Well, almost. Sweden becomes officially member of NATO when the president of Hungary signs the ratification paper and it is delivered to Washington. But the newly-elect president Tamás Sulyok hasn't yet signed it.
unfortunately, basically the exact same sequence of events happened in the 1910s and 1920s, and we ended up with WWII The rest of this decade is gonna be one helluva ride
@@kohtalainenalias oh, so, the dustbowl, deadly flu pandemic, an economic crisis, and the rise of fascism *didn't* happen between the 1910s and early 1930s? My mistake, silly me
Yes + for Ireland, yes not in Nato true, but in EU with that article 42.abs7 (the EU's mutual defence provision) Ireland dont have to follow it, but the other members can use it + Ireland can just give the access, but also true, the nation would need a good reason to do so, but economical & political ties, as also strategic interest would be enough i think What is Article 42.7? Article 42.7 is the mutual defence clause of the Treaty of the European Union. It derives from the Article 5 of the Brussels Treaty that created the Western European Union, a mutual defence organisation which was incorporated in the EU in 2011. It states that: “If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter” By naming “Member States” as opposed to the EU institutions, it provides for direct country-to-country dialogue and support, rather than involving potentially cumbersome EU institutions. It was introduced into the Lisbon Treaty at the instigation of those member states who supported a bigger role for the EU on defence matters. Particularly prominent amongst those advocating such an approach was Greece which, although protected by NATO’s similar Article 5 mutual defence clause, wanted an additional level of defence against long-standing rival Turkey, which belongs to NATO but not the EU. Article 42.7 differs from Article 222 of the Treaty of the EU which pledges solidarity in the face of terrorism, and from Article 5 of NATO. What does it require member states to do? At the simplest level, member states are required to provide aid and assistance, although the provisions don’t apply equally to all countries. The article contains the provision that it: “shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States” This means that countries with long-standing traditions of neutrality, like Ireland or Sweden, are not required to break these.
I just watched a video on Times Radio with a British general who said that he asked Estonia why the UK received so much help from them. Estonia said they were doing it so that the British would remember this when Estonia gets invaded by Russia.
@@eddiebottom37the fact that Guinness is "Ireland" national drink shows how much fight or national pride Irish people actually have and it's pretty much fuck all, a people who gave up its land, language and culture can't be trusted to defend themselves but it's ok sure we have the brits and sky sport's outta giving up totally worth it 😂😂😂
I have to say Ireland is kind of annoying, sucking hard on Hamas and being the reason that Apple, Google++ only pay a small share of their taxes in the EU and they do the best they can to stay a tax heaven.
And the Russian military is vastly ahead of NATO is modern warfare with drones, Turtle tanks, fab 3000 and a dozen other things. Russian will basically bankrupt Patriot by launching hundreds of FAB 3000 on Critical infrastructure in Baltics and Gotland. Which will basically get rid of most of stock Interceptors in war zone, if the military command chooses to intercept them all. That will leave them vulnerable to future X-52 or isakander strikes crippling and destroying major important military targets and thus getting rid of NATO’s ability to respond in the short term.
The fact that Norway wasn’t particularly mentioned really surprised me, more so that Canada was. We have however increased our military budget quite alot, purchasing newer tech in form of transportation, new bases and such here in Norway. Good on.. us?
Listen Germany and UK are the 2 and 3 contributors to NATO 68m and 65m most. Poland is 9 with 29.1m 10 Canada is 28.95m America 860m Basically it’s cute that your trying but don’t hurt yourself trying to pat yourself on the back when your showing up late to the party after years of warnings
It means this channel at least didn't see Finland as a weak point. neutrality also works best if you have strong military to act as a deterrent so Finland's always taken its military very seriously.
@@jackdenihan5333 it's not about gross money invested in the military. It's about the %GDP, Poland's economy is smaller than Canada's, yet they spend 4% of their GDP on military while Canada does 1.3% which is obviously under the 2%GDP threshold.
