russia killed 30 Turkish soldiers in Syria and got little to no reaction from the West. There are also the facts that USA and EU countries are quite supportive of YPG, which is linked to PKK, which is fighting the Turks and Turkey is a EU candidate since, uhh, 1987. USA and other NATO countries also placed sanctions on Turkey and France even de facto allied with Russia against Turkey in Africa. All of these factors didn't only make Turkish government extremely skeptical of NATO, but also made Turkish public literally hate their allies. Today, Turks are #1 NATO nation when it comes to hating the US. During the Egyptian Rebellion, Ottomans wanted help from British to suppress Muhammed Ali's forces. British didn't help. When Muhammed Ali came as far as Western Anatolia, Ottomans turned Russia, their sworn enemies, for help. Mahmud II is told to have said "One who fell to the sea hugs the snake". British and French had to intervene in favor of Ottomans just to prevent Russia from gaining influence. Same happened this decade. After she was abandoned, Turkey decided that she needed Russia to balance the West. Which is why Turkey sometimes favors them over her NATO allies.

[@gregsutton2400]

you ignore that Russia has reneged on its own joint defense treaties in the caucuses just this year. And that Canada deployed to the Baltic as well.

[@andrewemerson1613]

Russia has already broken it's joint defense obligations just this year, not really worth noting, unless you just want another example of how to not organize an alliance

[@wafabilalkhawatmi2605]

You mean the thing with Armenia happening right now? Russia didn't help them,because they need as many soldiers as possible for Ukraine and so left Armenia alone

[@andrewemerson1613]

@@wafabilalkhawatmi2605 even the last time just two years ago, Russia didn't really intervene, their alliance is meaningless

[@pigboiii]

If NATO breaks article 5 NATO is as good as done. Kinda is that simple. What would actually happen remains to be seen but it really does come down to either they do or they don't there is no try.

[@burningphoenix6679]

You are right about a lot in this video. A small issue is that Italy wasn’t obligated to side with Germany and Austria in WW1 because the triple alliance was a defensive alliance (and Austria-Hungary was the aggressor in WW1 so Italy wasn’t obligated to help). So Italy didn’t violate its treaty.

[@jgreen802]

It didn't just stay neutral though, it joined the other side and fought against their allies.

[@principsagustus2318]

@@jgreen802 just let the Italians sit in the corner and huff copium.

[@kingace6186]

Actually, the Austro-Hungarians and the Germans saw the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb (Serbians were backed by the Russian Empire) as the start of the war. Therefore, the Kingdom of Italy was obligated to join in on the war as the defensive pact was triggered. Instead, Italy broke that promise, declared "nEuTrAlItY" and only joined in 1915 for its own territorial interests -- ultimately switching sides, again, for its own territorial interests. These are the objective facts.

[@burningphoenix6679]

@@kingace6186 it wasn’t the start of the war though. Austria and Germany were objectively wrong. They launched the invasion of Serbia even after Serbia helped bring everyone involved in the assassination to justice. So yes, Austria-Hungary was the aggressor. And Italy was in no way obligated to help in Austria’s war of aggression. It doesn’t matter whether Austria “saw” Serbia as the aggressor. Just as it doesn’t matter if Russia feels Ukraine “forced” it to invade.

[@kingace6186]

@@burningphoenix6679 That is just a matter of subject semantics. If Ukrainians killed Putin's hypothetical son, that is tantamount to a declaration of war.

[@fjauge2465]

There is a problem in this intstitutiins, is if they are unchallenged, a s the benefits and power increases it tends to expand till i haves enough power to dominate the rest and then not accept more members. So in this natural tendency do dominance it becomes explodes in arrogance miscalculation or in the best of cases it dies of complacency after a lon period of long total dominance. No competition is aomost never a good thing.

[@eliassalmi3930]

There is actually really no consensus here in Finland if we want nato troops forward deployed here. Many finns think that the deterencce will be enough combined with ur own very strong defence forces. There is talk of sending our own forces to Estonia too as part of the enhanced forward presence.

