3:36 Kekkonen absolutely wanted/ or at least expected a noble peace price, but was famously greatly disapointed(behind close doors of course) when he heard he didn't won. Rather the winner in 1975 was Andrei Sakharov (Soviet nuclear physicist and human rights activist).
A finn here, Kekkonen was a savage. There is a story of him where he was in a sauna with Breznev (The leader of USSR). Breznev told Kekkonen that, “hey since your nations are such a good friends we should merge them in to one.” To which Kekkonen replied, “I think Im too old to lead such a big country”.
Well, to be fair, the USSR wasn't really a Russia-alone project. Three of its supreme leaders are not Russian at all, with the strongest and longest serving being a Georgian and the two succeeding others being Ukrainian, while one of those who served as deputy leaders is an Armenian and another being once again Ukrainian. The early Soviet secret service, and its precursors, are also run by Baltic persons. So yes, the possibility of that Finn leading the USSR so long as he becomes a member of the CPUSSR won't matter anything to the Union in general at all. After all, the Union is a multinational project of a socialist experiment. There's a reason why there was a general distaste of the USSR among true blue Russian ultranationalists.
I've heard that too but in the version I know it was Krushchev not Breznev. I think it's more fitting since Krushchev and Kekkonen were real personal friends.
As yet another Finn, I'd like to propose a slightly controversial idea: that Kekkonen, as much good as he achieved for European peace, also contributed to Russian ideas of what "good neutral neighbors" are supposed to be like. Kekkonen's politics were verging on the authoritarian, and he was president for a total of 25 years, serving a total of FIVE TERMS. Whilst not against the Finnish constitution, this practice would later be abolished because of Kekkonen's autocratic politics (courtesy to @MEAT in the comments for the correction). Kekkonen's political skill and relations with Soviet leadership were considered far too valuable, so he was kept in power via emergency acts and term extensions. This was especially the case following the 1961 Note crisis, which basically eliminated all media and government opposition against him. Furthermore, he was known to favour one-on-one backdoor dealings with the Soviets and Finnish elites; it's thanks to him that "sauna diplomacy" became a thing. All this showed the Soviets that democratic rules and principles could be bent or downright ignored for the sake of having the "right" person in power. More importantly, Kekkonen kept up the 1948 Mutual Friendship, Cooperation and Assistance Treaty between Finland and the USSR. In this treaty, Finland provided a concrete security guarantee to the USSR; absolute neutrality, and a pledge to defend the USSR from any attacks coming through Finland. This is very similar to what Putin is demanding of Ukraine, and Kekkonen even went so far as to call this security guarantee the foundation of stable Fenno-Soviet relations. I think it's pretty clear that Kekkonen's political skills were absolutely vital for peace, but the price of it cost Finland it's democratic soul. I fear that Kekkonen's leadership model is exactly what Putin wanted with his demands for security guarantees, which ultimately would mean that Ukraine, just like Finland in the past, would not truly be independent and retain an unhealthy codependency with Russia.
@Rocket Agreed. Even somewhat benevolent great powers fear other great powers. Therefore all great powers are going to shore up the home front either by attempting to make their neighbors engage in dependent alliances or subsume them. Edit: I just realized that sounded as if I am endorsing or being understanding of Putin. I find it understandable that Russia would not want Ukraine to be part of NATO. But Putin has taken one of the worst courses of action possible to get there - I think his methods show that he desires an increase in power rather than a strategic advantage.
It is easy to sit and judge kekkonen now, but i believe if it werent for him, finlands position would be far worse, if it wouldve even survived the cold war independent. I think kekkoken is a president we should view as a hero for dredging us through the contious threat of the cold war as well as he did. I dont think that a "democratic soul" has inherent merit, and thus i dont think that a strongman such as kekkonen steering the country through a time that any political turmoil could have tremendous negative impact is a bad thing. Democracy is great when political changes are a good thing, such as in time of peace, but when our very existence is on the brink, id rather have an independent finland than stubbornly cling to ideals of democracy Edit/ps; im finnish if you couldnt tell
As a Finn, I am pleased about our little country being mentioned. As a European, I am worried a bit WHY people are nowdays more able to place us on a map.
@@johnbacon4997 finland has been a neutral country since its independence in 1917. joining nato would essentially mean finally ending its neutrality. also russia doesnt want finland to join.
Urho Kekkonen's legacy is somewhat disputed here in Finland. For some, especially older generations, he's a national hero who cunningly out-foxed Soviet leaders (and out-drank and out-saunoed them), thus keeping Finland independent during Cold War turmoils. For some, he's a traitor, a strongman who would do anything to keep power to himself and used threat and collaboration of Soviet Union as excuse for undemocratic actions, such as being chosen for without elections to continue as president. His role in the agreement is usually mentioned as a sidenote.
@@moustachio05 let's not forget that the "inventors" of democracy - ancient Greek city states - viewed dictatorship as the natural state of a state, with democracy being an interim solution should the dictator (called Archon) draw disapproval and get disposed of This "disposal" of an unpopular dictator of course was easier in an ancient city state than it would have been in a post industrial nation state, but the jist is, that dictatorship while being connoted badly is not inherently bad as long as the dictator doesn't get corrupted with power, which on the other hand, as the past several centuries clearly have shown, it does way more often than not...
Very much so. Kekkonen used his role as expert negotiator and trusted by Soviet leadership as a bargaining chip in internal politics. And that's an understatement. I'm not sure traitor fits most narratives, but he's a divisive figure for sure. Altho I would say that Kekkonen's legacy is mostly seen to be on the positive side.
One small thing. The Concert of Europe was Von Metternich's attempt to end territorial disputes by uniting the European princes after the Napoleonic wars. It is better defined as a precursor to the Helsinki accords.
Metternich largely succeeded for almost 100 years, despite some hiccups. It's taken only 80 years for peace in Europe to be shattered (30 if you define the cold war as too hostile to count as a time of peace).
@o m Revolutions of 1848 weren't interstate wars and were largely crushed relatively quickly. The crimean war was a relatively short conflict, limited in scope, without much bloodshed. Even the wars of German and Italian unification did not see much loss of life, certainly nothing on the scale of the Napoleonic wars or WWI which book ended the period. Russo Ukrainian war is not a small hiccup. True the loss of life is not anywhere close to WW2 (no war has ever been even close to as destructive as that one, not even WW1) however in just 1 month of war, there has been more loss of life than the entire soviet afghan war. This conflict is nowhere close to finished and the loss of life will likely be intense. Possibly on the scale of korea/vietnam, devastating conflicts to those regions that Europe has been lucky to avoid, until now.
That security architecture is still working and it is the reason we are able and willing to support Ukraine. Not saying that change isn't needed, but the way I see it is the inclusion of Ukraine and possibly some others into our collective. russia tried to wreck that architecture and is imploding partly because of that. What happens to russia after remains to be seen, but Vladolf Putler is not going to be a part of it and Ukraine will rebuild.
@@TheAmericanPrometheus I think it refers to the fact that in soviet union during times of political upheaval the swan lake opera was the only think playing on the news
Truth be told, I had trouble explaining to an American friend why to Europeans like myself this is "our 9/11" so I made this on the quick side of things. Because of that it is a different type of editing and the quality is somewhat lower. I also made the decision to cut my opinion at the end of the video out completely. I think it will be more interesting to read your opinions on this matter. The foundational agreement upon which decades of European peace have been built has been brutally and senselessly torn apart. I believe Putin must lose this war, lest we are to collapse back into a Europe in which military force is used to achieve political goals. That would be the ultimate nightmare. Something many of us, across the many languages, cultures, faiths, and political beliefs of our continent, had promised ourselves to never ever return to. It is also of the utmost importance that we restore an agreement that enshrines peace, cooperation, and security in Europe. I do not know where Europe will go and what it will become after Ukraine wins this war. It will be up to us Europeans though. Do we restore as much as we can of the Helsinki accords? Or do we build upon tighter cooperation in military and security matters? Where ever we may go it is vital that we discuss it and be aware of the implications and potential outcomes.
Helsinki accords were broken in Kosovo / Yugoslavia when the west sidestepped UN and gave them independence, or those countries are too insignificant to count? The western double rules r the problem.
I'm curious why you think Germany and Russia were economically co-dependent. Granted, I am an American, but the dependency seems to have been one sided.
As an Eastern European, I feel the obligation to point out the this "peace", from our perspective, always felt like an illusion Western Europe threw on themselves. The breakup period saw Soviet troops in newly independent countries running over protestors with tanks and an Armenian-Azeri brutal ethnic war, not to mention Yugoslavia. Point 7 of the accords was entirely disregarded within the USSR, with no consequences. Yugoslavia, from our perspective, was a case in point that the accords were but an illusion, a deadly one at that as Bosniaks in Srebrenica were rounded up and murdered, while EU refused to act. The post 1999 period is filled, especially after 2008, with Eastern Europe crying out, again and again to recognise that the accord is an illusion, one that Putin has used against Europe, abusing EU's insistance on "dialogue" to act aggressively. The invasion of Ukraine feels like the very worst-case scenario we had been warning about for a decade at least. And it just feels like a grim statement of "we told you so". Kekkonens peace in Eastern Europe was never a peace, but a mad statement Western Europeans threw at us to excuse inaction.
Excuse? It's not our job to police Eastern Europe. You'd probably hate us if we did. The east needs a cultural shift if it wants to stop dictators from rising to power, abusing their people, and starting conflicts. Instead many people there vilify the west and feel nostalgic for soviet times. Peace has to come from within, the west can't force it on you.
The Eastern block never had much say as they never had much weight to throw around, nor allowed to gain any. Sounds more like the West allowed this to happen.
Its kind of hard to blame them, anyone can create the perception of ppl being opressed by an evil goverment (it is what russia is doing now). Act to rashly and every one is angry at you for being the US, do to little and everyone is angry at you for being the EU in Yugoslavia. Do the right ammount and you have to occupy a country for a generation because both sides have extremes that hate you...
@@fpdldfpsdffld2508 And when NATO finally intervened in the 90's, it only got itself serbians pissing and shitting themselves screaming about unjust bombings and western imperialism. This all could have been prevented with an earlier intervention, but the Helsinki accords proved to be their own undoing. They were made during a time when Europe really was at peace. This meant that when war broke out and politicians tried to act within those principles, they were so disasterously faulty. Europe, just like the character from greeck mythology who gave it her name, might just be destined for tragedy.
As a Turk, it always fascinates me when Turkey is included in the "map of Europe" and when it's not. I noticed when the topic is military, TR is often included. When the topic is Economics, there's 50-50 chance and when it's culture Turkey is rarely counted as part of Europe. Not trying to make a point, just and observation.
it kinda makes sense though. turkey is in NATO and thus part of european defence. in economics it's close to the EU but not as close as some other nations so it depends on who's making the map. while culturally people will point to religion as a reason why turkey isn't "european" so isn't included in that sense.
Maybe had they not fundementally destroyed our nation by rejecting our EU applications leading us down this path they would've had more leverage/power to prevent this conflict. Destabalizing us like this was a big mistake
@@Conn30Mtenor That will most likely put NATO at a heavy disadvantage in terms of containing Russia in the Black Sea (the Bosporous straits), to possibly give support to Georgia (the country not the state) to further contain Russia and possibly secure energy independence (Russia invaded in 2003 to prevent their petroleum based economy from having local competition, antagonize a nation that is in three proxy wars against Russia (Libya, Syria and Armenia-Azerbaijan). It is directly against European defense interests to kick out Turkey.
To be quite frank, I never truly expected from Russia to start an open war on Ukraine. I honestly thought that Putin was just trying to intimidate Ukraine by flexing it's hard power. I am quite stumped on how to continue from here. One thing I can tell you for sure is that big changes are coming, ones that will redefine not only how the EU as a whole, but also how individual European democracies present themselves on the political stage of the world.
I think the coming food shortages will be more impactful then the war right now and when that happens, national leaders are going to look out for national interests. Look back at the beginning of the COVID pandemic or when the first vaccines rolled out and the panic, scramble, the "betrayals", etc. Now lets make this the mega tons of food required to feed a nation every day instead of a single aircraft cargo hold full of PPE and ventilators. We are in for dark times.
@@mattheww.6232 boy, are you pessimistic or what. I think you place too little faith in world leaders, as well as the world market as a whole. People learn from past mistakes and prepare themselfs based on them. Case and point being the 2014 invasion of Ukraine, when that happened, there was barely any response internationally or domestically in terms of santioning or fighting back the Russian forces. Fast forward to today and it becomes clear how different the situation is. The sanctions being levied on Russia are one of the harshest history has ever witnessed and seeing that the conflict is still raging, I would say that Ukrainians are also putting up a good fight. In short, stop being a doomer and have some faith in your government as well as in the rest of Europe.
Same. I was telling everyone its impossible since it would be strategic suicide and it would ruin Russia for a generation at least. What i hadn't considered was that Putin actually was stupid enough to do it. I still don't understand how its possible and what he thinks his way out of this will be. I even thought their military was an actual threat. Now its clear it was a fucking joke.
People refusing to acknowledge that hard power exists and can be invoked is what necessitates actually using it if "flexing" credible threat provides absolutely no concessions.
Kekkonen was also the politician who (by forcing Karl-August Fagerholm's government to resign during the diplomatic crisis of 1958-59) gave the Soviets access and say in Finnish internal politics, and during his long tenure as president he was consistently showing contempt to critics of him and his pro-Soviet policies which were actively undermining the Finnish neutrality, often blaming them for being far-righters and having anti-Soviet agenda. The development reached it horrendous peak in the 70's when Finland's foreign policy was formally tied into the Finno-Soviet pact of peace and co-ordination. Not only that but he didn't let parliamentary democracy to work on its own terms, using borderline dictatorial powers as a creator of government, often completely bypassing the parliament in selecting the ministers of the government. If the governmen stepped out of the line he simply collapsed it, and a couple times he collapsed the entire parliament itself. Only after he was forced to resign due to health reasons could parliamentarism and more internationally neutral politics be resumed. Funny enough, my grandfather was actually a bodyguard of Kekkonen's for a time, and according to him he never greeted any of his guards or showed appreciation that they were there. Grandpa hated Kekkonen to his guts anyway due to the presiden't intense Soviet bootlicking so he didn't stay in that job for long.
I'll admit myself to be far too Anglo to know anything about Finnish politics but that seems desperately interesting, I suppose it's a very Anglo thing indeed to have some suspicions whenever a continental European, particularly a German, starts talking about "democracy". I'm not going to categorically assert there's any truth to it, but I feel like that suspicion does exist here: That democracy in much of Europe is less of a process one abides by and more of an institution to grant legitimacy and mandate to whatever the government wants to do. You get a bit of that with the EU, where referendums are sometimes redone when you got the wrong result, this happened in Ireland if I remember correctly. You had a lot of that with the anti-Brexit crowd as regards to that referendum. Even the power structure of the EU itself doesn't empower the European Parliament particularly much. My point being, and I do wonder the degree to which there is a connection here at all, there is something almost poetic that the man behind the Helsinki accords, the structure which much of Europe ascribes the peace of the time, was of this nature. Not saying there's anything to it, I don't want to get into arguments, but that perception is out there and I can't help but make the connection. Sorry if I'm not making sense.
@@DoubleNN part of it is though not just due to Kekkonen acting dictatorially, but due to the office of president having very extensive powers by Western European standards at the time. Also, the lack of term limits at the time - Kekkonen ended up serving four full terms, and a fifth term that got cut in short by senility. Everything Kekkonen did was technically constitutional, it's just that the constitution gave the president way too much power. There is also the fact that the Soviet Union very much liked him, and pretty much told the Finnish political establishment "We like this guy, we think you should re-elect him". Which worked as a means of influence, since Finland did not have a direct popular vote for president, but an electoral system.
This whole war seems like opening the Pandora's box... and we will never be able to be closed it again. Up until now a war inside Europe seemed impossible, and now we know it is not
@@MrRazmut The yugoslav and georgian wars, despite being conflicts, were small enough scale to not generally affect the security of all of Europe. This is different.
@@MrRazmut Tbf, Yugoslavia war was considered a small one. Not initiated by any major European power, thus are self-contained. This was a blatant act of aggression by a major European power upon another, while denying its right to exist. That's a LOT more alarming.
You say people are celebrating Finland questioning its neutrality and considering entry into NATO but let me give you the perspective of myself, someone who lives in Finland. I do not celebrate this, I do however consider it a necessity. Russia is throwing its d*ck around, and it seems that either former soviet or former russian empire borders are something that Putin may want to establish. I want Finland to join NATO not because I am somehow so unhappy with Finland being neutral, but because I want Finland to REMAIN neutral. And being a part of NATO is the biggest chance Finland has of not being involved in a war. Security from a big, ugly bully to the east is absolutely vital. To say this is "celebrating" is a gross misuse of the word.
You can't say you're neutral if you're a part of NATO. It means you've explicitly sided with the Western military alliance. But I understand why NATO membership is now more desirable to Finns than it has been in its entire history. To Putin, international agreements seem to be more like "guidelines" rather than hard rules that everyone must abide by.
As a Romanian, I cannot believe how lucky we are that we got into NATO in 2004. While having foreign countries bases on your territory is weird to say the least, if not almost embarrassing, you sure feel safe when the barbarians are at the border but fighter jets from 3 different alied countries are securing your skyes. From our point of view, there's no utility in being neutral, or no actual condition in which you can be neutral. You're either an allied "puppet of the Americans" or Russia's punching bag. We thought that war in Europe was a thing of the past, turns out it's still dog eat dog.
@@suissais4732 NATO's not exactly a puppet organization of the US (look at how many NATO nations refused to go along on Iraq for example). The defensive clause (Article 5) has only ever been activated once (after the 9/11 attacks, by the US, resulting in NATO going into Afghanistan). NATO has 3 different nuclear powers in it along with several other well-funded high tech militaries. The US is absolutely the 400lb gorilla of NATO but it is still a defensive alliance at heart (although it did flail about a bit looking for a purpose between 1991 and 2022). The organization has been galvanized to refocus back on its original defensive purpose by the Russo-Ukrainian War. Arguably my country of Canada is the US's closest ally (we're not just in NATO but we also form the NORAD alliance together, along with having deep economic and cultural interconnections) and we still disagree with the US fairly often on their more extreme foreign policy issues (e.g. Cuba, Iraq) since we're a multilateralist middle power and they're frequently a unilateralist superpower. It's not like the US can suddenly drag you into a war simply because you join NATO. Membership does require member states to coordinate and integrate their command and logistical structures so they can work together more easily (basically, NATO members set up their militaries to make it easy for them to work alongside other NATO members). I can understand disliking giving up neutrality for ideological reasons or simply because one dislikes yielding any autonomy to coordinate but NATO isn't the old Warsaw Pact with the big state treating the rest like puppets.
@@frostyguy1989 Joining NATO at this point feels to me as a finn a more of a formality. In the thirty years since the iron curtain broke, Finland has become economically and politically fully a western nation. We made our choice when we joined EU, and I have no doupt in my mind that Putin thinks the same.
I've got a video about Finland, NATO, and Finlandization on my channel (check it out!), but really enjoy Kraut's take here on Kekkonen as a diplomat and European politician. It's also important to note that Kekkonen displayed some authoritarian traits during his multi-decade administration, so he's a bit of a multi-dimensional figure within domestic Finnish politics.
Kekkonen here in Finland is sometimes half jokingly called our only dictator, so that's not at all far from the truth, however he's also one of the most well respected political figures in Finnish history, so we tend to think that his authoritarian traits were sort of a necessary evil. Funnily enough that makes me feel that Finnish and Russian mentality is not as different as it might seem. Russia sees the west as a constant threat, this is because they view everything through a historical lense. In a similar way, Finland is a place that has experienced more than one Russian invasion, the worst of all probably being the invasion and occupation of Finland during the Great Northern War, and of course we have more recent memories of aggression, ones people are still alive to tell. It's safe to say that the threat of Russia is something that every Finnish person is acutely aware of, and something that definitely guides our actions for better or for worse. Kekkonen represented the the choice of stability over chaos, no matter the cost, a choice the Russian people are very familiar with.
This man consistently challenges my beliefs and dogmas making me look further to find truth. He has inspired, within me, a need to educate and cultivate myself further. He should have a much larger following.
Thank you so much for this video. As an American, I didn’t quite understand why Europe’s collective response was so forceful and unified. I agreed with it, I was very glad to see it, but I was genuinely a bit surprised by it and suspected that I was missing something fundamental. This is extremely helpful.
One aspect of Europe is that every part of it increasing military budgets makes the whole interconnected construct stronger against outside actors. This means that one first actor to poke the EU in a post-Ukraine-war world will be surprised by a desert storm like response. However, warrior in a rose garden principle still applies. Trade with neighbouring countries and having a powerful united army are not mutually exclusive. The EU turning itself into a self sufficient unit would enable sanctions on an unprecedented level, and enable hardening of internal supply chains against wide spread natural disasters of various kinds.
But to employ a European army there would need to be unanimous consent, so what's the chance that any deployment would happen outside of Europe at all? And the EU is still vulnerable as Europe isn't self sufficient in terms of food and energy yet, if more nations follow Germany instead of France, it may not be energy independent for the next century.
@@tacotuesday2489 If we’re talking about a self sufficient Europe, then Ireland has neither the size nor the infrastructure to serve as the primary source of all food in Europe. In fact, Ukraine is already the sole provider of most of Europe’s grain, which is another reason Russia conquering it would be very very bad.
Agressive neutrality is what I have heared it called in reference to the swiss model. Military is a waste of resources, but as long as there are countries willing to go to war with you, it is an investment that has to be made. It is sad that it is neccasary but it has to be done. I hope we keep the less interventionist policies we have compared to the US. But I also hope we will be more active in not economicaly supporting regimes who are on the way of becoming "the next ww2 germany".
As an American I support Europe having their own strong army and geopolitical presence. I understand that isn’t in the best strategic interest of the US, but it is in the best strategic interest of democracy which is what matters. 🇪🇺🇺🇸
I would disagree that the US wouldn't benefit from a militarily and politically-strong EU. As long as a major power is ideologically pro-democratic and pro-stability, the most important US interests are strengthened. It also helps to have well-armed nations that are pro-democratic and anti-war to support deterrence, so we don't slide back into the days of League of Nations impotence nor Cold War utilitarianism.
Russian here. First of all, I cannot understate the amount of shame me and a lot of my friends are feeling every day. A lot of us have friends in Ukraine and watching the news has felt physically revolting. Buildings that look like the ones that we live in are getting blown up. Every major city square here has riot police outnumbering people. The last independent news outlets have been shut down and activist are having their apartment doors spray painted with slurs. The president has encouraged snitching on your neighbours. As horrific as it all is, it's not comparable to what Ukraine is going through. A lot of people, good people, lost their homes and their lives. In all honesty, the phrase that has been echoing here is a quote from the political scientist Ekaterina Shulman "I pray that we live long enough to finally say that this is why we need the ability to retire politicians. That democracy isn't just some hoity-toity thing that exists in the West because it's their culture, but a process mean to prevent an explosion. Democracy is how one retires a mad politician before one grabs the nuclear button and goes onto some historical quest." The lack of accountability was always an issue here, the people felt like they were just humans residing on a territory rather than citizens, but that never was an issue as long as the economy was ticking and the streets were clean. In a flash all of this disappeared, people lost their livelihoods, freedoms and many mothers lost their sons. Politicians working in literal gilded fortresses say that the people can "survive a bit of discomfort". It baffles how the leadership of a country can willingly tank the living standards of their own people, then punish them if they protest. We don't feel like humans, but rather a resource to be commanded by an obviously mad tsar. I pray that this madness ends, but even if it does it will take generations to wash away the blood and horror that has been inflicted. I just pray that this will not resurface further imperial ambitions in neighbouring states or age-old grievances. Europe is old and wise and with all my heart I pray that her values and her dreams will outlive this mad king.
Turkey is already feeling cocky. Watch Erdogan try to become a second Putin, he's already been doing it as a leader for the past 22 years, soon he'll hop into action.
As an American, this is quite enlightening and fascinating to me. If Kraut is right and Europe is going to emerge as a new world superpower, I will say, I would much rather share that space with you guys than with a lot of other options. In any case, I wish the best of luck and wisdom to you all. May truth light your path.
Europe will never be able to co-ordinate itself to be a super power. Even right now Germany is fueling Russia by buying its gas while Poland is demanding cessation of all trade which would destroy Germany's industry.
@@tpower1912 I disagree. They'll find a common ground in time. The EU is marching towards complete independence from Russia's fossil fuels, Germany's own chancellor has said that they can transition faster than anyone foresees, and that the process is now irreversible.
I think that becoming a strong defensive superpower would be the way to go for Europe. If anything a defensive juggernaut of a European Union, that remains neutral and acts as a negotiator would be ideal and suit well troubled lands such as these. How easy it would be, I don’t know. But it’d definitely be wise I think. Especially with the tensions brewing between US and China
@@kahal510 They're just becoming dependent on the more expensive, higher carbon footprint liquefied natural gas from the warmongers and terrorists in the US and Qatar.
As an American, I still would be pleased to see Europe taking a larger leadership role on the world stage. The potential for Europe to go against our own interests is there of course but the same can be said of our own government at times. A serious counterweight to the US in the democratic world could force US leadership to finally take its role seriously again or at the very least leave someone at the wheel if stability degrades over here.
Same hear from NYC. I wonder if this will make nato countries be more faithful to their commitment in funding NATO. Plus us getting more funding at home for our infrastructure that desperately needs the money especially in public transportation among others.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 question are you Spanish? As for your demand it might not happen considering in case of conflict it would be impractical to ship troops across the Atlantic into Europe to support NATO members which spain is apart of.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 Did we screw you guys over or something? Don't seem to remember any significant beefs between us and Spain (Sorry if you're not from Spain I'm just guessing from the name).
I’m not feeling too good about this situation either. This is a major shift in the dynamics of politics in Europe. This is a new era & a new order could potentially arise. It’s something we have to watch with fear.
@Leo The British-Eurasian maybe but the truth is these years have been good for the Americans & Europe, Putins war threatens world stability. I’m looking at those wheat prices in particular & what that means for the Arab world.
@@PakBallandSami appreciate the kind worse & likewise. Hopefully some good can come out of this. Eitherway Putin has etched his name in infamy & has now given the Ukrainians a core tenant to their national identity: skepticism & hostility to the Russian state
I feel like the whole conference and it's concluding document the "Helsinki Accords" are the more widely known thing. Basically the outcome is more known then the initiator.
@Der Traubengott he did have lot of power in Cold war times. Hosted many meetings between East and West so yeah if some Finnish politician should be it is him. Well him and Mannerheim I guess
@Obscure Wondering he is pretty controversial here as well. I guess the most neutral point is that he stayed in power because Finns liked him and he had very good relationship with USSR. He didn't really do anything notably bad or anything but he did stay in power for really long time 25 years if I remember correctly. So if some would want to call him like dictator light or something like that they wouldn't be wrong 😅
@@Ben-ek1fz Interesting - Cold War wasn't covered in great detail during my school time (german gymnasium). The overwhelming part of history course during that time was the Weimar Republik - its foundation, many crisis and the reasons for its collapse. (But I think that's understandable from a German perspective.)
has the opposite ever brought peace though? Militarization brings more war, military industries need wars to sell their products, peace is bad for business as far ad their concerned
I agree, bare no illusions the bellicosean dogma that once was the norm back in the day is still existent if only tempered by the presence of a global policeman. The peace we experience today only endures because of the preponderance of American power, a power that might soon be eclipsed by a rising power to the east.
