Why Every NATO Member Joined (And Why Everyone Else Hasn't)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 เม.ย. 2024
- Check out my new book "What Caused the Russia-Ukraine War": amzn.to/3HY5aqW. You can also read it for free by signing up for a Kindle Unlimited trial at amzn.to/3QMsBr8. (These are affiliate links, meaning I earn a commission when you make a transaction through them. This means that even if you read for free, you are still supporting the channel.)
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most powerful alliance in the world. Some of the reasons countries do or do not join are straightforward. But others are downright bizarre. This video explains them all, including how the pyramid schemes and the word "North" kept two countries out for years.
0:00 NATO: The World's Most Powerful Alliance
0:31 The Origins of NATO: "Keeping the Russians Out"
1:35 The Founding Members of NATO and Cold War Additions
4:02 Post-Cold War Expansion
6:44 The North Macedonia Naming Dispute
7:34 Geographic Restrictions
8:58 NATO Opponents
10:22 Neutral States
11:36 Microstates
11:59 Instability and Conflict
Images licensed under CC BY 2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
From 7th Army Training Command:
flickr.com/photos/7armyjmtc/2...
flickr.com/photos/7armyjmtc/1...
flickr.com/photos/7armyjmtc/1...
flickr.com/photos/7armyjmtc/1...
flickr.com/photos/7armyjmtc/1...
flickr.com/photos/7armyjmtc/1...
flickr.com/photos/7armyjmtc/2...
From U.S. Secretary of Defense:
www.flickr.com/photos/secdef/...
www.flickr.com/photos/secdef/...
Images licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Germany (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
From Bundesarchiv:
www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/...
www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/...
www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/...
www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/...
www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/...
www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/...
www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/...
Images licensed under CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/...
From Kremlin.ru:
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
Photo of Transnistrian parade courtesy of Government of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic.
if NATO chose to reform to include states like Australia and Japan they could be called the "Pacific Ocean & Trans Atlantic Treaty Organization" or POTATO for short.
🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔
lets goo potato alliance
Potato alliance is best alliance.
they shouldn’t reform. leave them out
POE
TAY
TOE
ALLIANCE.
The reason NATO is not including Japan, Australia, New Zealand is that it would transform it into Trans-Oceanic Treaty Organization. And TOTO would be into Africa too.
Hurry boy, she's waiting there for you!
It’s gonna take a lot to drag me away from youuuuuuuu
Liberia and morroco
Intellectual dad joke you've got there, i love you long time.
pure gold! bravo!
There's something that's honestly so tragicomical about how pretty much every single post-Warsaw pact country immediately flocked to NATO as soon as they were free from Soviet influence.
Former Warsaw Pact nations to russia: You solely are responsible for this.
All that American nationalists are asking is thatvourv
Nato "allies" raise their defense spending up to close to the 3.5% of GNP we are spending. Is that too much to ask?
In the 90's, the russian aggression against Moldova, Georgia and Chechnya made NATO very popular in many former Warsaw-pact countries.
@@johnshelton1141what the fuck are you talking about about, John?
I love how the first secretary general of NATO was like, "The Germans are madmen and we're all fucked if we can't control them. Oh yeah also Russia."
*Putler is acting more like Hitler than any other modern figure. PUTLER is a fitting nick-name for him*
@@johnslugger facts
@John Slugger you ment to say biden
@@ParasiteEve66 Okay vatnik
@@extazy9944Not a single fact 💀
I wouldn't say Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia wanting to join NATO was that surprising to Russia. Those three was where demonstrations to leave the USSR was the strongest, because they viewed themselves under occupations rather than Soviet Socialist Republics. After WWII, the Red Army had to fight 30K Lithuanian partisans, 10K Estonian partisans, and 10K Latvian partisans until 1956. Not to mention the big Baltic Way peaceful protest on August 23, 1989 where two million people formed a human chain from Tallinn to Vilnius. They were the first three nations to leave the Soviet Union
WHY ARE YOU EVERYWHEREE
Imagine passing a message from person to person along that 2million person line
Not partisans. Remnants of nazi collaborators.
@@Treasure_hunter_21 not everyone who dont want be russian slave is nazi, is just normal person
@@dddominik8225 svale? Youre funny one. Those 'partisans' are forest brothers. Do you know that wast majority of their victims were not even red army soldiers but local civilians that suffered under nazis and wished to live in peace. No surviving nazis are paraded as heroes despite the fact that those heroes commitet crimes against them. I gues youre not aware that baltic states membership in ussr were their golden age. Most of their economic, educational and cultural infrastructure was build on ussr's dime. In fact until the very end of ussr their economies were subsidized. Such a terrifying thing ussr did to their 'slaves'. And now these free people choose a new masters in eu and nato and look whats happening to them. Their populations steadily decressing (mainly due population leaving for other eu countries), their economies crumble (tnx to eu and nato for that), their infrastructute is deteroating ( many elecrical plants were shotdown due to eu regulations and etc). But hey they free to hate russia and only that.
Their leashes dont allow much else.
Albania had left the Warsaw pact since the 60s, as a sign of protest against the Chzechoslovakian invasion by USSR & co. So Albania was not the last but the first to abandon Warsaw pact.
Hoxha like Tito the only Communist leaders who really cared about their people though Czechs and Hungarians also had good leaders until they were squashed by the Red Fascists in '56 & '68.
@@kevinwarburton2938 but albania was like a fortress, the N.Korea of Europe, while Yugoslavia was a prosperous country opened to each side.. They had the best passport in the world, needing a visa for only 5 (later 4) countries in the world
Albania left mostly because Hoxha believed that the USSR had become too revisionist
The URSS was wanted a buffer zone. It was not afraid of Tito or even Hodja nor Ceaucescu or the Bulgarian king, and Stalin tried to cultivate non-communist buffer states at first, but such states showed a tendency of sliding into the anti-soviet camp. Thus around 1948 the USRR began fostering communist puppets everywhere.
Yes Warsaw pact not been alive since Soviet Union got destroid and its only member today would be Russia and Belarus, when Belarus is Russia only friend in Europe.😂 Russia could just claim Belarus its own territory, when Belarus leader is so close friends with Russia and then Warsaw pact would have no other memebers, than only lonely Russia itself.😂
Austria is maybe not in the official NATO, but the country is (like many other countries that are not members of NATO) in the _Partnership for Peace_ (PfP) which is sometimes called _mini NATO_ since many states comply with NATO standards and they are allowed to send troops for peace support operations.
Russia was also part of that…
Obviously, helping Ukraine is not searching for peace by Austrian standards…
@@ciarypowykonie3096 I'm not sure what you want to say here. My best guess is that the help of Ukraine by the Austrian government lacks behind others.
If so in short: Yes and No.
Austria "hides" behind it's status of _everlasting neutrality_ (which was a key component for the conduct of Vienna that freed Austria from allied and russian forces in 1955). Since they declared itself neutral sending weapons like eg. tanks or artillery shells is a big no go in Austria. But "protective" non-leathal equipment (like helmets) and civilian aid has been sent.
It's a clever way to pretend Russia isn't surrounded and that China isn't fucked if it starts a war.
"We're not NATO members, we're NATO _partners._ "
@@KuruGDIAustria is currently strongly pro-Russian Lmao
When you manage to get both Finland and Sweden to join NATO with one military move… you know you FD up.
Russia has not FD up. Russia is triumphant. The one keeping F up is all of Europe. Great move right to have your "friend" blow up Nordstream and shut down normal relations with Russia, right??. Africa is not keen on trading with us, the muslim arabs not so much. China is not very happy with the USA on Taiwan. Europe has no friends really and it is quite understandable. Europeans today are neither independent nor constructive. Wish I lived in Russia / Sweden
8:25 it should be noted, Australia is a NATO Partner, just not a NATO Member.
Australia was also invited to attend the NATO summit. Australia has worked with NATO to a level no other non-NATO member has.