[@link10909]

The nato military presence id expect would be maybe allied air assets being guests at your bases occationally and whatever joint training finland chooses to host (if any). Trip wiring basing seems unnecessary for finland since you all would be expected to hold the russians a good long time. In places like estonia its important to stop russians from thinking they can blitz and take the whole country before allies can act, then sue for peace.

[@0Quiwi0]

Yeah. I don't think we will have permanent NATO bases anytime soon. I personally wouldn't mind, but generally it's probably not going to happen. More NATO troops training/visiting for sure (we already train with them quite a lot), but permanent bases... Not likely at least in near future

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

@@0Quiwi0 if tensions rise you can expect like a few thousand americans and like five brits to be sent over lol

[@0Quiwi0]

@@augustuslunasol10thapostle In all honesty we don't really need that much manpower. We have been getting ready to defend against Russia/USSR since WW2. We are more than fine if we just get equipment from our friends, so we don't need to make a deal with the devil like we had to with Nazi Germany back in the day

[@Mosern1977]

But what about Sauna and Vodka for your NATO friends?

[@jacquie212]

I think 3k American troops would make a substantial difference in retrospect. That was a 200k rabble, and while 3k alone can't beat 200k, adding this 3k with the level of training, cohesion, tech superiority and moral advantage that the US possess would see massive force multiplication impact when added to and existing force

[@niceview2112]

You mean it would make substantial difference in Sweden or Finland?

[@firstlast7052]

They make no substantive difference. They are a tripwire, otherwise described as canaries in the coal mine.

[@KasumiRINA]

The russia doesn't have 200k troops anymore. They had them, lost like half and now are mobilizing every adult male while preparing children to be the next line of attack. If Finland or Poland opens a second front against russia, moscow will fall much sooner... but they all want us to win by ourselves, to afraid to get their hands dirty.

[@abdulmasaiev9024]

Let's be serious. Life isn't a video game, and these aren't 3k of special forces but just regular grunts. They wouldn't do much more than what any other 3k of NATO troops could, including any random 3k of the much more numerous local ones who'd already be present on the ground... other than triggering the personal ire of the US public when a number of them gets killed.

[@jacquie212]

@@abdulmasaiev9024 would have agreed with you before this war. How many himars was it that Ukraine needed to turn the tide? 8 wasn't it? This 3k, even if they had no SOF, are probably soldier for soldier more highly skilled combatants than the entire invasion force. If traditionally you say you need 3:1 to attack, the implication is that these troops in a defensive set up are worth 3x. Against the shit show the Russians out on I would hazard this 4 or 5x. Hey, I could be wrong, but Russia has not had any success anywhere when they have had anything but utter overmatch.

[@ottomanosman2463]

To be honest, Russia’s terrorism against Chechens, Circassians and Crimean Tatars, and its bullyish attitude toward Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, made me wish Finland and Sweden should join NATO.

[@kingace6186]

Don't forget about how the Russian Federation betrayed Armenia a month ago.

[@0Quiwi0]

NATO has been drooling over Finland joining since the cold war. We are close to Kola peninsula, that has a shitton of Russian nuclear weaponry, and have been preparing to defend against Russia since WW2. The best US/NATO could do in all that time was to get us to work with them in semi official manner. It took Putin to go crazy to show us that the time of playing nice is over. We wanted to stay neutral so we could work with both sides, but now we have nothing to lose for joining. It's really only benefits left. Even if the promise to defend us is just a piece of paper it's more than what we would have without joining

[@skeeterhoney]

Specialization also serves to suboptimize individual (non-US, of course) states' ability to wage ware on each other and thus helping to keep the peace within the alliance...an alliance that is comprised of nations that historically were constantly at each others' throats.

[@I_Have_The_Most_Japanese_Music]

That alone is worth the price of admission.

