everytime a professor talks about the Bosnia/Kosovo bombings, they mention NATO, but leave out that Serbia was committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. poor education.
Having served in the Fulda Gap (and along the former Czech border before that), and being there to see the wall fall; I, and many of my colleagues, noticed that the Soviet Russians and later Russian Federation were still a threat to European security as has been proven today. The Russians, as a people, are not a bad bunch; but the governments they have "chosen" to lead them have been historically aggressive towards their neighbors.
Except the Russian governments to large extent reflect the preferences and mentality of the average Russian. Its naive to think that the majority of Russians are some sort of victims suffering under the Putin(Tsarist/Stalinist/Brezhnev....) regime.
@@adrianroksa7250 "Defense of them themselves and other slavs". Oh, that must be reason for killing civilian Slavs, and executing Slavic POWs, then throwing them in mass graves so they can be together. Right?
Well said. The Russian government is built upon the bodies of 100's of millions of peoples from all over Europe and Eurasia going back to the beginning of the concept of Russia. It's truly saddening that after all that death and misery and struggle for survival/independence the Russian people weren't able to have a free or fair say in what their government does. Do you think the russian government/officials will ever actually be held accountable ?
You can answer this question pretty simply as well as the long version: 1. Because Russia was still a massive latent threat, especially given its nuclear capability and huge conventional forces 2. Because defensive capabilities take decades to assemble, whereas an aggressor's intentions can change overnight
@@DevoutSkeptic Completely false. NATO has invaded a lot of nations in the history. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations Also if you do not join NATO, you face sanctions from the US and western imperialism. They start a coup to overthrow your government. How is overthrowing other governments not an invasion?
@@coshvjicujmlqef6047 Because NATO is not threatening to nuke Russia out of existence. Because NATO is not invading countries to force them to join it's alliance/sphere of influence. Because NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance, that would not take unitary action against a nuclear power.
Historically, post-WW2 USSR was supposed to leave the Eastern European countries they conquered, they didn't. It's not a mystery why those same countries don't trust the USSR successor state Russia (that took the USSR security council seat, most of its armaments, its intelligence apparatus, etc).
Unfortunately, decades of propaganda by the ussr and then whitewashing by putins censorship means many russians may not even be aware of how badly the ussr treated eastern europe...and its citizens. Even now many in the pre internet generation might still believe the ussr was some sort of utopia....nvm the countless abuses, deportations, and worse it brought on eastern europeans. Maybe its these same people who forgot nato is voluntary, not coercive like the warsaw pact which only invaded itself lol. And putin is threatening any country that seems to want to orient to the west or even have an idea of joining nato. So only logical solution in that case is... join nato to defend against putins aggression. Putin and some of the old guard just want to put eastern europe back under the russian boot again like the old days it seems.
So your telling me after these countries invaded ussr killing 30 000 000 people destroying nearly every family in ussr and if germany won keep in mind they would have genocided all slavic peoples they should just leave yhhhh no how about usa leaves iraq uk spain Portugal germany lybia kosovo ect
I believe one of the articles or requirement for any country for joining NATO is the renunciation of border disputes with any country; Specifically with anyone of its members. It has been one of the reasons why there hasn’t been any wars or border disputes between France, Germany, Poland… That is why NATO is needed. Without it, European countries would go back to the old days of agression with each other. Fantastic topic 🖖 Greetings from Mexico I forgot to mention the border disputes between Greece and Turkey in the 1970s. My bad.
Similar arguments are made for the justification of the European Unions existence as a whole. The argument being that having a united Europe will prevent a future world war or similar situations.
@@JasonCliftJones I think youre taking it too "word-for-word". Renouncing border disputes likely just means they cant be acting out on said disputes. Any of the nations can say "hey thats mine" but as long as they arent taking it by force or holding it as a card in negotiations between each other then it is probably overlooked in SOME (not all) cases. The disputes at least between US and CA that you mentioned are very very minimal.
Like this. On your boxer analogy, is say that the purpose of NATO was to actually avoid the fight altogether. The idea that even the Warsaw Pact could have fought and won against all of NATO is questionable, even at the heights of Russian power. Currently, if Russia went toe to toe with NATO, they'd be absolutely destroyed, which is more terrifying as it makes it more likely that weapons of mass destruction get used.