True. I feel like Australia (And to a lesser extent New Zealand), are honorary members anyways, due to them being part of the Commonwealth of Nations.
The key distinction between being a NATO member and being a partner is that the latter doesn't commit a nation to going to war under Article 5. That isn't critical. Australia isn't going to be of much assistance if Russia attacks Poland. It is too far away. But being a partner does mean NATO and Australia have taken steps to work together should the need arise anywhere in the world.
Armenia is also a NATO Partnership for Peace member
@@bluepeng8895 That doesn't mean much, because so was Russia.
@@Inkling777This is true in a technical sense. Several mutual defense treaties exist between the commonwealth nations. If the UK gets dragged into a war because Russia invades Poland, you can bet Australia and New Zealand would get involved. A more likely scenario would be if China and the USA come to blows and NATO ends up at war with China. Australia has been the USA’s most consistent ally in the 20th century being an ally in every war the USA has fought since WW1. For those who are wondering how this is true, as many would assume Canada would be our closest ally, Australia, unlike Canada, actively participated in the Vietnam War.
It's easy to undervalue what an important shift this is for Sweden. It has been neutral longer than even Switzerland (although the latter is more known for it). This is a huge change.
I thought the Turks don’t want them in because they’ve helped/sympathetic to the Kurds…
@@johnnybgood5008 they settled their differences at the latest summit
It hasn't been neutral longer then Switzerland. Switzerland has been neutral since the 30 years war when Sweden was just beginning to be an empire
@@rayzas4885 I guess it depends on your definitions. A quick google search tells me there's been policies of neutrality longer, but it was chiefly established after the Napoleonic wars, same as for Sweden. Regardless, this wasn't a comment on the Swiss, but about what a big change this really is for the latter.
It's a mistake.
From recollection, Greece wanted to join, but then because of Greece's conflict would have meant that Turkey would have drifted closer to Soviet Union if not in NATO meant Turkey must be asked to join is how that part played out. It wasn't as simple as "Greece and Turkey hopped along later for the same reasons."
😂 Idk about that but clearly they didnt want Turkiye. Turkiye wanted to enter nato from the start because of soviet threat they let us only if we send troops to korea Turkey was the 3rd country who send most troops because of that thats how we joined nato if we refused they wouldnt let us join.
@@Filo181. Greece and Turkey Joined NATO at the same time. from my understanding , the *same day*. did you think that was a co-incidence? I mean if Korea was an issue , it would have been a month apart, a year apart. etc. Europe they lead on Turkey for decades.
What are your sources? Turkey actually asked to join and was accepted considering the importance of the straits. Montreux convention already allowed Turkey to block Russian ships and NATO wanted Turkey on their side as well. Together with Greece because that would obviously release the tension between the two countries.
Finland's Neutrality was never really honest desire for neutrality but a political stance out of self preservation. People were supportive of NATO as an organization, but afraid that joining would cause conflict with Russia and sour many business dealings the country had with them (this happened anyway with all the sanctions)
Just like some of the countries never wanted to be occupied by Russia again, Finland has always been weary of Russia and preparing for a Russian invasion since WW2. War in Ukraine changed things. A lot of people started treating Russia as too unpredictable and the sham neutrality was finally thrown away. Now it is deemed risky to not join. Joining Nato became a popular option overnight, but the seeds for this attitude were always there, Russia's attack on Ukraine just caused them to finally start growing.
Финляндия была частью России более ста лет назад. Зачем сейчас РФ вторгаться в Финляндию?
@@denisroshchupkin3251
Yeah you tell me why are they making threats (particularly Lavrov) and harassing's our border with migration floods? Even before we joined NATO?
If they have no Reason to do it then why the hostility?
@@ToveriJuri migration floods?Which ones are these exactly?
Fun fact: Germany was at war with Andorra from 1914 to 1956, because noone remembered to invite Andorra to the negotiations for what would become the Treaty of Versailles. (At least i think it was Andorra, was some Microstate though)
This is why NATO is bad, since the begining is has always been with the russians out no matter what. Creating hate even for its people. This is not good. This is whyt Putin " invaded" Ukraine. and many other reasons
Might've been Liechtenstein, as it's closer to Germany?
It was Andorra. Costa Rico ended ww1 with the Germans in 1945 under the Potsdam Treaty.
@@Adcabrer How does your comment relate to what i just said? And besides, maybe the eastern bloc wouldn't have joined NATO in the first place if Russia hadn't given them all reasons to want to keep them out.
@@Chrischi3TutorialLPs that is exactly the point that keeps getting swept under the rug. They weren´t exactly bullied to become members for NATO to encroach on poor little russia. The basically busted NATO´s door in to join. because they were very sure they knew their reasons from 50 years of experience.
you forgot about the time Russia specifically asked to join NATO. it was basically a plot to get NATO to admit they were an anti-russia club and they had no intention of joining but they still applied
no they didn't. Putin joked about it multiple times but never went through the official application.
@@ragingpacifist2074 they tried to join the year after Stalin died
It was the soviet union, not russia. at least they actually had an application.
This application ought to have been mentioned, I agree. But what seems even more important to me is how Gorbachev lobbied for a NATO membership right before the fall of the Sovjet Union. This may have been the most sincere attempt by a Russian leader to overcome the conflict with the US there has ever been.
The application was sincere right after the USSR dissolved. The pro-western first Russian President wanted to join NATO to keep itself from being influenced by China. They were, however, denied, which shocked many Russian pro-western politicians and strengthened anti-west sentiments in Russia as even after all the effort to be seen as equals by the West and completely restructuring the country, the West still didn't want anything to do with the country they, essentially, dissolved.
Wow 🤯
This was such a great video! Definitely keep up the good work!
✌🏻
Very well structured and explained video. Thank you!
Didn't say much about Ukraine's relationship with NATO though...
@@hannachumakova1086 Prior to 2014 I don't think they had much relationship of note with NATO
Mexico also has a policy of non-intervention and joining a military alliance goes against that principle. The issue of joining NATO was discussed in their government before, but it didn't get far. They are however friendly with NATO.
México: we have a policy of "non-intervention"
Also Mexico: *hurr hurr I gotta save those south American Narco-presidents no matter what their governments say.... hurr hurr*
Don't think Mexico has many options if war did happen, unless they have marines in Mexico city again.
Mexico doesn't even really need to be in NATO given that the only country of significant power is the worlds most powerful military, with whom they are friendly. Any regime that threatens Mexico would be wiped off the globe. It would basically be like picking on the quarterback's little sibling.
Mexicans are really busy inside their own borders, they don't need to organize foreign intervention.
Friend but not ally is a wise choice.
I wish them the best.
I have no idea why there's such vitriol towards Mexico here in the comments. They probably would not make it into NATO due to stability reasons just because of the level of criminal activity making corruption inevitably deep- its already deep in places without that much overt organized crime. That's not to say anything bad about the Mexican people, just would be a potential liability in a military alliance. But their geographic proximity is always going to make them on NATO's "good side" because they have to be kept free of foreign forces for the safety of NATO's purse that sits right above them. So they get the benefits of NATO without having to contribute 2% of their GDP to defense.
I wish them the best and hope that we in America can change our policy on drugs so that Mexico can even have a chance to breathe and reset things.
NATO has another advantage that most people rarely think about. In a sense NATO is a European "police force" that prevents the members of NATO going to war with one another. Article 5 means that the NATO effectively police one another because any attack on one NATO country is regarded as an attack an attack on all; therefore, deterring NATO member from attacking one another. if anyone thinks this absurd consider that Greece and Turkey are both members of NATO.
Your last argument proves this wrong.
@@johndododoe1411 Because? Examples please? I am willing to change my opinion, but I need more than just someone says I am wrong or that I have contradicted my sef. Can you show me the contradiction? THere may be one I overlooked.
