Should (and Could) Hungary be Expelled From NATO?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 янв 2024
- Is Hungary becoming NATO's problem child? Explore the shocking decisions Hungary's making, from blocking aid to Ukraine to delaying NATO expansion. Is it time to reconsider Hungary's NATO membership?
→ Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
ruclips.net/user/biographics...
Love content? Check out Simon's other RUclips Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
![A Day To Remember: Feedback [OFFICIAL VIDEO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iXVnysmQ4e0/mqdefault.jpg)
As a Hungarian, watching a video of Simon talking about my country is the most terrifying thing I could imagine seeing on RUclips 💀💀💀
Lmao
I am South African, you know nothing....
So it should be. Hungary has nothing to offer. They are not in a position to act like this. Give Europe the chance and you're GONE. And rightly so.
Stop being hungry and feed ya self, aka buy a plane ticket and bounce, cuhh.
Typical "na bazd meg" situation.
The offer to leave both NATO and the EU should be presented to Hungary with firmness.
They aren't going to accept that invitation. They would surrender any leverage they have.
@@Ricky_Baldy exactly! That's why the offer should made publicly, in the presence of Orban.
He'd quickly realize the tune he needs to dance to.
to wish they will say no. why would they give up a Veto when they can use it to literally have more power than all the other member states combined.
How about no
Frankly the USA should withdraw and reform a new alliance and include ways to deal with this crap. This situation shows the problem with a unanimous agreement situation.....
There's no legal mechanism for kicking out a member. However, there's also no reason why the members that actually do the heavy lifting can't simply declare themselves to be leaving and simply restarting another alliance with all the same structures and simply ask everyone to re-apply.
Yeap. Same buildings, same structure, same countries. Just some fast birocracy of leaving NATO and joining new NATO the second day. A funny show but necessary for the common interest of NATO members. Let's show Hungary that NATO member states security is more important than Hungary sabotaging NATO for it's own benefit.
well, it would set a precedent for that being the new rule. That countries could be kicked out.
a more realistic scenario would be: Hungary can no longer assume NATO will have its back should something go wrong at their border. if you step on the toes of your allies that often and piss them off long enough, it should come as no surprise if nobody is willing to risk anything for your security anymore. NATO's Art 5 works on a voluntary basis after all.
@@embreis2257 Not precisely. Each member is required to take action, but they are given leeway to determine what action is appropriate. I think that blatantly ignoring an attack on ally and doing nothing would violate Article 5 to the point that doing something like forming an entirely new union would be less disruptive than ignoring article 5. That said, offering real but token support (such as what Hungary has done for Ukraine) is the practical floor, probably.
Was this a joke or are you serious?
Fundamentally the issue is the 100% agreement rule. As both Hungary and Turkey have proved it allows members with alternative interests a way to hijack key motions. No functional democracy gets 100% agreement on all policies. It’s time to adopt an 80% agreement rule for policies. This would significantly cut down on the grandstandIng by certain countries.
If these countries don’t like it then they can leave the organization.
(But we all know they won’t)
All the more reason to start a new alliance with the 80% (or 90%) rule in place AND the right to expel any member by that same rule. Any alliance should not tolerate any member's cozying up to its antagonists!!
80% is too high. 68% is realistic. That is two thirds, which is plenty enough to be considered significant.
I don't think you understand this. The European Union isn't a nation. NATO isn't a nation. These are political unions of independent and sovereign countries each of which have the same standing. The reason for unanimity in the NATO alliance is that if any a member is attacked, every member is effectively pushed into war. I personally see the strategic importance of Finland and Sweden, but why the hell should the United States be willing to trade New York City for Macedonia? If anything, there should be more democracy when dealing with admitting countries into NATO given that We are always talking about the possibility of nuclear war.
@@ronmaximilian6953the reason for the US to be willing to "trade" NYC for Macedonia is the same for any member state to be willing to trade for some other member state territory. In the end it does not matter where an enemy strikes, because a strike anywhere is the same as a strike everywhere. If one is attacked, then all respond, but with a controlled response.
And we have to be willing to take that risk because we cannot hide behind the rest of NATO and make them a shield to protect us.
Nor can we be made a shield to protect the rest of NATO without them fighting alongside with us.
@@SnoopyDoofie either 68% or 80% is a lot better than requiring 100%
Erdogan literally approved of Swedens application to NATO today or yesterday and Orban has already changed his tune. You were so on point Simon.
I'd normally say something about how these scripts are written days or weeks in advance but even before it was official there wasn't much question about whether or not it would get approved so much as when it would and what kind of concessions they'd get so Simon really should have seen that coming.
Erdogan has've approved it. The Turkish parliment has. Erdogan still has to sign it and he'll string it along for atleast another 6 months i guess, while Orban has said yes, parlimen is still yet to vote in Hungary.
Voting for Hungary should start on February (iirc they have 2 ordinary sessions per year)@@Mukation
Drama.
80th like
In my youth on Online Games, when you have a Clan or Guild that was locked up by a rogue member, we would just disband and remake a new one.
No need for a new alliance, NATO just needs to amend the charter and create a mechanism for removing a member state.
But Hungary would veto such an amendment
It was stated in the beginning. Any changes require complete unity. Any member has the ability to blackmail the others by using its veto power.
@@Elc22 are you maybe thinking of the UN?
Either way some members have the power and influence to shake things up if we really wanted to.
Or, suspend the member, until it comes to its senses.
I say: leave no one behind. Friends don't abandon each other.
@@Elc22 ... yeah... the old Gentleman's Agreement era.... used to mean something ...
I think the lack of an expulsion clause is a deliberate decision.
It means that if one nation is attacked, then the other nations can't simply eject them to avoid coming to their defense.
That is something that matters to the less powerful members.
I think like with insurances, when the incident has occurred, there is no, revers subscribing or unsubscribing. That would be breaking the contract.
I hope they implemented a rule that prevents one ally from provocating an attack, or attacking on their own and dragging all allies into the conflict, like in WW1.
Not convincing.
A MAJOR omission/update is that the EU parliament recently started procedures to strip Hungary of their vote. That motivated Hungary to stop their blackmail attempts and to fall in line before they were reduced to irrelevancy. It was a good move by the EU.
That's not true, they just made a deal and paid a lot of money
I think one solution would be to create NATO 2.0. They would update the previous treaty (sauf Hungary and Türkiye) send it around for ratifications. When ratifications would be ready, everyone else would send Hungary and Türkiye notification that the old NATO is null and void or you can have the old NATO for the two of you=only Hungary and Türkiye.
The EU is the ccp 2.0.
If they want to be part of the problem… good riddance, they don’t need Europe, Europe (EU) don’t need them.
"A MAJOR omission/update is that the EU parliament recently started procedures" Except that the EU Parliament has no power to do anything about it. They can recall the Comission, but...
As of 23/1/2024 The Grand General Assembly of Türkiye has voted in favour of Sweden’s NATO accession.
Give the Sultan credit, after he won his election he calmed down.
But Erdogan has yet to sign it. Without his signature, it is not ratified.
Can Edrogan walk that back if he chooses?
@@TheTinyGod his parties mp's voted yes on the manner and they would not vote yes on anything without his approval
Indeed.
It would be better to have a 80% past the post for entry to avoid the blackmail temptation. That is both ways too so if you join but do not contribute when an article is called you can be voted out. To propose a vote you need 5 members to vote with you.
I think I'd prefer something closer to 85-92%, than 80%.
In an actual Article 5 situation, Hungary can do nothing but abstain to participate. Something that would put them completely out. However, Hungary was stripped of territories that had been Hungarian for a long time and were largely ethnically Hungarian. That's in part how Orbán stays in power - by allowing people in those regions to vote. And yes, they do consider themselves Hungarian. It was an unfair punishment against a de facto vassal state of Austria. Hungary had no say in entering WW1. So yes, there's good reason for being salty, but it's just something to live with. It's not going to change.
I had no idea my homeland of Canada tried to make an expulsion clause. Clearly the leaders of the time knew such situations could actually come up. They clearly also knew there would be more members in the future which would increase the odds.
It’s wild how much stuff about Canadian history we don’t learn about in school, I never knew Canada saved Denmark from Soviet occupation until I heard about Operation Eclipse in university
Canada has some rather big problems with the their regime.
@@MacTac141I need to read about that. Thank you!
