233 | Saagar and Marshall Debate Finland and Sweden in NATO, Elon Musk & Twitter, Ukraine, and More
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- This discussion/debate episode between Marshall and Saagar is a part of our expanded coverage thanks to our Supercast subscribers. If you can, please support the show below.
SUPERCAST: The Realignment's launched a Supercast subscription. Support the show at realignment.supercast.com
REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: therealignment...
BOOKSHOP: bookshop.org/s...
Email us at: realignmentpod@gmail.com
After Marshall and Saagar recorded yesterday's Breaking Points live show, they recorded the first official expanded Realignment discussion episode. They covered Elon Musk's attempt to purchase Twitter, whether Finland and Sweden should be let into NATO, what America's relationship to Europe should be, and the significance of the sinking of Russia's Baltic Sea flagship.
If you have thoughts on how we should run future discussion episodes, write in or respond to today's Substack.
This is one of, if not the, best episodes of Realignment that I've seen.
The set is beautiful, but that's not it
2 people, disagreeing, having a civil debate while trying to make a point and understand the other's point of view
Love to see it, epic and beautiful
Being against Swedish and Finnish NATO membership isn't a contrarian position. Remember, a majority of these countries have historically been against membership, and even during this crisis support is no higher than 60% in either country. So it's totally fine to be against it. I do however expect someone who bills himself as a geopolitical commentator to formulate a coherent argument for his position and I just don't hear that from Saagar. Contrary to Sweden, Norway actually shares a border with Russia. Norway is a founding NATO member and has still maintained a working relationship with Russia for decades. There are bilateral agreements between Norway and Russia that allow for locals near the border to travel across it as they see fit. Additionally Norway entered NATO on an agreement that "there would be no permanent peacetime bases on Norwegian territory, no nuclear warheads and no Allied military activity unless invited.". Sweden and Finland would likely join NATO on a similar agreement. So Saagar's argument about NATO soldiers patrolling Russian borders in the Nordic region would be unrealistic even if these countries join NATO. Furthermore, Sweden isn't even bordering Russia, so it 's a moot point. Very disappointed by the lack of knowledge underpinning most of Saagar's arguments here.
Actually, 60-65% is a very comfortable margin of support, especially when the remaining 35-40% are not against, but are mostly currently undecided. In the recent poll in Finland, only 17% of those who replied are against NATO.
@@VladKepes True. My point was that I don't have a problem with Saagar being against NATO expansion in the region. After all, there has generally been a solid consensus against applying for membership in these countries up until a couple of months ago. My problem is with Saagar's reasoning.
@@IageF Ok, got it !
I don't want to go to war for any of those nato countries. The idiot Trump was correct about developing a positive relationship with Russia. Marshall, doesn't know mearsheimer! He needs to be very quiet! Shame on him.
@@IageF good quality post. I learned something. Thank you for the effort 👌
What a goldmine of a show. Im completely with Marshall concerning Sweden and Finland.
So, you are eager to defeat either! Why?
@@liiv3354 Im guessing you ment to write "defend"
I was initially with Marshall on this one but I'm more leaning towards Saagar as he makes some great points regarding "what does the US really gain" and "if the circumstances of whether we do or don't go to Russia should on our own in terms. Growing NATO generally doesn't benefit us much with Sweden and Finland. It only seems to have potential bad consequences.
@@jefftee448 Nato countries are big clients for the mic, like it or not, they are a big industry in the us. It's a big prestige win fir the us with very little cost or risk added. This was Russia last big push west, and it's basically being neutralized by the US with just deliveries of ammo, weapons and intel. If Moskow had any illusions about what a conflict with nato would look like, they are all gone now. They have neither the manpower, materiel, economoic capability or public support to challenge any of the major western players.
When saagar says US GDP growth and trade relations are more important than helping countries like Sweden, Finland and Ukraine from foreign invasion... doesn't that kind thinking invite dictators like putin to just invade even more countries? There has to be a red line somewhere and the easiest way to have a clear red line is to let those countries join nato. Ukraine is already in a conflict so they won't be able to join but sweden and Finland should be accepted ASAP if they want to join. Same with any other country who feels threatened by Russia.
Nah. What invites a leader like Putin to invade a country is seeing people he respects and values being slaughtered by neo-Nazis on his border whilst accepting the military assistance of a malevolent behemoth hellbent on his demise. Hope that clears up your confusion.
In my mind, the main point for NATO membership for technically advanced democratic nations is nuclear non proliferation. If I was a citizen of Finland or Sweden and NATO wasn't an option, I'd want the government to start a nuclear weapons program.
Collective security is just that. If there was no NATO nor doubt Poland would have the bomb.