@@aristoclesathenaioi4939 It's even mentioned in the video. NATO accepted Greece and Turkey despite the conflict and isn't punishing them.
I think if NATO countries attacked each other they would get thrown out of NATO, not supported by the conflict.
The alliance only counts against non NATO members not between members
@@jackmckeown7601 thats wrong, it clearly states that an attack on a nato member counts as an attack against all nato members. that means if my country, germany, would invade belgium, germany would declare war against all of nato at the same time.
I would have liked to know the original founding members' motivations for joining in, other that "was part of the Allies during WWII".
For Iceland it was mostly bribes, since Iceland wasn't really a part of the Allies during WWII, just occupied by the british and then agreed to allow US forces take over from them.
Iceland declared neutrality after Denmark was invaded by the nazis, de facto ending their rule over Iceland.
Then the Brits staged the most polite invasion in world history, after Iceland refused to give up their neutrality.
After the war and when Nato was being formed, USA and the founding countries of Nato wanted Iceland, with it's strategically important location in the north Atlantic ocean, to join Nato, despite not then and not till this day having a military.
So they poured money into a tiny nation that just got their independence, through the Marshall plan, even though Iceland was largely uneffected by the war, and through establishing an army base and funding infrastructure throughout Iceland, such as roads and airports that are still very important today
That was the motivation
The motivation is to deter the soviet union from invading the rest of europe.
I mean, America is pretty easy to figure out.
5:15 It wasn't a pivot - it was a run for our lives!! And with current situation in Ukraine Baltic states not only ran from the wolf but also managed to dodge the bear in the same time..
Finland unilaterally renounced the terms of the Paris Peace Treaties in 1990. The renunciation caused no official protest from Soviet Union or Great Britain. The USA did not declare war on Finland during WW2, therefore it was not a party to the treaty. Currently, 27/30 countries have ratified Finland's NATO membership.
Finland never declared war on the USA.
Adolf and his Axis puppets DID.
Finland never joined the Axis -- by treaty or any other way. What the Finns did is grab back their own territory. [ The Continuation War. ]
Stalin had stolen their second largest city. (!!!)
[ It's gone now. No Finn would accept Stalin's offer of Soviet citizenship -- and stay behind.]
The primary reason why Stalin did not conquer all of Finland in 1944 was because Washington didn't like it. Stalin -- in 1944 -- was still too dependent upon the USA -- and its president -- to cross FDR. (Bagration was scheduled for June 22, 1944. )
(Stalin realized that the stop-line for the US Army had not been established. What if the Americans didn't stop inside Germany -- but just kept coming east? Churchill certainly would've been on board for such a trek. )
This is why Stalin had to accept the border he established at the end of The Winter War. He did bag a huge border shift up north -- the 'nickel zone.'
@@Charlie_Nice Presumably NATO wouldn't be popular if Russia had returned some of the stolen territories. Mikhail Gorbachev admitted that the USSR had been the aggressor in Finland.
@@jussim.konttinen4981 Why would one need an admission from Gorbachev to know that the Winter War was clearly an act of aggression?
@@thewafflehouse841 Are you trying to say Finland decided to join nato by itself?..These underdog countries make me laugh...😂🤣🤣🤣
@@rockmycd1319 Well, think of it as an admission to murder. While the court can sentence for murder, admitting guilt is always better. Every Finn knows who started the war and so does vast majority of the western world. With Gorbachev admitting to starting the war, Russia as the agressor state admits the fact to the world and removes any doubt about it.
There is no *NEED* for the admission, it just clears things up.
3:16 It is so wild to look at a photograph so old and then realize that Henry Kissinger (pictured in the middle, behind Nixon) is not only still alive today but still actively engaged with American politics at the age of 99.
Only the good die young. . . . evil is busy in vigorous old age.
Scary, isn't it?
these child blood drinkers... alwaýs busý... 😂
I know right! So cool! So long life and he's had so much to do!🤘🤩
@Timo Ilonen He has done more damage during those 99 years than most evil men could accomplish in 99 lifetimes.
Amazingly, his recent statements about Ukraine proxy war are sensible and should be heeded. Guess a broken clock is right twice a day!
Correction about sweden: we stopped being neutral decades ago (even if we still claimed to be), sending soldiers to sovereign soil (for "peacekeeping" - yeah right, was the intention but hardly the effect, and you cant "peacekeep" without being disneutral against some authority).
And we even _officially_ stopped calling ourselves neutral decades ago (2009).
It is also why we had such a low bar such as popular opinion being all we needed to apply for joining nato.
During WW2 your questionable double standards became obvious...
Moral superiority with skeletons in the closet seems to be a Swedish habit? 👀🤔
What a great analysis in this video! Extremely well documented, concise, unbiased, the author has done a great job. As a Romanian 🇹🇩, I find this one of the best explanation about NATO.
As a Bulgarian, I would say that Bulgaria joined NATO mainly in order to be protected from its two most powerful historical enemies - Turkey and Greece, with protection from Russia being a secondary goal at best and an unforeseen side effect or an obstacle at worst, knowing how Bulgarian politics and security and military services are, meaning heavily influenced by Russia, even to this day. While it is possible that Bulgarian politicians having seen what had happened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, may have had the foresight that Russia might one day try to go to war against its former allies or puppets, I have some serious doubts about it.
As a Greek I think Bulgaria and Greece should unite against Erdogan lol
Glad it worked out! Now Russia won't think of invading easily.
@@matrixfull bulgaria don,t even border them
@@matrixfull you only like when usa bombs countrys
@@Isrealperson48 then it shouldn't bother russia if bulgaria doesn't border them :)
Greece faced a communist insurgency and Turkey faced Soviet pressure on its northeastern border. Because they both faced similar threats at the same time, it was possible to bring them both in together, even though they are historic enemies.
Turkey should be thrown out of NATO as US threw them out of the F35 program. They're not Western, they were never reliable allies, either. Everything helped back then in 1949 being anti-Russian, but they serve no purpose anymore. Only hurdles such as, they didn't let Sweden in and recently, Finland. They see everything as Eastern Bazaar, the good Asiatic Steppe Nomads themselves they are. "Allies" to the West and to Europe in theory, only.
Nah Greece was afraid of Turkey. Turkey stayed a good ally of Russia till this day.
@@AngryAmericanWizard not esperanto 💀💀💀
@@AngryAmericanWizard oh god why would you do this to us...
@@tsifsastsifsarotatos2495 albanezo
This was great! Thanks!
Thank you very informative
I've learned a few fun rumors about why Austria wasn't split up by the Russians, some say Austria paid with oil, of which we have a bit, my favorite is that supposedly the Austrian negotiator or chancellor won a drinking contest against his Russian counterpart, of course the boring version is neutrality...
Austria had a pretty impressive plan to counter a Soviet invasion during Cold War though.
Austria was and still is a KGB headquarter. That's the only reason.
Well after WW1 there wasn't alot of Austria left to carve up.
@@handuion4539 Explain??
An Austrian explained to me that the occupation was a joint one with the U.S. making clear it wouldn't leave while the Russians remained. When I asked him what Austria's independence day was, he gave a date. When I asked why it was special, he replied that it was the day the Russians left. The Americans weren't a problem. The Russians were.
For Slovenia I think its safe to say that the referendum for NATO membership went through primarily because the government organized it on the same day that the referendum for EU membership was also held (intentionally). EU membership had a wide backing of the population (almost 90% voted in favour). Thats not to say that NATO membership referendum would not pass if held separetly but helding it together surely played in its favour big time.
I presume the genuine reason for accession was the famous article 5 of the founding treaty? Which is also the reason why other western Balkan states joined
A lot of bad news gets slipped under good news, it's a strategy that definitely works specially in a post WW2 world cause so many people prefer good news.
Maybe they held it on the same day to save money (having one referendum instead of two)...
And more people will come and cast their votes for both questions, even if they have strong opinion only for one of them.