@🎉karlheinzvonkroemann2217
They dont have a regime 😂 they have an elected government and they can change it by voting ...
What they do have is a history through two world wars plus of kicking the heck out dictatorships far beyond their quiet polite and usually reasonable norm .
So go back to your cave and please go play with the Orcs .. 🗡️🧙♂️ but when they get hungry the balrogs will probably roast you to feed them to save their own hides.
@@karlheinzvonkroemann2217 We really do, which is a shame. The current Prime Minister is more like his mother than father. His father was one of the best politicians we ever had even as he pissed people off. He was great at his job and wasn't afraid to stand up to the US.
As a Canadian, I'd just like to say that hindsight is 20/20.
God bless Canada 🍁.
The only one who could see the flaw: a requirement for absolute unanimity.
A super majority of... 67%,or even 75% I can understand, but unanimous consent? Totally lacking in vision. 🙄
Canadas diplomacy is dogshit
@@vlad6482 Since Orbán predicted the outcome of this conflict, what does it say about your vision?
Canada is next to get Alliance kicked.
@@rogerbrownreacts8528 leave my war crime hat alone
every country should follow its national interests.
there's also the fear of other countries deciding they are gonna start copying to get things they want
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a similar system where any member of legislature can veto any decision
That is a reason you will have hard times finding this country on modern map )
Liberum veto was our downfall, very true.
Being a neighbour to Russia sure didn't help.
@@andreasottohansen7338 Russia, Prussia and Austria, and nope, sure didn’t.
@@billyjean3118and the Ottomans and Swedish Empire
@@Pospolite-Ruszenie true, there’s a collection, but I was just talking about partitions ;)
I watched another video where they did a thought experiment. While NATO can not expell a nation, they may be able to create a new alliance and not extend an invitation to the problem nations while making NATO a "lame duck" alliance. Im curious about how such a maneuver would play out.
I think creating a new organization would allow for non European countries like Japan and Australia to join as well.
Hmm sounds clever but probably the most exhausting amount of paperwork in human history
Maybe, but it beats letting fucking Orban ruin everything.
Lol, yep. Remember when Homer Simpson ruined the Stone Cutters so they all quit and started up a new club and didn't let him in.
It is de facto happening. Since a lot of hungarian authorities can no longer be trusted (either intentionally or being underfunded dumasses) a lot of info was leaking into russian hands and agencies no longer share the most valuable info with their hungarian counterparts.
No need for a new alliance, really.
It would be nightmare, you need all the member parliaments to pass through in majority to join a new club.
Hungary has a tradition of choosing the losing side in WWs. If we consider the Cold War as a world war, then Hungary is the only country to have been in the losing side in all 3 World Wars. Even Germany who lost the first two of them, was in the "right" side in the last one and after that it got reunited and it got to be the leading force in EU.
So, for me a Romanian, their decision doesn't surprise me. In fact it is a clear indication of the wining/losing sides.
Arguably parts of Germany were on both sides of the cold war. Therefore Germany has the distinction of being on the wrong side of all three wars, AS WELL AS also being on the winning side of one of them. 😅
I’m a Hungarian and I agree. We are a clear indication of the losing side. But at least it means that Putin and Winnie the Pooh will be fucked, so there’s a silver lining
Hungary was on the losing side in both world wars because of the germans though 👍
The Habsburgs forced the country to declare war in the first, since they were in a union (Austria-Hungary).
In the second ww they got bribed when the Reich gave back some areas that were cut off from the country before, then proceeded to threaten the then leader once they found out they wanted to back out and join the other side multiple times (which were actually rejected by said side), and later took over the country with force until the end of the war.
And for the side note: after the communist army got the nazi army out it was their turn to do the same and again, helped the USSR friendly party take control and that lasted for 40 years straight, with the first half of it just massacring and/or stalking half the country if they opposed them in any way. Must've been a blast
He is clearly not aware of the fact that Western arms factories are being built one after the other in Hungary, for example Rheinemetall, whose shareholders are 90% American ...
Nincs az az Isten, hogy Magyarországot átengedik a keleti oldalra.
Americans invest in a lot of companies around the world, so ? Does that allow Hungary to oppose accepting Sweden ?
@@Concerned-Mom no, it means they won't kick Hungary out of the NATO.
It would have no effect on their factory's, and if somehow it did they would be more then welcome to move them to my country. @@zangadaa
Nato: We have a problem we can't fix legally
CIA: allow me to introduce myself.
NATO and also the EU are still deliberately refraining from solving the problem in this way.
CIA: I am a man of wealth and taste.
that could finaly bring the needed change in this problem ridden country, corruption here is too much
@@jenokrivanszki7762 What innocent people gunned down in supermarkets or bomb attacks staged, which happened in Belgium and Italy when their popular support for NATO was waning? Read about Operation Gladio and De bende van Nijvel.
Operation Gladio (Italy) has come out into the open and is no longer a conspiracy theory. As to the Belgium wave of attacks, it's still not been admitted to but it would seem that this is what happened.
Yeah I mean we've got the CIA, MI6 I'm i'm sure a load of other decent ones from the big players. Can we not get this stuff done?
Any system so rigid it cannot make exception, is a system that is designed to inevitably fail.
Any system who allow a trojan horse inside is also designed to inevitably fail.
The problem with NATO is that Nuclear MAD outweighs it to a laughable degree.
You cant really have a NATO in a world with nuclear MAD. Unless its a bluff.
In the future i Think Europe should make decisions that the US is against in NATO and then just overule the US if they get uppity.
It's not failing.
@@ChocoLater1 Keep telling yourself that.
Brilliant, clear, structured and informative analysis. Gripping speaker too ! Big fan !
All members of NATO should simultaneously withdraw, and immediately form a new organization with the same charter and structure, plus one new rule - that a-holes can be voted out. That would leave Hungary by itself as a NATO of one. The new organization would be called ... NATO. Whether or not Turkey is admitted to the new NATO would depend on their agreement to the a-holes clause.
Yes, it very much can. The claim that, since NATO doesn't have an internal expulsion mechanism, it is incapable of expelling a member is false. International law has had provisions for declaring a nation to be in material breach of a treaty for over a century. The decision to allow Hungary and Turkey to continue as members of the alliance is a choice that the other members have made.
At least everyone understands what Turkey wants, its just a matter of negotiating. They normally agree once they get something out of it. Hungary on the other side...
Making deals with blackmailers is a great way to continue getting blackmailed. It's better to never start with something like paying blackmailers. Why would you want to be allies with someone willing to blackmail you? Why would you want to be allies with someone who actively aids your enemies? What benefit does one gain by being allies with a blackmailer who is a friend of your enemies?
I was literally about to say this
@@Hrotiberhtaz but there is also the very real risk if hungary were to be expulsed they would go into russias and chinas arms immediately. Chinese missile systems in the european heartland is something nobody wants. It's more like NATO needs to change from unanimous agreement to something like 80 - 90 %, which keeps the spirit of very high legitimacy alive while cutting off any legs of single detractors. In the end if hungary threatens the interests and security of NATO nobody cares what's written on a piece of paper.
just dissolve NATO and let every country go back to paying for it's own defense. since all of Europe will be in there soon, it's just waste of money. Make an EU military treaty and let then be the only one.
Honestly - in a couple years, Hungary's politics could see a massive change.
As politics always changes.
NATO is long-term.
That doesn't justify Hungary working against NATO's long-term interests.
Only Wu Tang is forever.
Well maybe hungary don't want to give our tax money to a country who is known for corruption and not being part of NATO
If they get kicked out, you create an island right in the middle of Europe that has no choice but to very closely military tie to China, Russia, Iran etc. A strategic security disaster far exceeding one or two belligerent member problems which are likely to be transient.
So it’s a non starter, reform of overpowered internal veto powers seems like a better use of time.
Orban has been the PM of Hungary for 14 years. Somehow I don't see Hungary removing him any time soon.
Hungary is not breaking any EU or NATO bylaws. They joined existing organizations with clearly established rules. How can you now threaten them with expulsion for following the same.
Unanimity clause is built in for a reason. Democracy anyone?
Democracy in name alone. Kinda like China. They can just say they are democratic. They have elections.😂
They are not breaking rules in the book. However, they are working with the current threat. As Simon said Hungary needs nato then nato needs Hungary. As the Hungarian pm said Hungary doesn’t want a war with Russia from the way he said it I don’t think he would come to the aid of a nato nation that is attacked Russia.
