That's also an insane amount of money. Japan spends 0.9% of GDP and are the 9th largest military in the world by expenditure. Doubling it to 1.8% would make them the third largest military in the world by expenditure.
@@thecooletompie Which is the objective of NATO. Remember that in the context of its founding, the west had just watched the five most militaristic nations on the planet, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Germans and the Polish (See the interwar period to observe as little Kurzon Line Poland fought down the soviets and aggressed its neighbors to become the 6th most powerful state in Europe) finish a grudge match wherein all parties were operating in a state of total war. The western front had seen nothing like what happened in China and Russia, and whats more the Soviets were still standing. They could have pushed all the way to the Channel and no one in the Allies was sure if they could have stopped them Sure, we know in retrospect that the soviets were almost entirely depleted in manpower and resources, but that's not what we saw in 1945. All we saw in 1945 was literally thousands of tanks and millions of Russian, Byelorussian and Ukranian soldiers, and so the bar was set accordingly for the west.
Entanglement theory: when two quantum particles or sovereign nations can interact in ways that do not seem physically or ideologically tangible that would equally spook Einstein.
@@oniemployee3437 Basically, Einstein didn't like quantum particles and politics because they both seemed unreasonable for different reasons, but he would later contribute to some parts of quantum theory. He always avoided talking about politics, and I think that was for the best.
@@tiffyw92 Yeah. Someone as smart and rational like him would be losing his mind if he started talking and watching how incompetent politicians can be.
This point was poorly made. Belgium had a good military for a country of its size, and made a good account of themselves during the first world war. They were Belgiumed due to their strategic geographic position, not due to their lack of military commitment.
I saw someone at a TedTalk describe American geopolitics like this The USA used to have the Soviets as an enemy on 3 fronts: Nuclear, Economical, Ideological. One enemy, clear as day, everyone was on the same page. Now the US have 3 fronts to fight. There's a nuclear front with Iran/North Korea, economical disputes with China, and Ideological differences with Islamic countries.
@@infinity8543 It's a weak one. Consider America is allied with several "authoritarian" countries. And considering America is very happy to force their system on other countries through violent measures (AKA authoritarianism).
@@MishaFlower Violence isn't authoritarianism, you don't need a authoritarian government to declare war it just helps out beucase there's less berurocracy in the way
As a Bangladeshi it's nice to see people discuss more about what happened to us in 1971. But the mention was vastly simplified. We were fighting the Pakistanis for about 9 months till India helped out in the last 12 days. That too after Pakistan bombed one of their airfields. But time constraints are a thing so no worries. You have some good videos so keep it up.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot thanks. And about the liberation war of Bangladesh don't blindly believe Bangladeshi state reports. A lot of it is propaganda. For example the number of victims of the genocide is numbered at 3 million by our national department but the real number should be much lower. We have a really good propaganda machine which suppresses that information and anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of our free state. It's just ulta nationalistic bullshit. And real information about us will be hard to come by. You've got a lot of work ahead of you so good luck.
On propaganda, Bangladesh has been going on as a de facto fascist state since it's liberation. Even today political dissidents are tortured and if necessary, just literally obliterated. No matter what party comes, they play the same fascist games.
@@abemi869 well we are a country where two of our biggest leaders were assassinated within 8 years of each other. Voting doesn't really work. The elections are unfair. Political opponents are dealt with harshly. But I wouldn't go so far as to call ourselves fascist. Maybe we are heading in that direction. But not there yet.
We do though. I don't pay a cent for healthcare (or at least I didn't until I voluntarily purchased private insurance under an HMO, this year). Medi-Cal paid for my healthcare until I decided to go private. I'm honestly tired of hearing this trope. The US does have subsidized (including free) healthcare, it's just not Federal (aka people vote for the laws they want in their own state; There are 50 states each with their own laws which residents vote on). The bottom line is that people in the US largely do not like an overly centralized government. When it comes to laws, what one may want in California is not the same as one may want in Texas. What one may want in Germany may not be what one wants in France. And whether it is California, or Texas (for example), each voter in each state votes for the laws and policies they want (in their own state). Each of these 50 states have their own populations/demographics, laws, and voting tendencies. To put this in perspective, California (one such state with subsidized healthcare/Medi-Cal) has a larger population than the entirety of Canada or Australia and California provides free healthcare to those who cannot afford it. People severely oversimplify how the US works. It's not that simple.. This US is basically 50 different countries, all with a similar foreign policy but with differing domestic policies. And if there is a Federal law which an individual state doesn't like, often that state just puts the middle finger to the Federal government.
America spends more on healthcare per capita than any country in the world, almost 50% more than next place of Switzerland. Their system is just really inefficient at making use of this, giving the American people lower life expectancy than a place like China, Chile, Portugal, Cuba, Lebanon etc....
@@cloroxbleach9222 Even in terms of government spending on healthcare, the US ranks as one of the highest. Between Medicare, the VA, etc. they spend more per capita than Canada does for its entire healthcare system.
@@mercenarygundam1487 Nah you are consuming too much propaganda, before CCP unify China, China is a war hellhole and now China is the master of soft power, the leading country in highspeed railway, EV and they have a lot and beautiful skyscrapers and CCP is also lifted 800 million Chinese people out If poverty
As a soldier in the US Army I was hurt greatly after hearing that. My love for oil is greater than that of my own life, and to hear that MY government didn't agree, but rather wanted to get more likes on their nudes?!?!? I am truly now a broken man.
greater US influence leads to better control of the vast oil reserves in that region. US involvement in the middle east was likely driven by the Military Industrial Complex.
Kraut, I don't know if you will ever see this, but I will write it anyway: When this video first came out, I thought to myself "It comes from a good place, but it is way off". Watching it again in the context of the Ukraine crisis, I realize now how insanely right you were.
@Henry The Cocaine-Sampler my guess is because Russia did not necesarily want Ukraine, it just wanted Ukraine out of NATO and out of western influence. It has fought a war of geopolitical influence with the west, wich it has lost. Now Putin sees no other option then full on invasion
@Henry The Cocaine-Sampler Why? Because Russia has illegally annexed Ukrainian territory, and now that their initial plan of absorbing the entire country into Russia became one of the most hilariously embarrassing failures in military history, and the entire world has united against them, they're trying for a ceasefire so they can try to keep what they took before they get slaughtered completely and humiliated further. It's a pathetic attempt to save face that's fooling nobody but Russians and tankies.
@@andrewkinkel4773 calm down with Biden. The guy is useless but Russia has been fighting Ukraine for 8 years and it's not like any other president would have intervened. Just look at how little support direct military intervention gets with average Americans
You where wrong about Iceland. Iceland was one of the most important buffer states for USA during the cold war and still is. It has a large US army base and was so strategically important to USA that they managed to, with the help of US threat, pretty much win against Britain during the cod wars (look it up). Iceland said that they would exit NATO if USA didn't do anything so USA came knocking on Britain's door with their navy, no questions asked. The colder the climate between USA and Russia gets the more important Iceland gets.
@@MrAaaaazzzzz00009999 I think that it's not that they don't need an army, but rather they are so significant that whatever army they could have would be insignificant and ineffective in ensuring neutrality for them that there is just no point in wasting money on it.
An icelandic friend pointed out that Iceland could have had our military make them a nice new highway circumscribing their island, but the socialists got into gov't power and nixed the deal. Iceland is a big beneficiary of U.S. support. Just look at whose accent they acquire when speaking english.
@@montycantsin8861 that's a very poor way to try and guess who they're influenced by. Literally everyone in the world has an americanish accent when they speak english as a second language.
@@Saludin2 You clearly fail to understand geography and cultural influence. They live in close proximity to both the U.S.and England, as do a fair number of other countries near the the U.K. The country a person admires or has an affinity to (or proximity) will influence their acquisition of an accent. In years past, people from India learning English often had a British accent. There are still countries were people are more Anglophilic as they become Anglophones. I learned spanish, and people thought I sounded Cuban.
@@hothoploink1509 True, we are trying to keep a disincentive big enough for Turkey. But still, even through ulterior motives, meeting our budget requirements in anything, is amazin for Greece.
Clicked expecting a funny, 10 minute roast of the US’s international relations. Left with a completely different and extremely valid angle on foreign relations, economics, and alliances. I am now enlightened and will now single handedly pull an “iceland”
I’ve just found this video but I’ve been struggling with this same topic for years. I’m 20 now, but for the last 4-6 years I’ve pretty much crossed the political spectrum and arrived at my final destination… Politics are not guaranteed, it is a fluid and changing sea. But my interest in history has put me in contact with American Entanglements. It’s a weird and hard struggle to find a better path forward. Do we stop entangling ourselves in other people’s business? But what would that do to our Geopolitical position and our daily life? I’ve been fighting the Idealists, people who go with the more pacifist views on humanity. Being someone that is interested in history you rarely ever see that. The world isn’t a safe and peaceful place. So while some hate us for our interventionism, I think it’s an aspect that needs to be refined, but expanded. Especially in the light of Recent events and our Enemies’ brazenness.
Iceland is actually very geopolitically significant since it sits in the middle of the GIUK Gap. Control of that was virtually decisive in who would control the North Atlantic had the Cold War turned hot and would have had a huge impact on NATO's ability to receive reinforcements from the US, which had to come in by sea. This is the sole reason why the British lost the Cod Wars - because Iceland threatened to leave NATO and could in theory have gotten friendly with the Soviets in protest.
Yeah that was the main issue I had with the video. If Iceland wasn't important then we wouldn't have sent a force there during WWII to stop the Germans from doing it first
@@Clumsyoof Iceland doesn't even have a military, they have at most a lightly armed coast guard. They didn't "beat" us militarily because we never seriously fought the Icelanders. As I said in my original comment we lost the Cod Wars for mainly geopolitical reasons, namely the threat of Iceland leaving NATO and allowing the Soviets to gain an upper hand in controlling the GIUK Gap. To the British government at the time that was not a price worth paying for access to fishing waters.
You remind me a lot of Brain4breakfeast. You have a similar style of high quality videos with advanced and complicated topics and not being afraid to speak your mind.
Kraut has changed his video design after going on an aggressive campaigne against the alt-right. Even thou i didn't approve that period i'm glad i sticked with him to see these amazing videos.
@@BosonCollider yes because every commoner in the country was responsible for the colony which was PRIVATE PROPERTY of the king who btw met with hitler and received huge backlash for both the colony and the meeting once the public found out about it, literally almost no commoners knew what was going on in congo at least at the start, towards the end when people started finding out what happened they demmanded the colony would be property to the state instead of the king so it could be reformed which happened but i do suppose the reforms weren't entirely enough anyway, you're a dumbass who just just said my entire country deserves to be oqupied, killed and starved because one crazy king and a private militia did terrible things so go fuck yourself
@Carcinat V Yes, after Belgium got ocupied by germany in WW2 Leopold got locked up in a castle, one day hitler met up with him, nothing really became of that meeting but it doesn't exactly look good on him
The primary issue with the US government is that the politicians are incapable of looking at the political game in the long term. They are stuck with looking through the window of only their time in office. This especially egregious the higher up you go in the chain of command.
This is an inevitable consequence of democracy. That's why a lot of these countries have outer-parlamentary bodies which operate with the long game in mind. Sometimes they operate in the public eye and are constitutional like the supreme court, sometimes they operate hidden from the public and their actions are more gray, even unconstitutional and illegal such as the CIA, NSA. Of course their power is limited, since democracy and the public can only be steered not controlled.
@@TwistedNerve1 I see it as a pros and cons of democracy vs more dictatorial systems. Outside of werid cases like singapore having a democratic leadership record resembling north korea. Generally speaking democracies seem to sacrifice long term planning for increased government accountability, and dictatorships vice versa.
314 likes, first 3 numbers of pi. What an irrational number of likes for such a rational comment! Yh this comment only made sense when the like counter was at 314
@@cycla with the Philippines' current state, most Filipinos are more concerned with things at home like criminality, local development, corruption, etc.. Many think Duterte is still doing a good job with regards to that aspect.
@@cycla I support Duterte because his party is advocating for federalism. Though I don't approve of how he is handling the drug "problem" ( It was never really a problem it was just used as a scapegoat). In terms of economics, I could say he's doing well, we have maintained our 6-7% percent quarterly growth, and the people who say that they are poor have been reduced to 22.2% from that of 30%.
The problem is people think the US is interested in consuming the resources rather than controlling it and that the failure of the US to do so is somehow evidence that that wasnt their intention. Its too naive to think that these countries the USA aggressively influence and invade and occupy just happen to have large reserves of oil.
@@reecev2087 lol "other country" so we are just going to look away from Iraq? I said Influence invade and occupy. I am talking about the region as a whole.
I was pretty shocked the first time I heard about the Bangladeshi Genocide, or that India- a Hindu state, stepped in to save what was at that time East Pakistan- a Muslim state and antagonist to India from the genocide conducted by West Pakistan. Its especially surprising considering the hostility Bangladeshi's today have for India. And it wasn't that long ago either. Its crazy that this event is barely remembered today.
15:50 Not to forget Pakistan had send in terrorists in India that were equipped with USA weapons ( weapons that were supposed to be used in Afghanistan ) and they caused India's bloodiest terror attack, Mumbai attack of 2008 and the reason why India hates pakistan even more
There is no Bangladeshi hostility towards India. The two have a warm diplomatic relationship. Also India isn't a Hindu state. Its a secular state though communal tensions are on the rise in India these days
@@stansman5461 There are some dispute with water sharing. Otherwise Bangladesh and India have good relations. Bangladesh is not an ally of India, but instead tries to balance between India and China to get maximum benefit
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007." No, they didn't "steal" the oil like the Spanish taking American silver, but the war did lead to the privatization of the Iraqi oil industry, allowing foreign oil corporations to drill. It may not have been the only reason for the war, but Big Oil certainly was more than happy about it.
