IS NATO FORCING COUNTRIES TO JOIN IT? | DEBATE
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 ноя 2024
- 🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ Main Channel - / @vaush
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#Vaush #VaushPit
3 hours summarized: no, countries democratically vote and then become a part
Comparative analysis:
This kid's logic is like calling climate activism coercion because you personally benefit from not boiling.
@@TidePodsRFood The gigachad utilitarian answer: "Even if it is, it still results in good outcomes, so I don't give a shit."
My country never voted for it. People chose the government which did it, but thank God. People are idiots. A referendum right now might actually take us out of NATO.
But they only join because the bad dictator is forcing them to!
See?
They ARE forced, *_So Nato Bad_* !
Not necessarily, referendums are not required.
Are countries being pressured into joining NATO? Yes, by Russia.
I live in Finland, the approval for Finland joining NATO has been around 20-25% for the last 25 years. Until the start of this year, now it's around 55-60%.
This. A lot of people saw NATO as the appendix of European diplomacy, a vestigial organ that no longer had a useful purpose, before the invasion of Crimea by Russia. This idea has been proven wrong by Russian aggression.
@@alexr2172 Oh, a large part, definitely.
My brother in christ the US literally backed a coup in Ukraine in 2014 to install a pro western government. That isn't pressure from the US? NATO invaded Yugoslavia, divided up the region into territories not recognized by international law, and put EU puppet regimes in charge when they didn't submit to western hegemony. I'd say that counts as pressure no?
Finland shouldn't join NATO because according to the Caller: "BBBBBBuuuuut FFFFFFFFFFF........uuuuuuhhhh Mmmmmontenegro!"
@bo rick What this is reference for, what do you mean by coming back??
this guy sounds how I probably would in a debate; panicked, stuttering, on the verge of tears the whole time
Shitting, farting
@@ilovemymommysponies coooooooming
and yet still bringing up points (turkey being emboldnend to increase aggression in middle east) that vaush needs to deflect away from (uhh well turkey wouldn't even need nato to fuck over the kurds right? answer my question!!)
I'd just pee and poop everywhere
It wouldn't have been so bad if he just had an argument beyond "some nations felt they had to join NATO."
And then replying with "Sure nobody forced them, but they felt forced."
Like OK buddy, Montenegro felt that they would have an easier way into the EU if they were members of NATO first. That sounds like a you problem
"For EU membership NATO membership is required" - No, it isn't....
Stop letting your facts get in the way of this guys feelings.
@@sypherthe297th2 What happened to the other 296? :(
@@MetalxLicaxPPFor almost 300 generations, ever since the first caveman kept putting their hand in the fire and being confused about why their hand kept getting burned, we have sarcastically pointed out the stupidity and ignorance by which some go through life hoping they might benefit from our wisdom. Mich like Cassandra, they never heed our warnings. This even occurs tangentially since the OP isn't the idiot in this case. It has sometimes meant meeting a bloody end but thankfully RUclips keeps me far removed from many such dangers. . . That just leaves the every day idiots I encounter in person and I live in TX where every toddler is armed so any day could be my last.
I'm even living in Finland (part of EU, but not Nato). We are still working on the nato membership though.
@@kapelski104 I hear NATO membership is significantly less controversial these days im Finland. Funny how unprovoked invasions of neighboring countries by the Russians can do that.
This guy doesn't get it. A lot of American Progressives don't get it. 27 European states/countries are in the EU. France & Greece for example shares the same Euro currency and economic system. If Russia invades Greece for example it would damage the French and wider European Union economy. It's not 1945. Catch up on European politics, I beg you all.
Both exremes in America don't get it or don't care.
Too busy eating hamburger, sorry
And that was the EUs original idea as well. If we are economically connected we can’t go into war with each other. Even this attack on Ukraine may result in few hungry years so of course it is the best interest of other European countries to try to stabilise the situation
@@nonniperkl6273the EU is a flawed institution, as they tend to be, but it has brought peace to a region of the world that has spent hundreds of years at war with each other.
@@martinjrgensen8234 depends what you mmean by flawed, absolutely every single thing ever created is flawed without exception depending on where you draw the line, and id argue the EU is nowhere near as flawed as most things considered well functioning
Russia has been literally invading the old Warsaw Pact nations building an empire likes it is the 1930's, and this guy is saying Poland has no reason to join NATO.
Which Warsaw Pact nations have they invaded? Ukraine and Georgia, but it’s kinda weird using “Warsaw Pact” instead of just “Soviet Union“ at that point
@@troublemaker1778 You are technically correct, the best kind of correct. Russian troops have been deployed all over the former Soviet Union, not just the Warsaw Pact alliance. But just in terms of the Warsaw Pact, you're forgetting Moldova and Belarus. Though they weren't really invaded so much as Russian battalions entered to prop up a failing dictatorship and protect Russian business interests. The Russians have done this type of military operation a lot in the former Soviet Union, and in fairness, sometimes with fairly positive results, such as stabilizing Tajikistan against Islamic Extremism. But my point still stands that living as a neighbor of Russia means living under the constant threat of Russian troops entering your nation and doing as they please.
@@gabriels2859 Totally agree with you on the fact that it can be scary to be a neighbor of Russia. But just a heads up, both Belarus and Moldova were also a part of the Soviet Union
It really doesn't matter what their reason is, if your goal is preventing war, NATO expansion guarantees the opposite.
@@troublemaker1778 They invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In Poland they already murdered all possible resistance in 1945. They committed atrocities in all central and eastern European countries for decades. That is why every country ran to the EU and NATO as fast as they could. The US is always the bad guy in leftist circles, but if you compare being in the US sphere of influence to the Russian sphere the choice is not a choice at all.
Do we not talk about how France left and then came back to demonstrate there’s not that much coercion to stay? Like obviously you want to maintain the alliance, but countries are free to ask to join and leave if they desire.
You gotta remember any example that cuts against their argument is, “A special case”. Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland continually rejecting NATO membership so they can be neutral gets swept to the side.
@@ColmanRetro Though Finland is now much more inclined to join the pact thanks to Russia. It's absolutely hilarious how the people bitching about NATO expansion have no idea that every wave of the pact's expansion has been triggered by Russian aggression.
Slight historical clarification: France left the NATO unified military command, not NATO entirely. So France was still under NATO protection and would still be obligated to answer Article 5, they just would have had a different military command structure that operated independently of the joint command.
France never actually left nato. If I remember correctly they limited their participation, but they were always formally a part of the alliance.
Saying they left like Vaush does is an oversimplification bordering on an outright lie.
Now I am pro NATO, but that doesn't mean we can't be honest.
Framce did leave the military structure of otan fully under charle de gaulle
And asked america to "fuck off" (like many communist party did before)
Specifically the nuclear missile and air force that was in france (22000 personnel)
I believe Eisenhower asked if america needed to also take the tomb of the fallen ww2 soldier too
That signed the end of france in some part of the command structure and nuclear plannification (france having launched their own nuclear weapon program againstt the will of america)
And france latter fully rejoined little by little but still refuse to join the commity of nuclear planning
I'm not a 100% pro-NATO but what I love about it is how much it reduces the chance of conflict in their region
it's literally the definition of Peace through Strength
LMFAO I can't tell if this is a parody comment or not because it sounds indistinguishable from some 1990's era neocon. But the entire reason we are having this war in eastern europe right now is because of Western countries expanding hegemony into Eastern Europe, where Russia wants to maintain it's hegemony. And no, this isn't always peacefully, ask Yugoslavia, pretty much the only country in the region that resisted western hegemony....
@@danielshepard1449 I invite you to read what they publish in outlets like RIA Novosti and come to the same conclusions. Russia is a Fascist state hellbent on expansionism at the expense of neighboring democracies and its own people.
