March 31, 2022 • 49 mins
NATO formed at a time when Russia threatened Europe as a potential invader. Then the Soviet Union broke up and NATO lost its way for a bit. Now Russia’s back to business as usual and NATO has found its purpose again, protecting peace in Europe.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to Stuff you should know, a production of I
Heart Radio. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark,
and there's Charles w Chuck Bryant, and Jerry's here. And
this is stuff you should know. The Triple Alliance coming
at you, but not overstepping our bouts, being very delicate.
(00:25):
Here correct because they tell you the Triple Alliance. Yeah,
I think that was actually that the proper name for
the Aztecs. Oh yeah, m hm, alright, no, but I
like that. You know, hopefully this episode is coming out
and we're getting some some guest listeners who are like,
(00:47):
what is this native thing all about? Who are these
dumb dumbs? They can explain it, and so I like,
I like you lobbying out in a little factoid for everyone.
Oh yeah, well that's how we do. We tread lightly,
we don't overstep our bounds, and we laugh about factoids.
So welcome. This is stuff you should know. My name
is Chuck and I'm a co host along with Josh Clark. Yeah, Hi,
(01:08):
and we explain things and it's in my humorous way
over the course of you know, a lot of podcasts
do this every episode. They explain what their missions I
would I would go berserk, man, I would have giant
patches in my head where I've just pulled hair clean out.
But we like to explain things in a in an
approachable way to the common person, that is to say,
(01:30):
that is what we are. We don't have lofty goals.
There you go. Why did you write that one down?
That was amazing? Yeah, we should do this every time
and just let me wing it every time. Okay. I
think we just came up with a new format in
twenty two. So Chuck, we're talking about NATO, and if
you didn't know, if you didn't know, we're in trouble.
(01:52):
But if you the listener, especially the new ones, didn't know,
NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is
the kind of name that you can make your eyes
glaze over with just one pass. It's just that boring sounding, right, Yeah,
But it's a pretty I mean, I don't know, maybe
this is an opinion of my own, but I think
(02:13):
it's pretty fundamentally uh integral body to the world order.
I mean, it's certainly proved itself as such. And you know,
we're Americans, we were kind of raised to think like
NATO's fine and great, and it's a good thing. Don't
even don't even bother thinking about it unless we need
you to, and if so, we'll alert you through the
(02:34):
media and then you can start thinking about it. Um.
But if you dig into it a little bit and
you actually like, look at the stuff that it does,
the stuff that it has done, the reasons it was founded,
and the reasons it's operating now, it actually does make
a tremendous amount of sense. If you're a fan of democracy.
You know, even if you're not a fan of military operations,
(02:54):
which I mean, like I'm not, I would rather everything
just be at peace. It would be great if we
could do everything through diplomacy, right, Um. But so even
if you're not like, yeah, we gotta go get him,
let's just get over there and shoot everybody. Um, you
could still be like a supporter of NATO just because
of the stability it does provide, like you were saying,
(03:16):
or has provided all this time. I I and yeah,
I mean in recent stuff with Ukraine and Russia has
definitely made me rethink it in a more positive light
and that it's more essential than I thought it was. Yeah,
and we'll get into that obviously along the way in
this episode and sort of explain what's going on in
some detail. But I also just the idea that NATO
(03:39):
is outdated and of a bygone era and not useful
in a waste of money is I think, um folly
and Uh, We're not gonna go down that road too much.
We're just gonna probably explain how it works and hopefully
through that to display why it's still necessary. The thing is, Chuck,
is that particular opinion of NATO wasn't necessarily be wrong
(04:01):
a year ago, two years ago, five years ago. And
it's not like you and I just woke up to
the importance of NATO. Literally, the world has changed in
the last two months since Russia invaded Ukraine and NATO,
which was struggling to find its way its purpose up
until about two thousand and fourteen, when the last time
Russia invaded Ukraine, UM suddenly became like important and had
(04:26):
a reason to exist again. So things have changed that
dramatically that a thirty nation allegiance organization that had been
kind of like what are you what are you guys
doing again? What's the point of all this was now
one of the most important organizations in the entire world again.
Well yeah, and I think there's a lesson in complacency there. Uh,
(04:48):
Like it's like if you had this old panic room
installed in your house in the seventies and and you
know here in were like, you know what this panic room.
I think I'm just going to turn it into a
Benga hall. It's getting kind of useless. And then all
of a sudden the purge happens, and you remember why
you needed that panic room. Yeah, so the purge happened
(05:09):
to Ukraine in February of this year, But the purge
was always just sitting out there possibly could happen. And
I guess that's the complacency I'm talking about. I think
no one thought anything like, oh, everything's like, everything's fine
these days, like Europe is not going to be at war,
we don't need this stuff. And then but that possibility
(05:30):
is always out there, and I think just the mirror
and this isn't me, this is you know, highly respected
people say that just the mere mention of exiting NATO
and dissolving NATO emboldened people like Putin, Yes, so, um,
what sucks is like the idea that that we're living
in a world where NATO is essential, where that the
(05:52):
purge is kind of always out there. Um, it didn't
necessarily be that way. And if if you if you're
uncomble living in that that kind of reality, if you're
if you're like this reality actually sucks that the purge
is out there and we have to have NATO. Now,
we have to spend all this extra money on defense
and all this stuff, and you know, peace seems to
(06:13):
be you know, up in arms in question. Again, blame
the people who invade other countries. Don't blame the people
who have allied to fight against that kind of thing
in the name of democracy, Well said sir. Should we
go back to the beginning. Yeah, let's talk about the
history of NATO, because it's a fairly um young organization
(06:35):
comparatively speaking, like if you compare it to you know,
systems of writing, it's very young, that's true, or the
sun sure, very very young. Huh uh. So let's go
back in time. I guess we should jump in the
old way back machine. Rank it up. It's been a while.
You're showing off for the new people. Huh. I know,
(06:55):
we have a way back machine and we can go
back in time to take that April fourth, nineteen forty
nine is when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed initially
by the original uh the O G s the twelve
founding member countries, which were ourselves here in the United
(07:16):
States Canada are hat to the North. I like that
you're adding a little bit to each one. But can
you sing it as a song? No? I can't. Shoot.
I just did did you hear that? I did? Uh?
Where else? The United Kingdom, our friends across the pond,
Uh France, those folks who make such good gravies, Uh Italy,
(07:38):
which is all about those pillowy beautiful what are they
called croissants? Well, sure, but I was thinking of the pasta.
That's uh the gnocchi. Oh yeah, that's not pillowe. It's dense,
it's densest pillowe. I don't think that's gnocchi. I think
(07:58):
that's like um is delicious, but it's Yournoki's two dens.
Isn't gnocchi? Stuff with something though? No key, Oh, I'm
thinking of parogis Portugal delicious wines. Uh Norway. I just
here they bike a lot over there. Denmark they bike
even more. Iceland is not Greenland. People get those confused Belgium.
(08:23):
I've been there, and that's where NATO is headquartered. We'll
get to that. The Netherlands, they are largely below sea level.
And then Luxembourg. I flew out of there once. It's
very small. It is extremely small. And I've been to
Belgium too, by the way. Uh, yeah, Belgium is nice.
And then you got Greece and Turkey in fifty two
West Germany and fifty five Spain and eighty two, and
(08:45):
then in n when the Soviet Union collapsed, it was
like a free for all of people and countries going
oh me me, me, me, me, me me. Over the
next eighteen years, Yeah, and NATO was saying, yes, come
be friends, come become democracies. This is great for US. UM.
And that was that. We'll talk about it kind of considered. UM.
(09:05):
There's a guy named James stev RDIs. He was the
Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from two thousand nine to
two UM and he put it as that that was
kind of the beginning of NATO two point oh. But
NATO one point oh. The original mission of NATO was
very clear, it was very purposeful, it was very complicated
(09:28):
in execution, and it required tons of money, especially considering
there were only twelve to sixteen members from two right
um and the mission was contained the Soviet Union because
after World War Two, Europe was just tow up from
(09:48):
the flow up and it was up for grabs. And
one of the first things the Soviet Union did was
start pouring all of its economy into its military and
say sing, okay, you're part of the Soviet Union. Now
you're part of the Soviet Union. You're part of the
Soviet Union. They drew whatevery eighties, kid Um knew was
(10:08):
a line between Europe and the Eastern Bloc called the
Iron Curtain. And you did not penetrate the Iron Curtain.
The Iron Curtain penetrated you. All right, y'all think I'm
glad you got that. Uh, that is true. And the
one of the biggest parts of NATO, that's sort of
(10:29):
one of the most fundamental parts of it, is Article five,
which we won't read in full. You should go look
it up online though and read it. But it basically,
but we could sing it. It basically says, you know
what these are all like, NATO isn't a military force.
It is a bunch of countries and their military forces,
and it's really up to each member to decide what
(10:52):
they want to do when it comes to supporting an
ally like you don't have to use military force. Uh
you can though under an international law, but you basically
it's up to each country. It's a it's a weird
organization and that they don't vote on things. It's all
just sort of hammered out as a consensus, including who
(11:14):
the NATO Secretary General is. They don't even vote on that.
They just sort of agree to who's gonna take that
role and um which will you know, we'll get to
what they do later, but it is I did find
it fascinating that they don't you know, they don't sit down.
I mean, how many countries are there now, thirty? They
don't sit down and have a thirty country vote when
it comes to anything. They just they just work it out.
(11:36):
That means sometimes some countries are gonna get more of
what they want and some times are gonna have to
acquiesce and get less, Yeah, which I find kind of neat.