Surprise surprise, not having provisions accounting for the possibility of members shifting allegiances was a lack of forsight
This is a prime example of why I hate politics... and I have a degree in political science. My entire family is Hungarian, I'm a dual citizen, and a huge chunk of both sides of my family still live there. My paternal grandfather was not only former military in ww2 but a revolutionary against Soviet occupation, spent time in the Siberian gulags, and fled the country with my grandmother & father as refugees in the 50s. This behavior by Orban & his block doesn't jive with me.
Your grandfather will be disappointed with you, not continuing the family’s fascist tradition.
@@Mortablunt I don't know if you're trying to get a rise out of me or if what I wrote went clear over your head. I'm curious how you got my family being fascists from that.
Regardless, he died before I was even born and was kind of an asshole from what I hear. But he loved the USA.
Doesn't make too much sense on the surface. Having studied political science as part of a combined honour bachelors it seemed strange to me that we have so many intelligent people behind the scenes with a deep wealth of intellect and the will and ability to make change, but all we have in the limelight are the buffoons.
I'm not saying there's a grand conspiracy or anything, I mean that behind these politicians there's a bunch of ridiculously talented people trying to steer the madness back to a more sane harbor. At least I bloody hope that I'm right.
"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"
Forget it, he's a Z patriot convinced that everyone is a Nazi/fascist except obviously the Russians. If you ask him he probably doesn't even know what fascism or Nazism means😅@@cd5sircoupe
@ cd5sircoupe We are sad gor you and York father and sons, anyway Orban is a dictator and a good friend of Mr. Putin, Mr. Orban is pleasing Mr. Putin in anyway and NOW is tryng to obtain the military collapse of Ukraine. With a dictator and a traitor is no use try to speak honestly and with an open mini. Kick the Hungary out of the NATO.
Neither organization should require unanimous approval. 80-100% should be enough.
51% should be enough.
@@happilyham6769 Most definitely not. If 51 % was the threshold NATO would face similar problems of either sides' legitimacy just like they do in the USA. It also give unreasonable powers to groups who make up maybe 5 % but their non existent morality makes them vote mercenaries who decide who get's to have those last few percent to push them over to the majority. 80 % agreement in any group would strengthen its legitimacy even if there where a few who'd do things differently. No one could honestly attack decisions with a representation this high.
@@Xalantor yeah that's why in the US for really important stuff like a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 majority. It raises both the consensus requirements and the legitimacy of the outcome.
I dont think a unanimous decision is the way to go, it ironically gives more power to lone holdouts like Hungary then the far larger majority and really divorces the largest members of a lot of their power which sounds nice from an equality point of view but kind of screws over countries like the US who contribute the vast majority of the men, money, and material and who provide the bulk of the political power. That said there's the question of how you determine votes: is it by contribution which is arguably the fairest but gives almost all the power to the US alone, is it by population giving even more power to outliers like Turkey who often act in their own self interest at the expense of NATO, is it determined economically which disenfranchises many of the smaller countries as well as the poorer ones?
No. Nato hinges on the fact that _all_ nations in the organisation will willingly come to the aid of the otaher, so yes it SHOULD be unanimous. Otherwise Article 5 becomes irrellevant.
We can still give Turkey and Hungary shit for abusing their right to a vote regarding Nato for other political purposes, though. The US and the rest of the Nato will definatly cut some financial trade with them as punishment for both of them in the future and Turkeys aspirations to join the EU is completly destroyed by Erdogans actions the past few years. Sweden was one of the few EU nations that actually actively support Turkeys membership to the EU and it's fair to say that sentiment is gone now.
@@Xalantor Exactly. if only 51% agree to let in a new member, do you think the the 49% will honor article 5 then? Of course not.
Nato functions by unanimous acceptance or it doesn't function at all. Ordan and Erdogan can and will be punished for abusing the veto by the US, UK, Germany, France etc in the future by trade deals that will be cut from them etc in the future. Turkey has decively destroyed any possibilty of joining the EU by fucking with Sweden (one of the only nations that activley were pro Turkey joining the EU prior to Erdogans fucking with the Nato application) and Hungary has triggered the EU into starting the process of removing their veto rights in the EU, essentially isolating them from the EU.
They shot themselves in the foot in the long run.
This is democracy. You can't support it and then not support it as soon as it doesn't suit you.
Hungary and Turkey both have every right to do what they're doing. I believe they both have valid reasons for theit policy, too. Turkey doesn't want Sweden to protect actual terrorists and Hungary doesn't want EU to operate beyond it's power as a "United States of Europe". These are both absolutely excellent reasons to fight back a little, in my opinion.
Being Finnish, I absolutely agree with both countries reasoning. Not with the ways they try to bring their messages across, but certainly the reasoning behind them.
@@L46726 jag är finsk. I want Sweden to be a part of Nato, just like Finland, but I do understand Turkey's point. You should just hand over the terrorists. As for Hungary, while they do have a point too I don't think any of it has to do with Sweden, so they should just let you in..
What? An actual insightful geopolitic comment that actually tries to understand why might one did what they did? This was a real breath of fresh air, I've seen so many smug morons under here going "wHy NoT fOrM nAtO 2??" that I would never expect a comment like this lol. People seem to forget being a NATO member is a huge commitment. Yeah you receive a lot of perks but you also have to sacrifice if moment arises. I can't speak for our politicians because you can never trust them but as a Turk myself I can safely say that the main complaint of the Turkish public was that in the case of a war why would we sacrifice our soldiers for a country that can't even commit to not housing terrorists and their financers? Can anyone here say that the US wouldn't do the same if the same situation happened with Al Quieda? In any event welcome to the alliance, our problem was never with Swedish or Finnish people and it sucks that ensuring your own security had to be a bargaining chip during it but Sweden in particular weren't heeding any of our complaints prior to the NATO application and continued turning a blind eye to PKK activities in the country. Also thank god their government changed too. We are finally seeing them cracking down on this, it's a slow process but hopefully it will bear fruit.
@@soundwave2481 indeed. I wish nothing but the best of luck to my Swedish counterparts in the west. It has been long overdue, but it seems they've finally began opening their eyes. I hope my Finland can learn from their mistakes..
Why don’t OTAN and UE change the rule about unanimity? A vote with a majority of some sort, such as two-thirds for instance, would allow more decisions to be made.
Because you need unanimous decision to rule out unanimity and the one person who is using unanimity in his favor will never vote for it.
Catch 22
As a resident of Rhode Island, that picture of our broken (for decades) bridge IS the key landmark here. It goes with our state motto, "If it's broke, don't fix it."
Oh and the rest of the video was helpfully informative too.
15th like
Absolutely no treaty, government, or organization can function if it requires unanimity
agreed. Even with simple things like ordering take out can quickly turn to a mess when too many people get involved. I've seen meetings spend almost as much time on simple stuff like ordering lunch as they do on actual important decisions simply because even closely aligned people often have different needs: good luck getting someone who's eating a high fat-high protein-no carb diet to eat 99% of vegan foods which are almost all high carbs. There arent many countries who have the same military goals since some countries like China are primarily worried about domestic security while others like Iceland have no real threats and most countries are mainly just worried about their neighbors but countries like the US and UK need to worry about global shipping and power projection, and even when they have the same goal they'll often disagree on how exactly to go about it (during WW2 the US and UK were as close as brothers but argued a lot more than people realize even after the US joined the war).
The NATO concept is flawed by design. You know what states do if an ally gets attacked? They MUST help, but they can CHOOSE how. There's no automatic US nuclear strike on the attacker, no automatic military intervention. It's a paper tiger with no fangs. Hungary is not the problem. Ironically, only the US, Poland & Hungary have spent anywhere near 2% on their militaries in recent years. Yet so many NATO members are beating the war-drums. What the heck are they smoking and how is it legal?! 😆
@@arthas640You think the UK is still a global power worried about global shipping? That's so cute.
@@charles5a UK is one of the only countries with aircraft carriers, has the 2nd largest number of foreign military bases not to mention bases like Diego Garcia that are part of their former colonial empire, and carries out plenty of patrols. They're currently fighting alongside the US against the Houthies. They're not as large as the US in just about any regard in terms of power projection or military might but they're also #2 in just about every regard and still far ahead of most militaries like China or France. Also i was mostly lumping the entire post WW2 to modern time period together and for a decent chunk of the Cold War they were pretty active in terms of power projection, freedom of navigation exercises, and patrols although those have steadily shrunk since the 90s alongside the paring down of their navy.