@@danielshepard1449 so are we supposed to let Russia commit war crimes Ukraine?
You don't need to be 1% pro NATO to understand that this is a reality
@@danielshepard1449 also NATO expanding was not put down into writing. If Russia was competent then they should have gotten a treaty or contract explicitly stating the terms of agreement.
As someone from Lithuania I remember our referendum for joining Nato 18 years ago.
We didn't know at all what to expect from it, we weren't sure that joining Nato would ever mean protection from Russia, we fought alone a long guerilla war in the past against Russia for our independence so even joining Nato didn't supress our fears of being occupied again.
We decided to join by not a large margin. We did it because we wanted as a nation to progress, evolve, do better and we saw the west doing way much better than our experience was with Russia. In retrospect, now we understand that (at least for now) Nato saved us.
How do you feel about it there now, and has there been much of a change since February? My impression of Lithuania is that it has high approval for NATO and higher still for EU? In contrast to Bulgaria which I think support is much shakier on the EU front at least
@@jascu4251 February's events showed us that we are lucky to be in Nato, because if not, we would be experiencing what Ukraine is experiencing for sure (basically everyone in the country believes that). We are fine with being in EU as well. Honestly, after independence from Russia we just got more advanced and stronger financialy.
@@jascu4251 When we first got to EU and we changed into euro currency, our prices jumped high, so people weren't happy about that but later it got normal.
Short answer is no, Russia is forcing NATO expansion.
Russia spends 65$ Billion a year compared to just the USA that spends 850$ Billion a year.....Russia has six military bases outside of its borders......The USA has about 1200
@@robbiekop7 Ok, so?
@@robbiekop7 first the USA alone is not nato and the imperialism they do is almost entirely just done by them not nato, second usa has that many many bases gor a lot of reasons one of which is for s e c u r i t y in europe from r u s s i a, second russia has invaded georgia chechnya, ukraine and attacked many other countries who (you'll never guess this) are not strong enough to fend off russia alone so jus maybeeee, they can join nato so they maybe dont get attacked? If russia didnt constantly harass its neighbours we probably would have as many nato members. Hell we might not even have nato
@ Cass....So 😲....I see 👀 the "C" in your name is silent
I served in the UK Air Force from 1981 till 1987 and as I seem to recall NATO was formed to go up against the Warsaw Pact.....in fact im positive it was
OMG this concern trolling from guys like this is doing my head in...
I live in Poland. Here in Poland we loooove our US-sent guns and tanks and planes and soldiers. And you know what we love even more? Not being fucking invaded by Russia! Jeez.. this is SO stupid.
That's like the nature of an alliance. Everybody gets something. US gets the influence and keeps Russia in check. We don't get invaded. Everybody wins!
And you know the dirty little secret? NATO protects our democracies too. Last year our right-wing authoritarianesque government tried to shut down the largest independent news network. But because it's owned by US capital and - as per the alliance - there's an international agreement to protect US investments from arbitrary decisions like this, they had to back off. NATO by its awful awful coercive evil influence, protected Polish democracy.
But sure. NATO bad.
Honestly this is good case for giving at least one of your media into the posession of an outside investor from an allied country. You have guarantee you don't end up in the Orban/Putin media monopoly hellscape. Not all of them of course, but its something worth considering as an investment to keep at least some media variety even if the country goes authoritarian for a while.
@@Rysdan indeed. Or, you know, build some binding international protections for media markets
You have both pierogi and US guns, it's basically perfect.
Sorry for your politicians being cringe tho
The amount of waffling over a literal genocide in this debate is disgusting. I'm surprised you didn't go harder on this guy.... the moment he was like "Ya, war crimes justify industrialization of the Soviet Union" I would have gone harrrrddddd.
He was constantly stuttering and shaking as it was. He probably didn’t want to scare him off
The dude was already on the verge of tears as it was. Going hard would just be cruel.
@@keyboardstalker4784 Well, thats what genocide apologia* gets you. A harash condemnation in response.
The fact that this guy continued to ask "Well how can I state this viewpoint without sounding like an apologist?" demonstrates to me that the idea was entertained too long. That sort of speech should be met with the harshest of condemnation, followed by an explanation of why.
When you consider the reports coming from Bucha and eastern Ukraine about possible war crimes, I find it even more important to double down.
He didn't have to curse him out, but at least stating "No, I will not even entertain the idea that it was a necessary condition for industrialization, and it's disgusting that you would suggest so" would have been sufficient.
@@nunyabeeswax4588 The Soviet famine of 1932 was caused by drought and kulak sabotage.
@@spaghettimon3851 According to Stalin, ya?
I think a chunk of the argument could be summarized to “it’s bad cause the US is in it”. Or at least that’s how it feels like.
Yeah generally imperialism is bad, do you not think the largest military alliance in human history, lead by the largest and most destructive military in human history expanding is imperialism?
@@danielshepard1449 NATO is only beneficial for the member, new and old one. It debatable wether or not this is Imperialism or not.
@@danielshepard1449 I love how literally everyone is ignoring that the CSTO exists.
@@chriscortez2036 it's okay because America isn't in it /s
@@danielshepard1449 Lmao, as if the US is more destructive than the Axis powers were. As if NATO membership was somehow mandatory and being forced by the US (as opposed to a literal Russian invasion prompting desire to join).
Please just put the tankie hat on now.
I kinda feel bad for this guy. He was clearly quite nervous but goddamn did he not have any argument to make other than he feels he needs to hate NATO.
Hats off for putting himself out there into a clearly uncomfortable situation. Other than that, at 47 minutes in everything else has been trash.
edit: Scratch the hats off part, at 1½ hours, this guy is the most useful idiot ever or a cunning tankie with a speech impediment.
Indeed. I'm not gonna harp on this nervousness or whatever, that can happen to anyone so can't fault him to that. But i did not at all find a single argument he made convincing
I think he has a speech impediment.
NATO forces committed multiple war crimes in Yugoslavia and Libya but I guess we only hate war crimes when Russia does them?
It sounds like he's thinking faster than his mouth is getting the words out, he needs to slow it down a bit to get his thoughts out properly.
At first I was kinda sympathising with the caller. He had some valid concerns. Took him 75 minutes from being very concerned about the well being of Montenegro and shit to justifying death of 7 million people in Russia
*mostly in occupied Ukraine
When you're so brain poisoned by America bad, that you justify Russia starving million of Ukrainians to death.
As Americans we can't wait to get our hands on sweet sweet Montenegro. Seriously? If anything this is an awesome deal for the smaller countries. Basically guaranteed security and their best argument against it is "well maybe like sometimes they get better trade deals by being in NATO". Okay.
I refuse to support annexing a country who's name I feel uncomfortable saying.
@@Isosyth they must propose a new name which is pronouncable by the average midwesterner as part of their annexation application /s
@@Isosyth Yeah and the correct name for their ethnicity is Montenegrins. It's just too dangerous. I saw what the kids in elementary school did when they found Niger on the globe, can't have a repeat of that.
@@Isosyth go with the real name CrnaGora or Black Forest. Then they will be called Forresters.
Americans just don't understand that smaller countries have different priorities. As someone from a small country it is very easy to see why more cooperation is better than less cooperation.
Man that debate was a trip. I never thought a sudden violent swing into Serbian political history would be so exciting!
Being from post-soviet country and hearing this person say ''why would post-soviet countries join NATO, if their not on russian borders'' is so infuriating. This person obviously knows nothing about the uncertainty that people here feel, especially now with war in Ukraine.
Nah after listening to Hasan and Trapo Chap House I am glad he is giving us at least some agency.
@@filipmaly6603 Im not sure if I understand but Im critiquing the person speaking to Vaush not Vaush himself, I think Vaush did great.