But overall, most of the countries are in favor of
doing whatever NATO is doing, or they're opposed to it,
and NATO doesn't do something so that Article five, the
basis of it is what's called collective defense and the
(11:58):
maintenance of this. This is the thing that probably binds
more than anything else the thirty countries that are members
of NATO, is that if you attack one NATO country,
you are effectively attacking all thirty NATO countries, and those
thirty NATO right, those thirty NATO countries will bring their substantial,
(12:20):
significant military might onto you the attacker who attacked that
one country. That's ultimately the main and original purpose of
NATO because when when NATO was formed and Russia was
consolidating its military, Europe was not what The countries of
Europe were in no shape to defend themselves. So they
(12:41):
entered into this pact with the United States and Canada,
who said, we'll come over and help you guys. And
by the way, so you know, I hope you're listening.
If you attack any of these guys, if you try
to expand beyond that iron curtain, we're coming in like
it's an attack on us. That was the basis of NATO,
and it's been upheld ever since, although it's only been
in once in the history um since nineteen yeah. And
(13:04):
not only does that mean that these countries aren't getting attacked,
which is uh been pretty ironclad. It means that other countries,
like obviously in ninety one, like I said, with the
fall of the Soviet Union, over the next eighteen years
are scrambling to be a part of it because a
lot of these are smaller countries who no way could
(13:24):
they stand up to a superpower like Russia. Uh so
they were they want to be in NATO, and we'll
talk about Ukraine and they're you know, whether or not
their desire was to be a part of NATO and
where that kind of lies now with the current situation.
But the point is these countries like Slovenia and Albania
and Croatia and Montenegro, like they want to be a
(13:47):
part of NATO because they need friends. Well they yeah,
they do need friends because yeah, if if there was
Russian aggression against them, they would just completely they would
have no no choice. They I don't even think they
could fight back in the way that Ukraine did. Some
of these countries are so small and have such small militaries.
So yeah, so right now as it stands, as far
(14:07):
as Article five is concerned, if any country attacks North
Macedonia to the United States military, it is attacking the
United States. That's just part of the NATO treaty, right,
And and there's that's a point of contention from what
I saw a chuck that that some people are like, Okay,
are we really going to send our troops over to
(14:28):
like die in North Macedonia if Russia attacks it? And
as far as our Article five is concerned, yeah, you
would like you would do that, like that's part of
the treaty, Like they are a NATO member nation. And
to some people it doesn't make sense that you would
sacrifice you know, blood and treasure as they say in
North Macedonia. To other people, it's it's exactly sensible because
(14:51):
if North Macedonia is a NATO country, you can put
whatever missiles you want in North Macedonia. They're a NATO country,
and so there's strategically located, and their strategic location makes
them extraordinarily valuable as a NATO member. So it makes
sense in some ways, it doesn't make sense in other ways.
But overall, the general idea is that the more NATO
(15:15):
countries you have in Europe, the stronger the whole thing is,
even including the little countries. Everybody has a role to play. Well, yeah,
and not only that, you know, the little countries. Uh,
if you might think it's not worth expending all this
kind of money to help and you know, maybe American
soldiers lives to protect them. The dominoes can fall very
(15:35):
quickly when you have somebody like Putin in power, and um,
the world wants most of the world wants peace, and
that can very easily be very tenuous if these little,
smaller countries start following like dominoes and all of a
sudden you look up and the world map is being redrawn,
(15:55):
right exactly, So that's exactly what they're trying to prevent
by by stringing together this cohesive group of NATO countries. Right. Um.
On the other hand, if you are in Russia and
you're in the Russian military, or say you're the head
of Russia, when you see all these little countries that
are along your border now suddenly saying we're a democracy
(16:18):
and we're now NATO members and we can put missiles
aimed at you, like right along your border, that's a
huge menace to you. And um, that in some ways
explains the aggression that Putin carried out in Ukraine. Among
some observers, that's not that hasn't been is necessarily the
(16:41):
stated goal of the invasion of Ukraine. But a lot
of Russian experts say this, this actually is is a
huge response to NATO. He doesn't want to bring Ukraine
into the Russian Federation necessarily. I remember when this started
a few weeks ago. Um Emily, who was my wife?
(17:02):
If you're new to the show, she gets mentioned occasionally.
Josh's a wife, name you me? She gets mentioned occasionally.
We also have pets. I have a daughter. They might
pop up as well, but I doubt it. My pet
is my daughter and they Emily was just like, why
what is you know? She didn't really understand what was
going on at first, She said, what does Russia want
with Ukraine? And I just very simply because it's more
(17:25):
complex than that. But I was basically like, it's like
the oldest, the oldest reason in world history. It's land,
and it's a big chunk of land, and where it
sits next to Russia, it's strategically it's like it's troublesome
for them to have uh NATO interests there, and it's
(17:45):
troublesome for NATO to have Russian interest there. So it's
you know, it's funny, like when you look back and
they're not funny, it's sad. But when you look back
at like, there are many reasons for war, but like
one of the biggest ones has always just been land
acquisition and holdings totally and usually along your border, and
you just expand. I mean, it was like expanding the
Empire before for like resources and stuff, and I think
(18:07):
that still clearly goes on, but it also in this
case is like wanting a buffer between NATO and Russia
on the one hand, Right, should we take a break.
Let's take a break, so we'll be right back and
we'll talk a little bit about some of the mess
that NATO two point oh was in which led us
to NATO three point oh. Okay, so we're back, and um,
(18:45):
we're talking about what again Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis called,
and I think Time magazine like two eighteen NATO two
point oh and NATO two point oh came about because
the whole purpose of NATO, which was then tain the
Soviet Union out of Europe um, became pointless because there
(19:06):
was no Soviet Union anymore. After I believe the USSR
broke up right. And on the one hand, when it
first happened, Chuck, it was like you were saying, like,
all of these these former Russian satellite states started scrambling
to become part of NATO, and NATO was welcoming them
with open arms. Um. And that that first part of
(19:28):
that NATO two point oh, that second general point of
NATO made a lot of sense, and it was consolidating
Europe into an even more peaceful, more democratic area. But
then after that kind of stabilized and they got there
that process under underway, um, it started to kind of
like lose its point or its purpose a little bit. Yeah.
(19:52):
I mean, I think post Cold War, the complacency set
in and people did start to think, like what are
we doing? And NATO two point oh said, well, you
know what we can. Uh. We can engage in counter
terrorism uh campaigns. UH. We don't like the piracy that's
going around the world, so we can help to combat that, uh.
(20:13):
And we can get involved in these other uh in
combating these other activities that are detrimental to world order
and world peace. But this is kind of some of
the stuff that not only did it, it caused some
consternation in the citizens of the world, like what are
we doing here with NATO. It was also within NATO
there was a lot of infighting within the board of
(20:36):
like what you know or the council should I say,
what should we do? I don't think we should be
doing this. We should be doing this. And since they
have to hammer everything out and agree even sometimes to
disagree in order to do something, it was a little
bit fractured. On the interior, Yeah, big time because a
lot of people are like, what the heck does combating
(20:56):
piracy in the Gulf of Aiden have to do with
protecting Europe, m the USSR, you know, the Cold Wars
over what are we doing? Like, yeah, let's let's keep
NATO together because who knows what what's going to be needed?
But do we need to engage in this adventurism? And
then UM the Supreme Alley Commander position, which is the
head of all NATO forces, that is like by nature
(21:19):
in the treaty, I think always an American, so the
Americans always de facto and also in a lot of
different ways really lead NATO. UM. But in the early
two thousand's America squandered a lot of its credibility, a
lot of its legitimacy in adventurism like invading Iraq unprovoked
(21:41):
illegally um, which by the way, NATO had nothing to
do with because the rest of the NATO nations are
most of the other NATO nations were like, this is
not right. We're not going anywhere near it, which is
a mark in NATO's favor if you ask me, um
that they saw like this is not this is not
a just war as an invasion um. But that that
(22:02):
kind of stuff like really kind of made other member
nations kind of question American leadership. Whereas up to that point,
or a little before that point, it was just like
America was leading the way, NATO was following, and it
was all good. And then after that things started to
really kind of fracture and crack. Right. So this is
sort of when Ukraine um comes into the picture, and
(22:26):
that you don't have to be a NATO member to
deal with NATO and to work with NATO and to
read a lot of the benefits of NATO so they
can partner with non NATO countries. This started back in
ninety one with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and
the goal here is to basically to arm people, to
train people to ensure their democracy stays stable. Uh. And
(22:50):
you know when that started happening, non NATO countries got
interested in this kind of partnership, specifically Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Georgia and uk Rain. So all of a sudden, these uh,
in the early nineties, these other countries are knocking on
the door saying, hey, we don't want to be members
because they can you can join. Any European country can
(23:13):
join NATO as long as they, you know, do what's required,
which will you know, we'll get to that in a minute.
But Ukraine has been working with them through what's called
the Comprehensive Assistance Package. They've been receiving NATO support. Uh.
And this is the kind of thing that you know,
Zelinski has a lot of this quagmire that is happening
(23:35):
now is Russia was afraid that they were officially going
to join NATO because Zelinski approved the National Security strategy,
which it was almost like they were seriously kicking the
tires on one another. Finally, yeah, I think they. He
said in September twenty twenty that that Ukraine's aim was
to become a full member of NATO after being a
(23:57):
partner for you know, three decades but basically um or
at least two full decades um and even before that,
the whole thing kind of kicked off. There was a
summit in Bucharest called the Well the Bucharest Summit in
two thousand and eight, and at that meeting, Georgia and
Ukraine declared that it was their aim to become NATO members.
(24:18):
And that seems to be at least geo politically speaking,
what what kind of kicked the tensions off big time
and led to the two thousand fourteen invasion of Ukraine
and Crimea and then also led to the two invasion
that's going on right now. That's right. A little more
nuts and bolts about NATO itself. They are, like we
(24:41):
said at the beginning, they're headquartered in Brussels, and uh,
everything's done by consensus. And you mentioned the military part
of NATO. It's different. It's called the Military Committee. It's
different than the actual North Atlantic Council. Like that's headed
by the NATO Secretary General and it's not a it's
not a figurehead position, but they don't they're not in
(25:04):
charge of like deciding anything they're just sort of uh,
they're the Secretary General, they head up the meetings. Uh.