[@firstlast7052]

NATO has two awkward squad members. The first isTurkey and the other if France. Leaving aside Turkey who's gratest aset is its geographic location which is the only reason it is in NATO (and the fact there is no way to expel a country) , France is a much more interesting case. Between 1965 and 2009 France under its own policy was not in NATO's military command structure, which drove a coach and horses through many of the arguments put forwards in this video. The recent anouncement, by "La France" (the France -- as if one of them is not enough!) abandoning NATOs doctrine of nuclear ambiguity, by one of the three states to have the bomb, did none of the other members of NATO a favour.

[@kingace6186]

Honestly, France has been playing ball since the war in Ukraine began. Although, its checkered history with NATO (especially during de Gaulle's reign) should not be easily forgotten.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

France has always wanted to be what the US is, especially under De Gaulle. After the US, France has the biggest military force within NATO...

[@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462]

On the flip side during the cold war France explicitly said a preemptive nuclear attack on West Germany to prevent Soviet troops was part of their defensive plans. Which didn't fit into the rest of Europe and the west nuclear strategies either. People misunderstand Macron comments on NATO being braindead. It wasn't attacking the organisation so much is a direct attack on written in the United States. As with Charles De Gaulle he likes NATO so much he think's a Frenchman should be run it.

[@NIL0S]

Finn here. We don't need NATO to get us out of a pinch or hold our lines if it comes to that, we can easily mobilise up to a milion reservists, and the Finnish army is a very modern one, our missile defense is top notch (you can guess why). We want to join NATO because of the nuclear deterrent. Finland also has cultural Russians, similar to Ukraine, but I don't think they are too keen to join Russia anytime soon (tell that to the Kremlin, tho).

[@tepesvoda464]

...but you remember the price you had to pay last time you stood alone against the ruzzians? You fought valiantly, but help came little or none, so Finland had to fold in, eventually. In NATO, THERE WOULD BE NO WAR.

[@eiteiei4063]

A million reservists maybe, but enough rifles for only 400 thousand. Also, what exactly makes Finnish missile defense "top notch"? Finland has around 60 mobile anti-air missile launchers, those being Crotales and NASAMS IIs, neither of which can effectively defend against ballistic- or cruise missiles. Nuclear deterrence I feel like is an obsolete term. No matter where, if Russia decides to use a nuclear weapon, the US will go to DEFCON 1. Period. It is just such a massive escalation that nowadays any use of nukes will most likely result in retaliation by other nuclear powers, no matter if it was their ally that was hit or not

[@Kalemnos]

If you treat your cultural Russian as normal citizen, what is the problem? Ukraine government made special laws for their Russian speaking citizens which were close to the one the nazis made for Jewish germans in 1933.

[@heetheet75]

You should always be wary of the russians in your country if you actually border russia. In the event of an attack they would absolutely not side with you, the majority of the time anyway. Even if they're loyal, russia can always use imagined oppression as a pretext for an attack, as they have already tried to do so (asking russians in finland on twitter to report any "mistreatment"). If you border russia it's never good to have significant amounts of them in your nation, period.

[@tepesvoda464]

@@heetheet75 we have NONE.

[@herptek]

Credibility is important for an alliance so there is kind of a vested interest for people in one to uphold it. However, the truth is that it is more complicated than that and being in an alliance doesn't absolutely guarantee the safety of one's country, let alone its interests if it becomes a warzone. Having not only credible but also actually capable national defense is the only cure either way, allies or not. Finland at least is used to finding itself kind of ditched by fate, abandoned by potential allies and is prepared to fight alone if necessary. It would be in the best interest of Sweden to offer at least material help like it did during the winter war, if not more. Having a military is the best insurance against Russian aggression and all else is built on that.

[@firstlast7052]

At the end of World War II the New York Times ran a cartoon that said "We never have won the war without allies like Great Britain and Texas".

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

@@firstlast7052 let me guess texas was throwing hissy fits or something

[@firstlast7052]

@@augustuslunasol10thapostle no idea you would have to ask the NYT.

[@krzysztofsaa2997]

Stalin made pact with Hitler way before 1939 - it was called Ribentrop Molotov Pact and according to it as allies they together attacked Poland.