@@arthas640 the UK has been on a steady decline for over 100 years, and it's only accelerated recently. The military is nothing but a small symptom.
As somebody who's seen UK regression through well over 100 visits since the 80s, I understand why somewhat living in it can't see that regression. It's like the story about slowly boiling water and whoever in it won't realize.
Also, in what measure do you think the UK military is ahead of China's?
Great report, once again.
Off topic, but what was that lovely piece of music at the end?
It's almost as if requiring unanimous agreement in a military alliance (in which one nation produces 60% of the entire alliance's power) was a bad idea.
Yeah, but if contribution equalled voting power, no one would have joined.
There wasn't any choice after
WW2. Other than to allow
Stalin to keep advancing west.
@@andreasottohansen7338Still though, it should have been at least 3 countries getting together to turn down an agreement.
How about dissolve NATO?
@@patrickmunneke8348
Obviously with Putin's neo-empire,
"Greater Russia" agenda; it would appear
that NATO is required!
The people of Ukraine voted with their
protests and later at the polls to get rid
of a president who was pushing Ukraine
into the Russia/China sphere of influence.
BRICS. etc. rather than with the EU
trade block.
If can't, then we should just make NATO II.
Will it have Blackjack and Hookers?
@@madcat789forget the blackjack
@@noble6339 Hell yeah.
NA2
@@madcat789hookers? Nah all of them are in UN and are representing russia.
"The issue is why, why has Budapest chosen Ukraine as the issue to play games with....". Umm, maybe because Ukraine isn't part of NATO, so this grey area allows Hungary to get away with it. This is an opportunity to do something in Hungary's national interest that doesn't directly target a Nato nation. Though, I'm sure that the Budapest's national interest agenda will be short lived, NATO interests will ultimately prevail, rightly or wrongly. Sadly, genuine efforts and discussions to de-escalate and work toward peace in Ukraine seem to be outside of any NATO agenda at the moment.
As a Hungarian I remember hundreds of Hungarian servicemen dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for American causes, and not a single American dying ever for Hungarian causes. Heck you guys dont even have a military base in the country. So then by what respect do you think we owe you something? We are allies on equal grounds, dear, your nuclear umbrella, or military promises is only a theoretical possibility, not a real thing around here, so we should stick to the we dont ask about your friends and business interests, you shouldnt ask about ours directive. Of course you can decide to get rid of us, I dont think we would experience it as a real loss, at least we could be on the same path as Austria is in, that it is protected by NATO while not contributing a dime to it, and if the situation gets hot, well, we have our nuclear powerplant as you mentioned, which can be retrofitted for different purposes. As for the Finnish and Swedish accession, I would add, its not an entirely wise strategy to badmouth someone who has the power to have your country out of an alliance, so maybe noone has to be a master diplomat to give advices against such behaviour. In other words, if you come to us to ask something you need then at least pretend being a friend.
I think it's good that Hungary is highlighting the current weaknesses of NATO and the EU so much so that they can be resolved before a potential attack on NATO territory. If there were no such problems, this vulnerability would continue to exist unnoticed for the benefit of an enemy.😇
Good point
Way too much people in europe think that their shoes are bulletproof, slash resistant and watertight.
we would not block anything if such an event happened, however neolib and neocon trolls are seething because we refuse to get into a senseless conflict on behalf of a country which is not part of nato and oppresses our people. oh well, anyway...
Well, the EU Parliament seems to have decided Orban stepped over the line one too many times and have voted to have the EU Council invoke Article 7, removing Hungary's voting rights. Not an expulsion but close enough. That seems to be also having a desired effect with the NATO issue, as he's recently said that the Hungarian Parliament will vote on Sweden's accession. We'll see.
The EU is Not a countrys, and is headying to be the CCP 2.0.
Really glad to hear that.
I’d much prefer if someone came out and said, look there won’t be any voting anymore, you are going to do what we say. There is no point in having a vote if it’s not going to be respected. It would be more fair than “if you don’t vote what we tell you, you are out”
It is a very complicated process and requires unanimity, and other small Eastern European countries like Slovakia may be afraid to vote for it - having fear it can be used against them in the future.
Sure you could kick Hungary, and probably if your going to start doing this Turkey out of NATO. But then of course NATO is shrinking rather than growing. So you have to ask, is a bad friend better than a strong enemy? Because these nations are unlikely to just decide to become neutral. I think people should consider, given it is not just Hungary but also Slovakia opposing Ukrainian policy, that the EU and NATO should probably re consider the value of the eastern inclusion program. Just gobbling Eastern block nations into the EU and NATO may not be as helpful as people thought. It's not like Ukraine itself shares EU values, indeed its membership has been refused several times. And if you start cutting out some eastern countries to include other eastern countries you end up undermining the EUs primary strength, stability.
i had to scroll down for an embarrassingly long time to find an intelligent comment. thanks for having common sense.
Europe is a free for all. Any and all indications of unity are facades. Putins speech makes this very obvious. Guy has stated outright he wants to control Europe.
Meanwhile in Europe: zzzzz
I can only hope the us stays out this time. Profit mongering follows war mongering though. The cycle will continue. The actors change places, and change costumes during intermission.
interesting and informative as usual, a unanimous vote is very powerful, but in most case not practical, rules should be put in place, imagine any democracy that requires everyone vote the same, absolutely nothing would be achieved.
1:25 - Chapter 1 - No exit
4:35 - Chapter 2 - With friends like these
8:10 - Chapter 3 - Difficult relationships
11:35 - Chapter 4 - Danger on the doorstep
16:40 - Chapter 5 - Through a glass darkly
There are several rules on NATO and UN Charters that require revision. One member, or an extremely small minority, having the power to veto what the overwhelming majority wants is certainly not democratic and has proven to remove the trust in those institutions role in today's world. Time to change!
Neither one of those are “democratic insinuations”, they are both treaty organizations that the only reason the counties involved are involved in is because it’s in their best interests. The UN is not a world government. The big 5 in the UN would never have joined it had their sovereignty been at jeopardy by a bunch fo small nations gaining up on them. If the Veto override was removed, then the US, china, Russia, etc would leave the UN the same day, and the UN would collapse.
NATO is much the same way, it’s meant to be an organization that is hard to change, and very limited in scope. If the requirements that all agree was removed, then the alliance would grow in scope and ultimately states would leave when once again the organization begins to threaten their soverienty.
In short, international politics is not a school yard, where the teacher makes sure everyone doesn’t hurt anybody. It much more like a prison yard, where the strongest are in charge, and the rest work with them in order to protect themselves.
@@CaptRR you dont happen to live in one of the BRICS countries, do you?
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516
Brics is far far behind the cooperation than european integration. The only reason european union works is because of the dependencies of countries that make any one country to go rouge face harsh challanges. Brics has internal confilct, isn't geopoliticly connected, no trust between members. And most importantly all members doesn't have the economic power to nor willing to make it.
China were a economy powerhouse, india has serious internal issues, russia is trying to claw its way out of the carcass of USSR. The rest are seeking support from other members.
@@CaptRR With regard to veto power in the UN Security Council, the solution to Russia's veto is to simply hold that Russia is not actually a UN member state at all. That their claim to be the successor state of the Soviet Union was fraudulent, and that the Soviet Union's permanent seat on the UN Security Council was permanently vacated when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.
There would be ample precedent for such a ruling, in the form of Yugoslavia and Serbia. Serbia tried to claim they were the successor state of Yugoslavia. And really, they had a much stronger case for that status than Russia does for being the successor state of the Soviet Union. For one thing, Russia formally seceded from the USSR, while Serbia never seceded from Yugoslavia. How can Russia be the successor state of a nation they seceded from? In Serbia's case, the entire UN, *including Russia,* rejected their claim to be the successor of Yugoslavia. (Russia is, after all, nothing if not hypocritical.) Thus, from 1992 until 2000, Serbia was a non-member of the United Nations. It was only after they officially renounced their claim to be the successor state of Yugoslavia and submitted a membership application that they were admitted into the UN.