More importantly, it was an intentionally done to scare all of the OPEC nations straight, as Saddam was no longer pricing Iraqi oil exports in USD, an started to accept euros as well. That's extremely important because the US dollar is (to make a very long story very short) essentially based on the price of oil. That's why the US government can basically (another very, very long story) run a permanent deficit with no repercussions. "Petrodollar Warfare" is a fantastic book to read on this topic. The Triffin dilemma and the petrodollar recycling system are also topics to read up on. The US economy is based on bullets and black magic.
@Pierce DeCain the US doesn't fight for oil, per se. It fights for the oil to be sold exclusively in US dollars. That's the basis that makes the dollar the international reserve and commerce currency, which the US economy depends so much on...
Lol, what kind of leader would say: "Yeah, we wanted to have a strategic ally democracy in the Middle East, but we failed."? NO ONE. It's more optimal for them to say "We wanted oil, and we got it, success 😎".
Abizaid was the same moron that led the charge of de-Baathitification and the overall mistakes following Saddamn's toppling. He is retroactively trying to shift the blame - that is all. If US went to Iraq for oil, how come so much of it is owned by Iraqi companies? And why would US need to go to Iraq for oil? US has Texas.
@@bobob8820 yeah but its still talked in my country of Montenegro We should move foward as a people and focus on future, about how we can make good economy in our country, and not dwelling in the past for 20 more years...
Point of contention - Iceland was actually a very important strategic position during the cold war, being the base for the US sonar listening stations across the GIUK gap for soviet submarines which may prowl out and hunt allied convoys during a 'hot' cold war.
Yeah, but listen to the context! To simplify: a country always has a military, either their own or, as in Iceland's case, someone else's. As it's presented in the script, it's correct: Iceland's military expenditures are stable at zero.
@@jmolofsson Except the video presents it as Iceland being too insignificant to warrant military action, rather than putting it in the list with the Central American/Caribbean states who can rely on someone else to protect them for them.
Both do a fair amount in country balls though brain4breakfast does a fare bit more through them. also both have very similar thumbnail styles... wrong Comment
America's military spending will remain high regardless of NATO ally spending. If you graph out EU spending vs US spending there's essentially no correlation. US military spending is more or less the result of domestic politics in the fact that it's the only welfare that can be sold to Republicans; thus you get a lot of compromises that read 10bn increase for discretionary spending and 10bn increase for military spending. The military industrial complex is the main driver of US spending; not in a conspiratorial sense so much as the "my district would like lots of well paying jobs" sense. My favorite example of the absurdity of this is deprecated nuclear silos; it's been written into law that these must maintain full funding and staffing for what is in effect an empty building, mostly because for a lot of rural towns having one of these near them means a supply of high paying jobs that don't require a post-secondary education. * Made edit from useless to empty given that theoretically a new weapon could at some point be installed
@@kubli365 can't find the initial long form article (I think I read years ago) though here's an article mentioning it's inclusion in an omnibus bill from 2014 www.nti.org/gsn/article/spending-bill-would-deny-pentagon-funding-eliminate-icbms/ A fun little detail skipped in the article; the senator pushing for the continued funding of these silos is from North Dakota, which at it's peak had the worlds 3rd largest nuclear arsenal (USSR > USA > North Dakota > France) meaning that North Dakota has a significant dog in the fight for keeping these things funded as cash cows.
It's true but the military industrial complex lobbies the shit out of all levels of government anyways just to be safe. In America post secondary education is a debt trap if your not careful and unions are weak and or corrupt to the point even trade work can suck since people are connecting the dots that college is a scam due to privatization of student loans and no federally funded post secondary education. The us government is rolling back the rights of its adults under 21 as is.
Thank you! That really took me out of the video. The US was willingly negligent of European defence spending up until 2014, and you can't really berate your friend for not having a fire extinguisher as their house is burning down, if every time they've thought of buying one you go "ehh, what's the matter, it's just gonna cost you money".
I bet it won't have the required flash back to history of Russia that would partially explain its paranoid behavior towards neighbor countries and USA. Like the 1919 intervention of the Western countries and Japan to the newly formed Soviet Union. They almost split the country to pieces but Red Army kicked them out.
i mean yes, but there are also moderates who don't want to jump headfirst into what will likely be the next world war there is pacifism to the point of enabling which is harmful, but there is also not thinking before getting involved in a huge war. while there are those who wrongly think we shouldn't send ANY support, there are also those who want us to declare war and russia here and now. war with russia would be painful thing. russia may seem like its not much with it's invasion of ukraine slowing but an invansion of such a huge area as ukraine takes time, and with the overwhelming support ukraine has gotten with weapons and aid and small amounts of volenteers (plus the corruption in the russian military that has been rumored) it snot suprising its been stalled. however, if nato gets involved it will be all of russia's might come to bear instead of one small part of it. long story short USA getting involved now would 1. give putin plenty justification to created fake news that the west is attacking their country 2. be incredibly unpopular to the american people considering a lot of americans are sick of foriegn entanglement, especially one like a war in russia which would be much much bloodier than vietnam, america's previous war you cannot blame a population for being resistant to war. few jump at the chance to have them or their brother or children or relative to fight and possibly die, particularly if that war is halfway across the world in a perfect world we would be defending ukraine (and the way its looking who knows how soon countries may get more directly involved) but people aren't like that, especially the American populous who are sick of those same foreign entanglements that we have been stuck in since the cold war there is extreme pacifism to the point of enabling but there is also then opposite extreme of getting involved so quick and without thinking that we regret it in retrospect, such as the vietnam war
@@sovietunion7643 that is why we send weapons, and that is all that they need. The Ukrainians can do the job (and have already been doing it) of kicking the Russians out on their ass. No boots on the ground necessary. But let it be known that this is THAT time.
True but Salazar and Franco were in NATO from the beginning. Erdogan and Orban are newbs. Actually, I stand corrected. Spain didn't officially join NATO until after Franco died.
At the time of the Second Gulf War I never believed that Saddam had WMDs, but I fully supported the war initially, on the ground the Saddam regime's barbarity. I saw the purpose of the war the opportunity of the US units its influence to rebuild Iraq into a Western democracy the same way we rebuilt Germany and Japan. Within a couple weeks it became apparent that the government had become too incompetent even for that.
It's not strictly the incompetence of the government. The circumstances of middle eastern dictatorships and post-war Japan/Germany are VASTLY different. Their dogma was far weaker than that of Islam, and as a nation they were both beaten and embarrassed by their own actions and by their loss to us as an invading army. And yes, I'm aware Sadam's dictatorship was far more secular than the theocracies that typically dominate the area (Ba'athism and all). That's precisely the point. Democracies don't work in the middle east because eventually a theocracy will knock over the government, either by outright warfare or by subverting democracy by simply voting more and more fundamentalism into power (because the radicals often hold a sizable majority there, and aren't above threatening people into compliance). The reason I say all this is to make the point that Saddam, as much as a shitshow as he was, might have been the best we could hope for in the region.
@@alonkilci4352 The truth is more nuanced. There were WMDs, but no one were hiding them. They were lost and forgotten and only found after the war. So the pretence for the war was still nonsense.
@@HaveYouTriedGuillotines The man who helped U.S. soldiers topple the Saddam statue in 2003, now says he deeply regrets it. "Now there are 1,000 Saddams". This is why I think the U.S. would be best served by a return to the Jeffersonian model, or at least contributing to stability before insisting on democracy- theirs was not perfect to begin with, either; they should not hold others a standard they were never able to reach.
@@LancesArmorStriking Honestly, the whole pretense that you can just topple the status quo and erect a McDemocracy on top of it seems absurd at face value to me. Our history should teach us better, but that's just the thing: It doesn't even _need_ to. Common sense and a basic analysis of the opposition should lead people to realize that the strategy we're using will never work. This is why I think none of this has _ever_ been done in good faith. Or at least, most of this was just driven by greed and geopolitical maneuvering, and had little to nothing to do with democracy or freedom. The Cheney plan was basically "we're going to invade, and then we're just going to sit on the region indefinitely and milk this fucker until it shrivels up and dies."
As an international relations major, I can’t thank you enough for making these videos, and for actually taking the time to become educated on these subjects before pushing out any reactionary swill.
Faaris Ahmad I love how you act as if there’s any non-establishment foreign policy creators. It’s a government lead field of work, everyone who does it is going to be basically “establishment.” Not just that, the people who really make this work (Foreign Service Officers) are some of the most overworked and underpaid legal professionals in the US Government bureaucracy. I really think we owe them at least a serious amount of respect since they are the ones that actually prevent wars and negotiate better deals for the American people.
@@537monster Yes they do such a good service, thats why our boys are in Saudi Arabia and supporting Jihadists in Syria, people who would happily slaughter our Christian civilisation, while we bomb Assad who protects the Christian's in his territory.
@@537monster If foreign service officers were truly patriotic, they would lead a coup against this cosmopolitan and corporate driven government, which has no concern for Americans aside from importing more people to drive wages down
Faaris Ahmad they don’t dictate where our troops go, that’s the presidents job. However the fact you never hear about them is really a sign that they are doing their jobs. They handle all of the little things that most Americans never have to worry about. They secure trade deals, handle extradition treaties, and even help Americans who are in legal trouble overseas. If you ever find yourself arrested in Saudi Arabia for whatever reason, you can bet a FSO is negotiating for your release, usually doing so for less than $40,000 a year, working from 9am to 10pm, away from their families, and with no paid overtime. It is a shitty, shitty job with very little thanks involved. They deserve respect for that, especially given that in some scenarios they might be putting their lives in danger.
@@Turinnn1 Toisaalta noinkin, mutta jos puhutaan aiheen mukaan sotilaallisesta liittoutumisesta, niin olihan Suomen puolustusvoimat tuohonkin aikaan olemassa oikeastaan täysin Neuvostoliiton mahdollisen hyökkäyksen takia. Vaikutuspiirissä toki oltiin aika pahastikin...
@@tuomopoika YYA sopimuksen merkityksellisin artiklahan oli että Suomi ja Neukut sotilaallisessa yhteystyössä estäisivät mahdolliset hyökkäykset Suomen kautta itään. Ainoa ero Ita-Euroopan sopimuksiin oli, että Suomella oli sananvaltaa sen suhteen tehdäänkö mitään.
Jesus, are you people even speaking Finnish? It just looks like you're slapping your keyboard and throwing in some umlauts every now and then. And I thought polish looked ugly...
Your channel is a great source of in depth information on various topics and also an inspiration for a student of international relations such as me. Todays topic was very interesting ans it truely clarified modern day conflicts and strategies. Thank you for that!
14:23 The L85 shown there was adopted years after the Falklands War. Interestingly enough the British used the L1A1 then, which was a burst-fire version of the FN FAL the Argies themselves used. Some sources even say that Brit soldiers took Argentine FALs and used those instead because of their full-auto capabilities and them sharing the same magazines/ammo.
Thank you for debunking the Iraq War oil myth. I've always said that if the military-industrial complex wanted the oil that badly, they would have worked with a brutal dictator like Saddam, not forcefully extract it from a failed state racked by civil war.
You asume that the Bush administration was competent, and for what I remember they were a bunch of liar clowns. Conflicts just aren't simple matters, and of course oil control wasn't the sole reason. The USA military complex is a monster that should be fed tax payer $ in a regular basis. Lots of people got rich in that stupid and useless war.
What he debunked exactly? What he said about Iraqi Goverment selling the oil to China is totally misleading. What it matters in this case, is not who buys the oil, but who gains the profit from selling it. From 1973 to 2003 no foreign company could oparate in Iraq. Guess what happened after that.
@@empithre only one U.S company has oil fields in Iraq and they produce a small amount of oil compared to what china gets from the country. And you'd think if oil was the reason America would get something
There's no question how he got away with it when you realize that the whole damn bureaucracy is corrupt as hell and doesn't give 2 shits about dead American soldiers, much less dead Iraqi civilians. Sometimes I think we could use a good purge of the state apparatus.
No president will ever be tried or convicted of anything. The first time that happens it would open the flood gates and every president thereafter would face politically motivated prosecution the minute he leaves office. The current inhabitant of the WHite House is a good example. He'll never see so much as a slap on the wrist despite all he's done. No matter how justified, the GOP would get all butt hurt and the next president will get investigation subpoenas ever week from Mitch McConnell.
Iraq should follow America or else it would disstabilized reagion as china and russia and iran had and still have great interest in it aganist Turkey and Saudi .... how the fuck you can explain this if you were a president
Writing a college paper called NATO: Entanglement v. Freedom of Action Theory and this video has been a great help. Been a viewer but never thought to watch this video until I thought it might just be worth it and damn, as always. Already found one of your sources (thought those numbers sounded familiar), but the other too are amazing finds. Thank you for everything you do for the academic community.