@@jonasszanyi1344 And I am agreeing with you. The guest was just not the worst I have listen on the topic.
@@filipmaly6603 Oh ok I get it. Yeah Hasan keeps disappointing me more and more with his foreign policy takes.
Hey now, there’s all of Slovakia standing between the Czechs and the Bear, I am sure the might Slovak legions will slay it once finished with Ukraine.
This guy really should have rehearsed or written his thoughts down before he came on. Poor dude's completely lost
It wouldn't help when the point is based on pure fantasy.
I could maybe sit through this if he didn't have such an annoying voice and talk in such an annoying way
Doesn't matter against Vaush though. He would just paraphrase and ask if that's the case back at him and then all his carefully planned preparation would be ruined anyway
Its concerning to see people who claim to be on the left that deny that there was ethnic cleansing occurring against Albanians during the Kosovo War, or try to “both sides” it. Just because the west and the United States have been the main supporters of Kosovo and it’s claims for independence and later recognition, does not mean that is not justifiable. Tbh I feel the United States giving so much support to Kosovo has actually been a good foreign policy move, compared to many of the other things we’ve been engaged with.
I agree .I knew people who survived that war.
Does anyone actually deny the genocides that occurred in the balkans? Yeesh
@@jjdude5531 Unfortunately yes, there’s a whole Wikipedia article on it. To give an example Noam Chomsky has refused to refer to the Srebrenica Massacre as a genocide.
There was ethnic cleansing happening, on both sides, and NATO intervention made it much, much worse. Violence against Kosovo Albanians increased drastically after NATO started bombing. In fact NATO literally bombed Albanian refugee convoys, passenger trains, busses, water supplies and civilian infrastructure, which displaced thousands of people.
@@danielshepard1449 Hey look. Its the buffoon that had no argument about the casualties resulting from the use of nuclear weapons in Japan versus their magical solution where apparently noone got hurt or died. Now you're trying to both sides the Kosova situation. Somehow that doesn't surprise me if I'm being perfectly honest.
Remember kids if America does it its automatically bad completely absent the actual facts of the situation. Its double true when all of the outcomes are really bad but America opts for one with less overall suckage.
I'm still listening to the debate, but I think I see the caller's problem. His politics are centered around limiting the spheres of influence of both the US and the West, more broadly. The idea that countries would welcome US influence as a tradeoff for the benefits of being in Nato is breaking his brain.
Yeah I haven't finished listening to it but this feels like the crux of it. He isn't starting with a question to answer. He has an answer that he is trying to justify.
lefties can get caught up in this sometimes. the answer is that countries and their influence are complicated. the US isn't "good" or "bad;" sometimes it does good things and sometimes it does bad things.
That's basically his whole argument: NATO membership makes countries more like America, and that is bad because America bad.
Ding ding ding! Pick out your prize sir, bottom two shelves only. Jk but you hit the nail on the head, he's obviously a young guy who's spent the last who knows how long beating into every fiber of his being that the US is basically the alien from "the blob" just absorbing and destroying everything in its way. To suddenly hear one of your heros suddenly advocating for us hegimon, 💥 🧠...not only is vaush ok with this practice by the us but he's also advocating that other countries should purposely pursue the US, they should even do whatever they can to clean themselves up and almost try out. This kids gonna have a long night of staring at his bedroom ceiling
“America bad”
dude was speaking in three round burst fire lmao
No. Military autonomy is a very bad thing. Military connection and interdependence is a good thing. For the same reasons trade are.
But but but, if europe became isolated from the US, I'm sure prominant right wing politicians in the EU wouldn't totally start to drum up fears of the US military and hegemonic economic power and draw into a new era of political isolation and paranoia as two large world powers begin to use small developing nations as a sandbox to practice genocide in.
That definitely wouldn't happen, and pour tons of fuel onto nationalist drives within Europe.
Not to mention that nobody benefits more from NATO than small nations like Montenegro. Sure they aren't super worried about Russia.
And yes, Russia is the main reason for NATO. But Montenegro is a tiny nation, 4 guys and a machine-gun could invade the nation and create a military dictatorship. But being a NATO member helps prevent that. It helps prevent Russia, China or similar trying to manipulate their politics, at least to some extent.
It is a massive benefit. Not directly, and not for the core purpose of NATO, but they still benefit.
But then later on this gut goes on to defend Russia starving people out of spite just so that he can be anti NATO. He is such a shill. Real shame, because it could have been a good debate.
My brother in christ, this isn't "interdependence" it's the US turning peoples countries into military bases and vassal states. The US is 70% of NATO spending, they created NATO, there is no NATO without the US.
@@danielshepard1449 No, this is not what vassalisation looks like. Member states clearly have their own foreign policy.
Good fences make good neighbors.
The idea of NATO forcing someone to join is ridiculous. NATO states are sharing military secrets with each other. Why would you force anyone who is not dedicated to the idea to get access to that information?
There is economic coercion of non NATO countries. NATO is basically a protection racket. The counter is the CSTO for Russia. They are competing protection rackets.
It's not so much as forcing anyone to join, just submitting yourself to western hegemony. If you don't submit to western hegemony, like Yugoslavia, you get regime changed.
@@danielshepard1449 Excuse me what? NATO is a defensive alliance not dominated by US. Not anymore at least. Please cite source for your outlandish claim.
@@renlevy411 stay ignorant
@@danielshepard1449 you are literally the "I am american and I don't understand European politics" meme personified.. **NOOOOOOOOOOO AMERICACONTROLS EVERYTHING EUROPE HAS NO AGENCY**
When I listen to this guy speak, I can't help but visualize a fly running and stopping over and over when after landing in a table
my months of xqc viewing has trained me for this moment
@@lessmoneylessproblems5145 Genuinely, what does that mean?
xQc is a streamer that is known for talking very fast. To a point where sometimes, it's hard to understand what he's saying.
@@whippinsaw He's from Quebec, who speak exactly like that lol.
@@Canadian_Princess XQC is a quebecois streamer who talks fast as fuck, but his quebec accent makes him hard to understand.
Holy shit, how did Vaush talk to this guy for 3 hours?! I'm 25 min, and I already have a headache.
I think it was like the last third they go into Balkan history. I can’t remember how they got there, but it was a wild ride to say the least.
@@kaikaikai6959
The intricacies of Albanian tribal law is essential to understanding NATO.
@@luxborealis I am pretty sure the wikipedia page on Albanian independence is copy-pasted into the middle of the original NATO treaty. Pretty weird, but I am sure there is a reason for it.
“Why do countries not bordering Russia need to be a member of nato”
Because you need more than just those countries to form a military alliance, Dingus
The only thing when I look up "Montenegro loan nato" that comes up is that they took a billion dollar loan from China to build a a highway and are trying to get help from the EU to pay it off.
The baltic states would absolutely be under extreme threat from Russia without being inside Nato. What is this guy talking about? Does he know nothing of the history of Kaliningrad?
Funny (funny in big air quotes) to listen "westerners" take on (Eastern, Central, Northern) Europe history, geopolitics, politics or life in general... Is it so hard to read first paragraphs of Wikipedia articles? Not asking for proper research or self education.
I found that most tankies who’ve been discussing Russia and NATO know nothing about Russia’s geopolitical history in general.
@@alexr2172 America has precisely the same number of people who don't know what the EU is as EU states have people who don't know where the US is. We call these people idiots and only idiots define other states by them.
I would need some serious evidence before I believe NATO membership was required to join the EU. There is nothing as far as I’m aware in EU law that would make such a requirement legal.
Plenty of EU members are not part of NATO, Sweden and Finland for instance.
Ireland and Austria aren't in NATO. They are in the EU
@@teargass1849
I’m saying that I don’t think it ever has been a requirement under any circumstances. Not even in the specific case they where talking about. Because there are law regulating such agreements and it would not be legal to do so.