@@Amelia-vk4jt bruh yes it’s about the GDP but it is also definitely about the gross. Full on your dumb to say this example. NATO cried when America threatened to cut funding by 1% and we dive over 3% while we appreciate your efforts of giving more GDP end of the day money is spent in dollars not GDP and the amount they put in dollar per dollar is 28.95 to Polands 29.1 Billion. These are just facts how about try not being poor . We also shouldn’t give Germany much praise for finally hitting their 2% as they had to be threatened by Trump to do so and took 10 years after 2014 to pay their share meaning they ignored the problem and should owe more. Cry about GDP and gross then also tell me why we should praise a person who paid rent off for one year but is behind a decade
Norway never produced a global pop sensation in the 1970s. That makes Norway significantly less important than Sweden in the minds of international military analysts.
Germany, Poland and Denmark can deal with the Russian Baltic fleet from the south and Sweden can deal with it from the north. Finland is finally free to focus on the Gulf of Finland.
And waste the dozens/hundreds of hours that went into creating, editing and fact checking the script and then filming and editing the video? Especially when it will generate views and revenues either way. Hahahahaha
@@Shoelessjoe78 They can threaten maritime routes by sea to attack logistics and hamper with troop transport if they are not checked. They can also threaten tactical troop landings in support of their land operations if they not contained. They can of course also bombard land targets. Letting them act freely during wartime would be a serious mistake. Ukraine has taken the threat seriously, but their situation has been helped by the fact that Turkey has blocked the entrance of any reinforcements for the Russian Black Sea fleet into the theater of operations.
As Lithuanian I could say - it’s a little bit worrying, but we are preparing. Lord and the history itself knows what happens when Lithuanians and Polish people joining forces together. ❤
serious question Has your country began to move your museums artifacts either. To the western end of your country or out of country altogether Because a lot of ukrainian museums have been looted destroyed and their artifacts stolen I'm just curious if you guys have plans on protecting. Your historical artifacts
@@Изольда-з5мНа этот раз разделится Россия. Ваши солдаты слабы, ваше вооружение плохое, и после двух лет неудач и бессмысленного бросания волн солдат в мясорубку вы так и не победили долбанную Украину. Россия - это шутка, и я надеюсь, что ваш идиот-президент совершит ошибку, напав на НАТО. Я буду смеяться, когда твоя шутка о стране окажется бесплодной. Польша ранее оккупировала Москву. Помните об этом.
Heh, just don’t attack your fellow sisters! 😆 I know the e-girl will stay in her room, but don’t harm us, the pagan forest singers! 😂 love from Latvia 🇱🇻 🇱🇹 🇪🇪
Suwałki gap is actually not as a big problem as media say. Russians in their wargames predicted that Poland will take over Kaliningrad region in about 24-48 hours if there will be any hostile activity from Russian or Belarussian side near Suwałki gap, or if Russia attacks Baltic States. It seems that Kaliningrad region became more of liability for Russia than an advantage.
Ireland could spend all it's money on protecting those cables and it still couldn't protect them. The vast majority of the cables run through neutral waters
BAE Systems is building 15 state of the art Type 26 frigates for Canada at a cost of $60 billion. My brother in law gave the brass of the RCN a tour of Govan shipyard where the Royal Navy's Type 26 are being built.
>"On the eve of the Ukraine war, Russian TV aired a documentary boasting about how in a wider NATO-Russia conflict Russia would snatch Gotland Island" This would rely on Russian paratroopers spetsnaz, in the opening of the Ukraine war they (spetsnaz) couldn't manage to seize an airport 90 miles from their own border. The Idea that they could seize a whole island, one which the Swedes have been preparing for attack for years is a ludicrous pipe dream.
Neutrality only lasts so long as you make yourself such a costly target to engage that you become unappealing to aggressor forces. A porcupine without quills is just a free snack to everything else that comes by with teeth and a growling stomach.
You had to release the video literally just after Sweden got the green light. 😅 Edit: Obviously I know it takes time to script, film, and edit these videos, but that's why it's funny. If it was released say two days earlier it would have been more accurate.