Some of you fellow viewers may have noticed, that on one picture, Greenland is shown to be a member of NATO, and on another picture shown as not being a member. Greenland is a home ruled part of the Realm of Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland started out as Norwegian colony back in the days of the double monarchy of Denmark-Norway. Denmark sided with Napoleon, and one of the outcomes of the Treaty of Kiel was, that Norway was ceded to Sweden. The British were not interested in ceding the North Atlantic colonies - Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands - to Sweden. Denmark was beaten black and blue, so leaving sovereignty over said colonies meant that military presence would be Danish and not Swedish. Denmark had already been beaten into submission, thus the supremacy of the Royal Navy would not be challenged. Sweden on their part saw little - if any - benefit from a presence in the North Atlantic and did not pursue the matter. Thus, Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands were ceded to the Kingdom of Denmark. Iceland became independent in 1918, but did form a double monarchy with Denmark. There were some ties other than the Danish monarch also being monarch of Iceland. While an independant nation, Iceland did ask Denmark to uphold Iceland's interests in foreign and military affairs. This last link was severed in 1944. Denmark had been occupied by Germany in 1940, and was thus unable to act independently. British, Canadian, and American forces were present on Iceland, and in 1944 a referendum was held. With an overwhelming majority, the people of Iceland voted for a republic and thus severed the ties with Denmark. The Faroe Islands remained a part of the Realm of the Kingdom of Denmark, but was granted autonomy in 1948. Since then, The Faroe Islands have slowly moved closer to indepence, but remains an autonomous part. Greenland remained a colony up until 1953, where Greenland became a Danish county. At least on paper. The sentinel of the vast majority of the thousands of Danish officials, skilled laborers, health personal, and teachers was still highly patronizing towards the indigenous Inuits, and Greenland's economy relied heavily on subsidies from Denmark (as was and to some extend is the case with the Faroe Islands). Greenland joined the European Union in 1973 along with Denmark. In 1979, Greenland was granted home rule, and in 1982 Greenland abolished it's membership of the European Union. The home rule was amended in 2009, and Greenland vies for indepence. This is a precarious matter, as Greenland's economy is both vulnerable and volatile, the vastness of the Island, combined with the minuscule size of the population severely limits Greenland's capacity of enforcing and uphold sovereignty. As of today, Denmark upholds sovereignty, but China is making a huge effort to establish a firm foothold in Greenland. Russia is also heavily present in the Arctics, and America has always considered Greenland as a part of their geopolitical and military sphere of interest. The American military bases and installations in Greenland were either completed or approved while Greenland was still a colony, so decisions were made in Copenhagen. Except for the duration of the German occupation, where Eske Brun, Landshøvding (Governor) of Greenland ruled Greenland (based on the 1925 emergency governing act). His colleague Aksel Svane was dispatched to Washington to settle the supply situation, which was becoming dire, as the ties with Denmark had been severed. Greenland was also occupied by the United States to protect against a German invasion. This occupation was rather benigne, and the ties between Greenland and America still exist. Should Greenland opt for full independence, there is little - if any - doubt that Greenland will find itself under American protection. America has already placed investments in Greenland in an attempt to keep China at bay. Sorry for the long post. Here's a hash tag: #potato
Greenland can't get independence. They are already protected by the west. They don't want to trade being under danish rule to being under American. What they want from independence is exactly the opposite of that, but they know they cannot have it, and they know America would not provide the same benefits as the Danish government.
Geopolitics brought down to a easy to get level for everybody. I really admire you for the work and research that goes into your videos Kraut. Please keep it up, you are one of the last bastions of rationality and common sense on this platform.
I laughed when my country appeared. (Iceland) Kraut seems like someone who could discuss hypothetical geopolitical futures without it turning into an argument. Would love to see a video on how the EU functions, it's pro's and con's and how they could be improved. Especially since my country is thinking of joining. Would be very helpful.
I've recently grown to consider your content to be the best political commentary on this platform and I am absolutely amazed by how much you've improved since your anti-SJW days. Keep up the good work!
@@imperialinquisition6006 His comments on easter europe where incredibly insulting and filled with a western attitude of prejudice and pitying, all while mentioning how many friends he supposedly has from the region and how much he's 'loved' by it. It made me rethink if he was right about a single region he philosophizes about, when the one time he talked about a region I already knew of he was factually illiterate.
Fun fact: Tchaikovsky actually hated this piece, said it was too loud... But he got a good pay and knew he would become infamous if he made this one, that's why there's church bells at the end, he created this piece for the opening of a cathedral.
I am very much pleased by the extensive list of sources in the end. Your videos are of exceptional quality. I am sure you will soon experience radical levels of growth in this channel if you keep up this quality. Keep up and I will be watching all of them over thanks giving break.
@@shutout951 instead of installing a puppeted or a corrupt government you should guys had letted the iraqis choose their next leader after saddam falled.
@Fuck RUclips who even asked you to invade on the first place and of course we would resist it what would you expect I have a feeling that you're a troll
@@OFFICERchoclet Democracy is always the right thing to do. Maybe I attracted trolls because someone thought I was angry at you for questioning the US. I hope you didn't feel that way. I truly want to learn more about the Iraqi perspective. It's hard to believe that they would have been happy if Saddam was still in power, but it is also clear that America allowed for chaos and violence to spread. You made suggestions about after Saddam fell. Do you think America did the right thing when we sent our army to take Saddam out? If you think the invasion was good, do you think it was necessary?
@@shutout951 I actually am not mad at you iraqi people don't care if they are in a dictatorship their point is if it's a good nation it's a good nation no matter what ideology it is
I'm personally not a war hawk and do believe that there are legit criticisms that can be made of the US's foreign policy and it's history of world policing. But when people among the anti interventionist side start going as far as spreading conspiracy theories and supporting/defending tyrants I stop taking them seriously.
The US supports genocidal dictators: Saudi Arabia, Chile (Pinochet), Brazil, Argentina, and other cold war dictatorships. They do not bring freedom anywhere.
@@thiagoecb U.S. supported Saddam as well while he was purging thousands of innocents, shias, and genociding kurds. He was a good little puppet so long as he kept the Iranians at bay.
There's also the fact that people can become pretty hysterical as their loved ones die or suddenly are at risk of dying for something that they don't believe in, especially if it's something that they don't understand. Foreign diplomacy and geopolitics are not well understood or taught in America, and I've learned so many things just from this wonderful video alone!
Because the Mexican government initially utilized it's military forces to combat the drug trade, despite the fact that the Mexican military was never created, nor equipped to deal with contraband smuggling. This led to a sort of "Vietnam" problem with the Mexican military. They couldn't easily identify smugglers and drug traders from regular civilians, this led to many massacres of civil populations, who were only then to quick to respond in kind and began arm themselves against these soldiers who were "protecting" them. Many civil populations in retribution did indeed start to become allies with smugglers and cartels, out of just the basic instinct for survival.
@@rejvaik00 Thats the biggest load of bull shit I've seen in along time. Tbe drug war is "failure"because it was manufactured to be a constant stream of revenue for private prison complexes, the justice system and continue to bloat the budgets of agencies like the DEA and covertly a source of money for support to allies to the US engaging in bloody coups or conflicts ( eg. CIA money to Contras). It was also a way to help presidential candidates run on law and order bullshit and disproportionately target minority and low income communitiesas a result. The only thing México has to do with this is that cartel influence and control of supply and distribution has predominantly moved there to meet the demand of its biggest customer...the US, just like Colombia did in the 80's. Not that the Mexican president and army should have just sparked a war against a bunch of different factions who had been gaining power and influence for decades prior, that was a poorly thought out course of action, but to not even mention the influence the US has had in this bullshit is extremely short sighted. The war on drugs is only a failure for everyone not making money out it; for those actors, its going extremely well
@@WolvenKay You're asking a difficult question with no easy answer. My short answer would be, read Thucydides, Xenophon, Aristotle, Polybius, and then work your way through to modern historians. The Iraq war was a calculated gamble, in which we (the U.S.) managed to seemingly make every wrong strategic move. If successful it could have brought near total peace to the region. Instead we were naive and arrogant, which is always a recipe for disaster. It was even the demise of the undefeatable Sparta in the end. Oil is an easy answer, so it works for most people, but it is plain and simply wrong. Hope this helps a little, my friend.
At best I would say oil was a secondary or tertiary reason. Regardless of who most of the oil went to in the end, any goal of turning idea into a democracy, founded by the USA basically lead to American interests in the countries resources. Regardless, I wouldn't call it the primary motivator. Most people who say this are just parroting the same lines from a decade+ ago. At the time it did seem quite likely oil was a huge motivator. But hindsight's one hell of a drug.
I first heard that quote in the early nineties over a drink with a northern Irish red-haired man. He was drunk and strongly supported the IRA. I said I'm an American I'm not for either side of your troubles. He replied in a voice I can still recall dripping with bitterness, "if you're not for us, you're against us!"
I just remembered this little anecdote -- well, it's not really an anecdote. A thing. Anyway, I was in college when America declared war in Iraq the second time, and I will always remember this little passive -aggressive graffiti exchange I saw everyday on a stairwell bc it made me laugh. Someone had stuck a sticker on the underside of a staircase that read, "no war for oil". Someone else has come along and written over it, "Peace by superior firepower!" It made me laugh to myself whenever I saw it. I enjoyed political snark even before I was into geopolitics.
As an American I am excited to discover the way forward for my nation in the post-Cold War foreign policy environment we now find ourselves in! I hope to work in the Foreign Service one day.
@ashin joy . No . No . Not everyone you don’t like is hitler . I wasn’t aware Putin had plans to eradicate the Ukrainian race . With gas chambers of any sorts. Grow up and get more mature material
@@roberthidrobo6254 obviously he's no trying to put the Ukrainians in concentration camps but he's still unjustifiably invading someone's country and killing their people. There is literally no justification for his actions. If you think it is OK to conquer someone's land through war then why don't you invite the Europeans back to colonise you
No, the destruction of Europe by the US, UK and the Soviet Union is not at all comparable to NATO defending the corrupt government of an ethnically Slavic country from other Slavs. You can go fight in Ukraine for Joe Biden's money laundering, but I will have no part in it and I am of the opinion that the west should too.
i just keep coming back to this one. captures such a dystopian moment in america, gathering manufactured consent for cynical wars with no real enemy, target, or physical goals. great video
I'd like to add a personal insight into something you said, about how diplomatic policy during the Cold War became a labyrinth of contradictions afterwards. I live in Brazil, a South American country that like most countries in America suffered an extremely brutal dictatorial period that has political and economic consequences until today. Dictatorships that were financed by the United States in fear that a new Cuba would be created, destroying even democracies because of that fear. My grandfather worked in a pharmacy in a small town that didn't have a hospital, because of that he practically worked as the doctor of the place and sometimes he went home to see people in need, a local colonel started having problems with my grandfather for also having a pharmacy, but be much smaller than his. What happened was that this colonel found out that my grandfather had books banned by the government and denounced him. My grandfather went out to see someone on a day, and that day the military police knocked on his house demanding to enter, my grandmother opened the door and they asked where my grandfather was, she said that he was out desperate and one of the soldiers pointed the rifle at my father who was still a child and to my aunt soon after, after searching the house the police left and went to where he was. Luckily this gave my grandmother time to burn all the books so they would have no evidence when the police returned. My grandfather was imprisoned for a while, but without the books he was released after some weeks and, from what he said, he was not tortured, but he heard the screams of other prisoners. According to my grandmother, the drinking problem he has got worse after that, he wasn't a violent drunk, but that doesn't make it a good thing. The thing is, I never knew my grandfather, he died of a heart attack before I was born. This is just one family story among thousands of stories of thousands of families who have lost fathers, mothers, children. The dictatorship ended like the military wanted, they slowly stole what they wanted, placed several privileges for them and their descendants to live off the state and the torturers were all released, the victims were left without justice, thousands were "disappeared" or "killed themselves", and all political problems were left in the hands of a newborn democracy. And like any country with a brutal part, there are denialists and supporters of the dictatorship. People with common sense who fear the return of the dictatorship will tell stories like the one I told about my grandfather for the next ones so that they never forget the terror. Of course, part of this hatred we feel for the dictatorship also goes to a country that said that during the same period that it supported such atrocities, it claimed to protect democracy against a red enemy. For us Latinos, it's easy for someone to say they defended democracy when it wasn't their ears that didn't hear the screams of the tortured, it wasn't their mouths shut by constant censorship and it wasn't their eyes that saw the streets painted with blood. Anything the United States, and therefore NATO, does is viewed with cynicism by us. The USA, which for some is seen as a country that delivers a potential for a better life, is seen as a tyrant who, in order to maintain their interests, will not be afraid to commit terrible atrocities and will only not like that these same atrocities are in their name.
I don't have a similar story, but all of my ascendants are from Chile, and since none of them was wealthy, I'm certain they could tell similar stories, even if they are no longer alive to tell them to me. But what I can tell you is that any hatred you feel towards the US or NATO is misguided. Any state or alliance of states will only act in its best interests, and the interests of states does not always take into consideration the interest of individuals. We, as small individuals part of large nations, are as helpless as dried leaves in a tornado. Unless you are wealthy, there is little we can do but hope the tornado does not upend all of our hopes and dreams we spent so long building. What hate can do however is politics. Hate politics has been trending for the last few years, but it has been a core component of politics since the start of civilization. It does mean however that you must choose a side, after all, a narrative can only survive if it has both a hero and a villain. But politics does not interest me; i find the cold, calculated rationality of pure geopolitics much more interesting. True, geopolitics will never give me an answer on the question of "how can I make a better world". But it helps me understand the resulting forces of complex geopolitical factors, and helps me realize that we are but small ants trying to understand the motivations and mechanics of humans, while hoping we dont get stepped on by their gigantic feet.
This was kinda lurking in the back of my mind. Everyone always says the US has no business doing anything and everyone should just mind their own, but that's always sounded overly idealistic. People think you're an imperialist if you are for any intervention whatsoever. Now should we divert more attention to our homefront? 100%. And NATO should become less dependent on the US military
@@ccdsds3221 While i’m of the idea that most American interventions are bad, most recently the war in Ukraine has been a good example of American intervention. Historically American interventions in the World Wars (not so much the first one) were also better example of US intervention.