In the late 60s and early 70s ground warfare was essentially a numbers game. The Warsaw Pact had the numbers and NATO was dependent upon it's nuclear deterrent. It was only from the late 70s onward technological advances began to swing the balance more and more in favour of NATO.
@@DraigBlackCat Yes, it's kind of flipped on the conventional side now and that's what likely prompts the potential use of weapons of mass destruction by Russia should a conflict occur directly between NATO and Russia. I'd say that even on the conventional side back int he 70s and 80s it wasn't a totally foregone conclusion that Russia and the Pact armies would just push through Fulda into the west. Their capacities and logistics were as questionable then as now. There were definitely scare tactics being used in the Western democracies to encourage military spending.
@@EffequalsMA NATO's policy from the Mid 1950s to 1968 was Tripwire. Full Nuclear War from the git go to any Soviet Aggression. Flexible Response (Fight a Conventional War first) was the policy until the end of the Cold War, but it was still expected that nuclear weapons would be required if the war ran for more than a week or so, It wasn't until the 1991 Gulf War that it turned out that NATO's improvements in the 1980's would have gone through the Soviets like a Knife through butter.
Excellent as always. I really like these episodes, a lot more off the cuff, and they demonstrate just how much David knows about the topic. Thanks for all your hard work guys 💜
I absolutely LOVE these discussions! And not because it paints a context for what's happening now. I'd love to hear these kinds of discussions on other major topics!
Catch is that as a coalition for collective defense NATO does not require there to be an external enemy for it to provide concrete benefits. Joint acquisitions, joint training, common standards... All allow for easier mutual operations, (and even more importantly for politicians) cost cuttings and reduced size of militaries. So the main question is really, why would you dismantle it? Also NATO was willing to cooperate with Russia after the Cold War. Russia took part to the PfP (Partnership for Peace) program, even took part to multiple NATO exercises... NATO was never a threat a Russia. NATO has however always been a threat to Putin's territorial ambitions. If Putin didn't plan for that then he would not have seen NATO as a threat to begin with - which is rather telling of his aims and plans.
Just like NATO was never a threat to Afganistan or Serbia or Lybia People who actually think NATO is only defensive alliance need to learn its history of operations
@@konstantinriumin2657 You are presenting a false equivalency, in many ways. First off you are equating operations by certain NATO member states to those of NATO - but those are not the same thing. Furthermore you are ignoring UN mandates. To begin with, operation in Afghanistan was not a NATO operation, it was an US operation supported by certain countries - NATO (as the organization) only got involved with the UN sanctioned ISAF force. In Libya on the other hand contrary to fairly common conspiracy story the UN-SC did give permission to bomb Libya - the UN-SC resolution only banned occupying areas. So that was actually UN sanctioned operation. Only actually controversial - to an extent - case was the intervention in Serbia, or the rather action to halt the ethnic cleansing at the time being done by the Serbs. Whole thing could likely have been resolved with deployment of UN peacekeepers had Russia not vetoed such efforts - a deliberate act by Russia to ensure that the ethnic cleansing could continue.
Russia *sees the eastern bloc join nato Russia: " You turned them against me" NATO: " You have done that yourself" Russia: " I will not let you take them away from me"
More likely it was due to the corrupt regimes in China, N. Korea, and Russia which all want or posses nuclear weapons and have no problem killing the people of their neighboring countries.
Ah you Russian bots. If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, they would be like Libya, Yugoslavia, or Iraq. NATO doesn't want WWIII, but if that's what Putin wants, the only country that will win will be China.
the USA could have done that if NATO didn't exist even better. A big powerful country like the USA can negotiate better deals that favour it more when bargaining individually than in an alliance. US bases would still exist, US intervention would still exist, and Europe would be a whole lot more vulnerable.
NATO today seems silly to someone living in their pink clouds in Berlin, Paris, London etc... But to ex-soviet states NATO is the best thing ever since the invention of wheel. Ukraine is late to the party, a mistake that now costs them. I personaly voted for Croatia to enter NATO and it still makes me sleep easier.
The thing is though it’s not all Ukraine’s fault. Ukraine genuinely wants to be in nato however for a country to be admitted all countries that are in nato have to vote unanimously. A good chunk of the blame can actually be placed on other European countries such as Germany due to their economic ties to Russia especially in the energy sector which of course made them hesitate to agitate Russia by allowing Ukraine in the alliance. So Ukraine wasn’t actually late they were just blocked by other countries that had a reason to stay on Russia’s good side
@@hoopsonwheelsMaybe they wouldn't even have wanted to join. Until Russia invaded Donbass and Crimea because of the protests that came about due to stalling on EU association agreement.