@@jascu4251
That is true but not relevant.
@@isakrynell8771 Sorry about that, for some reason I think my comments are going to the wrong post. I was wanting to point out that you can join the EU without joining NATO, as I think 4 countries have done, not sure
After all the horrific actions of the Russians we need some Nuremberg trial shit to hold these shills accountable
The ICC has been going at this for a while but all the Russo-boos will just call them biased.
100% but wouldn’t it amount to he said she said they said bs ? Since maybe I’m completely naive here but we can’t objectively prove which faction did which horrific actions? Like the Russian government will respond with “nooooo that was Ukrainian Nazis who did that swear” to every allegation levied at their military actions.
@@jo0rd73 eye witness testimonies of surviving civilians. Not to mention the atrocities occurred during the time the Russians controlled the territory.
The US didn’t secretly discover and shoot Jews in the death camps before arriving and seeing the destruction as the Nazis retreated. The idea Ukrainian personnel snuck behind lines to shoot civilians in the street in front of Russian soldiers who occupied that area is just imossible
Tankies and Kremlin bots are shameless. They are actually claiming that Bucha is a long-con Ukrainian conspiracy with planted bodies.
That they somehow planted while the Russian army was occupying the village. With magic Nazi teleportation tech presumably.
@Oswald Cobblepot I mean if you wanna be as objective as possible like you’d need to be in a trial, we don’t we’ve only been told that it’s more likely Russia killing civilians with their hands tied behind their backs and so on. We have loooooots of reasons to believe it was them but my worry is how well would it all hold up in the international judicial system when the evidence is technically just ‘hearsay’ and inference while the Russian government denies everything and asks for sizeable physical evidence or testimony. Best hope is a few Russian whistleblowers but the chances of that are pretty slim given we’re dealing with people living under an autocratic regime where they’re most likely terrified for their own and family’s lives if they speak up or hopelessly brainwashed…I know many of the civilian deaths happened in Russian occupied territory for very obvious reasons but I’m just unsure of how much weight this would all hold. To clarify I’m extremely uneducated in terms of international trials besides some information from the Nuremberg trials so I’m not sure exactly how we tackle the opposing narratives on issues like this, especially when it’s not as clear cut as what the Nazis did during WW2. Even though there would be a lot of civilian eye witnesses to corroborate I wonder if it’s the same bs as our local courts where when it comes down to ‘hearsay’ a person in a position of power (cop, military officer etc..) will always have their argument hold more weight than a random civilian.
there's a Baltic saying that goes "if we call the Russians, the Russians will come. if we call the Americans, the Americans will come. if we call no one, the Russians will come."
If you live next to a rabid bear that's been attacking you and your ancestors for 1000 years, it's not exactly the worst idea to get the biggest baddest bear spray and anti-bear missile you can get.
"There's a baltic saying I made up that goes "Russia bad NATO good"
LMFAO honestly though why don't we ask that to Yugoslavia, the only region in europe that resisted US hegemony? Seems like NATO came pretty hard for them.
@@frapseddatsht Yeah if you live next to a giant bear its best to provoke it as much as possible until it attacks you. Great idea! Lets poke it with a stick.
@@danielshepard1449 nice whataboutism you have there
@@TheEliera I don't think you know what "whataboutism" means buddy, you likely think it means "when a fact is brought up that contradicts my preferred narrative"
I was talking with some people in my Army squad about this. I think in the West we rightfully view Nazi Germany as the apex of evil and domination for alot of reasons involving genocide, invasion, forced integration, spreading fascism. For other countries especially in Eastern Europe and abroad it was the USSR that propagated as much if not worse events similar to Nazi Germany. Forced starvation, genocide, gulags, domination. The difference between Germany and Russia as it stands today is one looks upon it's recent past in great shame and looks to heal the wounds it brought. The other seeks the power that it once had and continues to spread it's influence not by economy or collective unionization but through military threat and over the table corruption.
Let's not forget, the Nazis subjugated large parts of Europe, but only people alive during a 5-6 year span would remember that. The Soviets had 2 generations worth of people that grew up with them as oppressors.
I have made the arguement that the Holocaust was far worse than anything the Soviets did, and I stand by that, but personal and familial experience is very powerful.
"its just like the nazis bro" =Every emotional person with a bad argument. Are you setting the stage to justify supporting "moderate nazis" in Ukraine to fight Russians?
"For other countries especially in Eastern Europe and abroad it was the USSR that propagated as much if not worse events similar to Nazi Germany"
For other countries, especially in South America, Asia, and the middle east, it was the US that propagated "as much if not worse events similar to Nazi Germany"
In case of Russia, it goes beyond just the USSR. Russia's entire history is like that. All the way from Ivan the Terrible.
@@ImmaOnDaInternetz very true.
@@danielshepard1449 Found the tankie
Them asking "why is Montenegro in NATO, they don't border Russia" shows they don't know much about the subject.
Yup. While you can obviously say that Russia is the main impetus for NATO existence right now, there's also other reasons for why you would want to be in NATO even disregarding the threat of Russia?
This guy somehow can't grasp that only 30 years ago, Russian imperialism stretched halfway through Germany
Montenegro joining NATO is still hotly contested considering they were also bombed by the alliance as a part of the Yugoslav bombing campaign .
Here in Finland the NATO question has been on the table for decades. As far as i know there's been zero push for it from the outside.
membership would be a betrayal of finnish values
@@supereero9 Nah, Finland has been firmly in the west for decades now.
@@C0urne
Finland was at its best with strong eastern trade, kids don't remember the good times
@@supereero9 The icebreaker in the 5 mark coin changed direction to west already back in -79. It makes no difference how "good" the times were then, because they're not coming back.
Regardless of any sanctions, there hasn't been a strong country to trade with in the east for a while.
Cool, expanding NATO is still bad, regardless of what Finland wants.
I feel like people have associated strength with exploitation so much that as soon as they see a strong military alliance they presuppose exploitation where it may not be that prevalent.
i think the nuance being lost is a lot of people who identify themselves against imperialism essentialise their position to be opposed to hegemonic power structures so become extremely critical and hesitant to praise of even acknowledge the benifits of these structures even when they are benign or their negative consequences being more a component of the internal politics that the outward facing label these countries choose to put on their interventionalism
Invading Yugoslavia, killing thousands of civilians, cutting off access to water and food for hundreds of thousands of people, and dividing the region up into EU puppet regimes not recognized by international law, was that not exploitation?
Except NATO has been directly involved in a lot of direct acts of repression and exploitation. Look up operation Gladio
@@PropheticShadeZ Moral essentialism, a phenomenon associated with cognitive immaturity. It leads people to some very dumb conclusions.
Montenegro parliament made a statement about their commitment to NATO a few years ago when trump made a statement about how he doesnt see a reason to protect montenegro...
The guy your debating, doesn't realise that while Montenegro is not threatened directly by Russia, they are threatened by Serbia.
Oh I think that he's counting on Vaush not knowing that.
And Serbia is buddies with Russia…
The dude's first sentence wasn't even words. The second was some words and some noises.
NATO requirements that I know of:
1. Must not be in an active conflict during the application process; no joining NATO just to make them fight your ongoing war. (This could be one reason for the invasion of Ukraine, to force them ineligible)
2. I believe not every type of government can apply; pretty sure you need at least moderate democratic tendencies
3. You don't need to match the biggest boys, but you need enough military spending to throw SOMETHING down.
And if you don't like it, you can leave whenever you want.
DISCLAIMER: NATO and its affiliates are not responsible for what Russia or China attempt after that.
*Such* coercion, lol.
You can’t leave whenever you want, you have to give one year notice. Also, no leaving for the first twenty years (first 20 of the treaty itself, not your membership)
So...whenever you want + good manners.