While this was a matter of simple membership in the UN rather than a permanent seat on the Security Council, that doesn't really matter since quite obviously a non-member state cannot be on the Security Council. If Russia's membership in the UN is ruled to be fraudulent, that means they were never actually a Security Council member at all and their veto power never actually existed.
And as for whether Russia could simply veto this and keep their fraudulent Security Council seat? No. We have another clear precedent in UN history for that, in the case of China and Taiwan.
The Republic of China in 1945 was one of the founding members of the UN and one of the original 5 permanent members of the Security Council. After they lost the Chinese Civil War in 1949, Chiang Kai-shek's government in Taiwan continued to hold their UN Security Council seat despite only controlling Taiwan and a few other small islands. The People's Republic of China claimed to be the successor state of the Republic of China, while Taiwan insisted that the Republic of China still existed even if what they considered "rebels" were in control of the majority of its territory. In 1971, a majority vote of the UN General Assembly held that the Republic of China had ceased to exist in 1949 and the People's Republic of China was its legitimate successor state.
Thus, the ROC was stripped of its Security Council seat and veto power, and there was nothing they could do about it. There is no veto in the General Assembly, only in the Security Council. And UN membership decisions are made by the General Assembly, not the Security Council.
If ALL the other 26 EU members really do feel it necessary to provide urgent aid, then they are free to do it from their own budget, without even bringing the issue to the EU-table
So why have the eu, if all it does is move money from well run rich countries to poorer corrupt countries, the UK saw this and pulled out as it was bringing all good countries down, eu need to clean house
The main reason for not including such a clause is the abandonment issue. National security policy is a matter for each member state to dictate and is not something which should be wielded as blunt diplomatic bargainingship. We do not threaten to eject our allies in a time of need, because we do not wish to engage in the conflict ourselves. If this is how the alliance operates, their will not be an alliance. However the clauses that exist prior to entering remains a major concern her nobody in the alliance wants to be dragged into a conflict that another member intends to start, which is why Turkeys call on Article 5 was ultimately rejected. The hungarian actions in both the EU and NATO however is proof of the issue of the requirement of unanimous decision making. This is of course what the Canadians saw a possibility for one member using the holding the decisionmaking apparatus hostage for the benefit of itself in an international prisoners dilemma.
See this is why I love this channel, not just giving an answer and leaving it at that. You guys actually go in depth, explore hypotheticals, and give critical context to these situations. I love it.
Why do you mean? He doesn’t even know how to pronounce Erdogan?
@@nato4018 thats totally ok, nobody really cares how erdogan is pronounced
It’s just not attention to detail. Idk how you can do so much geopolitics videos and stuff and not know. Just makes you wonder what else they got wrong
If "critical context" means 3 wikipedia searches instead of one,and reading 5 sentences of an article not just the first,then yes sure. They have depth and critical context lmao
If they were not biased to the left, i would approve your comment....
You don't need the ability to kick anyone out. Just form NATO 2, copy-paste all the documents, invite everyone except Hungary and Turkiye, and then everyone except those two leaves NATO 1. Simple. Sure, you need all those 30 members to agree to move to the new organization, but unanimous agreement is needed for anything NATO-related anyway, so that's no different. It's the same as an expulsion vote.
haha didn't see this before I commented the same thing. Just call it NATwO.
NATO 2 but for Europe and leaving Turkey out and limit Hungary´s rights or flat leaving Hungary out of the alliance.
LOL YES long live Nato 2 we just need to come up with a kick ass movie tag line to sell it to the world.
You guys have absolutely no political sense
@@patrickmunneke8348 no wonder why people are beginning to hate westerners man. Fuck some of us say some patronising shit bruh
Excellent video, but it's Irridendist, not Iridescent 18:04
Quite accurate how we see it in the Central Europe. Thank you for making this content, so on point for the rest of the world. You even mention the prime minister of Slovakia, which is a rather new development of the situation. I hope there will be no need for a video on Slovakia in the near future...
Orban can be easily reigned in if NATO countries are willing to look into the skeletons he and his government have in their closet.
His inner circle is dominated by the minister of the interior, Sandor Pinter, an ex-communist police officer who has been in every government since 1998. It is pretty rare for any country, and especially a democracy to have a minister of interior serving in 5 goverments. I am pretty sure he has goods on Orban that could take down his ossified regime.
P.s. speaking as a Hungarian, Orban is not doing anything for Hungary at this point, just courting Russki and Chinese money to make himself and his family richer. The deals he signs are of rather questionable value to the Hungarian taxpayer.
wish more hungarians like this existed.. shame they only seem to be around 2 out of 5 at best. i mean we get it, trianon sucked (for you), but y all can't keep hating on the neighbours you once occupied forever. no other country in the world let alone in the EU hates all it's neighbours and actively tries to screw them up via oligarching communities they have in said neighbours. Even fucking russia loves at least a few of its neighbours
This Sandor guys sounds like the Hungarian equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover.
Orbán has been doing very little for Hungary for several years now, the issue is who's gonna take over? The opposition rallying around Gyurcsány? Bitch please.
What he HAS done correctly is his stance on the Ukraine war though. Everything he calculated with proved to be correct. Ukraine has since late 2022 gained nothing and lost 100000 men. Russia's economy is okay, the EU is struggling. So while he's making very questionable deals with china, his social politics are human rights violating, and the amount of power the government amasses is crazy, ... on exactly the issues highlighted here he's correct.
As a hungarian myself, can say this, NATO ( EU) not for the betterment of the peoples of Europe, it's only benefits the USA deepstate billionaires. NATO can't beat Russia, Russia doesn't even want to bother NATO let alone attack it, but whenever their country and people are in grave danger, they definitely capable to sink EU and USA at once, and who needs this, may I ask
@@johnbordas5057 That's nonsense though. The deepstate may profit from the war in Ukraine prolonging it unnecessarily, but they do not profit from NATO. NATO can and does stand up to Russia. That's why Finland and Sweden immediately wanted to join NATO after Ukraine was attacked. And why Ukraine wants to join in the first place. It is a successful deterrent and defense pact. The EU on the other hand is also keeping the Hungarian economy alive. There's lots of talk about opening to the Chinese and whatnot, but they're a miniscule fraction in everyone's trade compared to inter-EU trade.
So no, it's absolutely not true that Hungary wouldn't need either.
Hungary is happy to accept welfare from the EU and NATO, but they criticize the two organizations incessantly. Where I come from, that is known as "hypocrisy".
develop more
I live Hungary and I can confirm that 99% of the people lie every time they open their mouth.
What are you talking about ? What welfare?
A lot of Eastern-European countries act like that. Take Poland for example...
@@Exxperiment626 I cannot speak to their relationship with the EU but my understanding is that eastern European nations are generally some of the most overwhelmingly pro-NATO countries there are.
There’s also been debate here in the States about doing the same to Turkey. The difference, though, is that Turkey is useful both in geography and military power
Alexandra Lukashenko once said that Russian and English were the only two "great" languages. So that makes me think there's an alternate reality where Belarus joined NATO too. Imagine how annoying it would be to have both Hungary and Belarus in NATO and The EU.
Is Belarus a nation state, or is it a pimple on Pootin's nose?
It wouldn’t surprise me. It would just turn into a meaningless alliance like the UN. Then Israel and Hamas would become member too 😂
He persued doing deals with eu
Russia and Belarus are in a 'Union State' alliance@@andyhurrell
@@Plevins
As long as Lukashenko is
Putin's puppet. Time is
running out for both of
them.
As a American I would suggest that we could form a NATO prime. We can't kick out Hungary but we can leave NATO to form a new NATO prime alliance with a set of rules that allows the expulsion of a member. The EU rules look a lot like our articles of confederation - what we had before our current constitution. We got rid of them because of the sort of problems one state could cause, it made them unworkable.
And what? It lets u invade other countries for oil without hearing adds?
well if trump will come
there is a chance that US will leave nato
Europe has Orbán America has speaker Johnston 2 men who are russian collaborators
@@jenifferschmitz8618 classic "if they don't agree, they are russians" and then people wonders why Russia no wants us at their border
You just can’t change the rules to suit your needs. Why have the rules in the first place? A system where everyone has to agree does eliminate any future arguments about what was past and may have failed.
Orban is a true statesmen who cares very much for Hungary. I wish the other EU members cared as much for their subjects as Orban does.
🤣🤣🤣...no.