@@keanjorda8996 Meh, I have to disagree on the "might soon be eclipsed" point regarding US military power. Without getting into specific details, the US is still decades ahead of anyone else in totality of military power, when regarding advanced equipment, the amount of said equipment, and the large numbers of skilled personnel needed to man said equipment. The US still invests incredible amounts of money into military development, dwarfing its biggest rivals by several magnitudes. Even if the US had to scale back expenses to nothing but maintenence on what it already has, it'd take China or Russia multiple generations to catch up. When you factor in the context that the long-term demographic situations for China and Russia are far graver than for the US, it stands to reason that America's long term prospects look better than for China or Russia. A bunch of old people does not make a strong country, and China/Russia are older than the US, aging faster than the US, and replacing less population than the US. Corruption has affected both nations as much, if not more so, than the US as well. This reinforces the stagnation of their economies and bogs down military development. Couple this with the demographic situation, and the odds of either country being a serious threat to America's hegemonic power in our lifetimes are pretty much nil. Chinese sphere does stand to grow, but more so because the US is choosing to cast a smaller net to save on costs rather than China muscling out the US on the geopolitical stage.
As a Bulgarian, an Europe that is even more closely interdependent not only economically, but also military and security wise, is very much a desired outcome from this awful war. Bottom line is that we should never allow something like this to happen ever again in Europe or it's borders. The threat of massive economic sanctions wasn't enough to deter Russia, a more direct and physical threat is needed to keep the bear at bay, and what more direct than a united European army, contributed to and supplied for by every country member? Not for a more aggressive foreign policy but for protection of European values of peace, interdependency and democracy.
I just can't agree with European Army idea. It transfers resposibility of defending EU to outside of our countries. I much, much more prefer something similar to NATO as a concept - every country has it's own army that has goals and purposes in bigger european project. Forces train together, use the same standards, common language (literally - using english seems like a natural thing right now), purchase bigger systems together to get better prices etc. Base security of your country not purely on outside help but on abilities of your country to cooperate with others. One, united European Army just doesn't smell right to me. I could easily imagine world where this kind of project leaves Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania to Russia because defending Poland, Germany or Romania seems to have higher priority.
what does an army matter when putin can literally throw nukes at you. you people are so stupid to think amy war matter between super power when it'll only be a short game of catch the nuke
*we should never allow something like this to happen ever again in Europe or its borders* Yet you did, though no fault but your own. Did you think this would happen when NATO expanded 13 times? Did you think this would happen when you deny Russia's request to JOIN NATO 5 times? Did you think this would happen when you follow the US blindly to destabilise Ukraine and support radical neo-nazi groups? I can go on, but you get the point. Europe and the US are equally responsible for starting this war, if not MORE than Russia. You wanted peace, yet you are giving MORE lethal weapons to Ukraine, KNOWING the bloody history of radical terrorist group in that region and prolonging this war. You talked about peace and survival, yet YOU pushed one of the biggest nuclear superpowers into a corner, if humanity dies, the blood is ON YOUR HANDS.
Someone in the comments mentioned "why didn't Bosnia, Serbia, Georgia, Crimea break the Helsinki accords?". Bosnia and Serbia were probably too small to matter to an average western European, but they were cracks. Georgia was when Putin realised Helsinki accords no longer work, in 2008, and used it to raise his popularity in Russia through a quick victory. Takeover of Crimea is when Ukraine realised it. Many of us preferred to pretend the peace is still alive, without even checking for the pulse. 24th of February 2022 is when the world realised it's over. You could perhaps even say Chechnya was when when the accords were broken, but people could rationalise it as a result of the messy break up of the Soviet Union. Something of a civil war. Or not really a part of Europe. The most important point is that if Europe always tries to avoid war, the rest of the world should always use war to negotiate. To avoid war at all costs is to give up everything. If economic sanctions were swift enough (cutting off literally everything immediately), that might be a viable alternative to threatening violence in return. But it has a decent probability of conflicting with interests of countries in Europe and is unreliable for this reason. The other option is, of course, the old good si vis pacem, para bellum. It's fun and safe to mock someone who won't fight back. But what about someone strong who might feel like you crossed the line?
There WERE people that said: it's coming. They were portrayed as rusophobes because for Germany was much more important. At the end who got it right: Germans and French or Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia/Poland when they tried to protect Georgia in 2008. Ladies and Gentlemen!We are here to express our full solidarity. We are Presidents of five states: Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We are here to undertake a struggle. It has been now the very first instance for a long time that our neighbours from the North, and for us also from the North and the East, have shown the face that we used to know all too well for centuries. Those neighbours believe that the nations surrounding them should be subordinated to them. And we say: No! The country I have in mind is Russia. That country believes that the old days of an empire that collapsed some twenty years ago are now about to return, that domination will be again the distinctive feature of the region. It will not be so. These times are gone once and for all and are not merely interrupted for twenty, thirty or fifty years! We were all of us exposed to this domination in more or less the same period o time. This was a misfortune for all Europe! This was about breaking people’s characters, imposing an alien political system, imposing a foreign language. But what makes the situation now different from the situation many years ago? Today, we are here together. The world had to react even if reluctantly. We are here to make the world react even stronger, the European Union and NATO in particular. When I was initiating this visit, some people believed that Presidents may have some fears. Nobody had any fears. They all came here since the Central Europe has courageous leaders. What I want to tell you and tell our friends from our shared European Union is that the Central Europe, Georgia and our whole region is going to have say, that we are a subject. And we also realize all too well that what has befallen Georgia today may befall Ukraine tomorrow, the Baltic States a day after, and then perhaps also my own country: Poland. We were deeply convinced that the membership of NATO and the EU would put an end to Russian appetites. It turned out that it did not. But if the values that are to be the foundation of Europe are to have any practical significance at all, we can defy. If those values are to matter at all, we must be here; whole Europe must be present here. Among us, there are four NATO members. There is also Ukraine, a large country. There is Mr President Sarkozy who at present presides over the European Union. But there should be 27 of us here. We trust that Europe will appreciate it and will be present, that Europe will understand your own right to freedom and its own stakes as well That Europe will realize that without Georgia, Russia is going to restore its empire which serves nobody’s interests. This is why we are here now.” Turned out - Europe didn't notice until now.
@@kondziu1992 I would expand on that with a second group who worried about it... from the other perspective. People who felt that our overtures towards Ukraine were pushing Russia to war, as that change in spheres of influence would be unacceptable. Probably also happened regarding Georgia, but I wasn't following that as much so I can't comment. More of a realpolitik view, I suppose. Same way we won't do anything about Hong Kong or the Uyghurs. We might not like it, but we gotta know our limits and respect others' spheres of influence. Pick our battles. Particularly worrisome is the fourth view though. Which also saw it coming, and saw the opportunity. A way to get Russia into a devastating conflict, where we can bleed them dry through arms shipments and sanctions, without ever setting foot on the battlefield. Question is, what's the endgame there?
@@sorsocksfake That's the thing - I cannot understand how modern democracies can support the idea of "spheres of influence". I'd much rather see international politics as a free market. I always hear about that argument: how would USA react if Mexico invited Chinese to place their army bases on their land. It's simple - it's in USA interest to never let that happen. That's why you trade with your neighbors, you protect relations between nations, you make deals because if country next to you feels good about this relationship, then you both feel safe. So this idea is only possible if Mexico wouldn't feel safe with USA on the border. And Russia does exactly that. They are always threatening, influence politics of other nations by force or using their intelligence agencies. This meme about 'Types of headaches' is absolutely true. They buy politicians, influence important sectors of economy and suck all of the juices out of other nations. And when their victims have enough and try to separate from Russia's "company" - they risk their existence and independence. It's just not right. "When Poland and Ukraine introduced their political, social and economic system reforms at the beginning of the 1990s, both economies were at a similar level of economic development (GDP $9,500 per capita). However, in 2018, Ukrainian GDP per capita had remained at the same levels since 1991, while in Poland, it had increased significantly, to more than $27,000 per capita." You know what was the MAIN difference? Poland went with NATO, EU and friendly partnership with USA. Ukraine stayed in Russian "sphere of influence". They are similar nations when it comes to work ethic, faith, social structure. Ukraine have better soils, started in 1990s with better infrastructure (nuclear plants... army bases... shipyards...) and yet - it is where it is.
The Treaty of Vienna ensured a peace in Europe that lasted for decades. But war still happened. Extremely costly wars, at that. Neither the Treaty of Vienna, nor the League of Nations, nor the Helsinki Accords can stop the escalation of ideologies to the ultimate battleground. It's pessimistic, sure, but it's not untrue.
@Der Traubengott Not quite true. For example, a lot of wars the French started after the French Revolution were demanded by the Population. The Franco- Prussian war is a very good example of that.
@Der Traubengott You're basically advocating for the Liberal World Order idea that stable democracies are far less likely to go to war with other democracies, I believe.
@Der Traubengott "and how was the media situation back then? Censorship at its prime." Not really, censorship was at its prime during WW1, but before it was not really effective. And the Franco-Prussian war was started because the media were in this case not censored and the French felt insulted. "Also the wars back then were fought as cabinet wars. Small standing armies fighting in rural areas for small gains in territory. The population was mostly unaffected by these wars back then." You do realize, that that was only a short period of time, and civilians were still harmed and that completely ended with the French Revolution.
The point of the EU and the Helsinki Accords was to use economics as a tool to stop wars from happening. The League of Nations for example didn't have that kind of a tool.
This is exactly why I hate the notion of "Oh why do you care about about the Ukraine war? There are multiple other conflicts going on at the same time and those aren't different." This is an argument used by uninteligent Americans who do not understand what Europe even is. There has been peace between nation states since ww2. Yugoslavian breakup can't really be counted since it was a civil war not a war between countries. Also it was pretty much expected that Europes power dynamic would change eventually. It was shown that Russia was an aggressive state when it invaded Georgia. It was never a good idea to try to make peace with a non democratic Russia when we KNEW it was unstable.
As an American, I'm glad Europe is distancing itself from American Influence. Our politicians and people need to realize how much they take for granted, as it's leading many down a dark authoritarian path. It might backfire, but honestly we need to have different goals, as we all have different positions and people. We only need to agree on a few things. Peace is preferable. Humility is a good thing. And humanity as a whole (and the Earth) needs to be protected.
I think it's important not to distance ourselves too much. Yes, friendly competition would potentially help us both BUT our enemies remain too strong for us to act TOO isolated from one another. Democracy is already too weak as it is, so we need to be careful not to go too far from one another.
I mean EU members also really don't trust each other. Eastern Europe would like more cooperation with Turkey to deter Russia but Greece and Cyprus doesn't want anything to with Turkey. The Germans want no nuclear energand is trying to convince the EU members to follow there action. The france and Italy supports opposing side in the Libya civil war. Spain wants help with stopping Morocco gain there islands but no other EU members cares.
Same here. The gap between public opinion, centers of economic influence, and actual law is too big for me to trust my own government with world leadership. I would be fine letting Europe's democracies take the reigns and set the agenda.
Europe should be distancing itself. America has been saying this for litteral decades. Even trump told germany to fund its own army, and to start paying its fair share of NATO. The problem is, America has domestic issues right now. Also, NO ONE WANTS TO BE WORLD POLICE. We dont want the world to turn into a china-run shithole the millisecond we focus on ourselves. Europe shares our same interests in terms of global trade and shit. 9/11 happened, because America was focusing on its election, and the shifting administration. No one in the intelligence community was paying attention to what was going on in Afghanistan, and what actors like Osama were doing. In the ideal world, America wouldnt be the only super power, and you would have countries like Germany or France that would atleast take up a few roles that the CIA were supposed to do leading up to the event.
American has historically profit from European wars and crisis economically and via the benefits of increased military presence. Europeans needs to realize their interest is fundamentally contradict with American interest. So when something like Ukraine war happens, Americans will try everything to keep it going while Europeans suffer
The Nonaligned Movement experienced considerable difficulty in establishing a unified policy on many issues in international affairs. Many of the member nations were enemies (such as Iran and Iraq), and true nonalignment proved an elusive goal. With the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union (1991), neutralism lost much of its usefulness as a guiding principle in many nations’ foreign relations.
My country Belarus joined the Nonaligned Movement and even added neutrality to the Constitution. You can now see how neutral and nonaligned Belarus is.
@@vcprocles Sadly neutrality will always be perfect ground to breed authoritarianism. Not always happend but its the most common route for countries that choose it.
@@TexYMatt98 Which may explain why there were so many dictatorships in the third world during the Cold War, and how a lot of these dictatorships disappeared following the end of the Cold War in 1991.
If I remember right, The main TV station in Russia (or the USSR I can't remember) was taken over during a coup and no one shut off the broadcast so Swan Lake was on loop and tipping off civilians that something was wrong. Since then Swan Lake has become a symbol of something going wrong that is being hidden from the public.
@@americankid7782 also when Brezhnev died,instead of broadcasting the death of Brezhnev itself,Soviet TV station keep playing swan lake for hour non stop,when they realize Brezhnev was died the news already passed 5 days ago,and people start to confuse about what happen to their own leader
As an Austrian, Id say our role as mediators between nations largly ended since the cold war. Yes we still house the IAEA and bureau of the UN, but I dont have the feeling that our government could be taken seriously internationally to the extent where one could use us as mediators. Our governments for the last couple of years have been a laughing stock ever since Kern-Mitterlehner ended. Im worried about european security and the question what happens if or once Putin will be in a corner.
the only country that can still work as a mediator is Switzerland but even they’re starting to show signs of non neutrality which is the big reason why they matter in the first place
"The question what happens if or once Putin will be in a corner"... Russia is not only Putin. IF you're insinuating nuclear weapons, this means you forgot that most of Russia's leadership is not delusional AND suicidal (at the sea time ^^) + we in the West have our own nukes. We also have a little thing called an actual (basically) effective army + mostly capable intelligence agencies. Until Russia becomes a death cult in its leadership caste (we're far from there so far), your fears have little basis in reality. I get why you have them, but, they have little basis in reality. With love, from a neighbouring "5-km-from-Mureck"-dwelling Slovenian
Never knew IAEA seat is in Austria. Bit ironic when I remember how Austrian activists block our shared border crossings every time we make a slight notion of thinking of adding another nuclear reactor in Temelin lol.
I am an Iranian so maybe I should not be one to judge but it has always seemed to me that Europeans always Expect people and other world leaders to act in a very specific and positive way hoping that others will make the decision that in their eyes are diplomatic and right, and frankly that always seems so naive. In Iran it is natural in our culture to prepare for the worst to Expect that even those you trust will commit to a set of actions that fundamentally disappoint you and to expect the worst outcome in all things specially in political decision making. It just seems to me that Europe was under the illusion of optimism and their own arrogance thinking that because this framework has worked it will always work and there will never be a need for any backups or heavy contingencies and as a result they have been hammered by the consequences of their own naive ideals the world outside Europe ,outside its democracy outside diplomacy exists and it neither abides by accepts or even likes European life, culture, law or diplomacy Regardless of all of this I think there will always be a need for change eventually nothing is perfect no framework no law no system the faults simply take decades if not centuries to show themselves eventually there must be change and while it is horrifying at times change can also be a good thing. Europe has always been a land of change always shifting never stagnant in one form and its history can be used as a lesson to make better decisions for the future.
You mean western Europe. We easterners (and especially in my case, the Balkans) come from a low-trust society which means that we're used to all that. Watch Kraut's video on the Greek crisis.
@@souvikrc4499 I can only hope that our leaders Support for Russia does not cross the red line of active military support if it does that will be a catastrophe I doubt there will be any actual agreement to remove sanctions by the west, at this point I'm hoping everyone simply dials down a bit for a few years or preferably decades I highly doubt that will happen though specially with Russia insisting on taking Ukraine no matter how bad the losses become economically or otherwise
I want to add some words as Ukrainian. Europe mostly tried to keep in peace itself if we are talking about "west" countries and Europe ignored terrible things russia did in Chechnya twice, in Georgia twice, Transnistria, asad supporting and bombing civilians in Syria, supporting military dictatorship side in Libya, supporting authocracies in other african countries like Central African Republic with PWC "Wagner" which is controlled by putin's close friend and killed group of journalists there, maduro support in Venezuela, russian influence over Karabakh war and shooting people during protests in Kazakhstan and looting houses there, supporting lukashenko to demolish protests in Belarus. And all this happen since ussr collapsed and russia since that time caused so many wars and problems and I even don't mention wars caused by ussr which in fact was another empire with russian superiority. All this time Europe was in silence and even when russia annexed Crimea Europe used some sanctions against, but even those sanctions worked bad and military equipment was sent to russia by countries like Germany and France. For example if you'll see inside new made russian tank at start of war you find that most of equipment is "western" and especially optical equipment is made by France, or russian new military armored cars were made by Italy or Spain and drones have Japanese and Switzerland equipment and all of these happened even when russia was sanctioned, so in fact Europe broke its own rules in favor of their greedy desire without conscience about upper mentioned wars caused by russia + current full scale invasion (in fact war from 2014 continues). But the most interesting part is that Europe became victim of russia and russia started manipulating by its resources like oil and gas and warn by nuclear disasters, military and then Europe started understand that the only way to withstand is to form a power that can make problems for russia and other autocracies and they have no choice to continue trading with killer while blood of other nations spill. If someone thinks that increasing military and so on process are bad decission, so I'll say that Europe has no other decission. Whether you become strong and show your determination without any fears or whether you'll encounter with greater crisis in future and full economical and not only control of russia because of your inactivity. Don't forget Europeans, here in Ukraine we also fight for freedom of all Europe.
The real reason is that Oil and gas was discovered in Ukraine and Europe sees Ukraine as a way to get her oil addiction without relying on russia. Nothing has changed.
@@theq4602 lol no. The amount of gas+oil found in Ukraine isn't nearly comparable to the ones that russia posses, and so can't fix europe energy problems. Also, the newly found gas placements were near Crimea. Did Europe annexCrimea to take its tasty resources? No it didnt, Russia did.
Honestly I was quite surprised by the response from the West. I thought it would be Crimea2.0. Which would be quite scary for me (a Polish person) but not surprising There're 2 differences tho. 1. Ukrainian goverment got their shit toghether well enough so you could defend yourself from the attack this time 2. Putin went straight for the capital. If he kept to the East I don't think many Western countries would care that much I hope other Eastern countries find some independence from Russia after the war ends. The sooner the better
I wouldn't mind a unified EU as a counterweight to the United States. A diplomatic system of checks and balances where both parties agree on their fundamental principles and hold each other accountable.
Yeah. I agree. I like the relationship which the US and Europe have as it's built upon decades of cooperation and history. However it is kind of one-sided and has been throughout most of the Cold War. The only danger is, that if Europe can stand for its' own, perhaps it may start leaning towards China and autocracy. I think that's unlikely though.
I would love it, the Americans are too unreliable and we shouldn’t degrade ourselves to being vassal states when we have the power to be a force for good in the world.
@@doogus8728 So could the US. Trump wanted to be an autocrat. His base tried to hold our legislature hostage. It didn't happen in 2021... What about 2024? If Trump was in office he probably would have pulled us out of NATO by now. We wouldn't be giving weapons to Ukraine we are doing now. If at all. A multi polar world is a more stable world. I would worry about an expansionist Europe. That would be a true nightmare.
@@Giganfan2k1 Yeah! In my eyes, Trump is populism during peacetime. Something which nobody needs. Many of his election points revolved around stirring up fear or resentment of the democrats, the 'fake news', the immigrants, the overall government, NATO. Scapegoats all around. He didn't actually latch onto anything real. He created problems and coined terms. S'pose that's all you can do when there's not much paranoia to draw support from. And yeah, an expansionist Europe. Although I think the political climate is far too sensitive in Europe for something like that to happen. It would need a drastic event to trigger change like that. Something that creates a surge of European identity.
Mexican here, I always enjoy watching Krauts videos even beyond the ones about my country. The history of Europe post World War II has always been fascinating to me. I hope things will settle soon but as Kraut says, things will change
I loved Kraut's video about the history of Mexico! Me and my friends did a school project about Mexico in high school and we purposefully talked as little about the Mexican revolution as possible since we found it so hard to get a grasp on all the different sides and what the outcome meant for Mexico in the decades after. If only Kraut had uploaded these videos back in 2008...
@@icelandinreallife2042 Jajaja the Mexican revolution is a nightmare to study in school it’s still very confusing now, greetings to you my Icelandic friend
Colombian here, and I love these things, if there’s a conflict I don’t think we will be involved unless there something to do with Venezuela or something
Gotta say, this was one of the most refreshing takes I've heard about Kekkonen for quite some time. As a Finn I thought the video was going to be about Finlandization, because that's what Kekkonen is the most well known for here in Finland. The jury is still out there pondering should we treat him as leader who managed to guide Finland through the cold war despite being a neighbour of USSR (Praque Spring flashbacks) or power hungry politican who shamelessly used USSR for his own political goals, or both. The topic of Finlandization is still sore topic in Finland, which is why it's difficult to have a fruitful discussion about it without discussion turning into game of "find the biggest bootlicker".
Opinion from outside? I wish I was in Finland right now. I didn't notice (I might be wrong) Kremlin treating you guys with their usual "we're going to destroy you, your country shouldn't exist" bullshit. I'm a Pole and the reality is: we are the main target of every possibile action against NATO that Russia can come up with. Alongside with Baltic states of course. There's this undescribable tension in the air right now. People freak out when they hear firecrackers on the street or other loud *bang* somewhere. Luckily with every week that this invasion goes on, it seems like another euro-russia war is another year further away. I wouldn't want to live in a world where Russia achieved its goals and conquered Ukraine in 5 days.
@@adelinod.5568 There's no credibe evidence for that and for example the ex-cheif of Finnish Security Intelligence Service (supo) was certain that Finlands independence was always Kekkonens top priority. However, there are also claims that Kekkonen did work with KGB to manufacture the Note Crisis of 1961 in order to sabotage the challenge made by Olavi Honka. These claims are based on hearsay and are not substantiated by evidence, although even people at the time had suspicions about Kekkonens role in that crisis. Was he an agent or asset? I don't think so. Was he someone KGB could work with? Maybe? His whole political career was based on the fact he was able to "handle the eastern relations" and I imagine dealing with KGB comes with it.
As someone from Russia, I was hoping that, over time, with growing interdependencies - we'll be able to shift out from our authoritarian path, since it'll mean that more and more people will be involved with international community, and I know, that it's one thing that makes you avoid conflicts on a personal level, which, given scale, can influence politics within countries. I can't tell you, how shattered I am because of what's happening, especially while having friends\family in Ukraine, who I can't even help, given the circumstances.
@@niceone550 Во-первых не либерал, во-вторых, схерали это я предатель? Это z-тусовочка одобряет отправку наших молодых людей на смерть не пойми за что.
There was a lot of criticism aimed at the reaction to the war in western countries, roughly along the lines of "where was this enthusiasm and action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Myanmar etc", often with a "the west is still racist/imperialist" message. In my view this criticism was justified sometimes (e.g. the infamous "blonde and blue-eyed comment"), but I also felt that there was a profound difference between this war and the examples cited in such arguments, and this video articulates that difference. The reason many people in the west were so shocked is that this war breaks a precedent we have all taken for granted, which brings with it a terrifying uncertainty.
If Ethiopians want to stop murdering one another, or Muslims want to Liberalize their Oil: No one will stop them. Europe has a good thing going, despite their modern restraint in imperialism; expecting anyone to feel bad about it, is rediculous. As far as the American Empire: if Gran Columbia, Japan, or the Ottomans or the Zulu's could have: They Would Have.
not only that but of course you are more shocked and likely to help if your neighbour had a burglar break into his house then some stranger in a distant city where you only notice it in the newspapers. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and so on arent european there is no common heritage, no cultural similarities a different religion no shared history not even any political or even strategic reasons for europe to have any commitments at all there. Meanwhile the ukrainian border is closer to my countries capital then certain parts of the country. This has absolutely nothing to do with racism or imperialism or all the other nonsense but simply that you care more about your neighbour then some stranger half way around the world. You care more about your family then an acquaintiance.
As if those people would support any Western aid as anything more than Western imperialism to begin with. There is a deep distrust (not unearned) of the West and any action it may take, these people are the same ones that cheered when US troops attempted to stop the killings in Somalia and were killed for it.
Most of those wars mentioned were either islamist incursions or the death fight of some totalitarian dictatorship. Almost all of them internal, based on reasoning that is very disconnected to western and european ideas and ideals. Ukraine is non of that. Thats why we care more, because a. it makes more sense for us to care more and b. because sympathy for one side is much easier to have.
There's a point when alleged racism is simply extended monkey-spere related bias towards those closer to us culturally, geographically and yes racially. I would not dismiss this critique outright, but I can't blame westerners for caring more about people who look like them and live like them getting bombed out of their homes. At some point you're just critiquing human nature and nobody is going to give a toss about their galaxy brain takes on how we're biased and should care about everyone equally.
The only scenarios where you can have peace are: (1) everyone around you wants peace or (2) you're so strong any attack against you would be suicidal. There might be an option (3) if you're a tiny and/or geopolitically insignificant country that isn't worth attacking, but that doesn't exactly apply to Europe as a whole. Option (1) seemed to work in Europe for a few decades, but we're in the process of seeing how spectacularly it can fail because it takes only one autocrat with a thirst for power or who wants his place in the history books (*cough* *cough* Putin) to throw the whole idea of peace out the window. Let's not forget Putin isn't even the only autocrat in Europe, he's just the one that sits on a massive nuclear arsenal. If it wasn't for NATO and the EU, I'm convinced we'd see even more conflict in Europe. Some of the leaders in and around Europe don't strike me as the sorts who go to sleep thinking how the Helsinki Accords were the greatest thing since sliced bread. Add to this the threat of nationalism that exists latently or out in the open in every European country; there are plenty of idiots out there that DO go to sleep thinking how great it would be if they could just re-arrange borders according to , including a few European leaders I'm sure, and given the chance would be willing to throw peace out the window over some historical beef or another. As citizen of the EU, I'm wary in principle of EU bureaucracy and its influence over certain local matters, but I do believe that internally, for Europe, the best way to prevent future wars is to make national borders largely irrelevant which is what, in part, the EU is doing. However that still leaves powers, great and small, outside Europe to contend with. Because Europe isn't an island all alone on an infinite ocean. Regardless of what it does internally, it will always bump into the lands and, more importantly, the interests of those in its immediate vicinity, plus those of the greater powers that can exert influence over a long distance. Some of those powers are friendly or share certain values, but many more are ambivalent at best. Some are outright antagonistic. These are not parties to the Helsinki Accords, they have no interest in what those accords meant for Europe and they have no interest in liberal democracy. Against them you can only defend through force: economic, cultural and military in nature. My belief is that Europe, as a whole, needs to go for option (2). Might does not make right, but it might (excuse the pun) make your neighbor think twice about trying to rearrange the furniture in YOUR living room. RE: neutrality. I will say some things that will piss off some of my fellow Europeans. Some European countries can afford neutrality because on a grand scale they're geographically insignificant. However these are not the ones that are relevant to this conversation. I'm talking about the bigger names that get thrown around all the time. Austria and Switzerland are surrounded on all sides by NATO countries. They can effectively hide behind NATO for cover. This without even saying that Switzerland also has, for a long time, embraced ARMED neutrality. So not some hippy, flower power fantasy of peace, but one that is backed through force of arms. A stance similarly embraced by Sweden. Now Sweden isn't surrounded by NATO countries, but it also doesn't have a direct border with Russia, the greatest threat to peace in Europe at the moment. However one look at the map is enough to see that they are considerably exposed through the Baltic. Then there's Finland. If I was them, I'd be worried. Putin's Russia may not be as militarily strong as the USSR, but it's far more dangerous to peace in Europe, as it has already proven. And Ireland? Once again this is a case of a country that can afford its neutrality since it effectively has an entire continent to hide behind. Of course, this is reductionist and the situation of all these countries is a lot more complex than this, but what I said does serve to point out that neutrality only works if geography is in your favor and/or you have a strong enough military to make an invasion a really bad idea. Since Europe, as a whole, isn't an isolated island far from any potential adversary, nor does it exist in a world that universally shares its values, the only way I see Europe protecting itself is by re-arming itself within an allied, coordinated structure, be it NATO, be it a militarized EU, be it something new altogether. As long as the core principles of such a structure are that (a) an attack on one is an attack on all and (b) no allied country may use force against another, else it will be treated as an aggressor against all other allied countries, essentially as under point (a). Of course, the entry bar should continue to be defined by whether you're a liberal democracy or are at least striving to become one. My belief is that a new iron curtain is descending upon Europe and beyond, but the sides are no longer defined in terms capitalism vs communism, but in terms of democracy vs authoritarianism. It took 3 decades for the world to resettle itself after the end of the Cold War and now a new struggle is about to begin. None of the countries in Europe are large or strong enough to make a difference "out there", in the world, on their own. Sooner or later some great outside force that does not share your belief in democracy is going to assert itself in your country or in a country neighboring yours. That is the great danger. It's already happening, politically through outside support for extremist parties (left or right wing) and through propaganda at a (social) media level. Much of the European leadership has been sleeping at the wheel for years while the enemies of democracy are using our own political and media institutions against us, enabled by many people's naïve belief that their country is too strong to be affected or that democracy is somehow a given, something that just is as opposed to something that was created through a long and arduous process and has to be protected. To paraphrase one of my favorite TV characters: The hall is rented, the orchestra engaged. It's now time to see if Europe can dance.
