Why NATO doesn't protect members everywhere
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- (Advertisement/Werbung/El Alnuncio)
Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile:
💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/05et491j
Receive 13K GOLD & 1 month premium subscription, only available for the next 30 days!
__________________
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is by far the largest and most powerful alliance on the globe, with all (currently) 31 member states having a total military budget that is larger than the rest of the world combined. What makes NATO such an effective alliance is in part the wording of its’ core provision, Article 5, which states that “(...) an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all (...)”. Because of the military power of the alliance, Article 5 is the most powerful deterrence tool NATO members have at their disposal.
However, it is a lesser known fact that the protection provided by NATO’s Article 5 has geographic limits. These limits are found in the NATO-treaty’s Article 6, which specifies that to invoke Article 5, an armed attack has to happen in the so-called “North Atlantic Area”. The treaty defines this area as any territory of member states in North America and Europe, the entirety of Turkey, as well as all islands that are located North of the “Tropic of Cancer”. This has enormous security implications for all those NATO-members, who are in possession of territories outside these geographic limits, which includes the United Kingdom, France, Spain, the Netherlands and the United States.
In this video, we are taking a closer look at these geographic limits, why they were introduced and how they influence the geopolitical situation within NATO.
__________________
Consider supporting this channel on Patreon or by becoming a channel member:
Patreon: / politicswithpaint
Channel Membership: / @politicswithpaint
__________________
Music:
"Laid Back Guitars" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
__________________
Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
1:24 Sponsorship
2:21 Creation of NATO-treaty
3:16 Unprotected NATO territories
7:51 Politics behind invoking Article 5
__________________
Sources:
Uwe Hartmann (2017) NATO'S Adaptation: Challenges and Opportunities.
Timothy Andrews Sayle (2019) Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order.
Massimo de Leonardis (2022) NATO in the Post-Cold War Era: Continuity and Transformation.
For more information about other sources I used, feel free to email me.
__________________
#nato #article5 #geopolitics
(Advertisement/Werbung/El Alnuncio)
Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC or Mobile:
💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/05et491j
Receive 13K GOLD & 1 month premium subscription, only available for the next 30 days!
I played the game once on my own personal iPad and i chose thailand and vietnam was attacking me during the game. I did not start the war and another player attacked someone who was once previously playing Thailand.
Not to mention i literally forgot the passcode for my iPad, and it was sealed away forever.
Malaysia and indonesia rejected the quad and any alliance with the usa, and pew research shows that singalore malaysia and indonesia view china better than the usa 11:20 this map is inaccurate, also vietnam has the same friendship treaty with china as with the usa so it means nothing, not to mention taiwan had military skirmishes with vietnam recently as well even under the dpp independence party since they still claim the entire 11 dash lime despite what people will say
Only option I see for now is including all official states in the pact. As for the rest? Meh...
Running an advertisement, here in comments to this video is totally offensive.
I love how Belgium sleeps through all the NATO meetings.
They don't have any overseas territories and they are surrounded and protected by the biggest countries of Europe, which are also allies. I would sleep too!
As a Belgian ... yeah
Took me to 11:35 to spot that gag and chuckle. That was subtle, on the edge of the slide slow...
I think it was to avoid picking a language.
Yes it could also be a jab in them having about the worst military in the alliance.
Kazakhstan can get sunny beaches without NATO getting involved? GREAT SUCCESS
🇰🇿
Kazakhstan, greatest country in the world
All other countries are run by little girls
Kazakhstan, number 1 exporter of potassium
All other countries have inferior potassium
Potassium comes from potatoes so doubt it is any better we grow more potatoes.@@CheukTheGreatestOfEverything
Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
All other countries are run by little girls.
Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium.
Other countries have inferior potassium.
Kazakhstan home of Tinshein swimming pool.
Its length thirty meter and width six meter.
Filtration system a marvel to behold.
It remove 80 percent of human solid waste.
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Norther fence of Jewtown.
Kazakhstan friend of all except Uzbekistan.
They very nosey people with bone in their brain.
Kazakhstan industry best in the world.
We incented toffee and trouser belt.
Kazakhstans pros#####es cleanest in the region.
Except of course Turkmenistans
Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan you very nice place.