They have historically always been European and the head of
the Military Committee has always been American, like you said,
but there's nothing in the charter that says that has
to be the case. It's just always been that way. Uh.
So they're they're in Belgium and they're taking meetings every
(25:25):
day and and and you know, answering the bat phone
when it rings. And then you've got your Military Committee,
and then you've got your what's the other one, the
nuclear the Nuclear Planning Group. Uh, And I guess the
military is sort of the link between all of these.
To make sure you know the military strategy is sound. Yeah,
because DATO likes to to publicize itself as a both
(25:47):
a military and a political organization. And it definitely is
like if you partner with NATO as a as a
partner country or if you remember like you're you're you're
engaged with them politically and they try to work things
out diplomatically like um. Very famously, one of the first
post Cold War missions that NATO embarked on was in
(26:09):
the Balkans. When war broke out there. UM in for
the former Yugoslavian states right back in the Wag the
Dog era. You remember that, of course? Yeah? Okay, so
um do you remember in the movie Wag the Dog?
Like that? Okay, so so, and then that happened basically
in real life. It was such a close resemblance to it.
(26:29):
I remember a reporter asking Bill Clinton, like, have you
ever seen the movie Wag the Dog, because like, the
Balkan NATO mission started like right as the Monica Lewinsky
Lewinsky scandal was heating up, And he said, it depends
on what your definition of scene is, right, I mean,
we're gonna be able to tee off on that guy forever. Huh,
(26:50):
let's just cut that great. So the the so, they
NATO entered the Balkans um and tried to like work
everything out. There's a peacekeeping mission um, but there was
also obviously a lot of military operations is how they
kept the peace. But even still there's an ongoing Balkan
mission there and they're trying to sort out the still
the longstanding hostility and promote democracy in these groups. So
(27:13):
they are a political organization, but they're also really at
the end of the day, their military just the incredible
unrivaled might of the military combined military powers of the
thirty countries involved in NATO. It's it's you just can't
really look at it too many other ways. It's a
it's a huge military, that's right. Uh. And as far
(27:36):
as the the Main Committee goes, or the Main Council
it is headed, each country has their own ambassador. I
think we got a new and is that right? What's
her name, Julianne Smith, julian Smith. I want to say
Julianne Moore, just because boy, she would be great at that.
Sure we need more actors and roles like this, right
(28:01):
for sure? That's I mean, if any job, actors have
proven to be amazing politicians over the years, that's right.
And actor would never like to get up on stage
of the auctors and hit somebody. Man, I'm so disturbed
and just unsettled by that. It was very surreal. I
was actually not going to watch the Oscars this year
because I'm kind of over it, but for some reason
I watched, so I saw it live. Wow, that must
(28:24):
have been cereal, just like I think like everyone else thought.
It was a bit at first, and then when the
here in the United States the audio cut out, and
it was clear from Chris Rock. When he came back,
I was like, oh boy, did that Did I just
see what I think I saw? Yeah, that's crazy. I
was telling you me. I couldn't find a clip with it,
but I wanted to see, like or here the ham
(28:44):
fisted way the conductor in the orchestra like tried to
play everything back out, you know, from the weird, uncomfortable,
awkward silence that just gripped the entire auditorium. I want
to know how they got out of that awkward silence,
because I'll bet it was equally well they didn't. He
had to give out. He was right in the middle
of giving out an award. Oh so he had to
(29:05):
continue on after that, Yes, dude, it was that joke
was before he even started giving out the award. You know,
when they go up there and just make jokes. So,
I mean, that was one of the saddest things is
that he gave out the award for Best Documentary to
quest Love for his awesome documentary Summer of Soul, So like,
all of a sudden, like his mom is overshadowed. It
(29:26):
was jeez, what a train wreck. Anyway, off topic, Hey,
that's something we do sometimes, folks, We take tangents. Uh
should we talk a little bit about the funding of NATO.
I don't think you can get around that, chuck, just try.
Oh wait, no, let's let's talk about one other thing.
So where we are today before we hit finding? Okay,
(29:48):
so we're at what um what? Uh? Supreme Commander, Supreme
Allied Commander James Stavridis. And if you can't tell, I
like saying Supreme Allied Commander, you're not paying close enough attention.
But um what he calls NATO three point Oh, because
he's he's in the cyber security I guess. And NATO
three point is where we are today. And like I
(30:09):
was saying, you know, there's been a lot of talk
and movement towards NATO expansion, and some Russia experts are saying,
you know, that's one of the main drivers, are one
of the big drivers for these invasions of Ukraine that
have taken place of the last less than ten years. Um.
But that aggression in response to NATO expansion or depending
(30:33):
on how you take it, just straight up Russian aggression.
Like it doesn't matter if NATO is talking about bringing
Ukraine on and helping it become a democracy. You don't
go waste a city, you don't waste a country. You
don't gun down civilians, you don't bomb a theater where
you know hundreds of civilians are hiding out. You don't
do that. There's no justification for it, and you know,
(30:53):
damn you to hell for doing it, whoever you are.
So that kind of aggression has actually, now, like we
were saying at the beginning of the episode, changed the
world order so dramatically that um, it's revived NATO. Like
all of that bickering, all of the inner ally you know,
(31:13):
dissent in UM in troubles and like what what's our purpose?
All of that has been just pushed right to the
back and all of a sudden, Europe in America are
friends again, europe as friends with one another again. UM,
and NATO is probably stronger than it has been in
the last thirty years, thanks to ironically vot Vladimir Putin.
(31:33):
Yeah absolutely, I mean yeah, I have. I've read a
lot about this and that doesn't seem to be like
a controversial hot take. Um. It seems to be fairly
indisputable that NATO is as UM as allied and as
and as together. It's it's been in decades, and it
couldn't have come at a better time because you know,
(31:54):
I don't know if you noticed or not, but democracy
itself has been kind of under assault, and people were
wonder is the US up to the task of taking
that on? Is that Europe up to the task of
taking that on? And one of the main tenants of
NATO is promoting democracy not just around the world but
within its own countries, its own member nations, since a
(32:16):
lot of countries have had some kind of weird, weird
times that it's gone through where NATO has had to
basically call those countries out, I think Turkey most recently,
where it said, hey, you're a NATO member, we expect
you to uphold democracy and democratic values. Right, So it
promotes it not just around the world, but among member nations,
(32:36):
and that's a huge important point. And so this strengthening
of strengthening of NATO, and thus the strengthening of belief
and in placing value in the idea of democracy and
a willingness to defend democracy could not have come at
a more vital time. So in that sense, thank you
Vladimir Putin. It's just a shame and very sad that
(32:59):
that had to come at the expense of the people
of Ukraine. Agreed. Uh, so maybe we should take the
break now and we'll come back and talk about that funding,
previously mentioned funding right after this. George. Alright, so the
(33:28):
aforementioned NATO funding. And by the way, thanks to our
former colleagues at house stuff works dot com for the
the the original NATO article that kind of started down
this this road. But uh, there's a lot of misconceptions
about NATO funding and how that works. Uh. The official
guidelines say that member nations are expected to commit a
(33:48):
minimum of two percent of their GDP their gross domestic
product to spending on defense. But it's there's not a
uh because like I said, NATO, it's not loosey goosey.
But it's not like someone checks the books every year
and then goes to Luxembourg and says, Hi, you actually
spent this and this is what you owe. So if
(34:10):
you could just get the checked book out, uh and
make that up right now, that would be fantastic. Well, no,
there's no penalty. That's not how it works. Uh. And
I think um, only three members spent two percent of
their GDP or more on defense. I think the US
spends about three and a half. Is that the most
(34:31):
recent number? Uh? Yeah, as right, and um, everyone in
NATO has basically said, though, all right, we get it,
we'll we'll try and up our spending and we would
like to meet that goal in the next couple of
years here. Yeah, because again as NATO is like, what
are we doing here? Again? That really led to a
(34:53):
big decline in military spending, and that huge increase in
in military spending among europeanations of recent years has largely
been because of Vladimir Putin rattling a saber and then
actually following through on it. But one one thing, Chuck
that I think is really like important, that's a misconception
is we don't contribute three and a half percent of
(35:14):
our GDP to NATO. No, A lot of people think
that the requirement is that you as a nation spend
two percent on your own nation's defense. And then, because
you're all tethered together through this invisible alliance of NATO,
NATO combined has access to those thirty member nations defense
(35:36):
all what those defense budgets by which, when you add
it all up, is extremely substantial. Both an amount spent,
but also in like like what you get for that
kind of money. Yeah. I do think that some people
might think that everyone chips in this money to NATO
and that there are NATO forces and stuff like that.
That's not how it works. NATO's we do contribute to
(35:58):
run NATO with their you know, with their own budget.
But that's about two billion bucks two and that's just
day to day operations and uh, you know, logistics and
operations and keeping the headquarters nice tidy clean. Someone's gotta
clean those bathrooms. Uh. That's not a lot of money though,
But that two percent, right is spending on your own military. Uh,
(36:21):
it's actually apportioned out uh in the original I guess charters.
That what you say of the original agreement? Um the
what the treaty? Yeah, the treaty. It's right there, That's
what I'm saying. It's so boring, it's keep wanting to
find a better name. Uh. There the apportionment for the
(36:42):
United States, our cost share is here in the US,
if you look at our g d P, it's about
the same size as the other twenty seven nations put together.
So it's not based on like how big in an
economy you have, because then we would be our apportion
it would be about fifty but it's twenty two. Yeah, right,
(37:04):
it does make sense. That's just for chipping into that
two billion dollars that keeps NATO operation operation already at
all times. That's not for US, it is um and
so the US is, as you know, far in a way.