[@Sofewfriends]

Remebering that I watched your content for game theory tutorials when studying and now you produce regular Ukraine content. Kudos for finding a way to rebrand yourself into something topical and still relevant to your previous content

[@xiaodaigu5659]

Will is a professor at Pittsburgh. He specializes in foreign policy. Game theory is used extensively in the field of international relations. As you can appreciate, it's incredibly useful as a tool for thinking about statecraft.

[@feylezofriza]

It is called the "demilitarized" zone precisely because no one can deploy weapons or troops there. Saying that the US deployed troops at the DMZ is either ignorant or lacks proper evidentiary support.

[@Pubbehey1]

I think we europeans are way to connected to each other not to help each other in case of conflict. Just look at ukraine, and they are not even in nato or even the eu at first. I think public pressure would be to much for politicians not to help our friends in europe, after all. countries in nato signed to be allies! After ukraine invasion, there is simply not an option not to help any european country that is in Nato OR EU.

[@GreySectoid]

There won't be any foreign troops on Finland even after the NATO membership. Finland has one of the strongest armies in Europe already.

[@jgzales1]

Usa wants to dominate every country it touches.

[@reed510]

They’ll be there… bank on it.

[@niceview2112]

@@reed510 There mght be troops stationed in Finnish garrisons but no permanent NATO bases nor nuclear weapons.

[@jakobrosenqvist4691]

There will for sure be NATO troups in Finland, there are already regullarly NATO troups in both Finland and Sweden. I don't think however that Finland will allow nukes or bases operated by another country.

[@reed510]

@@niceview2112 Mr. Terry specifically said no foreign troops… but here you come talking nuclear. Thanks

[@unvergebeneid]

I honestly loved doing this in EU4: don't officially abandon your ally when they are attacked but just don't send any troops either. Shields you from diplomatic fallout with no costs 😄

[@durianjaykin3576]

The only problem is when the enemy coalition comes after you. And you get farked

[@monsterfurby]

At least in CK3, the AI now sometimes asks you for other kinds of support if you fail to support them long enough (at least I think that's a current vanilla event) - I wish we had the ability to tell the AI what we're doing, something akin to the "tripwire"-deployment here, i.e. "here's a small tripwire force for deterrence, we promise we'll commit more if needed - UK, could you cover the northern flank?", and for the AI to ask for support if the player doesn't commit any troops. Sometimes, I'd be fine with throwing in a ton of cash to help my ally, but gifts aren't really appreciate as meaningful contribution to the war effort.

[@BoxStudioExecutive]

I just let my vassals do the heavy lifting while suffering no downsides to my manpower/economy, and then get 15 favors for doing nothing 😂 Gotta make sure to pay off my ally’s debts after the war for when I need them

[@unvergebeneid]

@@durianjaykin3576 true. Helps if the war is further away so nobody will bother making the treck out to your part of the woods 😄

[@vanshjain3207]

@@monsterfurby Tripwire only makes sense in democracies to generate political will to go and defend your allies. Autocratic governments need to need consent of their people that much.

[@7h3_man]

1:17 LINES ON MAPS!!

[@maxmaxim5635]

In truth and fact, Germany invaded Poland on 9/1/1939. UK declared war on Germany on 9/3/1939, France on 9/4/1939. That's three days, not eight months, as the video incorrectly stated at 3:26.

[@mancity_awaydays]