The US didn't enter Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else for freedom, democracy, or any other platitude. If they really wanted to help these countries, they would have lifted the Sanctions they placed on these countries in the first place as well as never impose them. It was a logical process dictated by the ruling class of the United States aimed at conquering untapped markets, taking control of valuable natural resources, and maintaining important geostrategic military outposts for their own benefit, of course to the detriment of everyone else in and outside these countries being occupied. The few that benefited were either defense contractors, Halliburton and Lockheed Martin, and all the other rotten entities that pushed pro-war American intervention as propaganda from China to Latin America, private security firms like Blackwater, and oil and energy Giants that got preferential contracts to Iraqi oil(Which by the way, before the Iraq war, Iraqs oil was fully Nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later and NOW ITS SUDDENLY AND LARGELY PRIVITIZED and utterly dominated by foreign firms), reconstruction firms like Bechdale and Flor that received billions in contracts for "rebuilding Iraq"(With more than 70 American companies and individuals having won up to 8 billion in contracts, a lot of that money unironically ended up in Politicians hands... Hm, it couldn't be nearly 60% of the companies had employees or board members who either served in or had close ties to executive branches for Republican and Democratic Administrations... And woah! A lot of those companies ended up donating a lot of money to presidential campaigns!) and of course all the politicians and lobbyists directly tied to the capital of all the above examples that either benefited directly or indirectly from the Iraq war. The actual cost of the Iraq war, however, was the destruction of countless millions of Iraqi lives, the ruin of its cities, the pollution of its river and land, the defacement of ancient treasures of Humanity intrinsic to the oldest civilization on earth, and reverberating adverse effects of instability on the greater west Asian region as well as the world. Political instability, sectarian violence, displacement, a ruined economy and having fallen every conceivable measure of the quality of life. An estimate of 2.4 million Iraqis have died since 2003 as a result of our countries illegal invasion, with a minimum of 1.5 million and a maximum of 3.4 million. Tell me how this wasn't a war crime on the largest scale? It was literally just full on imperialistic and for empire rather than for anything else and we should 100% fuckinf denounce it
@@Nobody142 it scares me how many people are blinded from seeing this and how many of those who have refuse to accept it. The US has done mostly bad with a little good as a SIDE EFFECT
Essentially, there are no solutions that will result in peace and harmony for all. We are doomed to eternal conflict and rivalries. Humanity is a nightmare.
A lot of the pacifism towards the Nazis was largely due to the fear of communism and the USSR being greater, after all Hitler initially admired the british empire whilst the USSR was outwardly antithetic to western imperialism.
So basically people who allied themselves with USA during Cold War did so only against USSR communism but once USSR was no more, things became much more complicated?
Roughly. NATO is kinda of split between america and the rest of NATO. America wants to expand influence in the middle east to secure it's political and economic influence, as well as it's own threats in Asia (basically just China). While the rest of the alliance wants to focus more on Europe and defense. Hence why Türkiye, Britain, and Poland are so supportive of Ukraine. Europe is concerned with Europe, America is concerned with Arabia and Asia, but both sides still want the support of each other
Video is a great medium, but many creators haven't gotten past using it for short form, thoughtless entertainment. You are using this medium to create and share thoughtful, well-researched work. The world needs more of this. Your creations are works of art. You've experienced a ton of subscriber and view growth in the past few weeks, please don't let the money and influence change your channel to a mainstream, thoughtless content-farm. Keep up the quality work!
I always love it when people, particularly from Eastern Europe or North America, (where I’m from) always (not all of them, but the minority of both regions that do) say this and that about massacres and other war crimes or negative dents on their regional history, and try to say things like what happened in Yugoslavia back in the 90s and the 60s scoop in NA, never happened. And they always say “Don’t listen to that/the media” even though they themselves are controlled and effected by media more then everyone else. Gotta love it.
The issue with a lot of modern interventions is that they seem to do no good. Afghanistan is the best example: it got invaded by the two most powerful millitary forces that ever existed: US and USSR and neither of them are able to really gain any sort of stable control of that country. These conflicts then seem like just one huge money sink and a meat grinder. No matter how many ressources and men you put in there you just don't stabilize it. So it just looks like a gigantic waste money and even worse human lives.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 countries with strong brainwashing dogmas(democracy and communism) tend to forget that foreign countries with strong family structures don't accept foreign occupation, especially not with obvious traps like democracy and communism as the main occupation policy. i say traps because there are exactly 0 countries in history who developed from undeveloped status by using democracy.(the US, rome and greeks are oligarchies) as for communism, its good in the short term but have too many negatives. populist dictators are the best for less developed countries.
Speaking as an American, our extended stay in Afghanistan was more a product of domestic politics than critical thought. The initial goal of the invasion was to punish Afghanistan for harboring terrorists that killed thousands of Americans and warn other nations against doing the same, which is reasonable enough. However, once we were there, none of our Presidents wanted to pull out because they knew the regime we established would collapse, and that many voters would blame this on whoever was in office at the time. (When Biden finally did it, this is exactly what happened.) Not only that, but some Americans got so moralistic about the project that they thought we had to stay because "what about democracy?" or "what about girls' education?" It would be great if we could give all the people of Afghanistan the same rights we enjoy here, but that was never going to actually work due to factors that were out of U.S. control, and at any rate, the point of our government is to protect Americans' rights and interests, not the entire world's.
Well, technically the war wasn't for oil, but the US has a history of ""securing"" strategic allies, who just happen to have what they need. That's all fine, I just disagree with their methods. As you said, they wanted to install a friendly government, but going to war because of this, it's still wrong, in my opinion.
He’s not defending it. He’s just explaining it. He hearted a comment saying Bush should’ve been imprisoned for the entire debacle…which is hard to disagree with XD
18:30 - NOT 2% of annual budget but 2% of GDP. It's quite a difference :D
That's also an insane amount of money. Japan spends 0.9% of GDP and are the 9th largest military in the world by expenditure. Doubling it to 1.8% would make them the third largest military in the world by expenditure.
@@thecooletompie Which is the objective of NATO. Remember that in the context of its founding, the west had just watched the five most militaristic nations on the planet, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Germans and the Polish (See the interwar period to observe as little Kurzon Line Poland fought down the soviets and aggressed its neighbors to become the 6th most powerful state in Europe) finish a grudge match wherein all parties were operating in a state of total war. The western front had seen nothing like what happened in China and Russia, and whats more the Soviets were still standing. They could have pushed all the way to the Channel and no one in the Allies was sure if they could have stopped them
Sure, we know in retrospect that the soviets were almost entirely depleted in manpower and resources, but that's not what we saw in 1945. All we saw in 1945 was literally thousands of tanks and millions of Russian, Byelorussian and Ukranian soldiers, and so the bar was set accordingly for the west.
America give 5BILLION a year to Israel. making Israel the biggest welfare state in the world.
@@iskenuz Fifth most militaristic nation on the planet? Polandball must now be feeling appreciated at last!
@@MorphingReality Because they have a such large GDP.
The oldest maxim on geopolitics
“There are no permanent friends.
Only permanent interests.”
every EU4 player has experienced this.
Even interests are not permanent.
The oil dollar will fall. It already is in the early process of doing so, in fact.
GravianS
Not specific interests but geopolitical interests in general
@@HaveYouTriedGuillotines Oh hey. Oil prices in the US are negative now.
probably some english said that
Entanglement theory: when two quantum particles or sovereign nations can interact in ways that do not seem physically or ideologically tangible that would equally spook Einstein.
That's a perfect joke
Words too big for me. Simplify, pls!
@@oniemployee3437 Basically, Einstein didn't like quantum particles and politics because they both seemed unreasonable for different reasons, but he would later contribute to some parts of quantum theory. He always avoided talking about politics, and I think that was for the best.
@@tiffyw92 Yeah. Someone as smart and rational like him would be losing his mind if he started talking and watching how incompetent politicians can be.
Not to mention the mysterious "Spooky diplomacy at a distance"
"Or Get Belgium'ed" nice
*Identifies as a roadblock*
@@meandmetoo8436 *cries in not even a roadblock*
69 likes nice
@@Elenrai let's all cry in the corner : 🇫🇷🇵🇱🇨🇿🇸🇰🇩🇰🇧🇪🇳🇱🇱🇺
"🇳🇴🇦🇹"
This point was poorly made. Belgium had a good military for a country of its size, and made a good account of themselves during the first world war. They were Belgiumed due to their strategic geographic position, not due to their lack of military commitment.
I saw someone at a TedTalk describe American geopolitics like this
The USA used to have the Soviets as an enemy on 3 fronts: Nuclear, Economical, Ideological. One enemy, clear as day, everyone was on the same page. Now the US have 3 fronts to fight. There's a nuclear front with Iran/North Korea, economical disputes with China, and Ideological differences with Islamic countries.
Also political system with China, with democracy vs communism/socialist.
@@lokilonii China is NOT a socialist/communist country. It‘s more a authoritarian capitalistic one party state.
@@timalexander1811 Democracy vs authoritarianism is a very serious ideological front.
@@infinity8543 It's a weak one. Consider America is allied with several "authoritarian" countries. And considering America is very happy to force their system on other countries through violent measures (AKA authoritarianism).
@@MishaFlower Violence isn't authoritarianism, you don't need a authoritarian government to declare war it just helps out beucase there's less berurocracy in the way
“Get Belgiumed” make that a shirt
*Wears that shirt in the congo*
Oh god oh fuck
@GenericGamer no.227 Ur hands
Hand em over
Get Polished
@@JW-mr5mh get germanied
I like that whole section 8:30
As a Bangladeshi it's nice to see people discuss more about what happened to us in 1971. But the mention was vastly simplified. We were fighting the Pakistanis for about 9 months till India helped out in the last 12 days. That too after Pakistan bombed one of their airfields. But time constraints are a thing so no worries. You have some good videos so keep it up.
I will be making a video about the partition of India and that war eventually.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot thanks. And about the liberation war of Bangladesh don't blindly believe Bangladeshi state reports. A lot of it is propaganda. For example the number of victims of the genocide is numbered at 3 million by our national department but the real number should be much lower. We have a really good propaganda machine which suppresses that information and anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of our free state. It's just ulta nationalistic bullshit. And real information about us will be hard to come by. You've got a lot of work ahead of you so good luck.
There are barely documentations about it on youtube
On propaganda, Bangladesh has been going on as a de facto fascist state since it's liberation. Even today political dissidents are tortured and if necessary, just literally obliterated. No matter what party comes, they play the same fascist games.
@@abemi869 well we are a country where two of our biggest leaders were assassinated within 8 years of each other. Voting doesn't really work. The elections are unfair. Political opponents are dealt with harshly. But I wouldn't go so far as to call ourselves fascist. Maybe we are heading in that direction. But not there yet.
One of my favorite jokes related to American militarism is "you're about to find out why America doesn't have free health care"
We do though. I don't pay a cent for healthcare (or at least I didn't until I voluntarily purchased private insurance under an HMO, this year). Medi-Cal paid for my healthcare until I decided to go private. I'm honestly tired of hearing this trope.
The US does have subsidized (including free) healthcare, it's just not Federal (aka people vote for the laws they want in their own state; There are 50 states each with their own laws which residents vote on). The bottom line is that people in the US largely do not like an overly centralized government. When it comes to laws, what one may want in California is not the same as one may want in Texas. What one may want in Germany may not be what one wants in France. And whether it is California, or Texas (for example), each voter in each state votes for the laws and policies they want (in their own state).
Each of these 50 states have their own populations/demographics, laws, and voting tendencies. To put this in perspective, California (one such state with subsidized healthcare/Medi-Cal) has a larger population than the entirety of Canada or Australia and California provides free healthcare to those who cannot afford it.
People severely oversimplify how the US works. It's not that simple.. This US is basically 50 different countries, all with a similar foreign policy but with differing domestic policies. And if there is a Federal law which an individual state doesn't like, often that state just puts the middle finger to the Federal government.
@@getmeoutofsanfrancisco9917 Sir, this is a NATO outpost
America spends more on healthcare per capita than any country in the world, almost 50% more than next place of Switzerland. Their system is just really inefficient at making use of this, giving the American people lower life expectancy than a place like China, Chile, Portugal, Cuba, Lebanon etc....
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 Americans* spend most on healthcare per Capita.
Distinction between people and government
@@cloroxbleach9222 Even in terms of government spending on healthcare, the US ranks as one of the highest. Between Medicare, the VA, etc. they spend more per capita than Canada does for its entire healthcare system.
I love how the Russian flag stares at our very souls with its dead cold eyes white as the pitiless snow.
That is how Russia is to Russians as well.
And then Tchaikovsky starts playing...
You could say the same for the PRC (Modern day China)
@@mercenarygundam1487 Nah you are consuming too much propaganda, before CCP unify China, China is a war hellhole and now China is the master of soft power, the leading country in highspeed railway, EV and they have a lot and beautiful skyscrapers and CCP is also lifted 800 million Chinese people out If poverty
Hello. I’m from the future. Yup
"The reason for the Iraqi war wasn't oil but influence."
*Repeat that again for the back of the class, we need that shared ASAP*
As a soldier in the US Army I was hurt greatly after hearing that. My love for oil is greater than that of my own life, and to hear that MY government didn't agree, but rather wanted to get more likes on their nudes?!?!? I am truly now a broken man.