As a Croatian are you not bothered that because Croatia has joined this globalist organization greater Croatia will never be recognized they will allow the Bosniaks to keep Croat land. Hrvatski Dom!?
@16:19 he talks that it is the perfect time for others to attack russia. but others dont do it so his assumption is that nato is not a threat to russia.but he forgets the nukes that russia have. this is why others not attack russia. this kind of talking shows the ignorance for russian perspectives of ukraine war and also shows that westerners try to act as neutral analysts but they dont have the ability to think outside their own western perspectives.
A great episode would be examining the Warsaw pact countries armies and the likelyhood of their effectiveness in an attack by NATO. Would Poles, East Germans, Czechoslovaks, ECT have been willing to fight and die to 'protect' their countries and the Soviet Union from invasion?
I am Czech, born early 1970s- heard lot stories about the army service by my dad and by others. To sum up all the stories ..... I would basically say that all Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, East Germans would switch sides as soon as they could.
Inspite of the quasi-misguided popular belief that they would not, from my point of view, I certainly would not be surprised if they did! After all, the Soviet Red Army , with overwhelming strategy, skills and determination DID successfully defeat the Nazis in the East in 1945, turning half of Germany into rubble; North Korean forces, with unquestionable zeal and determination to fight, invaded South Korea in June 1950, and let's not forget the hardcore willingness of the North Vietnamese Army, as well as the peoples of North Vietnam, facing overwhelming odds technologically and militarily and yet, not only succeeded in finally uniting Vietnam in 1975, but also bloodied and ultimately defeated the United States, a superpower. And yes! THESE WERE ALL COMMUNIST COUNTRIES. Makes one wonder, doesn't it ?
@@ursa41 there's bit of a difference between countries with blood to spare that were communist by choice, and the soviet vassal states in Eastern Europe
It is more of a geopolitical problem for Russia than military problem and security problem. Russian Federation was stopped from economic and geopolitical influence which is a real danger for them, not being able to connect to Balkan and Baltic to them is a real danger of national interest.
@@morrisonparker3229 well if you compare the two side by side you will find lots of similarities. Putin regime is master of propaganda, they are super autocratic, they are super nationalistic, they dream of the so called Russkiy mir, they had a similar operation to Operation Himmler, they tried Blietzgrieg as a tactic at the first stage of the war and the list goes on and on and on. So i see lots of similarities between the two.
@@TK-lv9sc for something I can see is it only Nazi Germany? why you can't just say Putin just want USSR back? Since you Insist similarities is there any war before they invaded? If USSR didn't even exist they may war but not as big as WW2. Do they have Treaty of Versailles like situation? Do they need to pay reparations? This is the second Rusviet invasion of Ukraine last time 1917-1921 (doing the same playbook) and Hitler is still in the making of his NSDAP. dekulakization and Tsar Loyalist are hunted within Russia. You only see small similarities but where is the bigger differences? You just want straight up to the point that Rusviet is Nazi even they want Communism back. NSDAP first goal is to eliminate Communism and USSR wants to eliminate Capitalism and Nazism as they say. I think you are the troll who also trying hard to fuse the name of Putin and Xi Like Putler or Xitler. It's like to distract people to what Communism is and distract people for current genocide by using other dictators from past, you know what you just want they're ass saved from antagonization.
Why did NATO continue? Because the Bear hibernate and when it rises from it's slumber, it is angry and hungry. A great many nations would count as once bitten, twice shy.
The answer to why nato is still around is super straight forward, it is still around due to instability in eastern Europe with the fall of the soviet union. What is going to today just continues to reinforce this point, Russias opposition to NATO is only due to the Russian government attempting to still look relevant to their backers and to some extent their citizens.
NATO made Russia a threat, not the other way around. NATO was threatening Russia and expanding to their borders long before Russia had any military capability and political will to do anything about it. Russia tried to build good relations with NATO, and a common security structure, but were denied at every attempt. NATO only respects hard power, and the Russians awoke to this reality, that's why we are in the present situation
For the boxing analogy: if the other guy had a heart attack because NATO forced him to overexert him self that's still a proper win. Maybe not as dramatic as a KO punch but it's still showing how was the better one in the ring and who could go the distance. Personally I think that's an even great win, it took less than an all out fight and a KO to take out the USSR. The USSR was so weak it shouldn't have been in the ring in the first place.