Thing is De Gaulle wante the bomb, NATO or not, since he figured the bomb was such a massive point of no return that the US would only use it if their own land was under threat/attacked. Apparently there was a meeting where Kennedy admitted as much, but then, De Gaulle figured it meant the US bomb wasn't guaranteed.
@@Kamfrenchie french are smart
@@snowi8650 yes that's obviously coming from violent places. But is Finland a ppl that thinks that way?
Apply these thoughts to your circle of loved ones and think it all the way through to the end. Then make sure your saying the right thing humanity wise
As with the NATO discussion, I'm with Marshall in that these authoritarians only respect strength, and that means building alliances. They see weakness, they take advantage of it. Simple as that. That IS deterrence.
"In a way, if you listen carefully to dictators, they very often say what they want to do. You just had to take it seriously."
- Mathias Döpfner
Collective security under Nato is crucial for smaller countries like Latvia and Lithuania. We need something like this in Asia. Korea, Japan, Australia and Taiwan.
@@JWPanimation agreed.
@@danzwku also, why is it that given the opportunity countries like Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine ran towards Europe and wanted nothing to do with Russia? It was this Russian hegemonic mindset. This is what is passed off as NATO expansion.
Love the show. Just came in to say that I would consider Sweden and Finland (Sweden to a greater extent) to be a part of western Europe. Both are established democracies since at least WWII and were never a part of the Soviet Union.
@Javid Rashid
Sweden doesn't border Russia. And wrstern european in this context doesn't refer to geographical position (which is northern european), but to peer group. Western European here means more how Sweden and Finland are more in line with western Europe, than other groups.
Greetings from Finland. (1) We don't need the nuclear umbrella, sell us jets and missiles, (EDIT:) please. These sales are easier if we are in NATO, and membership prevents Russian red-lining of weapons-shipments in a conflict. (2) In event of a ground War, it is more likely Russian Karelia falls to us than Eastern Finland to Russia. (3) NATO membership precludes the "Winter War" scenario, which is our worst possible strategic outcome, that is, having to fight Russia in an isolated conflict. (4) Saagar, just to you personally: You cannot restore Russian strategic space through American appeasement. Indian-Russian cooperation is not going to work if one side is acting dumb as fuck. Stop pushing it. Believe me, We would LOVE a world in which Russia is a reliable partner. Even more than the Indians. Active NATO presence in Eastern Europe is going to HELP Indo-Russian cooperation rather than detract from it. Please think it through.
Holy smokes thanks for the info! Helps make things cogent for me
Well said!
I do feel Saagar is a little naive when it comes to military strategy, and most of all Russia. I still respect him though.
Thanks for some Finnish perspective!
But then sales do not matter because if you get invaded its WW3.
Saagar is wrong on Sweden and Finland; he clearly does not know history. Sweden has far more western influence/history than Ukraine, Poland, or any of the Slavic countries. They were once a great power connected with the west and were never under Russian influence. Finland was under Swedish influence for almost 700 years vs 100 under Russian influence. If anything, they are western as it gets
That was not his point.
His point is that the US doesn't share a long history of close cultural ties with any of those countries, but we do with a few other western European nations, in particular with France and the UK
@@KawaiiKasai NATO was setup as security solution of Europe . Not because cultural ties to USA.
I totally understand being hesitant about Sweden and Finland joining NATO. However you're high if you think Putin is going to invade either country, especially in the next few months while he's engaged in Ukraine. Finland and Sweden have some of the best equipped militaries in Europe.
Very true. Finland and Sweden would actually beef up NATO's capabilities in the Baltic Sea region considerably. Both have highly capable militaries.
Seems to me Saagar is pushing American appeasement on Russia out of his feelings for India, and fear of a potential deterioration in Indo-Russian relations, if US remains actively engaged in Europe (a perfectly good reason in principle.. however). He hasn't thought it through. Europe, just like the India, would absolutely love it if Russia was a reliable strategic partner.. which they are not, and that is in fact a major problem for both of us.
Their Somali Refugees would make great Soldiers too. 🌈🤡🌍
@@patrickbateman783 lmao
@@k.o.hakala2112 I didn't even consider the Indian angle.
I do want to say even though we should lower the chance of nuclear conflict as much as possible, what Sageer is suggesting is just pure appeasement. If all we care about is just lower the chance of nuclear conflict as much as possible, then every country including US should just submit to Russian rules, that will sure lower nuclear conflict potential with Russian to near zero.
If you're walking down a street at night and you happen upon a psycho with an absolute stranger held at gunpoint and the psycho said "I will either kill them rn in front of you, or I will let them go safely free and kill you instead." What would you choose?
We absolutely should not appease but if we can turn the tide, we should not humiliate Russia but offer some kind of off ramp. There should be way to end this before Putin rage quits which I think Saagar is afraid of.
