Neutrality in Europe after 2022
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 тра 2023
- Go ground.news/kraut to stay fully informed on breaking news as it’s happening around the world, compare coverage & see through media bias. Check it out for free or subscribe for 30% unlimited access through my link.
Check out these two videos by @PerunAU for more in-depth information on European defense after 2022:
1: • Russia's greatest defe...
2: • European Defence & The...
Neutrality has for centuries been a part of European politics. It is very significant therefore that Finland and Sweden have recently decided to abandon their neutrality to seek out NATO membership. In this video I would like to discuss what the consequences for the other neutral states of Europe may consequently be.
Correcting some errors in the video.
1: Swiss mandatory military service does not last 5 years. I have a Swiss friend who told me that it took him 5 years to complete his service. And I have assumed from then on that it takes 5 years. I did not know that the Swiss have the option of splitting up their mandatory service over a time period of 5 years or completing it all at once within one single year. In actuality, Swiss mandatory military service lasts 245 days.
2: Czechoslovakia was not allied to Britain, but only to France, before the Munich agreement.
Clearing up misunderstandings:
BAE is not a Swedish defense corporation, but a British one. It aquired the Swedish arms manufacturer Bofors in the 2000s. When editing the video I was unsure if I should add in the old Bofors logo, or the BAE logo. If I added the Bofors logo, people would have pointed out that Bofors no longer exists, if I added the BAE logo, people would have pointed out that the company is British. In the end I chose to go with the BAE logo, because even though it is owned principally by the British and based in Britain, BAE operates a substantial arms industry in Sweden. The now famous "NLAW" for example was mainly developed in Sweden.
►You can support my channel on Patreon here: / kraut_and_tea
►You can also support me on PayPal here: www.paypal.me/KrautandTea
►You can support me on ko-fi here: ko-fi.com/kraut
►You can follow my mastodon here: mstodon.eu/@Kraut
►You can join my community, give feedback and talk to me here: derserver.xyz/
►You can discuss this video on my subreddit: / kraut
►You can also follow me on Instagram here: / el_kraut
►You can follow my twitter here: / notreallykraut
Thank you for watching, and don't forget to subscribe to watch more.
Neutral expectations: peace and love
Neutral in reality: make the country a fort or be steam roll
Those are not mutually exclusive
,,If you want peace, be ready for war"
@@Blanksmithy123 You only get the "peace and love" part if you are willingly to turn yourself into a fortress and spending sizeable amount of your wealth on defence.. else get ready to be bullied, steam rolled or ignored til you eventually abandon neutrality or get your act together.
Having no enemies also mean having no friends
An armed society is a polite society (ANd Swiss people are armed to the teeth)
As a Swiss person I have to correct the statement about serving a minimum of 5 years: we only have mandatory basic training (18 weeks) + yearly repetition courses (3 weeks each) until you have served your mandatory 240 days
Maybe even more context: During recruitment there are even more pathways. People are assessed psychologically and physically and receive a certification of fitness for military service. Even if declared fit one can opt to serve a longer period in civil service, which can be several jobs, e.g. assisting in nursing homes, or even working in farms in the mountains. If declared unfit one has to serve in civil protection, which is called upon for disaster relief and many other tasks. Finally, if truly unfit or unwilling, one pays 3% of ones income until the age of 30 as a substitute for military service.
That sounds great
Thats what i Wanted to say.(245 days)
@@khronos7020 If truly unfit, doesn't that mean they're disabled, can't get a job, and don't have an income??
@@SuperRavensfan101 Not exactly. But Khronos allteady explained it in his response.
That tangent about Yugoslavia was magic. I had always assumed the country collapsed because Tito died. I learned something new today.
The country collapsed becaus the guy who replaced Tito tried to take away all autonomy that tito have to varies regions. and then said dude commiting genocide.
@@AL-lh2ht He did not replaced Tito. He tried it bit. Tito dismembered teritorially Serbia more than nazis did, while formally giving them main say in army or international politics. So majority of Serbs believed they have own country, while country was deeply ethnically divided. It did not took long before ambitious narcissist (Milosevic) to stir trouble in order to get more power. Yugoslavia was broken by West decisevely since the country during Cold War refused to join NATO. The topic is much more complicated than poor Kraut tries to explain usually in his trademark shallow and fact avoiding ways.