@@TidePodsRFood indeed
"We are just goona put missiles, military bases and fighter jets right next to your border guys, and if you react to it, it's your own fault. Oh and we might have to coup some of your friendly governments to do it, but it's a non coercive coup so no worries."
Except Viktor Orban is a dictator. And remember that Turkey invade Cyprus.
You know, bless their heart. I mean, they're dead fucking wrong, but they were so nervous in the beginning
I'm half an hour in and probably won't last much longer.
I'm European and very skeptical of American influence, but this guy would feed us all to Putin for a cozy thought experiment.
20 mins in, and main arguments are:
-Nato isn’t necessarily for countries not bordering Russia. No, it also guarantees that they won’t be attacked militarily by anyone else. Entire European history is countries attacking each other. Not happening to NATO members. But the UN-yeah, you can see their usefulness with the Ukraine situation. Also, countries that don’t border Russia just want to keep it that way, also stability in their region, and don’t want their trade partners invaded, it’s bad for business. Ukraine is a huge agricultural country, I wonder what’s gonna happen to cooking oil prices with sunflower becoming scarce .
-Countries are coerced into joining. Source? I guess it sucked once for Montenegro.
-IMF analogy. Which doesn’t work, since for IMF you give up a lot of economic flexibility. What do you give up for NATO, 2% of your GDP(thanks for the correction) on military? Which most members didn’t even follow, because US paid for everything. Like, look at the Baltic states army, it’s nonexistent . And they are the ones needing it the most out of all NATO.
You very much summarised the reasons why it is worthy to join in. Why for example, I voted in NATO in my first referendum in 1997. It is also a protection to my own far right parties in my own country, that we are not going to invade our neighbours (a war we unlikely would won, but in Russia and Ukraine war, neighbouring Ukraine too, I could seen some of Hungarian far right would want to get Karpatalja).
Is 2% and yeah, like it was why Trump was salty about NATO, unironically Putin made the job that Trump failed in doing dor over 4 years since Italy and Germany both upped their spending to 2.5%
@@darmansbar7900 trust me, as a German, let me tell you that you don't want us to invest into military. It never went good before.
Yup you're mostly correct, but small correction, the expected amount of GDP for military is 2% for NATO countries.
@@asmylia9880 I mean i get your point, but atleast modern day Germany is vastly different of the Germany in the 30s
Can hardly watch this because the debaters speech patterns are so insanely chaotic I can't tell what he's saying
I'm pretty sure speech therapy is a thing but I don't know that much about it
@@ticker0157 I went through it. It would probably be very helpful to this caller. No shade, I used to have a bad speech impediment and it sucks.
Tankie Brain Rot is not a joking matter, folks. Make sure to help your friends and family avoid catching the disease by constantly talking politics with them 😉
Remember that the "Tankies" defeted the Nazis and liberated the concentration camps in Central Europe, saved the world form fascism. Stalin industrialized the USSR form a semi-feudal backwater to sending the first person into space.
While the US imperialists and its satellite states created Ratlines to recruit former Nazis for NASA and the puppet West German government and NATO to campate the Soviet Union.
Look up Adolf Heusinger, Hans Speidel, Kurt Waldheim, Walter Hallstein and Warnher von Braun.
IRELAND ISNT IN NATO, BUT IS IN THE EU!
Listening to this guy is awful. He talks like he's at 1.5x speed, but also trips over his words continuously.
He is the final boss for non-native English speakers
He sounds normal to me tbh but Aussies also talk fast.
@@annasofienordstrand3235 I laught, but in truth I think Scots is the final boss for a non-native English speaker... probably also for native English speaker....
For someone that doesn’t have any strong feelings on the Kosovo thing they SURE were against Kosovo during the whole thing
Yeah. They were very dedicate to denying Kosovo’s sovereignty...
@@melaniey.5596 It's goddam hilarious how NATO illegally invading Yugoslavia against the UN security council, bombing civillians and commiting multiple war crimes, dividing the territory up into regions not recognized by international law, and putting EU puppet regimes in charge is "securing Kosovo's sovereignty" but when Russia does literally the exact same thing in Ukraine to "secure the Sovereignty of Donetsk and Luhansk republics" your reaction is completely different. You really have fully drunk the kool aid. "NATO good guys, Russia bad guys!" you have completely gobbled up your "home team" propaganda.
This guy doesn't understand why Balkan countries want to be protected from Russia... Omfg
I'm from the Balkans, and I want to be protected from Turkey and USA. And Germany.
@@nektariosorfanoudakis2270 And I'm Serbian and think countries like Russia and those aligned with them like Serbia are a threat to their neighbors (yeah, I'm Serbian but I'm so sick of the ethno-nationalism and calls for committing genocide by people there).
There's other benefits to being a NATO country when you're a small state than just the defensive alliance. You get to train your troops with the best in the world. You have a basis to build better relationships with other members through a shared alliance and regular interactions. Your troops get to participate in joint exercises and deployments and get experience that way. And you can specialize your military for the needs of NATO and not need a full army like you would if you were neutral (like for instance Finland does).
Fun thing about "best troops in the world" my father is relatively high ranking military guy in Finland (everstiluutnantti) and he has been joined exercises with NATO multiple times. Lets just say that in practice NATO troops are not very efficient and generally he is not impressed at all. Also Finnish army is build to be compatible with NATO and there has been lots of cooperation even without joining, possibly joining NATO is only political decision, the army is ready for it.
@@Vanu4321 Alright, but NATO does have to have an interest in training a neutral army to prepare it for the event of a future cooperation. I think with FInland there is already an understanding (or was as things are changing rapidly recently) that Finland would be at risk of invasion should it attempt to apply to join NATO. As well as, it is in NATO's interests to be able to cooperate with FInland's forces should an invasion happen, as NATO countries generally don't want the fallout from an occupied Finland either. This situation doesn't apply to every country.
@@Rysdan In grand scheme of things you are correct but you lack of details/ implied wrong: Russian invasion is the worst case scenario but have not been most likely thing that happens if Finland joins NATO, NATO do not train Finnish forces it is training with it, there is difference and focus is not invasion etc. And I am only talking about Finland's case since I have best knowledge about it, I know that situation differs depending on country. Also right now it looks like Finland is going to join, when I am looking at Finnish media. Before this year attitude for NATO has been "keep the door open but do not step in".
@@Vanu4321 As far as I understand and Im no Finland expert by a mile, but Finland was a particularly sensitive case because of history of being cooperative with the Soviet Union. I imagine NATO didn't want to particularly rock that boat either and I don't think the finnish themselves would either when its been working thus far.
What about Karelia, how's the finnish view on those territories? Is there any revanchism over that left?
@@Rysdan During the cold war (and also after that) Finland tried to be as neutral as possible, but of course reality is that we are neighbouring country of Russia with complicated past (being part of Russia but had partial autonomy 100 years, Finland's civil war, ww2 and aftermath). Neutrality politics have not always been successful, and may be the case that USA has perceived Finland is too cooperative with Russia. I remember when Putin and Trump had meeting in neutral territory 2018, it was in Helsinki and Finnish media was very pleased that hey our neutrality politics are still doing well. Oh well it is gonna be over soon :D
About the Karelia thing, it is not that relevant anymore. Some uncultured middle aged nationalist could say in drunken state something like "Vallataan Karjala takaisin". It is not a thing that will happen (taking Karelia back) but some may use this sentiment nationalistic manner or say that Russians ruined the area. Although it is not normally socially acceptable to think like that. There is also lot of Russia bad and dangerous -thinking (socially acceptable & common) in Finland and we have special slur and sayings for Russian people (not socially acceptable). I am just gonna tell you the bad word if you wanna google stuff, its "Ryssä" and saying "Ryssä on ryssä vaikka voissa paistais" = Russian is Russian even when fried in butter. Although I have to say now during Ukraine situation public opinion for Russia is again trending downwards, making hatred towards Russia more socially acceptable.