Question for Saagar at around the 43 minute mark on the provision of the US nuke umbrella to unimportant countries:
I personally agree with your position. However, especially after this invasion, don't you think that a more selective NATO/defense alliance posture would result in a renewed interest in excluded countries to initiate and pursue their own nuclear programs? If they can't count on the Western alliance, they'll have to guarantee their safety themselves. A new, global nuclear arms race is not the US interest. So if Sweden, Georgia, South Korea, Japan, Serbia, Australia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia started nuclear programs, what should the US response be? Would the world, and by extension, the US be more safe than with the current US umbrella system?
Don't forget Aukus alliance. Australia will get nuclear (powered) submarine tech from the US and UK, and I doubt either would be opposed to a nuclear armed Australia. I expect most opposition to something like that would be domestic, but even then I think it would tip somewhat in favor.
Yes, and as for Sweden we already had a nuclear program shortly after WWII but we ultimately decided to not get the bombs. But if we are not allowed into NATO now then it might be high time to revive the program.
We are a Saxon country too Sagar!!! Maybe its my mid-western Scandinavian/German roots showing.
I thoroughly enjoyed the show, however, I vehemently disagreed with sagaar. There were a couple of significant points that I felt both participants failed to address. One point, perhaps the most important, is that if Sweden or Finland do not join NATO, the only other alternative that ensures their protection from Russia is a nuclear weapons program. Sweden secretly pursued one beginning in the 1950s and was incredibly close to fulfilling nuclear program with the help of the US. However, the political climate changed dramatically by 1970s and it was scrapped. Is that the alternative sagaar wants, several European countries with nuclear capabilities of their own, beholden to no one or any alliance? I'm not a foreign policy expert but that alternative reality can not be preferable to Sweden and Finland being under the NATO umbrella.
Finland & Sweden are absolutely NOT in Russian sphere of influence and historicaly had never been.
Stalin was trying to conquer Finland that one time (officially just Karelia), because he though he could get away with it. One of many things he had in common with Putin.
Appeasing 19th century style conquering empires - which is what Putin's Russia is - is the worst idea ever.
You understand that Finland was part of the Russian empire for 100 years, right?
@@tomhickey711 yep and before that it was under Sweden, but even then Finland are had its own language and local government. So, what’s your point?
Love the format here. Same with the breaking points live stream. Wether I agree with them or not on each point this is great healthy debate and discussions that should be encouraged.
Awesome job Marshall! With you 100%
Saagar is extra spicy today! Also, love when Marshall gets excited when he’s about to frame something in a way that he knows the listeners will love. (BTW does Marshall ever lose his cool?) More debates like this this please 🙏🏻
The more Saagar speaks the less I think he knows what he's talking about. The more I listen to Marshall, the more respect I have for him. Article 5 means Poland does not have to worry about German aggression and knows that a Russian invasion will be met by the full force of the alliance. Article 5 meas that Poland does not have to develop her own nuclear deterrent and can rely on the deterrent of England, France and the US. Article 5 means less nuclear weapons in Europe and more security, therefore on balance, less of a chance of a nuclear exchange.
Saagar' s claim that there is a 15-20% chance Russia will invade Sweden is completely Ludicrous. This on top of claims that hypersonic missiles travel faster than ICBMs leads me to believe Saagar has a poor understanding of military capabilities. Saagar please do your homework before you embarrass yourself further.
I would love for The Realignment to have Peter Zeihan on. He's a wonderful speaker and can put together economics and foreign policy in ways that cut through all the nonsense.
Zeihan is quite an interesting cat, I only came across him recently on the Geopop channel. I'm not entirely sure what I think of his analysis, but its a different and interesting perspective, and its good to have more of those
I think another interesting guest might be Vlad Vexler, he comes at it from a more psychological or even philosophical standpoint, but has a lot of interesting insight into both Russia and Putin. Again, like Zeihan, its a perspective slightly outside what you normally come across, but from an unrelated realm. I think these kinds of voices are good as it provides different food for thought, that don't necessarily sit in the obvious pro/anti schools as exhibited here by Saagar and Marshall
Even if it’s only 2% per year, it means we can expect nuclear armageddon in 50 years. Humans do have a nihilistic component to their psychology. Putin is not 100% rational, and could be replaced by someone even less rational. If Russia is economically isolated and humiliated, the temptation to press the nuclear button, completely destroy both sides, and start from a level playing field will be there. It could even start from a misunderstanding, and we’re risking the simultaneous destruction of every American city.
Amen. I've lost a lot of respect for saagar.
@@Darknight157 not only saagar. But Kyle and Krystal.
@@thatindiandude4602 atleast Krystal sticks to domestic issues.