From Plains of Tarashek to Norther fence of Jewtown.
Come grasp the mighty ##### of our leader.
From ######## with the ###### to tip of its face!
I RECOGNISE KAZAKH HAWAII 🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿
. I think it would be easier for them if NATO were involved.
France including its 'Algerian departments' in article 6 was a skechy affair. None of the other countries were happy about it, but at the time of drafting (1949) it was impossible to defend Europe without their cooperation, so everyone agreed to a vague wording. That came back to bite them as France in the mid 50s redrew the boundaries of its departments to extend the area covered by hundreds of miles to the south.
Based Frenchmen
yeah and still nato did nothing when the commies attacked French algeria
@@sirllamaiii9708 based on their dying imperial ambitions
based on ur mom @@chrosairs7057
@@chrosairs7057well their fault for giving France so much leeway, honestly im french and even i am baffled by how much they allowed France to get considering they couldnt even get their sh*t together until the next republic
Portugal actually tried to invoke article 5 when India annexed Goa, Daman and Diu...it was promptly advised not to do so due to art 6.
And something like the Goa dispute was the exact reason why Article 6 exists in the first place.
Because NATO is Anti-Russia. India is not Russia so its okay!
Actually, no one wanted to get involved in that. With colonial powers declining, the territory was anyways going to be reclaimed at some point.
They’d take the planet if they could
@@BennoRob95only half 😉
Article 6 is about not having NATO dragged into (post-)colonial conflicts
Article 4 is about talking to each other
Article 5 is the result of those talks
Which proved useful in the Falkland Islands War.
What about, Article *7(-77)* - Purgatory!
Missed opportunity - to also point out that the NATO treaty carefully avoided conflicting claims in Antarctica.
Thinking ahead of the curb.
do note there not those arent actually apart of the countries its just a claim
@@scoutmehgaming17 For now
@@concept5631 Greenland is going to be a good mind that thaws out soon with global warming, and Canada is already fighting to keep their claims over the antarctic non-american
UK/France/Norway
My view for globalising NATO is to make a new orginisation, the Pacific Ocean and Trans-Atlantic Treaty Orginisation (POTATO)
*hot potato, considering what's going on in those parts
Ireland will definitely join this one.
Does this translate into OTATOP in French like how NATO is OTAN in French?
1 point for you. @@tedcrilly46
OTTAOP (organisation du traité transatlantique et de l'océan Pacifique) if you must know.
This is not what we call potato in French, sadly.
This is a great video. However, you missed out on the importance of another chapter of the North Atlantic Treaty, which is chapter 4. It calls for a meeting of NATO leaders when an event happens in a country to determine wether it really demands invoking article 5.
Good point. I consciously didn't talk directly about article 4 since I wanted to avoid making a video on how NATO works as a whole and instead focus on the geographic limitations of article 5, which are rarely talked about.
@@PoliticswithPaint Ah, OK, it's understandable! Besides, how NATO works is another topic for another video, I guess, and NATO not protecting its members fully is an interesting topic to talk about.
It''s actually quite important as this didnt happen that long ago when the ukrainian air defense missile struck a tractor in Poland by accident. Back then from what I remember that exact meeting was also called to discuss if Russia attacked them and if this is the case if they would trigger article 5.
I'd always wondered why the Falklands War didn't trigger Article 5, but never actually bothered to find out. Thank you for answering a question that's been bugging me for a while.
I always though it was a case of "Pfft! We dont need help for this, right lads?"
The Falklands War did basicly end the Rio Pact, as the US and other treaty nations failed to defend Argentina.
@@zeroone8800 Well did Mainland Argentina even get attacked?
@@buffgarfield3231 I'm not saying the US should have fought for Argentina, but there was enough dispute that it weakened the already questionable treaty.
@@buffgarfield3231 Argentian territory was conquered by a forgien power and the Pact did nothing the U.S even aided the invaders.
In the end, NATO is a REGIONAL security alliance and any military action is inherently a POLITICAL one. A military does not simply fight just to fight, it does so to achieve a desired end state designated by its political leadership. That said, I liked your content--well done!
If ever push came to shove, I doubt any NATO nation would allow a technicality to prevent them all from responding just because of the terrible precedent inaction will cause, especially if it comes to the US state of Hawaii.