WWII would be over in 1939 if France and Britain had attacked Germany from the west as the alliance had specified. The French had at least 2:1 numerical advantage on Western Front right at the start of the war. German forces (Western Front) had absolutely no offensive/counterattack capabilities ( The Polish Defensive war engaged as much as 97% of German all divisions ). Not a single tank battalion. If the French seized the initiative, they easily could get the required local level of superiority for a breakthrough, without much risk of a counterattack. Note that the Maginot Line was another formidable insurance against potential German attack outside a planned breakthrough sector. French could concentrate forces safely. Of course Germans knew this, this is why the Siegfried Line had been hastily build in late 1930’s. The consensus is that this line was not as tough as the propaganda was making it (at the time). So the only issue was whether the French would be committed to pay the price of a decisive offensive. With the hindsight, the alternative was a surrender in 1940. Their call. One also has to remember that the French communists (a strong party, 33 deputies in the French Parliament) went into overdrive against any offensive against Germans. Germans had been allies of the Soviet Union at the moment, so it made sense to protect them. They (French communists) had been calling on French soldiers to desert etc. Their leader (Maurice Thorez) actually deserted to the USSR In truth, Polish forces put up a spirited defence, in the expectation that they would be assisted by their British and French allies. That assistance never came.

[@graveperil2169]

@@gaborrajnai6213 the second thing they started to do was dying which is why no one likes rushing into war

[@ivanzenteno2771]

Would you consider the recent conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan as an example of CSTO abandonment?

[@darnit1944]

Perhaps it is a rare case since big boy Russia is already in a deep shit in the first place. But that makes me question why the other member states dont join in.

[@ivanzenteno2771]

@@darnit1944 That's probably true for the most recent clashes but even going back to the 2020 war Russia didn't do much to defend Armenia. Like yeah they brokered a ceasefire and sent a peacekeeping force but that's a far cry from true military assistance. As you point out though, the other CSTO members have done absolutely nothing

[@kingace6186]

I would! Honestly, Armenia's only ally was Russia. Now thanks to alliance abandonment, Armenia has no help or support other than France*.

[@markrcca5329]

01:00 "If Putin decided to attack Finland .. and the United States did nothing" - this reveals an incorrect understanding of NATO. Even if the United States hypothetically were to leave the alliance, NATO would still have plenty of power to resist any Russian invasion. NATO isn't "Americans Defend Everyone". Then it would be called ADE! The key principle of NATO is that it is an alliance for European defense, and the initiative really is (or really should be) a European one, not an American one. U.S. is of course an extremely valuable participant - but it doesn't not need to be seen as a spiritual leader of NATO or the main pit-bull fighter in NATO.

[@geodkyt]

Other than the fact that the US defense budget is about ⅔ of the defense budgets of *all members of NATO, combined* . While much of that is not entirely available for NATO commitment simultaneously, the fact is the high end capabilities the US is able to provide NATO are because of the economies of scale that budget drives. There's a *reason* most NATO navies are *entirely* "frigate navies", for instance. Or why the US is the only NATO member with actual bombers. Realistically, slightly over *half* of the US armed forces could be used directly to fight for NATO, presuming the US wasn't fighting a major war in Asia at the same time, where Article 5 wouldn't invoke NATO obligations to assist the US (even while the US was defending Europe). So, roughly ⅓ of NATOs total defense budget can be unequivocally stated as "the United States". And it's basically the *high end* capabilities to boot. Yeah, without the United States, NATO is basically a fairly weak fence instead of a fairly robust defensive wall.

[@markrcca5329]

@@geodkyt 1/3 of NATO budget is quite enough to defeat Russia; Europe doesn't require setting up hundreds of military bases all around the world and fight wars in the Middle-East/Asia. If the budget proves inadequate - European NATO members combined have a population and economy power by far exceeding Russia. As for technology - European military tech, for the most part, exceed Russian tech. You're somehow calculating "US is more powerful than Europe, *therefore* Europe is not powerful enough against Russia." Incorrect. Still plenty powerful, and with their economic wealth, they can ramp up military size if needed. They just hadn't thought they needed it because they been assuming the U.S. would take care of geopolitical stability in Europe. A very dangerous assumption by the way.

[@OneEyeShadow]

@@geodkyt The US' defense budget is about 1/2 of the defense budget of ALL NATIONS ON EARTH COMBINED. Nobody can even compete with US military spending. Russia isn't a Superpower like the US. The UK alone spends about as much on her military as Russia (according to official numbers).