Firstly, the idea that NATO was ever a real aggressive threat to Russia simply has no legs. What scenario could ever justify the risk of all out nuclear war that NATO unilateral aggression on Russia would more than likely provoke. Second, everyone knows that Ukraine could not join NATO without solving the Crimea issue and the existing conflict with Russia first, this is a patent fact and only common sense. That is why the door has remained closed, effectively Russia had the upper hand holding Ukraine hostage by taking Crimea early on. In any case the imaginary scenario that Putin raises is just that, imaginary, and only intended as propaganda against NATO. Thirdly, a point most people miss about NATO expansion, is that the bigger NATO gets, the more impotent it gets with regards to being able to take aggressive actions, or anything other than enforcing article 5. The expansion also takes away risk of conflict between members states by locking in borders, and therefore is a greater force for peace in that way. In an ideal world it would be best to actually have had Russia join NATO..
NATO is effectively the guarantor of peace in Europe and the EU army, freezing interstate conflicts within the EU. It's value is significant and defensive as has been said. There may have been a failure by diplomats and a failure by all sides (due to paranoia) to understand NATO and to react to NATO (and conversely NATO reaction to Soviet and later Russian actions) in unhelpful manners that caused grievances to be accumulated but most people who are against NATO don't really seem to understand it's purpose in providing for the security and prospecrity for the part of Europe already in NATO, it's very much the superstructure or structure aboe the nation state that holds the EU states in perpetual peace.
The deal in the 1990s was a united Germany in NATO and no NATO expansion. NATO did not keep its word (even George Kennan was against NATO expansion), Russia feels insecure, UK and US is happy to keep Europe fragmented, so now we have war :(
I haven't listened to the whole video yet so I apologize if my comment is somewhat of an aside, but I really want to remind everybody that NATO didn't necessarily want to expand but the recently freed former Soviet satellite countries which directly experienced the Russian boot run like crazy to join NATO for the sake of protection from Russians in communist or any other form. As it turned out being a member of NATO might be protecting these countries from a direct attack by Putin, so NATO is very relevant. It might be the only force for freedom that can stand up to the Russians and Chinese. Russian have lost most of the friends they had in Ukraine. By the way, most of the Russian citizens in former Soviet republics were put there by force and represented an attempt to destroy the identity of these nations. They tried to do this to Poland during the partitions by not permitting any Polish to be spoken or Polish culture to be studied or discussed. It didn't work. Russia doesn't work. It only creates enemies from those it controls by force.
I recently watched old news reports of yhe chernobyl accedent. Even the BBC said chernobyl was in russia. Its amazing that they couldnt tell the difference between russia and ukraine
@@kabardinka1 Interesting. Here in Germany we always use the definite article with Ukraine. ( Along with Sudan, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Oman, Turkey, Iraq)
In my opion. It was the EU eastern expation that was a treat to Russia. Not NATO. One example would been , that this war started with Ukraine trying to apply for EU membership.
I will listen to this later at work, but I think before that we can all see by the actions of a certain former great power that NATO is still very much needed. And personally, I'd love to see Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, Israel, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and pretty much any nation that likes the idea of freedom for the people, to join in.
One day China will offer "defensive alliance" to countries in the western hemisphere. It will offer humanitarian assistance and regional stability with this alliance like NATO. We will see how the US will react then.
It's unlikely to happen. The only reason the U.S is involved in NATO is because the U.S had to bail Europe out in 2 World Wars. The U.S was the only nation in the world, after WW2, that could provide protection for Europe. This isn't the case anymore. What will China provide that the U.S doesn't? It may be popular with Dictatorships like Belarus, Russia, or Turkmenistan, but not with Free nations. Maybe you are talking about Latin America? That's even less likely. The Americas are impoverished, but not war torn. The U.S doesn't threaten countries with Invasion for territory. There has been U.S intervention, certainly, but never for territorial conquest like Putin is currently doing. Not to mention the close relationship many Latin American nations have with the U.S. Personally, I have many family in Meixco and have lived there myself. There is very little, if any, bad opinions of the U.S.