Considering the amount of inaction most of NATO took toward Russia before the 2022 invasion I am not so sure they would be so reluctant to allow that precedent to be set
@@markdowding5737 no one expected them to invade.
@@downey2294except the US which kept on talking about it, while Ukraine and the rest of Europe doubted it. Until it happened
@@KaloyanKasabov maybe our NATO allies will actually take things seriously now.
Just remember Hawaii is part of US
Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union forces most NATO members to defend EU territory regardless of location.The exceptions are notable, of course: US, UK, Canada, Turkey...
One of the major location that is most concerned is French Gyuna, were the EU lunch program is.
Also known as the EUs 'common defense and security policy'.
Other inter-EU alliances are Cedc, Nordefco, Lublin triangle.
@@jean-philippebobin3732 hey we get ALL our Lunch from French Gyuana? Hell yeah WE defend IT until the Last Schnitzel! (I know it was a Typo but i couldn't resist.
@@Nagrachlp I must have hungry in my subconscient
US, UK, Turkey
So all the worthwhile militaries except for France
If they decide to change and incorporate other countries outside of the North Atlantic then I hope they name it "Global Treaty Alliance" (GTA)
I highly doubt that will ever happen. The UN would hate that and like what George Washington said, "Long term military alliances present a lot of drawbacks and only bring unnecessary wars"
@@SolidAvenger1290 George Washington also "Slavery is cool bruh" so maybe just maybe we should dispense with the notion that what Washington thought means jack.
@@greatsageequaltoheaven8115 Do you have a source on that?
@@varalderfreyr8438
He owned slaves.
@@lesinge8868 Doesn't mean he thought it was great.
I hate that we have to censor the name of factual events (no details, but just the name) to line up with UA-cam’s ridiculous standards, lest the video is removed.
Although, I kind of like how more content creators are finding ways to call out YT's interference.
I can't imagine why saying the words 9/11 would trigger UA-cam censors. It's one of the most famous events in world history and is relevant history for a very neutral, informative video.
But hey, keep calling us crazy co nospi racy the orists.
@@guillermoelnino I'm certain I'm going to regret this, but what are you implying?
@@NitowskiJ23 y ou're right. Y ou woild regret it.
The turkish ice cream man meme at the beginning was perfect
I need to go warn my Hawaiian friends...
Norway has two islands south of the cancer that the treaty don't protect as well
Bouvet Island and Peter I Island
Thanks for the info, I had totally missed that!
If you only listened to this video, you missed out on a god tier animation at 0:14
I loved that little Easter egg lol
damn, that Turkish icecream man is the funniest sh*t I've seen this week
That Turkish ice cream clip is SO ON-POINT.
i love the reference to the turkish ice cream trick guy 😂
This was a great video.
I learned something about Article V that I somehow missed during my military career from your video.
Also, in the case of Ceuta. Given the close proximity to Spain, couldn't Spanish artillery shoot from the European mainland if Ceuta is attacked, using article 5 as a shield against counterfire from Morocco?
Probably.
Yes, Spain doesn't really need NATO to defend them but it is more of a deterrent given Moroccan wild desires.
As a part turkic I must say The turkic ball toying with Sweden with the ice-cream nato scoop is absolutely brilliant. 😂
Yes! My country 🇪🇸🇪🇸
Some of your country will become my country 🇲🇦🇲🇦 (joking) 🇲🇦🇲🇦 ❤ 🇪🇸🇪🇸
Absolutely love the, video. Though there are some parts that you’ve forgotten about for that Moroccan-Spanish Conflict. The Green March is a big part of that conflict and has also led to the Western Sahara dispute and how the Spanish fear Moroccan aggression in their North African territories!
Thank you! The Spanish-Moroccan conflict will get a video on its' own, where I will go into much more detail than here.
@@PoliticswithPaint can’t wait!!!
@@PoliticswithPaint There planning are similar alliance to NATO for the Pacific, which could include the US, Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, & Vietnam.
WoW, you answer the question within the first five words of your vid.
I wish more youtubers would get to the point like that
Your videos are amazing. You deserve way more subscribers.