Either way the war was fought for us self interest
Why defeat sadad and secure kuwait and let him stay in power then , i am confused
@@BeaverChainsaw Yeah, no. One is self interest the other is Cronyism.
greater US influence leads to better control of the vast oil reserves in that region. US involvement in the middle east was likely driven by the Military Industrial Complex.
The greatest neutralist ever: Ghandi in Civilization IV
No wars will happen if there are no people left.
@@astranix0198 "you can't full auto in building if there is no building left" - A-10 pilot probably
Before creation, comes destruction
Nuclear annihilation= eternal peace
*SAY WHATTTTT*
Kraut, I don't know if you will ever see this, but I will write it anyway:
When this video first came out, I thought to myself "It comes from a good place, but it is way off". Watching it again in the context of the Ukraine crisis, I realize now how insanely right you were.
For real, i came back here today because i looked for that orwell quote if favour of war with the bad guys.
@Henry The Cocaine-Sampler my guess is because Russia did not necesarily want Ukraine, it just wanted Ukraine out of NATO and out of western influence. It has fought a war of geopolitical influence with the west, wich it has lost. Now Putin sees no other option then full on invasion
I came here again after Ukraine 🇺🇦 invasion. Ong this guys is spit on. If USA looks weak (Biden) others suffer
@Henry The Cocaine-Sampler Why? Because Russia has illegally annexed Ukrainian territory, and now that their initial plan of absorbing the entire country into Russia became one of the most hilariously embarrassing failures in military history, and the entire world has united against them, they're trying for a ceasefire so they can try to keep what they took before they get slaughtered completely and humiliated further. It's a pathetic attempt to save face that's fooling nobody but Russians and tankies.
@@andrewkinkel4773 calm down with Biden. The guy is useless but Russia has been fighting Ukraine for 8 years and it's not like any other president would have intervened. Just look at how little support direct military intervention gets with average Americans
You where wrong about Iceland. Iceland was one of the most important buffer states for USA during the cold war and still is. It has a large US army base and was so strategically important to USA that they managed to, with the help of US threat, pretty much win against Britain during the cod wars (look it up). Iceland said that they would exit NATO if USA didn't do anything so USA came knocking on Britain's door with their navy, no questions asked.
The colder the climate between USA and Russia gets the more important Iceland gets.
Came here looking for this, Iceland actually has immense geopolitical importance, especially considering it's small population size.
@@MrAaaaazzzzz00009999 I think that it's not that they don't need an army, but rather they are so significant that whatever army they could have would be insignificant and ineffective in ensuring neutrality for them that there is just no point in wasting money on it.
An icelandic friend pointed out that Iceland could have had our military make them a nice new highway circumscribing their island, but the socialists got into gov't power and nixed the deal.
Iceland is a big beneficiary of U.S. support. Just look at whose accent they acquire when speaking english.
@@montycantsin8861 that's a very poor way to try and guess who they're influenced by. Literally everyone in the world has an americanish accent when they speak english as a second language.
@@Saludin2 You clearly fail to understand geography and cultural influence.
They live in close proximity to both the U.S.and England, as do a fair number of other countries near the the U.K.
The country a person admires or has an affinity to (or proximity) will influence their acquisition of an accent.
In years past, people from India learning English often had a British accent. There are still countries were people are more Anglophilic as they become Anglophones.
I learned spanish, and people thought I sounded Cuban.
Amazin'... Greece meeting its NATO spending requirements...
Yeah, but not because of NATO but rather because they fear and hate the turks who are incidentally also in NATO :D
@@hothoploink1509 True, we are trying to keep a disincentive big enough for Turkey. But still, even through ulterior motives, meeting our budget requirements in anything, is amazin for Greece.
@@ONESPECIES Agreed, that is quite impressive, I didn't mean to sound negative.
@@hothoploink1509 Uh no worries. It's negative enough living in Greece. Not much else can affect me more than that! ;)
@@bruhiusmaximus5386 Ok Boomer!
Clicked expecting a funny, 10 minute roast of the US’s international relations. Left with a completely different and extremely valid angle on foreign relations, economics, and alliances. I am now enlightened and will now single handedly pull an “iceland”
I’ve just found this video but I’ve been struggling with this same topic for years.
I’m 20 now, but for the last 4-6 years I’ve pretty much crossed the political spectrum and arrived at my final destination…
Politics are not guaranteed, it is a fluid and changing sea.
But my interest in history has put me in contact with American Entanglements.
It’s a weird and hard struggle to find a better path forward. Do we stop entangling ourselves in other people’s business?
But what would that do to our Geopolitical position and our daily life?
I’ve been fighting the Idealists, people who go with the more pacifist views on humanity.
Being someone that is interested in history you rarely ever see that.
The world isn’t a safe and peaceful place.
So while some hate us for our interventionism, I think it’s an aspect that needs to be refined, but expanded. Especially in the light of Recent events and our Enemies’ brazenness.
What music plays at 9:42?
It's funny how you were ignorant before you clicked and you are still ignorant now: he's almost flat-out wrong about Iceland.
@@lishnyak1925 darude sandstorm
@@mightyraccoon7155 Oh, it is really what I was seeking, thx
Iceland is actually very geopolitically significant since it sits in the middle of the GIUK Gap.
Control of that was virtually decisive in who would control the North Atlantic had the Cold War turned hot and would have had a huge impact on NATO's ability to receive reinforcements from the US, which had to come in by sea.
This is the sole reason why the British lost the Cod Wars - because Iceland threatened to leave NATO and could in theory have gotten friendly with the Soviets in protest.
Yeah that was the main issue I had with the video. If Iceland wasn't important then we wouldn't have sent a force there during WWII to stop the Germans from doing it first
In Tom Clancy’s second book _Red Storm Rising,_ the Soviet invasion of Iceland is their most decisive victory during World War Three.
iceland actually has one of the most well equip militaries in the world.They beat the brits during the cod wars 3 times
@@Clumsyoof
Iceland doesn't even have a military, they have at most a lightly armed coast guard.
They didn't "beat" us militarily because we never seriously fought the Icelanders. As I said in my original comment we lost the Cod Wars for mainly geopolitical reasons, namely the threat of Iceland leaving NATO and allowing the Soviets to gain an upper hand in controlling the GIUK Gap. To the British government at the time that was not a price worth paying for access to fishing waters.
Lol no iceland beat the UK fair and square with military might, brits r just mad cause they got naenae’d so hard lol
You remind me a lot of Brain4breakfeast. You have a similar style of high quality videos with advanced and complicated topics and not being afraid to speak your mind.
Try not to cry
Then cry :c
RIP B4B. Forever missing that wonderful lad. :(
I like his new style of videos more, speaking calmly and carrying a big stick of research is superior to ranting.
Kraut has changed his video design after going on an aggressive campaigne against the alt-right. Even thou i didn't approve that period i'm glad i sticked with him to see these amazing videos.
@@Amantducafe Do you not approve that because of the agressivism or because you support those rebranded fascists.
"Get Belgium'ed"
That's... completely okay.
To be fair, given what it was doing in its colonies, it almost deserved that
@@BosonCollider yes because every commoner in the country was responsible for the colony which was PRIVATE PROPERTY of the king who btw met with hitler and received huge backlash for both the colony and the meeting once the public found out about it, literally almost no commoners knew what was going on in congo at least at the start, towards the end when people started finding out what happened they demmanded the colony would be property to the state instead of the king so it could be reformed which happened but i do suppose the reforms weren't entirely enough
anyway, you're a dumbass who just just said my entire country deserves to be oqupied, killed and starved because one crazy king and a private militia did terrible things so go fuck yourself
@@thibaultd7979 AYAYAYAYAYAYAYA
@Carcinat V Yes, after Belgium got ocupied by germany in WW2 Leopold got locked up in a castle, one day hitler met up with him, nothing really became of that meeting but it doesn't exactly look good on him
@Carcinat V Ah yeah it is, explains a lot tbh xd they were both pieces of shit anyway, no one likes the royal family in belgium
The primary issue with the US government is that the politicians are incapable of looking at the political game in the long term. They are stuck with looking through the window of only their time in office. This especially egregious the higher up you go in the chain of command.
Well said..
What a world we would live in if elected representatives represented their constituents instead of seeking re-election..
This is an inevitable consequence of democracy.
That's why a lot of these countries have outer-parlamentary bodies which operate with the long game in mind. Sometimes they operate in the public eye and are constitutional like the supreme court, sometimes they operate hidden from the public and their actions are more gray, even unconstitutional and illegal such as the CIA, NSA.
Of course their power is limited, since democracy and the public can only be steered not controlled.
@@TwistedNerve1 I see it as a pros and cons of democracy vs more dictatorial systems. Outside of werid cases like singapore having a democratic leadership record resembling north korea. Generally speaking democracies seem to sacrifice long term planning for increased government accountability, and dictatorships vice versa.
Also, the US public is to pussy to actually occupy a country for long enough to build it back up to a good country, ie. Doing the West Germany project
too busy callingneachother snowflakes and racist xenophobic homophobic conservitards
Finally, someone who can discuss American interventionism in a rational manner
I'm so glad it's not an endless circlejerk. It's either "Murica bad" or "Murica best"
Like 6 US Interventions were Successfully destroyed by India against India.
7 wars of India 6 US intervention
314 likes, first 3 numbers of pi. What an irrational number of likes for such a rational comment!
Yh this comment only made sense when the like counter was at 314
yeah im tired of the interventionalism videos that basically conclude "America abroad cause America bad"
@@NotJustAnotherAverageJoe well they are bad lol, you should search the war crimes they've commit in iraq.
Xixixixixi
*GIB ISLAND*
@@ztac_dex if china is such a threat, I'm curious why then then he is a "populist" president? I mean why do people support him in the first place?
@@cycla with the Philippines' current state, most Filipinos are more concerned with things at home like criminality, local development, corruption, etc.. Many think Duterte is still doing a good job with regards to that aspect.
@@cycla I support Duterte because his party is advocating for federalism. Though I don't approve of how he is handling the drug "problem" ( It was never really a problem it was just used as a scapegoat). In terms of economics, I could say he's doing well, we have maintained our 6-7% percent quarterly growth, and the people who say that they are poor have been reduced to 22.2% from that of 30%.
not gibing island?
I ill build one instead!
Xixixixixi
@@Jose-xh5qb Be warned of the middle income trap if nothing changes your country is going to end up like Latin America.
I missed brain4breakfast. But I am gladful that there are others holding the same torch.
And carrying his legacy
what did he die from ((
@@dragoe7441 They prefer to keep it private.
@@dragoe7441 from stroke in his sleep
@Eros Matthew Montallana thats so sad :(
I’ve been telling people Iraq wasn’t a war for resources but rather a geopolitical war forever! It’s finally nice to hear someone else say it, Jesus.
The problem is people think the US is interested in consuming the resources rather than controlling it and that the failure of the US to do so is somehow evidence that that wasnt their intention. Its too naive to think that these countries the USA aggressively influence and invade and occupy just happen to have large reserves of oil.
Last Word name one other country the US had invaded that had a massive oil reserve
@@reecev2087 lol "other country" so we are just going to look away from Iraq? I said Influence invade and occupy. I am talking about the region as a whole.
Last Word except they haven’t invaded anywhere else in the region unless you count minor military interventions which doesn’t count as occupation
@@lastword8783
How much oil is there in Afghanistan?
I was pretty shocked the first time I heard about the Bangladeshi Genocide, or that India- a Hindu state, stepped in to save what was at that time East Pakistan- a Muslim state and antagonist to India from the genocide conducted by West Pakistan. Its especially surprising considering the hostility Bangladeshi's today have for India. And it wasn't that long ago either. Its crazy that this event is barely remembered today.
15:50
Not to forget Pakistan had send in terrorists in India that were equipped with USA weapons ( weapons that were supposed to be used in Afghanistan ) and they caused India's bloodiest terror attack, Mumbai attack of 2008 and the reason why India hates pakistan even more
There is no Bangladeshi hostility towards India. The two have a warm diplomatic relationship. Also India isn't a Hindu state. Its a secular state though communal tensions are on the rise in India these days
@@karthikravichandran4 it's officially a secular state but policy and practise wise it's pretty religious.
@@stansman5461 There are some dispute with water sharing. Otherwise Bangladesh and India have good relations. Bangladesh is not an ally of India, but instead tries to balance between India and China to get maximum benefit
The reason why Bangaldeshis hate the Indian government is cause of their backstabbing nature , which makes sense.
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007." No, they didn't "steal" the oil like the Spanish taking American silver, but the war did lead to the privatization of the Iraqi oil industry, allowing foreign oil corporations to drill. It may not have been the only reason for the war, but Big Oil certainly was more than happy about it.
More importantly, it was an intentionally done to scare all of the OPEC nations straight, as Saddam was no longer pricing Iraqi oil exports in USD, an started to accept euros as well. That's extremely important because the US dollar is (to make a very long story very short) essentially based on the price of oil. That's why the US government can basically (another very, very long story) run a permanent deficit with no repercussions. "Petrodollar Warfare" is a fantastic book to read on this topic. The Triffin dilemma and the petrodollar recycling system are also topics to read up on. The US economy is based on bullets and black magic.
Hear hear.
@Pierce DeCain the US doesn't fight for oil, per se. It fights for the oil to be sold exclusively in US dollars. That's the basis that makes the dollar the international reserve and commerce currency, which the US economy depends so much on...
Lol, what kind of leader would say: "Yeah, we wanted to have a strategic ally democracy in the Middle East, but we failed."? NO ONE. It's more optimal for them to say "We wanted oil, and we got it, success 😎".