We we spend on defense um I think almost three
times more than the other NATO nations combined. So we
(37:27):
spent about eight hundred and eleven billion dollars in one
and the rest of the NATO allies spend it combined
three hundred and sixty three billion, from I think the
UK's fifty nine point two billion down to North Macedonia's
hundred and eight million. But if you look at proportion
of g d P, there are plenty of nations who
(37:48):
go beyond that two percent, Like Grease actually spends more
of its GDP by percentage on defense than the United
States does. We spend three and a half percent. Grease
spends three point eight two, Crowa just two point seven nine,
The UK is two point two nine, Poland is two
point one. So plenty of nations have started topping that.
But that is a fairly new thing. Yeah, Like you
(38:10):
just can't look at NATO as a a thirty item
balance sheet, uh and say, well, this is a bad
deal because I'm looking at thirty different numbers of what
these countries contribute. It's it's much it's much more complex
than that. You have to look at it relative to
the size of the nation in their economies and overall spending.
(38:31):
It's it's frustrating. Say no, it really is. But when
you add it all up, what you have is a
combined in two thousand, twenty one, one point one seven
four trillion dollars among the NATO allies spent. That comes
to three and a half million troops who are committed
(38:53):
to NATO's alliance. Three and a half million troops. And
just that dollar amount alone, by the way, one point
one seven four trillion, that's basically more than the rest
of the world combined, and just the NATO allies, the
non US NATO allies spending is more than China and
Russia's defense budgets combined. So it's it's substantial not to
(39:15):
mention that three NATO members are nuclear powers allied together. Like,
so when you put all that stuff together, the idea
of NATO like being this stabilizing force in global security
makes total sense. It doesn't even have to do anything,
It just has to exist to keep things stable and
to promote democracy around the world and to reach out
(39:37):
to like formerly non democratic countries and say, hey, here's
how you become democratic. Here are the values. Let's see
if you can stick to them, if you want to
become a NATO member. Just from this kind of defense spending.
It's kind of ingenious in a way. Well, it is,
and I think it's I think it's part of just
modern society to get complacent about our memories are so
(39:58):
short these days, I think, and there's so little um
acknowledgement and realization of like the history of the world
and not just like the last thirty to fifty years.
You know, there's been peace in Europe for about seventy
years now, and that's all anyone, you know, that's all
(40:19):
most people remember, unless you're like in your eighties, probably
you know what I'm saying. That it's been previous to that,
there were a couple of millennia of of war in Europe,
and like the fact that NATO, and I think I
mean not not singly NATO, But I think NATO has
(40:40):
been the biggest driver of ensuring that piece over the
last seven decades. Yeah, I mean you're not the only one.
Like pretty much global security experts will will say, yes,
NATO has kept the world order stable for that long
and basically as long as it's been around. I think
it's just sad that I think the the short term
memory of how kind of people are today, it's like,
(41:02):
you know, the could rules over. Do we really need
this stuff anymore? Yeah, But I mean it's tough to
blame people because again, it's like the world you grew
up into the world you're born, and then just the
relief of like, wow, democracy actually one, we actually did it.
We can just relax for once for a little while.
It was funny, Chuck, I was thinking today there are
plenty of people who I'm sure listen to our podcast
(41:23):
who have never lived under the threat of nuclear attack
and are now for the first time in their life.
And I've settled back into it like it's an old
smoking jacket and some comfy slippers, you know, like this
is just like normal, normal stuff to me. And I realized,
like I wonder how many people out there super anxious
about that idea of dying in a nuclear attack, and UM,
(41:44):
all I can say is you get used to it,
you do you get used to to uh doing drills
in school where you would go get under your desk, hallway,
duck and cover because that would do a lot in
the case of a nuclear bomb. Or uh, you know,
watching Matthew Broderick bring us back from the brink of
(42:04):
nuclear war. What a hero, what a movie. So Chuck,
we should probably before we finish, we should probably talk
about the future of Ukraine and NATO, because, as we've
said a few times here, you know, Ukraine making moves
towards becoming a NATO member and being like in deep
cahoots with NATO. UM has has created this situation, at
(42:25):
least in part where Russia's feeling like emboldened about invading
Ukraine to either put a stop to that or whatever
putin saying he's doing so. Um, if you've been paying
attention to the news of Voldemir Zelinski has been saying like, Okay,
we're we're we're willing to maybe start talking about neutrality now.
(42:45):
And what he's talking about has almost everything to do
with NATO, right, Yeah, I mean, neutrality isn't just a
isn't just something like just say, oh, you know, we're
we're neutral. We just don't feel that strong about anything
over here. Right, That's not what it means. Neutrality in
terms of the world order. I believe it means you
(43:07):
don't get involved in the third country's problem. It doesn't
mean you're like a nihilist Libski What was that? That
was my fleet? Okay, the one the Lincoln Berry pancakes.
Uh yeah, Neutrality means you won't get involved in the
(43:28):
third countries, uh issues. Isn't that right? Totally? Yeah, No
matter what like, So you wouldn't join NATO, you wouldn't
send arms, you wouldn't do anything like that, which, by
the way, I mean, since we said Ukraine is a
partner country, they're just getting a steady flow of arms
through Poland from NATO um allies. And it's been super
(43:50):
effective from what I saw, because Russia is a tank
based military and the anti tank weaponry that we've been
sending Ukraine and Ukraine has been using the great effect
has actually stalled stalled a hundred thousand Russian troops from
taking over Ukraine, which everybody thought was gonna happen in
a matter of days. Now they're finally backing off of Kiev.
(44:11):
It's just insane to even say it out loud. But um,
under neutrality, there would be no arms going from NATO
to Ukraine. UM. Russia would not be allowed to invade Ukraine.
Ukraine would be what Finland is. Finland has a huge
amount of border that it shares with um Russia, and
(44:32):
it serves as a buffer state between Europe and Russia.
It's not allied with Russia, it's not allied with Europe.
Finland's just its own jam. The proposal on the table
now is that Ukraine become like the southern Finland. It
will be a neutral state. It'll be its own sovereign democracy,
can do whatever it wants, but it can't join NATO
and it's not certainly going not going to be allied
with Russia, not after this invasion or ever, because of
(44:55):
its neutrality status. Yeah, and I think the idea at
first is that people thought, and it may have been
the case that Russia wanted to absorb Ukraine as part
of a building back uh maybe not a new Soviet Union,
but just expanding Russia. And that may have been the case.
I don't know, but I think the last few weeks
it's become clear that that's not possible, and that like
(45:16):
occupation of Ukraine isn't possible, like long term occupation. So
it seems like neutrality may be the only way forward here.
But I mean, yeah, definitely, I guess. I mean, yeah,
it's you like, I can't imagine how difficult occupying Ukraine
would be for Russia, like over any period of time.
I don't think they have enough troops to do that, no,
(45:38):
And I mean the Ukrainians certainly have the will to
resist for as long as they need to to get
Russia out of there. So yeah, it's um, I I
feel like now that seems to be I think we
read an Al Jazeera article on it, right, Yeah, it
was super interesting. They talked a lot about how, you know,
not all pro Russian sentiment in Ukraine has been dissolved,
(45:59):
because there there was some obviously, but uh, this has
done a lot of damage to that. Oh yeah, I'm
sure anybody who's on the fence before is like, Okay,
I'm not Russian or even considering pro Russian anymore. But
that does seem to be that and this is you know,
obviously up to Ukraine. But if Zelinski is making gestures
and overture saying we're willing to talk about neutrality, um,
(46:22):
it seems like that could be their decision. But um again,
global security experts, at least ones that were quoted in
Al Jazeera are are saying like this is actually probably
the most viable and quick, short term or like at
hand solution to ending this invasion and actually stabilizing things
again for a while. That's right. That article, by the way,
(46:44):
is Ukraine, what does neutrality mean? And could it lead
to peace? From Thomas oh Falk And that was just
from a few weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago. Yeah,
And in addition to how stuff works in the Al
Jazeera article, we got stuff from Brooking's, the Brennan's Center,
Time BBC and a bunch of other ones to Sesame Street.
(47:05):
This is definitely one of the u is for up yours, um.
And this is one of those definite moments in in
history that it's worth paying attention to. So if this
this our episode struck your fancy it all, go go
read up on it because it's there's a lot of
really interesting and important stuff to read literally, the world
(47:26):
has changed in the last couple of months more than
it has in years. Since two thousand one, I would say,
since two thousand one, are you got anything else? I
don't think so. Okay, Well, if you want to know
more about NATO, you can go check that out online.
And since I said check that out online, everybody, it's
(47:46):
time for listener mail. That's right, I thought, why not,
let's read one from a brand new listener. Uh, this
is the first episode they listened to, and I have
foretold the future with his email. Wow, we uh just kidding.
Hey guys. Last week, though, I found out about your podcast, uh,
and I'm loving it. I become tired of the radio
(48:08):
so decided to start looking at podcast for my work commute,
and yours caught my eyes. It looked interesting without being
too heavy, educational, but not as depressing as the news.
Perfect nice Okay. I was waiting for a response. Well,
I mean, yeah, nice, was my response. I'll take it.
You two make a great pair and work off each
(48:30):
other seamlessly. When I listen, I cannot help but think
of you two as a mash up of burten Ernie
and SNL's The Delicious Dish okay, and a gasto Shannon,
So I will respond to that part because, um, that
is probably the greatest description anyone's ever come up with
for it, wetty balls. I mean that in the most
(48:50):
complimentary way, by the way. I love it and it
works so darnwell obviously, since the show is going strong
for years now, thank you for noticing. I just wanted
to reach out and saying thanks for saving me from
boring radio and crazy news and helping my mind grow
while being entertained. And that is from Samantha Burns Maloney. Well,
thanks Samantha. We really appreciate that. That was a great email. Seriously,
(49:15):
the best descriptor I've ever heard. Yeah, if you're new
to the podcast, or you're a long timer, or you
email every week, we want to hear from you. You
can send us an email to Stuff podcast at iHeart
radio dot com. Stuff you Should Know is a production
of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my heart Radio,
(49:37):
visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to Stuff you should know, a production of I
Heart Radio. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark,
and there's Charles w Chuck Bryant, and Jerry's here. And
this is stuff you should know. The Triple Alliance coming
at you, but not overstepping our bouts, being very delicate.