Oh Simon! We really genuinely do love you! But it’s getting to be a good week for the cunning linguists amongst us : “Tan-ZAY-Nina”?!!! And now poor old Kaliningrad gets stiffed on a whole syllable!?😂❤
I heard Tan-zania as just 2 syllables, but there might have been a "weak split" for the lack of a better word in the last part that I couldn't pick out.
I think Simon forgot about the Irish fisherman who banded together to tackle the Russian navy it's not much sure, But it's a good start. 12:50 Also this year the Irish and NATO are supporting each other for detecting, dirty Russian shenanigans with subsea cable. It's not a step towards NATO membership just cooperation.
Nagy comment. But, the background music is getting louder and more distinctive each video. Please, adjust the volume to allow better concentration on the actual content.
Remember, 1938 and Chamberlain and appeasement. We were so unprepared for WW2. HISTORY HAS A WAY OF REPEATING ITSELF WHEN YOU SHOW WEAKNESS. WE ARE VERY WEAK.
@@bennettste it does not make sense to have your borders protected by your former occupier. I'm polish and I can't imagine poland relaying on german army to protect it borders from russia. And we are both Nato members
Ireland should definitely invest in its navy. And air force. And military radars. And army. Neutrality is no excuse - Finland and Sweden have extremely strong armies and they were neutral. Ireland has had economic success partly because it didn't have to invest in its military. The country is nearly broke now with massive debt and a crumbling health sector. It won't want to invest in military as well. But of the 6 ships available to the Irish navy, they only have enough manpower for 1 of them. Ireland has no military radar or missile technology. I think their aircraft have propellors. They have very good coast guard planes and helicopters at least. Britain's navy is also crumbling with limited firepower and manpower. And they are selling off early F-35 aircraft - surely those could be kept and used for interception of Russian bombers which usually have no escorts.
@@baird5682Britain provokes countries and regularly goes to war. Let them foot the bill of protecting their "back door". Ireland is neutral and allied with as many countries as possible. Russia should be one and would be if we didn't have weak leaders kissing the arses of UK/US.
Ever since Ukraine was invaded, I've wondered how overstated the vulnerability of the Suwalki Gap is. NATO's logistical capacity is astounding, and Russia's has proven...rather lacklustre. There's also a lot of commentary about how the Suwalki Gap would become a chokepoint where NATO tanks and infantry are forced to cross under fire from both sides...which completely ignores the fact that NATO's military doctrine in historic practice has generally been to establish air supremacy as soon as possible and then bomb anything that looks vaguely threatening until the enemy are dead or hiding in caves and bunkers. This isn't to say NATO sees ground forces as obsolete, so much as they see the idea of sending ground forces into the teeth of artillery positions obsolete...because they've got the air power to flatten anything slower than a mortar team in pretty short order. Granted if the US has all their carriers and air force assets off elsewhere when Russia cunningly executes a surprise attack on the Baltics, a lot of that air power is gonna be spending some time getting there but...look up how fast these planes are. In that worst case scenario, the US would probably just have pilots fly themselves to air bases in Germany and Poland and tell them their stuff will catch up in a few days - that would cut the vulnerability window down to somewhere around 2 days. And if you're thinking "but they can't do that, Germany and Poland use different weapons systems, how will they resupply"...that's the entire point of the NATO standard munitions setup. It's all supposed to be cross compatible. I'm not saying "Russia please invade the Baltic countries" - very much please don't - and if they do, the first couple of days for the Baltic countries will be as harrowing as the first few days were for Ukraine...but then the hammer would come down on Russia, hard.
Sweden would never let Russia take Gotland without first losing its air and sea combat power and we would know if there were planes coming towards the island or boats before they left the harbor and airport
As an Irishman, I wouldn't argue with any of this. If we aren't to join NATO (and opinion polls suggest we aren't anytime soon), then at a minimum we need to upscale to be able to protect all of our own yard, including the extensive seas and skies.