I am absolutely loving this free talking discussion, curses and all. Helps me feel where the emphasis is 😂
Socks are 100% on point, as is the quality content ❤
Saager has a lack of geopolitical knowledge. He should read up on the geography of Ukraine and the baltics in the context of a front between NATO and Russia+Belarus. Thank god the baltics are part of NATO, they are a geographical spear towards Russia.
Man, I might be one of the few people who got really annoyed with this episode. Saagar came across as very emotional and somewhat arrogant which is ironic considering the fact that he criticized people with the opposite viewpoint for being too emotional. Additionally his arguments were a bit contradictory. How is it that countries like Sweden or Finland can't be in NATO because "something something vital U.S. interests," but the only argument he has for why Britain and France are different is this abstract notion that without them we wouldn't have existed? So why is Paris worth dying for but Stockholm isn't?
Not to mention the inevitablism of his argument, there's nothing written in the stars that history is bound to repeat. For instance, Russia is paranoid in its foreign policy because of hundreds of years of invasions from the west. But realistically, is anyone going to invade Russia for the rest of time? Hell no. So there's nothing guaranteeing that the 70 years of relative peace in Europe is an interregnum between two thousand year periods of war. Historical conditions change, sometimes things happen for hundreds of years and then never, ever again. So basing your entire argument on "well there's this whole history between Russia and Finland + Sweden which is bound to happen again" seems like flimsy logic.
As someone who usually agrees with Saagar on foreign policy this didn't seem like his best showing. Really felt like either emotion was clouding his judgment or it was an argument in search of premises.
This episode was too short - Going to need a Part 2.
Saagar failing to understand that bullies thrive on cowardice, and back down when confronted with strength and unity is .. sad. He seems so young and naive of the world, or at least of Russia. Speak to Konstantin Kisin of Triggernometry Saagar, he will teach you how to deal with Russians, being a Russian himself.
I agree with that but the question is whether the US would take a 1-5% risk of 50M dead US citizens to stand up for Eastern Europe or Finland. I think if you polled people most would say no…but I could be wrong. So, I don’t think he’s naive, he just doesn’t think EE or Finland is worth the risk. If anything that’s cynical, not naive.
Well, I still think it is naive, because doing that sort of "cynical" calculation means that you then also don't defend Poland. Then Germany. Taiwan against the Chinese, Vietnam. Malaysia. Pretty soon the world is not worth living in as an American, since no one will want to ally with you.
We are not in a school yard and this is not a game.
Making asinine comparisons to grade school bullies is not helpful. 4th graders can't kill 100's of millions of people in a single day at the push of a button
@@tomhickey711 Big difference between Finland and Sweden and most of Eastern Europe though. Both Finland and Sweden are among the most modern and best equipped militaries in Europe
This is like if the bulls had two Micheal Jordans!
I respect Saagar's views on a lot of things, but I dislike his take on this. I think the metrics for the worthiness of nations of receiving US protection should be loftier than transactional or historic. It is disgusting that Saudi Arabia is somehow worthy of protection but the exemplars of democracy and freedom that are Sweden and Finland (first state to have full franchise democracy in Europe) aren't.
The best time to include them in NATO is now, while the Russian army is tied down and can't establish a foothold with conventional forces that becomes an extra powder-keg later on down the track.
The MAD doctrine applies to Russia as much as it does to the West. It seems to me that Putin is a self-interested pragmatist more than a suicidal revanchist idealist. I think his perception of the instability of his own position is the real danger. While adding countries to NATO could make him look weaker, it also does remove his options for opening further conflicts and paradoxically might move his finger further away from the button since he can use it to ramp up the "us vs them" rhetoric that he relies on to stay in power.
I think Saagar rightly saw the issues with the Iraq war in his formative years and wrongly has used it as a lens through which to see every act of US foreign policy ever since, erring on the side of radical non-interventionism, even to the point of looking for reasons to oppose defensive pacts with willing stable democratic countries.
He also sounded very emotional in his augment, basing it off of US potential involvement. The point about Sweden and Finland being EU states is extremely important and relevant. While there isn’t a clause that states an attack on one is an attack on all, there will 100% be a response from Germany and France.
And while them joining now might increase the chance of escalated conflict with Russia a tiny bit right now, it significantly reduces the risk in the long term. NATO is a defensive alliance and is a stabilizing factor on balance.
Also Saagar acts as if the US is the only member. The other European countries have shown they prefer peace over war and i think would welcome Swedish and Finnish inclusion in the NATO because it will reduce the chance of another conflict in Europe. The bigger the power blocks the bigger the threshold before engaging in war.
Why does the US have to be responsible for anyone’s security beyond US citizens? Europe has a bigger economy than the U.S. . Why can’t they solve it?