(00:25):
Here correct because they tell you the Triple Alliance. Yeah,
I think that was actually that the proper name for
the Aztecs. Oh yeah, m hm, alright, no, but I
like that. You know, hopefully this episode is coming out
and we're getting some some guest listeners who are like,
(00:47):
what is this native thing all about? Who are these
dumb dumbs? They can explain it, and so I like,
I like you lobbying out in a little factoid for everyone.
Oh yeah, well that's how we do. We tread lightly,
we don't overstep our bounds, and we laugh about factoids.
So welcome. This is stuff you should know. My name
is Chuck and I'm a co host along with Josh Clark. Yeah, Hi,
(01:08):
and we explain things and it's in my humorous way
over the course of you know, a lot of podcasts
do this every episode. They explain what their missions I
would I would go berserk, man, I would have giant
patches in my head where I've just pulled hair clean out.
But we like to explain things in a in an
approachable way to the common person, that is to say,
(01:30):
that is what we are. We don't have lofty goals.
There you go. Why did you write that one down?
That was amazing? Yeah, we should do this every time
and just let me wing it every time. Okay. I
think we just came up with a new format in
twenty two. So Chuck, we're talking about NATO, and if
you didn't know, if you didn't know, we're in trouble.
(01:52):
But if you the listener, especially the new ones, didn't know,
NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is
the kind of name that you can make your eyes
glaze over with just one pass. It's just that boring sounding, right, Yeah,
But it's a pretty I mean, I don't know, maybe
this is an opinion of my own, but I think
(02:13):
it's pretty fundamentally uh integral body to the world order.
I mean, it's certainly proved itself as such. And you know,
we're Americans, we were kind of raised to think like
NATO's fine and great, and it's a good thing. Don't
even don't even bother thinking about it unless we need
you to, and if so, we'll alert you through the
(02:34):
media and then you can start thinking about it. Um.
But if you dig into it a little bit and
you actually like, look at the stuff that it does,
the stuff that it has done, the reasons it was founded,
and the reasons it's operating now, it actually does make
a tremendous amount of sense. If you're a fan of democracy.
You know, even if you're not a fan of military operations,
(02:54):
which I mean, like I'm not, I would rather everything
just be at peace. It would be great if we
could do everything through diplomacy, right, Um. But so even
if you're not like, yeah, we gotta go get him,
let's just get over there and shoot everybody. Um, you
could still be like a supporter of NATO just because
of the stability it does provide, like you were saying,
(03:16):
or has provided all this time. I I and yeah,
I mean in recent stuff with Ukraine and Russia has
definitely made me rethink it in a more positive light
and that it's more essential than I thought it was. Yeah,
and we'll get into that obviously along the way in
this episode and sort of explain what's going on in
some detail. But I also just the idea that NATO
(03:39):
is outdated and of a bygone era and not useful
in a waste of money is I think, um folly
and Uh, We're not gonna go down that road too much.
We're just gonna probably explain how it works and hopefully
through that to display why it's still necessary. The thing is, Chuck,
is that particular opinion of NATO wasn't necessarily be wrong
(04:01):
a year ago, two years ago, five years ago. And
it's not like you and I just woke up to
the importance of NATO. Literally, the world has changed in
the last two months since Russia invaded Ukraine and NATO,
which was struggling to find its way its purpose up
until about two thousand and fourteen, when the last time
Russia invaded Ukraine, UM suddenly became like important and had
(04:26):
a reason to exist again. So things have changed that
dramatically that a thirty nation allegiance organization that had been
kind of like what are you what are you guys
doing again? What's the point of all this was now
one of the most important organizations in the entire world again.
Well yeah, and I think there's a lesson in complacency there. Uh,
(04:48):
Like it's like if you had this old panic room
installed in your house in the seventies and and you
know here in were like, you know what this panic room.
I think I'm just going to turn it into a
Benga hall. It's getting kind of useless. And then all
of a sudden the purge happens, and you remember why
you needed that panic room. Yeah, so the purge happened
(05:09):
to Ukraine in February of this year, But the purge
was always just sitting out there possibly could happen. And
I guess that's the complacency I'm talking about. I think
no one thought anything like, oh, everything's like, everything's fine
these days, like Europe is not going to be at war,
we don't need this stuff. And then but that possibility
(05:30):
is always out there, and I think just the mirror
and this isn't me, this is you know, highly respected
people say that just the mere mention of exiting NATO
and dissolving NATO emboldened people like Putin, Yes, so, um,
what sucks is like the idea that that we're living
in a world where NATO is essential, where that the
(05:52):
purge is kind of always out there. Um, it didn't
necessarily be that way. And if if you if you're
uncomble living in that that kind of reality, if you're
if you're like this reality actually sucks that the purge
is out there and we have to have NATO. Now,
we have to spend all this extra money on defense
and all this stuff, and you know, peace seems to
(06:13):
be you know, up in arms in question. Again, blame
the people who invade other countries. Don't blame the people
who have allied to fight against that kind of thing
in the name of democracy, Well said sir. Should we
go back to the beginning. Yeah, let's talk about the
history of NATO, because it's a fairly um young organization
(06:35):
comparatively speaking, like if you compare it to you know,
systems of writing, it's very young, that's true, or the
sun sure, very very young. Huh uh. So let's go
back in time. I guess we should jump in the
old way back machine. Rank it up. It's been a while.
You're showing off for the new people. Huh. I know,
(06:55):
we have a way back machine and we can go
back in time to take that April fourth, nineteen forty
nine is when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed initially
by the original uh the O G s the twelve
founding member countries, which were ourselves here in the United
(07:16):
States Canada are hat to the North. I like that
you're adding a little bit to each one. But can
you sing it as a song? No? I can't. Shoot.
I just did did you hear that? I did? Uh?
Where else? The United Kingdom, our friends across the pond,
Uh France, those folks who make such good gravies, Uh Italy,
(07:38):
which is all about those pillowy beautiful what are they
called croissants? Well, sure, but I was thinking of the pasta.
That's uh the gnocchi. Oh yeah, that's not pillowe. It's dense,
it's densest pillowe. I don't think that's gnocchi. I think
(07:58):
that's like um is delicious, but it's Yournoki's two dens.
Isn't gnocchi? Stuff with something though? No key, Oh, I'm
thinking of parogis Portugal delicious wines. Uh Norway. I just
here they bike a lot over there. Denmark they bike
even more. Iceland is not Greenland. People get those confused Belgium.
(08:23):
I've been there, and that's where NATO is headquartered. We'll
get to that. The Netherlands, they are largely below sea level.
And then Luxembourg. I flew out of there once. It's
very small. It is extremely small. And I've been to
Belgium too, by the way. Uh, yeah, Belgium is nice.
And then you got Greece and Turkey in fifty two
West Germany and fifty five Spain and eighty two, and
(08:45):
then in n when the Soviet Union collapsed, it was
like a free for all of people and countries going
oh me me, me, me, me, me me. Over the
next eighteen years, Yeah, and NATO was saying, yes, come
be friends, come become democracies. This is great for US. UM.
And that was that. We'll talk about it kind of considered. UM.
(09:05):
There's a guy named James stev RDIs. He was the
Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from two thousand nine to
two UM and he put it as that that was
kind of the beginning of NATO two point oh. But
NATO one point oh. The original mission of NATO was
very clear, it was very purposeful, it was very complicated
(09:28):
in execution, and it required tons of money, especially considering
there were only twelve to sixteen members from two right
um and the mission was contained the Soviet Union because
after World War Two, Europe was just tow up from
(09:48):
the flow up and it was up for grabs. And
one of the first things the Soviet Union did was
start pouring all of its economy into its military and
say sing, okay, you're part of the Soviet Union. Now
you're part of the Soviet Union. You're part of the
Soviet Union. They drew whatevery eighties, kid Um knew was
(10:08):
a line between Europe and the Eastern Bloc called the
Iron Curtain. And you did not penetrate the Iron Curtain.
The Iron Curtain penetrated you. All right, y'all think I'm
glad you got that. Uh, that is true. And the
one of the biggest parts of NATO, that's sort of
(10:29):
one of the most fundamental parts of it, is Article five,
which we won't read in full. You should go look
it up online though and read it. But it basically,
but we could sing it. It basically says, you know
what these are all like, NATO isn't a military force.
It is a bunch of countries and their military forces,
and it's really up to each member to decide what
(10:52):
they want to do when it comes to supporting an
ally like you don't have to use military force. Uh
you can though under an international law, but you basically
it's up to each country. It's a it's a weird
organization and that they don't vote on things. It's all
just sort of hammered out as a consensus, including who
(11:14):
the NATO Secretary General is. They don't even vote on that.
They just sort of agree to who's gonna take that
role and um which will you know, we'll get to
what they do later, but it is I did find
it fascinating that they don't you know, they don't sit down.
I mean, how many countries are there now, thirty? They
don't sit down and have a thirty country vote when
it comes to anything. They just they just work it out.
(11:36):
That means sometimes some countries are gonna get more of
what they want and some times are gonna have to
acquiesce and get less, Yeah, which I find kind of neat.
But overall, most of the countries are in favor of
doing whatever NATO is doing, or they're opposed to it,
and NATO doesn't do something so that Article five, the
basis of it is what's called collective defense and the
(11:58):
maintenance of this. This is the thing that probably binds
more than anything else the thirty countries that are members
of NATO, is that if you attack one NATO country,
you are effectively attacking all thirty NATO countries, and those
thirty NATO right, those thirty NATO countries will bring their substantial,
(12:20):
significant military might onto you the attacker who attacked that
one country. That's ultimately the main and original purpose of
NATO because when when NATO was formed and Russia was
consolidating its military, Europe was not what The countries of
Europe were in no shape to defend themselves. So they
(12:41):
entered into this pact with the United States and Canada,
who said, we'll come over and help you guys. And
by the way, so you know, I hope you're listening.