US, UK and Finland all have mutual defense pacts with Sweden, the UK and US signed them the minute Sweden applied to NATO. Both Turkey and Hungary have approved Sweden's entry into NATO now, Turkey got promised its F-16's it wanted from the US so it voted yes and Hungary got a bargain on more Gripen fighter jets from Sweden and Ukraine re-instated special status to the tiny Hungarian minority there so they voted yes as well, just some bureaucratic formalities remain. As for Greenland they cannot become independent unless Denmark would agree to continue to support them, they are 100% dependent on Denmark.
How would Russia attack Ireland? Correction how would they attack Ireland in any way that wouldn't be immediately cut off and destroyed? Attacking the Baltics means taking the Suwalki gap which means fighting Latvia Lithuania Estonia and Poland simultaneously while contending with Sweden and Finland at the same time.
I mean they probably could take that for some limited amount of time. but they certainly wouldnt hold it especially not without taking at least all the Baltic region
As an Irish person, I agree with your assessment of our defence capability, which unfortunately is a near zero as dammit. As a Polish friend of mine says, the "ah sure we'll be alright" phraseology is worthless. If our neutrality is important it's worth defending. I've been saying this to any member of the body politic who will listen, for quite a few years but I haven't had much success. We're happy not being a NATO member, but at the same time living in the shade of the NATO umbrella. The Russian cyber attack on our Health Service IT system should have been warning enough that there are hostile players out there who could make life quite uncomfortable for us with little enough effort. We need to get serious, improve and upgrade our defences and then join NATO.
I am beyond frustrated with Ireland's policy of neutrality. The govt want to do more, but the public is opposed to substantial military spending or even alliances. Perched on the western edge of Europe, ppl don't see any real threat. Unlike our friends in Scandinavia , the Baltics, and Poland, the Russian threat seems remote to the man on the street. This despite the multiple suspicious Russian ships of the Irish coasts, the snooping around the data cables , the apprehension of Russian spies on the west coast where the cables come ashore, and a brazen plan to expand their embassy in Dublin to a size completely inconsistent with normal consular activities. IRL needs to begin educational efforts to make ppl aware, so the military can be made task ready. It is beyond embarrassing that we rely on the UK for defense in deeo water and air intercepts.
I agree that our maritime capability is embarrassing. We cant even protect against drug smugglers properly. I would love to see a major upgrade, however let's be clear, there is no way we could achieve a military capability that would change the outcome against a major power. And to become a part of NATO with the required spending would be unacceptable politically. Perhaps an investment in drones and maritime monitoring with bouys and a satellite would be a cost-effective way to up the game.
I think our biggest trial will be choosing the right allies to get behind. Our historical allies are just simply not reliable. I hope U.S leaders are smart enough to figure that out and choose to back the Eastern and Northern European countries.
They were just tested and immediately unified and came together as a strong unified block. If Russia was stupid enough to attack a NATO State America would most definitely respond militarily .
I’m Canadian and many of my neighbours and I have been creating prepping networks as a kind of fun way to deal with the anxiety of rising geopolitical tensions. Regardless of how bad our army is, I’m proud of how diverse our country is and I believe that will be a big advantage in our defensive morale.
I am glad you pointed out the Irish people do not particularly care about NATOs security. In a world where Russia losing means WWIII, you can all continue worrying while we Irish will drink and enjoy our peace.
Canada has some new Type 26 ships being made, along with a new fleet of ice breaker military patrol vessels, but this is not enough. As of right now, the Navy here admitted that only ONE patrol vessel can be sailed at a time due to staffing issues. The problems run deep in Canada and it is embarrassing.
@@LeMerch that's unfortunate. It doesn't change the facts. You went bankrupt despite not spending on defense. When a nation relies on others for 100% of their protection they are either a parasite or a colony. And in Ireland's case it's a bit of both I guess regardless of the chest thumping.
Submarines can be so silent & virtually untraceable that IF a ship, irregardless of its country of origin, it COULD be sunk if it's determined that it is involved in the destruction of undersea cables. These ships don't sail with escorts so putting 3 or 4 torpedoes in it's side would be kid's play. It wouldn't be the first time submarine sailors did something that nobody was to know about for 100 years or more...