I caught most of this live but fell asleep listening at one point. This convo was fucking wild
“More autonomy from Europe in NATO would be good.”
The European members of the alliance CAN have that autonomy they just CHOOSE not to
Also let's be real, NATO provides for quite a lot of autonomy. There are rules, but most of them get treated like guidelines.
NATO, unlike Russia, doesn’t force smaller countries to join their alliance bc they don’t have. NATO has something of value to offer smaller countries i.e. protection from Russia.
As a Cuban and I support Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics from the Euromaidan fascists that keeps bombing the Donbass region for 7 years killing 15,000 civilians and they have revolutionary pretential to be socialist! 🇨🇺❤⬛🟦🟥👑🕊🛡📘🟦🟥⚙⭐🌾 ☭
Here's a top-tip for anybody interested in getting their point across: SLOW-DOWN! Finish saying your first word before moving on the next one.
They can't. When your rationale comes from emotion or instinct you can't do persuasion
People like this would back the soviet union’s invasion of Finland during WW2
And the nazi invasion of Poland
I would support the USSR because Finland sides with the Nazis! Long live Comrade Joesph Stalin! 🇨🇺❤🚩☭ 💪🏽
Why were they so eager to defend a famine…
Brainrot
The Soviet famine of was caused by drought and kulak sabotage.
@@spaghettimon3851 I can never tell if people meme when they respond that because it is such a laughable excuse by Stalin or if they actually believe that.
@@404Dannyboy The famine was caused by bad weather conditions and the kulaks hoarding all the grain and killing their livestock to prevent collectivization witch they rightly deserve to be sent to Siberian gulags
Most victims of the famine were Russians and Kazakhs, also the Naizs push the "Holodomor" as a conspiracy demonized the USSR.
@@404Dannyboy Do you think Stalin caused a famine, starving his own country, hurting his economy/popularity on purpose?
The real Little Russia was Serbia all along.
Special kind of RT asset we got here
As opposed to a CIA asset like vaush?
Emphasis on the "special".
dont be mean
@@problemsolver3254 why would you not be mean as shit to these nazi's? the guy literally tried to justify the Holodomor
Says the American Drone.
I usually watch these recaps in 1.5x because I’m a busy person (I tell myself that, at least), but this is miserable. This dude is full Ben Shappipo meth speed talking.
Lol, I downgraded from my typical 2x to 1.5x and it was hard :p
The Holodomor discussion was confusing at 2x speed.
Finland is too big and powerful to count as not being forced into nato….. wtf are you talking about dude. Finland and Croatia are the same size. The city of Houston has a similar population. Montenegro is like a million. This guy is super deluded.
And NATO isn’t just protecting from Russia. The Balkans had the last brutal European war and a country like Montenegro has a huge incentive to be protected by nato
This guy's logic is just that countries should just threaten escalating their genocide so they can slowly do their genocide without military intervention. Like... this guy is such an idealogue it's insane.
NATO is held together by a belief that all members will respond to Article 5. Bringing in countries against popular will reduce that belief and weaken NATO.
The moment this guy said that it is ok for us to have no electricity, no food, no clothes, no nothing 7 days a week, and tens of millions to starve and die between 1920 and 1990 for the good the USSR made me so extremely angry. This guy is so utterly clueless and carefree about how it was to live in Eastern Europe under USSR control, and be literally robbed dry over everything we had for almost a century. We clamored to join NATO and EU to get rid of poverty and getting ripped off by USSR. I have never lived better in my entire 40 years of my life than I am now. And that is thanks to EU massive investments here and political stability thanks to NATO. (Romania)
This guy is literally vomiting the same tired Russian propaganda I kept hearing back under communism. That the American imperialists and the Western capitalists will come over and suck the blood of the people, make us all slaves. And these imperialist capitalists are all on the precipice. And the joke was, and we are looking up to see watch them about to fall, since we are already at the bottom. No one came to suck anything, they literally lifted us back up from the dark ages, USSR kept us in.
A rich stable country can afford to buy more of whatever stuff you are producing than a sweatshop country. It is simply a much better model to want a stable, and rich Europe, a drag the East after you, than suck it dry like the Russians did. The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact collapsed because there was simply nothing left to steal, and people had absolutely nothing else to lose. There was nothing left and every single country revolted. No one in Europe likes Russia and its expansionist politics. They are extremely destabilizing to the whole Europe.
In case it was not clear, comparing this ignorant, genocidal apologist to human sewage is insulting to human sewage. I've never experienced such ignorance, lack of self awareness, and lack of empathy bordering sociopathy in my entire life. And he takes issues with NATO. Without Vaush, I would not have listened a minute of his disgusting tirade.
Why would Croatia want to be in a military alliance…. Seriously? Like my man? Has this guy read about life before 2019
This dude seriously just spent 3 hours stuttering his way through repeating that he doesn't support NATO membership because some nations sometimes feel as if they have to join.
It's still a choice nobody forced them into, every nation decided to join NATO. And the idea that you need to have a border with Russia to have a legitimate reason to join?
It's as if he doesn't understand that if only nations bordering Russia was part of NATO they wouldn't have the military strength, even combined to fight the Russians.
Also, Vaush claiming that the US is the military in Europe,. I understand that it's probably hyperbole, but even so it is not exactly accurate.
And from a European perspective, the US political influences garnered from NATO is minimal compared to economic policy. NATO is a force for good. Not in all instances, but for the wast majority of them.
Everyone in the western world has had a better life, a safer life and a more prosperous life due to NATO. That even goes for the US imo.
Yeah he’s clearly suffers from being terminally online. He has such strong opinions about NATO but I think not having WW3 for 80 years is proof enough that NATO does what it set out to do. But that’s what people who live in the real world think, not this Neanderthal who probably spends every second in a tankie circle jerk.
Based on European history it seems to have prevented Europe from falling back into war generally. Thank god and yes it’s better for everyone including the US.
Are you even real people? Serious question.
Montenegro had to get a loan from the EU to pay back the 1B China gave it from their scam Belt and Road initiative and was calling due. For a road that just ends.
You know, as much as the IMF is criticized, China can be even worse because while the IMF actually will not give loans to countries that have no chance at all of paying (i.e. giving billions of dollars to a country with a GDP of a few million), China will go after those countries and when they fail pay, they instead enforce neo-colonialist policies, such as how they took a port in Sri Lanka and made all the workers there Chinese, making it a net negative for Sri Lanka.
This guy basically gave endless reasons for why NATO is good
I know im super late but i looked into the montenegro thing and the precondition was for them to destroy a bunch of yugoslav and soviet surplus munitions.
Montenegro was basically used as a dumping ground for obsolete weaponry and the stuff was stored unsafely. They considered it a threat to their people and the environment and they wanted it gone but lacked the resources to get rid of it safely.
NATO basically postponed them joining until the project was complete and then helped them dispose of the stuff safely.
Montenegro: hey can i join the club?
NATO: sure thing bud- WOAH! Your while country is like... ready to explode.
Montenegro: yeah man. We been trying to fix that for a while but it's a lot.
NATO: let's just uh... get rid of those explosives before you join.
Montenegro: Thanks NATO!
Caller: how dare they!?
After Warsaw pact fall, Russia had 10 years to convince Poland that is no threat, instead Russia fight brutal wars in Chechenia ,ad we Poles have first hand report what happened in Grozny from refugees from there. Not to mention our accessin to NATO was negotiatet by former communist politicians , people that personally knew Russians and stiil do not trust them. We were not forced, and today we congratulations ourselfs to done a good deal.