@@FloofyMinari "US to 'Respond Accordingly' If China Sets up Base in Solomon Islands" - Western hypocrisy on Ukraine shown in Single Headline. Solomon Islands is 11,000 kms from the US and 2,000 kms from Australia and still cannot enter in to a security agreement with China. But the US and their Western puppets expects Russia not to react if NATO is extended to Russian border !! Ukraine is sovereign enough to choose its destiny but the Solomon Islands aren't ?? Apparently that principal doesn't apply, if you are the US or Western puppets of the US. Don’t be surprised if there’s a colour revolution to change the government in the Solomon Islands. The hypocrisy of the West is beyond belief !! "The US doesn't threaten countries with invasion" is the joke of the millennium 😂. Tell that to Iraqis, Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Cubans and other innumerable countries invaded by the US.
@@redred7289 My comment was all about Western hypocrisy. It's already happening with Solomon Islands. Even though the island is 11,000 kms away from the US and 2,000 kms away from Australia, the US said future Chinese base is a security threat to them. But NATO military bases right at the Russian border is not a threat to Russia. Isn't ironic?
@@redred7289 Essentially you are telling that wars for resources waged by the US and their Western puppets are good and this one war waged by Russia is bad. How convenient for you right? You should really go to Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, Libya, Haiti, Grenada and numerous other countries invaded by the US and tell their citizens that.
@@redred7289 US also conquered lot of territories. Hawaii was one of them. Did you forget about Manifest Destiny? Just because it happened in the 19th and 20th Century doesn't mean the US has any moral high ground. I don't blame you for defending the West. Selective use of International law & morality ONLY against opponents is a hallmark of the West.
To be honest, I find all the 'Threat' theories very ridiculous. When talking about conflict of interest between nuclear powers, it just makes no sense to say some other power is a threat to its sovereignty, especially when one have half of the global nuclear arsenal. This sort of reasoning only lead to irrational policies and a warped perception to geopolitical realities.
It is not really irrational. Nuclear power have problem with strength projection. For example, your nuke can only damage other if you can reach them with ALL your nuke.
I think nato will continue to exist in some form in the near future. It will find short term reasons to exist however so long as russia and nato countries continue to remain adversarial toward each other nato will exist. Since it seems to be an alliance against Russia specifically and not just confined to the Soviet Union it’s very clear that Russia was the main country of concern. Nato as seen in the current conflict seems to have no interest in striking against Russia first however could retaliate if a nato country as attacked. Nato especially from the Eastern European perspective (Baltic states and a few others) see a need for nato and honestly judging by how the Russian governments has been acting toward Ukraine I don’t blame them for having a desire for the alliance to exist.
Excellent analysis david. 3 questions please.1. Do you think the situation in ukraine might escallate in a wwiii? 2. How you interprete the pro russian stance of hungary and the neutrality of turkey? 3. All these year in europe apart from france greece uk and poland the rest kof the countries did not invest in military. Will this change? Will we focus again in security and change the liberal mentality?
Well by now the war is Ukraine is de-escalating, it started as a full scale invasion of the entire country, now it’s limited in the eastern part of the country. Russians probably realized that they’re not able to conduct a conventional war and so they backed up to easier targets. It would be interesting to see if in the next months, with Russia probably esker than now, Georgia and Moldova would like to try to retake Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, if there is one moment to do it, it is now.
@@theodorossarafis7370 well geographically speaking(and purpose speaking) it de-escalated, now Russians are only focusing on the east (and south) and they realized they can’t throw down the government.
@@TrassseB turkey supports both parties. It allowed for example the russian fleet from syria to cross the bosporus but denied nato vessels. It sold uav to ukraine but denied to provide the secrets to putin. We will see what will happen because when you play with matches you do get burned
If nothing else, maybe NATO has helped prevent smaller regional wars between its members and their various neighbors. Either way, thank you for another interesting video! Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you, friends. ✝️ :)
If NATO is or was a threat to Russia depends... it was a threat to Russia maintaining its sphere of influence, demonstratibly so even, which from a Russian point of view would be a threat, especially in the light of the various invasions they had to endure on their western borders. But I'd also argue that is based on a way of thinking which has been outdated for quite some time now. As to NATO plans for attacking Russia... as in, potentially wanting to do so.. I haven't heard of such, but close to the defeat of Germany, some of the founding members of NATO did consider the idea more seriously. But more to the point, would Ukrainian membership of NATO cause serious problems for Russia, with implications for their national security? Yes, for at least 2 reasons, which are closely related. Sevastopol's naval base, and the sea of Azov giving entry to the deep water channel system of western Russia, which is vital to Russia. It not wanting an alliance it doesn't trust, to have significant control over either seems to make a lot of sense, and the risk of that happening makes for a threat to Russia. In fact, it does make sense for them to really want to ensure they can completely trust those in control there. And for the record, no, that all does not justify this invasion or anything which came with that, it doesn't make Russia 'right', but it does mean any long term solution for Ukraine will have to consider this perception and the reasons for it.