If you attack any of these guys, if you try
to expand beyond that iron curtain, we're coming in like
it's an attack on us. That was the basis of NATO,
and it's been upheld ever since, although it's only been
in once in the history um since nineteen yeah. And
(13:04):
not only does that mean that these countries aren't getting attacked,
which is uh been pretty ironclad. It means that other countries,
like obviously in ninety one, like I said, with the
fall of the Soviet Union, over the next eighteen years
are scrambling to be a part of it because a
lot of these are smaller countries who no way could
(13:24):
they stand up to a superpower like Russia. Uh so
they were they want to be in NATO, and we'll
talk about Ukraine and they're you know, whether or not
their desire was to be a part of NATO and
where that kind of lies now with the current situation.
But the point is these countries like Slovenia and Albania
and Croatia and Montenegro, like they want to be a
(13:47):
part of NATO because they need friends. Well they yeah,
they do need friends because yeah, if if there was
Russian aggression against them, they would just completely they would
have no no choice. They I don't even think they
could fight back in the way that Ukraine did. Some
of these countries are so small and have such small militaries.
So yeah, so right now as it stands, as far
(14:07):
as Article five is concerned, if any country attacks North
Macedonia to the United States military, it is attacking the
United States. That's just part of the NATO treaty, right,
And and there's that's a point of contention from what
I saw a chuck that that some people are like, Okay,
are we really going to send our troops over to
(14:28):
like die in North Macedonia if Russia attacks it? And
as far as our Article five is concerned, yeah, you
would like you would do that, like that's part of
the treaty, Like they are a NATO member nation. And
to some people it doesn't make sense that you would
sacrifice you know, blood and treasure as they say in
North Macedonia. To other people, it's it's exactly sensible because
(14:51):
if North Macedonia is a NATO country, you can put
whatever missiles you want in North Macedonia. They're a NATO country,
and so there's strategically located, and their strategic location makes
them extraordinarily valuable as a NATO member. So it makes
sense in some ways, it doesn't make sense in other ways.
But overall, the general idea is that the more NATO
(15:15):
countries you have in Europe, the stronger the whole thing is,
even including the little countries. Everybody has a role to play. Well, yeah,
and not only that, you know, the little countries. Uh,
if you might think it's not worth expending all this
kind of money to help and you know, maybe American
soldiers lives to protect them. The dominoes can fall very
(15:35):
quickly when you have somebody like Putin in power, and um,
the world wants most of the world wants peace, and
that can very easily be very tenuous if these little,
smaller countries start following like dominoes and all of a
sudden you look up and the world map is being redrawn,
(15:55):
right exactly, So that's exactly what they're trying to prevent
by by stringing together this cohesive group of NATO countries. Right. Um.
On the other hand, if you are in Russia and
you're in the Russian military, or say you're the head
of Russia, when you see all these little countries that
are along your border now suddenly saying we're a democracy
(16:18):
and we're now NATO members and we can put missiles
aimed at you, like right along your border, that's a
huge menace to you. And um, that in some ways
explains the aggression that Putin carried out in Ukraine. Among
some observers, that's not that hasn't been is necessarily the
(16:41):
stated goal of the invasion of Ukraine. But a lot
of Russian experts say this, this actually is is a
huge response to NATO. He doesn't want to bring Ukraine
into the Russian Federation necessarily. I remember when this started
a few weeks ago. Um Emily, who was my wife?
(17:02):
If you're new to the show, she gets mentioned occasionally.
Josh's a wife, name you me? She gets mentioned occasionally.
We also have pets. I have a daughter. They might
pop up as well, but I doubt it. My pet
is my daughter and they Emily was just like, why
what is you know? She didn't really understand what was
going on at first, She said, what does Russia want
with Ukraine? And I just very simply because it's more
(17:25):
complex than that. But I was basically like, it's like
the oldest, the oldest reason in world history. It's land,
and it's a big chunk of land, and where it
sits next to Russia, it's strategically it's like it's troublesome
for them to have uh NATO interests there, and it's
(17:45):
troublesome for NATO to have Russian interest there. So it's
you know, it's funny, like when you look back and
they're not funny, it's sad. But when you look back
at like, there are many reasons for war, but like
one of the biggest ones has always just been land
acquisition and holdings totally and usually along your border, and
you just expand. I mean, it was like expanding the
Empire before for like resources and stuff, and I think
(18:07):
that still clearly goes on, but it also in this
case is like wanting a buffer between NATO and Russia
on the one hand, Right, should we take a break.
Let's take a break, so we'll be right back and
we'll talk a little bit about some of the mess
that NATO two point oh was in which led us
to NATO three point oh. Okay, so we're back, and um,
(18:45):
we're talking about what again Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis called,
and I think Time magazine like two eighteen NATO two
point oh and NATO two point oh came about because
the whole purpose of NATO, which was then tain the
Soviet Union out of Europe um, became pointless because there
(19:06):
was no Soviet Union anymore. After I believe the USSR
broke up right. And on the one hand, when it
first happened, Chuck, it was like you were saying, like,
all of these these former Russian satellite states started scrambling
to become part of NATO, and NATO was welcoming them
with open arms. Um. And that that first part of
(19:28):
that NATO two point oh, that second general point of
NATO made a lot of sense, and it was consolidating
Europe into an even more peaceful, more democratic area. But
then after that kind of stabilized and they got there
that process under underway, um, it started to kind of
like lose its point or its purpose a little bit. Yeah.
(19:52):
I mean, I think post Cold War, the complacency set
in and people did start to think, like what are
we doing? And NATO two point oh said, well, you
know what we can. Uh. We can engage in counter
terrorism uh campaigns. UH. We don't like the piracy that's
going around the world, so we can help to combat that, uh.
(20:13):
And we can get involved in these other uh in
combating these other activities that are detrimental to world order
and world peace. But this is kind of some of
the stuff that not only did it, it caused some
consternation in the citizens of the world, like what are
we doing here with NATO. It was also within NATO
there was a lot of infighting within the board of
(20:36):
like what you know or the council should I say,
what should we do? I don't think we should be
doing this. We should be doing this. And since they
have to hammer everything out and agree even sometimes to
disagree in order to do something, it was a little
bit fractured. On the interior, Yeah, big time because a
lot of people are like, what the heck does combating
(20:56):
piracy in the Gulf of Aiden have to do with
protecting Europe, m the USSR, you know, the Cold Wars
over what are we doing? Like, yeah, let's let's keep
NATO together because who knows what what's going to be needed?
But do we need to engage in this adventurism? And
then UM the Supreme Alley Commander position, which is the
head of all NATO forces, that is like by nature
(21:19):
in the treaty, I think always an American, so the
Americans always de facto and also in a lot of
different ways really lead NATO. UM. But in the early
two thousand's America squandered a lot of its credibility, a
lot of its legitimacy in adventurism like invading Iraq unprovoked
(21:41):
illegally um, which by the way, NATO had nothing to
do with because the rest of the NATO nations are
most of the other NATO nations were like, this is
not right. We're not going anywhere near it, which is
a mark in NATO's favor if you ask me, um
that they saw like this is not this is not
a just war as an invasion um. But that that
(22:02):
kind of stuff like really kind of made other member
nations kind of question American leadership. Whereas up to that point,
or a little before that point, it was just like
America was leading the way, NATO was following, and it
was all good. And then after that things started to
really kind of fracture and crack. Right. So this is
sort of when Ukraine um comes into the picture, and
(22:26):
that you don't have to be a NATO member to
deal with NATO and to work with NATO and to
read a lot of the benefits of NATO so they
can partner with non NATO countries. This started back in
ninety one with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and
the goal here is to basically to arm people, to
train people to ensure their democracy stays stable. Uh. And
(22:50):
you know when that started happening, non NATO countries got
interested in this kind of partnership, specifically Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Georgia and uk Rain. So all of a sudden, these uh,
in the early nineties, these other countries are knocking on
the door saying, hey, we don't want to be members
because they can you can join. Any European country can
(23:13):
join NATO as long as they, you know, do what's required,
which will you know, we'll get to that in a minute.
But Ukraine has been working with them through what's called
the Comprehensive Assistance Package. They've been receiving NATO support. Uh.
And this is the kind of thing that you know,
Zelinski has a lot of this quagmire that is happening
(23:35):
now is Russia was afraid that they were officially going
to join NATO because Zelinski approved the National Security strategy,
which it was almost like they were seriously kicking the
tires on one another. Finally, yeah, I think they. He
said in September twenty twenty that that Ukraine's aim was
to become a full member of NATO after being a
(23:57):
partner for you know, three decades but basically um or
at least two full decades um and even before that,
the whole thing kind of kicked off. There was a
summit in Bucharest called the Well the Bucharest Summit in
two thousand and eight, and at that meeting, Georgia and
Ukraine declared that it was their aim to become NATO members.
(24:18):
And that seems to be at least geo politically speaking,
what what kind of kicked the tensions off big time
and led to the two thousand fourteen invasion of Ukraine
and Crimea and then also led to the two invasion
that's going on right now. That's right. A little more
nuts and bolts about NATO itself. They are, like we
(24:41):
said at the beginning, they're headquartered in Brussels, and uh,
everything's done by consensus. And you mentioned the military part
of NATO. It's different. It's called the Military Committee. It's
different than the actual North Atlantic Council. Like that's headed
by the NATO Secretary General and it's not a it's
not a figurehead position, but they don't they're not in
(25:04):
charge of like deciding anything they're just sort of uh,
they're the Secretary General, they head up the meetings. Uh.
They have historically always been European and the head of
the Military Committee has always been American, like you said,
but there's nothing in the charter that says that has
to be the case. It's just always been that way. Uh.