Hungary is a marginal, dirtpoor, non-contributing member of Nato and the EU. The only thing it can contribute is being the least respected, most despised country in both organizations. Loosers 😂
great vieo as usual but the music is to loud and so annoying !!!
Never in my worst nightmares did I imagine I'd see my country in a Warographics video like this. Although in recent years I kinda got used to my government defying my worst expectations.
Moldova may be next!
Hungary I great and so is Orban.
Sorry for u man. Now go change your bossman. Cheers from Finland, we have presidential election this/next month. Interesting to see what kind of douche we end up with. :D
@@patrickmunneke8348 sure... stay in your little bubble than
@@mattipiirainen7440 How? You really think he was elected 2/3 the last time?
This isn't a real democracy anymore,the only thing that can remove him is his cholesterol
11:40 You used the term "anti-refugee" - but someone is only legally a refugee in the first safe country. Someone from Syria is NOT a refuree when entering from Serbia to Hungary as they had to cross Türkiye (NATO), Greece (NATO, EU), North-Macedonia (EU membership pending), Serbia (membership pending).
Entering from the Ukraine and asking for refuge is a valid request thought. And ALL people entering Hungary from the Ukraine HAVE DOCUMENTS. Despite coming from a shelled city, in cases.
This 100% sick and tired of illegal immigrants being called refugees when entering Australia or America or New Zealand or Britain. All these countries have taken loads of refugees from countries we fight in, but boat people aren’t refugees, literally none of these countries is next to a war torn country and isn’t the closest safe haven to anyone. Refugees have been more than welcome to go to refugee camps and apply to get asylum from these countries, again all have taken many.
You might want to check your definition, because that’s incorrect.
@@--enyo-- "The first safe country principle refers to the practice of refusing entry to asylum seekers who, prior to their arrival in the country where they are seeking asylum, have travelled through an alternative country that could have offered them asylum protection"
@@karlvongazenberg8398 Yes but one could argue that Turkey is not a safe country for Syrians considering they actually invaded and occupied parts of Syria. The same you could say Serbia is not safe for Muslims because of the Kosovo conflict... just bypassing different countries isn't enough of a reason. Anyway, neither Syrians or Ukrainians actually wanted to become refugees in Hungary, proof that so few remained there after entering.
@@Bayard1503 Kurds fleeing Türkiye may have a point, howver, they enter Greece, which is an EU member, therefore by definition a safe country. Also proving that Serbia is NOT a safe country, since they are quite advanced in EU membership process.
And the picture with Fachabascal is spot on... 😀
The rules needs to ratified, no country should be allowed to block the whole purpose of the union
Go figure, Canada being a voice of reason. Who in their right minds would ever form an alliance without having a way to deal with members who deliberately oppose the goals of the whole group. I say reform Nato by simply inviting all other members except Turkey and Hungary to form a new (Nato of sorts) and make the current one a paper puppet where Turkey and Hungary are left in the cold together where they can veto anything and everything since nothing of any importance will ever be voted on there again in the future. In my opinion it is as simple as drafting a letter and start the reform.
Turkey is very important both geographically and as a major military force in the region. Keeping them in NATO may force Erdogan to behave slightly better. Sooner or later he will be gone and maybe Turkey will be back on track to democracy.
Hungary, on the other hand, is almost useless for NATO.
Expel Turkey? No way. Both in terms of military power and especially geopolitically it is one if not the most important member on the european continent. Also, if they were expelled, were would they go? Not so nice having both Russia and Turkey on the european doorstep.
@@BumphreyYoughurtTurkey is definitely not the most important NATO member on the continent, it’s power projection capabilities are minimal and it lacks the economic power of other members.
If Turkey went truly rogue, NATO would just fully back Greece who would expand their territorial waters in the Aegean to their full legal claim. It would become a Greek sea
@@MacTac141 Ok, let’s dissect your statements.
Power protecting capabilities: Apart from Russia and GB, Turkey is the strongest military power in europe (source: forbes, 2024), and the 8th strongest in the world. Greece is numer 32 in the world. Turkey controls Bosporus, one of the most important trade routes in the world. Turkey borders Europe and Asia, and therefore can control migration into Europe from the middle east. GDP-wise, Turkey is nr 19 in the world, Greece nr 54 (source: worldometers). Regarding all this - what do you mean by your statement that Turkey has ”minimal power and economic projection capabilities”?
And do you really mean, if Turkey went rogue, that EU somehow would arm up Greece enough to stand against Turkey (EU can’t gice Ukraine adequate support atm), and that NATO then would declare war on Turkey? Because Turkey would not sit idly if someone tried to take the Aegean sea - they would fight. Your suggestion for a solution only strenghtens my point - a loyal Turkey is perhaps the most important NATO-member on european soil.
@@BumphreyYoughurt How did you misquote me when my comment is literally right there? I said power projection capabilities and economic power. Two separate things
By power projection capabilities I mean the ability to project military power and influence beyond your immediate borders and region. Turkey is strong in the sense it would be incredibly difficult to invade and conquer, however in terms of fighting conflicts in countries beyond its region it lags behind other allies. If you had to fight a war in Africa or South America as examples France would be able to make a much bigger impact than Turkey ever would. Turkey is kinda stuck in its own corner
By economic power I mean Turkey has some of the worst continuous inflation in the world with an economy the size of Switzerland. It’s far behind economic powerhouses like France, Germany, Italy or even the Dutch. It’s a middle income nation among developed first world ones.
Lastly you immediately start comparing Greece to Turkey, but that’s just not a good way to look at it because if Turkey attacks Greece after being kicked out of NATO, Turkey suddenly become a hostile aggressor to the entire alliance. At that point it’s stealth fighters and the strongest navies in the world against whatever Turkey can muster. A ground invasion would never take place but anytime Turkey tries to launch an attack they would receive a “proportional response”
I was at a panel with the Bucharest 9.
The vibe in the room immediately changed when the ambassador of Hungary was on.
Even looked at my ambassador and he gave me the 😅😬 look.
The guy was claiming that Ukraine was barring Hungary from “doing what it wants”, basically.
Guy was a painting himself as a target for a shoe. It was absurd. No questions were asked to the other 3 Baltics, just the Hungarian ambassador.
There was some intelligence in the room then! Maybe some nations have had enough of the crown colonial system and socialist fascist illusion of fake democracy, and aren't insane enough to jump into a burning volcano, just because most others are! Nato is corrupt, serves the interests of very few,paid for by all the rest subjects slaves savages, with no regard for their lives. No nation shall dictate, with whom Hungarians may deal, or side with,as that is the exact type of "democracy " nato is pushing.
Hungary's leader is like many autocrats. He wants as many benefits as he can manage from his "allies", while providing nothing in return. He also wants the wealth that the EU can give him, but he has no desire to cooperate on issues like.... democracy, which is a pretty important pillar of the EU philosophy.
It seems like to me, if enough members of NATO decide that Hungary is truly a detriment to the alliance, they could form a new treaty among the members with every provision of the old treaty, but with an expulsion clause. Then simply admit all the members of NATO to the new alliance, with the exception of Hungary.
Can someone elaborate to me what democracy means in your context? I mean come on guys, the EU is not democratic, this disgusting bald guy is even less democratic, he tells, that big nations should overrule smaller ones as a real stalinist bloodsucker would say. I would say American, German, Portuguese, Baltic or any other MP's will never have the power to mobilize the Hungarian military, or to take loans in the name of Hungary, scraping the barrel in Hungarian weapon stockpiles, for that we have our own national parliament, with our own elected officials, now I would call that democracy, which should be respected.
I just can't understand why Hungary wants to be closer to russia. My parents escaped in 1956 because of how terrible things were when Hungary was under the russian's flag of the failed soviet union. Hungarians hated the Russians, and when the soviet union collapsed, the Hungarian people were elated and quickly became a free democratic country. Now, under the leadership of Orbán, theyre living under a dictatorship again.
To the Hungarian people I say, remember 1956 and what the russian's did to you then!
It could open a can of worms, but I think Hungary and Turkey need a timed suspension.
Yeah, can't have anyone get in the way of sending hard-earned taxpayer money to Ukraine and the war machine
They get a major yellow card
Personally ever since turkey allowed the killings of American servicemen in the 80s to go unsolved because they refused to launch an investigation that's a red card they should have been expelled for that
@@dann9665Russia is literally expanding to NATO border 😂 facts bro.