@@alexjones1017 That’s the perfect solution i.e. let the European’s deal with it. The US has zero defense treaties with the EU which includes neutral states like Ireland and Austria and even some like Hungary who would veto any attempt to get the EU to intervene.
I agree with Marshall, Sweden for one is culturally European. Also, I think we are stronger together and as Marshall said, Putin has yet to invade a NATO country. To me, Putin's actions say that any non-NATO country is up for grabs. If he did invade Sweden I know that it would end up bringing in all of Europe. Also, those countries are surely in danger due to their natural resources, resources that will be needed for the west. If Russia is to remain authoritarian, I am not comfortable with letting them have more land in Europe. If the US and the west is to keep their status in anyway it is important that we remain united against authoritarian regimes. As many problems as we have here, we see that it could always be worse when looking toward Russia and China. If that is their way then fine, but it is important that those who identify with the western democracies are under the umbrella of our power. I don't think the US will remain the super power within the west for long, it will probably be the turn of an EU power to take that mantel (we can't afford it). We should act as one as we transition from US military domination to EU military domination.
Europe will certainly strengthen itself. But become a super power surpassing the US? Seriously doubt that lol. Especially not within like the next 30 years.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 No not within the next 30 for sure. But I think it would be wise for the US to transition gracefully away from the role of world police. History shows that that level of military supremacy can't be sustained for long. Once the printing of money begins, things start to go downhill. I would prefer the next military power be one of our close allies. It would be nice if we had a plan for that transition.
@@threeofeight197 I don't necessarily disagree. I'm over the world policing. However the issue is of course making the transition with as little bloodshed or chaos as possible. The issue is also of course hoping that the next country to take that postion at least isn't any worse at it. The idea that Europe would take that postion is not at all evident to me at this point. It's not just about being able to afford the role, but having the general will to actually do it. No matter what it's a messy thing to do and will often be unpopular. I think there's pretty low support for the US to do it among the US population right now. I personally think support for Europeans to take that role among the population would be even lower. Alot of Europeans question military funding at all for Christ sake.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 After Putin attacked Ukraine, Germany became much more amenable to building its own military and contributing more to NATO. It will be a slow process, probably not within our lifetime, but I'm hoping Europe will make those sacrifices. Being world police requires a big sacrifice from the people. People in the US are really seeing that now, but to stop this military machine might be harder than it seems (and it seems really hard!).
First of all, Saagar's ignorance about Northern Europe makes him ineligible to comment on this matter. He thinks Sweden is in the "Russian sphere of influence" when if anything, Russia at certain points in history was in the "Swedish sphere of influence" (e.g. Varangian Rus, Swedish empire). Russian troops have never even stepped foot on the territory of Sweden unless you count Finland when it was part of Sweden .
Secondly, I don't understand why Saagar is suddenly so careful about the throwing around the word genocide given that he regularly accuses China of committing genocide. It's also weird how if extending the nuclear umbrella to Finland and Sweden (which together has a higher GDP than Taiwan) is so unacceptable, he's still willing to risk nuclear war over Taiwan.
They certainly have. During the Great Northern War Russia advanced down the Swedish coast and almost got to Stockholm. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Pillage_of_1719%E2%80%9321
On the Genocide thing, China and Taiwan aren't currently at war with us actively arming and supporting Taiwan.
Because Russia is not a threat to US hegemony, but China definitely is.
Good spirited debate
Does anyone know why saagar hates Finnish food so much?
Because it’s shit
Good talk on a Friday morning. Keep it up guys 💪
Russia is in no place currently to threaten either Finland or Sweden militarily except for nukes. 75% of Russia's operational forces, and 90% of their supply equipment are involved in Ukraine. Of the five brigades Russia normally has on the Finnish border, only one of them are home in their base, while the remaining four are fighting and dying in Ukraine. Sweden does not share a land border with Russia, but Russia's Naval Infantry (Marines) and amphibious assault vessels are almost all in the Black Sea.
Russia's inaction in the air in Ukraine has proven that Russia is incapable of launching large coordinated aerial attacks. Meanwhile both Finland's and Sweden's Air Forces are well-trained and equipped.
This is actually the most safe time for both Sweden and Finland joining NATO. In 3-5 years time the situation might be much more dangerous, depending on how the War in Ukraine plays out.
And neither country is an existential threat for Russia. It will not start launching nukes because of Finnish and Swedish NATO membership. That would essentially mean that all bets are off, and the West would have no inhibitions of escalating the War in Ukraine anymore.
Well said but Finland might be a harder pill for Russia to swallow.
@@JWPanimation Russia has known for 20+ years that Finland is a lost cause for them. EU-member, strong cooperation with NATO, being on the frontline of imposing sanctions on Russia etc. Better for them to focus on other countries.