[@geodkyt]

@@markrcca5329 Europe would still need to design and build functionality that *they simply do not have in their arsenals* because NATO has relied on the *US* covering those capabilities (just as other NATO members often specialize - particularly in naval forces - to avoid unnecessary redundancy. The US, on the other hand, is forced to cover all the specialty roles, because much of what the US does doesn't involve NATO and therefore cannot rely on NATO support for those jobs. So, the US could get by without NATO. NATO *cannot* get by without the US, or at least a decade of massively increased defense spending to replace the US contributions in terms of capability.

[@geodkyt]

@@OneEyeShadow ...and the UK has national interests outside the scope of NATO as well. But the flat dollars don't tell the entire story. You're ignoring entire *capabilities that no NATO nation except the US* have, that NATO relies on being able to call on when needed for a NATO mission.

[@jtxbboggs2067]

Definition of insanity: coming to this channel and expecting there to be no lines on maps

[@madspeterrommedahl4679]

5:13 This is actually not entirely true, as Denmark famously rejected US offers to have American nuclear missiles on Danish soil in 1957 - instead, the nukes were placed in an American depot in the German city Meyn right on the other side of the Danish-German border. At the same time, though, the Danish government silently accepted that the US placed nukes alongside the American troops stationed at the Thule base in Greenland - which is part of the Danish Realm - so it's not entirely false either. Also famously, nobody bothered to ask the people living in Greenland what they thought.

[@mathy4605]

Just a few details, that you may view as commentary, rather than outright corrections: 2:10 That's the flag of the Habsburg Monarchy. Seeing as you're using the civil ensigns for the other countries, that's not the proper flag to represent Austria-Hungary. Also, Italy's alliance was for a defensive war. Austria-Hungary was viewed as the aggressor. Finally, they didn't promptly attack Austria-Hungary when WW1 broke out as you made it sound like. They were negotiating between remaining neutral (with the Alliance) and joining the Entente (with the Entente) for the first year of the war, and would only decide to join the Entente and attack Austria-Hungary after a secret treaty signed in 1915.

[@lomin8]

Amazing video as always, but you used the fascist spanish flag, which I guess is historically accutate for the cold war period, but as an spaniard, it stabbed a bit my little democratic heart haha.

[@Yura135]

Another mechanism for maintaining an alliance is blowing up your NATO partner's strategic energy infrastructure. That way, if they get cold feet when asked to support your proxy war, it will be very clear that they are much better off with you as their friend than their enemy. As an additional benefit, it will force them to rely on your imported energy, further strengthening the economic interdependence component of the alliance.

[@kingace6186]

SMH. Oh, shut up.

[@Yura135]

@@kingace6186 That's exactly what we told the investigators of the Nordstream attack, and they did!

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

When Turkey shot down a Russian fighter-bomber (2015, I think), Turkish president called for article 5 NATO to help him out in case situation gets too heated... The reply he got? "Sorry, you're on your own"... So much about that...

[@baneofbanes]

NATO is a defensive organization. And Turkey is hardly the most reliable NATO partner either. They regularly antagonize fellow NATO member Greece.

[@catkatzi3320]

Bullshit!

[@dannypope1860]

“Walk softly, and carry a big stick”

[@nPcDrone]

I have an alliance with my next door neighbor where we will protect each other if our bad neighbor across the street attacks one of us. I offered to station my mother in law in his house as a trip wire.... he said no thank you. The alliance is falling apart.

[@SCPKing1835]

I have an alliance with my next door neighbor to protect each other from our violent neighbor across the street. I asked him if he wants my brother to sit in his yard with a rifle to protect him in case the other neighbor attacks. There, fixed it for you.