I'm from Finland. Finland decided to join NATO last year. Decision was made quickly, but if I think was there some U.S push on that matter.
I can't find how U.S could have pushed Finnish parlamentary system that aporoved NATO by 94%.
There's 200 senators and goverment, goverment wasnt pro NATO 2019 when it came to power, but that changed when Russia increased tensions and started outright war not-so-far from us. Final step was when december 2019 Putin gave his recless speech (and later ultimatum send to western leaders) that had demands that some had problem that no one has an authority like promising NATO not expanding, not only into Ukraine but Finland was mentioned too.
So that was it, when decission to join NATO was made by left-green goverment, right wing opposition was pro NATO allready.
There's one Russian voice in Finnish parlament, party called "valta kuuluu kansalle" and it's leader Ano Turtiainen. Those people were all in conspiracies and disinformation about covid, now they fall into a putinist rabbit hole. After all it's all about some "bad global elite that controls.." they just can't stand parlamentary democracy, where that lunatic sh*t won't fly. And "mainstream media" that won't take their lies because they are professionals that won't (usually) fall on that level of disinformation.
I learned something new today thanks to you!
Montenegro wants protection from serbia not russia
22:22 you're not exactly talking fast, your just saying 2 or 3 words fast then stopping .................................. then another 2 words ....................... don't worry about going fast, just go steady. Stop stopping it's brutal to listen to .......... whiplashy
This is pretty typical from neurodivergents who think faster than they can talk, and then panic because they can hear themselves talk.
Still has shit takes.
Took the dude like 20 minutes to go from denouncing Turkish military involvement in the Middle East to justifying a genocide.
"I don't see the point of NATO, because I don't see these countries in any wars."
Well, maybe that's the fucking point!?
Countries joining NATO in eastern europe literally guarantees a military response from Russia in eastern Europe. Do you think Russia putting troops in Cuba, Mexico and South America would prevent wars with the US?
@@danielshepard1449 If the U.S. was legitimately threatening of invading Mexico, then yes, a NATO-like alliance with Russia would make the U.S. think twice about invading.
@@tygret No it wouldn't, it would guarantee the US does invade, or at least respond militarily. It would also drastically increase tensions and risk nuclear war. And we don't have to guess about this because it literally happened during the Cuban missile crisis. Kenedy's Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. An invasion force was already being mobilized and a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union was being prepared in case Soviets tried to intervene until Krushchev luckily backed down and withdrew the missiles.
@@danielshepard1449 The Cuban missile crisis didn't start because Cuba believed the U.S. was about to invade and asked Russia to defend them. They are in no way the same. The Cuban crisis started because Russia started installing missiles in Cuba purely for them to be close to U.S. soil. It is in no way comparable to eastern European nations asking for NATO to defend them.
@@tygret "The Cuban missile crisis didn't start because Cuba believed the U.S. was about to invade and asked Russia to defend them"
That's literally exactly why it started. The US had already invaded Cuba 3 times in the last century and was planning another invasion after the bay of pigs to remove Castro.
"Russia started installing missiles in Cuba purely for them to be close to U.S. soil."
Yeah after Castro wanted him to. The same exact way the US is trying to put lethal weapons and western military presence in eastern europe to be close to Russian soil.
"It is in no way comparable to eastern European nations asking for NATO to defend them."
It's literally an almost perfectly analogous situation.
Vaush- "You can leave NATO France left NATO."
Guy- "yeah but not every country can do that since leaving NATO is a security risk"
He said it, he literally said the exact reason people want to be in NATO while trying to say that countries don't want to be in NATO.
It provides security, it really is that simple.
Edit: also for countries that are not under immediate threat from Russia, wouldn't joining NATO be good for talks with other counties in NATO? OR would it not show at least in some level that you are siding with a group and so requests for aid from any military threat would be easily given even if it is not Russia?
It's a security risk because of what NATO would do to you, dimwit. It's like a protection racket.
Something I would like to add is that NATO is good for larger countries even if they are not under threat because a unified military bloc that reduces war also results in increased stability within all the countries.
The dude arguing lost all my respect when he said the 6 million people starved in Ukraine by USSR wasn’t that bad and was necessary for industrialization. Absolutely mind blowing ignorant. Not to mention has no internet evidenced for 90% on “NATO bad” claims and just spurts out random nonsense
One hour in and it's abundantly clear that this guy came in as Anti-Western without a Planᵀᴹ. This entire 'debate' has just been him jumping onto random points and immediately getting outmanuevered again and again. Frankly, I'm impressed with his persistence.
Edit: 15 Minutes later and we got the genocide denial. There goes any remaining goodwill.
I feel this guy is just mad that NATO stopped the Serbs killing muslims.
@@wout4yt ...clearly I have more research to do on the Balkans.
This was pretty fun. Nice discussion 👍
Uh-uh. If Turkey launches a military expedition and someone fights back, NATO is not obligated to come to their defense. Just like NATO wasn't obligated to aid the US in our various military adventures over the decades.
the US literally invoked article 5 to force NATO countries to support them in Afghanistan.
@@danielshepard1449 The US was attacked on 9/11, remember?
That triggered Article 5 because NATO is a DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE.
That's not the same as Turkey invading one of its neighbors without having been attacked first.
You'll notice that most other NATO countries did not get involved in Iraq, and those that did didn't do so based on Article 5.
So... LOL right back at ya.
@@silentotto5099 The US wasn't attacked by any state on 9/11. What about invading Afghanistan and occupying them for 20 years was defensive exactly? So you don't consider invading and occupying Afghanistan one of those "various military adventures" of the US then?
Why is that not the same as Turkey invading one of its neighbors? I'm sure they'd make up a justification and call it "defensive" to, just like the US does, and every other powerful state.
I said AFGHANISTAN not Iraq, and yes pretty much every NATO country sent troops to Afghanistan, 10,000 troops from 36 different countries.
@@danielshepard1449 The US was attacked by an organization headquartered in Afghanistan. Our NATO allies agreed that was sufficient to support an Article 5 declaration.
No, I do not consider the invasion of Afghanistan a military adventure. Iraq was a military adventure. Afghanistan was not.
Turkey is free to attempt such a gambit, but NATO could, and almost certainly would, refuse to recognize such a rouse as sufficient to trigger Article 5.
I mentioned Iraq to contrast the response of NATO members with their response to Afghanistan.
The US tried and tried to claim that invading Iraq was defensive in nature, only in a preemptive sense. (similarly to your hypothetical Turkey example) Many NATO members said "Yeah... No..." and refused to get militarily involved in Iraq. Those which did get involved, mainly Great Britain, didn't do so under an Article 5 obligation.
@@silentotto5099 They were attacked by a group of mostly Saudi Arabian hijackers, who belonged to an international organization that operates throughout the middle east. The US was not attacked by any state on 9/11, meaning invading the state of Afghanistan went against the UN charter and there was nothing "defensive" about it. Also, the Taliban literally offered to hand Osama Bin Laden over to the US authorities, Bush rejected this offer and invaded anyways.
" I do not consider the invasion of Afghanistan a military adventure. Iraq was a military adventure. Afghanistan was not."
Why? Also, it wasn't just an invasion, it was a 20 year long occupation.
"Turkey is free to attempt such a gambit, but NATO could, and almost certainly would, refuse to recognize such a rouse as sufficient to trigger Article 5."
This is probably correct actually, because Turkey doesn't run NATO, the US does. They created it and provide 70% of it's spending. So the US can use NATO to help them invade places, and Turkey likely couldn't. Unless it was a US supported invasion.
Reaaaally need to add a time limit to debates
No feel the content flow
I'm sorry but what sounds more likely to you, Montenegro sought NATO membership to protect its interests against a resurgent Russia and Russian aligned Serbia, and to deepen its integration with the west to aid its bid to join the EU? OR, the US/NATO pressured 620,000 population-$17 Billion GDP-
Tactical MonteN-word dropped to melt all our brains.