@@robrob9050 It sure as hell wasn't "decisively broken". When the wars started in 1991, most of NATO didn't really give a fuck about Yugoslavia and some would have even preferred to keep it whole. It was the then freshly reunited Germany and the Pope that swayed the West into supporting dissolution. Much of the actual military aid (to Croatia, at least) came from the former east block countries, not the least of which was Ukraine. There was a story in the news earlier this year where some of the artillery used in the defense of Zadar was returned to Ukraine to help them fend off their invaders.
@@2712animefreak You probably rebooted CNN firmware in your brain or what? Read timetable of the Badinter commission. It was very early in the crisis moves were made to broke the country by outside forces. Then read how long was membership in UN kept for Pol Pot Cambodia representatives? What is your conclusion?
Nations usually only get around to collapsing after the economy declines. If you’re in a country where you can get a decent job and live a pretty good life, you’re usually willing to put up with whatever strange ridiculousness the government is up to.
As a swede and political scientist, I just want to say that Swedish neutrality is vastly overstated. During WW2 we sent most of our weapons to Finland, 10K volunteer soldiers and threatened the USSR with war after the peace treaty with Finland was too harsh. During the cold war we had escape plan for our leaders to flee to the UK and USA, we spied on the USSR for NATO and even built our airfields to fit NATO planes. We still made deals with the USA even as Palme was protesting the Vietnam War. And Russia knew all of this. And we still spoke our minds on the international stages, and pissing of western countries. And this did not stop after we joined the EU, and I don’t think it will after Sweden becomes an official part of NATO.
I never understood how people fall for that. We understand that you can't determine the intentions of people by looking at what they say, you have to look at what they do. Yet for countries we apply different standards?
Well, you're officialy now a pet of the US, so I don't think so.
@@freddyromariovasquezcairo2250 Oh, you must be very surprised to learn that US allies do what they want. It's almost as if the US is *not* some empire enforcing its will onto its allies and that it's in fact the allies that actively choose to be part of the western bloc and that they could leave and declare their neutrality anytime they want to. The only question remains, why on earth would any nation on earth not be a US ally? Oh, except for the morally corrupt regimes, those who are hiding nazi gold and those who are already US allies in all but name.
@@freddyromariovasquezcairo2250 Nope, we just prevented being a pet to russia.
That's what I love about Sweden.
To be fair about Costa Rica’s lack of a military, America basically guarantees the protection of them, Panama, and other small islands since democratic backyard
Also for a lot of nations with no military, they have no hinterland. Once an enemy invaded the defenders are screwed
realistically, what can the marshall islands or other micro states do if they get invaded, its not even worth it for them to have a military
Island nations with the ability to constrict the Panama Canal will always be guaranteed US support, or Gibraltar with the UK. After all, this is exactly what China hopes to recreate with its artificial islands nowadays.
@@toastytoast9800 marshall islands is officially aligned with the US. Costa Rica is not, that is what makes it unique
@@arya6085 yeah, but Costa Rica is non-oficially administrated by the USA in practice, like Panama and other Central America states. What Russia does in Central Asia/Europe, USA does in Central/South America.
One thing's for certain after the invasion of Ukraine:
*No nation with nuclear weapons is ever going to give them up.*
Nuclear weaponry, whether or not it was a deterrent before, certainly appears like one now.
Unfortunately that is one key takeaway. Nukes = sovereignty.
As a South Korean, I agree whole-heartedly. Our 'friends' in the North are going to increasingly lean on their nuclear weapons and ICBMs, which goes directly against our national interests. Despite efforts for a peaceful Korean peninsula, de-nuclearization seems to be off the table for a very long time.
This has also lead to increasing (yet, mostly just pandering) political voices calling for the placement of nuclear weapons in South Korea as a failsafe. Which will lead to the Japanese calling for their own nukes and corresponding submarines, etc, etc. Russia has, without lifting a finger, made every nation in East Asia more dependent on the U.S., and much more wary of military posturing from China. No wonder Xi is loathing Putin's fun little adventure westwards.
Nuclear weapons give leverage and are needed for peace negotiations.
No nuclear weapons means free real estate for the imperialist powers.