[@andrewwinslow9315]

when will Türkiye and Hungary allow this to happen

[@jgw9990]

@@TN-bp2cf The Hungary excuse is BS. They're just stalling

[@warwolf3005]

Turks are stalling in order to get "something" from US. Might be access to a new branch of missles, F35s, Shifting of US policy towards Kurds, etc. In a way its in many cultures of the middle east - not to haggle with a salesman is a sign of disrespect. As for Hungary, Orban has some strong ties with Russia and China (to an extent as a result of EU leadership trying to influence internal politics, which probably caused him to shift east). He will probably be placated at some point or threathened into doing what is needed

[@T6e6r6o]

As a Greek watching this video, I'm incredibly skeptical. I believe it is reasonable to say that a vital requirement for an alliance such as NATO to be functional is that all of its constituent member states have settled all territorial disputes with all other member states. Turkey is a member state of NATO, and they have no qualms making territorial threats against Greece, claiming several islands of the Aegean Sea as theirs. If Turkey does launch an offensive against Greece, the official NATO position is "we will not pick sides, figure it out on your own". Frankly, that's garbage. In such an event, I believe it would be absolutely fair that the instigator gets ousted from the alliance, if not also counterattacked upon by the other member states. (Ideally, they shouldn't be allowed to join NATO in the first place until they settle all their territorial disputes, but here we are.)

[@jgw9990]

Unfortunately for Greece Turkey is a lot more important militarily. And Europeans remember having to bail out the Greek economy at great cost as well.

[@T6e6r6o]

@@jgw9990 If Europeans remember having to bail out Greece at great cost, that's even more reason to not let that sunk cost go to waste.

[@evilmurlock]

3:10 Not to mention the Aliance the French had with the czechoslovaks, sure, it was under the condition that the soviets would help, and the soviets would help under the condition that the french would. But the SSSR sayd it would help, so it was all on the French table (and the british too during the munich conference, but we didnt techincaly have an aliance with them I think) and the abandoned us. So sad

[@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462]

Don't forget Poland also send troops to grab territory for themselves which makes their own abandonment somewhat poetic.

[@Schmuni]

This channel works so very well on 1.25x-1.5x speed. Thank you for the Information.

[@Pax.Britannica]

That is a piss poor take on the "phony" war, especially from a self proclaimed "expert".

[@Zerozerozero-m9l]

Love your counter arguments, though.

[@Pax.Britannica]

@@Zerozerozero-m9l As if any should be needed. Of course Britain didn't have countless thousands dying against Germany, the only front we had access to was via the Maginot line. But it's bloody disrespectful to the dead to claim it was just "sitting around". Do yourself a favour and research on your own. Here's where you can start, the sinking of SS Athenia: 117 civilians dead. The Royal Air Force daylight raids resulting in ~17 British bombers being downed. The sinking of HMS Courageous resulting in 519 crew dead. HMS Royal Oak, 833 dead. The naval battle with Graf Spee, resulting in its scuttling. Operation Wikinger, a German destroyer flotilla resulting in 600 dead.

[@0Quiwi0]

Umm... Are there deleted comments here or am I missing something? Why are we talking about WW2 suddenly?

[@Pax.Britannica]

@@0Quiwi0 Are you just, completely historically illiterate? The phony war is WW2. 🤣

[@graceneilitz7661]

@@Pax.Britannica He is likely referring to the land war. In 1939, France launched a very brief invasion of Germany and was met with little to no resistance, and then retreated for some reason. Than they (and the British expeditionary Force) basically sat around for ten months until Germany invaded.

[@gumduck2504]

Outdated since Hungary already accepted. Now we're just waiting for Erdogan.... Great. I guess we'll have to wait a bit

[@MrCow579]

We'll get him to sign by handing over some of the "coup comitters" that are in finland/sweden.

[@gumduck2504]

@@MrCow579 that actually is quite a good idea

[@Balkan55]

Give Bosnia nato membership!

[@icemanzw]

Causing unnecessary war

[@jensboettiger5286]

Bosnia is struggling to avoid civil war which is a serious problem for NATO

[@SerginhoPMoura]

@@icemanzw on the contrary, it will prevent war.

[@erikk.137]

Srbs don't want to be member and that's it.