Abizaid was the same moron that led the charge of de-Baathitification and the overall mistakes following Saddamn's toppling. He is retroactively trying to shift the blame - that is all.
If US went to Iraq for oil, how come so much of it is owned by Iraqi companies? And why would US need to go to Iraq for oil? US has Texas.
11:17 "America developed a large navy"
Shows Warspite, comfortably the most recognizable and famous British battleship in existence.
I would've thought that title went to HMS Dreadnought or HMS Nelson, tbh
We’re like brothers anyway, what’s yours is mine 😌
Yugoslavia wasnt a part of "Eastern Block" they founded the "Non-Aligned" movement inviting Libya,India,Egypt etc...
It was disgusting what hapend in the heart of jugoslavija and jugoslavija
What do you thing of the peapol hwo denied genocide i need somwones opinion
@@bobob8820 every side did genocide on each other so everyone's in wrong...
But all sides denied their part in genociding each other
@@berserk6855 yeah but it sucks right
@@berserk6855 and when somone hwos not from our cuntry says no that didnt happend like wtf thats why i wanted your opinion
@@bobob8820 yeah but its still talked in my country of Montenegro
We should move foward as a people and focus on future, about how we can make good economy in our country, and not dwelling in the past for 20 more years...
Point of contention - Iceland was actually a very important strategic position during the cold war, being the base for the US sonar listening stations across the GIUK gap for soviet submarines which may prowl out and hunt allied convoys during a 'hot' cold war.
Yeah, but listen to the context!
To simplify: a country always has a military, either their own or, as in Iceland's case, someone else's.
As it's presented in the script, it's correct: Iceland's military expenditures are stable at zero.
@@jmolofsson Except the video presents it as Iceland being too insignificant to warrant military action, rather than putting it in the list with the Central American/Caribbean states who can rely on someone else to protect them for them.
*Fortunate son intensifies*
IT AIN'T ME
*IT AIN'T MEEEEEEE*
SOME FOLKS ARE BORN...
_I ain’t no fortunate Ooo’-oh-one!_
America has a long history of shooting itself in the foot.
Both do a fair amount in country balls though brain4breakfast does a fare bit more through them. also both have very similar thumbnail styles... wrong Comment
America's military spending will remain high regardless of NATO ally spending. If you graph out EU spending vs US spending there's essentially no correlation. US military spending is more or less the result of domestic politics in the fact that it's the only welfare that can be sold to Republicans; thus you get a lot of compromises that read 10bn increase for discretionary spending and 10bn increase for military spending. The military industrial complex is the main driver of US spending; not in a conspiratorial sense so much as the "my district would like lots of well paying jobs" sense.
My favorite example of the absurdity of this is deprecated nuclear silos; it's been written into law that these must maintain full funding and staffing for what is in effect an empty building, mostly because for a lot of rural towns having one of these near them means a supply of high paying jobs that don't require a post-secondary education.
* Made edit from useless to empty given that theoretically a new weapon could at some point be installed
Wow that sounds really interesting. Are there any good documentaries about one of those manned defunct silos or about that topic you could recommend?
@@kubli365 can't find the initial long form article (I think I read years ago) though here's an article mentioning it's inclusion in an omnibus bill from 2014 www.nti.org/gsn/article/spending-bill-would-deny-pentagon-funding-eliminate-icbms/
A fun little detail skipped in the article; the senator pushing for the continued funding of these silos is from North Dakota, which at it's peak had the worlds 3rd largest nuclear arsenal (USSR > USA > North Dakota > France) meaning that North Dakota has a significant dog in the fight for keeping these things funded as cash cows.
It's true but the military industrial complex lobbies the shit out of all levels of government anyways just to be safe. In America post secondary education is a debt trap if your not careful and unions are weak and or corrupt to the point even trade work can suck since people are connecting the dots that college is a scam due to privatization of student loans and no federally funded post secondary education. The us government is rolling back the rights of its adults under 21 as is.
Their inefficient procurement does not help.
Thank you! That really took me out of the video. The US was willingly negligent of European defence spending up until 2014, and you can't really berate your friend for not having a fire extinguisher as their house is burning down, if every time they've thought of buying one you go "ehh, what's the matter, it's just gonna cost you money".
I would love to watch a Russia foreign policy video, for sure
He made it(partially). It is called Embracing Tyranny to own the Libs.
I bet it won't have the required flash back to history of Russia that would partially explain its paranoid behavior towards neighbor countries and USA.
Like the 1919 intervention of the Western countries and Japan to the newly formed Soviet Union. They almost split the country to pieces but Red Army kicked them out.
Need port reeeeeeee
Putin is following the same line that Lenin and Stalin did. The goal is to re-establish the borders of the old Russian Empire.
@Alex Mercer bro kraut isn't new, he blew up in 2015 with all the other "anti-sjw" youtubers lmao
0:08 All, i can say is, this quote aged like fine wine consindering that there are people, who say, that we should not sent weapons to Ukraine.
i mean yes, but there are also moderates who don't want to jump headfirst into what will likely be the next world war
there is pacifism to the point of enabling which is harmful, but there is also not thinking before getting involved in a huge war. while there are those who wrongly think we shouldn't send ANY support, there are also those who want us to declare war and russia here and now. war with russia would be painful thing. russia may seem like its not much with it's invasion of ukraine slowing but an invansion of such a huge area as ukraine takes time, and with the overwhelming support ukraine has gotten with weapons and aid and small amounts of volenteers (plus the corruption in the russian military that has been rumored) it snot suprising its been stalled. however, if nato gets involved it will be all of russia's might come to bear instead of one small part of it.
long story short USA getting involved now would 1. give putin plenty justification to created fake news that the west is attacking their country 2. be incredibly unpopular to the american people considering a lot of americans are sick of foriegn entanglement, especially one like a war in russia which would be much much bloodier than vietnam, america's previous war
you cannot blame a population for being resistant to war. few jump at the chance to have them or their brother or children or relative to fight and possibly die, particularly if that war is halfway across the world
in a perfect world we would be defending ukraine (and the way its looking who knows how soon countries may get more directly involved) but people aren't like that, especially the American populous who are sick of those same foreign entanglements that we have been stuck in since the cold war
there is extreme pacifism to the point of enabling but there is also then opposite extreme of getting involved so quick and without thinking that we regret it in retrospect, such as the vietnam war
@@sovietunion7643 that is why we send weapons, and that is all that they need.
The Ukrainians can do the job (and have already been doing it) of kicking the Russians out on their ass.
No boots on the ground necessary.
But let it be known that this is THAT time.
“Because Neutral country’s that don’t... get Belgium’d” holy shit I chuckled
18:21
NATO: "Members must be democratic."
Salazar laughs.
(Edited because I forgot Spain didn't join until after Franco died)
Erdogan laughs
Orban laughs
True but Salazar and Franco were in NATO from the beginning. Erdogan and Orban are newbs.
Actually, I stand corrected. Spain didn't officially join NATO until after Franco died.
They never said they had to be truly democratic
@@australium7374 Portugal wasn't even a multiparty system. So they didn't even care having a pretention of being democratic.
We straight up forgot that dude was fascist for like 40 years lolol
At the time of the Second Gulf War I never believed that Saddam had WMDs, but I fully supported the war initially, on the ground the Saddam regime's barbarity. I saw the purpose of the war the opportunity of the US units its influence to rebuild Iraq into a Western democracy the same way we rebuilt Germany and Japan. Within a couple weeks it became apparent that the government had become too incompetent even for that.
It's not strictly the incompetence of the government. The circumstances of middle eastern dictatorships and post-war Japan/Germany are VASTLY different. Their dogma was far weaker than that of Islam, and as a nation they were both beaten and embarrassed by their own actions and by their loss to us as an invading army.
And yes, I'm aware Sadam's dictatorship was far more secular than the theocracies that typically dominate the area (Ba'athism and all). That's precisely the point. Democracies don't work in the middle east because eventually a theocracy will knock over the government, either by outright warfare or by subverting democracy by simply voting more and more fundamentalism into power (because the radicals often hold a sizable majority there, and aren't above threatening people into compliance).
The reason I say all this is to make the point that Saddam, as much as a shitshow as he was, might have been the best we could hope for in the region.
@@alonkilci4352
The truth is more nuanced. There were WMDs, but no one were hiding them. They were lost and forgotten and only found after the war. So the pretence for the war was still nonsense.
The US also supported Saddam when he was fighting Iran.
@@HaveYouTriedGuillotines
The man who helped U.S. soldiers topple the Saddam statue in 2003, now says he deeply regrets it.
"Now there are 1,000 Saddams".
This is why I think the U.S. would be best served by a return to the Jeffersonian model, or at least contributing to stability before insisting on democracy- theirs was not perfect to begin with, either; they should not hold others a standard they were never able to reach.
@@LancesArmorStriking
Honestly, the whole pretense that you can just topple the status quo and erect a McDemocracy on top of it seems absurd at face value to me.
Our history should teach us better, but that's just the thing: It doesn't even _need_ to. Common sense and a basic analysis of the opposition should lead people to realize that the strategy we're using will never work.
This is why I think none of this has _ever_ been done in good faith. Or at least, most of this was just driven by greed and geopolitical maneuvering, and had little to nothing to do with democracy or freedom.
The Cheney plan was basically "we're going to invade, and then we're just going to sit on the region indefinitely and milk this fucker until it shrivels up and dies."
Extremely relevant video in light of recent events
As an international relations major, I can’t thank you enough for making these videos, and for actually taking the time to become educated on these subjects before pushing out any reactionary swill.
Ah yes, future hacks for the foreign policy establishment
Faaris Ahmad I love how you act as if there’s any non-establishment foreign policy creators.
It’s a government lead field of work, everyone who does it is going to be basically “establishment.”
Not just that, the people who really make this work (Foreign Service Officers) are some of the most overworked and underpaid legal professionals in the US Government bureaucracy. I really think we owe them at least a serious amount of respect since they are the ones that actually prevent wars and negotiate better deals for the American people.
@@537monster Yes they do such a good service, thats why our boys are in Saudi Arabia and supporting Jihadists in Syria, people who would happily slaughter our Christian civilisation, while we bomb Assad who protects the Christian's in his territory.
@@537monster If foreign service officers were truly patriotic, they would lead a coup against this cosmopolitan and corporate driven government, which has no concern for Americans aside from importing more people to drive wages down
Faaris Ahmad they don’t dictate where our troops go, that’s the presidents job.
However the fact you never hear about them is really a sign that they are doing their jobs.
They handle all of the little things that most Americans never have to worry about. They secure trade deals, handle extradition treaties, and even help Americans who are in legal trouble overseas.
If you ever find yourself arrested in Saudi Arabia for whatever reason, you can bet a FSO is negotiating for your release, usually doing so for less than $40,000 a year, working from 9am to 10pm, away from their families, and with no paid overtime.
It is a shitty, shitty job with very little thanks involved. They deserve respect for that, especially given that in some scenarios they might be putting their lives in danger.
Finland was marked part of the reds on a map. Expect few perkeles to appear.
Noh eikös Kekkonen ollu KGB:n "asset"... Kyl suomi oli aika pahasti vähintään rautaesiripun alla, ellei peräti takana..
@@Turinnn1 Toisaalta noinkin, mutta jos puhutaan aiheen mukaan sotilaallisesta liittoutumisesta, niin olihan Suomen puolustusvoimat tuohonkin aikaan olemassa oikeastaan täysin Neuvostoliiton mahdollisen hyökkäyksen takia.
Vaikutuspiirissä toki oltiin aika pahastikin...
@@tuomopoika jep.
@@tuomopoika YYA sopimuksen merkityksellisin artiklahan oli että Suomi ja Neukut sotilaallisessa yhteystyössä estäisivät mahdolliset hyökkäykset Suomen kautta itään. Ainoa ero Ita-Euroopan sopimuksiin oli, että Suomella oli sananvaltaa sen suhteen tehdäänkö mitään.
Jesus, are you people even speaking Finnish? It just looks like you're slapping your keyboard and throwing in some umlauts every now and then.
And I thought polish looked ugly...
Your channel is a great source of in depth information on various topics and also an inspiration for a student of international relations such as me. Todays topic was very interesting ans it truely clarified modern day conflicts and strategies. Thank you for that!
This man is Oversimplified but he doesn't keep it simple. Both are wonderful to listen to but my smol Hollow Knight brain can't handle the big words.
hollow brain
He barely said any "big words"
Get Belgium'd
*Shows Armenia and Azerbaijan* Well this didn’t age well at all.
It really aged great you mean
Armenia and azerbaijan were at war with each other since the fall of the soviet union
There is no permanent ally, there is only permanent interest
poland and hungary
0:33
"RheTHoric"
One day you'll say it right my man
Wooosh?
@@goegr2986 ???????
"Neutral countries that don't...get Belgiumed.." XD that made my day, thank you
14:23 The L85 shown there was adopted years after the Falklands War. Interestingly enough the British used the L1A1 then, which was a burst-fire version of the FN FAL the Argies themselves used. Some sources even say that Brit soldiers took Argentine FALs and used those instead because of their full-auto capabilities and them sharing the same magazines/ammo.
Spotted the firearms enthusiast.
A full auto .308 doesn't seem terribly useful, to be honest.
@@CountArtha the reasoning behind it was that they would put them on bipods and fire it that way however they never really did this
L1A1 wasn't burst fire it was only semi auto
@@CountArtha Which is precisely why the British got rid of the full-auto function.
Thank you for debunking the Iraq War oil myth. I've always said that if the military-industrial complex wanted the oil that badly, they would have worked with a brutal dictator like Saddam, not forcefully extract it from a failed state racked by civil war.