Fuckin passionate episode. I loved listening to you both.
Sweden AND Finland are both EU members.
Which is not NATO. Ireland is in the EU and militarily neutral.
@@tomhickey711 if the EU decides to go to war, do you really think the US can avoid it?
This was great. Love the debate. This type of content will keep me coming back.
Sigh, Saager is making exactly the same argument he was making about Ukraine six weeks ago, and you see how that worked out. Inconsequential?
This is not US question really. It is Europe question. NATO is defence structure of Europe. Sweden and Finland are in European union. If they are not allowed to join, NATO will look weak especially how poorly Germany has handled Ukraine war.
What is that shot of Saagar having the most dismissive look ever at 21:06 hahahaha
I'm on board for this
This is a great format love the debate
I totally understand where Saagar is coming from. The only issue I have is with drawing lines between people we'd go to war for or not. That's one way you get in-and out- group fighting which at its extreme is partaking in or allowing genocide. A world without war, to the extent possible, means one where either everyone is not willing to go to war to protect anyone else OR everyone is willing to go to war to protect anyone else. You can say you obviously want the former, but the latter might be more realistic near term. Anywhere in between gets you an evergreen cycle of hatred and suffering.
So America should play Superman to the world, for free ?
Sounds great and all. But it's important to get down to brass tacks and know what's what when push comes to shove. You can be justified into almost any conflict and many of us have grown tired of the foreign misadventures.
I am with Saagar on NATO. Expanding it further would be a mistake. We should be leaving it. The endless feuds of what our founders called "the blood soaked continent" our none of our concern. If the U.S. had walked out of NATO when the USSR collapsed and the Red army left eastern Europe we would not be here now. The EU and Russia would have come to a security arrangement they could all live with. Most likely Russia would in fact have been brought into the EU.
The big mistake Saagar does here is to think that Sweden and Finland is eastern European countries. Geographically they are northern European countries just like Norway which is a founding NATO member. But culturally they are part of the western world and has been for quite a long time. And they have also been very close to NATO since the end of the cold war, and at least Finland sent troops to Afghanistan (possibly also Sweden). Which is also interesting to note when he is taking about US not wanting to support them, after all Afghanistan was US wanting support from it's allies.
Some of Saagars arguments actually does apply to Ukraine, and possibly some other eastern European countries which has much closer cultural and historical ties to Russia and less to the western world, but it is hard to argue that Sweden is more eastern European than Germany, probably less. So realistically any attack on Finland or Sweden today would be an attack on EU and western Europe, which realistically is an attack on London and Paris as well which is the ones he seems to want to protect. And since the US hardly has an interest in a full scale war, probably nuclear, as Russia would lose a conventional war in western Europe. It would mean the US would be involved anyway and using the deterrent of NATO then makes more sense to avoid this.
In many ways Sweden and Finland would have made sense as NATO members since 1994 or so, but part of the reason they are not is a healthy skepticism about being dragged into things like the monstrosities in Iraq. So use NATO as it should be as a defence for like minded countries and we are fine, use it for US superpower military adventures and we are all regretting it.
There used to be a band called Pink Floyd…they had a song called …Hey You..off the 1970s album…The Wall…the song and the last line of it holds true then and now and it says…Together we stand…Divided we Fall
In other words we should always strive to do the right thing…Together❤️🌎✌🏼
I've been enjoying the Ukraine episodes. Actually like the ones with just Marshall and the guest the most though
Excellent debate. I agreed w/ Marshall at the beginning but I think Saagar makes valid points. I think we might already be entangled and don't know it.
We should invite Russia to join NATO, problem solved.
Peace!
\o/
Lol
Genius!!
So no one's heard of G8? Partnership for Peace?
No, the European Union is suicidal. 🌈🤡🌍
@@mr2981
There's more than 7 countries in NATO 🤷♀️
If nothing else, I'm glad these debates are happening, so we can think through these issues.
MAJOR props for being willing to limit the content that is paywalled!!! That’s incredible, sincerely one of the broke kids you mentioned
"I don't care enough." Love it.
Nice shoes guys!
The realignment has realigned
It's hard to listen to Saagar
So happy to hear you talk about Myanmar! Would like to hear more from Saagar about his experience there. It's a beautiful country with amazing people
I see Saagar's side as being highly steeped in the actual building of International Law so that it means something and that there is zero strategic ambiguity.
That was great.
The European Union has a mutual defense clause in their treaty. Specifically, it states that if a member state is faced with any armed aggression or is the victim of a terrorist attack, then other member states have an obligation to aid and assist according to UN charter guidelines. As Finland is a member state of the European Union, it would seem they are already fairly well protected against Russian incursion by Europe without getting Americans involved by incorporating them into NATO. To me that is a pretty nice middle ground between the two arguments Marshall and Saagar are making.