@@NikolaProlic Which other countries of western Balkan joined in 2004? Bulgaria and Romania are not, so called western Balkan.
They stated pretty clear about both votes and we went and voted Yes for both.
Fantastic summary. Thanks
Hi Will, What an interesting take on such a mundane subject
The one aspect you didn't bring up is the Article 4 part where it doesn't really benefit non-european for joining. Cases like the Falklands War where UK fought alone because of the location thus any other nation outside are area is a moot point.
Also why NATO as a whole did not intervene in Vietnam even though technically French Indochina was French territory, though the US and a few other NATO members did end up picking up the war after France abandoned the colony and the Republic of Vietnam (aka South Vietnam) was founded.
Article 4 was pretty much added exactly for cases like Falklands War, because many founding states were worried they would be dragged into bunch of colonial conflicts, so NATO's "area of responsibility" was limited to attacks on home territories of member states.
This way, when the inevitable conflicts would rise in colonies (whenever it was some other state attacking, or colony starting a revolt) the colonial power could not demand other states to join them.
@@Mandemon1990 The part of Article 6 that I thought interesting was if there was a Pearl Harbor 2.0, it wouldn't cause a NATO action.
@@reubensandwich9249 wait whaaat??🙄
@@lubex3486 the treaty covers only member states' territories in Europe and North America, Turkey and islands in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, plus French Algeria. So technically, Hawaii would not be covered by the treaty.
East Germany didn't merge with West Germany, thus making a third, reunified country; it voted to dissolve itself as a political entity and become incorporated into the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). All treaties and memberships that West Germany was party to (NATO, UN seat, EU, ect.) were extended to it.
With the exception that the former territory of East Germany and Berlin has to remain free of nuclear weapons and foreign troops.
@@panther7748 a treaty which was just ratified again a few months prior to the Russian invasion.
Remember putins biggest "fear", as stated by himself, is that Ukraine gains access to and command over nukes in its territory.
A "fear" which ignores the simple fact that Nato nukes have not changed location within Europe since atleast the 1960s...
Meanwhile Russia has put their nukes closer to the EU since 2000... Kaliningrad houses enough nukes to destroy every EU capital within half an hour. And it is located at almost the center if Europe.
@@1996Horst I know, but that doesn't really matter. Both sides have enough intercontinental missiles to cause the destruction of the entire world.
I don't understand the difference between merged or incorporated. They became one country /state. Or not?
@@Aleksamson there are many different ways to explain it, and I could use a long wall of texts, bit the Internet provided.
Merging usually refers to combining two things to create a this thing which is bigger than each side was alone but neither side remains the same after the merger.
A tree merged with a house is a tree house.
Incorporating refers to absorbing one thing(putting one thing into another) so incorporating a tree into your house can look similar to a tree house but it isn't one. It can also just be a tree inside your house.
One side loses more than the other.
In the case of Germany a merger of the two countries would have resulted in years of legal issues (which is the main reason why it did not happen even though both sides wanted it to be a merger) and uncertainty as the two could for example not be in Nato and the Warsaw packt at the same time. Or inside and outside the European prosperity and economic zone.
So east Germany was incorporated into the west and simply ceased to exist in a legal sense. West germany remained (name, laws and treaties all almost unchanged)
btw
Finland: Recently joined
Sweden: Trying to join
Ukraine: unknown if they will join, but they want to.
Very informative video👍👍
The idea that a conflict prevents a country from joining has been voiced many times, but there is a counter-example: Turkey and Greece. They have an on-going, open-ish conflict about cyprus, and they still joined, both of them even.
So "the candidate needs stability and secure, internationally recognized borders" is not a hard criterion it seems.
EDIT: Thank you everybody for correcting me on this - Cyprus and Turkey joined _first_, and only then began their conflict, so my counter-example doesnt really work here.
The Cyprus issue isn't a territorial dispute between Turkey and Greece.
The Cyprus disputes were based on whether Cyprus’s government should be greek or turkish.
Both country’s had interests in Cyprus, the idea was using Cyprus as a puppet state to stabilize and grow the said country’s economies.
@@darth3911 That's simply untrue. Both Greece and Turkey support an independent Cyprus with both the Greeks and Turks having a say in the government.
Greece supported a Greek government at some point to annex the island, but has no such ambitions for the foreseeable future.
Turkey supported union until recently, but changed its policy to instead support division.
The only real dispute is whether power should be distributed more fairly between the communities, or according to population.
@@MimOzanTamamogullar o zaman dünyada türkiye dışında neden hiçbir ülke kktc'yi bir ülke olarak görmüyor?
@@boranates1320 KKTC ilk kurtulduğunda Pakistan ve Bangladeş KKTC'yi tanıdılar. Libya gibi bazı diğer ülkelerin de liderleri tanımaya sıcak bakan açıklamalar yaptı, tanımaları için bürokrasiden geçecek kadar zaman gerekiyordu. Ancak Birleşmiş Milletler KKTC'nin kurulması kararını kınayınca tüm o ülkeler geri adım attı.
Thank you for presenting the baltic history truthfully with no wrong hints embedded, when spending just few sentences to them in the beginning. All the necessary facts were represented that could fit in this short part.
There are so many, who emphasize different things that paints baltics into something they are not...
Russia would not try to kill people and take their land like he is doing now. Russia is a good murderer.
The whole story about the BC and Russia kinda reminds me of how Jesus acts sometimes on the Bible.
R-Come on, join my alliance.
BC-But why? Last time it didn’t end well.
R-Join my alliance so I can save you.
BC-From what? The war has ended.
R-To save you from what I’m about to do to you if you don’t join my side…
BC-I choose NATO.
Considering that Jesus was considered a savior and that Putin believers think of Russia as the “complete savior of Eastern Europe” this is a certified Russian moment.
to me the Baltic states were part of the trade system called the Hansa cities. People should think more about mutually beneficial trade networks.
@@marcdc6809 Trade networks instead of Russia killing children to steal their land. The world is not blind or stupid except the evil part.
This is why NATO is bad, since the begining is has always been with the russians out no matter what. Creating hate even for its people. This is not good. This is whyt Putin " invaded" Ukraine. and many other reasons
Thank you for this video
Super interesting history/current events lesson. Thanks 😊
Ireland benefits from NATO without being a member. They can underfund their military for generations knowing that the U.S., Canada and U.K. would defend them from Germany or Russia. They don't want to join NATO but the EU (a political organization) is ok (the UK was in the EU when Ireland joined).
Iceland is in NATO, could be considered at least a mini-state since it has no armed forces, and does quite well.
My country is in NATO but does not pull it's weight.
Finland had a treaty with the USSR but abandoned it. Austria could do the same.
NATO wouldn't need to defend Ireland from germany...because germany is in NATO
@@amckittrick7951 I meant in WW2. There was a plan for the invasion of Ireland by Fallschirmjaegers
@@timp3931 More likely, Germany would defend Ireland, as they have done with the support of Joe Biden. I think Northern Ireland belongs to the UK to keep them happy with NATO.
@@timp3931 the Plural is Jäger not Jägers bro
your unions are in shammbles, the cocaine runs dried out soon, gig is up, sssssshhhhhhh
Note that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were illegally occupied, they were always Western-aligned when they were independent.
Illegally occupied by who?
@@alexiveperez4687 Illegally occupied by the Soviet Union.
They were mostly part of the Russian Empire and thrived therein.
@@a2eoas Yes the Baltics where one after another incorporated into the Russian empire in the 18th century, but you are ignoring the much longer history with strong ties to Scandinavia and Germany going back to at least the 8th century. Even after incorporation into the Russian empire they viewed themselves as separate form the Russians, and keept their own language and continued on to use German for trade. The secession from Russia during the 1917 revolution as opposed to Belarus who continued into the establishment of the Soviet Union also emphasises that they viewed themselves as their own entities. In light of that it is not strange that parts of the poplulation views the time under the Russian Empire and under the Soviet Union as two different things.