Wrong on #2. It of course cannot apply since if you're that strong, you'll be the risk of war to the other side (thus we get arms races). #2 would work a bit differently, in two ways. One are defensive-only alliances. As long as that's clear, the attacker would always face greater numbers. The downside is that defensive alliances can easily turn offensive. The other is cost deterrence. Simply put, Russia can conquer Finland if it really wanted to. But it won't, because it would gain very little from it, while the costs would be massive. Finland's army cant stop Russia, but it can bleed it severely. As long as Finland is neutral and friendly to Russia (or the USSR), while having a serious army, Russia is better off just leaving things as they are.
@@sorsocksfake you make some good points. What I was talking about is a defensive alliance, though admittedly I didn't specify this. Regardless of what you do though, having a strong army can always be interpreted by someone else as a danger to themselves and a justification for an even greater army. And I don't think there's a clear "safe" level of arming yourself. What you think is reasonable, the autocrat next door may think is too much. Too much for them may be barely enough for you to defend yourself. As for being friendly towards Russia, when you deal with someone like Putin anything less than bowing down to his demands and essentially giving up your right to decide for yourself will be considered as 'unfriendly'. Besides, autocracies see democracy as an existential threat. Autocrats see democracy as a direct threat to their power. You want to play nice with them and do everything you can to stay on their good side, fine. It depends how far you're willing to compromise. For me the line is drawn at the point where they try to dictate your own policies under threat of war and when they try to subvert your democracy from within by supporting extremist parties or by infiltrating your democratic institutions, especially the media. Which I believe is exactly what Russia has been doing. Everyone is of course free to decide for themselves where that line is drawn or if they have a line to draw at all.
@@sorsocksfake you are wrong. Russia is not gaining anything in Ukraine and it was obvious it would not gain anything long before this war. Ukraine is simply too big an populous to conquer.... but Russia did it anyway. You cant expect rational calculation from irrational foe.
As an American I support Europe becoming more interconnected economically and militarily. Yeah there may be times where we disagree, but maintaining a more rigid set of democracies is well worth it. Russia I believe is an anomaly, they clearly dont really care one way or the other.
It's true. American military influence is a very debatable issue. Yet, I believe Europe regaining political, economic and military power would alleviate the US from European affairs. I believe the US being free from European responsibilities would help both entities decentralize efforts in ensuring free nations remain free. At the same time, it helps Europe and America maintain independence from rescuing the other in conflicts or times of need. What Putin wants is to develop spheres of influence for Russia to challenge the European and American interests.
I support it too. America's bigger priority should be the Asia-Pacific zone. If a Rearmed and powerful Europe led by Poles, Germans, Frenchmen, and Brits is able to protect themselves, it allows my country to focus on its only serious rival, and the security and freedom of the Pacific and Indian oceans. Leave Europe to decide its fate, and only get involved when they ask us.
Thing is, neutrality only works if all sides respect it. Russia has shown that being neutral does not protect you: it makes you an easier target. Fundamentally, the fact that all these states are deciding to abandon their neutrality in the face of overwhelming violation of accords and customs that allowed them to remain neutral is a sign that they no longer see neutrality as a means to protect themselves. Nations have duty to consider the safety of their people first, rather than sacrifice themselves for some hope of being peacemakers. If someone is to be blamed for end of neutrality and peacemakers, it is not nations abandoning their neutrality due to fears of their own safety, is the nation that has shown that neutrality is no longer respected. Fault lies, entirely, within Russian government. As a Finn, we have long seen ourselves as outside NATO, but with an "option" to join it. If Russia has respected Ukraines sovereignty, if Russia had not violated laws and customs, we might have never taken that option and kept it as purely internal politics matter. Now, we *want to* join NATO. Because we have seen what happens if you are not NATO. There is reason why this invasion is not happening in Baltics, and instead Russia is going for Ukraine. Because Baltics are shielded behind Article 5. And we want that same guarantee. One thing to note that Europe is not arming and forming lines inside itself. But rather, it is defining who is European, and who is not. It is drawing its red lines, and preparing to make sure it can enforce those red lines. Wars in Europe were supposed to be over. Now war has been brought back. If you want peace, prepare for war. It should also be noted, European nations still respect the old accords, in fact that is reason why there has been no intervention. However, Europe is also showing what it can achieve without firing a single shot: it has destroyed Russian economy. Because Russia dared to bring back war to Europe. In many ways, the ideas of market connections was never tested. Would markets truly stop war, could waging war be made too costly? Well, we are now discovering answer to that. Russia is facing the true cost of waging war, and it is not just the material loss from fighting, but the fact that the connections it had with other markets, its interconnectivity, has been severed in response. Those who would contemplate war are now watching what it means to pay the cost of war, and I doubt many nations are eager to have their economy deleted overnight for some land grab. European security framework is being tested. Russia has decided to see if it can break it, and it is now paying the price. Ukraine is flooded with economic and military aid, benefiting from those connections. Russia in opposite condition, being isolated.
But the governments of Europe don't care about their people, they only care about the wellbeing of the afro asiatics that the bourgeoisie are importing
@@constantinethecataphract5949 You do realize that ruble is worthless? And that Kremlin can't pay you anymore? Or spreading Kremlins propaganda a passion project?
@@Mandemon1990 >Anyone that doesn't agree with becoming minorities in their homeland is a kremlin bot. No im not , neo liberalism is a vile system that needs to destroyed, the survival of the native people of Europe is at stake.
The issue with Russia right now is; we'll only see in five to ten years (as normal people) how it actually will play out. Right now for us EU Citizens it means mainly that we're now again completly depending on the US. Not for Security but for our Economics. Which is bad for us. Which mean less influence on the Politics from the average Citizen.
A quick note regarding Irish neutrality: there's no intention of Ireland giving up its neutrality. We are militarily neutral, but not politically neutral. This is why we weren't involved in WW2, but instead funnelled intelligence to the Allies. The only "shift" has been our current Taoiseach stating that plainly. Our military neutrality is a large source of our soft power and the reason we can be effective peacekeepers. About the only change I can see this precipitating is a bolstering of navy and air corp spending to better cover our Atlantic borders rather than relying on our neighbours and the good will of others.
Ireland's Neutrality also caused the Death of Thousands by allowing Nazi Subs and Ships to operate within their waters. I consider it a disgrace that Ireland couldn't decide that Nazism was something to be opposed.
Ireland can _afford_ that because it's an Island nation with only Iceland to its west, and a nuclear power to its only land border in the North and also to the East that deters everyone else from attacking. Irish neutrality would change over night if Russian flags were to fly over Buckingham Palace. It's eerily similar to how European NATO countries operated before Trump and Ukraine; those nations were sure that the US got their back, so there was no need to have a strong military and a decisive foreign policy. As history now shows, that can change quite rapidly, so you best have no illusions when it comes to " _Neutrality_ ".
@@protonvpn3223 I don't disagree with most of that, and I think we should do more the protect Europe western flank by air and by sea. And nothing I wrote contradicts that. So, aim to take in 5% of your population in Ukrainian refugees Visa-free. We're dealing with what we can on the humanitarian front, and your country should aim to do the equivalent where you can rather than bitching at me.
@@protonvpn3223 I can do this all day, BTW, because I know my history. But let's focus in the here and now. In spite of our (historically justified) military neutrality, is there a just war that Irish people have not been on the front lines for? Or consider all the unjust wars we've had to go into and clean up someone else's mess.
I guess it's easy to say in hindsight, but using economic interdependance to ensure peace cannot work if it's strong enough to keep your hands tied if one side becomes a bad actor. Between democratic states, the actions of leaders and the fallout of sanctions are incredibly powerful deterrents against breaking the peace or infringing on human rights, as the common citizen has a great deal of influence on their leaders. But in an authoritarian state like Russia, so long as the government and the military hold firm, the common citizen has no real influence on their leaders. So in a game of economic chicken, a democracy will far sooner blink than an authoritarian state; a tendency that Putin and the leaders of other petrostates (and China as a manufactory giant) can and have been using to their advantage for decades. Leaders like Putin can assume it's a safe bet that they can get away with a whole lot because other nations who may object to their actions have made themselves reliant on their exports and their own people can be swayed with propaganda, the suppression of information, and outright suppression of dissent. I can only hope that from these recent events, democratic states will focus on weaning themselves off of economic dependance on anything from non-democratic states, because clearly that hasn't been working all that well in making those countries play nice. Incentives have to be in place so that those countries will want to be non-hostile to democratic nations (or if we're lucky, will encourage them to adopt democratic values), but we will have to change how we've been trying to do that.
The sanctions and maybe panic might have shown that as soon as "democratic word" itself is directly threatened the "democratic word" will do stop dicking arround internaly and go further then predicted to just try and outlive you.
Slight addendum: carrots like economic incentives go a long way in trivial conflicts. But they mean nothing when first principles come on the line. If France plans to divert the Meuse to help French farmers, Belgium and the Netherlands will take up arms. It won't matter how ruinous such a war is, or even whether they can beat France. They'd be ruined if they don't act. Likewise, Czechoslovakia will consider war when the Sudetenland is demanded. Because it's their defensive line. Surrendering it is to surrender the country. The US will risk even nuclear war, if Cuba becomes too much of a threat. Ukraine will wage war with Russia to keep its claim over Donbas and Crimea. Even if it knows full well it has no hope of winning such a war, it will still try, because it considers these to be core territories. Israel will act against Palestine as much as it sees fit, for its security. It would rather continue that war, in a fashion, than to accept a peace that would leave it indefensible. Likewise, Russia has its first principles. You may agree with them or not. But to Russia, NATO expansion all the way to Kharkov is unacceptable. That is Russia's strategic depth, as vital as Sudetenland or Maginot to its security. This is not the only reason. But it's the key one.
Are you talking about the de-democratisation of Poland an Hungary? ... because i hope you are :-P These may be special cases, though. But in African authoritarian regimes who we support, because they have what we need and buying loyalty with money and weapons has worked out well for the West until someone like Russia or China came and offered friendship for less (or more, depending on what you count). At some point it really seemed that the West was starting to lose at their own game, rather likely because of subsidising corruption, because they wouldn't need to pretend to be democracies anymore with Russia or China as their ally. South America certainly also has a different take on relationship with the US than Europe has... EU's relationship with Bolsonaro's Brazil certainly isn't one to bolster free democracy in Brazil but to ensure cheap production and the exchange of goods to please the consumer in Europe with low prices, maybe even to push back US influence and establish the EU as a potential partner in South America. So in short: i even doubt that democratising was a priority. If it was, a lot more would have been done to educate the people, provide access to information, build infrastructure instead of selling European subsidised goods to disrupt the markets and strengthen regimes... or maybe one cannot go without the other for now... but then again... if one simply offers weapons without any catch of liberating and educating the population in the long run, the choice is quite easy.
Damn straight. We may have rivalries and beef but ultimately all true free Europeans and in fact all free, democratic nations know who with us and who's against us and we've allowed authoritarian States to get away with some truly egregious shit without a whimper. There are fucking camps in China for Uighurs. It's time we sort ourselves out and drop the act that we're living in the post war world when there's been no proof for that at all. Since the end of the cold war, we've had yugoslav genocide, Syrian disaster and massive refugees flows, the south ossetia annexation, the war on terror, annexation of Crimea, Israel-Palestine tentions and Lebanon war, Armenia-Azerbaijan war, Saudi-Yemen conflict - and that's not even a full list. We need to be in a position to protect ourselves and protect eachother and stop pretending everything is fine.
@@pritzi101 well... the refugee crisis was fuelled by climate change and destabilisation of Syria and Libya. Persian revolts and the regime Pinochet were certainly also US led... so.. i would go further than that and say: We need to do better. If we want peace we should refrain from behaving like a bull in a china shop and demand more accountability. Also and most of all from our own politicians and only vote in politicians who actually care for the needs of the people and make interest groups more visible.
To add to that........It was a Blitz.....Russia won within 5 to 15 days........And when an Autocrat has won and gotten what he wanted there is no point in sactions......He has already won at the homefront. In Ukraine the thing is.......he has not won within 14 days AND his forces appeared weak. So now he cant threaten the rest of Europe as he used to. Which in turn also warrents far more aggressive collective actions. Also Ukraine is closer than Georgia and more easily accesable. Geography is one of the most important factors in any conflict. The homefront in Russia as well will notice despite the propaganda that things are getting worse due to sactions which will increase the pressure onto Putin.
@@freddy4603 I'd argue that people actually cared. But a decision was made not to make a big deal out of it, in hopes of getting on Putin's good side. Appeasement, if you will.
Genuine question: Why wasn't this paradigm considered torn apart in 2008 when Georgia was invaded? Or 2014 when Crimea was taken? Both were considered examples of using force to create border changes.
My take - It was short and small isolated conflicts. Furthermore they were "justified". It was more they rattled the status quo, but didn't break the paradigm. A full scale Total war is a completely different matter... Would love to hear others opinions as well.
I suppose it's because georgia was a nation far outside the US's influence and ability to come to it's defense And in the case of Ukraine again it's also because it's not a NATO member so legally the US and the rest of Europe can't come to it's defense by conventional means Which is why all the support for Ukraine was unconventional with economic sanctions to the aggressor nation and military weapons being sold to the Ukrainian government but no boots on the ground by NATO forces
Georgia was complicated by the whole thing not being naked agression. Crimea, though it rattled things more, didn't see any large fighting within Crimea
because those invasions were limited to regions with separatist sentiments. in neither case was a whole country invaded. right now, it seems Mr. Putin just didn't mind his narrative and just invaded everywhere.
@@HairXX It's akin to how we usually consider that the Great War ended the century long Concert of Europe*, despite the fact that there were many not insignificant wars in the continent before it like the Crimean war, the Italian and German wars of unification, or the Franco-Prussian war. For probably the same reasons as well. As while all those wars might have obviously disrupted peace they never shattered nor probably even threatened the overall system, which is what 'really' matters. *(the system of great power balance established up after the Napoleonic Wars that was meant to maintain peace in Europe, in many ways the predecessor of the Helsinki accords).
Amusingly Kekkonen also represents to many finns a dreaded side of Finnish politics: the finlandification and unwillingness to take a side or a stance. The current president, Sauli Niinistö, has been praised as the diplomatic link between the east and the west, however in reality the only reason Russia seemed to listen to him and Finland as a whole was because we never took a stance and acted mostly as a yes man when discussing problems with Russia. Finns in my opinion are starting to distance themselves from this type of neutrality politics, as it has seemed to mostly been useless in achieving peace and co-operation. Even Sauli Niinistö himself talked about taking a stance on Russian actions in his new years' speech by quoting Kissinger: "The teachings of Henry Kissinger also come to mind during these times. According to his cynical statement, when avoiding war has been the top goal of some states, the international system has been at the mercy of its most ruthless member." The increasing support for NATO membership also seems to indicate a change in the preferred way that the Finns would like to uphold peace
There is now a recognition that the strategy of appeasement of Russia for the past 15 years starting with georgia has not worked. US/EU are right to exert maximum peaceful retaliation for this invasion. Russia has become a rogue state and should be treated as a pariah until Putin is gone.
Hey. He was alive in 1940 wasn't he. I mean one US politician even said in 1939 that Stalin had more money than Finland did. Russia is basically a child of western greed. Tsar Peter I himself saw how greed was the most important value of the west. Donetsk was founded by a Welsh industrialist. I am not saying capitalism is wrong but if Finns, Ukrainians, Estonians and Taiwanese die because of it. Americans bombed Vietnam, Vietnam embraced 'market socialism' and now they are friends.
Thank you for bringing this up. As a Dane, our foreign policy will always be pegged to our larger neighbours. Right now, that is the United States, but tomorrow, that could be a German/French lead European Superpower in foreign affairs. This is very much relevant to me. Great Video!
@@zedero8 Easy to say, living in a larger country. We're used to being bossed around in Denmark. What says it won't be the big countries bossing us around again?
@@Atlasstrain First of all you need to realize that your foreign policy is already connected to that possibly emerging superpower called the EU because you’re a member-state of it. Secondly, I’m not from a big country in the Union. I am from a country even smaller (economically) than Denmark. Don’t underestimate your position in the Union, you’ve got a big say despite your size. But nonetheless, with the proper (con)federal system the EU will ensure that it works fairly for all of its states. Brussels should be the leader, and we should make up Brussels. The reasons behind the current situation where it’s falsely seen as if Germany and France are leading the EU is exactly because of the lack of more integration and of correct democratic reform. When things aren’t very clear on who’s the boss or how things work, it’s natural for the biggest states to seem as the leaders because of their sheer size and influence on the other. But from an official point of view, those states have as much power as Denmark does. You should be wishing for that proper emergence of the EU as a superpower, that way you’ll be part of one of (if not the) strongest actors in the world stage and you will not be bossed around by anyone like you are now by the US. The Americans got you spying on us for their own benefit.
The Helsinki agreement worked only while people feared war. Those agreements and 'peace' architecture are dead and everyone in Europe killed it. We killed it by not being afraid of war. Without the fear of war, people lose interest in negotiating, in observing foreign interests and putting in actual effort to come to an agreement.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot That being said, I think the thing about this is, there will always be someone willing to blow up these kind of accords and treaties here in the world for the sake of power and ideology. As an American I don't think that the Spirit of Helsinki, and economic interdependence are by any means a bad idea personally. I just don't think economic interdependence means much to dictators with enough power to throw their weight around a la Hitler and Putin.
The problem with interdependence is that it only takes one node in the system to wield it's position as a weapon for the whole thing to come down. I think we now know how fragile our global system actually is.
Only when nations don't compete by choice, a good example is semiconductors, the US has the rare earth mines and manufacturing ability to produce these. However those Mines were shut down in the 90s due to governmental interference, hence the shortage now. We can't have an open market system without the actual freedom to produce. Trying to engage in autarkic policy is why the 30s sucked, and why Spain almost collapsed in the 40s.
That's not true, networks can be resilient and route around failures. I don't hear any Europeans missing the UK from the EU. Perhaps another example of Putin's meddling back firing. There's evidence of Russian interference, though no single incident as happened in the US.
True. There is a gamble to be made, that the growth interdependence offers, when compared to internal independence, will be more beneficial than the security it forfeits. Capitalistic growth and expansion have been powerful tools on the global stage, and seclusion has often not been worth It's security.
I highly disagree with the idea that economic co-dependence ensures peace, this idea never worked during the first and second world wars when even though Germany was dependent on its oil from the Caucasus region, iron ore from Sweden, saltpeter from chile, and was a net importer of foodstuffs, hell it's telegraph lines functioned through a boosting station in the UK and Germany had substantial investments in the Turkish and Romanian banking sector which if they switched to the entente would have disastrous consequences. Economic co-dependence didn't stop Putin from his Ukrainian invasions of 2014 and 2022 and isn't stopping the USA to tussle with China despite the huge economic co-dependence. I think this argument oversimplifies the jus ad Bellum to just the economic factor which is important but sidelines other factors that initiate wars such as National pride, a sense of security threat, wars as a means of distraction for the public, wars fought for ideological reasons, etc.
Dispite all the ways you mentioned Germany being dependant on other countries, the world was still nowhere near as globalized as it is now. The serious changes didn't come until after WW2.
Kraut, I think you overlook the Russian-Georgian war, where Putin first ripped the ideas of Heleski apart and the West just ignored it If they hadn't, current events might not have happened. I hope this helped your understanding in someway.
While true the ideals stay as such as long as we keep them. Putin has violated this agreement multiple times but we just kept believing that these small grabs would be all. He may have stepped on them but only the war in Ukraine has truly shattered the belief in spirit of Helsinki.
I totally agree with you! Same with Moldova and Chechnya. If the West were to react in these instances as well, it might have stopped putlers "appetite."
Even if we do expand our militaries, considering US support obsolete would be a huge mistake I think, even if we don't strictly "need" their military help in the future, I'd rather still lean into it for NATO cohesion
Hell even if Europe surpasses the US, it's better for Europe and the US to work together as they ultimately share the same ideals. Even when they disagree on decisions. Personally, I think having a Europe as our equal and second super power would be great. Truthfully the global situation is a little out of control with dictatorships making there move in this decade.
Good video Kraut, but I feel your argument regarding neutral peacemakers is a bit thin, as many nations have traditions for UN peacetroops, and my country, Norway, has a very long list of peace efforts, including Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Colombia, Israel/Palestine (The infamous Oslo accords, don't get me started), Myanmar, Nepal and many others. We do not seem to suffer from our alliances abroad, but I grant you, the situation would be different if the peace effort was targeted in Europe, where our interests are of course much higher.
As an American who was against the Iraq war, I am still seeing no downside to a European superpower. If you guys can be a full-grown equal partner instead of a sidekick, maybe you can influence us back and help curb some of our worst impulses. We'll be petty and resentful about it in the moment of disagreement ("Freedom Fries") but it will be good for us in the long run.
the bad part Europe rarely come together, and you think they going to keep the EU around when France and Germany got their full military back and nationalist or populist start wining election seat.
Remember when Trump went to Europe and spoke before the leaders of EU countries about how most of them aren't America's allies but dependents and that this has to change for their own good? European leaders laughed at his face and mocked him then(It's on YT if you missed it) making old Trumpy boy go on an angry and butthurt Twitter tirade. But look at who's laughing now, lol. All European countries with the exception of a few like Finland who actually have a real army are desperately scrambling to assign their militaries more funds and buying military hardware. Guess they finally realized that being allies with the US doesn't mean that Uncle Sam can just magically swoop in and save the day when Putler comes knocking.
@@mr.strugglesnuggle6668 i avoid angry Twitter tirades as much as possible, but do remember that episode, yes. I'm no fan of Trump, but he wasn't entirely wrong about NATO--even if he said his piece in the least diplomatic, most unproductive way possible. I don't think Europe thought they'd need us again in the first place; their peace was a fait accompli and uncle Sam was a military-obsessed busybody who needed to chill out and back off. And the current scramble scares them, because they know they need us for this but after Trump they don't really trust us to be stable and have their back. Plus, I doubt any country *likes* having to depend on another for it's security.
@@chris7263 I wouldn't be so sure about everyone not wanting to depend on the US. Take the Sweden's ruling social democrat party for an example who are STILL divided about NATO, even with every single politician on Sweden shitting bricks about Finland joining and leaving Sweden behind. The old school social democrats pretty much base their entire argument on staying "militarily non-aligned" on the fact that president Biden made some vague promises to them years ago as vice-president for Obama, lol.
As a soon to be student of International Relations, this really recontextualized the conflict which I originally viewed as having primarily an impact on the West vs non-West. Instead, this war could recontextualize the basis of the 'West' as a concept. With the nature of European security being fundamentally changed, it remains to be seen if Europe unites or divides itself in the face of these challenges. Regardless, the major rearmament of European nations will at least militarily re-balance the relationship between America and Europe.
At least you know why other central european countries HATE Germany for their apeasement politics towards Russia. We spend over 2% GDP on army since 2014. And now when we should all be united against this bully Germany can't afford to do that. When we were building infrastructure to end this dependancy on Russian resources, Germany was building NordStream 2. That is the main reason why Putin felt safe while planning that invasion. Because trade with other countries binds both sides of the agreement. He was fine with losing money - was Germany fine with losing oil and gas? And I don't believe that this kind of policy is going to change. Because MONEY!
Well, as a fellow International Studies student, I am interested to see its effects on my area of study, Japan. Once this war or invasion ends, its ripples will indefinitely be felt across the world. Who knows, maybe it will cause another school of thought in IR to rise once more, much like the end of the Cold War
If you're a soon to be IR student, I would brush up on the basic of the realist school, Mearsheimer being the most obvious place to start. Don't be one of those guys who just stomp their feet and cry "we're the good guys, this can't possibly be our fault."
@@kondziu1992 Also German leaders giving signals that Gas sanctions are off the table prior to the war, only to reverse their stance after war has started is such a low IQ move.
According to John Lewis Gaddis's writings on the Cold War, the Helsinki Accords were only possible due to the large social changes going through both the US and the USSR during the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Both Brezhnev and Nixon/Ford desired a Détente in the Cold War to address the social and economics issues at home as the populations of both superpowers were becoming more disillusioned with the ideological foundations of the conflict. Helsinki set the stage for the height of Détente, which froze the Cold War, but the Western conservative politicians (who eventually took power in the 1980s) didn't like it for that exact reason, because it prevented them from perusing more aggressive and maximalist aims to end the Cold War in their favor. Which, to their credit, did eventually work.
It didn't really work. Western conservatives like to hype themselves as the ones who 'won' the cold war, but in reality the soviet government collapsed itself.
@@pax6833 Great. And how exactly did that government collapse? Did it per chance have anything to do with accelerated military spending which the West could afford in contrast to the USSR which could not? Give credit where it's due.
Welcome oh, mighty Finn! I always greatly to hear from the perspectives of some "smaller" places in terms of overall population because there often isn't as much information available for international audiences.
As a german I think we need the mechanism that destroyed Nazi Germany in WWII and if earlyer done could have prevented further bloodshed. It’s simple, ruthless, pragmatic and effective: We need a pact where whenever a country gets attacked by another country all nations in that treaty are obliged to enter the war against the attacker. Like the allies in WW2. Imagine if GB, France, Poland and Czech republic would have hard pressed Germany once it invaded more then the Sudetenland in 1938. We don’t need a paper we need that mutual understand to do this, if they have nuclear weapons or not. And we need to make the 2nd Strike a law worldwide that every nation agrees to only use nuclear if the other one used it first, at the moment no country has it.
I suppose he wasn't dictator in the sense that he'd have opposition liquidated or anything. Rather, he was supported by many and his words were taken as gospel. Fear of Soviet Union also had a significant role making his views and words weight more. Especially towards the end he was put on a pedestal.