😦😦
@@bolshevikY2K
Well, imagine how we, the survivors of that debate, feel...
@@AnEntropyFan I know, I was watching this debate and then watched the vod for the parts I missed
@@bolshevikY2K
To be frank, the Flustered Femboy debating Wowsh has it the worst. Not only did he not understand anything he himself was saying either and had to watch it all over again, he also has to live with the guy who made those incredibly disjointed arguments to begin with.
Austria, Switzerland, and many others are small countries, in the EU, have no threat in being targeted by Russia, and in no way is pressured into joining NATO, despite being surrounded by NATO nations.
7 min in and all this guy stating is BS. Why is Vaush even engaging in good faith with such people. NATO doesn't make sense for the Balkan countries? He doesn't realize that Bulgaria and Romania border Russia by the Black Sea? Or his knowledge of Balkan countries ends with Montenegro and Croatia?
I watch videos at 3x speed and even I think this guy needs to take a breath and slow the hell down.
Maybe then he'd see the birds eye veiw of the conversation and see how damn circular it is.
why does Vaush's Elden Ring character look like a Dothraki Horselord
I think they’re more of a Horselady.
Fuck, this debate goes everywhere. On former Yugoslavia, as someone who was actually there the argument that the NATO intervention was something bad is insane. First of all, the victims of the violence begged for a NATO intervention for years, and there was a lot of criticism that NATO and US was reluctant to intervene because there wasn't enough to be gained economically for them to do so. Us finally going in objectively wad a good thing that decreased suffering and death in a very infected ethnical conflict that wouldn't have ended for years without intervention. I've been both in Afghanistan and Iraq afterwards, but the evil and suffering I saw both directly and the fallout from was the worst by far in Yugoslavia. Every day we didn't intervene to stop this conflict was an act of evil. People who know nothing of what actually happened trying to point to this as an example of NATO evil makes be furious.
The fact younger descendants of the people who left spring the conflict have some biased views of the conflict even though they never experienced the horrors of the war and have lived out their lives in safety in a northern European country doesn't in any way change this.
You are full of sh*t, the war crimes of NATO were insane. Everyone was against NATO back then.
It's insane that I can hear the same talking points about NATO inside Serbia where people continue to deny they did anything wrong or even try to justify it as I do inside countries like the U.S. Like, these people don't even bother to actually learn what happened, they just hear a perspective they like and stick with it no matter its validity.
Why would countries in the Balkans wanna be a part of NATO??? Because, while not bordering Russia, many of us border Serbia, a country which has been known to have some gamer tendencies. On the other hand, reliance of Croatia, Montenegro and Albania on NATO for defence, removes the need for agressive militarisation of these countries and pacifies nationalists, thus stopping possible gamer moments in near future.
Little Russians is honestly accurate for Serbians.
Aka NATO helps with stability and reducing war. Which it certainly looks to be true.
What's missing from this is that countries not boarding on Russia boarder on other hostile countries and NATO is preventing wars elsewhere. Yes it was meant to contain USSR but as times change so does the benefits of NATO.
So you pretty much are admitting you just want to destroy Russia, regardless of what they do.
@@danielshepard1449 lol how the hell do you get that from what they wrote…sounds like someone’s very Russian sensitive. NATO when founded had 3 purposes, keep the Germans down, the Americans in and the Russians out. The goals of the alliance have change with time. Most of the world is not stuck in the Cold War unlike Putin.
@@davidradtke160 "Keep the germans down"
What? NATO helped nazis escape justice after WW2 to fight the Soviets. Do you mean keep east germany down?
", the Americans in and the Russians out"
Exactly, and that is still it's purpose. To expand American hegemony and fight Russian hegemony.
NATO's goals haven't changed since the cold war ended. That's a large part of the problem. Russia is no longer powerful enough to maintain it's hegemony against NATO, so as it continues to expand they are getting more desperate. That's dangerous, because I'd rather not have a nuclear war, or any war, involving Russia.
The benefits of joining a mass-murderous organisation designed to keep the planet under USA's boot and the third world exploited by the West. I guess joining Nazi Germany had its benefits too.
If Greece and Turkey weren't both in NATO, they'd already have gone through a few wars by now.
Greece and Turkey are perfect representations of why multipolarity is a nightmare. Each side can't stop getting horny over the idea of being "greater", and rather than improving themselves and helping themselves improve each other, they just want to go to war and steal the other sides' resources for themselves. And incidentally destroying all the resources on both sides in the process.
wtf does he mean it made it worse, i was there, living in Kosovo.
he’s more worried about infrastructure than HUMAN LIVES
As a Serb, I always hate the guys who just ignore or excuse the crap we did there just to find some way to criticize NATO. It's especially tiring hearing so many other Serbs continue down the path of ethno-nationalism and call for invading countries like Bosnia, but its even worse hearing people on the outside buying this same crap when they have access to the correct information but just choose to ignore it.
USA is not the only NATO country producing weapons and being in NATO does not dictate that a member state can only purchase American weapons. Croatia purchased French Rafales and Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK jointly produce and have acquired the Eurofighter.
This dude acting like Russia is the only country who can attack a NATO nation…
It took more than 2 hours, but Vaush got to the heart of the caller's problem. The caller is a Serb nationalist who hasn't come to terms with Serbia's villainy in Kosovo, and who axiomatically hates NATO because NATO bombed Serbia. All of the specious reasons that the caller came up with for disliking NATO are post-hoc justifications, when the real reason is that NATO crushed the dream of the ethnically-pure Serbian state dominant among the former Yugoslav states.
27:00 Hungary makes political decisions that EU and US seems to disagree with. We yet to be invaded and Orban is yet to be removed for that. In fact he stable in power, and made deals with both Russians and Chinese.
21:50 - major bruh moment. Europe made itself sooo dependant in terms on energy needs from Russia and its gas and oil, its absolutely disproportionate to the dependance of the economic restrictions from NATO (If there even are any, im not aware of such being in place). So if europe needsmore autonomy its in terms of energy ressources and gaining independance from Russia...
This guy is compleatly wrong about nato and trade relationships, my country norway has MAJOR trade relations and is very very involved with china (not that i like or agree with it) politically
"Yeah but you're a small country with oil, so it doesn't really count" - the dude in the debate
Croatia joined NATO because... Serbia, and Serbia is in CSTO because they align with Russia
As Europeans we are heavily dependent on US protection through NATO. So given that the US is spending a lot in order to provide us with protection, it only makes sense that the US has a say in how the money is spent. But I guess our dependence comes with the price that we can't openly call out Bush for war crimes for example or start beef with Trump, because we simply can't risk to lose US protection over it. So yeah, our politics is influenced by US interests. But that is not really an argument against NATO itself. The alliance is a very good thing for us. If anything it's only our fault for being so dependent on it.
Honestly, even if the US wasn't in it, it wouldn't surprise me if a variation of NATO would exist. Whether it be a stronger EU military side, or a separate organisation, i would be very surprised if it doesen't exist.
When has NATO ever defended a european country?
@@TheArrowedKnee The US isn't just "in it" they created NATO, provide 70% of the spending and exert control over all its members, basically turning them into US military bases. France tried to create a European based military alliance and leave NATO, they were stopped at every turn by the US and other NATO countries, because western europe are vassal states to the US, not the other way around. Why do you think the US has military bases all over western europe but no european state has any military base in the US?
@@danielshepard1449 It constantly does. By preventing Russia to attack Latvia for example.
@@FMB_Bmg When did Russia plan to attack Latvia and when did NATO stop them?
That shit with the Holodomor... Tankies are wild man.