@@kattkatt744 the Baltic nations are too small to be sovereign and attempts to refound themselves on a russophobic ideology just led to self-destruction, including loss if a third of their population. As a part of the Russian Empire they still kept their identity and were often in high positions, both under the czars and among the communists during the revolution and even after 1939.
Well done!
Regarding france leaving nato (actually the integrated command) it was also because the command structure of nato was basically only ever going to be in the hands of the US or UK, it was clear that france would never have a share of the cake which was seen as insulting. and to be honest that remains true.
The tops dogs can do as they please. The US wanted Ukraine in Nato since 2008?, but they never got their wish. All it takes is 1 member state to say no. So, do the top dogs always get their wish?
Although France wanted nuclear weapons as some of their scientists helped with the Manhattan Project and were close to perfecting the technology themselves. Most NATO members didn't want every country to have nuclear weapons so they opposed a France nuclear program.
Why does France think it's still important? The French stopped being relevant awhile ago and no amount of nostalgia for the good old days will make it relevant again.
Also let's not forget that the French basically surrendered during WW2. Why should I, a Romanian living right next to the conflict zone in Ukraine, be willing to let the French have a say? Especially the way the French are treating the conflict. I honestly wouldn't mind France and Germany just leaving NATO for good. Unfortunately for me, that wont happen. After all NATO is not only about the military alliance, but about the trade nodes as well.
@@Zait2009 France being be second only to the us in western military power and having an active sphere of influence in west Africa and southern Europe is worth nothing in relevance to you ? Maybe if the world was centered around your belly button, thankfully it's not.
Btw do you know who's troops are stationed in romania to act as a tripwire to prevent Russia from getting silly ideas ? Who is actually supporting Greece against Turkey's belligerent ambitions ? Oh yeah no right, the story of the world stopped in 1940...
@@Zait2009 So you would not mind two of the strongest NATO economies and armies to just leave the alliance while it is directly threatened by the Russians? Romania is welcome to go war with Russia if it thinks it can with, but as far as actual security goes, we need a strong NATO, and that means with France and Germany, not without.
You should mention as well that Communist Albania did exit Warsaw pact in the 70s. So probably is one of the few examples of a country in modern times exiting such pacts.
They exit in 1961 and formally from 1965.
Only to become even more totalitarian and becoming an ally of Mao's china.
I think the dispute over the name also had economic reasons, saying products made in Macedonia or business located in Macedonia meant two completely deferent things.
Great video. Thank you! :D
Extremely useful and clarifying. Thank you.
As a kid growing up in the South East Asia Country of Laos, my dream was one day Laos is to be a part of NATO (French called it OTAN, Laos at the time of my young education, we were learning French)
Now as an old American Asian guy, I thank you for clarify why Laos can’t be part of it thus put my closure to an end.
Phew…if I didn’t get this clip…I would go to heaven/hell unsatisfied
Turkey is also far from the North Atlantic, I think you should still join
Cursed comment ngl XD
Turkey is not far from Russia/ satellite territories and nclaves
@@marcdc6809 The Mediterranean Sea is _part_ of the north Atlantic Ocean in the same way that the Caribbean Sea and Baltic Sea are. Turkey is on the Mediterranean. In contrast, landlocked countries in Europe and countries that only border the Black Sea like Bulgaria and Romania don't touch the North Atlantic.
This is why NATO is bad, since the begining is has always been with the russians out no matter what. Creating hate even for its people. This is not good. This is whyt Putin " invaded" Ukraine. and many other reasons
12:53 on the contrary, there are 6 georgias, a south georgia, and a strait of georgia. Additionally, nato's member countries have produced 1 movie named georgia, a tv show named state of georgia, 3 albums named georgia (and one named macon, georgia), and 10 songs named georgia.
Among them, they also have a submarine named the USS Georgia and a university named university of georgia
Very informative..
Japan is an unofficial member... effectively they are in close relations with NATO and benefit from it and contribute to it as a member, as well as mutual defense agreements. Effectively if NATO ever changed the requirement for a country to be in geographical Europe, Japan would be one of the first countries on the admissions list if not retroactively made a member.
Yep,
Japan
Philippines
South Korea
Taiwan (if there’s ever an official recognization)
Maybe even countries like Mexico and Chile
The issue with Japan joining NATO is that they're very adiment on being pacifist. They might want the protection but there's no way they would go to war for another country.
@@bigmoon5562 ehh that’s adjust some recently. Look at comments about China invading Taiwan.
@@bigmoon5562 like David Radtke said, they have adjusted some, and are looking to adjust further and contribute more to the alliance in the future. They will still focus mostly on a defensive roll, but with China being the way it is right now... yah, they get it, time to arm up.
The US and Pacific countries that have common interests in peace need a different organisation than NATO, having 30 countries in can be problematic as we see with Turkey's horse trading over Sweden & Finland about people granted asylum there. That's despite the massive stability improvement on the Baltic flank, so behind the scenes Erdogan's Turkey must be trying the patience of the states committed to defending the region, while Turkey has the luxury of a shield to pursue its own interests.
Most of the European countries simply have no way to help defend Japan or S. Korea; despite the video creator's opinion NATO countries cut back defence massively post-USSR and have been relectuctant to increase spending to match Putin's growing aggression. If NATO were truly maintaining an aggressive posture against Russia, Putin couldn't have taken the risks he has done, nor indulge in side diplomacy with Turkey.
Those outside NATO countries seem to often confuse the "western countries" which includes Japan & S.Korea, NATO defence alliance and past action by coalitions of the willing. When Article 5 was triggered after 9/11, countries aid to defend the US was a matter of interpretation, it didn't commit members to invaiding Afghanistan.
Well done. Great job, mate.
good explanation of a complex subject. army germany 71-74 only thing about NATO we encountered was guarding the special weapons @ NATO 23, 2 hours on 4 hours off for 3 days. fun times.
Honeslty I was so curious why that country was called "North Mazedonia" but now it all makes sense! Thanks
Macedonia*
Attitudes in Ireland to neutrality have become strained since the Russo Ukraine War.
Traditionally Irish people are against NATO wars with many protests through the years at the US and British embassies. The Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) said we don't need a referendum to join NATO to massive backlash. There could be a referendum with the media and government supporting joining the alliance but I don't see it passing
@Bóramha 1014 agreed
Ireland isn't even bordering Russia to worry about Russia.
You can't even defend your own airpace💀💀 we dont want you
@@AsukaLangleyS02 The media here is crazy, it used to be neutral and balanced. Now it runs shows promoting Irish people to go to Ukraine and fight.
By the time Ireland could be invaded ti'd mean the British, Americans and French would have already fallen so the world would be fucked by that point anyway. Ireland doesn't need the protection, if it did it'd be pro-NATO.
Thanks, this is both interesting and helpful.
Now subscribed. 👌
Great video!
Interesting! Thank you
It’s kinda funny how all former Warsaw Pact countries almost immediately join the former enemies in NATO. Guess that tells you a lot about how these countries thought about the soviets
It tells me they can't quit communism. Mistake in 1955 and mistake in 2005.
It could also be that they have a sense of guilt for their treason and compensate by blaming those whom they wronged.
More like how the politics thought about the Soviets, not the people. Slovakia's entry in NATO, for example, was unlawful as it was decided only by the politicians. And to be honest, there are many people in the After-Warsaw-Pact countries that don't agree with NATO membership. NATO is a terrorist war-provoking organization. Look what they did to Serbia just because it was fighting Albannian terrorists. Moreover, the war in Ukraine is partially NATO's guilt.
As far as most people in Eastern EU are concerned, communists, soviets, russians, they all can go to hell where they belong. Especially with Russia proving again that they are the same country of barbarism it always was. The only pro-russian people here are the far-right, who yearn to sell out their country just like they sold it out to the nazis in WWII. They can also join the queue.