Jury is still out on that. Man did a lot of authoritarian crap and there's more books written about him than perhaps any other finnish person in existence. Covering him in one youtube comment would be impossible, so the best I can say is that he got a lot done in a difficult situation and the damage he did to our democracy wasn't irreparable.
@@MrSamulai "there's more books written about him than perhaps any other Finnish person in existence". Wait, you mean to say that you guys have more books about him than about Mannerheim?
I think economic interdependence is still one of the key ways to preserve peace, but it needs to be nuanced somewhat. Economic leverage has to go two ways, and has to be such that it hurts whoever aggresses the most, else some economically more powerful party (like a country that provides lots of fuel to another) can easily abuse their economic interdependence to blackmail other countries into letting them get away with aggression. However, as the sanctions against Russia have shown, economic interdependence can and does still provide major tools to punish aggressors with. If everyone plays nice, everyone wins; but if someone refuses to play nice, our interdependence shows us ways to make them.
The problem with sanctions is, their effect takes far longer than military aggression to even show effect, and whether the effect is ever achieved at all is questionable. Cuba has been sanctioned for a gazillion years by now, it never destabilized the goverment, only gave it excuses for their domestic failures. That said, the problem with military aggression is, it grabs all the headlines, sucks all oxgen out of the room, and turns politicians into dramatic stars and starlets, without ever having to solve one single underlying problem. Tons of assets are brutally wasted (including human life), and then the military act ends with another fanfare, and still not a single problem solved. I am actually one of the weirdos, who dearly supports conscription in democracies. That way at least doubt stays in the picture.
Helsinki Accords. Congress of Vienna. Peace of Westphalia. one can agree that things got better from each iteration, but things are far from being properly solved apparently.
Europe refusing to go along with the Iraq war is another positive not negative imo. Most Americans do not approve of the rather sociopathic things our military industrial complex gets up to, but its shocking how powerless even our wealthy well connected politicians even are about it. I welcome more checks on its power.
5:51 You said Eastern Bloc countries but you showed Greece which was never a part of it and also Albania and countries of the former Yugoslavia were part of the Eastern Bloc in the beginning , but they left the Soviet Union's sphere of influence only a few years after. Just a quick correction.
@@secretname4190 They aren't "literally" in europe but they're involved enough with the geopolitics of the area to be considered european imo. Plus the geographical barriers between continents are completely arbitrary so it doesn't matter much in the end
@@secretname4190 why not? Istanbul or Constantinople is one of the most important European cities of all time. culturally they're not that different from other Balkans. they're Muslim? so are Albanians and Bosnians. they're not fully European, but they still belong to Europe if that makes sense. they're part of European history and European civilization, specifically the Balkans. other than Islam or islamism there's not much I can think of that's Turkish but doesn't fit with Europe. countries like Romania are actually more religious than Romania too. turkey isn't split into tribes like Arab nations either. before Erdogan they had gay parades in Istanbul. they have an environmentalist movement. they're a modern society. in my opinion both turkey and Russia r the same. they're Eurasian. different from Europeans but very important and close to Europe
As an American, I would like to see an independent Europe that can serve as a credible counterweight against US adventurism but one that would still support democracy and national self-determination. A super-Sweden, if you will.
The idea that Europe would become a super Sweden is laughable. If it will have any influence, it would need to have its own adventurism. What made the Russian invasion so egregious is the fact that it was done against a democracy in the 21st century, AND that it had the crappiest of casus belli for it. If Russia did have a plausible reason, there would be some movement of troops, but little more. Europe, if it becomes a Superpower, may well be more aggressive than the US, not less. Impossible to say now, if it even becomes a unified structure rather than maintains its current quasi-confederation style.
I've always felt that my own country, and the rest of the European countries, were vastly under funding their own defense, and actually spending less than what was agreed in NATO alliances, instead relying on American, yet also pointing fingers at American for spending so much money on its military. I hope that at the very least, this will encourage my country and rest of Europe to once again be a mighty armed force.
@Hakim Habib I’m German and I’d agree with that. However we shouldn’t spend more on our military because of NATO, NATO is fundamentally a tool of US foreign policy, I think we should spend more together in Europe but with less commitment to the Americans.
EU doesn't rely on US for defense though. People think that just because US spends so much more on their military we rely on them, that makes no sense. In current state British or French military alone could more than likely beat Russias armed forces. Russia can't even take Ukraine and they are having supply problems like 100km away from their own borders. European armies currently outnumber Russians conscript army in all regards except anti-air defenses. Not to mention superior equipment in nearly all regards again and way less corruption among the military leadership
@@esanahka9284 I agree with that to an extent, but many of our militaries are now designed around assisting the Americans, meaning we have huge shortfalls of certain essential equipment to the point where we almost can’t act independently.
Thank you for this information, I had no idea about this. As Ukrainian, I always viewed Europe as a powerful and peaceful union where people can freely travel and live, where trade restrictions are minimal, where all the disputes will be resolved diplomatically and wars are happening on social media with words and opinions, instead of in the streets with soldiers and tanks. I lived in Ukraine for 20 years, I was born there, I went to school and university there and everybody I knew always wanted to be a part of that European peace. I am happy that you included Ukraine and Belarus on the last map as a part of 'future of Europe'. I hope by the end of this war all European leaders will meet once again to sign a new security and peace treaty, although this time in Kyiv as a symbol of resistance against aggressor who destroyed the previous treaty. Ukrainians want peace and security. Ukrainians want to live in their own sovereign country. Ukrainians DO NOT want 'Russian peace'. We had that one for almost 70 years and we didn't like it.
That was quite the watch, I'm not European nor American so watching from the sidelines it's interesting to see and predict how things will go from this point on, because this will and is affecting the world.
A Finn, living in France - I felt the same way about Covid-19 and all the different ways nations were trying or not trying to deal with it. As for this thing... Putin attacking Ukraine, as horrible as it is... I have never liked Putin. Somehow I can't see an ex-KGB agent, who likes to have silly TV-video clips made about himself to polish an image of 'strong man /strong leader' - well none of it just made me ever feel like one could trust the man. Never mind all those documentaries about his shady past related to corruption, criminal organisation in Russia and eventually also all the things he has done against those whom oppose him. Plus all the previous attacks in different parts of the world. Made me always think he is worse than he want's to look like. So I can not say I am utterly surprised. Still, I think the world could have done without this war on top of a pandemic.
With regards to Germany becoming dependent on Russian gas because of Iraq war: This doesn't tell the full story. Europe has a not insignificant capability to produce gas. In fact, before the North Sea reserves somewhat dried up it was producing more than enough for its own needs. European countries have untapped gas reserves that could be utilized however Russia has enormous amounts of it and can provide it for very cheap. This combined with (possibly Russia sponsored) environmentalist groups calling for closing down of the gas extraction in Europe resulted in the dependence being formed. After all, how is it environmentally responsible to still use fossil fuel but simply offload its extraction somewhere where it won't sully your front yard? They got rid of coal plants - fair enough, but they have also gotten rid of nuclear - the only green source of power that can realistically replace the fossils. All that is left are renewables and gas. With renewables requiring backup power plants in place, which incidentally cannot be nuclear due to how it functions, it means gas and only gas. I am not saying that environmentalist groups made Europe depend on Russian gas but... They have certainly had not insignificant contributions to it.
On nuclear power; one should seriously consider the question of uranium. Germany for instance never had much nuclear energy, it was never like France. You can actually see the total amount of nuclear energy Germany had in its energy mix and basically, there was a GOOD plan to strengthen renewables for real independence in the early 2000s but later, it got scratched under a new government, which built its policy on a mix of conservatism, populism and also the argument you see in the video hear ( aka, using coal because its available, stopping nuclear power plants way earlier than the old plan wanted to get bonus points in an election and finally, of course, increasing relations with Russia ).
@@dasbubba841 It had nothing to do with idealism because the "idealists" had an actual well thought out plan long before Merkel's CDU/CSU & the FDP government abandoned nuclear power in a blatant display of populism. It's well documented. Like, for example, they wanted to keep the power plants running for MUCH longer and also strengthen renewables, it's a whole thing, you can look it up yourself if you are interested in the details.
My father was born in 1971. Most of his childhood Kekkonen was the president. I remember that my grandfather told me, my father used to ask my grandparents ''Who's going to be the next Kekkonen?''
Our world today is different from what it was 300 years ago. World powers do not openly declare war on each other, or fight conventional warfare like they used to do all the time. This is partly due to American intervention, partly thanks to Kekkonen's ideas, partly thanks to the invention of nukes. Whatever the reason is, there is one certainty. European nations are not hostile against each other anymore. Austria or Britain does not declare war on France. There are no aggressor power in Europe. The only open expansionist aggressor in Europe was Russia. It still is, it is the only one. And I'm hoping this fact will be the one which shrinks the possibility of any more unnecessary warfare in Europe. With the stoppage of Russia, there won't be anymore aggressors in Europe, and no more wars. Hopefully.
If russia win, it will want more. If russia loose, it will try again. Russia is here to stay and I can't imagine it not being a threat anymore and so we can't avoid having a new security architecture.
@@isakferm7686 Ghadaffie almost won till there was a now fly zone, someone sends lots of guns and mercs to help. And he is dead We all no gun and mercs don't grow in Africa so how keep sending them gun and mercs.
@@isakferm7686 um, Gaddafi waged war with Chad in the 1980s. Ever heard of the Toyota War? Mugabe meanwhile was busy with a civil war and hyperinflation from within.
Didn't think you would talk about Kekkonen. Interesting. I'm kinda ashamed as a Finn, for not knowing how influental Kekkonen was for International peace. I only knew about his domestic and Russian diplomacy work. Fun fact: I'm distantly related to President Urho Kennonen.
@@wazzupdj98d61 man I don't know about that. Kekkonen was NOT a humble guy. Kraut said he didn't want the nobel. That's nonsense. Of course he wanted it, he just didn't get it
Question: why does the 2022 russian war with ukraine mark the end of the helsinki spirit as opposed to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, or as opposed to the 2014 annexation of crimea, or as opposed to the russo-georgian war and subsequent occupation of abkhazia and south ossetia by russia, or as opposed to the first nagorno-karabakh war, or as opposed to the transitria war?
Plausible deniability and patience and Sallami Tactics. This is the straw that broke the camels back. Russia claimed it was intervening to prevent another ethnic conflict(and claim that BUKs were humantiarian aids). Its been the one thicker slice of salami after the other. Invading and trying to conquer Kiev and the country itself was more meat then what could be tollerated. The hope is dead, Russia with the current regimme is an enemy nobody wants but are forced to accept.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are not part of Europe. they're only ever mentioned in that conversation because they border Russia and Turkey, two trans-continental countries who both have the majority of their land in Asia, not Europe.
the reaction of europe to this conflict is something that will change the course of geopolitics forever, it makes me kinda scared but also kinda curious to see what'll happen
Kraut, I need to say thank you for this video. Every single video you have made has increased my knowledge of history, and this one has for me, especially as an American. You also put an effort of no bias into your works that I will forever admire along with facts to back it up. Respect to you!
Thank you Kraut for this brief video. Most people that I know are more or less fixated on who has gained/lost territory, logistics, is Russia really holding back (sad that there are still many in Europe who are pro-Russia just not public about it). But only amongst few of my friends, has the question been asked "what comes next?" Should Europe have a unified military? It seems like everyone is on the bandwagon for it, but few people realize how much money and resources it takes to have a part of the operational capacity of the US. And a strong military is reliant on a unified foreign policy, which knowing Europe is a very difficult thing to achieve (if not impossible). I don't even know if we can rearm appropriately, since a whole generation of Europeans (at least the western ones) have grown up with the principle of "foreign military escapades are the purview of the USA mostly". Also, with our aging population, can we really support a strong army? And what about our trade? For all of our braying about human rights and freedom, most of our trade goes to China and relies on Chinese consumption. Any disruption to that would be a catastrophe for us. This brings up also another uncomfortable reality about our relationship with the US: while they are politically our allies, commercially they are our competitors. Do we really want to put our eggs in the Washington DC basket and if not to whom else? Which brings us to the most unpopular part of this comment. What will our relationship to Russia be? One day this war will be over and we will have to collect the pieces of it.Should we close all relations with Russia (I know that a lot of Poles and other members of the Eastern Block and Baltic States would like that), even the cultural ones or should we attempt to rebuild them? Do we want Russia to be pushed to China (regardless of what form that relationship is)? Or will we give Ukraine the "Cyprus" treatment, where we don't recognize it's lost territories but we re-engage with Russia? Good politicians, strategists and thinkers don't really look at the now but at the various tomorrows that follow the today's. For Europe those tomorrows are many and have various degrees of risks. However one truth is apparent, the "apres nous le deluge" mentality that has plagued the European geopoliticians is over.
I didn't realize that was the reason for Europe's disarmament. As an American I found it equally fascinating and terrifying that Europe refuses to have military power. I don't trust my government, and I don't like living in a world where the two superpowers are my own unstable democracy teetering delicately between two extremist parties and the massive Chinese police state. I would love to see a country like France have a massive military. Maybe it's indoctrination on my part in the American school system, but I get the impression that France has had a long history of developing and upholding human rights and is not particularly well known for war mongering and imperialism. They're the kind of people I want in charge. . .or Switzerland, just please for the sake of humanity don't let my country be the world superpower.
France had the second largest empire in world history. Talk to Algerians about their human rights record. I think Superpowers themselves are the problem. There should be none
"Urkki" is pretty damn legendary guy in Finland, for both good and bad alike. Fun to know detail, Kekkonen's first name is Urho, which is a bit older finnish word meaning "hero" or "man of valor".
Actually about the switzerland thing: technically they sent a platoon into afghanistan that did a tour between 2002 and 2008, their neutrality has been broken by the war on terror.
Kekkonen Fun Fact: Kekkonen fought communism in the Finnish Civil War. After the War he volunteered to en execution squad. Hi killed a lot of communists for the crime of being communists. The Communist leaders of the Soviet Union respected Kekkonen maybe because he was the only western leader they understood. A man who personally killed political opponents.100’s of them.
I've though about this situation quite a bit and tried to read into as much surrounding the situation as I could in reference to European Politics and in particular, the setting of the stage of this to happen, as it isn't covered very well here in the US. What I have ultimately gleaned from it was that in the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia (the Russian Federation) felt like it would receive the same uneasy respect, if not outright fear, that had earned from the west as the USSR, believe itself to be special and distinct from the other SSRs that had broken away. And while it was the largest, and received a fair amount of military assets from the USSR, it didn't have all of them, in particular, nuclear weapons. With the Budapest Memorandum, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan gave up their nuclear missiles on what was basically a pinky promise that the other signatories would respect their sovereignty. (Fun Fact Sergey Lavrov was the representative for the Russian Federation on that document) Russia believed it deserved the same level of influence on its neighbors as it has in the USSR, and in so many ways outright demanded it, believing that NATO would stay west of Germany. conditions business
@@Ben-ek1fz That's because from a US standpoint it isn't that severe. What matters to Americans is that a democracy is under attack near US allies; if this was Georgia again, sorry to say, it's unlikely that the US would care as much.
@@stephenjenkins7971 you're right. It's sad but true, as an American myself, I would be hard pressed to care AS MUCH about Georgia as I do about Ukraine, and there are many factors why. I do believe though that as technology is advancing and lifting the fog of war as it were, humans are progressing down a path of further interconnectedness and awareness that has never been thought possible. The devastation in Yemen and Myanmar highlight this. I would have never known about it before the internet, and if I did, the news would be the ONLY place I could hear. If they didn't care, I couldn't care. What matters now is that we are slowly but surely giving everyone voices. Ukraine Invasion is big, for many reasons, not in the least is the shock and awe. The media coverage. Zelensky's impassioned pleas. The absurd numbers of people. The brutality. And as the video suggests, the shattering of what we considered peaceful. I hope that we learn this lesson, especially inward, about breaking fragile peace. I hope the powers that be never again think that they can do as they please because no one will know.
As an American I feel that we aren't sure whether we want Europe to self-sufficient defense wise or not. On one hand we don't want to keep paying for Europe's defense, but on the other hand we still want Europe to be shackled to us foreign policy wise, which wouldn't be the case if Europe is self-sufficient.
A very German perspective in this one. Dictators have no interest in peace - the only way to pacify them is with force or the threat of it. That is why Europe, if it is not only to guarantee peace, but also a life free of the demands of dictators to it's citizens, then it needs to be militarily powerful. Does this mean that Europe cannot mediate conflicts? I don't see why. Does this mean that Europe also needs to establish spheres of influence? I also don't see why. Fortress Europe is an OK concept. Live and let live, but end anyone who intrudes or threatens to do so.
@@umutneo I agree. For some reason Germany has gone in the opposite extreme after WW2. I don't quite understand why they don't seem to fathom that it is possible to be strong and not abuse that strength. The US is not perfect, but if it had the same level of restraint that Russia does, all of the western hemisphere would be occupied by them by now. It is possible to show restraint.
@@Baltican That is probebly because we got afraid of strength and wanted to avoid it and often denied that we poses it. In general I would say that being pacifist is easier than being interventunist. We Germans wanted to become some sorts of giant switzerland (like the austrians who expierianced the same), that only focuses on economic intersts in the World.
@@Baltican i get why Germans do that. It was okay until 2000. But then things started to change but Germany blinded itself to truth, and as long as anything was not effect Germany directly they choose to be pacifist. Here is an anology. Germany walks on the street in an alley he sees Russia rapes Georgia. He just walks away because it was not himself. Then Russia got more courage it goes to someone from Germany's neighborhood Ukraine. Russia molests Ukraine first and Germany is like it is okay atleast he stopped maybe he will behave himself from now on. Now Russia is started to go even bolder in his crimes and Germany just realized this guy could disturb his happy neighborhood and maybe one day could rape Germany too. I know this analogy is not pleasant but that is why i am using it.
as a greek, i am actually disqusted that you think that there was gonna be peace in europe when you have still some areas like spain,portugal,greece,cyprus or even italy for some examples.when some areas have internal or external (or both) issues that can lead to war, whether spain's states witch might one day demand for independence, or some areas witch are in the borders with asia or africa, i can assure you, peace will not be something to be achieved in the entirety of europe. when turkish warplanes fly above the agean sea for over 20+ years and europe turns a blind eye, or when spain might have another crysis with morroco with europe again turning a blind eye,i know that european peace is a facade that olny the more north or central states with secure borders are living in.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot oh no worries, I’m just glad you managed to make this given the pace of developments this past month. As always, thank you for great & informative content as well as unwavering integrity!!
I was struggling heavily with thinking why I was feeling uneasy to see formerly neutral countries take sides on conflicts for the first time in a long while. Thank you for this video.
@@unpaidcomintern no they're not. if the nazis were being pushed out, they wouldn't be part of the government nor military. do your homework, but hey as long as nazis are part of the 'current thing' maybe they aren't so bad.
I think your assertion that Europe will become a military superpower/Superpower or even be united is deeply flawed. The economy down the south in Spain, Portugal and Greece are crumbling under debt. I've been talking to Spanish suppliers and right now they aren't concerned about war in Ukraine but the food on table, as for the first time they are paying around $300 for electricity. In Galician I know two mid-sized companies that have gone under in just 2 months. A lot of people are now more scared for their future, but not the war in Ukraine itself however just by reading some book or reading few articles you might disagree. Meanwhile China has been aggressively attaching assets of Portugal so much that it's foreign policy seem to align more with China than EU itself. Europe holds key R&D technology in Lithography (seminconductor ), Optics, Automation, Aviation and some heavy Industries. However in Past decade Automation and heavy industries have started to tilt to China/India. For semiconductor Asians are slowly but certainly are catching up. Unlike in 18th/19th Century Europe doesn't have monopoly over global resources. they don't have colony in Africa/Asia anymore. To have military might I doubt they can even source and scale raw material ( which is extremely difficult for certain defence assemblies ). This isolation of Russia have sounded big alarms in India, China, South America and many other countries. While there's no justification of war in Ukraine, but from an Asian/African perspective the illegitimate war on Iraq and destruction in Middle-east, Africa from western countries have no repercussions. You can't act as custodian of morals while your own countries have waged illegitimate war or largely stay silent on exploits of other western country. If you do so Asian/African/South American countries are now watching this development closely. I think the move of west to completely decimate and isolate Russia is an extremely dangerous step that not only hurts everyone but will deeply hurt west itself in the long run. Having worked with EU projects as an outsider, I've seen how corrupt your bureaucrats are and how little they care about small scale industries, a lot are being over taken by Chinese indirectly. If you really believe that EU holds absolute power to bring any change, you're still living in Colonial hangover. Last but not the least, I hope this illegitimate war by Putin stops, Slava Ukraini. Peace to the world.
Thanks Morning Brew for my daily news briefing - sign up for free here bit.ly/mbkraut
Hi Kraut🖐🏼🖐🏼
Does Morning Brew give you fat arms?
I prefer reddit & youtube in the morning, but their articles are pretty good.
Ok ok…
3:36 Kekkonen absolutely wanted/ or at least expected a noble peace price, but was famously greatly disapointed(behind close doors of course) when he heard he didn't won. Rather the winner in 1975 was Andrei Sakharov (Soviet nuclear physicist and human rights activist).
A finn here, Kekkonen was a savage. There is a story of him where he was in a sauna with Breznev (The leader of USSR). Breznev told Kekkonen that, “hey since your nations are such a good friends we should merge them in to one.” To which Kekkonen replied, “I think Im too old to lead such a big country”.
XD
Well, to be fair, the USSR wasn't really a Russia-alone project. Three of its supreme leaders are not Russian at all, with the strongest and longest serving being a Georgian and the two succeeding others being Ukrainian, while one of those who served as deputy leaders is an Armenian and another being once again Ukrainian. The early Soviet secret service, and its precursors, are also run by Baltic persons. So yes, the possibility of that Finn leading the USSR so long as he becomes a member of the CPUSSR won't matter anything to the Union in general at all. After all, the Union is a multinational project of a socialist experiment. There's a reason why there was a general distaste of the USSR among true blue Russian ultranationalists.
@@R_e_d_L_i_o_n Savage as in "OOOOOOOOOH!' not brutality.
I've heard that too but in the version I know it was Krushchev not Breznev. I think it's more fitting since Krushchev and Kekkonen were real personal friends.
@Siddhant Sharma eww
when kraut uploads i suddenly become an expert in european history and politics
Good meme content BTW
Didn't expect to see you here
Careful not to learn something with nuance, because you might if you stick around
I feel the same way when I watch wow_mao
@@andresmartinezramos7513 agreed, the Santa Question isn't clear cut
When wowmao uploads i suddenly become an expert in Filipino history and politics
As a Finnish person I have to warn you. You have just summoned half of Finland
Terve!
Torille
Perkele, Perkele Everywhere!
Perkele
Here we are
As yet another Finn, I'd like to propose a slightly controversial idea: that Kekkonen, as much good as he achieved for European peace, also contributed to Russian ideas of what "good neutral neighbors" are supposed to be like.
Kekkonen's politics were verging on the authoritarian, and he was president for a total of 25 years, serving a total of FIVE TERMS. Whilst not against the Finnish constitution, this practice would later be abolished because of Kekkonen's autocratic politics (courtesy to @MEAT in the comments for the correction). Kekkonen's political skill and relations with Soviet leadership were considered far too valuable, so he was kept in power via emergency acts and term extensions.
This was especially the case following the 1961 Note crisis, which basically eliminated all media and government opposition against him. Furthermore, he was known to favour one-on-one backdoor dealings with the Soviets and Finnish elites; it's thanks to him that "sauna diplomacy" became a thing. All this showed the Soviets that democratic rules and principles could be bent or downright ignored for the sake of having the "right" person in power.
More importantly, Kekkonen kept up the 1948 Mutual Friendship, Cooperation and Assistance Treaty between Finland and the USSR. In this treaty, Finland provided a concrete security guarantee to the USSR; absolute neutrality, and a pledge to defend the USSR from any attacks coming through Finland. This is very similar to what Putin is demanding of Ukraine, and Kekkonen even went so far as to call this security guarantee the foundation of stable Fenno-Soviet relations.
I think it's pretty clear that Kekkonen's political skills were absolutely vital for peace, but the price of it cost Finland it's democratic soul. I fear that Kekkonen's leadership model is exactly what Putin wanted with his demands for security guarantees, which ultimately would mean that Ukraine, just like Finland in the past, would not truly be independent and retain an unhealthy codependency with Russia.
Hit the nail right on the fucking head
@Rocket Estonia is an interesting contradiction though.
@Rocket Agreed. Even somewhat benevolent great powers fear other great powers. Therefore all great powers are going to shore up the home front either by attempting to make their neighbors engage in dependent alliances or subsume them.
Edit: I just realized that sounded as if I am endorsing or being understanding of Putin. I find it understandable that Russia would not want Ukraine to be part of NATO. But Putin has taken one of the worst courses of action possible to get there - I think his methods show that he desires an increase in power rather than a strategic advantage.
It is easy to sit and judge kekkonen now, but i believe if it werent for him, finlands position would be far worse, if it wouldve even survived the cold war independent.
I think kekkoken is a president we should view as a hero for dredging us through the contious threat of the cold war as well as he did. I dont think that a "democratic soul" has inherent merit, and thus i dont think that a strongman such as kekkonen steering the country through a time that any political turmoil could have tremendous negative impact is a bad thing.
Democracy is great when political changes are a good thing, such as in time of peace, but when our very existence is on the brink, id rather have an independent finland than stubbornly cling to ideals of democracy
Edit/ps; im finnish if you couldnt tell
@Rocket Vietnam is STILL openly hostile to China after the war in the north.
As a Finn, I am pleased about our little country being mentioned. As a European, I am worried a bit WHY people are nowdays more able to place us on a map.
As an American, can you tell me why you haven't just bit the bullet(excuse my term) and joined NATO already???
As an Estonian I just want to ask, if your nation is small then WHAT ARE WE?
@@johnbacon4997 finland has been a neutral country since its independence in 1917. joining nato would essentially mean finally ending its neutrality. also russia doesnt want finland to join.
As a Turk everyone here can point you guys. Much love and respect.
"little"; what are Belgium, The Netherlands or Luxembourg?
Urho Kekkonen's legacy is somewhat disputed here in Finland. For some, especially older generations, he's a national hero who cunningly out-foxed Soviet leaders (and out-drank and out-saunoed them), thus keeping Finland independent during Cold War turmoils. For some, he's a traitor, a strongman who would do anything to keep power to himself and used threat and collaboration of Soviet Union as excuse for undemocratic actions, such as being chosen for without elections to continue as president. His role in the agreement is usually mentioned as a sidenote.
I think Urho Kekkonen was a dictator but a good one not like Hitler or Stalin
Kekkonen oli urho se on nimessäkin
Don't Americans have a similar view of FDR? I thik some characters in history do provoke all kinds of responses
@@moustachio05 let's not forget that the "inventors" of democracy - ancient Greek city states - viewed dictatorship as the natural state of a state, with democracy being an interim solution should the dictator (called Archon) draw disapproval and get disposed of
This "disposal" of an unpopular dictator of course was easier in an ancient city state than it would have been in a post industrial nation state, but the jist is, that dictatorship while being connoted badly is not inherently bad as long as the dictator doesn't get corrupted with power, which on the other hand, as the past several centuries clearly have shown, it does way more often than not...