Sweden is not yet in NATO… Hungary’s president and speaker of the house must approve the parliament vote, then send that document to Washington via airplane where officially the US in return can “invite” Sweden to join NATO - which Swedens government and NATO leadership must sign. Then Sweden is in NATO. This process will happen next week and take about 2-3 days but if Russia attacks tomorrow, Sweden still lacks protection by NATO.
I live in TN, USA and i fly all three flags on my wall Tennessee, USA, and NATO there is none of the 3 i see more of my ally than the other I will defend Vilnius LITH as much as Dayton TN
@@GöranÅgren : Difference being, @jessesandoval7326 did it _once_ in a frigging _YT comment;_ not tens of times over in a 20-minute video that he's making his living from. Do you have any more stupid non-equivalent parallells to go "ha ha!" over?
NATO is a military powerhouse but its weakest point is not any military problem/question/conflict - its weakest point is *political will!* its strength is the notion that an attack on one member, no matter how tiny and weak, would trigger the full might of the alliance and crush the enemy. the emphasis is on _full might_ , not token solidarity or half-hearted efforts of help. Art 5 doesn't compel or automatically trigger a military response from allies but leaves this to their discretion. every member is free to opt out of rushing to the aid of another member except one: the US doesn't have that luxury. if the US decides to not honour Art 5 for any reason than NATO is dead. therefore putting in legal safeguards to prevent any future US president from formally leaving NATO doesn't really help with the problem. all it takes to kill NATO is for the US to just do nothing when someone tests NATOs resolve by bullying one of its members on the periphery.
@@IAMJEFFREY-cw9ns your point is absurd. first, NATO wasn't formally involved in Afghanistan, just a number of its members. second, their military overpowered everything there was in this country. it could have leveled the whole place - but what would be the point? all the weapons in the world cannot win the minds of a people when their whole mindset is totally different from what you try to achieve. eventually, even the most stubborn politician in the west had to acknowledge that simple truth but was afraid to act on it. the current US president was courageous enough to finally pull out. it should have happened more than 10yrs earlier and arguably much better prepared and organised but it was inevitable.
@@IAMJEFFREY-cw9nsmaybe you should take a closer look. reading usually leads to better understanding. ISAF was a UN mission, even if two years later in 2003, NATO took over command at the request of the UN Security Council and the Afghan government. however, it seized combat operation in 2014 already. what followed was the _Resolute Support Mission_ , a *noncombat mission* aimed at advising and training Afghan security forces to provide long-term security to the country. NATO was no longer there in any combat role. it is true that the whole thing failed in its objective. however, the objective was not to conquer Afghanistan or any military aim which they failed to achieve. they failed in their political aim and this is a whole different pair of shoes. you can't make 'goat herders' build a stable country, let alone bring democracy to them, if they cannot overcome their tribal social structure or simply don't want to live in a democratic system. no weapons in the world can make them do it.
@@embreis2257 You have guys like Tim Kennedy (ex US Green Beret) who were actually part of that failed mission in Afghanistan go on Joe Rogan's podcast and say that 'we lost in Afghanistan.' We as being the United States of course. Afghanistan was already a failed nation and invading it made things worse. The resolve of the Taliban is unmatched. Those guys can fight and fight forever. The crazy thing now is that Afghanistan is peaceful and more stable under Taliban rule🤣 Many RU-vidrs from the west are now visiting and making videos with the locals. Just 3 years ago visiting Afghanistan was unthinkable.
The Irish governments response has been a disgrace. Our country is running massive budget surpluses, yet despite this they won't invest relatively small amounts in giving both our navy and aircorps the sonar and radar needed. The Defence Forces report showed we need an injection of 4 billion euros (something we can easily afford) and instead the government gave 200million. We need sonar and military radar we need modern fighter jets and we need another half dozen ships. We are neutral only if we have the capacity to enforce that neutrality and we sure as hell dont have that ability right now. Our military are highly trained and highly skilled but woefully under funded and under staffed.