@@dann9665maybe russia should stop invading its neighbors.
When talking of Hungary also include this : Francesco Nitti, Prime Minister of Italy,
September 1924:
"No country was perished more viciously in
Trianon than Hungary. But this country is
dwelled by spiritually strong people, who won't
be resigned to the demolition of their country.
Hungary's dismembering is so dishonourable
that no one takes responsibility for it.
Everybody acts like they don't know about it,
everybody is in coy silence. The reference to
the right of nations' self-determination is only
an untrue formula... they misused their victory
in the most vicious way... There's no French,
English or Italian who would accept the
conditions forced to Hungary for their own
nation..."
Herbert Henry Asquith, Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom for 8 years, 1925:
"This treaty is no work of statesmen, but the
result of severe and fatal deceptions."
Vladimir Iljic Lenin:
"The treaty was forced down their throat, but
this is a usurious treaty, the treaty of murderers
and butchers... unprecedented, predacious
treaty... this is no treaty, these are conditions
that scampsmen dictate with knives in their
hands to unprotected victims."
Lloyd George, Prime Minister of the U.K., in his
speech on the 7th of October, 1929:
"The whole documentation that we received
from our allies at the peace talk, was deceitfuland untrue. We came to a decision on false
principles"
Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of
the U.K.:
"The result of the Treaty of Trianon in Europe is
not peace, but the fear of another war."
Very good episode, thank you. Re Article 5. If invoked, I understand member nations will take the actions it deems necessary to assist. If this is correct, is there a minimum or maximum level of support?
If a NATO country is invaded by Ivan, does NATO put boots on the ground? Would NATO do a "shock and awe" on Moscow or Leningrad?
At the other end of the scale, NATO gives the invaded country just enough assistance not to lose?
Can NATO members expect to receive this level of support under Article 5? Outdated and unwanted stockpiled equipment? Does this sound familiar?
NATO has been fighting in a proxy war with Ivan since February 2022. In the first year of the war, a lot of sabre rattling and 'in it for the long term' rhetoric. Today? The USA have gone AWOL. Europe's inertia is fairly much expected. Hungary calling the shots.
Give me strength.
Brilliant presentation.
As always.
I've been wondering about this, but the MSM never seems to raise the issue.
Thanks for clarifying.
Be great if Orban loses the next election, but unlikely. He seems to be gaming the flaws in the Hungarian electoral system, similar to the way Greedpublicans game the US's electoral and apportionment flaws.
Isn't it obvious why Hungary behaves this way? You said it yourself, Hungary is an unremarkable country in every way. They can leverage their NATO membership to be relevant and important on the global stage. This may sound ridiculous to the normal person, but you must remember this is an autocracy. The country is built on ego and the façade of Orban being a strong man.
The country is not built in the facade that Oban is a strong man. Oban is particularly popular in Hungary and the reason is because he promotes the idea of a strong Hungarian nation that NATO and the EU forces to play by their rules in which are unfavorable to Hungary.
Oban is taking the role of a vigilante that finds loopholes to operate beyond the limitations of NATO and the EU and Hungarian people love it. In the eyes if most Hungarians, Hungary has any right to leverage on the bureaucracy of NATO and the EU since bureaucracy is what they hate and they shove it in the face of their "rulers".
If I'd be honest I will completely blame the EU for this situation, European Union and specifically the western European countries were always allowing stuff like the decrease of democratic means to a country if that meant their benefit, Greece is facing the same where a lot of democratic properties are facing scrutiny and Europe doesn't force the government to improve them, things like justice system, social media (which we literally rank on the same level of Hungary) and the state of police. Europe should reinforce the expression if democratic means and should make sure they operate as expected in every member country, instead of letting it grow to another Oban.
Hungary... The nation that has been walked over by everyone else down the ages... Another country that no one really gives a hoot about...
Not really on ego but a strong leader as we never had before and the one Mr. Trump likes cause he has the balls not to be a sheep and follower like most EU leaders. 2 weeks ago he praised him in a sit-down interview. It's a landlocked country and through us, the Slovakians and the Czechs get their oil and gas supply that is half the price then the Western one. But affordable. Plus Putin never threatens Eastern Europe. Zelensky's lies that the world believed in a comedic actor. Ukraine is not Europe's saviour. They have nothing. No men no money no tech only racism nationalism corruption (as in Ukraine the most corrupt country in Europe) and the Jewish midget Zelensky who became the world's fastest billionaire who bout a luxury ville to his mother in Egypt and for a luxury resort in Italy with a luxury house and a pool. Elon Musk also said is there 5 minutes past that Zelensky hasn't begging for billions of dollars? Half the money went into his and his friend's pockets. They also accuse Hungary of supporting Russia but it's a lie cause we only pay for oil and gas and minerals just like any other country. What do we get from Ukraine? Blackmail and 4000 ethnic Hungarians were forcefully taken to the meatgrinder to fight our friend cause Ukraine is the real enemy they started the war when they provoked the Russians in 2014 and bombed and shelled Innocent Russian civilians and kids and schools and hospitals. Only it is hard to get that video footage cause they aren't allowed on RUclips as the censors cut it out. But I have videos of how racist Ukrainians are and telling a 54-year-old Hungarian man to go and fight when 2 of his sons are already taken and one is killed. The others if you not going then they throw them in jail with forced labour or their house burned down with families inside and their land confiscated. This part they never been shown in Western Media.
No offense but Hungary is a s*ithole and it's never gonna be a strong Nation. At the very least not with Made in China "alpha" male wannabe Orban. The moment you enter from Slovakia to Hungary you can feel that Eastern smell in there. The same smell can be felt in any of those Eastern Nations where socialism didn't truly die out.
@@gaarakabuto1 Very true. This problem is mostly created by the EU and how they force members to adhere to rules and regulations which only a few population rich countries voted for and Hungarians and others feel they have no input in and are not being heard.
The ejection of Hungary from either the EU or Nato would be a mistake. However a reform to a 80% or 75% majority for decisions would be a good idea. This leaves a comfortable method to avoid derailment and heel dragging, but at the same time doesnt force nearly half to comply as with a simple majority.
We pay the price for the founders' lack of vision.
the founders were right. if you cannot convince everyone, then maybe NATO is not the place to do it.
Thanks!
Maybe not expelling Hungary from various institutions, but block any actions they could take until a sane government replaces Orban. And yes, if things still go down, then expelling should be an option.
Or all EU neighbours could close their borders with Hungry .
have you guys ever considered that maybe nato should protect the interests of it's own allies a tiny little bit more than that of a non-member which oppresses the people of said member?
When talking of Hungary include how Hungarians fought in the American revolution and American civil war to end slavery
As an American I say yes. NATO is an alliance of like minded democracies and any nation that has turned its back on liberal western democracy should be kicked out or at least its voting rights suspended.
US is the war criminal in the room and even worse than the Russians
So as a Hungarian who doesn't agree with my government's foreign policy and is helpless to change any of it I should just suck it up and be left in the cold by the alliance I always looked towards as inspiration ever since the 90s?
@@manwiththeredface7821 Change your government. Being in NATO has obligations, obligations from their citizens as well. I get that it sucks, but we don't have time to play political games, and we're not going to invade your country to fix your government for you.
@@manwiththeredface7821 its not the EU's or NATO's job to turn hungary into a first world democracy. it should have been one before joining.
So what happens if Trump gets control and doesn't leave? Is the US out of the alliance?
Yes, as soon as possible. Chris Janssen
Um...Turkey has already given the OK.
10:40 Please mention, that Suzuki, Audi, Mercedes Benz and after them BMW (with the array of associated major subcontractors) ALSO present in Hungary with manufacturing AND R&D facilities.
Yea. It should. Its not an ally
Time is obviously overdue to bring in a Membership Rule for over-ruling proposals rejected by, say, up to 3 member states.
Yes, as soon as possible
idk about hungary, but from what I understand, turkey holds a very strategic position, which is why everyone is willing to put up with them.
I also think it's prudent to lower voting thresholds depending on the importance of quick decision-making vs how deliberate decisions should be. Some category of decisions probably benefit from unanimity requirements (perhaps something like declaring war or making changes to founding documents), while others will benefit from faster action granted by simple majority vote.
Turkey's "strategic position" is waning in importance as Russia proves unable to project naval power in the Black Sea, let alone the Atlantic.