Very much so. Kekkonen used his role as expert negotiator and trusted by Soviet leadership as a bargaining chip in internal politics. And that's an understatement. I'm not sure traitor fits most narratives, but he's a divisive figure for sure. Altho I would say that Kekkonen's legacy is mostly seen to be on the positive side.
One small thing. The Concert of Europe was Von Metternich's attempt to end territorial disputes by uniting the European princes after the Napoleonic wars. It is better defined as a precursor to the Helsinki accords.
Metternich largely succeeded for almost 100 years, despite some hiccups. It's taken only 80 years for peace in Europe to be shattered (30 if you define the cold war as too hostile to count as a time of peace).
@o m kraut had quite a few mistakes in this one, he probably made it in a hurry
@o m Looking back pre-1815 these wars were relatively short and not so widespread. They were hiccups that didnt break world order.
@o m Revolutions of 1848 weren't interstate wars and were largely crushed relatively quickly. The crimean war was a relatively short conflict, limited in scope, without much bloodshed. Even the wars of German and Italian unification did not see much loss of life, certainly nothing on the scale of the Napoleonic wars or WWI which book ended the period.
Russo Ukrainian war is not a small hiccup. True the loss of life is not anywhere close to WW2 (no war has ever been even close to as destructive as that one, not even WW1) however in just 1 month of war, there has been more loss of life than the entire soviet afghan war. This conflict is nowhere close to finished and the loss of life will likely be intense. Possibly on the scale of korea/vietnam, devastating conflicts to those regions that Europe has been lucky to avoid, until now.
But Napoléon's revolutionary and Nationalistic ideas were spread his code Napoléon was spread and used everywhere , it was just impossible to stop it.
New security architecture is so much needed. and Finland is often an inspiration for us, Ukrainians, now.
That security architecture is still working and it is the reason we are able and willing to support Ukraine. Not saying that change isn't needed, but the way I see it is the inclusion of Ukraine and possibly some others into our collective. russia tried to wreck that architecture and is imploding partly because of that. What happens to russia after remains to be seen, but Vladolf Putler is not going to be a part of it and Ukraine will rebuild.
Your use of Swan Lake is perfect for what's going on
happy someone got the reference :)
@@Kraut_the_Parrot Ok
Tchaikovsky is always a win in my book
@@TheAmericanPrometheus hmm ok then…
@@TheAmericanPrometheus I think it refers to the fact that in soviet union during times of political upheaval the swan lake opera was the only think playing on the news
Truth be told, I had trouble explaining to an American friend why to Europeans like myself this is "our 9/11" so I made this on the quick side of things. Because of that it is a different type of editing and the quality is somewhat lower. I also made the decision to cut my opinion at the end of the video out completely. I think it will be more interesting to read your opinions on this matter. The foundational agreement upon which decades of European peace have been built has been brutally and senselessly torn apart. I believe Putin must lose this war, lest we are to collapse back into a Europe in which military force is used to achieve political goals. That would be the ultimate nightmare. Something many of us, across the many languages, cultures, faiths, and political beliefs of our continent, had promised ourselves to never ever return to. It is also of the utmost importance that we restore an agreement that enshrines peace, cooperation, and security in Europe. I do not know where Europe will go and what it will become after Ukraine wins this war. It will be up to us Europeans though. Do we restore as much as we can of the Helsinki accords? Or do we build upon tighter cooperation in military and security matters? Where ever we may go it is vital that we discuss it and be aware of the implications and potential outcomes.
9
Hi :)
Maybe you could just make another video regarding your opinion and views on this matter.
Helsinki accords were broken in Kosovo / Yugoslavia when the west sidestepped UN and gave them independence, or those countries are too insignificant to count? The western double rules r the problem.
I'm curious why you think Germany and Russia were economically co-dependent. Granted, I am an American, but the dependency seems to have been one sided.
As an Eastern European, I feel the obligation to point out the this "peace", from our perspective, always felt like an illusion Western Europe threw on themselves. The breakup period saw Soviet troops in newly independent countries running over protestors with tanks and an Armenian-Azeri brutal ethnic war, not to mention Yugoslavia. Point 7 of the accords was entirely disregarded within the USSR, with no consequences. Yugoslavia, from our perspective, was a case in point that the accords were but an illusion, a deadly one at that as Bosniaks in Srebrenica were rounded up and murdered, while EU refused to act.
The post 1999 period is filled, especially after 2008, with Eastern Europe crying out, again and again to recognise that the accord is an illusion, one that Putin has used against Europe, abusing EU's insistance on "dialogue" to act aggressively.
The invasion of Ukraine feels like the very worst-case scenario we had been warning about for a decade at least. And it just feels like a grim statement of "we told you so". Kekkonens peace in Eastern Europe was never a peace, but a mad statement Western Europeans threw at us to excuse inaction.
Excuse? It's not our job to police Eastern Europe. You'd probably hate us if we did.
The east needs a cultural shift if it wants to stop dictators from rising to power, abusing their people, and starting conflicts. Instead many people there vilify the west and feel nostalgic for soviet times. Peace has to come from within, the west can't force it on you.
The Eastern block never had much say as they never had much weight to throw around, nor allowed to gain any.
Sounds more like the West allowed this to happen.
Its kind of hard to blame them, anyone can create the perception of ppl being opressed by an evil goverment (it is what russia is doing now). Act to rashly and every one is angry at you for being the US, do to little and everyone is angry at you for being the EU in Yugoslavia. Do the right ammount and you have to occupy a country for a generation because both sides have extremes that hate you...
@@fpdldfpsdffld2508 And when NATO finally intervened in the 90's, it only got itself serbians pissing and shitting themselves screaming about unjust bombings and western imperialism. This all could have been prevented with an earlier intervention, but the Helsinki accords proved to be their own undoing.
They were made during a time when Europe really was at peace. This meant that when war broke out and politicians tried to act within those principles, they were so disasterously faulty. Europe, just like the character from greeck mythology who gave it her name, might just be destined for tragedy.
@@sfjuhispst8144 Yet another seminal tragedy.
As a Turk, it always fascinates me when Turkey is included in the "map of Europe" and when it's not. I noticed when the topic is military, TR is often included. When the topic is Economics, there's 50-50 chance and when it's culture Turkey is rarely counted as part of Europe. Not trying to make a point, just and observation.
it kinda makes sense though. turkey is in NATO and thus part of european defence. in economics it's close to the EU but not as close as some other nations so it depends on who's making the map. while culturally people will point to religion as a reason why turkey isn't "european" so isn't included in that sense.
Maybe had they not fundementally destroyed our nation by rejecting our EU applications leading us down this path they would've had more leverage/power to prevent this conflict. Destabalizing us like this was a big mistake
Because Turkey is part of NATO but not eu...?
@@dickyarya8204 and they should be booted from NATO most rickey-tick.
@@Conn30Mtenor That will most likely put NATO at a heavy disadvantage in terms of containing Russia in the Black Sea (the Bosporous straits), to possibly give support to Georgia (the country not the state) to further contain Russia and possibly secure energy independence (Russia invaded in 2003 to prevent their petroleum based economy from having local competition, antagonize a nation that is in three proxy wars against Russia (Libya, Syria and Armenia-Azerbaijan). It is directly against European defense interests to kick out Turkey.
To be quite frank, I never truly expected from Russia to start an open war on Ukraine. I honestly thought that Putin was just trying to intimidate Ukraine by flexing it's hard power. I am quite stumped on how to continue from here. One thing I can tell you for sure is that big changes are coming, ones that will redefine not only how the EU as a whole, but also how individual European democracies present themselves on the political stage of the world.
I think the coming food shortages will be more impactful then the war right now and when that happens, national leaders are going to look out for national interests. Look back at the beginning of the COVID pandemic or when the first vaccines rolled out and the panic, scramble, the "betrayals", etc.
Now lets make this the mega tons of food required to feed a nation every day instead of a single aircraft cargo hold full of PPE and ventilators.
We are in for dark times.
@@mattheww.6232 boy, are you pessimistic or what. I think you place too little faith in world leaders, as well as the world market as a whole. People learn from past mistakes and prepare themselfs based on them. Case and point being the 2014 invasion of Ukraine, when that happened, there was barely any response internationally or domestically in terms of santioning or fighting back the Russian forces. Fast forward to today and it becomes clear how different the situation is. The sanctions being levied on Russia are one of the harshest history has ever witnessed and seeing that the conflict is still raging, I would say that Ukrainians are also putting up a good fight.
In short, stop being a doomer and have some faith in your government as well as in the rest of Europe.
Same. I was telling everyone its impossible since it would be strategic suicide and it would ruin Russia for a generation at least. What i hadn't considered was that Putin actually was stupid enough to do it. I still don't understand how its possible and what he thinks his way out of this will be.
I even thought their military was an actual threat. Now its clear it was a fucking joke.
@@amensentis The real threat has always been their missiles and rockets. The Kinzhal especially is intimidating
People refusing to acknowledge that hard power exists and can be invoked is what necessitates actually using it if "flexing" credible threat provides absolutely no concessions.
Kekkonen was also the politician who (by forcing Karl-August Fagerholm's government to resign during the diplomatic crisis of 1958-59) gave the Soviets access and say in Finnish internal politics, and during his long tenure as president he was consistently showing contempt to critics of him and his pro-Soviet policies which were actively undermining the Finnish neutrality, often blaming them for being far-righters and having anti-Soviet agenda. The development reached it horrendous peak in the 70's when Finland's foreign policy was formally tied into the Finno-Soviet pact of peace and co-ordination.
Not only that but he didn't let parliamentary democracy to work on its own terms, using borderline dictatorial powers as a creator of government, often completely bypassing the parliament in selecting the ministers of the government. If the governmen stepped out of the line he simply collapsed it, and a couple times he collapsed the entire parliament itself. Only after he was forced to resign due to health reasons could parliamentarism and more internationally neutral politics be resumed.
Funny enough, my grandfather was actually a bodyguard of Kekkonen's for a time, and according to him he never greeted any of his guards or showed appreciation that they were there. Grandpa hated Kekkonen to his guts anyway due to the presiden't intense Soviet bootlicking so he didn't stay in that job for long.
So he was a dick
A dick that was a foreign diplomacy mastermind
But still a dick xD
I'll admit myself to be far too Anglo to know anything about Finnish politics but that seems desperately interesting, I suppose it's a very Anglo thing indeed to have some suspicions whenever a continental European, particularly a German, starts talking about "democracy".
I'm not going to categorically assert there's any truth to it, but I feel like that suspicion does exist here: That democracy in much of Europe is less of a process one abides by and more of an institution to grant legitimacy and mandate to whatever the government wants to do. You get a bit of that with the EU, where referendums are sometimes redone when you got the wrong result, this happened in Ireland if I remember correctly. You had a lot of that with the anti-Brexit crowd as regards to that referendum. Even the power structure of the EU itself doesn't empower the European Parliament particularly much.
My point being, and I do wonder the degree to which there is a connection here at all, there is something almost poetic that the man behind the Helsinki accords, the structure which much of Europe ascribes the peace of the time, was of this nature. Not saying there's anything to it, I don't want to get into arguments, but that perception is out there and I can't help but make the connection.
Sorry if I'm not making sense.
@@DoubleNN part of it is though not just due to Kekkonen acting dictatorially, but due to the office of president having very extensive powers by Western European standards at the time. Also, the lack of term limits at the time - Kekkonen ended up serving four full terms, and a fifth term that got cut in short by senility. Everything Kekkonen did was technically constitutional, it's just that the constitution gave the president way too much power. There is also the fact that the Soviet Union very much liked him, and pretty much told the Finnish political establishment "We like this guy, we think you should re-elect him". Which worked as a means of influence, since Finland did not have a direct popular vote for president, but an electoral system.
da da pjotr
@@whitegold2960 You don't win the game of geopolitcs by being nice
This whole war seems like opening the Pandora's box... and we will never be able to be closed it again. Up until now a war inside Europe seemed impossible, and now we know it is not
Why did war in Europe seem impossible? It's only been like 20 or so years since the last ones
@@MrRazmut The yugoslav and georgian wars, despite being conflicts, were small enough scale to not generally affect the security of all of Europe. This is different.
@@MrRazmut Tbf, Yugoslavia war was considered a small one. Not initiated by any major European power, thus are self-contained. This was a blatant act of aggression by a major European power upon another, while denying its right to exist.
That's a LOT more alarming.
That fails short to say that a war was impossible
@@stephenjenkins7971 true, that's a good point
As a Brit it's almost like a parody of reality that the country did a lot to pull away from Europe til everyone started scrapping.
You say people are celebrating Finland questioning its neutrality and considering entry into NATO but let me give you the perspective of myself, someone who lives in Finland.
I do not celebrate this, I do however consider it a necessity. Russia is throwing its d*ck around, and it seems that either former soviet or former russian empire borders are something that Putin may want to establish. I want Finland to join NATO not because I am somehow so unhappy with Finland being neutral, but because I want Finland to REMAIN neutral. And being a part of NATO is the biggest chance Finland has of not being involved in a war. Security from a big, ugly bully to the east is absolutely vital. To say this is "celebrating" is a gross misuse of the word.
You can't say you're neutral if you're a part of NATO. It means you've explicitly sided with the Western military alliance. But I understand why NATO membership is now more desirable to Finns than it has been in its entire history. To Putin, international agreements seem to be more like "guidelines" rather than hard rules that everyone must abide by.
As a Romanian, I cannot believe how lucky we are that we got into NATO in 2004. While having foreign countries bases on your territory is weird to say the least, if not almost embarrassing, you sure feel safe when the barbarians are at the border but fighter jets from 3 different alied countries are securing your skyes.
From our point of view, there's no utility in being neutral, or no actual condition in which you can be neutral. You're either an allied "puppet of the Americans" or Russia's punching bag. We thought that war in Europe was a thing of the past, turns out it's still dog eat dog.
But if we join nato we will become americas puppet
@@suissais4732 NATO's not exactly a puppet organization of the US (look at how many NATO nations refused to go along on Iraq for example). The defensive clause (Article 5) has only ever been activated once (after the 9/11 attacks, by the US, resulting in NATO going into Afghanistan).
NATO has 3 different nuclear powers in it along with several other well-funded high tech militaries. The US is absolutely the 400lb gorilla of NATO but it is still a defensive alliance at heart (although it did flail about a bit looking for a purpose between 1991 and 2022). The organization has been galvanized to refocus back on its original defensive purpose by the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Arguably my country of Canada is the US's closest ally (we're not just in NATO but we also form the NORAD alliance together, along with having deep economic and cultural interconnections) and we still disagree with the US fairly often on their more extreme foreign policy issues (e.g. Cuba, Iraq) since we're a multilateralist middle power and they're frequently a unilateralist superpower.
It's not like the US can suddenly drag you into a war simply because you join NATO. Membership does require member states to coordinate and integrate their command and logistical structures so they can work together more easily (basically, NATO members set up their militaries to make it easy for them to work alongside other NATO members).
I can understand disliking giving up neutrality for ideological reasons or simply because one dislikes yielding any autonomy to coordinate but NATO isn't the old Warsaw Pact with the big state treating the rest like puppets.
@@frostyguy1989 Joining NATO at this point feels to me as a finn a more of a formality. In the thirty years since the iron curtain broke, Finland has become economically and politically fully a western nation. We made our choice when we joined EU, and I have no doupt in my mind that Putin thinks the same.
I've got a video about Finland, NATO, and Finlandization on my channel (check it out!), but really enjoy Kraut's take here on Kekkonen as a diplomat and European politician. It's also important to note that Kekkonen displayed some authoritarian traits during his multi-decade administration, so he's a bit of a multi-dimensional figure within domestic Finnish politics.
Super informative channel on all things Finland
Based Finland
@@richardnixon7248 arooo!
Kekkonen here in Finland is sometimes half jokingly called our only dictator, so that's not at all far from the truth, however he's also one of the most well respected political figures in Finnish history, so we tend to think that his authoritarian traits were sort of a necessary evil. Funnily enough that makes me feel that Finnish and Russian mentality is not as different as it might seem. Russia sees the west as a constant threat, this is because they view everything through a historical lense. In a similar way, Finland is a place that has experienced more than one Russian invasion, the worst of all probably being the invasion and occupation of Finland during the Great Northern War, and of course we have more recent memories of aggression, ones people are still alive to tell. It's safe to say that the threat of Russia is something that every Finnish person is acutely aware of, and something that definitely guides our actions for better or for worse. Kekkonen represented the the choice of stability over chaos, no matter the cost, a choice the Russian people are very familiar with.
Well people are complicated and again no one is perfect
This man consistently challenges my beliefs and dogmas making me look further to find truth. He has inspired, within me, a need to educate and cultivate myself further. He should have a much larger following.
This man reinforces my beliefs
Thank God I’m not a social democrat
@@doom1894 Same. Europe needs to stop beign a proxy of the Democrats. Because, if Europe is destroyed, no one would care.
@@doom1894 why?
Thank you so much for this video. As an American, I didn’t quite understand why Europe’s collective response was so forceful and unified. I agreed with it, I was very glad to see it, but I was genuinely a bit surprised by it and suspected that I was missing something fundamental. This is extremely helpful.
One aspect of Europe is that every part of it increasing military budgets makes the whole interconnected construct stronger against outside actors. This means that one first actor to poke the EU in a post-Ukraine-war world will be surprised by a desert storm like response.
However, warrior in a rose garden principle still applies. Trade with neighbouring countries and having a powerful united army are not mutually exclusive.
The EU turning itself into a self sufficient unit would enable sanctions on an unprecedented level, and enable hardening of internal supply chains against wide spread natural disasters of various kinds.
But to employ a European army there would need to be unanimous consent, so what's the chance that any deployment would happen outside of Europe at all? And the EU is still vulnerable as Europe isn't self sufficient in terms of food and energy yet, if more nations follow Germany instead of France, it may not be energy independent for the next century.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
@@jeremiahblake3949 Not self sufficient?... Irelands massive amount of turf will be its saving grace!..
@@tacotuesday2489 If we’re talking about a self sufficient Europe, then Ireland has neither the size nor the infrastructure to serve as the primary source of all food in Europe.
In fact, Ukraine is already the sole provider of most of Europe’s grain, which is another reason Russia conquering it would be very very bad.
Agressive neutrality is what I have heared it called in reference to the swiss model. Military is a waste of resources, but as long as there are countries willing to go to war with you, it is an investment that has to be made. It is sad that it is neccasary but it has to be done. I hope we keep the less interventionist policies we have compared to the US. But I also hope we will be more active in not economicaly supporting regimes who are on the way of becoming "the next ww2 germany".
As an American I support Europe having their own strong army and geopolitical presence. I understand that isn’t in the best strategic interest of the US, but it is in the best strategic interest of democracy which is what matters.
🇪🇺🇺🇸
It's good for democracy
@@prisonislandhead7610 interesting how your democracy doesn’t care about a virus killing people
@@bennelong8451 spoken like someone who's here for honest conversation and big ideas
A European army is an absurd idea that would never work however stronger European nations makes sense.
I would disagree that the US wouldn't benefit from a militarily and politically-strong EU. As long as a major power is ideologically pro-democratic and pro-stability, the most important US interests are strengthened.
It also helps to have well-armed nations that are pro-democratic and anti-war to support deterrence, so we don't slide back into the days of League of Nations impotence nor Cold War utilitarianism.
Russian here. First of all, I cannot understate the amount of shame me and a lot of my friends are feeling every day. A lot of us have friends in Ukraine and watching the news has felt physically revolting. Buildings that look like the ones that we live in are getting blown up. Every major city square here has riot police outnumbering people. The last independent news outlets have been shut down and activist are having their apartment doors spray painted with slurs. The president has encouraged snitching on your neighbours.
As horrific as it all is, it's not comparable to what Ukraine is going through. A lot of people, good people, lost their homes and their lives.
In all honesty, the phrase that has been echoing here is a quote from the political scientist Ekaterina Shulman "I pray that we live long enough to finally say that this is why we need the ability to retire politicians. That democracy isn't just some hoity-toity thing that exists in the West because it's their culture, but a process mean to prevent an explosion. Democracy is how one retires a mad politician before one grabs the nuclear button and goes onto some historical quest."
The lack of accountability was always an issue here, the people felt like they were just humans residing on a territory rather than citizens, but that never was an issue as long as the economy was ticking and the streets were clean. In a flash all of this disappeared, people lost their livelihoods, freedoms and many mothers lost their sons. Politicians working in literal gilded fortresses say that the people can "survive a bit of discomfort". It baffles how the leadership of a country can willingly tank the living standards of their own people, then punish them if they protest. We don't feel like humans, but rather a resource to be commanded by an obviously mad tsar. I pray that this madness ends, but even if it does it will take generations to wash away the blood and horror that has been inflicted. I just pray that this will not resurface further imperial ambitions in neighbouring states or age-old grievances.
Europe is old and wise and with all my heart I pray that her values and her dreams will outlive this mad king.
Amen.
Turkey is already feeling cocky. Watch Erdogan try to become a second Putin, he's already been doing it as a leader for the past 22 years, soon he'll hop into action.
The war in Ukraine will free the world from the clutches of the west.
@@georgios_5342 Where would he go? Cyprus, perhaps? Maybe Syria?
I'm glad Russians like you exist. Too bad you're in the minority, and most of your people support this "mad tsar" and the war.
As an American, this is quite enlightening and fascinating to me. If Kraut is right and Europe is going to emerge as a new world superpower, I will say, I would much rather share that space with you guys than with a lot of other options. In any case, I wish the best of luck and wisdom to you all. May truth light your path.
Europe will never be able to co-ordinate itself to be a super power. Even right now Germany is fueling Russia by buying its gas while Poland is demanding cessation of all trade which would destroy Germany's industry.
@@tpower1912 I disagree. They'll find a common ground in time. The EU is marching towards complete independence from Russia's fossil fuels, Germany's own chancellor has said that they can transition faster than anyone foresees, and that the process is now irreversible.
I think that becoming a strong defensive superpower would be the way to go for Europe. If anything a defensive juggernaut of a European Union, that remains neutral and acts as a negotiator would be ideal and suit well troubled lands such as these. How easy it would be, I don’t know. But it’d definitely be wise I think. Especially with the tensions brewing between US and China
@@kahal510 They're just becoming dependent on the more expensive, higher carbon footprint liquefied natural gas from the warmongers and terrorists in the US and Qatar.
@@tjay5837 "A defensive super power" Lol. This is why Russia, China and the US continue to be the only players that matter
As an American, I still would be pleased to see Europe taking a larger leadership role on the world stage. The potential for Europe to go against our own interests is there of course but the same can be said of our own government at times. A serious counterweight to the US in the democratic world could force US leadership to finally take its role seriously again or at the very least leave someone at the wheel if stability degrades over here.
Same hear from NYC. I wonder if this will make nato countries be more faithful to their commitment in funding NATO. Plus us getting more funding at home for our infrastructure that desperately needs the money especially in public transportation among others.
The second my country rearms, I want the USA out of our land, our politics and our foreign relations
@@andresmartinezramos7513 question are you Spanish? As for your demand it might not happen considering in case of conflict it would be impractical to ship troops across the Atlantic into Europe to support NATO members which spain is apart of.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 Did we screw you guys over or something? Don't seem to remember any significant beefs between us and Spain (Sorry if you're not from Spain I'm just guessing from the name).
@@andresmartinezramos7513 I'm sure many Americans wouldn't mind that.
I’m not feeling too good about this situation either. This is a major shift in the dynamics of politics in Europe. This is a new era & a new order could potentially arise. It’s something we have to watch with fear.
i really hope russian loss this war and the middle east has more democratic countries also love your videos queen
@Leo The British-Eurasian maybe but the truth is these years have been good for the Americans & Europe, Putins war threatens world stability. I’m looking at those wheat prices in particular & what that means for the Arab world.
@@PakBallandSami appreciate the kind worse & likewise. Hopefully some good can come out of this. Eitherway Putin has etched his name in infamy & has now given the Ukrainians a core tenant to their national identity: skepticism & hostility to the Russian state
@Leo The British-Eurasian ok, I cringed from this caveman garbage. Pls, waste your cringe elsewhere.
Indeed…
I'm really surprised that anyone else outside of Finland has even heard of Kekkonen
I feel like the whole conference and it's concluding document the "Helsinki Accords" are the more widely known thing. Basically the outcome is more known then the initiator.
@Der Traubengott he did have lot of power in Cold war times. Hosted many meetings between East and West so yeah if some Finnish politician should be it is him. Well him and Mannerheim I guess
@Obscure Wondering he is pretty controversial here as well. I guess the most neutral point is that he stayed in power because Finns liked him and he had very good relationship with USSR. He didn't really do anything notably bad or anything but he did stay in power for really long time 25 years if I remember correctly. So if some would want to call him like dictator light or something like that they wouldn't be wrong 😅
@@LustWaffel I read somewhere that he once asked unions to stop a strike, and they did.
@@Ben-ek1fz Interesting - Cold War wasn't covered in great detail during my school time (german gymnasium). The overwhelming part of history course during that time was the Weimar Republik - its foundation, many crisis and the reasons for its collapse. (But I think that's understandable from a German perspective.)
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" - "If you want peace, prepare for war". Demilitarization does not bring peace. Never has.
has the opposite ever brought peace though? Militarization brings more war, military industries need wars to sell their products, peace is bad for business as far ad their concerned
I think SIPRI disagrees
That slogan was created in a world far more militaristic and hostile than ours.
I agree, bare no illusions the bellicosean dogma that once was the norm back in the day is still existent if only tempered by the presence of a global policeman. The peace we experience today only endures because of the preponderance of American power, a power that might soon be eclipsed by a rising power to the east.
@@keanjorda8996 Meh, I have to disagree on the "might soon be eclipsed" point regarding US military power.
Without getting into specific details, the US is still decades ahead of anyone else in totality of military power, when regarding advanced equipment, the amount of said equipment, and the large numbers of skilled personnel needed to man said equipment.
The US still invests incredible amounts of money into military development, dwarfing its biggest rivals by several magnitudes. Even if the US had to scale back expenses to nothing but maintenence on what it already has, it'd take China or Russia multiple generations to catch up.
When you factor in the context that the long-term demographic situations for China and Russia are far graver than for the US, it stands to reason that America's long term prospects look better than for China or Russia. A bunch of old people does not make a strong country, and China/Russia are older than the US, aging faster than the US, and replacing less population than the US.
Corruption has affected both nations as much, if not more so, than the US as well. This reinforces the stagnation of their economies and bogs down military development. Couple this with the demographic situation, and the odds of either country being a serious threat to America's hegemonic power in our lifetimes are pretty much nil.
Chinese sphere does stand to grow, but more so because the US is choosing to cast a smaller net to save on costs rather than China muscling out the US on the geopolitical stage.
As a Bulgarian, an Europe that is even more closely interdependent not only economically, but also military and security wise, is very much a desired outcome from this awful war. Bottom line is that we should never allow something like this to happen ever again in Europe or it's borders.
The threat of massive economic sanctions wasn't enough to deter Russia, a more direct and physical threat is needed to keep the bear at bay, and what more direct than a united European army, contributed to and supplied for by every country member? Not for a more aggressive foreign policy but for protection of European values of peace, interdependency and democracy.
I could not have said it better.
Bingo!
You should strive for peace, but the only way to secure peace is through deference. It’s a balancing act.