Wow learnt something new today. I was wondering why Portugal didnt trigger article 5 when India took over Goa. Even my Indian friends weren't sure
They did ask for help. NATO allies put sanctions, no more than that.
Oh, they tried. They whined about it to NATO when Goa was invaded, and they whined about it to NATO for the next 13 years. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if some NATO countries backed the Carnation Revolution in '74 just to get Portugal to shut the hell up about Goa already.
They tried to but were strongly advised not to by the other NATO members.
Long time no see! Welcome back!
I love the Turkish Ice Cream Man in the start😂😂😂
Good video. I would have liked if Article 4 was mentioned as well.
Very informative!
Absolutely wild to have Conflict of Nations as the sponsor.
The gateway into the sponsor was solid. Actually made me laugh
This is actualy realy cool. Basicly this means that NATO refuses to defend european imperialism.
Every time I learn something new about NATO it's almost always something good.
Danke für das spannende Video. Du hast einige Facetten beleuchtet, die mir noch gar nicht bewusst gewesen sind!
Thank you for an informative video.
Dude you even showed Ukraine's summer counteroffensive on the map, including Robotyne, amazing attention to detail and thank you!
Counteroffensive? You mean slaughter of thousands conscripted ukrainians?
adn russians you can't foget the thousands of conscripted russians who got killed@@deemwinch
Summary: The territories aren’t in the North Atlantic. SIMPLE.
Interestingly, the Moroccans occupying the island part of the Spanish enclave would have technically qualified (while attacking the mainland part would not have). Also, in a pinch, US could just declare that Hawaii is part of North America, so protected by article 5 regardless of latitude.
Interesting premise. The Panama canal treaty gives the USA the right to re-assert control of the canal zone in the event of a security threat. Then the US deems that "Central America" does not exist, only North and South America, and Panama is part of North America.
@@Avo7bProject I mean, I think most places don't consider Central America to be an actual geographical construct- most choose between 2 continents (North America and South America) or 1 continent (America). Of the places which consider the New World to be 2 continents, they typically put the dividing line at Panama because it's where the continent is the thinnest (and obviously there's the Panama Canal now which physically separates the landmasses just like the Suez physically separating Africa from Asia). Though I suppose you could make the argument that anything south of Mexico isn't North America because the North American plate seemingly cuts Guatemala in half.
That's assuming the US even feels the need to call in NATO at all in that case.
America calls on its allies in all its other military operations (even if they're strong enough that they don't technically need to). See for example all the coalition members - Brits, French, Australians, etc - that came to Afghanistan. They'd have no trouble at all pulling in allies in the case of an attack on Hawaii.
4:04
Especially Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, south of Canadian-held Newfoundland and Labrador.
The only reason no one every talks about American territories not protected by Article Five is because the USA is basically 75% of NATO in both GDP and Military Spending, as well as 1/3 of the population.
Haha, cool video. I just found your channel, keep making videos like this❤
What do you mean the "so-called" Tropic of Cancer? It IS the Tropic of Cancer.
He meant to say that it's name is tropic of cancer
@@bestleefboi Usually "so called" is used to downplay or degrade the name as if it's not valid or doesn't mean what it says.
lol the emphasis isnt great too
I had thought it was a pun because of how the constant sun can give you skin cancer.
@@killercore007 That's "Cancer" as in the constellation, you silly goose!
0:20 Infamous article 5?! My quiet and peacefull life depends on that thing ! I love that thing !
7:57 you did the Kazakhstan dirty with the borat underwear refrence
Very good video
Are you planning to release a video about the western Sahara conflict?(ps i live in morocco)
A video is planned, not sure when exactly though.
Its not western sahara its the Moroccan Sahara or the southern provinces
@@iliasszennati173not really, in my opinion western Sahara should be independent.
It's still called western Sahara anyways.
@@PoliticswithPaint Just don't forget that W.Sahara was an spanish province, whose secessionist transitioned to terrorist and started to kill the spaniards who where developing the area, which is literally a desert. Spain withdrew after many spaniards even civilians were murdered by sahrawis terrorists or "liberators". They could be an independent country already like Equatorial Guinea, which was their homologue in the south, but instead they decided to murder the spaniards which were building the largest phosphate mine in the world...