Also, once a country with nuclear weapons use it in a aggression war, every nation will pursuit it. People forget that nuclear weapons technology are not that difficult to produce and domain. Its a ww2 tech after all... The reason there aren't even more countries with nuclear weapons is pure political. Fear of economic sanctions, threats, etc. All the rival nuclear powers would "coincidentally" turn into friends against anyone who tries to pursuit nuclear. But once a nuclear weapon falls, no matter from who, that's threats lost all meaning and we will see the number of countries with nukes tripled in less than a decade. Brazil, Japan, Germany, Korea, Indonesia, Australia, all The Gulf states, Turkey, many African nations, Mexico and many others will produce nukes very quickly, without difficulties. Maybe that's why Russia is afraid of using tactical nukes in Ukraine, to avoid a domino effect in this sense.
As Ukrainian i can say we literally got robbed. I won't speak here about use of those weapons, only want to mention that nuclear arsenal that Ukraine possessed was worth as much as Ukraine's GDP or even more. And it was given up almost for free. If our politicians really care about people, this could have been turned into great investment into Ukraine
I am surprised Kraut, you didn’t highlight Turkey’s attempts to strong arm Finland and Sweden out of their sympathies to towards the Kurds by single handedly delaying their ascension to NATO. Turkey in this case extracted a price from both in their abandoning neutrality. Just thought I’d drop this here as an additional point, great video as always!
I wouldn't be surprised if NATO will try to drop Turkey and Hungary after next week's elections.
I am like.. I do not really understand why Türkiye is so pressed about Kurdistan and Sweden.. we are supposed to be in the same geopolitical block
@@mori211 kurds want to be independent. the terratory of kurdish land in turkey is alike a fifth or fourth of turkey.
Also they want a excuse to commit another genocide.
@@AL-lh2ht In a similar manner with idea of Catalan's independence, though maybe not an analogy that to really use but just reminds me of the scoff from nations that have proclamations of independence from their own areas or so.
Though I guess there's some nuances. Israel's independence, as much as it's a mess right now, was part of already existing populations.
What price? Finland had nothing to do with any such matters in the first place and Sweden is not in NATO yet.
This whole thing was theater.
“What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with heart full of neutrality?” -Zapp Brannigan
"Czechoslovakia was allied to Britain"
No it wasn't. Sorry Kraut, rookie error. Czechoslovakia was allied to *France* and *France* was allied to Britain. There was no direct Anglo-Czech agreement, which was the point of the Munich Agreement. Britain was terrified of getting dragged into a German-Czech war that it had nothing to do with by it's French ally, as getting pulled into a war by your allies had been a repeating feature of World War 1.
The rest of your point is fine though.
As a french student I had heard about the hypocrisy of french government towards Czechoslovakia during the Munich agreements and after watching the video I only feel more sad and ashamed about it
Quick point: you mean "its" (possessive of "it"), not "it's" (contraction of "it is").
@@marinebenoin659 it was also allied to Poland, and was supplying tanks to them. Well, it would have supplied tanks, had it not turned around the shipment at the outbreak of the war
This is the most passive aggressive "Well ackchyualy" I have ever seen haha
@@marinebenoin659 i think there are many more current issues with French foreign policy that you can be upset by, e.g. its neo imperialist economic enslavement of Francophone African countries.
11:50 as a Casual EU4 player, I am guilty of enforcing nuetrality upon my victim states to make conquest easier. The fact a historical example exists is fascinating and horrifying.
I have also released vassal states only to annex them later. Something Russia has done/is trying to do in Ukraine.
i literally blushed i just did this yesterday in eu4, lmao makes you feel so shameful
It’s annoying because they just make friends with new allies
@@pandaotu just keep them garunteed until the truce is over then break it and invade, they won't ally anyone usually
When faced with a minor EU4 nation with strong allies, you try to
1) pull them into a war as a non-belligerent,
2) take all their money and break their alliances
3) wait until your truce is over
4) "look who is here on my border without an army or allies. It would be a shame, if someone declared war on you..."
Now what were Putin's original war aims again?
Remember, you CAN be neutral, uninvolved, part of an alliance, a giant mooch without your own army, AND important in diplomacy!