@@yohaneschristianp I was not talking about 'right', re-read my coment. But as to both cases, the UN disagrees with your statement. The neighbors of Lybia disagree with your statement, and also that was not a 'NATO' action, but an action in which NATO among many others participated. It is also a situation about which Russia keeps crying and lying because they rather happily supported a murderous dictator there. Serbia.. they should have stayed the f*ck out of Bosnia, and not have involved themselves in genocide, and they'd have a leg to stand on here. You may not like them having gotten bombed, but you are speaking out on behalf of murderers and rapists, and calling it 'not right' to try to stop them. You really should put a little more thought into that, and get your information from some other place than the Kremlin and its agents.
in my eyes,NATO survived,because the US needed the bases in europe (remember IRAQ '91) and countries like Holland,Germany and maybe others were simply to stingy to keep the armies they had.
Reforger comments unclear, in 86 I was stationed in Baumholder West Germany and the equipment was prepositioned the airlift was for the troops only. Not both. Love the show. Dave's not home.
There's a series of lectures from a former NATO civil servant about the history of the alliance and he talks about NATO being at first more important to get European countries cooperating to implement the Marshall Plan. Could you say something about that? Prof. Ian Shapiro on the Yale Open Course "Politics and Power in Today's World" mentions NATO expansion was driven by the needs of the US (specially after 2001) both in domestic politics and foreign military actions. (around episode 14-16) Even Ukraine, curiously, sent troops to Iraq in 2003.
I am currently on holiday in Sofia, Bulgaria. People are obviously scared. I do hope Nato leaders (especially the US) read this: countries like Bulgaria need help. There is the obligation of 2% GDP toward the military, but these countries simply cannot commit to it due to financial reasons. Please, invest. These countries are the first line of defense. I love Bulgaria since coming here on holiday and I would happily move here. With love, from the UK 🇬🇧.
Love the content, hate *hate* the background techno-zither noise. When the main audio is talking, mixing noise in the background is nonsensical. How is supposed to help viewers and listeners?
I find it interesting that Putin made the statement that Ukraine could "take Crimea back." I thought he claimed that it was part of Russia the whole time?
I seem to remember that for a brief time after the Soviet Union collapsed there was talk of admitting them to nato. I don't know if that would have been beneficial in the long run or not but it seems likely that that would have prevented the conflict in Ukraine.. but I'm no expert. And I doubt any of us here are blessed with a second sight
Russia wouldnt join, if they were considered on the same basis as "lesser" nations by Russian standards, and thus they dropped... It was a Russian decision, not NATO...
I dont think russia under putin or anyone would join even now. First it would have to democratize and massively reform internally to have a relatively clean government. Then it would have to reporient its whole military doctrine to that of nato, and effectively waste away old assets that dont fit the nato doctrine (needed for cooperation), while also losing its distinct part of the global arms market. As an example, russian arms and tanks use different calibres and have totally different philosophies.
Well yes, but nato said to Russia that some criteria had to be met in order to adhere and apparently Russia didn’t like that, as far as I know Putin believed he only had to ask.
Putin tried to join NATO but my government said Russia can protect itself which is true but in the end nato's just one of many ways for us to extract money from our European colonies
Your analogy of the boxing match is a bit flawed and weak, honestly. Think of it more as two boxers hyping up for a fight that never actually gets booked, but one guy gets so far into the head of the other that he up and retires. The US and NATO didn't exactly psych out the USSR, but they definitely played a long game of goading the Soviets into spending and over-extending way beyond their means. Yeah, the West absolutely gets to call that a win as well we should. The only problem is that the doomed bloc on the other end managed to infect our own body politic, media, and academic institutions with subversive elements that have done a good job of eroding us from the foundation upward.