You asume that the Bush administration was competent, and for what I remember they were a bunch of liar clowns. Conflicts just aren't simple matters, and of course oil control wasn't the sole reason. The USA military complex is a monster that should be fed tax payer $ in a regular basis. Lots of people got rich in that stupid and useless war.
What he debunked exactly? What he said about Iraqi Goverment selling the oil to China is totally misleading. What it matters in this case, is not who buys the oil, but who gains the profit from selling it. From 1973 to 2003 no foreign company could oparate in Iraq. Guess what happened after that.
@@empithre only one U.S company has oil fields in Iraq and they produce a small amount of oil compared to what china gets from the country. And you'd think if oil was the reason America would get something
Nope. The petrodollar is the reason.
I disagree. I don't believe Saddam would have been too keen to work with the western military-industrial complex after the first Gulf War.
am i the only one who still asks himself, how the heck Bush got away with it without doing prison time?
There's no question how he got away with it when you realize that the whole damn bureaucracy is corrupt as hell and doesn't give 2 shits about dead American soldiers, much less dead Iraqi civilians. Sometimes I think we could use a good purge of the state apparatus.
because it was a declaration of war affirmed by congress, a majority consented. The elites don't don't want war trials that'd implicate themselves.
No president will ever be tried or convicted of anything. The first time that happens it would open the flood gates and every president thereafter would face politically motivated prosecution the minute he leaves office. The current inhabitant of the WHite House is a good example. He'll never see so much as a slap on the wrist despite all he's done. No matter how justified, the GOP would get all butt hurt and the next president will get investigation subpoenas ever week from Mitch McConnell.
Iraq should follow America or else it would disstabilized reagion as china and russia and iran had and still have great interest in it aganist Turkey and Saudi .... how the fuck you can explain this if you were a president
He was a member of the ruling class in the world’s only superpower. If you’re in that position you can kill however many people you want.
everytime i read word "Entanglement" i remember Will Smith
and his face
That's why I clicked on the video 🤣. I was like, "is he joking 😂?!"
It's rewind time
Writing a college paper called NATO: Entanglement v. Freedom of Action Theory and this video has been a great help. Been a viewer but never thought to watch this video until I thought it might just be worth it and damn, as always. Already found one of your sources (thought those numbers sounded familiar), but the other too are amazing finds. Thank you for everything you do for the academic community.
8:55 Which is basically "Enemies On All Sides" focus for Switzerland in Kaiserreich
This is incredible. I'm now going to watch everything you've ever made
This aged wonderfully considering what's going on right now
Some of you fellow viewers may have noticed, that on one picture, Greenland is shown to be a member of NATO, and on another picture shown as not being a member.
Greenland is a home ruled part of the Realm of Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland started out as Norwegian colony back in the days of the double monarchy of Denmark-Norway. Denmark sided with Napoleon, and one of the outcomes of the Treaty of Kiel was, that Norway was ceded to Sweden. The British were not interested in ceding the North Atlantic colonies - Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands - to Sweden. Denmark was beaten black and blue, so leaving sovereignty over said colonies meant that military presence would be Danish and not Swedish. Denmark had already been beaten into submission, thus the supremacy of the Royal Navy would not be challenged. Sweden on their part saw little - if any - benefit from a presence in the North Atlantic and did not pursue the matter. Thus, Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands were ceded to the Kingdom of Denmark.
Iceland became independent in 1918, but did form a double monarchy with Denmark. There were some ties other than the Danish monarch also being monarch of Iceland. While an independant nation, Iceland did ask Denmark to uphold Iceland's interests in foreign and military affairs. This last link was severed in 1944. Denmark had been occupied by Germany in 1940, and was thus unable to act independently. British, Canadian, and American forces were present on Iceland, and in 1944 a referendum was held. With an overwhelming majority, the people of Iceland voted for a republic and thus severed the ties with Denmark.
The Faroe Islands remained a part of the Realm of the Kingdom of Denmark, but was granted autonomy in 1948. Since then, The Faroe Islands have slowly moved closer to indepence, but remains an autonomous part.
Greenland remained a colony up until 1953, where Greenland became a Danish county. At least on paper. The sentinel of the vast majority of the thousands of Danish officials, skilled laborers, health personal, and teachers was still highly patronizing towards the indigenous Inuits, and Greenland's economy relied heavily on subsidies from Denmark (as was and to some extend is the case with the Faroe Islands). Greenland joined the European Union in 1973 along with Denmark. In 1979, Greenland was granted home rule, and in 1982 Greenland abolished it's membership of the European Union. The home rule was amended in 2009, and Greenland vies for indepence.
This is a precarious matter, as Greenland's economy is both vulnerable and volatile, the vastness of the Island, combined with the minuscule size of the population severely limits Greenland's capacity of enforcing and uphold sovereignty. As of today, Denmark upholds sovereignty, but China is making a huge effort to establish a firm foothold in Greenland. Russia is also heavily present in the Arctics, and America has always considered Greenland as a part of their geopolitical and military sphere of interest. The American military bases and installations in Greenland were either completed or approved while Greenland was still a colony, so decisions were made in Copenhagen. Except for the duration of the German occupation, where Eske Brun, Landshøvding (Governor) of Greenland ruled Greenland (based on the 1925 emergency governing act). His colleague Aksel Svane was dispatched to Washington to settle the supply situation, which was becoming dire, as the ties with Denmark had been severed. Greenland was also occupied by the United States to protect against a German invasion. This occupation was rather benigne, and the ties between Greenland and America still exist.
Should Greenland opt for full independence, there is little - if any - doubt that Greenland will find itself under American protection. America has already placed investments in Greenland in an attempt to keep China at bay.
Sorry for the long post. Here's a hash tag:
#potato
Had no idea Greenland was ever part of the European Union...
@@bandenere7774 i had no idea greenland WASNT part of the european union
Greenland can't get independence. They are already protected by the west. They don't want to trade being under danish rule to being under American. What they want from independence is exactly the opposite of that, but they know they cannot have it, and they know America would not provide the same benefits as the Danish government.
Geopolitics brought down to a easy to get level for everybody. I really admire you for the work and research that goes into your videos Kraut.
Please keep it up, you are one of the last bastions of rationality and common sense on this platform.
Geopolitics isn't half as hard to grasp as people think. The mystification comes mostly from wanting to avoid uncomfortable thoughts.
Real shit
I laughed when my country appeared. (Iceland)
Kraut seems like someone who could discuss hypothetical geopolitical futures without it turning into an argument.
Would love to see a video on how the EU functions, it's pro's and con's and how they could be improved.
Especially since my country is thinking of joining. Would be very helpful.
Your country will always have some of the cheapest energy on earth. When the oil runs out, that is going to be very interesting.
Well, coming back to watch this during the Ukraine-Russia war. How sad that we have another conventional war on this planet
"because neutral countries that don't.. get Belgiumed."
I've recently grown to consider your content to be the best political commentary on this platform and I am absolutely amazed by how much you've improved since your anti-SJW days. Keep up the good work!
these are literal countryballs with no evidence whatsoever what a delusional take.
@@zuz-ve4ro This comment is 3 years old.I consider Kraut now to be an idiot.
@@mateistoian726 why? His contact seems interesting and offers interesting insight.
@@imperialinquisition6006 His comments on easter europe where incredibly insulting and filled with a western attitude of prejudice and pitying, all while mentioning how many friends he supposedly has from the region and how much he's 'loved' by it. It made me rethink if he was right about a single region he philosophizes about, when the one time he talked about a region I already knew of he was factually illiterate.
@@mateistoian726 Same
I love the slight nod to Russian culture by including Tchaikovsky’s music at 7:10.
Fun fact: Tchaikovsky actually hated this piece, said it was too loud... But he got a good pay and knew he would become infamous if he made this one, that's why there's church bells at the end, he created this piece for the opening of a cathedral.
I disagree with so much of what you’re saying yet simultaneously agree with a lot of it. You’re a very tricky man.
That's a sign of a great thought provoking video
I also had to change my mind about many things after watching this
I am very much pleased by the extensive list of sources in the end. Your videos are of exceptional quality. I am sure you will soon experience radical levels of growth in this channel if you keep up this quality. Keep up and I will be watching all of them over thanks giving break.
AWESOME. I've been looking forward to this for awhile now :)
The use of background music never gets old.
as an iraqi myself all kraut said was sadly true
What would you have had us do? Can you even be sure of an answer to that question?
@@shutout951 instead of installing a puppeted or a corrupt government you should guys had letted the iraqis choose their next leader after saddam falled.
@Fuck RUclips who even asked you to invade on the first place and of course we would resist it what would you expect I have a feeling that you're a troll
@@OFFICERchoclet Democracy is always the right thing to do.
Maybe I attracted trolls because someone thought I was angry at you for questioning the US. I hope you didn't feel that way. I truly want to learn more about the Iraqi perspective. It's hard to believe that they would have been happy if Saddam was still in power, but it is also clear that America allowed for chaos and violence to spread.
You made suggestions about after Saddam fell. Do you think America did the right thing when we sent our army to take Saddam out?
If you think the invasion was good, do you think it was necessary?
@@shutout951 I actually am not mad at you iraqi people don't care if they are in a dictatorship their point is if it's a good nation it's a good nation no matter what ideology it is
I'm personally not a war hawk and do believe that there are legit criticisms that can be made of the US's foreign policy and it's history of world policing. But when people among the anti interventionist side start going as far as spreading conspiracy theories and supporting/defending tyrants I stop taking them seriously.
The US supports genocidal dictators: Saudi Arabia, Chile (Pinochet), Brazil, Argentina, and other cold war dictatorships. They do not bring freedom anywhere.
@@thiagoecb U.S. supported Saddam as well while he was purging thousands of innocents, shias, and genociding kurds. He was a good little puppet so long as he kept the Iranians at bay.
You are not immune to propaganda yourself.
There's also the fact that people can become pretty hysterical as their loved ones die or suddenly are at risk of dying for something that they don't believe in, especially if it's something that they don't understand. Foreign diplomacy and geopolitics are not well understood or taught in America, and I've learned so many things just from this wonderful video alone!
@@sarinenjoyer946 Yes, the US likes dictators when they serve them.
Talk about why the war on drugs is a massive failure
Because we didn’t learn a fucking thing from prohibition.
Because I can't shoot for shirt when I am high?
Because the Mexican government initially utilized it's military forces to combat the drug trade, despite the fact that the Mexican military was never created, nor equipped to deal with contraband smuggling.
This led to a sort of "Vietnam" problem with the Mexican military. They couldn't easily identify smugglers and drug traders from regular civilians, this led to many massacres of civil populations, who were only then to quick to respond in kind and began arm themselves against these soldiers who were "protecting" them.
Many civil populations in retribution did indeed start to become allies with smugglers and cartels, out of just the basic instinct for survival.
@@rejvaik00 Thats the biggest load of bull shit I've seen in along time. Tbe drug war is "failure"because it was manufactured to be a constant stream of revenue for private prison complexes, the justice system and continue to bloat the budgets of agencies like the DEA and covertly a source of money for support to allies to the US engaging in bloody coups or conflicts ( eg. CIA money to Contras). It was also a way to help presidential candidates run on law and order bullshit and disproportionately target minority and low income communitiesas a result. The only thing México has to do with this is that cartel influence and control of supply and distribution has predominantly moved there to meet the demand of its biggest customer...the US, just like Colombia did in the 80's. Not that the Mexican president and army should have just sparked a war against a bunch of different factions who had been gaining power and influence for decades prior, that was a poorly thought out course of action, but to not even mention the influence the US has had in this bullshit is extremely short sighted. The war on drugs is only a failure for everyone not making money out it; for those actors, its going extremely well
@@vic50015 you're entitled to your opinion. But yes the 2006 Mexican war on drugs was a failure and I listed my reasons above
Learned more from this vid than my International Relations classes
thank you, subbed
6:13 that crescent’s resemblance to a grin is a piece of art
Trying to explain to people that the Iraq - U.S. war was not about oil has almost started a war for me on a number of occasions.
I never even knew this was the case until this video! If I wanted to discuss this in a public area, how would you recommend my doing so?
Kind of wish the US got the oil
@@WolvenKay You're asking a difficult question with no easy answer. My short answer would be, read Thucydides, Xenophon, Aristotle, Polybius, and then work your way through to modern historians. The Iraq war was a calculated gamble, in which we (the U.S.) managed to seemingly make every wrong strategic move. If successful it could have brought near total peace to the region. Instead we were naive and arrogant, which is always a recipe for disaster. It was even the demise of the undefeatable Sparta in the end. Oil is an easy answer, so it works for most people, but it is plain and simply wrong. Hope this helps a little, my friend.
At best I would say oil was a secondary or tertiary reason. Regardless of who most of the oil went to in the end, any goal of turning idea into a democracy, founded by the USA basically lead to American interests in the countries resources.
Regardless, I wouldn't call it the primary motivator. Most people who say this are just parroting the same lines from a decade+ ago. At the time it did seem quite likely oil was a huge motivator. But hindsight's one hell of a drug.
People apply occam's razor. But sometimes occam's razor can be wrong.
The eloquent, intellectual voice over with the brutal but hilarious graphics is amazing.
Mad respect to your videos, you really are producing quality content!
I first heard that quote in the early nineties over a drink with a northern Irish red-haired man. He was drunk and strongly supported the IRA. I said I'm an American I'm not for either side of your troubles. He replied in a voice I can still recall dripping with bitterness, "if you're not for us, you're against us!"