[@Kim-J312]

Doubt that , Bosnia took in the ex-isis wives/widows.... that's a BIG problem for NATO

[@MasaTheSlayer]

at 6:54 Is that the event where they signed that treaty where Finland din't even participate? At least it seems that they participate at it's signing, cause President and Ministry of Foreign Affairs are there and Haavisto got something to sign.

[@ChalkInTheLand]

I feel like after the Cold War ended and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world didn't think nuclear war would be a legitimate possibility again in the future. Yet, here we are. I also think Putin was convinced the West would, at most, yell and raise objections at the UN and supply Ukraine with token military aid

[@johnjacobjinglehimerschmid3555]

To be honest .... I think it would be amazing that any European nation ever mobilized troops to assist another European nations defense.

[@firstlast7052]

Belarus seems to be about to do that for Russia.

[@goldbullet50]

I don't. I only swore an oath to defend my own people and our own nation.

[@yoloswagtron6920]

@@goldbullet50 Thankfully, many of us who swore that same oath recognize that many of our friends and brothers aren't only inside our own nation's borders.

[@UGNAvalon]

@goldbullet50 So you’ll be fine if other nations’ militaries held the same sentiments toward your own nation’s troubles? Ok then, your funeral. 🤷‍♂️

[@KasumiRINA]

@@goldbullet50 Ukrainian, Polish and Australian troops were helping defend USA in Iraq, and helping the alliance in Afghanistan. We're all in this together, like it or not. Isolationists need a reality check.

[@taqiyasir8086]

NATO is vital to the protection of the west and hopefully the alliance it continues to expand to include Austria, the Republic of Ireland, and Switzerland. God bless NATO

[@mrharley6320]

You should have asked to join A LONG TIME AGO!

[@CzechMirco]

2:30 - A wrong example. The Triple Alliance was a defensive alliance, but it was Austria-Hungary and Germany who declared war on Serbia, Russia and France. As such, Italy could rightfully claim that she was not obliged to help Germany and A-H in an offensive war.

[@MrSparkyjnr]

Excellent content William. Thankyou

[@Kodakcompactdisc]

How could russia invade Finland, they don’t have an army left to invade anywhere.

[@justskip4595]

We have had somewhere between 40-50 conflicts with what could be considered Russia through the ages if I remember right. Been a while since I read about all of them. Unfortunately it looks more like inevitability that there will be more in the future unless the empire that is Russia balkanizes. Hence why we never stopped preparing.

[@HighLigerBimBam]

Germanys specialisation nowadays seems to be "Wunderwaffen" lol.

[@michaelwunder9379]

Nato has never defended itself, so I wonder how it would really turn out? its a strong possibility that countries back out last minute. I'm sure crazier stuff has happened.

[@NickSmith-fe7lp]

Technically it has after the 9/11 attacks on the US. The US invoked Article 5 for the first and only time thus far in NATO history. Hopefully it remains the only time, but I wouldn't be super opposed to slapping around Russia a little

[@TheWazzoGames]

After 9/11 the US invoked Article 5, and NATO listened. But in a modern war against another established country, who knows.

[@sinoroman]

USA can instigate an conflict and call on NATO at any time. NATO is not only a defensive alliance, it’s offensive too

[@NickSmith-fe7lp]

@@sinoroman not true at all. NATO is purely defensive. This is taken straight from their website: "NATO is a defensive alliance whose members are committed to safeguarding the freedom and security of each other, against all threats, from all directions. Deterrence and defense is one of NATO's core tasks." Either someone misinformed you, or you're yet another Russian bot trying to paint NATO as the bad guy

[@NickSmith-fe7lp]

@@TheWazzoGames if this “other established country is Russia, NATO would sweep. If it was China, it would be more difficult, but with how heavily their economy relies on the west, that would also be a NATO/west win

[@DPSCRIVO]

Italy's alliance with Germany and Austria/Hungary was a defensive one, they had no obligation to get involved as Germnay and Austria/Hungary were technically the aggressors

[@Franchise-infoCa]

Loved the definition of insanity!

[@KraccBaccSuporter]

seventheenth :) very precise video

[@Gametheory101]

Thanks Obama