I just can't agree with European Army idea. It transfers resposibility of defending EU to outside of our countries. I much, much more prefer something similar to NATO as a concept - every country has it's own army that has goals and purposes in bigger european project. Forces train together, use the same standards, common language (literally - using english seems like a natural thing right now), purchase bigger systems together to get better prices etc. Base security of your country not purely on outside help but on abilities of your country to cooperate with others. One, united European Army just doesn't smell right to me. I could easily imagine world where this kind of project leaves Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania to Russia because defending Poland, Germany or Romania seems to have higher priority.
what does an army matter when putin can literally throw nukes at you. you people are so stupid to think amy war matter between super power when it'll only be a short game of catch the nuke
*we should never allow something like this to happen ever again in Europe or its borders*
Yet you did, though no fault but your own.
Did you think this would happen when NATO expanded 13 times?
Did you think this would happen when you deny Russia's request to JOIN NATO 5 times?
Did you think this would happen when you follow the US blindly to destabilise Ukraine and support radical neo-nazi groups?
I can go on, but you get the point.
Europe and the US are equally responsible for starting this war, if not MORE than Russia.
You wanted peace, yet you are giving MORE lethal weapons to Ukraine, KNOWING the bloody history of radical terrorist group in that region and prolonging this war.
You talked about peace and survival, yet YOU pushed one of the biggest nuclear superpowers into a corner, if humanity dies, the blood is ON YOUR HANDS.
Someone in the comments mentioned "why didn't Bosnia, Serbia, Georgia, Crimea break the Helsinki accords?". Bosnia and Serbia were probably too small to matter to an average western European, but they were cracks. Georgia was when Putin realised Helsinki accords no longer work, in 2008, and used it to raise his popularity in Russia through a quick victory. Takeover of Crimea is when Ukraine realised it. Many of us preferred to pretend the peace is still alive, without even checking for the pulse. 24th of February 2022 is when the world realised it's over.
You could perhaps even say Chechnya was when when the accords were broken, but people could rationalise it as a result of the messy break up of the Soviet Union. Something of a civil war. Or not really a part of Europe.
The most important point is that if Europe always tries to avoid war, the rest of the world should always use war to negotiate. To avoid war at all costs is to give up everything. If economic sanctions were swift enough (cutting off literally everything immediately), that might be a viable alternative to threatening violence in return. But it has a decent probability of conflicting with interests of countries in Europe and is unreliable for this reason. The other option is, of course, the old good si vis pacem, para bellum. It's fun and safe to mock someone who won't fight back. But what about someone strong who might feel like you crossed the line?
Not to mention the Budapest memorandum.
There WERE people that said: it's coming. They were portrayed as rusophobes because for Germany was much more important. At the end who got it right: Germans and French or Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia/Poland when they tried to protect Georgia in 2008.
Ladies and Gentlemen!We are here to express our full solidarity. We are Presidents of five states: Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We are here to undertake a struggle. It has been now the very first instance for a long time that our neighbours from the North, and for us also from the North and the East, have shown the face that we used to know all too well for centuries. Those neighbours believe that the nations surrounding them should be subordinated to them. And we say: No! The country I have in mind is Russia. That country believes that the old days of an empire that collapsed some twenty years ago are now about to return, that domination will be again the distinctive feature of the region. It will not be so. These times are gone once and for all and are not merely interrupted for twenty, thirty or fifty years! We were all of us exposed to this domination in more or less the same period o time. This was a misfortune for all Europe! This was about breaking people’s characters, imposing an alien political system, imposing a foreign language. But what makes the situation now different from the situation many years ago? Today, we are here together. The world had to react even if reluctantly. We are here to make the world react even stronger, the European Union and NATO in particular. When I was initiating this visit, some people believed that Presidents may have some fears. Nobody had any fears. They all came here since the Central Europe has courageous leaders. What I want to tell you and tell our friends from our shared European Union is that the Central Europe, Georgia and our whole region is going to have say, that we are a subject. And we also realize all too well that what has befallen Georgia today may befall Ukraine tomorrow, the Baltic States a day after, and then perhaps also my own country: Poland. We were deeply convinced that the membership of NATO and the EU would put an end to Russian appetites. It turned out that it did not. But if the values that are to be the foundation of Europe are to have any practical significance at all, we can defy. If those values are to matter at all, we must be here; whole Europe must be present here. Among us, there are four NATO members. There is also Ukraine, a large country. There is Mr President Sarkozy who at present presides over the European Union. But there should be 27 of us here. We trust that Europe will appreciate it and will be present, that Europe will understand your own right to freedom and its own stakes as well That Europe will realize that without Georgia, Russia is going to restore its empire which serves nobody’s interests. This is why we are here now.”
Turned out - Europe didn't notice until now.
@@kondziu1992
I would expand on that with a second group who worried about it... from the other perspective. People who felt that our overtures towards Ukraine were pushing Russia to war, as that change in spheres of influence would be unacceptable. Probably also happened regarding Georgia, but I wasn't following that as much so I can't comment.
More of a realpolitik view, I suppose. Same way we won't do anything about Hong Kong or the Uyghurs. We might not like it, but we gotta know our limits and respect others' spheres of influence. Pick our battles.
Particularly worrisome is the fourth view though. Which also saw it coming, and saw the opportunity. A way to get Russia into a devastating conflict, where we can bleed them dry through arms shipments and sanctions, without ever setting foot on the battlefield. Question is, what's the endgame there?
@@sorsocksfake That's the thing - I cannot understand how modern democracies can support the idea of "spheres of influence". I'd much rather see international politics as a free market. I always hear about that argument: how would USA react if Mexico invited Chinese to place their army bases on their land. It's simple - it's in USA interest to never let that happen. That's why you trade with your neighbors, you protect relations between nations, you make deals because if country next to you feels good about this relationship, then you both feel safe. So this idea is only possible if Mexico wouldn't feel safe with USA on the border.
And Russia does exactly that. They are always threatening, influence politics of other nations by force or using their intelligence agencies. This meme about 'Types of headaches' is absolutely true. They buy politicians, influence important sectors of economy and suck all of the juices out of other nations. And when their victims have enough and try to separate from Russia's "company" - they risk their existence and independence. It's just not right.
"When Poland and Ukraine introduced their political, social and economic system reforms at the beginning of the 1990s, both economies were at a similar level of economic development (GDP $9,500 per capita). However, in 2018, Ukrainian GDP per capita had remained at the same levels since 1991, while in Poland, it had increased significantly, to more than $27,000 per capita." You know what was the MAIN difference? Poland went with NATO, EU and friendly partnership with USA. Ukraine stayed in Russian "sphere of influence". They are similar nations when it comes to work ethic, faith, social structure. Ukraine have better soils, started in 1990s with better infrastructure (nuclear plants... army bases... shipyards...) and yet - it is where it is.
Reference: Eurasian Dynasty tries to destroy United Civilized States
.
The Treaty of Vienna ensured a peace in Europe that lasted for decades.
But war still happened. Extremely costly wars, at that.
Neither the Treaty of Vienna, nor the League of Nations, nor the Helsinki Accords can stop the escalation of ideologies to the ultimate battleground.
It's pessimistic, sure, but it's not untrue.
@Der Traubengott Not quite true. For example, a lot of wars the French started after the French Revolution were demanded by the Population. The Franco- Prussian war is a very good example of that.
Nah there were so many wars embetween, Crimean, franco prussian, italy v austria, the Balkans, and the 1848 revolutions
@Der Traubengott You're basically advocating for the Liberal World Order idea that stable democracies are far less likely to go to war with other democracies, I believe.
@Der Traubengott "and how was the media situation back then? Censorship at its prime." Not really, censorship was at its prime during WW1, but before it was not really effective. And the Franco-Prussian war was started because the media were in this case not censored and the French felt insulted.
"Also the wars back then were fought as cabinet wars. Small standing armies fighting in rural areas for small gains in territory. The population was mostly unaffected by these wars back then." You do realize, that that was only a short period of time, and civilians were still harmed and that completely ended with the French Revolution.
The point of the EU and the Helsinki Accords was to use economics as a tool to stop wars from happening. The League of Nations for example didn't have that kind of a tool.
This is exactly why I hate the notion of "Oh why do you care about about the Ukraine war? There are multiple other conflicts going on at the same time and those aren't different." This is an argument used by uninteligent Americans who do not understand what Europe even is. There has been peace between nation states since ww2. Yugoslavian breakup can't really be counted since it was a civil war not a war between countries.
Also it was pretty much expected that Europes power dynamic would change eventually. It was shown that Russia was an aggressive state when it invaded Georgia. It was never a good idea to try to make peace with a non democratic Russia when we KNEW it was unstable.
Ethiopians eat Ukrainian Grain. Not bice-versa. And Sudan does not have ICBMs, asubmarinesz and hydrogen bombs.
Your one of my favorite RUclips’s due to consistent quality, entertaining and informative videos. Keep up the good work.
you only see what he wants you to see, in reality he can be an extremely petulant little person who misrepresents history
@@jebthegodemperor7301 care to explain?
@@jebthegodemperor7301 Yes please do elaborate.
@@jebthegodemperor7301 elaborate and source.
@@jebthegodemperor7301 well I always have a little distance with geopolitical channels, I guess it’s good to question the
As an American, I'm glad Europe is distancing itself from American Influence. Our politicians and people need to realize how much they take for granted, as it's leading many down a dark authoritarian path. It might backfire, but honestly we need to have different goals, as we all have different positions and people. We only need to agree on a few things. Peace is preferable. Humility is a good thing. And humanity as a whole (and the Earth) needs to be protected.
I think it's important not to distance ourselves too much. Yes, friendly competition would potentially help us both BUT our enemies remain too strong for us to act TOO isolated from one another.
Democracy is already too weak as it is, so we need to be careful not to go too far from one another.
I mean EU members also really don't trust each other. Eastern Europe would like more cooperation with Turkey to deter Russia but Greece and Cyprus doesn't want anything to with Turkey. The Germans want no nuclear energand is trying to convince the EU members to follow there action. The france and Italy supports opposing side in the Libya civil war. Spain wants help with stopping Morocco gain there islands but no other EU members cares.
Same here. The gap between public opinion, centers of economic influence, and actual law is too big for me to trust my own government with world leadership. I would be fine letting Europe's democracies take the reigns and set the agenda.
Europe should be distancing itself. America has been saying this for litteral decades. Even trump told germany to fund its own army, and to start paying its fair share of NATO.
The problem is, America has domestic issues right now. Also, NO ONE WANTS TO BE WORLD POLICE. We dont want the world to turn into a china-run shithole the millisecond we focus on ourselves. Europe shares our same interests in terms of global trade and shit.
9/11 happened, because America was focusing on its election, and the shifting administration. No one in the intelligence community was paying attention to what was going on in Afghanistan, and what actors like Osama were doing.
In the ideal world, America wouldnt be the only super power, and you would have countries like Germany or France that would atleast take up a few roles that the CIA were supposed to do leading up to the event.
American has historically profit from European wars and crisis economically and via the benefits of increased military presence. Europeans needs to realize their interest is fundamentally contradict with American interest. So when something like Ukraine war happens, Americans will try everything to keep it going while Europeans suffer
The Nonaligned Movement experienced considerable difficulty in establishing a unified policy on many issues in international affairs. Many of the member nations were enemies (such as Iran and Iraq), and true nonalignment proved an elusive goal. With the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union (1991), neutralism lost much of its usefulness as a guiding principle in many nations’ foreign relations.
Indeed
My country Belarus joined the Nonaligned Movement and even added neutrality to the Constitution. You can now see how neutral and nonaligned Belarus is.
Nonaligned? Like in hoi4? Based?
@@vcprocles Sadly neutrality will always be perfect ground to breed authoritarianism. Not always happend but its the most common route for countries that choose it.
@@TexYMatt98 Which may explain why there were so many dictatorships in the third world during the Cold War, and how a lot of these dictatorships disappeared following the end of the Cold War in 1991.
As a Finn I must say that I am a Finn. I watched this video in Finland. Greetings from finland11!!!
Are you finnished? 🙄
Tortillat avataan
Fun fact when the Soviet Union was dealing with internal problems
Swan lake was played in everything to distract citizens but it usually meant trouble
If I remember right, The main TV station in Russia (or the USSR I can't remember) was taken over during a coup and no one shut off the broadcast so Swan Lake was on loop and tipping off civilians that something was wrong. Since then Swan Lake has become a symbol of something going wrong that is being hidden from the public.
@@americankid7782 also when Brezhnev died,instead of broadcasting the death of Brezhnev itself,Soviet TV station keep playing swan lake for hour non stop,when they realize Brezhnev was died the news already passed 5 days ago,and people start to confuse about what happen to their own leader
Skeptics? Please respond!
As an Austrian, Id say our role as mediators between nations largly ended since the cold war. Yes we still house the IAEA and bureau of the UN, but I dont have the feeling that our government could be taken seriously internationally to the extent where one could use us as mediators. Our governments for the last couple of years have been a laughing stock ever since Kern-Mitterlehner ended.
Im worried about european security and the question what happens if or once Putin will be in a corner.
the only country that can still work as a mediator is Switzerland but even they’re starting to show signs of non neutrality which is the big reason why they matter in the first place
"The question what happens if or once Putin will be in a corner"... Russia is not only Putin.
IF you're insinuating nuclear weapons, this means you forgot that most of Russia's leadership is not delusional AND suicidal (at the sea time ^^) + we in the West have our own nukes. We also have a little thing called an actual (basically) effective army + mostly capable intelligence agencies.
Until Russia becomes a death cult in its leadership caste (we're far from there so far), your fears have little basis in reality.
I get why you have them, but, they have little basis in reality.
With love, from a neighbouring "5-km-from-Mureck"-dwelling Slovenian
Never knew IAEA seat is in Austria. Bit ironic when I remember how Austrian activists block our shared border crossings every time we make a slight notion of thinking of adding another nuclear reactor in Temelin lol.
@@CropiCZE well get your damn reactors secure and we will shut up
I am an Iranian so maybe I should not be one to judge but it has always seemed to me that Europeans always Expect people and other world leaders to act in a very specific and positive way hoping that others will make the decision that in their eyes are diplomatic and right, and frankly that always seems so naive.
In Iran it is natural in our culture to prepare for the worst to Expect that even those you trust will commit to a set of actions that fundamentally disappoint you and to expect the worst outcome in all things specially in political decision making.
It just seems to me that Europe was under the illusion of optimism and their own arrogance thinking that because this framework has worked it will always work and there will never be a need for any backups or heavy contingencies and as a result they have been hammered by the consequences of their own naive ideals
the world outside Europe ,outside its democracy outside diplomacy exists and it neither abides by accepts or even likes European life, culture, law or diplomacy
Regardless of all of this I think there will always be a need for change eventually nothing is perfect no framework no law no system the faults simply take decades if not centuries to show themselves eventually there must be change and while it is horrifying at times change can also be a good thing.
Europe has always been a land of change always shifting never stagnant in one form and its history can be used as a lesson to make better decisions for the future.
A very good analysis, I must say.
Just curious, what do you think Iran's future on the world stage will be?
You mean western Europe. We easterners (and especially in my case, the Balkans) come from a low-trust society which means that we're used to all that. Watch Kraut's video on the Greek crisis.
@@souvikrc4499 I can only hope that our leaders Support for Russia does not cross the red line of active military support if it does that will be a catastrophe I doubt there will be any actual agreement to remove sanctions by the west, at this point I'm hoping everyone simply dials down a bit for a few years or preferably decades I highly doubt that will happen though specially with Russia insisting on taking Ukraine no matter how bad the losses become economically or otherwise
I want to add some words as Ukrainian. Europe mostly tried to keep in peace itself if we are talking about "west" countries and Europe ignored terrible things russia did in Chechnya twice, in Georgia twice, Transnistria, asad supporting and bombing civilians in Syria, supporting military dictatorship side in Libya, supporting authocracies in other african countries like Central African Republic with PWC "Wagner" which is controlled by putin's close friend and killed group of journalists there, maduro support in Venezuela, russian influence over Karabakh war and shooting people during protests in Kazakhstan and looting houses there, supporting lukashenko to demolish protests in Belarus. And all this happen since ussr collapsed and russia since that time caused so many wars and problems and I even don't mention wars caused by ussr which in fact was another empire with russian superiority. All this time Europe was in silence and even when russia annexed Crimea Europe used some sanctions against, but even those sanctions worked bad and military equipment was sent to russia by countries like Germany and France. For example if you'll see inside new made russian tank at start of war you find that most of equipment is "western" and especially optical equipment is made by France, or russian new military armored cars were made by Italy or Spain and drones have Japanese and Switzerland equipment and all of these happened even when russia was sanctioned, so in fact Europe broke its own rules in favor of their greedy desire without conscience about upper mentioned wars caused by russia + current full scale invasion (in fact war from 2014 continues). But the most interesting part is that Europe became victim of russia and russia started manipulating by its resources like oil and gas and warn by nuclear disasters, military and then Europe started understand that the only way to withstand is to form a power that can make problems for russia and other autocracies and they have no choice to continue trading with killer while blood of other nations spill. If someone thinks that increasing military and so on process are bad decission, so I'll say that Europe has no other decission. Whether you become strong and show your determination without any fears or whether you'll encounter with greater crisis in future and full economical and not only control of russia because of your inactivity. Don't forget Europeans, here in Ukraine we also fight for freedom of all Europe.
The real reason is that Oil and gas was discovered in Ukraine and Europe sees Ukraine as a way to get her oil addiction without relying on russia. Nothing has changed.
@@theq4602 lol no. The amount of gas+oil found in Ukraine isn't nearly comparable to the ones that russia posses, and so can't fix europe energy problems. Also, the newly found gas placements were near Crimea. Did Europe annexCrimea to take its tasty resources? No it didnt, Russia did.
Honestly I was quite surprised by the response from the West. I thought it would be Crimea2.0. Which would be quite scary for me (a Polish person) but not surprising
There're 2 differences tho.
1. Ukrainian goverment got their shit toghether well enough so you could defend yourself from the attack this time
2. Putin went straight for the capital. If he kept to the East I don't think many Western countries would care that much
I hope other Eastern countries find some independence from Russia after the war ends. The sooner the better
тебе бы на униан работать братишка - из тебя бы получился отличный пропагандист!
@@uazik-kamazik русня в стойло
I wouldn't mind a unified EU as a counterweight to the United States. A diplomatic system of checks and balances where both parties agree on their fundamental principles and hold each other accountable.
Yeah. I agree. I like the relationship which the US and Europe have as it's built upon decades of cooperation and history. However it is kind of one-sided and has been throughout most of the Cold War. The only danger is, that if Europe can stand for its' own, perhaps it may start leaning towards China and autocracy. I think that's unlikely though.
Two democratic superpowers instead of one, I’m all for that!
I would love it, the Americans are too unreliable and we shouldn’t degrade ourselves to being vassal states when we have the power to be a force for good in the world.
@@doogus8728 So could the US. Trump wanted to be an autocrat. His base tried to hold our legislature hostage.
It didn't happen in 2021... What about 2024?
If Trump was in office he probably would have pulled us out of NATO by now. We wouldn't be giving weapons to Ukraine we are doing now. If at all.
A multi polar world is a more stable world.
I would worry about an expansionist Europe. That would be a true nightmare.
@@Giganfan2k1 Yeah! In my eyes, Trump is populism during peacetime. Something which nobody needs. Many of his election points revolved around stirring up fear or resentment of the democrats, the 'fake news', the immigrants, the overall government, NATO. Scapegoats all around. He didn't actually latch onto anything real. He created problems and coined terms. S'pose that's all you can do when there's not much paranoia to draw support from.
And yeah, an expansionist Europe. Although I think the political climate is far too sensitive in Europe for something like that to happen. It would need a drastic event to trigger change like that. Something that creates a surge of European identity.
Mexican here, I always enjoy watching Krauts videos even beyond the ones about my country. The history of Europe post World War II has always been fascinating to me. I hope things will settle soon but as Kraut says, things will change
I loved Kraut's video about the history of Mexico! Me and my friends did a school project about Mexico in high school and we purposefully talked as little about the Mexican revolution as possible since we found it so hard to get a grasp on all the different sides and what the outcome meant for Mexico in the decades after. If only Kraut had uploaded these videos back in 2008...
@@icelandinreallife2042 Jajaja the Mexican revolution is a nightmare to study in school it’s still very confusing now, greetings to you my Icelandic friend
Colombian here, and I love these things, if there’s a conflict I don’t think we will be involved unless there something to do with Venezuela or something
@@gringocolombian9919 I hope not, I agree I doubt that any Latin American country will get involved. Saludos, compadre 🇲🇽🇨🇴
El conflicto en ukrania si afecto el precio de la tortilla en oaxaca :(
Gotta say, this was one of the most refreshing takes I've heard about Kekkonen for quite some time. As a Finn I thought the video was going to be about Finlandization, because that's what Kekkonen is the most well known for here in Finland.
The jury is still out there pondering should we treat him as leader who managed to guide Finland through the cold war despite being a neighbour of USSR (Praque Spring flashbacks) or power hungry politican who shamelessly used USSR for his own political goals, or both.
The topic of Finlandization is still sore topic in Finland, which is why it's difficult to have a fruitful discussion about it without discussion turning into game of "find the biggest bootlicker".
Finland had few choices after WW2 and all of them were bad. Finland chose the least bad option.
It was pragmatism pure and simple.
Opinion from outside? I wish I was in Finland right now. I didn't notice (I might be wrong) Kremlin treating you guys with their usual "we're going to destroy you, your country shouldn't exist" bullshit. I'm a Pole and the reality is: we are the main target of every possibile action against NATO that Russia can come up with. Alongside with Baltic states of course. There's this undescribable tension in the air right now. People freak out when they hear firecrackers on the street or other loud *bang* somewhere. Luckily with every week that this invasion goes on, it seems like another euro-russia war is another year further away. I wouldn't want to live in a world where Russia achieved its goals and conquered Ukraine in 5 days.
Is it true that he was a KGB asset? Sorry for asking in this way, maybe it´s improper.
@@adelinod.5568 There's no credibe evidence for that and for example the ex-cheif of Finnish Security Intelligence Service (supo) was certain that Finlands independence was always Kekkonens top priority.
However, there are also claims that Kekkonen did work with KGB to manufacture the Note Crisis of 1961 in order to sabotage the challenge made by Olavi Honka. These claims are based on hearsay and are not substantiated by evidence, although even people at the time had suspicions about Kekkonens role in that crisis.
Was he an agent or asset? I don't think so.
Was he someone KGB could work with? Maybe? His whole political career was based on the fact he was able to "handle the eastern relations" and I imagine dealing with KGB comes with it.
what is Finlandization?
As someone from Russia, I was hoping that, over time, with growing interdependencies - we'll be able to shift out from our authoritarian path, since it'll mean that more and more people will be involved with international community, and I know, that it's one thing that makes you avoid conflicts on a personal level, which, given scale, can influence politics within countries. I can't tell you, how shattered I am because of what's happening, especially while having friends\family in Ukraine, who I can't even help, given the circumstances.
What a difficult time to be a Russian who is aware of the flaws of their country. I hope your family in Ukraine will be safe.
forsenT
Либерал предатель
@@niceone550 Во-первых не либерал, во-вторых, схерали это я предатель? Это z-тусовочка одобряет отправку наших молодых людей на смерть не пойми за что.
Good luck with that,
There was a lot of criticism aimed at the reaction to the war in western countries, roughly along the lines of "where was this enthusiasm and action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Myanmar etc", often with a "the west is still racist/imperialist" message. In my view this criticism was justified sometimes (e.g. the infamous "blonde and blue-eyed comment"), but I also felt that there was a profound difference between this war and the examples cited in such arguments, and this video articulates that difference.
The reason many people in the west were so shocked is that this war breaks a precedent we have all taken for granted, which brings with it a terrifying uncertainty.
If Ethiopians want to stop murdering one another, or Muslims want to Liberalize their Oil:
No one will stop them.
Europe has a good thing going, despite their modern restraint in imperialism; expecting anyone to feel bad about it, is rediculous. As far as the American Empire: if Gran Columbia, Japan, or the Ottomans or the Zulu's could have: They Would Have.
not only that but of course you are more shocked and likely to help if your neighbour had a burglar break into his house then some stranger in a distant city where you only notice it in the newspapers. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and so on arent european there is no common heritage, no cultural similarities a different religion no shared history not even any political or even strategic reasons for europe to have any commitments at all there. Meanwhile the ukrainian border is closer to my countries capital then certain parts of the country. This has absolutely nothing to do with racism or imperialism or all the other nonsense but simply that you care more about your neighbour then some stranger half way around the world. You care more about your family then an acquaintiance.
As if those people would support any Western aid as anything more than Western imperialism to begin with. There is a deep distrust (not unearned) of the West and any action it may take, these people are the same ones that cheered when US troops attempted to stop the killings in Somalia and were killed for it.
Most of those wars mentioned were either islamist incursions or the death fight of some totalitarian dictatorship. Almost all of them internal, based on reasoning that is very disconnected to western and european ideas and ideals. Ukraine is non of that. Thats why we care more, because a. it makes more sense for us to care more and b. because sympathy for one side is much easier to have.
There's a point when alleged racism is simply extended monkey-spere related bias towards those closer to us culturally, geographically and yes racially. I would not dismiss this critique outright, but I can't blame westerners for caring more about people who look like them and live like them getting bombed out of their homes.
At some point you're just critiquing human nature and nobody is going to give a toss about their galaxy brain takes on how we're biased and should care about everyone equally.
You are right about fertiliser. We are dairy farmers in Ireland and our fertiliser is 4 times more expensive this year
What are the chemicals used in fertiliser?
Please don't block the damn motorways with your tractors
@@richardnixon7248 referencing the climate change activists?
@@doogus8728 in ireland, farmers have protested by coming to the capital and driving slow, blocking every lane and irritating everyone lol
@@richardnixon7248 probably not very effective at gaining public support
The only scenarios where you can have peace are: (1) everyone around you wants peace or (2) you're so strong any attack against you would be suicidal. There might be an option (3) if you're a tiny and/or geopolitically insignificant country that isn't worth attacking, but that doesn't exactly apply to Europe as a whole.
Option (1) seemed to work in Europe for a few decades, but we're in the process of seeing how spectacularly it can fail because it takes only one autocrat with a thirst for power or who wants his place in the history books (*cough* *cough* Putin) to throw the whole idea of peace out the window. Let's not forget Putin isn't even the only autocrat in Europe, he's just the one that sits on a massive nuclear arsenal. If it wasn't for NATO and the EU, I'm convinced we'd see even more conflict in Europe. Some of the leaders in and around Europe don't strike me as the sorts who go to sleep thinking how the Helsinki Accords were the greatest thing since sliced bread. Add to this the threat of nationalism that exists latently or out in the open in every European country; there are plenty of idiots out there that DO go to sleep thinking how great it would be if they could just re-arrange borders according to , including a few European leaders I'm sure, and given the chance would be willing to throw peace out the window over some historical beef or another. As citizen of the EU, I'm wary in principle of EU bureaucracy and its influence over certain local matters, but I do believe that internally, for Europe, the best way to prevent future wars is to make national borders largely irrelevant which is what, in part, the EU is doing.
However that still leaves powers, great and small, outside Europe to contend with. Because Europe isn't an island all alone on an infinite ocean. Regardless of what it does internally, it will always bump into the lands and, more importantly, the interests of those in its immediate vicinity, plus those of the greater powers that can exert influence over a long distance. Some of those powers are friendly or share certain values, but many more are ambivalent at best. Some are outright antagonistic. These are not parties to the Helsinki Accords, they have no interest in what those accords meant for Europe and they have no interest in liberal democracy. Against them you can only defend through force: economic, cultural and military in nature. My belief is that Europe, as a whole, needs to go for option (2). Might does not make right, but it might (excuse the pun) make your neighbor think twice about trying to rearrange the furniture in YOUR living room.