Thanks for responding with your own version.
The real quibble I have with this point is that any war that got that big would already bring the U.S. into it. There’s no way around it since the rest of the EU is full of NATO countries.
Plus, the EU isn’t really a serious defense alliance in any way, so it doesn’t provide the protection/security that NATO does
Excellent discussion
Fantastic discussion guys. I tend to align with Saagar a lot of the time, but I love how Marshall is a great foil to make me question my initial position.
What are the best books that help to leanr more about NATo and beyond that, to learn more about what Saager said about the connections between the USA and UK/France
BTW United States have given security guarantees from cold war era already. US has pledged to defend Sweden.
@@Valokaari yes. USA however reaffirmed guarantees to Sweden while they apply.
Important video
We need the links to where to buy the 🧦 👍
If we posit that our key interests are in Asia, and that we are particularly dependent on a free Taiwan (for semiconductors, etc), how does Ukraine inform that. Is it time to dispense with the one China policy, and should we, in consultation with Taipei, consider being first actor - i.e. put US assets on the ground there. If Saager thinks that an opposing party having nukes means youdont risk direct confrontation, then taking the initiative in Taiwan seems like the quick way to guarantee peace. Hi Xi, we're here and we have nukes. Checkmate. Hmm?
Interesting
Marshall, you seem to be pretty soft spoken so if you're in media you must understand that having your mic a foot away and you're talking away from the pickup affects the audio level? Maybe a lav for your setup?
I wonder if Krystal and Kyle will ever debate anything. 🤣
Nah, he'll just follow Krystal's lead
Both had very good points. I would tend towards being conservative and tabling the NATO submission for now. Perhaps if/when Russian de-escalates the invasion I think that would be the moment to accept Sweden and Finland into NATO
I can't believe how much Saagar has unleashed the fuck words hahahaha
Who the fuck is Montenegro
Let Finland and Sweden join NATO, and let America quit NATO. Let NATO be a wholly European organization to deal with European problems, just not funded and backed up by America. We should be done with being the world's policeman, especially since we're broke.
Speaking as an engineer, Saagar is right about Elon Musk. Engineers generally like him (myself included), and any engineer knows that SpaceX and Tesla are highly competitive and very difficult to get jobs with.
Yep
Definitely one of the best 👌
"Peace in Europe" is a nice thing to have, but why is there the assumption that this should be the burden of the U.S. to forever carry? Shouldn't Europe itself start focusing on taking care of its own security? Keep in mind, the U.S. did not intervene in either the first or second world war the moment those conflicts broke out. It wasn't until it became clear in both cases that Germany had the potential to become the hegemon of Europe by wiping out Russia (WWI) and France (WW2) . The threat of a German-controlled Europe with the potential to roam into the Western Hemisphere (our "backyard"), NOT "preserving the peace in Europe," is what guided decision-making and it maintains relevance for today in how we approach Russia.
Look, if you went to go bugee jumping, and you found out the operator lost 1 out of every 20 clients, would you stick with that operator or maybe go try to find someone who doesn't get so many people killed? How many jumpers deaths under that operator would be an acceptable risk to you? Perhaps the operator who only loses 1 out of 100? Or perhaps the one who has never gotten anyone killed?
I think it's strange that we clearly understand a 5%, or even 1%, death rate for bungee cord jumping is an unacceptable risk, but we quibble about whether or not it's acceptable for Nuclear war. The tangible vs the abstract
so what's up with the sock selection ?? is it a political or social statement ??
I'm with Saagar
I disagree with Saagar. Sweden has never been considered to be under the Russian sphere of influence. And as a swede im glad that most americans seem to disagree with his take on swedish and finnish membership to nato. Especially since Sweden and Finlands armies already are very technologically competent and conpatible with nato. If we werent allowed to join, i think Sweden and Finland would have to develop our own nukes which we cloud do quite quckily since both are countries are very nuclearly competent.
Ukraine has serious reserves of raw materials for batteries. Russia is a petro state with cultural claims to Ukraine. That’s why it happened strategically.
"War is not a petri dish to examine and analyze our emotions." Engel
Marshall is all right and Saagar is all wrong
Haha Facebook doesn't make 500 billion a year but ok I know he is just trying to make a point.
I love this format, respectful disagreement and debate. Marshall, all your interviews with people on the war really show in your well-reasoned arguments, though maybe I think that just because I agree with you on most of your points. Saagar, still love your focus, energy and damn the torpedoes fearlessness when it comes to challenging establishment assumptions, but when it comes to NATO you've got the wrong idea.