So they're they're in Belgium and they're taking meetings every
(25:25):
day and and and you know, answering the bat phone
when it rings. And then you've got your Military Committee,
and then you've got your what's the other one, the
nuclear the Nuclear Planning Group. Uh, And I guess the
military is sort of the link between all of these.
To make sure you know the military strategy is sound. Yeah,
because DATO likes to to publicize itself as a both
(25:47):
a military and a political organization. And it definitely is
like if you partner with NATO as a as a
partner country or if you remember like you're you're you're
engaged with them politically and they try to work things
out diplomatically like um. Very famously, one of the first
post Cold War missions that NATO embarked on was in
(26:09):
the Balkans. When war broke out there. UM in for
the former Yugoslavian states right back in the Wag the
Dog era. You remember that, of course? Yeah? Okay, so
um do you remember in the movie Wag the Dog?
Like that? Okay, so so, and then that happened basically
in real life. It was such a close resemblance to it.
(26:29):
I remember a reporter asking Bill Clinton, like, have you
ever seen the movie Wag the Dog, because like, the
Balkan NATO mission started like right as the Monica Lewinsky
Lewinsky scandal was heating up, And he said, it depends
on what your definition of scene is, right, I mean,
we're gonna be able to tee off on that guy forever. Huh,
(26:50):
let's just cut that great. So the the so, they
NATO entered the Balkans um and tried to like work
everything out. There's a peacekeeping mission um, but there was
also obviously a lot of military operations is how they
kept the peace. But even still there's an ongoing Balkan
mission there and they're trying to sort out the still
the longstanding hostility and promote democracy in these groups. So
(27:13):
they are a political organization, but they're also really at
the end of the day, their military just the incredible
unrivaled might of the military combined military powers of the
thirty countries involved in NATO. It's it's you just can't
really look at it too many other ways. It's a
it's a huge military, that's right. Uh. And as far
(27:36):
as the the Main Committee goes, or the Main Council
it is headed, each country has their own ambassador. I
think we got a new and is that right? What's
her name, Julianne Smith, julian Smith. I want to say
Julianne Moore, just because boy, she would be great at that.
Sure we need more actors and roles like this, right
(28:01):
for sure? That's I mean, if any job, actors have
proven to be amazing politicians over the years, that's right.
And actor would never like to get up on stage
of the auctors and hit somebody. Man, I'm so disturbed
and just unsettled by that. It was very surreal. I
was actually not going to watch the Oscars this year
because I'm kind of over it, but for some reason
I watched, so I saw it live. Wow, that must
(28:24):
have been cereal, just like I think like everyone else thought.
It was a bit at first, and then when the
here in the United States the audio cut out, and
it was clear from Chris Rock. When he came back,
I was like, oh boy, did that Did I just
see what I think I saw? Yeah, that's crazy. I
was telling you me. I couldn't find a clip with it,
but I wanted to see, like or here the ham
(28:44):
fisted way the conductor in the orchestra like tried to
play everything back out, you know, from the weird, uncomfortable,
awkward silence that just gripped the entire auditorium. I want
to know how they got out of that awkward silence,
because I'll bet it was equally well they didn't. He
had to give out. He was right in the middle
of giving out an award. Oh so he had to
(29:05):
continue on after that, Yes, dude, it was that joke
was before he even started giving out the award. You know,
when they go up there and just make jokes. So,
I mean, that was one of the saddest things is
that he gave out the award for Best Documentary to
quest Love for his awesome documentary Summer of Soul, So like,
all of a sudden, like his mom is overshadowed. It
(29:26):
was jeez, what a train wreck. Anyway, off topic, Hey,
that's something we do sometimes, folks, We take tangents. Uh
should we talk a little bit about the funding of NATO.
I don't think you can get around that, chuck, just try.
Oh wait, no, let's let's talk about one other thing.
So where we are today before we hit finding? Okay,
(29:48):
so we're at what um what? Uh? Supreme Commander, Supreme
Allied Commander James Stavridis. And if you can't tell, I
like saying Supreme Allied Commander, you're not paying close enough attention.
But um what he calls NATO three point Oh, because
he's he's in the cyber security I guess. And NATO
three point is where we are today. And like I
(30:09):
was saying, you know, there's been a lot of talk
and movement towards NATO expansion, and some Russia experts are saying,
you know, that's one of the main drivers, are one
of the big drivers for these invasions of Ukraine that
have taken place of the last less than ten years. Um.
But that aggression in response to NATO expansion or depending
(30:33):
on how you take it, just straight up Russian aggression.
Like it doesn't matter if NATO is talking about bringing
Ukraine on and helping it become a democracy. You don't
go waste a city, you don't waste a country. You
don't gun down civilians, you don't bomb a theater where
you know hundreds of civilians are hiding out. You don't
do that. There's no justification for it, and you know,
(30:53):
damn you to hell for doing it, whoever you are.
So that kind of aggression has actually, now, like we
were saying at the beginning of the episode, changed the
world order so dramatically that um, it's revived NATO. Like
all of that bickering, all of the inner ally you know,
(31:13):
dissent in UM in troubles and like what what's our purpose?
All of that has been just pushed right to the
back and all of a sudden, Europe in America are
friends again, europe as friends with one another again. UM,
and NATO is probably stronger than it has been in
the last thirty years, thanks to ironically vot Vladimir Putin.
(31:33):
Yeah absolutely, I mean yeah, I have. I've read a
lot about this and that doesn't seem to be like
a controversial hot take. Um. It seems to be fairly
indisputable that NATO is as UM as allied and as
and as together. It's it's been in decades, and it
couldn't have come at a better time because you know,
(31:54):
I don't know if you noticed or not, but democracy
itself has been kind of under assault, and people were
wonder is the US up to the task of taking
that on? Is that Europe up to the task of
taking that on? And one of the main tenants of
NATO is promoting democracy not just around the world but
within its own countries, its own member nations, since a
(32:16):
lot of countries have had some kind of weird, weird
times that it's gone through where NATO has had to
basically call those countries out, I think Turkey most recently,
where it said, hey, you're a NATO member, we expect
you to uphold democracy and democratic values. Right, So it
promotes it not just around the world, but among member nations,
(32:36):
and that's a huge important point. And so this strengthening
of strengthening of NATO, and thus the strengthening of belief
and in placing value in the idea of democracy and
a willingness to defend democracy could not have come at
a more vital time. So in that sense, thank you
Vladimir Putin. It's just a shame and very sad that
(32:59):
that had to come at the expense of the people
of Ukraine. Agreed. Uh, so maybe we should take the
break now and we'll come back and talk about that funding,
previously mentioned funding right after this. George. Alright, so the
(33:28):
aforementioned NATO funding. And by the way, thanks to our
former colleagues at house stuff works dot com for the
the the original NATO article that kind of started down
this this road. But uh, there's a lot of misconceptions
about NATO funding and how that works. Uh. The official
guidelines say that member nations are expected to commit a
(33:48):
minimum of two percent of their GDP their gross domestic
product to spending on defense. But it's there's not a
uh because like I said, NATO, it's not loosey goosey.
But it's not like someone checks the books every year
and then goes to Luxembourg and says, Hi, you actually
spent this and this is what you owe. So if
(34:10):
you could just get the checked book out, uh and
make that up right now, that would be fantastic. Well, no,
there's no penalty. That's not how it works. Uh. And
I think um, only three members spent two percent of
their GDP or more on defense. I think the US
spends about three and a half. Is that the most
(34:31):
recent number? Uh? Yeah, as right, and um, everyone in
NATO has basically said, though, all right, we get it,
we'll we'll try and up our spending and we would
like to meet that goal in the next couple of
years here. Yeah, because again as NATO is like, what
are we doing here? Again? That really led to a
(34:53):
big decline in military spending, and that huge increase in
in military spending among europeanations of recent years has largely
been because of Vladimir Putin rattling a saber and then
actually following through on it. But one one thing, Chuck
that I think is really like important, that's a misconception
is we don't contribute three and a half percent of
(35:14):
our GDP to NATO. No, A lot of people think
that the requirement is that you as a nation spend
two percent on your own nation's defense. And then, because
you're all tethered together through this invisible alliance of NATO,
NATO combined has access to those thirty member nations defense
(35:36):
all what those defense budgets by which, when you add
it all up, is extremely substantial. Both an amount spent,
but also in like like what you get for that
kind of money. Yeah. I do think that some people
might think that everyone chips in this money to NATO
and that there are NATO forces and stuff like that.
That's not how it works. NATO's we do contribute to
(35:58):
run NATO with their you know, with their own budget.
But that's about two billion bucks two and that's just
day to day operations and uh, you know, logistics and
operations and keeping the headquarters nice tidy clean. Someone's gotta
clean those bathrooms. Uh. That's not a lot of money though,
But that two percent, right is spending on your own military. Uh,
(36:21):
it's actually apportioned out uh in the original I guess charters.
That what you say of the original agreement? Um the
what the treaty? Yeah, the treaty. It's right there, That's
what I'm saying. It's so boring, it's keep wanting to
find a better name. Uh. There the apportionment for the
(36:42):
United States, our cost share is here in the US,
if you look at our g d P, it's about
the same size as the other twenty seven nations put together.
So it's not based on like how big in an
economy you have, because then we would be our apportion
it would be about fifty but it's twenty two. Yeah, right,
(37:04):
it does make sense. That's just for chipping into that
two billion dollars that keeps NATO operation operation already at
all times. That's not for US, it is um and
so the US is, as you know, far in a way.
We we spend on defense um I think almost three
times more than the other NATO nations combined. So we
(37:27):
spent about eight hundred and eleven billion dollars in one
and the rest of the NATO allies spend it combined
three hundred and sixty three billion, from I think the
UK's fifty nine point two billion down to North Macedonia's
hundred and eight million. But if you look at proportion
of g d P, there are plenty of nations who
(37:48):
go beyond that two percent, Like Grease actually spends more
of its GDP by percentage on defense than the United
States does. We spend three and a half percent. Grease
spends three point eight two, Crowa just two point seven nine,
The UK is two point two nine, Poland is two
point one. So plenty of nations have started topping that.