To my fellow Irish people, remember that Neutrality is a fantasy. WW2 is evidence enough of that. Ask Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark and Norway how great Neutrality is. The only reason we in Ireland haven’t abandoned Neutrality and the practice of having a small underfunded military is because the Nazis didn’t have the amphibious capabilities to attack us in WW2, so that 1930s pacifist naivety never died here like it did in other countries. It is a sign of the times when a nation like Sweden is finally abandoning its Neutrality for the first time since the Napoleonic Era. This new Cold War is far more aggressive than the last, and we need friends fast
As an Irish man I would like to see radar installed and an increase in military spending to 1% of GDP. We are neutral militarily but not politically or culturally. As a people, we firmly support the West.
Haven't watched the video yet, but here's my take beforehand: As a US citizen, NATO's fundamental weak point is over reliance on the US. Tons of people around the world don't want the US to be involved in military conflict due to a sense of US global hegemony, yet I would like to repeal and absolute article 5 for a similar reason, because I do not want the US to be blindly dragged into Eurocentric conflicts without greater oversight especially as it relates to the US's focus on Pacific defense which is a risk factor that most of NATO members do not consider to be a priority for them.
US National interests are all in the pacific that’s where the future is and where we need to focus our defense. Building up an Asian pacific “NATO” was a great move, building up a strong defense that surrounds China that they cannot defeat especially with several nuclear powered/armed submarines all in the area.
One thing that's misunderstood was discussing Article 5. It's a lot more complicated than "You attack one of us, we all fight to the death." It was specifically written in a way that even in the event of an attack, no one is legally required to fight with you. If you go to NATOs webpage, they actually discuss this. When the Articles were written, most European nations wanted it worded so that any military attack would force the US to come fight for/with them. Meanwhile, the US didn't want to be required to fight in every war. So there's a bit of wiggle room with Article 5. It's also dependent on the nation. In the US, only Congress can declare war. The article is written so that if an attack occurs, Congress has the time to vote, and can actually vote not to get involved militarily. So each country has to go through their specific actions for declaring war, and has the ability to bow out if they feel necessary.
True , but article 5 also states that a country does not have to help out Military wise it states that a country could and should help in a way they deem fit for themselves. Meaning supplies equipment food medicine. All these things would be considered. Fulfilling the article five Obligation I haven't read it in a while, but I'm pretty sure even A.condemnation of a enemy country attacking a fellow nato member is considered acceptable under article 5
Given the state the current world is in, and the info y'all provided here, Article 5 seems like a weak link for NATO. Under the assumption that NATO is exhausted of munitions for Ukraine, Article 5 can do nothing if Russia wakes up one day and decides to conquer Europe.
@@sushimuncher282 It seems to have escaped you that Russia is also exhausted of munitions for their murderous actions in Ukraine, to the extent that they are begging them from the likes of North Korea.
@@kevinmurray7789Maybe so, but Russia is producing 40$ more artilery shells than all NATO countries combined, even the US. North Korea tops up that amount. For every shell that Ukraine fires, Russia can fire ten. They are on a war footing, NATO is on a peacetime footing.
We’re at such a rapidly evolving point in history that this video, which no doubt was written within the last week, is already outdated less than 10 hours later.
I think a major weakness is the fact that the NATO treaty doesn't cover sovereign territories in the Pacific. If China attacked Hawaii, for example, NATO is not obliged to respond.
i am estonian and I can say with finland that nato or not, if russia attacked us before they joined nato , we would trust them more to help us anyway than we would trust nato.
The GDP of Florida (2022 1.4T) is almost the size of Russia’s GDP (2021 1.7T)… I know we’re talking Billions of dollars difference but still just remarkable none the less. It opened my eyes to just how much distance there is between the US and most of the world.