@@catfacecat. in my opinion your opinion is wrong and if you think otherwise then no damns will be given
There were other treaties that covered other parts of the world. Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). Both failed due Coups and infighting between member states.
"Babe, a new Politics with Paint just dropped"
I’m sure America would absolutely defend Hawaii
Depends on how much the ccp pays biden beforehand.
Watch France rename all it's foreign territories collectively as the "Department's of Algeria".
Good idea !
You mentioned NATO being interested in security dialogue in the South Pacific with grow tensions with China, but I wondered about the case of India, if there is a potential role for them to play in this.
8:20 UA-cam casually waiting for you to say "The event", just to demonetize you. 😂
Quick thing, Turkey has already approved of Sweden joining, it’s just Hungary holding it up now.
Turkish Parliament hasn't approved yet.
@@JoshdyisdifhAnd you think they have any power? If Erdogan says it's going through, it's going through... It's like Putin saying he needs the vote of the Duma.
@@FragLord 50% chance only. Remember that back in 2003, Turkish Parliament didn't support using Turkey being a launch pad for the US war in Iraq.
In the meantime the powers of the Turkish parliament changed a lot. Turkey is now basically a presidential republic.
@@poposk9024Turkish Parliament still can veto, just like US Congress can veto.
It's "Melilla", not "Menilla". You probably confused it with Manila (capital of Philippines, also a Spanish colony).
Probably a typo. He correctly says Melilla.
"article 5 doesn't include Hawaii"
China: it's free real estate
Me: looks at thumbnail
The thumbnail:
Me: read the first letter of the acronym
I think it would make more sense to have a separate treaty for asian countries instead of having them all into NATO. Having them all into NATO would only lead to a decline of the political unity because all those countries could use a veto whenever they feel like it and I also feel like European countries and Canada are not interested in defending a lot of asian countries in the case of a possible war.
I believe there is some alliance between various US allies like Japan, Australia, and South Korea for the area, it just doesn’t have a lot of press. I also am pretty sure it doesn’t have an equivalent to article 5. Though take this with a grain of salt, I’m going off my memory which hasn’t been refreshed on this topic in years.
I, for one, welcome our Khazakhstani overlords.
Wild!
I don't know if you have yet but you should talk about the pacific security treaties.
Great video but, quite arguably you have a wrong take on Morocco claiming Spanish towns of Ceuta and Melilla back. How can they get something back if they were never Moroccan to begin with.
Very briefly: Ceuta was Portuguese since 1415, then Annexed to Spain (along with all Portuguese territories) in the XVI century. When Portugal got independence (1640), Ceuta remained a Spanish territory as an autonomous city. Melilla is Spanish since 1497, conquered by Pedro de Estopiñan for the Kingdom of Castilla. The integration in the Spanish nationality dates for more than 400 years, well before the Kingdom of Morocco was born as is. Even during Spanish-French protectorate (1912-1956), Ceuta and Melilla were not considered part of it, as they were judged Spanish.
Yes Morocco Ceuta and Melilla 🇲🇦💪
If article 6 does change they would have to change it form North Atlantic treaty organisation (NATO) to Earth treaty organisation (ETO) because it isn’t focused in the North Atlantic anymore. They will probably come up with a better name. I doubt they will use mine.
Atlantis Treaty Organisation, sounds better.
Or even better! The Global Defense Initiative (GDI)
@@MisF1998Better hope no green crystals get discovered...
How about the "Oceania Treaty Organization"?
@@echidnanatsuki882orwell approves of this name
nice ^^
0:38 Pacific Empire just got a little closer
8.21 I at first thought that this is Japanese Ball zensoring WW2 "events". Great Vid as always.
So many comments saying "its in the name lol". No, it's not. The guy literally explains why it's more complicated than that. Spain has territories in theoretically the North Atlantic area but still doesn't get guarantees. And some territories that are clearly outside of that area COULD be protected if there is a political will and consensus.
I think its best if NATO reorganizes itself to include potential members from outside of the North Atlantic.
Good
Considering that Hawaii is directly part of the USA and not a territory, it'll be a part of chapter 6 still.
I think you could make the same case for French Guiana too.