Alliance only applies to Europe/ Atlantic region. Defense of the colonies etc. was not included in the charter. At the start of the NATO in 1950"s there where a lot of european members with colonies all around the world.
NATO's issue with attacking Russia will be the same as with Napoleon, Ludendorff, Hitler and so many other invaders: where do you stop to declare victory?
Well id rather say, problem is Russias nuclear stockpile and active nuclear weapons Today we have spycrafts, satalittes A war against Russia probobly wouldnt be out of Hitlers playbook, but rather small mobile armies with to capture and more easily surround enemies and capture keypoints, with Satallites and such it is easily possible to find location of troop gathering In keeping occupied territory probobly wouldnt been part of the plan, just captured cities and nuclear stockpiles Sure there is also problem with the cold, but ppl that goes into the military are at some point tought to deal with the cold, and previous armies that has gone into Russia has not been properly defended against the cold, Hitler sent his men into Russia on their summer clothes
There is a power vaccum at the collapse of USSR, but more importantly NATO forms part of security contract between Europe and US. While Russian did feature prominently at NATO's inception, it was the outsourcing of European security that kept it together and bonded it tightly to the United States
Keep in mind it’s because of organizations like NATO places like Abkhazia and Transnistria will only stay partially recognized nations even though their population wants freedom!
@@sharwama992 what about us Iraqis I know nato didn’t invade at the begging but they were nato nations that attacked us in 2003 later on nato came over started ethnic and sectarian conflict then created corrupt weak government that only benefited the us petro dollar and left and Syria too Yemen crisis is sponsored by nato weapons to dictatorships of course Afghanistan too Somalia Sudan Mali all nato nations
seemed no mention of NATO's breaking of Gorvachev's Common European Home of a neutral buffer zone was promised to Russia if they disbanded USSR Sattelite States and allowed them freedoms, instead of violent oppressing like in the past. Russia kept up their end of the deal, until now with Ukraine, but USA broke the promise long ago with Clinton and Bush and Obama's NATO expansions. The old USSR states were supposed to remain neutral. And Russia has been invaded so many times in the past thru Poland makes them paranoid. Seems to give a good view of a more authentic Western viewpoint, but i feel there is not enough showing of full context of an Eastern viewpoint either. How would the people of Serbia would feel u say NATO is defensive and the reason for offense was humanitarian "human rights" is why Yugoslavia was bombed? Some Easterners right-wing and left-wing from Serbia would think this is a joke statement. Though even in Serb there is still quite a bit of the right-wing that wants to join NATO. At the same time they are split in that left-wing and right-wing both also despise NATO from the offensive bombings.
That's Serbia. Poland, Romania, Czechia, and all the rest of the warsaw pact bar Hungary are even more supportive of Ukraine than most western NATO countries including America, if you judge by per capita not total support. And Russia literally has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Unless nuclear weapons suddenly become obsolete, which is pretty laughable, noone is going to be game enough to risk total destruction by invading them. Moscow, St Petersburg, and Vladivostok are not going to see foreign bombs again. Russia does not need a buffer zone; it has Tsar Bomba. TL'DR Serbia is not Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation is not the Russian Empire.
What was the attempt of Russia to become a member of NATO all about? Was it a serious request or was it to be denied which then makes NATO the responsible party or to achieve some other goal? I know the US opposed their membership from the start; how did the other NATO members react?
I fully agree with you on the attempts in the 90's by Russia to join NATO and democratization. Russians had asked for help after the fall of the USSR but much of the West delighted in the fall and tried it seems to want Russia to fail. Clinton, especially fought any type of Russian participation with NATO and placed Russia in a lover's position. Putting used this embarrassment to take the reins of Russia. How different it could have been.
No it wasn't genuine attempt to join Atleast...hmm let me put it that way The reason why Russia didn't join in the end is that they expected special privilages, they didn't want to be treated as equal with the rest but as superior and still hold their influence sphere over Eastern Europe
To join NATO means you have to agree to certain principals, like Democracy among others. Having Putin's Russia join NATO would be like having the fox guard the chickens. Read the requirements to join NATO and you can answer your own question.
@@bretedwards2899 he was referring to Yeltsin who was democratic elected inn Russia and funded by USA. His request to let Russia join NATO failed which made him look like a incompetent fool which allowed Putin to seize power.