RE: neutrality. I will say some things that will piss off some of my fellow Europeans. Some European countries can afford neutrality because on a grand scale they're geographically insignificant. However these are not the ones that are relevant to this conversation. I'm talking about the bigger names that get thrown around all the time. Austria and Switzerland are surrounded on all sides by NATO countries. They can effectively hide behind NATO for cover. This without even saying that Switzerland also has, for a long time, embraced ARMED neutrality. So not some hippy, flower power fantasy of peace, but one that is backed through force of arms. A stance similarly embraced by Sweden. Now Sweden isn't surrounded by NATO countries, but it also doesn't have a direct border with Russia, the greatest threat to peace in Europe at the moment. However one look at the map is enough to see that they are considerably exposed through the Baltic. Then there's Finland. If I was them, I'd be worried. Putin's Russia may not be as militarily strong as the USSR, but it's far more dangerous to peace in Europe, as it has already proven. And Ireland? Once again this is a case of a country that can afford its neutrality since it effectively has an entire continent to hide behind. Of course, this is reductionist and the situation of all these countries is a lot more complex than this, but what I said does serve to point out that neutrality only works if geography is in your favor and/or you have a strong enough military to make an invasion a really bad idea. Since Europe, as a whole, isn't an isolated island far from any potential adversary, nor does it exist in a world that universally shares its values, the only way I see Europe protecting itself is by re-arming itself within an allied, coordinated structure, be it NATO, be it a militarized EU, be it something new altogether. As long as the core principles of such a structure are that (a) an attack on one is an attack on all and (b) no allied country may use force against another, else it will be treated as an aggressor against all other allied countries, essentially as under point (a). Of course, the entry bar should continue to be defined by whether you're a liberal democracy or are at least striving to become one.
My belief is that a new iron curtain is descending upon Europe and beyond, but the sides are no longer defined in terms capitalism vs communism, but in terms of democracy vs authoritarianism. It took 3 decades for the world to resettle itself after the end of the Cold War and now a new struggle is about to begin. None of the countries in Europe are large or strong enough to make a difference "out there", in the world, on their own. Sooner or later some great outside force that does not share your belief in democracy is going to assert itself in your country or in a country neighboring yours. That is the great danger. It's already happening, politically through outside support for extremist parties (left or right wing) and through propaganda at a (social) media level. Much of the European leadership has been sleeping at the wheel for years while the enemies of democracy are using our own political and media institutions against us, enabled by many people's naïve belief that their country is too strong to be affected or that democracy is somehow a given, something that just is as opposed to something that was created through a long and arduous process and has to be protected.
To paraphrase one of my favorite TV characters: The hall is rented, the orchestra engaged. It's now time to see if Europe can dance.
I like your take
Wrong on #2. It of course cannot apply since if you're that strong, you'll be the risk of war to the other side (thus we get arms races).
#2 would work a bit differently, in two ways. One are defensive-only alliances. As long as that's clear, the attacker would always face greater numbers. The downside is that defensive alliances can easily turn offensive.
The other is cost deterrence. Simply put, Russia can conquer Finland if it really wanted to. But it won't, because it would gain very little from it, while the costs would be massive. Finland's army cant stop Russia, but it can bleed it severely.
As long as Finland is neutral and friendly to Russia (or the USSR), while having a serious army, Russia is better off just leaving things as they are.
@@sorsocksfake you make some good points. What I was talking about is a defensive alliance, though admittedly I didn't specify this. Regardless of what you do though, having a strong army can always be interpreted by someone else as a danger to themselves and a justification for an even greater army. And I don't think there's a clear "safe" level of arming yourself. What you think is reasonable, the autocrat next door may think is too much. Too much for them may be barely enough for you to defend yourself.
As for being friendly towards Russia, when you deal with someone like Putin anything less than bowing down to his demands and essentially giving up your right to decide for yourself will be considered as 'unfriendly'. Besides, autocracies see democracy as an existential threat. Autocrats see democracy as a direct threat to their power. You want to play nice with them and do everything you can to stay on their good side, fine. It depends how far you're willing to compromise. For me the line is drawn at the point where they try to dictate your own policies under threat of war and when they try to subvert your democracy from within by supporting extremist parties or by infiltrating your democratic institutions, especially the media. Which I believe is exactly what Russia has been doing. Everyone is of course free to decide for themselves where that line is drawn or if they have a line to draw at all.
Brilliant analysis. I like your 2cents worth. More!
@@sorsocksfake you are wrong. Russia is not gaining anything in Ukraine and it was obvious it would not gain anything long before this war. Ukraine is simply too big an populous to conquer.... but Russia did it anyway. You cant expect rational calculation from irrational foe.
As an American I support Europe becoming more interconnected economically and militarily. Yeah there may be times where we disagree, but maintaining a more rigid set of democracies is well worth it. Russia I believe is an anomaly, they clearly dont really care one way or the other.
It's true. American military influence is a very debatable issue. Yet, I believe Europe regaining political, economic and military power would alleviate the US from European affairs.
I believe the US being free from European responsibilities would help both entities decentralize efforts in ensuring free nations remain free. At the same time, it helps Europe and America maintain independence from rescuing the other in conflicts or times of need.
What Putin wants is to develop spheres of influence for Russia to challenge the European and American interests.
better support europe become independent of your state "cosult"
I support it too. America's bigger priority should be the Asia-Pacific zone. If a Rearmed and powerful Europe led by Poles, Germans, Frenchmen, and Brits is able to protect themselves, it allows my country to focus on its only serious rival, and the security and freedom of the Pacific and Indian oceans. Leave Europe to decide its fate, and only get involved when they ask us.
Thing is, neutrality only works if all sides respect it. Russia has shown that being neutral does not protect you: it makes you an easier target. Fundamentally, the fact that all these states are deciding to abandon their neutrality in the face of overwhelming violation of accords and customs that allowed them to remain neutral is a sign that they no longer see neutrality as a means to protect themselves.
Nations have duty to consider the safety of their people first, rather than sacrifice themselves for some hope of being peacemakers. If someone is to be blamed for end of neutrality and peacemakers, it is not nations abandoning their neutrality due to fears of their own safety, is the nation that has shown that neutrality is no longer respected. Fault lies, entirely, within Russian government.
As a Finn, we have long seen ourselves as outside NATO, but with an "option" to join it. If Russia has respected Ukraines sovereignty, if Russia had not violated laws and customs, we might have never taken that option and kept it as purely internal politics matter. Now, we *want to* join NATO. Because we have seen what happens if you are not NATO. There is reason why this invasion is not happening in Baltics, and instead Russia is going for Ukraine. Because Baltics are shielded behind Article 5. And we want that same guarantee.
One thing to note that Europe is not arming and forming lines inside itself. But rather, it is defining who is European, and who is not. It is drawing its red lines, and preparing to make sure it can enforce those red lines. Wars in Europe were supposed to be over. Now war has been brought back. If you want peace, prepare for war.
It should also be noted, European nations still respect the old accords, in fact that is reason why there has been no intervention. However, Europe is also showing what it can achieve without firing a single shot: it has destroyed Russian economy. Because Russia dared to bring back war to Europe. In many ways, the ideas of market connections was never tested. Would markets truly stop war, could waging war be made too costly?
Well, we are now discovering answer to that. Russia is facing the true cost of waging war, and it is not just the material loss from fighting, but the fact that the connections it had with other markets, its interconnectivity, has been severed in response. Those who would contemplate war are now watching what it means to pay the cost of war, and I doubt many nations are eager to have their economy deleted overnight for some land grab. European security framework is being tested. Russia has decided to see if it can break it, and it is now paying the price. Ukraine is flooded with economic and military aid, benefiting from those connections. Russia in opposite condition, being isolated.
Well said.
But the governments of Europe don't care about their people, they only care about the wellbeing of the afro asiatics that the bourgeoisie are importing
@@constantinethecataphract5949 You do realize that ruble is worthless? And that Kremlin can't pay you anymore? Or spreading Kremlins propaganda a passion project?
@@Mandemon1990
>Anyone that doesn't agree with becoming minorities in their homeland is a kremlin bot.
No im not , neo liberalism is a vile system that needs to destroyed, the survival of the native people of Europe is at stake.
The issue with Russia right now is; we'll only see in five to ten years (as normal people) how it actually will play out.
Right now for us EU Citizens it means mainly that we're now again completly depending on the US. Not for Security but for our Economics. Which is bad for us. Which mean less influence on the Politics from the average Citizen.
A quick note regarding Irish neutrality: there's no intention of Ireland giving up its neutrality. We are militarily neutral, but not politically neutral. This is why we weren't involved in WW2, but instead funnelled intelligence to the Allies. The only "shift" has been our current Taoiseach stating that plainly. Our military neutrality is a large source of our soft power and the reason we can be effective peacekeepers. About the only change I can see this precipitating is a bolstering of navy and air corp spending to better cover our Atlantic borders rather than relying on our neighbours and the good will of others.
Well said
Ireland's Neutrality also caused the Death of Thousands by allowing Nazi Subs and Ships to operate within their waters.
I consider it a disgrace that Ireland couldn't decide that Nazism was something to be opposed.
Ireland can _afford_ that because it's an Island nation with only Iceland to its west, and a nuclear power to its only land border in the North and also to the East that deters everyone else from attacking. Irish neutrality would change over night if Russian flags were to fly over Buckingham Palace. It's eerily similar to how European NATO countries operated before Trump and Ukraine; those nations were sure that the US got their back, so there was no need to have a strong military and a decisive foreign policy. As history now shows, that can change quite rapidly, so you best have no illusions when it comes to " _Neutrality_ ".
@@protonvpn3223 I don't disagree with most of that, and I think we should do more the protect Europe western flank by air and by sea. And nothing I wrote contradicts that.
So, aim to take in 5% of your population in Ukrainian refugees Visa-free. We're dealing with what we can on the humanitarian front, and your country should aim to do the equivalent where you can rather than bitching at me.
@@protonvpn3223 I can do this all day, BTW, because I know my history. But let's focus in the here and now. In spite of our (historically justified) military neutrality, is there a just war that Irish people have not been on the front lines for? Or consider all the unjust wars we've had to go into and clean up someone else's mess.
I guess it's easy to say in hindsight, but using economic interdependance to ensure peace cannot work if it's strong enough to keep your hands tied if one side becomes a bad actor. Between democratic states, the actions of leaders and the fallout of sanctions are incredibly powerful deterrents against breaking the peace or infringing on human rights, as the common citizen has a great deal of influence on their leaders. But in an authoritarian state like Russia, so long as the government and the military hold firm, the common citizen has no real influence on their leaders.
So in a game of economic chicken, a democracy will far sooner blink than an authoritarian state; a tendency that Putin and the leaders of other petrostates (and China as a manufactory giant) can and have been using to their advantage for decades. Leaders like Putin can assume it's a safe bet that they can get away with a whole lot because other nations who may object to their actions have made themselves reliant on their exports and their own people can be swayed with propaganda, the suppression of information, and outright suppression of dissent.
I can only hope that from these recent events, democratic states will focus on weaning themselves off of economic dependance on anything from non-democratic states, because clearly that hasn't been working all that well in making those countries play nice. Incentives have to be in place so that those countries will want to be non-hostile to democratic nations (or if we're lucky, will encourage them to adopt democratic values), but we will have to change how we've been trying to do that.
The sanctions and maybe panic might have shown that as soon as "democratic word" itself is directly threatened the "democratic word" will do stop dicking arround internaly and go further then predicted to just try and outlive you.
Slight addendum: carrots like economic incentives go a long way in trivial conflicts. But they mean nothing when first principles come on the line. If France plans to divert the Meuse to help French farmers, Belgium and the Netherlands will take up arms. It won't matter how ruinous such a war is, or even whether they can beat France. They'd be ruined if they don't act.
Likewise, Czechoslovakia will consider war when the Sudetenland is demanded. Because it's their defensive line. Surrendering it is to surrender the country.
The US will risk even nuclear war, if Cuba becomes too much of a threat.
Ukraine will wage war with Russia to keep its claim over Donbas and Crimea. Even if it knows full well it has no hope of winning such a war, it will still try, because it considers these to be core territories.
Israel will act against Palestine as much as it sees fit, for its security. It would rather continue that war, in a fashion, than to accept a peace that would leave it indefensible.
Likewise, Russia has its first principles. You may agree with them or not. But to Russia, NATO expansion all the way to Kharkov is unacceptable. That is Russia's strategic depth, as vital as Sudetenland or Maginot to its security. This is not the only reason. But it's the key one.
Are you talking about the de-democratisation of Poland an Hungary? ... because i hope you are :-P
These may be special cases, though. But in African authoritarian regimes who we support, because they have what we need and buying loyalty with money and weapons has worked out well for the West until someone like Russia or China came and offered friendship for less (or more, depending on what you count). At some point it really seemed that the West was starting to lose at their own game, rather likely because of subsidising corruption, because they wouldn't need to pretend to be democracies anymore with Russia or China as their ally. South America certainly also has a different take on relationship with the US than Europe has... EU's relationship with Bolsonaro's Brazil certainly isn't one to bolster free democracy in Brazil but to ensure cheap production and the exchange of goods to please the consumer in Europe with low prices, maybe even to push back US influence and establish the EU as a potential partner in South America.
So in short: i even doubt that democratising was a priority. If it was, a lot more would have been done to educate the people, provide access to information, build infrastructure instead of selling European subsidised goods to disrupt the markets and strengthen regimes... or maybe one cannot go without the other for now... but then again... if one simply offers weapons without any catch of liberating and educating the population in the long run, the choice is quite easy.
Damn straight. We may have rivalries and beef but ultimately all true free Europeans and in fact all free, democratic nations know who with us and who's against us and we've allowed authoritarian States to get away with some truly egregious shit without a whimper. There are fucking camps in China for Uighurs. It's time we sort ourselves out and drop the act that we're living in the post war world when there's been no proof for that at all. Since the end of the cold war, we've had yugoslav genocide, Syrian disaster and massive refugees flows, the south ossetia annexation, the war on terror, annexation of Crimea, Israel-Palestine tentions and Lebanon war, Armenia-Azerbaijan war, Saudi-Yemen conflict - and that's not even a full list. We need to be in a position to protect ourselves and protect eachother and stop pretending everything is fine.
@@pritzi101 well... the refugee crisis was fuelled by climate change and destabilisation of Syria and Libya. Persian revolts and the regime Pinochet were certainly also US led... so.. i would go further than that and say: We need to do better. If we want peace we should refrain from behaving like a bull in a china shop and demand more accountability. Also and most of all from our own politicians and only vote in politicians who actually care for the needs of the people and make interest groups more visible.
Hi, Kraut, I have a question: Why didn't the war in Georgia had the same impact to the kekkonen's peace?
the answer is very sad: because no one cared enough for it to matter. Just as no one cared enough in 2014.
To add to that........It was a Blitz.....Russia won within 5 to 15 days........And when an Autocrat has won and gotten what he wanted there is no point in sactions......He has already won at the homefront.
In Ukraine the thing is.......he has not won within 14 days AND his forces appeared weak. So now he cant threaten the rest of Europe as he used to. Which in turn also warrents far more aggressive collective actions. Also Ukraine is closer than Georgia and more easily accesable. Geography is one of the most important factors in any conflict. The homefront in Russia as well will notice despite the propaganda that things are getting worse due to sactions which will increase the pressure onto Putin.
too small and far from bigger eu nations
It has. It just show reale value of such documents.
@@freddy4603 I'd argue that people actually cared. But a decision was made not to make a big deal out of it, in hopes of getting on Putin's good side.
Appeasement, if you will.
Genuine question: Why wasn't this paradigm considered torn apart in 2008 when Georgia was invaded? Or 2014 when Crimea was taken? Both were considered examples of using force to create border changes.
My take - It was short and small isolated conflicts. Furthermore they were "justified". It was more they rattled the status quo, but didn't break the paradigm. A full scale Total war is a completely different matter...
Would love to hear others opinions as well.
I suppose it's because georgia was a nation far outside the US's influence and ability to come to it's defense
And in the case of Ukraine again it's also because it's not a NATO member so legally the US and the rest of Europe can't come to it's defense by conventional means
Which is why all the support for Ukraine was unconventional with economic sanctions to the aggressor nation and military weapons being sold to the Ukrainian government but no boots on the ground by NATO forces
Georgia was complicated by the whole thing not being naked agression. Crimea, though it rattled things more, didn't see any large fighting within Crimea
because those invasions were limited to regions with separatist sentiments. in neither case was a whole country invaded.
right now, it seems Mr. Putin just didn't mind his narrative and just invaded everywhere.
@@HairXX It's akin to how we usually consider that the Great War ended the century long Concert of Europe*, despite the fact that there were many not insignificant wars in the continent before it like the Crimean war, the Italian and German wars of unification, or the Franco-Prussian war.
For probably the same reasons as well. As while all those wars might have obviously disrupted peace they never shattered nor probably even threatened the overall system, which is what 'really' matters.
*(the system of great power balance established up after the Napoleonic Wars that was meant to maintain peace in Europe, in many ways the predecessor of the Helsinki accords).
Amusingly Kekkonen also represents to many finns a dreaded side of Finnish politics: the finlandification and unwillingness to take a side or a stance. The current president, Sauli Niinistö, has been praised as the diplomatic link between the east and the west, however in reality the only reason Russia seemed to listen to him and Finland as a whole was because we never took a stance and acted mostly as a yes man when discussing problems with Russia. Finns in my opinion are starting to distance themselves from this type of neutrality politics, as it has seemed to mostly been useless in achieving peace and co-operation. Even Sauli Niinistö himself talked about taking a stance on Russian actions in his new years' speech by quoting Kissinger: "The teachings of Henry Kissinger also come to mind during these times. According to his cynical statement, when avoiding war has been the top goal of some states, the international system has been at the mercy of its most ruthless member." The increasing support for NATO membership also seems to indicate a change in the preferred way that the Finns would like to uphold peace
There is now a recognition that the strategy of appeasement of Russia for the past 15 years starting with georgia has not worked.
US/EU are right to exert maximum peaceful retaliation for this invasion. Russia has become a rogue state and should be treated as a pariah until Putin is gone.
Hey. He was alive in 1940 wasn't he. I mean one US politician even said in 1939 that Stalin had more money than Finland did. Russia is basically a child of western greed. Tsar Peter I himself saw how greed was the most important value of the west. Donetsk was founded by a Welsh industrialist. I am not saying capitalism is wrong but if Finns, Ukrainians, Estonians and Taiwanese die because of it. Americans bombed Vietnam, Vietnam embraced 'market socialism' and now they are friends.
@@chadgaston8615 the most coherent “west bad" comment
Thank you for bringing this up. As a Dane, our foreign policy will always be pegged to our larger neighbours. Right now, that is the United States, but tomorrow, that could be a German/French lead European Superpower in foreign affairs. This is very much relevant to me.
Great Video!
Not German/French led. A European led one.
@@zedero8 Easy to say, living in a larger country. We're used to being bossed around in Denmark. What says it won't be the big countries bossing us around again?
@@Atlasstrain First of all you need to realize that your foreign policy is already connected to that possibly emerging superpower called the EU because you’re a member-state of it.
Secondly, I’m not from a big country in the Union. I am from a country even smaller (economically) than Denmark. Don’t underestimate your position in the Union, you’ve got a big say despite your size.
But nonetheless, with the proper (con)federal system the EU will ensure that it works fairly for all of its states. Brussels should be the leader, and we should make up Brussels. The reasons behind the current situation where it’s falsely seen as if Germany and France are leading the EU is exactly because of the lack of more integration and of correct democratic reform. When things aren’t very clear on who’s the boss or how things work, it’s natural for the biggest states to seem as the leaders because of their sheer size and influence on the other. But from an official point of view, those states have as much power as Denmark does.
You should be wishing for that proper emergence of the EU as a superpower, that way you’ll be part of one of (if not the) strongest actors in the world stage and you will not be bossed around by anyone like you are now by the US. The Americans got you spying on us for their own benefit.
@@zedero8 and im not even from Europe 😎
@@gringocolombian9919 what
The Helsinki agreement worked only while people feared war. Those agreements and 'peace' architecture are dead and everyone in Europe killed it. We killed it by not being afraid of war. Without the fear of war, people lose interest in negotiating, in observing foreign interests and putting in actual effort to come to an agreement.
peace causes people to lose fear of war. that's why only war can produce a peaceful culture . it's the great cycle
@@007kingifrit war is going on in other parts of the world. Why can’t you take lesson from that?
@@TykoBrian7 because humans are emotional not rational
“some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth”
generations forget the past and repeat it
I luv this phrase
Was it you who vsme up with it?
@@aniemgamaou6591 Its from LOTR.
@@selahanany5645 ?
@@aniemgamaou6591 Lord of the Rings. I think that quote is only in the books
@@aniemgamaou6591 lord of the rings movies start with that quote
6:37 he tore it to shreds in 2014 when he annexed Crimea and sponsored rebelion in Donbas.
and Europe lied to itself about that fact, until it blew up completely in their faces last month
@@Kraut_the_Parrot Indeed…
@@Kraut_the_Parrot That being said, I think the thing about this is, there will always be someone willing to blow up these kind of accords and treaties here in the world for the sake of power and ideology. As an American I don't think that the Spirit of Helsinki, and economic interdependence are by any means a bad idea personally. I just don't think economic interdependence means much to dictators with enough power to throw their weight around a la Hitler and Putin.
@@KiraDaBeastNY ok ok indeed…
The problem with interdependence is that it only takes one node in the system to wield it's position as a weapon for the whole thing to come down. I think we now know how fragile our global system actually is.
Only when nations don't compete by choice, a good example is semiconductors, the US has the rare earth mines and manufacturing ability to produce these. However those Mines were shut down in the 90s due to governmental interference, hence the shortage now.
We can't have an open market system without the actual freedom to produce. Trying to engage in autarkic policy is why the 30s sucked, and why Spain almost collapsed in the 40s.
That's not true, networks can be resilient and route around failures.
I don't hear any Europeans missing the UK from the EU.
Perhaps another example of Putin's meddling back firing. There's evidence of Russian interference, though no single incident as happened in the US.
Interdependence was always only one piece of the puzzle. France and Germany go far beyond a mere trade alliance and to this day, it works very well.
@@jeremiahblake3949 Are you srsly comparing enviromental regulation with the dictorships? just *** already.
True.
There is a gamble to be made, that the growth interdependence offers, when compared to internal independence, will be more beneficial than the security it forfeits.
Capitalistic growth and expansion have been powerful tools on the global stage, and seclusion has often not been worth It's security.
I highly disagree with the idea that economic co-dependence ensures peace, this idea never worked during the first and second world wars when even though Germany was dependent on its oil from the Caucasus region, iron ore from Sweden, saltpeter from chile, and was a net importer of foodstuffs, hell it's telegraph lines functioned through a boosting station in the UK and Germany had substantial investments in the Turkish and Romanian banking sector which if they switched to the entente would have disastrous consequences. Economic co-dependence didn't stop Putin from his Ukrainian invasions of 2014 and 2022 and isn't stopping the USA to tussle with China despite the huge economic co-dependence. I think this argument oversimplifies the jus ad Bellum to just the economic factor which is important but sidelines other factors that initiate wars such as National pride, a sense of security threat, wars as a means of distraction for the public, wars fought for ideological reasons, etc.
The best ensurer of peace is democracy. True, fair democracy.
@@kneckebrod5721 democracy is inherently corrupt
@@kneckebrod5721 BWHAHAHAHA
@@kneckebrod5721 true and fair, that‘s the problem, of course.
Dispite all the ways you mentioned Germany being dependant on other countries, the world was still nowhere near as globalized as it is now. The serious changes didn't come until after WW2.
Kraut, I think you overlook the Russian-Georgian war, where Putin first ripped the ideas of Heleski apart and the West just ignored it If they hadn't, current events might not have happened. I hope this helped your understanding in someway.
While true the ideals stay as such as long as we keep them. Putin has violated this agreement multiple times but we just kept believing that these small grabs would be all. He may have stepped on them but only the war in Ukraine has truly shattered the belief in spirit of Helsinki.
@Thisis Gettinboring that depends on who you ask. Though it is much further away from mainland Europe
I totally agree with you! Same with Moldova and Chechnya. If the West were to react in these instances as well, it might have stopped putlers "appetite."
@Thisis Gettinboring but Serbia was. Maybe even Cyprus.
@Thisis Gettinboring Nothing complex about them. In both cases, a foreign power invaded and stole a piece of territory
Even if we do expand our militaries, considering US support obsolete would be a huge mistake I think, even if we don't strictly "need" their military help in the future, I'd rather still lean into it for NATO cohesion
NATO is very much still extremely important, so I agree. Even as a German.
Hell even if Europe surpasses the US, it's better for Europe and the US to work together as they ultimately share the same ideals. Even when they disagree on decisions. Personally, I think having a Europe as our equal and second super power would be great. Truthfully the global situation is a little out of control with dictatorships making there move in this decade.
Good video Kraut, but I feel your argument regarding neutral peacemakers is a bit thin, as many nations have traditions for UN peacetroops, and my country, Norway, has a very long list of peace efforts, including Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Colombia, Israel/Palestine (The infamous Oslo accords, don't get me started), Myanmar, Nepal and many others. We do not seem to suffer from our alliances abroad, but I grant you, the situation would be different if the peace effort was targeted in Europe, where our interests are of course much higher.
What about the Oslo accords?
As an American who was against the Iraq war, I am still seeing no downside to a European superpower. If you guys can be a full-grown equal partner instead of a sidekick, maybe you can influence us back and help curb some of our worst impulses. We'll be petty and resentful about it in the moment of disagreement ("Freedom Fries") but it will be good for us in the long run.
the bad part Europe rarely come together, and you think they going to keep the EU around when France and Germany got their full military back and nationalist or populist start wining election seat.
Remember when Trump went to Europe and spoke before the leaders of EU countries about how most of them aren't America's allies but dependents and that this has to change for their own good? European leaders laughed at his face and mocked him then(It's on YT if you missed it) making old Trumpy boy go on an angry and butthurt Twitter tirade.
But look at who's laughing now, lol. All European countries with the exception of a few like Finland who actually have a real army are desperately scrambling to assign their militaries more funds and buying military hardware. Guess they finally realized that being allies with the US doesn't mean that Uncle Sam can just magically swoop in and save the day when Putler comes knocking.
@@mr.strugglesnuggle6668 i avoid angry Twitter tirades as much as possible, but do remember that episode, yes. I'm no fan of Trump, but he wasn't entirely wrong about NATO--even if he said his piece in the least diplomatic, most unproductive way possible.
I don't think Europe thought they'd need us again in the first place; their peace was a fait accompli and uncle Sam was a military-obsessed busybody who needed to chill out and back off. And the current scramble scares them, because they know they need us for this but after Trump they don't really trust us to be stable and have their back. Plus, I doubt any country *likes* having to depend on another for it's security.
@@chris7263 I wouldn't be so sure about everyone not wanting to depend on the US. Take the Sweden's ruling social democrat party for an example who are STILL divided about NATO, even with every single politician on Sweden shitting bricks about Finland joining and leaving Sweden behind.
The old school social democrats pretty much base their entire argument on staying "militarily non-aligned" on the fact that president Biden made some vague promises to them years ago as vice-president for Obama, lol.
dont think this is to the interest of the US though, with their bombing of nord stream and all
As a soon to be student of International Relations, this really recontextualized the conflict which I originally viewed as having primarily an impact on the West vs non-West. Instead, this war could recontextualize the basis of the 'West' as a concept. With the nature of European security being fundamentally changed, it remains to be seen if Europe unites or divides itself in the face of these challenges.