You're not comparing like for like, When you adjust Russias GDP for different price levels (Purchasing Power Parity) the figure is $5.2T, that's roughly x3 times Australias. It's still only around a fifth of the US but it's not an insignificant figure either.
As a Canadian, I'm glad we are building the arctic partol ships but that's us playing catchup. I'm a big proponent of Canada trying to get in on what AUKUS has planned with nuclear-powered submarines. Those are badly needed to protect our arctic territory. Could certainly be used elsewhere if the need arises too.
Or get rid of your Current constitution tear down your government structure and petition to join the US I mean you have a lot to offer maple syrup, moose and Poutine And the last point might be the only one. You have to make because it is too delicious😂😂😂
@@drewwar9344 If Trump regains the White House, the US will leave NATO and side with Russia. Also, with the chaos in the US, most countries are planning to move further from the US, not closer.
12:10 "Naval service" not really a navy (same as an air corps vs an air force), it's primary role is policing and search & rescue. There's also only enough crew to serve 2-3 of those 6 boats at any one time... there's now less than 1000 staff in the INS, most of them of course aren't even crew. Most IDF staff could get paid more and have more free tiem if they worked in fast food. There's been an exodus of military staff for decades here. Meanwhile the government is wondering why and how come there's no one signing up...
Why should Ireland defend another country's strategic assets? Surely the British and US government knew these cables were going through neutral waters, and could easily have laid them outside these waters at a cost, but therein is the issue --they wanted to do it on the cheap. These cables do not belong to the British or US government, they are commercial cables for use by any company or country that pays a subscription. Had it been off such strategic importance NATO would have paid for and laid dedicated cables in NATO waters or international waters. Secondly it doesnt really matter where these cables are laid, both the Russian and US navies have the means to cut any cable even if its not on a continental shelf, and dont you think it's more probable that either would carry out such a mission outside any country's water to reduce any chance of being detected?
Hungary and Austria would have been interesting as well. If Orban would allow tanks to go through or choose not to defend against Russia, Austria being very weak militarily and not in NATO would loose its territory for sure.
France invaded Russia for natural resources in 1812. The UK, France and Ottoman Empire attacked Crimea to weaken Russia in 1853. Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire invaded Russia for Lebensraum in 1914. The western allies invaded Russia in 1919 to restore the Monarchy and control of Russia. Germany, Finland, Slovakia, Italy, Hungary, Romania with volunteer units from Spain, Denmark and Norway invaded Russia again for Lebensraum and oil in 1941. Japan sought oil in WW2 almost every war since WW2 has been over oil. Ending Nord Stream was the top US priority before 2022. So where are the oil and natural gas reserves in the Suwalki Gap, or the Fulda Gap or Poland or the Baltic States? There in Siberia...and that's how the US/NATO gets to them
"Most scenarios see the Baltic capitals falling within days." These are probably the same scenarios that predicted the fall of Kiev within days. And I was one of them, but seriously every military prediction made before 2022 has to be thrown out. And even if Russia and Belarus were able to open a corridor to Kaliningrad, so what? Finland and Sweden come charging in from the North, Poland and Germany (there's an odd combination) from the south and the Russians are wiped out in a Smolensk-level disaster.
The assumption is that Russia needs the hassle of expansion while its civic and rural consolidation and upgrade makes expansion not only unwise but unnecessary. Fear mongering at its worse.
Why was Trump's comment a shocker? The USA has repeatedly tried to buy Greenland from Denmark for decades. They've tried to rent the entire island multiple times. They've paid massive rent payments for small bases. So Trump saying he wanted Denmark to sell Greenland to the USA was just a continuation of decades of American policy. Anyone shocked by it simply hasn't been paying attention.
If the Russians can't even assert control over the black sea against a country with no navy, I'm skeptical of their ability to conduct an amphibious invasion into gotland
Two weeks before the Ukraine invasion the Russians held an "exercise" in Irish waters in the area around the cables . They were mobbed by fishing boats and then they left but I have always wondered about what went on in the background.