@@michalreingraberskaliasmiz185 bot
The main reason for France getting out of the integrated command of NATO in 1965, was the wish to have its nuclear deterrent independent and strictly under french control , which is not the case with the UK for example, they did retain the full responsibility however of the pact, including engaging an aggressor of NATO. That part of the pact was never in question. There's an interesting twist to this story in the 80's, during the European missile crisis ( remember the ss20 /Pershing story) the American general head of NATO at the time said that after all, having a french independent nuclear deterrent was a good thing. The soviets could doubt the US would commit to a nuclear war if western Europe was invaded. All missiles in Europe being under partial US control the use of Pershing missiles would automatically implicate the US, risking a global nuclear war. They couldn't however doubt the french deterrent since it didn't require a go ahead from NATO. And he considered this an asset for Europe.
As a German I can confirm that Frenchmen get really angry if you piss them off so I wouldn't try anything if I were a Russian.
As a Frenchman, i can say we will probably lose the next world/direct war we fight in on our soil, but unsurprisingly and with the firm and grim determination to end it all with a massive bang before full invasion. If french people can't be allowed to go on strike anymore, this world has no right to exist.
True - France likes to reserve the right to surrender at the earliest available opportunity.
@@xcrockery8080when you studied History at Macdonald
Roughly this time in 2017 I was in the NATO Staff Officer Course, and the whole FYROM vs Macedonia thing was brought up by the Greeks as a point of contention. Glad that's done with.
Also, speaking of PfP members, the leader of my staff group was a Swiss Air Force Lt Col.
Wow, I didn't had such information in history classes. I wish I had teacher like you. Thank you for making me interested in history and other stuff
With your interest in "stuff" we've surely secured the realm.
I watched this as it appeared to be a good overview or summary of NATO. However I'm not that naive to think it would be 100% accurate. European Nato members may have a different opinion of it from a positive or negative view. Never the less it's an ok presentation from my point of view. I read all the comments and found all to be interesting.
The EU brought stability to Europe as I see it. Is it perfect? No, but until Brexit it seemed to work from a living in North America perspective.
@@Veldtian1 yeah "stuff" is cool.And like interesting or what ever.We had hot pockets going so, it was like PHHHuuuuuuUUT,might as well put on this "stuff" and ,,,,,,,like wait for the ding. LOLNow we're gona watch other "stuff" with like car crashs from Russian dash cams .Who knew YT would make waiting for eats cool.
You obviously needed a better English teacher.
Teachers like him should be fired for giving a one sided and propoganda based explanation of the situation.
Very informative!
This is a fantastic video
The one thing I find really funny about NATO is the fact Russia always goes "But that is anti Russia and evil", all the while doing stuff like invading Ukraine, literally proving why NATO exists in the first place.
You are the same comedian as 🤡Zelen$ky 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@ferry602 russian keyboard division deployed
@@ferry602 Because I state a fact? OK then, do tell me what Russia would do if NATO wasn't a thing.
I'll wait while you realize reality
@@oluftheexplorer9476 without NATO,there will be no Russia, no Ukraine. Russia and east European countries will still be Soviet Union.
Halford MacKinder, it seems that you could benefit from familiarizing yourself with his work, also Zibigniew Brezinski for a more recent interpretation. Anglo-Saxon geopolitics 101: Eurasia(Heartland)/Sea People(Anglo-Saxons)/Bridgeheads. Why wants the West command of the Black Sea (i.e. Crimea naval base) since totally non-essential from a defensive perspective? The Dardanelles strait can be closed easily. It will secure the primary communication line towards Georgia, the new prospective bridgehead into Eurasia, definite future NATO member (UA being the other, no coincidence) as communicated on NATO's Bucharest 2008 Summer Summit. For a bit more food for thought on the evident side: What is actually the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" defending in the Black Sea? Something they own or rather something they would like to have? Which is more probable?
I appreciate the neutral stance on the video, normally you go in these with a bias towards NATO aligned or against, but this was just pure factual info. 10/10
No it was not especially the war in Georgia as they attacked the piece keepers first.
@@ebonytv3414 You mean Russian invaders. Russia and peacekeeping are mutually exclusive things.
@@ebonytv3414 Peace keeper is such an ironic concept in this case.
@@ebonytv3414 Peace keepers? Since when we call individuals who illegally entered the territory of an independent state against its will "peace keepers"?
@@renemagritte8237 They were piece keepers because they wanted to keep a piece of Georgia.
“You can eliminate Russia from joint nato due to interests” Putin: hold on
Thanks!
Thank you!
Good stuff
As a citizen of a NATO country (the USA) who has become interested in this alliance for obvious reasons, I found this video to be quite informative! Thanks for the video! Subscribed!
Russia actually applied to join NATO, you might want to look that up. NATO is branded as a "mutual defence pact" not an anti russia pact, and Russia applied essentially to call he bluff, but had they been allowed entry well it is on paper a mutual defence pact, so they still might benefit. We could have seen Russia involved in the US afghan invasion, and NATO involved in the chechen wars.
@@G0ldmoon yes because there were no land disputes being funded abroad or fought by our once allies after WW2. Just ignore Berlin and Korea and the fact they wanted to steal land in China, the large division in ideology between the US and the USSR that would and did make cooperation very hard. Like all these things I have to ignore to believe that Russia applying and being denied was a bluff ment to expose a conspiracy against them when most of Europe was bombed flat and not interested in anything but rebuilding their country.Totally nothing to do with red scares and the fact that Americans had all the gold and a large influence in the post war world. Like what even is context who needs it, not you obviously.........I'm starting to think life isn't as simple as you're trying to point out, I...I think you might be stupid actually.
@@johnbarker256 Your an infant who equated their opinion with fact. it's a well documented piece of history. and an interesting one at that. Imagine being so conceited to call someone stupid for referencing historical happenings, well you don't have to imagine.
I did say look into it, like its in my comment, the least you could have done is look into it before speaking,
@@G0ldmoon Russia would not have been in the Afghan invasion nor would NATO have gone into Chechnya, precisely because, the whole point to all of Russia's recent invasions, was to deny further NATO member states, including the current war. If Russia was in NATO, not only would that remove the impetus to invade those countries, it is a *defensive* pact, its articles for war declaration don't cover aggressive actions.
@@G0ldmoon USSR has also done that, apparently it was to pry on their meetings.
Am I the only one that found the montage so FREAKING good?!?!
Yep, this video needs updating ASAP
Quality content
Awesome overview. Keep up the good work.
I feel you misspoke suggesting a false equivalence between NATO and The Warsaw Pact . One is an alliance , the other was a fig leaf over vassal countries .
The whole story about the BC and Russia kinda reminds me of how Jesus acts sometimes on the Bible.
R-Come on, join my alliance.
BC-But why? Last time it didn’t end well.
R-Join my alliance so I can save you.
BC-From what? The war has ended.
R-To save you from what I’m about to do to you if you don’t join my side…
BC-I choose NATO.
Considering that Jesus was considered a savior and that Putin believers think of Russia as the “complete savior of Eastern Europe” this is a certified Russian moment.
(I found this joke extremely funny and now I am posting it whenever some comments talks about it to see people’s reactions. I’m not a bot, those are usually on Putin’ side)
@@ilosada2933 What is BC?
@@gintasvilkelis2544 Baltic Coutries
OK, that makes sense :-)
I didn't hear any such suggestion, and there is no black vs white in this regard either.
I've remembered Norm McDonald's stand up bit
-"Germany went to war."
-"With the world!"
-"And almost won."
-"Twice!"
😂
Almost won? Probably not in WWI. The German army broke before that of France and the UK. The U.S. entry merely made the defeat come sooner. And in WWII, a German win was never possible after Churchill took charge. After Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, German win became even less likely. In addition, I once asked a German historian about the possibility of Germany winning. He replied that after the U.S. entered the war Germany never stood a chance. The U.S. was too big, too populous, too industrialized, and too protected by an ocean for Germany to ever defeat it.