I just remembered this little anecdote -- well, it's not really an anecdote. A thing. Anyway, I was in college when America declared war in Iraq the second time, and I will always remember this little passive -aggressive graffiti exchange I saw everyday on a stairwell bc it made me laugh. Someone had stuck a sticker on the underside of a staircase that read, "no war for oil". Someone else has come along and written over it, "Peace by superior firepower!" It made me laugh to myself whenever I saw it. I enjoyed political snark even before I was into geopolitics.
haha justifying genocidal war how funny!
@@zuz-ve4ro ofc you're named Emily
@@Fraude_fiscale4 you owned me
As an American I am excited to discover the way forward for my nation in the post-Cold War foreign policy environment we now find ourselves in! I hope to work in the Foreign Service one day.
That first part about pacifists trying to not fight Hitler is exactly whats going on with Russia now
Yup.
I’m not a pacifist by any means, hell I live in America.
There are times for peace and diplomacy…
but there are more times that require action.
@ashin joy . No . No . Not everyone you don’t like is hitler . I wasn’t aware Putin had plans to eradicate the Ukrainian race . With gas chambers of any sorts. Grow up and get more mature material
@@roberthidrobo6254 obviously he's no trying to put the Ukrainians in concentration camps but he's still unjustifiably invading someone's country and killing their people. There is literally no justification for his actions. If you think it is OK to conquer someone's land through war then why don't you invite the Europeans back to colonise you
No, the destruction of Europe by the US, UK and the Soviet Union is not at all comparable to NATO defending the corrupt government of an ethnically Slavic country from other Slavs.
You can go fight in Ukraine for Joe Biden's money laundering, but I will have no part in it and I am of the opinion that the west should too.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 require action like invade iraq for no reason and kill 1 million people?
The introduction section is very Important to hear rn with the situation in Ukraine
I'm disappointed of the partisan generalization discourse but pretty thought productive.
i just keep coming back to this one. captures such a dystopian moment in america, gathering manufactured consent for cynical wars with no real enemy, target, or physical goals. great video
"It's rare that countries openly fight each other"
That didn't age well
It's still rare
Meanwhile the USA have been openly at war against 3 countries for years, they retreated from Afganistan only last year after 20 years of fight
@@trollmcclure2659 that is still relatively rare compared to pre-21st century times
@@terminalpreppie8439 No, you're thinking of Civil Wars. Interstate wars remain rare. You need to read more history books, it was once universal.
still rare
17:15
That smile from bin Salman.
That darned smile.
It says 100 things about the world of Geopolitics.
I'd like to add a personal insight into something you said, about how diplomatic policy during the Cold War became a labyrinth of contradictions afterwards.
I live in Brazil, a South American country that like most countries in America suffered an extremely brutal dictatorial period that has political and economic consequences until today. Dictatorships that were financed by the United States in fear that a new Cuba would be created, destroying even democracies because of that fear.
My grandfather worked in a pharmacy in a small town that didn't have a hospital, because of that he practically worked as the doctor of the place and sometimes he went home to see people in need, a local colonel started having problems with my grandfather for also having a pharmacy, but be much smaller than his.
What happened was that this colonel found out that my grandfather had books banned by the government and denounced him. My grandfather went out to see someone on a day, and that day the military police knocked on his house demanding to enter, my grandmother opened the door and they asked where my grandfather was, she said that he was out desperate and one of the soldiers pointed the rifle at my father who was still a child and to my aunt soon after, after searching the house the police left and went to where he was. Luckily this gave my grandmother time to burn all the books so they would have no evidence when the police returned.
My grandfather was imprisoned for a while, but without the books he was released after some weeks and, from what he said, he was not tortured, but he heard the screams of other prisoners. According to my grandmother, the drinking problem he has got worse after that, he wasn't a violent drunk, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
The thing is, I never knew my grandfather, he died of a heart attack before I was born. This is just one family story among thousands of stories of thousands of families who have lost fathers, mothers, children. The dictatorship ended like the military wanted, they slowly stole what they wanted, placed several privileges for them and their descendants to live off the state and the torturers were all released, the victims were left without justice, thousands were "disappeared" or "killed themselves", and all political problems were left in the hands of a newborn democracy. And like any country with a brutal part, there are denialists and supporters of the dictatorship. People with common sense who fear the return of the dictatorship will tell stories like the one I told about my grandfather for the next ones so that they never forget the terror.
Of course, part of this hatred we feel for the dictatorship also goes to a country that said that during the same period that it supported such atrocities, it claimed to protect democracy against a red enemy. For us Latinos, it's easy for someone to say they defended democracy when it wasn't their ears that didn't hear the screams of the tortured, it wasn't their mouths shut by constant censorship and it wasn't their eyes that saw the streets painted with blood. Anything the United States, and therefore NATO, does is viewed with cynicism by us. The USA, which for some is seen as a country that delivers a potential for a better life, is seen as a tyrant who, in order to maintain their interests, will not be afraid to commit terrible atrocities and will only not like that these same atrocities are in their name.
I don't have a similar story, but all of my ascendants are from Chile, and since none of them was wealthy, I'm certain they could tell similar stories, even if they are no longer alive to tell them to me.
But what I can tell you is that any hatred you feel towards the US or NATO is misguided. Any state or alliance of states will only act in its best interests, and the interests of states does not always take into consideration the interest of individuals. We, as small individuals part of large nations, are as helpless as dried leaves in a tornado. Unless you are wealthy, there is little we can do but hope the tornado does not upend all of our hopes and dreams we spent so long building.
What hate can do however is politics. Hate politics has been trending for the last few years, but it has been a core component of politics since the start of civilization. It does mean however that you must choose a side, after all, a narrative can only survive if it has both a hero and a villain.
But politics does not interest me; i find the cold, calculated rationality of pure geopolitics much more interesting. True, geopolitics will never give me an answer on the question of "how can I make a better world". But it helps me understand the resulting forces of complex geopolitical factors, and helps me realize that we are but small ants trying to understand the motivations and mechanics of humans, while hoping we dont get stepped on by their gigantic feet.
@@No0dz vives en chile?
Really enjoyed this. Nothing really to add unlike the last one - happy I stayed subscribed even though we have some very deep differences.
Two years later and this video becomes more and more a fact of life every day.
This was kinda lurking in the back of my mind. Everyone always says the US has no business doing anything and everyone should just mind their own, but that's always sounded overly idealistic. People think you're an imperialist if you are for any intervention whatsoever. Now should we divert more attention to our homefront? 100%. And NATO should become less dependent on the US military
Stop intervening then
@@ccdsds3221 While i’m of the idea that most American interventions are bad, most recently the war in Ukraine has been a good example of American intervention. Historically American interventions in the World Wars (not so much the first one) were also better example of US intervention.
The US didn't enter Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else for freedom, democracy, or any other platitude. If they really wanted to help these countries, they would have lifted the Sanctions they placed on these countries in the first place as well as never impose them. It was a logical process dictated by the ruling class of the United States aimed at conquering untapped markets, taking control of valuable natural resources, and maintaining important geostrategic military outposts for their own benefit, of course to the detriment of everyone else in and outside these countries being occupied. The few that benefited were either defense contractors, Halliburton and Lockheed Martin, and all the other rotten entities that pushed pro-war American intervention as propaganda from China to Latin America, private security firms like Blackwater, and oil and energy Giants that got preferential contracts to Iraqi oil(Which by the way, before the Iraq war, Iraqs oil was fully Nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later and NOW ITS SUDDENLY AND LARGELY PRIVITIZED and utterly dominated by foreign firms), reconstruction firms like Bechdale and Flor that received billions in contracts for "rebuilding Iraq"(With more than 70 American companies and individuals having won up to 8 billion in contracts, a lot of that money unironically ended up in Politicians hands... Hm, it couldn't be nearly 60% of the companies had employees or board members who either served in or had close ties to executive branches for Republican and Democratic Administrations... And woah! A lot of those companies ended up donating a lot of money to presidential campaigns!) and of course all the politicians and lobbyists directly tied to the capital of all the above examples that either benefited directly or indirectly from the Iraq war. The actual cost of the Iraq war, however, was the destruction of countless millions of Iraqi lives, the ruin of its cities, the pollution of its river and land, the defacement of ancient treasures of Humanity intrinsic to the oldest civilization on earth, and reverberating adverse effects of instability on the greater west Asian region as well as the world. Political instability, sectarian violence, displacement, a ruined economy and having fallen every conceivable measure of the quality of life. An estimate of 2.4 million Iraqis have died since 2003 as a result of our countries illegal invasion, with a minimum of 1.5 million and a maximum of 3.4 million. Tell me how this wasn't a war crime on the largest scale? It was literally just full on imperialistic and for empire rather than for anything else and we should 100% fuckinf denounce it
@@Nobody142 it scares me how many people are blinded from seeing this and how many of those who have refuse to accept it. The US has done mostly bad with a little good as a SIDE EFFECT
Essentially, there are no solutions that will result in peace and harmony for all. We are doomed to eternal conflict and rivalries. Humanity is a nightmare.
Return to monke
@@tekinet7958 reject humanity
0:56 Orwell literally debatebroing all over the UK makes him even more of a chad.
A lot of the pacifism towards the Nazis was largely due to the fear of communism and the USSR being greater, after all Hitler initially admired the british empire whilst the USSR was outwardly antithetic to western imperialism.
That's b.s the people who apposed war were often communists themselves
Source?
Remind you anything?
Bullshit. In the 1930's the USSR wasn't at all seemed as a peer to Germany, let alone superior
6:28 aged like fine wine
It did, having to resort to a full invasion is a failure of russian policy
"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one"- Alexander Hamilton.
favorite account. probably not gonna see this comment but with brain4breakfast gone, you’ve filled that gap. mad appreciation for the work you do.
Rest in peace brain4breakfast,
You will be missed by all.
20:28 - hits differently in 2022
So basically people who allied themselves with USA during Cold War did so only against USSR communism but once USSR was no more, things became much more complicated?
And vice versa.
Roughly. NATO is kinda of split between america and the rest of NATO. America wants to expand influence in the middle east to secure it's political and economic influence, as well as it's own threats in Asia (basically just China). While the rest of the alliance wants to focus more on Europe and defense. Hence why Türkiye, Britain, and Poland are so supportive of Ukraine. Europe is concerned with Europe, America is concerned with Arabia and Asia, but both sides still want the support of each other
yup
Video is a great medium, but many creators haven't gotten past using it for short form, thoughtless entertainment. You are using this medium to create and share thoughtful, well-researched work. The world needs more of this. Your creations are works of art. You've experienced a ton of subscriber and view growth in the past few weeks, please don't let the money and influence change your channel to a mainstream, thoughtless content-farm. Keep up the quality work!
WELL RESEARCHED LMAO
@@zuz-ve4ro bro makes mini docs on RUclips about incredibly well detailed analysis’s of geopolitics idk what you’re talking about 🤦♂️
I always love it when people, particularly from Eastern Europe or North America, (where I’m from) always (not all of them, but the minority of both regions that do) say this and that about massacres and other war crimes or negative dents on their regional history, and try to say things like what happened in Yugoslavia back in the 90s and the 60s scoop in NA, never happened. And they always say “Don’t listen to that/the media” even though they themselves are controlled and effected by media more then everyone else. Gotta love it.
Probably one of my favourite videos on this platform.
This is master class RUclips right here. Always blown away by you content. So much to process 🤙
What is the name of the piece that starts in "Geopolitics vs Idealism"?
The source is in the discord, let me find it for you
Dont hold out on us, Mick!
@@MickGallJr And Mick Gallagher was never heard of again.
Hungarian Rhapsody No.2
The issue with a lot of modern interventions is that they seem to do no good. Afghanistan is the best example: it got invaded by the two most powerful millitary forces that ever existed: US and USSR and neither of them are able to really gain any sort of stable control of that country. These conflicts then seem like just one huge money sink and a meat grinder. No matter how many ressources and men you put in there you just don't stabilize it. So it just looks like a gigantic waste money and even worse human lives.
We need to do a better job or weighing out what is viable and what isn’t.
Otherwise we get entangled in a war that no one really wants.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 countries with strong brainwashing dogmas(democracy and communism) tend to forget that foreign countries with strong family structures don't accept foreign occupation, especially not with obvious traps like democracy and communism as the main occupation policy.
i say traps because there are exactly 0 countries in history who developed from undeveloped status by using democracy.(the US, rome and greeks are oligarchies)
as for communism, its good in the short term but have too many negatives.
populist dictators are the best for less developed countries.
Speaking as an American, our extended stay in Afghanistan was more a product of domestic politics than critical thought. The initial goal of the invasion was to punish Afghanistan for harboring terrorists that killed thousands of Americans and warn other nations against doing the same, which is reasonable enough. However, once we were there, none of our Presidents wanted to pull out because they knew the regime we established would collapse, and that many voters would blame this on whoever was in office at the time. (When Biden finally did it, this is exactly what happened.) Not only that, but some Americans got so moralistic about the project that they thought we had to stay because "what about democracy?" or "what about girls' education?" It would be great if we could give all the people of Afghanistan the same rights we enjoy here, but that was never going to actually work due to factors that were out of U.S. control, and at any rate, the point of our government is to protect Americans' rights and interests, not the entire world's.
Realising this video came out _before_ 2022 was insane
Well, technically the war wasn't for oil, but the US has a history of ""securing"" strategic allies, who just happen to have what they need. That's all fine, I just disagree with their methods. As you said, they wanted to install a friendly government, but going to war because of this, it's still wrong, in my opinion.
He’s not defending it. He’s just explaining it. He hearted a comment saying Bush should’ve been imprisoned for the entire debacle…which is hard to disagree with XD