Remember the mighty soviet union fell even the powerful roman empire fell at one point its just a matter of time before NATO fall. Nothing can last forever
Canada has a battle group? You can't be serious. Our government is so mind numbingly emo they probably can't even spelt it without help from a grown up. 🤣
For Ireland to still remain neutral in this rapidly changing geopolitical situation, we need to rethink our defence strategy. Like the Swiss, we need to be neutral but with a military deterrent, so that no country will be foolish enough to attack us. It will take a lot of time and money. But it will be worth it in the end.
All that wealth and GDP, and they can't even out produce Russia, a country of 140m and just over 1 trillion in GDP. This conflict has clearly demonstrated the "certain" parts of NATO are totally unprepared for war, production and logical support. I hope things will improve soon, and NATO countries all start to do their part in the operations necessary.
That's because Russia has mobilised its entire economy for war production. NATO isn't actually at war so hasn't done the same yet but if it does it will dwarf that of Russia many times over. It's already started in a way because all European defence contractors have full order books and some countries are subsidising increase in production capacity with government grants.
Excellent points, many companies still exist, they just need government orders. I hope the political gridlock can be moved beyond, and NATO can fully mobilize it's defense industry. I have a feeling they will need it in the future.@@justonecornetto80
Please do something about your music mixing as it has made things unwatchable for many. The level is too loud. It's too constant - it should vary with content/delivery - It's the same track - and it sounds like a track from a Bulgarian pron film. I love your content and delivery Simon - But that freaking audio mixing is killing you. Mix it down 50% from where it's at, fade it in and out and find some different ambient tracks! Or just get rid of it totally. No more lazy sound track mixing! Please. - I'm still subd for now.
Well, I agree that the Canadian Armed Forces and are 1.3% spending is absolutely awful. @warographics643 when it comes to our north Canada has spent a lot of money in the recent years. Canada has recently bought new P8 Poseidon aircraft for coastal patrol. We have eight military icebreakers (Harry DeWolf Class) three of them already operating in the north and we’ve bought 88 F-35s. On top of that EADS and CADS will be complete in 2024 and ongoing OTHR is being installed and set up. While in the meantime Canada also has ELM-2084 Multi-Mission Radar… just missing the interception batteries. Canada also has BAE’s Type 26 frigate to begin building as part of the Canadian Ship building strategy… look it up lots of new ice breakers!!! There is lots wrong with the Canadian military but if you’re going to bash us at least have all the facts.
It does oblige allied nations to react though. In practice, that has meant an assumption that all of NATO will intervene militarily to protect any signatory nation. It is based on making it as clear as possible that the worst possible outcome for an enemy is the most likely. No one seriously believes that Poland wouldn't intervene to protect Lithuania, or the US to protect Canada.
The block has a simple issue, and I noticed it when we worked together. The top brass are ill-informed and are trained on old standards. They don't adjust and rely on the lower staff to address any issues that arise when out in the field. This means problems compound until an officer can address them, instead of being addressed directly.
I hope America will leave nato and tell Canada not to rely for defence. As a Canadian our government needs to get their a** in gear cause we’re useless
And you haven't considered the Swedish and Finnish models of heavily armed neutrality which pertained up to last week when they joined NATO The Irish Government's rigidly neutral policy of only buying military equipment from neutral countries has within the last week seemingly been narrowed down to just buying from Switzerland.
Actually there is a reason for that. Going back to the foundation of the Irish Free State in 1922, it has always been Government policy to keep the Army as weak as possible so as to avoid a military takeover of the administration, which was a serious possibility in the early post- Civil War era. The only exception was during the "Emergency" , ( i.e. WW2 to the rest of the world!), when we protected our neutrality with8 41,000 men under arms, with a further volunteer reserve of 106,000. That neutrality was very much biased in favour of the Allies, though, in much the same way that Sweden and Switzerland were biased towards the Axis, both scenarios being very much the effect of geographical location and cross-border trade.
Thanks for the video! I don’t know if it would an interesting topic for many viewers, but I’d also really love the same type of video about weak-spots and possible points of failure in Russia 😎😎