But that is a fairly new thing. Yeah, Like you
(38:10):
just can't look at NATO as a a thirty item
balance sheet, uh and say, well, this is a bad
deal because I'm looking at thirty different numbers of what
these countries contribute. It's it's much it's much more complex
than that. You have to look at it relative to
the size of the nation in their economies and overall spending.
(38:31):
It's it's frustrating. Say no, it really is. But when
you add it all up, what you have is a
combined in two thousand, twenty one, one point one seven
four trillion dollars among the NATO allies spent. That comes
to three and a half million troops who are committed
(38:53):
to NATO's alliance. Three and a half million troops. And
just that dollar amount alone, by the way, one point
one seven four trillion, that's basically more than the rest
of the world combined, and just the NATO allies, the
non US NATO allies spending is more than China and
Russia's defense budgets combined. So it's it's substantial not to
(39:15):
mention that three NATO members are nuclear powers allied together. Like,
so when you put all that stuff together, the idea
of NATO like being this stabilizing force in global security
makes total sense. It doesn't even have to do anything,
It just has to exist to keep things stable and
to promote democracy around the world and to reach out
(39:37):
to like formerly non democratic countries and say, hey, here's
how you become democratic. Here are the values. Let's see
if you can stick to them, if you want to
become a NATO member. Just from this kind of defense spending.
It's kind of ingenious in a way. Well, it is,
and I think it's I think it's part of just
modern society to get complacent about our memories are so
(39:58):
short these days, I think, and there's so little um
acknowledgement and realization of like the history of the world
and not just like the last thirty to fifty years.
You know, there's been peace in Europe for about seventy
years now, and that's all anyone, you know, that's all
(40:19):
most people remember, unless you're like in your eighties, probably
you know what I'm saying. That it's been previous to that,
there were a couple of millennia of of war in Europe,
and like the fact that NATO, and I think I
mean not not singly NATO, But I think NATO has
(40:40):
been the biggest driver of ensuring that piece over the
last seven decades. Yeah, I mean you're not the only one.
Like pretty much global security experts will will say, yes,
NATO has kept the world order stable for that long
and basically as long as it's been around. I think
it's just sad that I think the the short term
memory of how kind of people are today, it's like,
(41:02):
you know, the could rules over. Do we really need
this stuff anymore? Yeah, But I mean it's tough to
blame people because again, it's like the world you grew
up into the world you're born, and then just the
relief of like, wow, democracy actually one, we actually did it.
We can just relax for once for a little while.
It was funny, Chuck, I was thinking today there are
plenty of people who I'm sure listen to our podcast
(41:23):
who have never lived under the threat of nuclear attack
and are now for the first time in their life.
And I've settled back into it like it's an old
smoking jacket and some comfy slippers, you know, like this
is just like normal, normal stuff to me. And I realized,
like I wonder how many people out there super anxious
about that idea of dying in a nuclear attack, and UM,
(41:44):
all I can say is you get used to it,
you do you get used to to uh doing drills
in school where you would go get under your desk, hallway,
duck and cover because that would do a lot in
the case of a nuclear bomb. Or uh, you know,
watching Matthew Broderick bring us back from the brink of
(42:04):
nuclear war. What a hero, what a movie. So Chuck,
we should probably before we finish, we should probably talk
about the future of Ukraine and NATO, because, as we've
said a few times here, you know, Ukraine making moves
towards becoming a NATO member and being like in deep
cahoots with NATO. UM has has created this situation, at
(42:25):
least in part where Russia's feeling like emboldened about invading
Ukraine to either put a stop to that or whatever
putin saying he's doing so. Um, if you've been paying
attention to the news of Voldemir Zelinski has been saying like, Okay,
we're we're we're willing to maybe start talking about neutrality now.
(42:45):
And what he's talking about has almost everything to do
with NATO, right, Yeah, I mean, neutrality isn't just a
isn't just something like just say, oh, you know, we're
we're neutral. We just don't feel that strong about anything
over here. Right, That's not what it means. Neutrality in
terms of the world order. I believe it means you
(43:07):
don't get involved in the third country's problem. It doesn't
mean you're like a nihilist Libski What was that? That
was my fleet? Okay, the one the Lincoln Berry pancakes.
Uh yeah, Neutrality means you won't get involved in the
(43:28):
third countries, uh issues. Isn't that right? Totally? Yeah, No
matter what like, So you wouldn't join NATO, you wouldn't
send arms, you wouldn't do anything like that, which, by
the way, I mean, since we said Ukraine is a
partner country, they're just getting a steady flow of arms
through Poland from NATO um allies. And it's been super
(43:50):
effective from what I saw, because Russia is a tank
based military and the anti tank weaponry that we've been
sending Ukraine and Ukraine has been using the great effect
has actually stalled stalled a hundred thousand Russian troops from
taking over Ukraine, which everybody thought was gonna happen in
a matter of days. Now they're finally backing off of Kiev.
(44:11):
It's just insane to even say it out loud. But um,
under neutrality, there would be no arms going from NATO
to Ukraine. UM. Russia would not be allowed to invade Ukraine.
Ukraine would be what Finland is. Finland has a huge
amount of border that it shares with um Russia, and
(44:32):
it serves as a buffer state between Europe and Russia.
It's not allied with Russia, it's not allied with Europe.
Finland's just its own jam. The proposal on the table
now is that Ukraine become like the southern Finland. It
will be a neutral state. It'll be its own sovereign democracy,
can do whatever it wants, but it can't join NATO
and it's not certainly going not going to be allied
with Russia, not after this invasion or ever, because of
(44:55):
its neutrality status. Yeah, and I think the idea at
first is that people thought, and it may have been
the case that Russia wanted to absorb Ukraine as part
of a building back uh maybe not a new Soviet Union,
but just expanding Russia. And that may have been the case.
I don't know, but I think the last few weeks
it's become clear that that's not possible, and that like
(45:16):
occupation of Ukraine isn't possible, like long term occupation. So
it seems like neutrality may be the only way forward here.
But I mean, yeah, definitely, I guess. I mean, yeah,
it's you like, I can't imagine how difficult occupying Ukraine
would be for Russia, like over any period of time.
I don't think they have enough troops to do that, no,
(45:38):
And I mean the Ukrainians certainly have the will to
resist for as long as they need to to get
Russia out of there. So yeah, it's um, I I
feel like now that seems to be I think we
read an Al Jazeera article on it, right, Yeah, it
was super interesting. They talked a lot about how, you know,
not all pro Russian sentiment in Ukraine has been dissolved,
(45:59):
because there there was some obviously, but uh, this has
done a lot of damage to that. Oh yeah, I'm
sure anybody who's on the fence before is like, Okay,
I'm not Russian or even considering pro Russian anymore. But
that does seem to be that and this is you know,
obviously up to Ukraine. But if Zelinski is making gestures
and overture saying we're willing to talk about neutrality, um,
(46:22):
it seems like that could be their decision. But um again,
global security experts, at least ones that were quoted in
Al Jazeera are are saying like this is actually probably
the most viable and quick, short term or like at
hand solution to ending this invasion and actually stabilizing things
again for a while. That's right. That article, by the way,
(46:44):
is Ukraine, what does neutrality mean? And could it lead
to peace? From Thomas oh Falk And that was just
from a few weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago. Yeah,
And in addition to how stuff works in the Al
Jazeera article, we got stuff from Brooking's, the Brennan's Center,
Time BBC and a bunch of other ones to Sesame Street.
(47:05):
This is definitely one of the u is for up yours, um.
And this is one of those definite moments in in
history that it's worth paying attention to. So if this
this our episode struck your fancy it all, go go
read up on it because it's there's a lot of
really interesting and important stuff to read literally, the world
(47:26):
has changed in the last couple of months more than
it has in years. Since two thousand one, I would say,
since two thousand one, are you got anything else? I
don't think so. Okay, Well, if you want to know
more about NATO, you can go check that out online.
And since I said check that out online, everybody, it's
(47:46):
time for listener mail. That's right, I thought, why not,
let's read one from a brand new listener. Uh, this
is the first episode they listened to, and I have
foretold the future with his email. Wow, we uh just kidding.
Hey guys. Last week, though, I found out about your podcast, uh,
and I'm loving it. I become tired of the radio
(48:08):
so decided to start looking at podcast for my work commute,
and yours caught my eyes. It looked interesting without being
too heavy, educational, but not as depressing as the news.
Perfect nice Okay. I was waiting for a response. Well,
I mean, yeah, nice, was my response. I'll take it.
You two make a great pair and work off each
(48:30):
other seamlessly. When I listen, I cannot help but think
of you two as a mash up of burten Ernie
and SNL's The Delicious Dish okay, and a gasto Shannon,
So I will respond to that part because, um, that
is probably the greatest description anyone's ever come up with
for it, wetty balls. I mean that in the most
(48:50):
complimentary way, by the way. I love it and it
works so darnwell obviously, since the show is going strong
for years now, thank you for noticing. I just wanted
to reach out and saying thanks for saving me from
boring radio and crazy news and helping my mind grow
while being entertained. And that is from Samantha Burns Maloney. Well,
thanks Samantha. We really appreciate that. That was a great email. Seriously,
(49:15):
the best descriptor I've ever heard. Yeah, if you're new
to the podcast, or you're a long timer, or you
email every week, we want to hear from you. You
can send us an email to Stuff podcast at iHeart
radio dot com. Stuff you Should Know is a production
of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my heart Radio,
(49:37):
visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff You Should Know News
Hosts And Creators
Chuck Bryant
Josh Clark
Show Links
AboutOrder Our BookStoreSYSK ArmyRSSPopular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.