Regardless, the major rearmament of European nations will at least militarily re-balance the relationship between America and Europe.
At least you know why other central european countries HATE Germany for their apeasement politics towards Russia. We spend over 2% GDP on army since 2014. And now when we should all be united against this bully Germany can't afford to do that. When we were building infrastructure to end this dependancy on Russian resources, Germany was building NordStream 2. That is the main reason why Putin felt safe while planning that invasion. Because trade with other countries binds both sides of the agreement. He was fine with losing money - was Germany fine with losing oil and gas? And I don't believe that this kind of policy is going to change. Because MONEY!
Well, as a fellow International Studies student, I am interested to see its effects on my area of study, Japan. Once this war or invasion ends, its ripples will indefinitely be felt across the world. Who knows, maybe it will cause another school of thought in IR to rise once more, much like the end of the Cold War
If you're a soon to be IR student, I would brush up on the basic of the realist school, Mearsheimer being the most obvious place to start. Don't be one of those guys who just stomp their feet and cry "we're the good guys, this can't possibly be our fault."
@@kondziu1992 Also German leaders giving signals that Gas sanctions are off the table prior to the war, only to reverse their stance after war has started is such a low IQ move.
@@adamc2378 Mearsheimer had shit arguments on Ukraine to be honest
According to John Lewis Gaddis's writings on the Cold War, the Helsinki Accords were only possible due to the large social changes going through both the US and the USSR during the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Both Brezhnev and Nixon/Ford desired a Détente in the Cold War to address the social and economics issues at home as the populations of both superpowers were becoming more disillusioned with the ideological foundations of the conflict. Helsinki set the stage for the height of Détente, which froze the Cold War, but the Western conservative politicians (who eventually took power in the 1980s) didn't like it for that exact reason, because it prevented them from perusing more aggressive and maximalist aims to end the Cold War in their favor. Which, to their credit, did eventually work.
It didn't really work. Western conservatives like to hype themselves as the ones who 'won' the cold war, but in reality the soviet government collapsed itself.
Indeed…
@@pax6833
The august coup was the final nail in the coffin, and the western powers had nothing to do with it
@@pax6833 Afghanistan happened, and Stinger missiles, provided by the USA, help to change that war. So USSR didn't collapse by itself
@@pax6833 Great. And how exactly did that government collapse? Did it per chance have anything to do with accelerated military spending which the West could afford in contrast to the USSR which could not?
Give credit where it's due.
As a tradition amongst my people, once mentioned, the Finns have arrived!
Welcome oh, mighty Finn!
I always greatly to hear from the perspectives of some "smaller" places in terms of overall population because there often isn't as much information available for international audiences.
As a german I think we need the mechanism that destroyed Nazi Germany in WWII and if earlyer done could have prevented further bloodshed. It’s simple, ruthless, pragmatic and effective: We need a pact where whenever a country gets attacked by another country all nations in that treaty are obliged to enter the war against the attacker. Like the allies in WW2. Imagine if GB, France, Poland and Czech republic would have hard pressed Germany once it invaded more then the Sudetenland in 1938. We don’t need a paper we need that mutual understand to do this, if they have nuclear weapons or not. And we need to make the 2nd Strike a law worldwide that every nation agrees to only use nuclear if the other one used it first, at the moment no country has it.
Great way to end the world
I vaguely remember hearing of Kekkonen, wasn't he the closest thing Finland's ever had to a dictator, but pretty chill, and not actually a dictator.
Benevolent dictators tend to do very well for themselves and their country (see current Rwanda). The issue always arises with succession.
I suppose he wasn't dictator in the sense that he'd have opposition liquidated or anything. Rather, he was supported by many and his words were taken as gospel. Fear of Soviet Union also had a significant role making his views and words weight more. Especially towards the end he was put on a pedestal.
Jury is still out on that. Man did a lot of authoritarian crap and there's more books written about him than perhaps any other finnish person in existence. Covering him in one youtube comment would be impossible, so the best I can say is that he got a lot done in a difficult situation and the damage he did to our democracy wasn't irreparable.
@@MrSamulai "there's more books written about him than perhaps any other Finnish person in existence".
Wait, you mean to say that you guys have more books about him than about Mannerheim?
@@dzejrid Depends on if you count the biography by Juhani Suomi as 12 separate books or just one. Other than that, they're pretty even.
I think economic interdependence is still one of the key ways to preserve peace, but it needs to be nuanced somewhat. Economic leverage has to go two ways, and has to be such that it hurts whoever aggresses the most, else some economically more powerful party (like a country that provides lots of fuel to another) can easily abuse their economic interdependence to blackmail other countries into letting them get away with aggression. However, as the sanctions against Russia have shown, economic interdependence can and does still provide major tools to punish aggressors with. If everyone plays nice, everyone wins; but if someone refuses to play nice, our interdependence shows us ways to make them.
The problem with sanctions is, their effect takes far longer than military aggression to even show effect, and whether the effect is ever achieved at all is questionable. Cuba has been sanctioned for a gazillion years by now, it never destabilized the goverment, only gave it excuses for their domestic failures.
That said, the problem with military aggression is, it grabs all the headlines, sucks all oxgen out of the room, and turns politicians into dramatic stars and starlets, without ever having to solve one single underlying problem. Tons of assets are brutally wasted (including human life), and then the military act ends with another fanfare, and still not a single problem solved. I am actually one of the weirdos, who dearly supports conscription in democracies. That way at least doubt stays in the picture.
Economic sanctions have to have some teeth to back it up aka military power.
Helsinki Accords.
Congress of Vienna.
Peace of Westphalia.
one can agree that things got better from each iteration, but things are far from being properly solved apparently.
haha, he said "west-phalia"
500 more years to flatten the curve
Europe refusing to go along with the Iraq war is another positive not negative imo. Most Americans do not approve of the rather sociopathic things our military industrial complex gets up to, but its shocking how powerless even our wealthy well connected politicians even are about it. I welcome more checks on its power.
5:51 You said Eastern Bloc countries but you showed Greece which was never a part of it and also Albania and countries of the former Yugoslavia were part of the Eastern Bloc in the beginning , but they left the Soviet Union's sphere of influence only a few years after. Just a quick correction.
ups. a mistake in editing
@@secretname4190 that's kinda up to a debate
@@secretname4190 turkey is culturally closer to the balkans than to any other part of the world.
@@secretname4190 They aren't "literally" in europe but they're involved enough with the geopolitics of the area to be considered european imo. Plus the geographical barriers between continents are completely arbitrary so it doesn't matter much in the end
@@secretname4190 why not? Istanbul or Constantinople is one of the most important European cities of all time. culturally they're not that different from other Balkans. they're Muslim? so are Albanians and Bosnians. they're not fully European, but they still belong to Europe if that makes sense. they're part of European history and European civilization, specifically the Balkans. other than Islam or islamism there's not much I can think of that's Turkish but doesn't fit with Europe. countries like Romania are actually more religious than Romania too. turkey isn't split into tribes like Arab nations either. before Erdogan they had gay parades in Istanbul. they have an environmentalist movement. they're a modern society.
in my opinion both turkey and Russia r the same. they're Eurasian. different from Europeans but very important and close to Europe
As an American, I would like to see an independent Europe that can serve as a credible counterweight against US adventurism but one that would still support democracy and national self-determination. A super-Sweden, if you will.
The idea that Europe would become a super Sweden is laughable. If it will have any influence, it would need to have its own adventurism. What made the Russian invasion so egregious is the fact that it was done against a democracy in the 21st century, AND that it had the crappiest of casus belli for it. If Russia did have a plausible reason, there would be some movement of troops, but little more.
Europe, if it becomes a Superpower, may well be more aggressive than the US, not less. Impossible to say now, if it even becomes a unified structure rather than maintains its current quasi-confederation style.
🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪
I've always felt that my own country, and the rest of the European countries, were vastly under funding their own defense, and actually spending less than what was agreed in NATO alliances, instead relying on American, yet also pointing fingers at American for spending so much money on its military.
I hope that at the very least, this will encourage my country and rest of Europe to once again be a mighty armed force.
Wouldn’t be a true European unless you blamed America
@Hakim Habib I’m German and I’d agree with that. However we shouldn’t spend more on our military because of NATO, NATO is fundamentally a tool of US foreign policy, I think we should spend more together in Europe but with less commitment to the Americans.
EU doesn't rely on US for defense though. People think that just because US spends so much more on their military we rely on them, that makes no sense. In current state British or French military alone could more than likely beat Russias armed forces. Russia can't even take Ukraine and they are having supply problems like 100km away from their own borders. European armies currently outnumber Russians conscript army in all regards except anti-air defenses.
Not to mention superior equipment in nearly all regards again and way less corruption among the military leadership
@@esanahka9284 I agree with that to an extent, but many of our militaries are now designed around assisting the Americans, meaning we have huge shortfalls of certain essential equipment to the point where we almost can’t act independently.
@@muninnsays9296 NATO is the reason Europe has been at peace since WW2 German. Show some respect.
Thank you for this information, I had no idea about this. As Ukrainian, I always viewed Europe as a powerful and peaceful union where people can freely travel and live, where trade restrictions are minimal, where all the disputes will be resolved diplomatically and wars are happening on social media with words and opinions, instead of in the streets with soldiers and tanks. I lived in Ukraine for 20 years, I was born there, I went to school and university there and everybody I knew always wanted to be a part of that European peace.
I am happy that you included Ukraine and Belarus on the last map as a part of 'future of Europe'. I hope by the end of this war all European leaders will meet once again to sign a new security and peace treaty, although this time in Kyiv as a symbol of resistance against aggressor who destroyed the previous treaty.
Ukrainians want peace and security. Ukrainians want to live in their own sovereign country. Ukrainians DO NOT want 'Russian peace'. We had that one for almost 70 years and we didn't like it.
Slava Ukraini Tovarich
@NaN Bot
"Ukrainians" are not a real thing. Ukraine is a German invention in the first world war to weaken Russia.
@@iroga9764 Then Russia is Mongolian
That was quite the watch, I'm not European nor American so watching from the sidelines it's interesting to see and predict how things will go from this point on, because this will and is affecting the world.
Yeah history is happening right before our eyes and whatever we will make out of this in Europe it will affect people that live outside of it.
@@whitegold2960 when it happened, I knew that an old era died and a new one was going to be created.
A Finn, living in France - I felt the same way about Covid-19 and all the different ways nations were trying or not trying to deal with it. As for this thing... Putin attacking Ukraine, as horrible as it is... I have never liked Putin. Somehow I can't see an ex-KGB agent, who likes to have silly TV-video clips made about himself to polish an image of 'strong man /strong leader' - well none of it just made me ever feel like one could trust the man. Never mind all those documentaries about his shady past related to corruption, criminal organisation in Russia and eventually also all the things he has done against those whom oppose him. Plus all the previous attacks in different parts of the world. Made me always think he is worse than he want's to look like. So I can not say I am utterly surprised. Still, I think the world could have done without this war on top of a pandemic.
@@prisonislandhead7610 I think we all had this feeling something died at that day
With regards to Germany becoming dependent on Russian gas because of Iraq war:
This doesn't tell the full story. Europe has a not insignificant capability to produce gas. In fact, before the North Sea reserves somewhat dried up it was producing more than enough for its own needs. European countries have untapped gas reserves that could be utilized however Russia has enormous amounts of it and can provide it for very cheap. This combined with (possibly Russia sponsored) environmentalist groups calling for closing down of the gas extraction in Europe resulted in the dependence being formed. After all, how is it environmentally responsible to still use fossil fuel but simply offload its extraction somewhere where it won't sully your front yard? They got rid of coal plants - fair enough, but they have also gotten rid of nuclear - the only green source of power that can realistically replace the fossils. All that is left are renewables and gas. With renewables requiring backup power plants in place, which incidentally cannot be nuclear due to how it functions, it means gas and only gas. I am not saying that environmentalist groups made Europe depend on Russian gas but... They have certainly had not insignificant contributions to it.
The shut down of German nuclear power plants was a colossal mistake. Idealism trumping pragmatism in European politics.
On nuclear power; one should seriously consider the question of uranium. Germany for instance never had much nuclear energy, it was never like France. You can actually see the total amount of nuclear energy Germany had in its energy mix and basically, there was a GOOD plan to strengthen renewables for real independence in the early 2000s but later, it got scratched under a new government, which built its policy on a mix of conservatism, populism and also the argument you see in the video hear ( aka, using coal because its available, stopping nuclear power plants way earlier than the old plan wanted to get bonus points in an election and finally, of course, increasing relations with Russia ).
@@dasbubba841 It had nothing to do with idealism because the "idealists" had an actual well thought out plan long before Merkel's CDU/CSU & the FDP government abandoned nuclear power in a blatant display of populism.
It's well documented. Like, for example, they wanted to keep the power plants running for MUCH longer and also strengthen renewables, it's a whole thing, you can look it up yourself if you are interested in the details.
It was also somewhat of "bad luck," as public opinion on Nuclear became really negative after Fukushima in 2011.
"(possibly Russia sponsored)"
i have no words. Can we blame russia for everything already?
My father was born in 1971. Most of his childhood Kekkonen was the president. I remember that my grandfather told me, my father used to ask my grandparents ''Who's going to be the next Kekkonen?''
Kraut I love these videos. As an American I don’t understand a lot of the politics and logic behind them in Europe.
Our world today is different from what it was 300 years ago. World powers do not openly declare war on each other, or fight conventional warfare like they used to do all the time. This is partly due to American intervention, partly thanks to Kekkonen's ideas, partly thanks to the invention of nukes.
Whatever the reason is, there is one certainty. European nations are not hostile against each other anymore. Austria or Britain does not declare war on France. There are no aggressor power in Europe. The only open expansionist aggressor in Europe was Russia. It still is, it is the only one. And I'm hoping this fact will be the one which shrinks the possibility of any more unnecessary warfare in Europe. With the stoppage of Russia, there won't be anymore aggressors in Europe, and no more wars.
Hopefully.
If russia win, it will want more. If russia loose, it will try again. Russia is here to stay and I can't imagine it not being a threat anymore and so we can't avoid having a new security architecture.
That is not because there are no more problems in western europe, it is because europeans are too cowardly to face them.
When Switzerland are actualy picking "a side" in a conflict you know that we are in a very dangours situation.
they did not, they only sanctioned the dictator, just like they sanctioned Gheddafi and Mugabe in the past.
@@d3r4g45 Ghadaffi and Mubagbe were indeed bad people, didn´t wage war agianst any country.
@@isakferm7686 Ghadaffie almost won till there was a now fly zone, someone sends lots of guns and mercs to help.
And he is dead
We all no gun and mercs don't grow in Africa so how keep sending them gun and mercs.
@@isakferm7686 um, Gaddafi waged war with Chad in the 1980s. Ever heard of the Toyota War?
Mugabe meanwhile was busy with a civil war and hyperinflation from within.
Didn't think you would talk about Kekkonen. Interesting.
I'm kinda ashamed as a Finn, for not knowing how influental Kekkonen was for International peace. I only knew about his domestic and Russian diplomacy work.
Fun fact: I'm distantly related to President Urho Kennonen.
As Kraut said, he didn't want you to know how influential he was for International peace.
@@wazzupdj98d61 man I don't know about that. Kekkonen was NOT a humble guy. Kraut said he didn't want the nobel. That's nonsense. Of course he wanted it, he just didn't get it
Cool! I'm distantly related to Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, president of Iceland from 1980 till 1996.
@@icelandinreallife2042 nice
Question: why does the 2022 russian war with ukraine mark the end of the helsinki spirit as opposed to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, or as opposed to the 2014 annexation of crimea, or as opposed to the russo-georgian war and subsequent occupation of abkhazia and south ossetia by russia, or as opposed to the first nagorno-karabakh war, or as opposed to the transitria war?
Plausible deniability and patience and Sallami Tactics. This is the straw that broke the camels back. Russia claimed it was intervening to prevent another ethnic conflict(and claim that BUKs were humantiarian aids).
Its been the one thicker slice of salami after the other.
Invading and trying to conquer Kiev and the country itself was more meat then what could be tollerated.
The hope is dead, Russia with the current regimme is an enemy nobody wants but are forced to accept.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are not part of Europe.
they're only ever mentioned in that conversation because they border Russia and Turkey, two trans-continental countries who both have the majority of their land in Asia, not Europe.
the reaction of europe to this conflict is something that will change the course of geopolitics forever, it makes me kinda scared but also kinda curious to see what'll happen
Me and a few others were discussing how the post-Iraq is now completely dead thanks to what happened.
I don't want to live in interesting times anymore tbh
Kraut, I need to say thank you for this video. Every single video you have made has increased my knowledge of history, and this one has for me, especially as an American. You also put an effort of no bias into your works that I will forever admire along with facts to back it up. Respect to you!
Thank you Kraut for this brief video. Most people that I know are more or less fixated on who has gained/lost territory, logistics, is Russia really holding back (sad that there are still many in Europe who are pro-Russia just not public about it). But only amongst few of my friends, has the question been asked "what comes next?"
Should Europe have a unified military? It seems like everyone is on the bandwagon for it, but few people realize how much money and resources it takes to have a part of the operational capacity of the US. And a strong military is reliant on a unified foreign policy, which knowing Europe is a very difficult thing to achieve (if not impossible). I don't even know if we can rearm appropriately, since a whole generation of Europeans (at least the western ones) have grown up with the principle of "foreign military escapades are the purview of the USA mostly". Also, with our aging population, can we really support a strong army?
And what about our trade? For all of our braying about human rights and freedom, most of our trade goes to China and relies on Chinese consumption. Any disruption to that would be a catastrophe for us. This brings up also another uncomfortable reality about our relationship with the US: while they are politically our allies, commercially they are our competitors. Do we really want to put our eggs in the Washington DC basket and if not to whom else? Which brings us to the most unpopular part of this comment.
What will our relationship to Russia be? One day this war will be over and we will have to collect the pieces of it.Should we close all relations with Russia (I know that a lot of Poles and other members of the Eastern Block and Baltic States would like that), even the cultural ones or should we attempt to rebuild them? Do we want Russia to be pushed to China (regardless of what form that relationship is)? Or will we give Ukraine the "Cyprus" treatment, where we don't recognize it's lost territories but we re-engage with Russia?
Good politicians, strategists and thinkers don't really look at the now but at the various tomorrows that follow the today's. For Europe those tomorrows are many and have various degrees of risks. However one truth is apparent, the "apres nous le deluge" mentality that has plagued the European geopoliticians is over.
I didn't realize that was the reason for Europe's disarmament. As an American I found it equally fascinating and terrifying that Europe refuses to have military power.
I don't trust my government, and I don't like living in a world where the two superpowers are my own unstable democracy teetering delicately between two extremist parties and the massive Chinese police state.
I would love to see a country like France have a massive military. Maybe it's indoctrination on my part in the American school system, but I get the impression that France has had a long history of developing and upholding human rights and is not particularly well known for war mongering and imperialism.
They're the kind of people I want in charge. . .or Switzerland, just please for the sake of humanity don't let my country be the world superpower.
France had the second largest empire in world history. Talk to Algerians about their human rights record. I think Superpowers themselves are the problem. There should be none
"Urkki" is pretty damn legendary guy in Finland, for both good and bad alike. Fun to know detail, Kekkonen's first name is Urho, which is a bit older finnish word meaning "hero" or "man of valor".
"a brave"
Actually about the switzerland thing: technically they sent a platoon into afghanistan that did a tour between 2002 and 2008, their neutrality has been broken by the war on terror.
The quality of this channel is outstanding, and I've just now came across it.
What a find.
Kekkonen Fun Fact:
Kekkonen fought communism in the Finnish Civil War. After the War he volunteered to en execution squad. Hi killed a lot of communists for the crime of being communists.
The Communist leaders of the Soviet Union respected Kekkonen maybe because he was the only western leader they understood. A man who personally killed political opponents.100’s of them.
I've though about this situation quite a bit and tried to read into as much surrounding the situation as I could in reference to European Politics and in particular, the setting of the stage of this to happen, as it isn't covered very well here in the US.
What I have ultimately gleaned from it was that in the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia (the Russian Federation) felt like it would receive the same uneasy respect, if not outright fear, that had earned from the west as the USSR, believe itself to be special and distinct from the other SSRs that had broken away. And while it was the largest, and received a fair amount of military assets from the USSR, it didn't have all of them, in particular, nuclear weapons.
With the Budapest Memorandum, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan gave up their nuclear missiles on what was basically a pinky promise that the other signatories would respect their sovereignty.
(Fun Fact Sergey Lavrov was the representative for the Russian Federation on that document)
Russia believed it deserved the same level of influence on its neighbors as it has in the USSR, and in so many ways outright demanded it, believing that NATO would stay west of Germany.
conditions
business
@@Ben-ek1fz That's because from a US standpoint it isn't that severe. What matters to Americans is that a democracy is under attack near US allies; if this was Georgia again, sorry to say, it's unlikely that the US would care as much.
@@stephenjenkins7971 you're right. It's sad but true, as an American myself, I would be hard pressed to care AS MUCH about Georgia as I do about Ukraine, and there are many factors why.
I do believe though that as technology is advancing and lifting the fog of war as it were, humans are progressing down a path of further interconnectedness and awareness that has never been thought possible. The devastation in Yemen and Myanmar highlight this. I would have never known about it before the internet, and if I did, the news would be the ONLY place I could hear. If they didn't care, I couldn't care. What matters now is that we are slowly but surely giving everyone voices.
Ukraine Invasion is big, for many reasons, not in the least is the shock and awe. The media coverage. Zelensky's impassioned pleas. The absurd numbers of people. The brutality. And as the video suggests, the shattering of what we considered peaceful. I hope that we learn this lesson, especially inward, about breaking fragile peace. I hope the powers that be never again think that they can do as they please because no one will know.
As an American I feel that we aren't sure whether we want Europe to self-sufficient defense wise or not. On one hand we don't want to keep paying for Europe's defense, but on the other hand we still want Europe to be shackled to us foreign policy wise, which wouldn't be the case if Europe is self-sufficient.
That tension is why US-EU relations had suffered in recent years.
America has a rather stupid dilemma due to the cold war
A very German perspective in this one. Dictators have no interest in peace - the only way to pacify them is with force or the threat of it. That is why Europe, if it is not only to guarantee peace, but also a life free of the demands of dictators to it's citizens, then it needs to be militarily powerful.
Does this mean that Europe cannot mediate conflicts? I don't see why.
Does this mean that Europe also needs to establish spheres of influence? I also don't see why.
Fortress Europe is an OK concept. Live and let live, but end anyone who intrudes or threatens to do so.
And that is what exactly Germany done wrong in so many economic and politic decisions until now. Pasifism does not grant peace.
@@umutneo I agree. For some reason Germany has gone in the opposite extreme after WW2. I don't quite understand why they don't seem to fathom that it is possible to be strong and not abuse that strength. The US is not perfect, but if it had the same level of restraint that Russia does, all of the western hemisphere would be occupied by them by now. It is possible to show restraint.
@@Baltican That is probebly because we got afraid of strength and wanted to avoid it and often denied that we poses it. In general I would say that being pacifist is easier than being interventunist. We Germans wanted to become some sorts of giant switzerland (like the austrians who expierianced the same), that only focuses on economic intersts in the World.
@@bastian182 Swiss have a serious defence mechanism, army and weapon stock.
@@Baltican i get why Germans do that. It was okay until 2000. But then things started to change but Germany blinded itself to truth, and as long as anything was not effect Germany directly they choose to be pacifist.
Here is an anology. Germany walks on the street in an alley he sees Russia rapes Georgia. He just walks away because it was not himself. Then Russia got more courage it goes to someone from Germany's neighborhood Ukraine. Russia molests Ukraine first and Germany is like it is okay atleast he stopped maybe he will behave himself from now on. Now Russia is started to go even bolder in his crimes and Germany just realized this guy could disturb his happy neighborhood and maybe one day could rape Germany too.
I know this analogy is not pleasant but that is why i am using it.
as a greek, i am actually disqusted that you think that there was gonna be peace in europe when you have still some areas like spain,portugal,greece,cyprus or even italy for some examples.when some areas have internal or external (or both) issues that can lead to war,
whether spain's states witch might one day demand for independence, or some areas witch are in the borders with asia or africa, i can assure you, peace will not be something to be achieved in the entirety of europe. when turkish warplanes fly above the agean sea for over 20+ years and europe turns a blind eye, or when spain might have another crysis with morroco with europe again turning a blind eye,i know that european peace is a facade that olny the more north or central states with secure borders are living in.
@Kraut the graphic at 6:01 is really outdated - Lithuania has been in the eurozone for years now.
oh, noticed that too late. my apologies
@@Kraut_the_Parrot oh no worries, I’m just glad you managed to make this given the pace of developments this past month. As always, thank you for great & informative content as well as unwavering integrity!!
@@Kraut_the_Parrot indeed…
@@grazulisorlauskaskml8825 indeed…
I was struggling heavily with thinking why I was feeling uneasy to see formerly neutral countries take sides on conflicts for the first time in a long while. Thank you for this video.
interesting you weren't uneasy about the nazi presence in the ukraine govt, or is it ok to be a nazi now?
@@TheNemesis442 I very much am, luckily the ukrainians are pushing them out
@@unpaidcomintern no they're not. if the nazis were being pushed out, they wouldn't be part of the government nor military. do your homework, but hey as long as nazis are part of the 'current thing' maybe they aren't so bad.
@@TheNemesis442 No way the wagner group is working for the ukrainian government
@@unpaidcomintern i never mentioned them. look up c14/s14 and azov battalion. then pay attention to the symbol on their flag.
I think your assertion that Europe will become a military superpower/Superpower or even be united is deeply flawed. The economy down the south in Spain, Portugal and Greece are crumbling under debt. I've been talking to Spanish suppliers and right now they aren't concerned about war in Ukraine but the food on table, as for the first time they are paying around $300 for electricity. In Galician I know two mid-sized companies that have gone under in just 2 months. A lot of people are now more scared for their future, but not the war in Ukraine itself however just by reading some book or reading few articles you might disagree.
Meanwhile China has been aggressively attaching assets of Portugal so much that it's foreign policy seem to align more with China than EU itself. Europe holds key R&D technology in Lithography (seminconductor ), Optics, Automation, Aviation and some heavy Industries. However in Past decade Automation and heavy industries have started to tilt to China/India. For semiconductor Asians are slowly but certainly are catching up. Unlike in 18th/19th Century Europe doesn't have monopoly over global resources. they don't have colony in Africa/Asia anymore. To have military might I doubt they can even source and scale raw material ( which is extremely difficult for certain defence assemblies ). This isolation of Russia have sounded big alarms in India, China, South America and many other countries. While there's no justification of war in Ukraine, but from an Asian/African perspective the illegitimate war on Iraq and destruction in Middle-east, Africa from western countries have no repercussions. You can't act as custodian of morals while your own countries have waged illegitimate war or largely stay silent on exploits of other western country. If you do so Asian/African/South American countries are now watching this development closely. I think the move of west to completely decimate and isolate Russia is an extremely dangerous step that not only hurts everyone but will deeply hurt west itself in the long run. Having worked with EU projects as an outsider, I've seen how corrupt your bureaucrats are and how little they care about small scale industries, a lot are being over taken by Chinese indirectly. If you really believe that EU holds absolute power to bring any change, you're still living in Colonial hangover.
Last but not the least, I hope this illegitimate war by Putin stops, Slava Ukraini. Peace to the world.