Türkiye generally has a rational strategic goal when holding something up, Orban’s just being a shite!!! He’s in Putler’s pocket, so…
Turkey is another nation that has become more authoritarian and theistic in its leadership and should also have it's NATO membership put under review.
@@Operation_C4 You'll never be confused for a strategic thinker.
First, our strategic "thinkers" have China access to all the raw material they can ever need, and gave Russia access to the largest industrial resources (by forcing China-Russia into each other's arms) -BRILLIANT!
Next, you want them to remove Turkey's blockade of the Mediterranean? With strategists like that, Putin doesn't need foreign agents.
On a lighter note, love the picture of Mount Robson when you talked about Canada proposing the expulsion clause.
Not the following song that you may want to know that one for all we can have hung one week or so 8.30pm and we have been working with the same team since the last battle with a couple of general s who were keen to play the game ●?
Gone rogue?? Hungary is the one telling the truth as it is
Using other peoples lives and safety as a bargaining chip is the worst kind of evil one can enact.
As a Hungarian, I agree with you. What Orbán does is disgusting.
take a hard look at ukrain then come back --the worst kind of evil
So the Ukrainian genocide against Hungarians is "exaggerated" by Hungary? Interesting take, try applying that to 1942-45 next video.
@Warographics Simon, any chance to the a followup of sorts on Hungary relation NATO, HU just agreed to accept Sweden, but understanding the circumstances is not easy. why Grippen deal was so important? push by US? how Ulf Kristersson was basically summond to Budapaest. Was it just for Orbans amuzment? thanks
This is why the United States has been talking about leaving NATO. 30+ members of NATO and historically only 3 nations have met their financial obligations towards defense spending and when it comes to joint operations, it's a joke when you look at allied commitments. Belgium for instance spends about 50% of it's required spending and has a military force of about 24,000. That's not 24,000 combat troops, that's 20,000 support troops like cooks, clerks, supply, field officers, and 4,000 boots to hit the ground. Then you go to UK or France who's military is 3 or 4 times the size, and they also have all these positions inside their forces. Then you get to the United States who has minimized support troops and replaced them with civilian contractors.
When we see military operations like what's happening in the Red Sea, they talk about how 40+ nations have committed forces. It sounds like everyone is sharing the burden, but 35 of those nations have sent an admiral to go inspect the high end Washington DC prostitutes and rub shoulders with defense contractors. It's a joke. Then you look at the war in Ukraine and how much support has been sent by who? Out of all the support sent, the USA has sent about 50% of it. Germany sent about 20% which is pretty significant but it didn't even bring them up to meet their minimum obligation for NATO spending. Meanwhile everyone else is sending like 2 or 3% with the exception of UK who's sent about 5% which is admirable since they have met their NATO spending.
Now I'll be a dick about Ukraine for a moment. Since Ukraine was refounded as an independent nation, they've tried to appease Russia and play both sides of the fence. They don't really trade with the USA so in total, all trade with the USA adds up to about $50B which was mostly American cars being sent to Ukraine. That's not to say Ukraine purchased $50B in US cars, that's all trade in both directions. That's about the same as the US and Haiti but Haiti's GDP is 10% of Ukraine and the people there earn about 1 dollar for every 5 dollars a Ukrainian earns. So why is the USA helping Ukraine? They're not a NATO member, and they're not even our friend. They do nothing for the USA.
The benefit is stability. If the USA allowed Russia to just take Ukraine, then all of Europe would prioritize defense spending. It would cause instabilities in markets and the price of goods would go up. It would cause economic instability which would affect American interests abroad and that's the reason why the United States gave $50B in aid to Ukraine along with spot on military intelligence and training for their forces.
You're not wrong but isn't civilian contractors just support crews with extra steps? It's still your taxes being almost certainly misappropriated.
@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 Nah, they got that shit down to a science. KBR gets the contract to provide 500 kitchen personnel so they go to Uganda or Malaysia and get 500 people they can pay $500 a month while they're charging uncle sam $5500 for each person. Then they charge the 500 people room and board so they end up making $350, but the rooms and goods are paid for by Uncle Sam so that's just profit. KBR gets taxable money in the USA that goes in the books and they have a slush fund of overseas money that's completely untraceable. That 500 people only comes up to about 1M a year which is nothing, but so is the 500 people. They really have 45,000 and they rotate them out which they bill uncle sam for and they just send those people to another location they're running like dubai or wherever.
Doesn't matter though... It's still ridiculously cheaper than fielding a single US soldier overseas in a combat zone, and literally nobody gives a fuck if 100 Ugandan contractors get killed. That alone would save uncle sam $60M just in life insurance payouts. KBR stacks these people up 12 to a room that would house 2 or 4 US soldiers and they charge for 12 accommodations but go back a moment. Nobody gives a fuck about the Ugandan contractors, and if they complain, they get sent home. The entire way through, it's cheaper for Uncle Sam, more combat ready boots can get put on the ground, and life is good.
In the states, uncle sam pays the civilians prevailing wages. It's a nice deal, but when the unit deploys... It's time for a layoff. Ruthless capitalism at it's finest! God I love America.
8:27 I just want to say, that it wasn't current president of the Czech republic, Petr Pavel and the one, who was shown in the video, who visited China. It was our "beloved" drunk and former president Miloš Zeman.
As a Hungarian I can not really remember times when we had a good relationship with Ukraine. In Soviet times it was part of the Sovietunion. After that it was somewhat "wild east". So the main problem was that the oil and natural gas pipelines from Russia were running through Ukraine. In the late 2000s, 2010s that resulted in several problems. Year by year the Russians wanted to keep Ukraine aligned and they ensured this buy selling them cheap natural gas. However when Ukranian politicians wanted to loosen their alliance with Moscow and get closer to Europe, the Russians have immediatly risen the price. The Ukranians were not able to pay that and simply took the amount needed from the pipelines going to the west, primary Hungary. That led to several natural gas crisises in Hungary and the build up of huge gas storages to handle the "Ukranian risk". In the early 2000s Hungary wanted to build South Stream, a pipeline which later became Turkstream just to circumwent Ukraine.
Ukraine is a young nation state, they want a national hegemony in their territories, with Ukranian language and culture. Mainly the Russian minorities were an obstacle to that so they legislated the language law. The Hungarian minority was the collateral damage to that law.
Many Europeans consider this war "holy". A fight for democracy, soverenity, values of the west etc. People consider the situation less emotional in Hungary. Basically the war has come to a stalemate which could only be altered by a major western investment. However in the current situation - given that the Russian army has been severely beaten in the Ukraine and has not been able to win in two years, highlighting their weaknesses - it is foulish to believe that Putin would attack any other target. Attacking the Baltics would be the beginning of WW3, attacking Ukraine was an attack on an independent state without NATO commitment. That's a huge difference.
So this war will just drag on and on, because the West won't pour in enough many and arms to win. But this way it makes not too much sense to continue fighting. In this case I agree with Orbán.
Another accusation I heard from Hungarian friends when Russia invaded Crimea was that their Hungarian speaking Ukrainian-born friends were being forcibly conscripted and sent to the front as cannon fodder, while ethnic Ukrainians weren't even mobilised. I don't know how true that was, but such stories of ethnocentric attitudes or back-door ethnic cleansing from govt/military certainly feed into scepticism about unconditional support for Ukraine. Russia certainly should get out and pay reparations, but minority rights mustn't be trampled on.
Boot Hungary out of NATO and EU.
Simon one of your best videos yet mate, keep up the awesome work
Further what I wrote below I must emphasize that this video is entirely on non-NATO issues, like the status of Ukraine and Sweden. None of them are NATO members, right? And since NATO is a deffence alliance instead of concentrating on deffense, this video is concentrating on expansion and a military conflict outside of NATO area. So while Hungary seems to be the only sober member who understands this, she is blamed for everything unrelated to NATO (like not supporting delivering of wapons to a non-NATO member. What the heck has it to do with NATO membership?).
Exactly
You should make an episode about Turkey, who is by far the most rogue NATO member
Remember, Erdogan has more than once threatened war with Israel. Israel is not a NATO member. He could demand NATO support. Basically, Turkey was an important member during the Cold War but since then has done well playing both sides.
Yes!
As always, a fantastic analysis and delivery, sir. I salute you!