Great idea for a show, enjoyed it. Of course, any experienced observer in these nations had a good chance to be deeply skeptical that Russia has ever had the capacity and will required to become a peaceful republic. Or that other dictatorships would not eventually form and aggress in Europe.
I noticed more stuttering when speaking about NATO than about USSR though. Still excellent and avoided some politically correct pit traps in the talking points.
One only needs to look at the past of NATO with all these men such as Hans Speidel, Adolf Heusinger, Friedrich Guggenberger, Hennig Strumpell, Franz Josef Strauss. NATO is no longer a defensive alliance but an offensive military alliance and its scope is not just limited to NATO member countries but has interfered in countries such as Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Bosnia and Herzegovina to name a few. Instead of being disbanded after the collapse of the USSR and being integrated into UN peacekeeping, it now has ulterior racist motives. NATO has supported Azov for several years now. The former leader of Azov, Andrew Biletsky had said in 2010 that the nation’s mission was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans]”. So NATO is, basically, there to protect the racial hagemony and imperialism of the whites in western countries, and continue to dominate and exploit the global south.
Whataboutism All the countries you named were/are total shitholes ruled by dictators and/or in the State of Civil war Are you really trying to say we should feel bad because NATO bombed Serbia or Libya, a war criminals and a dictator ? You must be delusional
Russian troll, maybe if Communist Serbia, Afghanistan and Libya did not murder their citizens or neighbors to stay in power, they would not have any problems.
I guess that it was not humanitarian action by NATO when they encouraged Turkey to invade Cyprus in 1974!!! Article 5 of the alliance was forgotten in that case for reasons i am sure that are known to you too! All i want to say is that a military alliance is just what the name says! Military alliance! Most of the times it serves the political interest of the big countries! All that the smaller countries can do is ...choose side! This is country politics after all and as a Greek i know it well. Keep up the good work!!!
Thing is, Cold War isn't really a winnable thing, it ends when it ends, no one really won the Cold War, Soviet Union collapsing is often seen as a defeat, but it is rather the end of a unsustainable system
But the missiles in the 1960's had a much shorter range than they do now. Also, missiles can be launched from submarines now. So it is not about missiles. Whether a missile is launched France or UK, or a submarine just off shore versus being launched from Ukraine ( of any of the Baltic States, do not forget the Baltic States are NATO) would not make much of a difference. So this should not be about the possible location of NATO missiles in Ukraine
@@joek600 The difference response time for missiles in Poland, the Baltic states, or from a submarine in the Black Sea versus being anywhere in Ukraine will be be negligible or non-existent. Remember, Estonia is not that far from St Petersburg (headquarters of the Russian Navy). And the plans are just as open form the Baltic States as they are from Ukraine, is it not?
@@joek600 Do really think that having or not having missiles in Ukraine would make any difference to MAD? You bots are getting ridiculous. Go get better training from your Russian masters.
Maybe my question seems stupid, but... would no depend the future of NATO on how the current war develop or end? And anther question: What about the southern flank, Turkey, Greece?
I'm happy you guys are doing this... All the Ukraine War stuff on RU-vid tends to have a "Russia vs. Ukraine" or a "Russia bad. Only Russia bad. Why are you looking elsewhere, I SAID RUSSIA BAD!" vibe. Now when covering NATO operations 1991-2014, this tells a much needed side not so much *justifying* Russian aggression but definitely helps fill in how this devolved to where they are now.
If the other guy falls over dead from a heart attack because your cardio is so robust that keeping up with you exhausted him to death... then, yes, you won the fight.
Increasing the armaments of one’s own nation invites other nations to do likewise, and this goes on until at last this striking overemphasis on armaments warps the economy and society beyond their limits and causes the collapse of the nation itself. This gives rise to one of history’s universal ironies: a nation destroyed by the will to defend itself …; When societal inequities go unaddressed, when armaments are needlessly multiplied, when their power is abused-internally, to suppress the people; externally, to invade other countries-that nation is on the road to destruction. This is a provable historical fact. Ever since the emergence of modern nations, lawless acts of invasion have inevitably invited defeat and destruction-not for the invaded country, but for the invading one. Tanaka, Yoshiki. Legend of the Galactic Heroes, Vol. 3: Endurance [1984]