@@Inkling777 Hitler also expected Japan to declare war on Russian when Germany declared war on the United States, but they instead kept their non-aggression treaty with Russia. Japanese operations in the East would have been enough for Germany to win in the West due to the nontransfer of Siberian troops. This actually was almost a reality, as Japan would have likely invaded had Germany won at Stalingrad. Tomoyuki Yamashita as early as summer of 1942 was making such plans IIRC. It was a terribly interesting time.
@@bremfloJapan didn't have logistic means to invade USSR especially in Siberia. As a reminder, Japan was unable to defeat China. So attacking industrialized USSR would be a suicide, and the possibility was almost inexistant far before Stalingrad
When I saw Sweden, I felt like the boy in the story who travels to another world and then returns, only to find that it was all a dream, until he feels in his pocket and finds a handful of sand.
I think a video actually talking about the pyramid schemes, since they are in the title card, would be a nice follow up. Otherwise, great lecture.
I feel like there would be advantages to creating a PaTO. In a sense it would be similar to the QUAD except it would specifically have a military defensive pact like NATO.
PaTO? No! Nyet! Nada! That sounds like a wimpy "Potato". Russia will make French fries out of it and eat it with BigMac. We will regret.
@@pabloernesto8044 lol grow a pair, stop fearing russia.
Unlike the West, the East don't suffer from that silly fear of russia. If russia wants a war with the East, they can try. Although I don't think it's would be a good idea, because russia just doesn't have the power to do so. They can't even win in Ukraine, what make you think they can fry and eat Asians with BigMac? They already lost to the Mongols and the Japanese in the past, that's why people in the East don't fear Russia like people in the West do.
The russians already made the whole West their enemies. It wouldn't be wise to make the East their enemies too. And the East isn't just China, in case you're one of those uneducated westerners.
NAPTO
Nord Atlantic Pacific Treaty Organization
Would be more fiting
YES and then we combine the NATO and PaTO forces and we get POTATONATO!!!
There are a few problems with a Pacific NATO (much as I like the idea).
For one, South Korea does not want to be part of a unified command structure that also includes Japan. Due to their experience as part of the Japanese Empire, they don't want to be part of anything that could lead to their soldiers taking orders from Japanese officers. This has been much to annoyance of American military professionals who want to build a tripartite missile shield between themselves and the two countries, mostly to protect the locals from North Korean missile strikes.
Speaking of Japan, it *might* be unconstitutional for them to defend any ally.
Thirdly, though polls suggest that the Republic of the Philippines is the most pro-American country in the world (and the 2 countries have a bilateral defense treaty), they don't want to feel like they're being imperialized with them, so the issue of deploying US troops on their soil is often a difficult one. Ex-Pres. Durante was explicitly anti-American and even won 46% of the vote (mostly on other issues, but still). Presidents there only serve one 6-year term, so he's out of office, but now his daughter is Vice President, showing that the Durante brand has some staying power in the Philippines. To make matters worse, the US failed to do anything when the PRC illegally seized the Scarborough Shoals (which are clearly within the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone under the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea) in 2012. This makes any security guarantees from us suspect.
As for the ASEAN countries, some of them (but not all) are pseudo-democratic at best. Turkey and Hungary have already been giving NATO enough problems as it is. A NATO of the Pacific would do well to avoid these problems by being very selective in its membership, but that might make the alliance pointlessly small. If we only included West Pacific countries that have undisputed "strong democracies" then the only countries west of the International Date Line would be Japan, S. Korea, Australia and New Zealand. That wouldn't be much bigger than "the Quad" or ANZUS. This is probably part of the reason why SEATO and CENTRO folded - it was clearer what they stood against than what they stood for.
EDIT 1: I sort-of lied. The 3 nations in a Compact of Free Association with the US - from west to east, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshal Islands - are all west of the IDL. These would be *crucial* members of any kind of Pacific NATO. Though they pack zero punch of their own, they hold vital strategic positions for logistics. The same is also true of New Zealand's 2 free associated states (for what it's worth, they are not UN members even though the UN recognizes their full sovereignty, unlike the US' 3 free associated states, which are both fully recognized and UN members). My only concern there would be that it might look hypocritical since the leader of one of the free associated states recently warned other small Pacific island nations from making deals with China similar to the one the Solomon Islands just agreed to, partially for the reason that it could stoke "a new Cold War" between the US and the PRC.
Speaking of which, India's membership would be... complicated (just like everything else I mentioned already). You'd think that India and the US - the largest two democracies on Earth - would be natural allies in most respects. However, US relations between both India and Pakistan are complicated by the fact that the US has any relations at all with either country. There's so much to unpack there, but I'll move on. India has also had a very close relations with Russia for decades (ironically, the USSR was a more reliable bulwark against the PRC than the US was). This is why they were one of less than 10 countries that did not vote to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the General Assembly (out of almost 200!). On top of all this is the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. There's long been questions that he doesn't take the human rights of his Muslim citizens seriously. This, of course, makes the issues with Pakistan even worse. (Though I hear it spoken of much less, there are also concerns of how he treats the much smaller Christian minority as well - he's a Hindu nationalist, not anti-Islam specifically). To put this in perspective during the early 2000s, the US passed a law that sanctioned individuals abroad who incited certain actions against Muslims, and Modi was literally the *only* person in the entire World whose name was ultimately added to the list. The only one!
I think I've said too much about the difficulties in the US-India relationship here. All-in-all, the US and India have significant common interests and both countries have much to gain from closer relations. But they also have something to lose from getting *too* close. They also both have a habit of not doing for each other as much as they say they'd like to, and rarely ever get much done - except for countering China.
EDIT 2: The US removed sanctions on Mr. Modi after he became PM. I accidentally left that out, but it's obviously rather important.
EDIT 4: I didn't read this article before posting, but already half through it, I can tell that it'd really help someone trying to understand the complexity of the situation (even though it's technically an op-ed, not an info-dump):
warontherocks.com/2022/07/india-is-a-swing-state-cooperate-with-it-accordingly/
Since I mentioned ANZUS, there aren't really any problems with all three of those nations joining a Pacific NATO, but considering all the difficulties with all the other questions, it's sort of like, "why bother"? ANZUS already works fine as it is.
Well, actually, there are a few problems with regards to New Zealand: they're arguably too pacifist for this kind of alliance (but maybe not) Their interpretation of their participation in a "nuclear-free zone" has been a difficulty in the past (though not nearly as much now as in the past). Specifically, they wouldn't allow any nuclear weapons on their territory (not a huge problem there) but for decades they also wouldn't let any nuclear-powered ships in their ports, which made things difficult for the US Navy's carriers and submarines (they also had nuclear-powered cruisers during the Cold War, but those proved unreasonably expensive). They recently decided to let nuclear vessels in their ports, but SSBNs are still a strict no. Also, New Zealand doesn't have much of a military. They have only 2 frigates (IIRC) and those are their largest warships. They also have no fighter jets of any kind (which is reasonable, though, because who would *and* could* actually invade New Zealand?). Most of what they could offer to a Pacific NATO is strategic position for logistics.
Lastly, trade with China is hugely important for the economies of all these countries. For most of them, it's not in their interest to side completely with the US and announce that they'd likely take their side in the event of a conflict with China. For most of them it's best for them to maintain relations with both powers and even play both sides to gain aid or other accommodations from *both* rivals. There's also the historic side of things. China has always been so geographically close to these countries, and it has always been huge. The people of the Asia-Pacific live in a region where a huge portion of the entire landmass is just one country - and that country is one of the Great Civilizations of history, and it's been that way for over 2,000 years. There's a reason why the Chinese word of China translates as something like "the Central Country" or "the Middle Kingdom." They're usually the regional hegemon, and some of those countries have seen them as a benevolent hegemon (at least some of the time). I don't fully understand the cultural significance of this phenomenon for China's neighbors [yet] but it's probably worth mentioning alongside the economic considerations. Basically, when NATO was founded, all its founding members agreed that the USSR was a potential military threat *and* even just being influenced by the Soviets was dangerous. For most of the countries that would form up a Pacific NATO, it's not so simple.