The right metaphor for this war is not deeply misguided and foolish "war on terrorism" but the run-up to WWII and the tragic mistakes of appeasement. If the Baltics and Poland were not part of NATO they would have already been either invaded, internally disrupted or politicaly assimilated/controlled as Belorussia and Georgia are currently. Certainly that would be an epic disaster for not just European but world stability and peace and would only be the harbinger of far worse things to come.
The lesson of WWII is that if you give tyrants an inch, they will take a mile, and that lesson is as relevant today as it ever was.
What they should have done is invite Russia into NATO on an expedited basis 20 years ago.
Sweden and Finland are both currently armed to the teeth, with high tech weaponry. Sweden is one of the largest exporters of weapons in the world, per capita.
When the Soviet Union was at its peak, Sweden and Finland wanted to remain neutral, and never considered NATO.
Now with an obviously weak and disjointed Russia, they feel more threatened? Makes sense….
Marshall’s point continues to be that we get pulled in every time regardless so why not be proactive instead of reactive.
Lol.. a coup in Sweden is much less likely than a coup in the US as you almost had very recently.
Lol, much respect for Saggar! Especially cause he's not afraid to admit when he is wrong. I have to say, though that Marshall was the "Man" on this one (my opinion).
Much respect to these young gentlemen!
are you guys selling sox ?
I suggest adding dope socks to the merch asap
*Mirror Universe Biden*
I'm going to have nightmares now!
Thanks a lot Marshall! 😀
Where has Saagar not been? lol. Honest question.
What the right reason to go to war
Saager says the economies of eastern Europe are too small to care about, but note how much aid we have committed to Ukraine defense in just the last month and a half, nevermind the knock on global economic consequences. When someone gets invaded, it ends up being expensive for us regardless, so I don't think the economic argument one way or another is that clear. Maybe security guarantees are cheaper on balance.
The economic argument is extremely clear when you realize the future of the global economy is in Asia. Europe has been freeloading off of US security guarantees for over a generation. We need to pivot to Asia.
Saagar and Marshall-would love to hear more content on bitcoin role in future geopolitical environment
The problem with saagars point to nato enlargement is , that the us wanted the nato enlargement and France and Germany were against enlargement, so Europe is more supportive of your opinion and this point could have helped you.
Love this episode, love the format! I just gotta say though I’m one hundred percent behind Saagar on this one. Most people really don’t understand how close we could be tiptoeing into a nuclear exchange here. We gotta at some point let europe deal with its own problems.
Sadly I think the insentive for smaller countries is to get nukes. After what America did to Saddam and Gaddafi, Iran and North Korea would be crazy to not develop nukes.
Same goes for countries threatened by Russia and China. Ukraine dismantling their arsenal after promises of protection from the US, Britain and Russia backfired big time.
More states with nukes might be the future we are heading towards...
Excellent, important conversation!
Maybe "peace" is more complicated than treaties. Maybe it's constant work. But this conversation between Saagar and Marshall 100% needs to happen with world powers and their leadership. And it's absolutely vital to bring Russia directly into that conversation.
Maybe it's time for the U.S., France, Germany, UK to sit down with Russia and honestly engage, something like,
Western Powers: "so Russia we know we've screwed you over in the past, probably a lot, and that we have hypocritical standards when it comes to other sovereignties, BUT what can we do to alleviate your super big, but valid grievances, WITHOUT sacrificing sovereign nation states that clearly want nothing to do with you?"
Russia: "That's (taking of sovereign states) all we want. And for you to stay out of our business. And for you to treat us like adults."
WP: "Would scrapping NATO help?"
Russia: "Um. Duh. But we cannot guarantee we won't be aggressive to other nation states."
WP: "Well then, that's the line. Your move?"
(Hypothetical idea of conversation)
That at least gets us to th next step, assuming Russia genuinely engages, of reopening all trade everywhere with everyone. I would also scrap sanctions too. Especially if we're finding they don't do much to help us (WP= us). Trade alliances that help build reliance on other countries only helps to stabilize the whole system. (Otherwise it's another failure on behalf the the globalization Stans). Trade reliance feels much more stable to me than war clubs like NATO. But yeah, scrapping NATO would be really scary for a lot of people. Even for this flaming heart liberal. So any ideas of becoming less fearful?
Love your work guys. Thank you so much
Saagar - I've enjoyed your insights into the history behind the First World War, but your insistence that we should be pulled into a war only when it trips a line in the sand that we have yet to debate misses the mechanism that has allowed NATO to keep the peace for so long. The reason why Europe was at war for so long until WWII, was the precise locations of such lines were not well defined by either side & an aggressor could easily misjudge what might or might not trigger allies to come to an adversary's aid, while the NATO garrantee of borders was an absolute that leaves no no ambiguity. It's drastic, but the fact that it has worked for so long creates empirical data points that seem hard to argue against.
Sagaar is correct.