@@Avo7bProject is that a state or province of France?
@@electricheartponyIt's an "Overseas Department of France" - has the same laws as France, and even has a European Parliament member.
Hawaii was a US territory when the NAT was signed and the US did not mentioned it in Art 6 in 1959 when it became a state in a way the French had their Algerian department mentioned, so probably the US even don’t want it to be covered.
The Hawaiian issue seems silly to me, it being a crucial part of the US Fleet in the pacific and being a core part of America, it being a state and all makes me think it would invoke article 5 if attack, granted the US might just tell everyone to get involved anyways if they havent already joined in. (Only wrote this at the start, I bet you go over it)
Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands would have been a more intriguing debate point. Since they're not states, but with populations who file US taxes and have nominally independent governments. Guantanamo Bay would be even more cloudy. I could perhaps see a few NATO members like Hungary showboating and refusing to support the USA, if the USA fought Cuba in Guantanamo.
@@Avo7bProject I believe Guantánamo Bay is leased from Cuba rather than an American territory. I think that would be more equivalent to one of our bases on other nation’s soil, such as Okinawa. And Guantánamo Bay also clearly qualifies as one of those “imperial possessions“ that NATO tries to not get involved in.
Hey Belgium, wake up! No sleeping in meetings! 😂
If iam not wrong, after the last MAdrid conference, spanish Ceuta and Melilla are now included
NATO will not go to asia. You have to have 100% compliance and those little countries do not want to go fight in Asia. I don't blame them. Asia should stick together like NATO. But you have India who wants to be on both sides.
Turkey is in Asia and Europe and is protected entirely.
i like the meme where if russia invaded baltics and poland, NATO would expell them from nato
They would be forced to, NATO can't have Leningrad or Moscow!
@@user-cx9nc4pj8wwhat
if youve seen the other notifications im here! if not i commented on the timestamp you made on the kyle hill video about copyright with the ai channels
Its honestly kinda weird Hawaii isn;t included, not that it needs to be since half the navy is there, but still.
Except the entire premise of the video isn't really valid because no matter what the treaty might actually say, NATO will respond in defense of all of those territories. If they do not the organization is completely pointless and utterly useless. NATO would find this out very quickly when failing to defend those territories shows the affected countries how useless it is and they withdraw from NATO, and are quickly followed by other countries coming to the same realization
Any alliance that refuses to defend its own territories is an alliance that will cease to exist the moment its put to any significant test or shows it won't defend itself fully when attacked
Falkland war and goa annexation have prooven that nato wont protect these lands. why do you think spain is not getting a written guarantee for ceuta and melilla?
I don't think you watched the video if you came to that conclusion.
0:15 ı love how türkiye using its icecream-guy powers on sweden
Every Hawaiian feeling gangster with their protection until the Kazakh-brick arrives
can u make a vid obout isreal complicated history bc of the suprise attack from hamas and i would love to see a vid on it pls
Algeria was protected by nato when it was part of france
8:23 don’t you just love how you can’t say certain historical topics like 9/11 and ww2 without youtube wanting to fucking obliterate your monetisation? you apparently can’t talk about any of this even in an educational context, because it might offend advertisers cause how dare people speak of topics that happened (if we pretend it didn’t happen, it didn’t happen 👍)
POV: you don't know "monetization" is 😂
YT can be pretty two-faced about what they consider "community standards". On the right edge of my screen is a suggested video with 2 million views... "What women consider the perfect p*nis shape".
So…. basically… if Pearl Harbor happened again, NATO wouldn’t get involved
Japan: * takes notes *
More like China or Russia Japan brown nosing US so the US protects them.
"Including it’s Asian part"
My guy, most of Turkey is in Asia.
We have to remember one thing about Hawaii. Hawaii only became a state 10 years after NATO was founded. So my guess would be that Hawaii is de facto under the same protection as mainland US
If it became one 10 years nato then that gives them a reason not to defend it
why though?
The nato vs the rest of the world spending chart is a bit misleading. Nato requires a degree of transparency in it's members military spending. Whereas China claims to spend 200 billion on their military, but is estimated to spend north of 700 billion. No one has any idea what Russia spends, and smaller countries aren't required to self report.