* edit #3
you shoul make a part II of this, because there where changes
Bosnia and Herzegovina im not sure if you mentioned cannot join because of Dayton agreement which says that Bosnia can’t join in case if Serbia gets involved against NATO because BIH is summoned into 2 parts Federation and Serbian republic (who are against this alliance and BIH will probably never join). Greets from Bosnia Sarajevo.
9:55
Actually depending on what definitions for what is or isn't Europe you use there's actually parts of Armenia that's within Europe.
The line you're using is just *one* of several definitions of that border, and there's yet to be a consensus on that particular border between Europe and Asia.
Just look up the Wikipedia article about the boundaries between the continents of the Earth.
It lists several of those definitions.
Some are starting to lose traction.
But there's still several that's being used around the world.
OK and?
Yes, historical borders and the changes in borders is fascinating to study ( ignore the brainless idjit above)
Greece and Turkey definitely had each other in mind when joining.
Amazing video, in depth research and full of history. Thank you.
nice job
For Ireland you said:
"troubled their relationship"
I see the pun you did there!
this is a very great and detailed video! much appreciated
I love how this content creator only likes the comments that are into his agenda and doesn't consider nor does anything with criticism
If that's the case, just don't heart any comment
It was super interesting.
very well made video, only add borders being more visable. eg. 14:20 nobody who doesn't know Bosnia can see those borders
Estonia, Lithuania, Norway and Latvia must be so glad they joined NATO since the war
Norway is the only country liberated/occupied by USSR during WW2 where the Russians pulled out without being asked to do so. So we have actually had quite peaceful relationship with Russia/USSR.
And I would say that we were more happy about our NATO membership during the Cold War. Since if we hadn't been NATO members then, it would have been quite likely that USSR would have staged some reason to "help" us. After all, the Norwegian fjords would have been VERY valuable for Soviet fleets.
@@Tjalve70 Yup, If the Soviets could've based out of Norway it would've eliminated the issue of NATO potentially blocking the Denmark Strait. It also would've given them a perfect excuse to attempt to invade Sweden to gain control of both sides of the Baltic, which is also why Sweden has typically maintained a very powerful military for their size and their own very robust domestic defense industry.
It is obvious that the USA (tool of the CIA) is not interested in peace and stability of other countries, unless it got hold of their resources and ports. That makes me think, where we will drift to under Nato regime....
@@Tjalve70 I mean they didn't go that far into Norway. They only did the northern part.
@@nickbell4984 True.
But again, they left without even being asked to. They could have occupied that part of Norway, like they did in other countries. But they didn't.
Hey William love your channel and videos! I know that you could argue that autocratic and dictatorial may be synonyms but as a Spaniard I would love it in you could refer to Franco as a Dictator. That's what he deserves to remembered as. Some of us in our mid 50s still remember what it was to live in those times but definitively not as well as our parents that still alive and to this day cry remembering some of the atrocities they had to live through or family member that they lost (Which I never had the chance to meet). Again, love you videos! really insightful!
ASEAN must unite and form and alliance and declaire it's ASEAN dollars to make the world multipolar.
@@alanyosores5642 What did this have to do with ASEAN though?
@@wookiewok8024 will if you don't know Philippines hold billion ounce of gold deposit in central bank of the Philippines. If the world back to gold standard ASEAN dollar will be the strongest currency and earth, that's is one of the reason why America don't let the Philippines away..
@alan yosares - The US central bank alone, holds over 8000 tons of gold reserves. Germany has the 2nd largest reserves. The Phillipines doesn't even rank in the top 30, with gold reserves of 157 tons. I don't know where you're getting your 'information' from... lol
@@Codex7777 if you think why since 1980 America doesn't increase there gold reserves because that gold belongs to private person. And the dollar is forever trap. Fiat currency forever..the billion ounce of gold is not owned by Philippines government it is own by private pilipino citizens..that is our president now. If the world back to gold base standard, that gold will be use as backing up our currency Philippine peso. You'll get it? I hope you will know that individual American citizen have no right to own gold in your country🤣🤣🤣🤣
The 1986 people power in the Philippines,
C.I.A remove late president Marcos sr, because,they want to use his own gold to back-up our currency Philippine peso.
Gadhaffi, remove by C.I.A because of same reason.
Russia and Ukraine war, because of same reason.
China VS U.S.A because of same reason.
The falling of dollars fiat hegemony.
This is great mainstream knowledge
The undergroung history is also fascinating...
Ppl should dig deeper
Right after he talked about albania pyramid scheme, I got an ad for quantum ai
The fact that France didn’t want the U.K. or US for that matter to drag them into another war is hilarious…they literally dragged both nations into ridiculously bloody conflicts which has shaped human history forever.
Basically France wants the UK and US to help France if they get into a war but doesn't want to have to help the UK or US if they get into a war.... typical frankish audacity 😒
The french are hopeless whith their pathetic president
The French🤢
They even dragged us into Vietnam kinda
@@rachaeldangelo1337 Well, you did it yourself and your politicians agreed to it because it was a great opportunity to test different weapons and show the the communists that you were willing (determined) to stand up to high death tolls. The fact that you stayed for over 20 years and suffered great losses proves that it was not France that forced you there. You spent 20 years in Afganistan just as willing to try new things and more than happy to hand over tons of weapons to the Taliban who weren't your number one enemy, because that was BL right? Wonder when the weapons you left behind will bite you in the ass again. Some never learn from history even if it costs you a lot, too bad. The positive is that everything you left has already been paid for and repurchased, market economy that leads to a few on capitol hill getting very rich from your designed wars.
Very informative and detailed video and as always straight to the point, you earned my Sub!
Can we get an updated version since there’s 31 nations now?
the micro-states are usually integrated in the defense of a larger neighbour.
Liechtenstein is under a Swiss defense umbrella for instance.
Monaco is defended by France, etc.
I thank my grandfather and his team for getting Latvia into NATO in 2004.
Without his efforts, and the teams efforts, Latvia would be invaded and I wouldn’t have a country to call home.
This is why NATO is bad, since the begining is has always been with the russians out no matter what. Creating hate even for its people. This is not good. This is whyt Putin " invaded" Ukraine. and many other reasons
@@Adcabrer hey bud?
You know how many Latvians were killed off by Russia? Check out Riga’s “Corner House”. The Russians even killed pro Russian Latvians. The brain drain Russia caused in Latvia is a direct correlation to how our country operates today.
How’s this. Don’t tell me what to think, as I’m a Latvian. I know my peoples history. And by the looks of it? Russia has not changed a bit since 1920.
NATO allows Latvia room to actually grow. NATO allows Latvia to be free.
Miss me with your Putin bullshit. I can tell you know nothing of my peoples history. If you did? You’d realize the significance of the alliance to Latvian cultural survival.
Edit: Lemme guess, you prolly think Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Germany, and hell, all of Europe should be Russian territory?
You’re dying on a poor little mound of dirt that you call a “hill”. The absolute ignorance of history is showing. Maybe delve into the darkness that is the Russian operation(s). Maybe then you’ll see how absurdly wrong you are. Yet again? You’ve stuck your puny head so far into the sand that it’s admirable. I too would love to shove my head into a shithole of misinformation. But alas, I follow the trends of history.
Sure because everyone wants to invade Latvia.
keep that same energy if Russia ever looks to take a bite out of Lativia, perspectives change with time, and so do it’s backers. I’m just saying the lesser option is allowing a bigger power walk all over you without any backup to hold your own.
@@ryleynadhir4685 Mind explaining why Latvia joining NATO was a big mistake ?
Thanks again William, love your work.