Yes also spending is done on a % to gdp basis. The bigger your GDP, the bigger your budget. In that regard it looks like the US spends alot on defense. But there are plenty of countries in the world who spend more % to gdp than the US.
Also Purchasing Power Parity needs to be adjusted.
Also, raw budget number doesnt make an army. War, experience, drilling effective teaching of tactics and a strategy that's adapted to your country and geography is what is important
I think these are separate issues.
Don't forget the discussion about corruption. There's zero chance China is any better than western countries in this regard.
Thought it said "anymore" instead of "everywhere" I was about to ask when they last helped anyone
There is a comment in the video that is not correct, the Moroccan army did not withdraw from the islet of Perejil. The Spanish army seized the Moroccan soldiers and sent them back to Morocco as illegal immigrants.
what happens if two nato countries fight each other? like for example turkey attacks greece
NATO is a defensive alliance, aggressors cannot invoke any article. If NATO follows the letter of their charter, NATO members would be obligated to protect Greece. In reality, a diplomatic solution will likely be the focus of other NATO members rather than a military one... unless Greece invoke Article 5 which would obligate NATO members to protect Greece.
@@KevekGaming Who says turkey would attack first? Greece many times provoking us by trying to ramming our ships
@@tezcanuyank3446for example
he said it was an example mate
@@tezcanuyank3446Yeah....No. That never happened
This really explains why the Falklands didn't lead to Argentina getting clapped
Belgium just sleeping through it the whole time lol
Well the limits noted with the line are noted in the originations name. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If they protected more the NA part of the name wouldn't make sense to be used. Honestly I thought that was pretty obvious.
The North African parts of Spain are also in the "North Atlantic", and Hawaii and other overseas European territories in the caribbean could be included since "north atlantic" is an arbitrary term lacking any actual definition (the only actual definition is all territories north of the Tropic of Cancer).
If the definition was "any NATO states mainland territory that touches the Atlantic Ocean, north of [some parallel]", then that would also exclude Alaska, since that is a non-mainland US territory that does not border the Atlantic Ocean. If we remove mainland, then the overseas Spanish territories would be included since they are above the Tropic of Cancer.
It would also, arguably, exclude Italy, Greece, North Macedonia, Turkey, Slovakia, Romania, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Czechia, which are all landlocked and/or border the Mediterranean Sea, not the Atlantic Ocean. But these are all part of mainland Europe and therefore could be argued they all border a country that does border the North Atlantic.
The UK's overseas bases in Cyprus are considered protected by Article 5, despite being an overseas territory, not in the North Atlantic, and not in Europe.
North Atlantic is a vague term and doesn't accurately define what the actual territories that fall under its protection are. If you just went by North Atlantic then the limits to where the protection lies would be very vague. Ultimately its an accurate descriptor of the general area of protection, but its a political term and with all political terms physical geography has very little bearing on its actual practical result. If the members of NATO want a NATO member states non-Atlantic territory to be protected, then it is. Because they say it is.
8:23 I initially was confused, why Japanese flag is so aggressive
8:22 you mean? its prob a symbol that replaces the hakenkreuz, in which case is categorised as hate speech nowadays
but its possibly imperial japan too
@@wtz_under it's UA-cam logo, hd
Wouldn't it make more sense to rename it to the North *American* Treaty Organization? That way it won't be bound by the Atlantic and allow for other key US allies like Japan, Australia, and South Korea to join if they so wish.
I only say this because Australia and Japan specifically have started building up their militaries in preparations for the rumored Chinese invasion of Taiwan, of which both have vowed to protect. It would make sense that they be in an official alliance with America so they have access to the latest equipment and tons of funds
Calling it the north american treaty organization would make Europe upset.
There's no reason why the north Atlantic part would restrict countries outside the Atlantic, it hasn't before
@@sirllamaiii9708Yep. There's good reason the Secretary General of NATO is usually a European. The Alliance itself does not want the US to have openly outsized influence, (even if that influence exists internally.)
There have been “NATO” like organisations for the Pacific area like ANZUS and SEATO before. And Korea and Japan have already bilateral treaties with Washington.
Australia isn't North
They nato partners.
could you please make a video about aland?
As if they had teleportation 🤣