Regards from Iceland!😆
I mean, yes, but only if your country happens to be a tiny island in the middle of the ocean that sits astride an extremely strategic opening into the ocean that is very important to NATO
@@michaelimbesi2314 Hey, it could be tiny islandS, plural! (thinking of Marshall Islands, Solomons, Philippines, etc, etc)
brb learning icelandic
@@Doc_Fun hard
I cannot understate how many times I completely forget your nation even exists, and that's coming from someone who played as Iceland in CK3 less than a month ago
Summary
00:00:00 *This video is about Neutrality in Europe.*
00:11 Introduction -- Ground News Ad
01:38 Introduction
02:04 Introduction -- Ukraine - officially - was a neutral country.
00:04:00 *Reckoning by Scandinavia about what Ukraines' Neutrality did for them.*
04:05 Scandinavia -- Sweden
04:42 Scandinavia -- Finland
06:56 Scandinavia
00:07:22 *European Security, now and previously, feat. The Concert of Europe.*
08:21 Concert of Europe -- Belgium
09:31 Concert of Europe -- WWII
10:36 Concert of Europe -- Czechoslovakia
00:11:56 *Beyond Geopolitics, a look at how citizens benefit from neutrality.*
12:11 Citizen Benefits -- Switzerland
13:18 Citizen Benefits -- Singapore
13:26 Citizen Benefits -- Yugoslavia
13:48 Citizen Benefits -- Mexico
00:14:12 *But above all, neutrality comes at the cost of standing to fight alone.*
14:21 Costs -- Switzerland
14:51 Costs -- Yugoslavia
17:37 Costs -- Costa Rica
17:59 Costs -- Ireland
00:21:10 *Moral Matters explain what Kraut sees sadly being lost.*
21:14 Moral Matters -- Switzerland
24:10 Moral Matters -- Austria
25:14 Moral Matters -- ... and Serbia and Hungary
25:29 Moral Matters -- Passive and Active Neutrality
26:13 Moral Matters -- Finland
27:06 Moral Matters -- Sweden
00:28:41 *In conclusion, he therefore appeals to the Irish and the Swiss*
... to pick up the torches of Active Neutrality that the Swedes and Finns are now bound to drop.
“Why is Hungary a NATO member?”
Good question, I mean even Poland has started since the war to fell out with Hungary and in Lithuania we refer to Obran literally as “Prostitute for gas”
What's wrong with that? EU was fucking Hungary over and extorting wealth at the same time. i.e. Hungary was PAYING to be screwed over by UK, US, France and Germany, so what's wrong with being paid gas to screw?
That’s a question I imagine a lot of the NATO leadership asks themselves every day since the war started, along with “why haven’t we kicked them out yet?”
Simple, it's the Russian troyan horse in the EU and NATO. Hungary is blocking every instance for theirs own interests.
@@connormclernon26 I am still questioning why is Orban getting away with not implementing sanctions against Russia? Do Hungarians have some special privileges or everyone is too lazy to act.
@@connormclernon26 Because you can't kick nations out of NATO.
As a Vietnamese, it's very interesting to see how neutrality in Europe has progress to adapt with different historical events. Vietnam itself now is also trying to be neutral, being right under China while having the US as a strategic deterrence in the South China Sea. I hope you'll do an official video on us soon!
Don't ever make the capital mistake of inviting back Uncle Sam to keep China at bay.
It won't leave this time.
Good point. Do you think Vietnam is somewhat like Finland was: needing to remain neutral to appease it's scary neighbour? Is that the way citizens see it?
@@stefanodadamo6809 chingkong bot
@@user-oz8kz1we5y ehh, I think Vietnam of all countries definitely has the right to not want the U.S. to need to play a huge part in their defense. Just saying
I think China will leave you one for some time after the 1970's events 😂
Yes, we know.
As a Swiss, I have to point out, that there is only 300 days of mandatory military service and not 5 years. After a base camp of 4 months, you have to serve the rest in small parts of 3 weeks every year, maybe that's where the confusion came from.
There's a good reason most Americans think that neutrality means a lack of an arms industry- Ireland is the only one of the countries you mentioned where English is the official language and we obviously have much deeper ties with them
Love how Perun just burst onto the scene after the Ukraine war and is now like one of the most respected military analysts on YT now.
I wanted to like this, but 69...
@@Ag3nt0fCha0s Well you can like it anyways now.
Maybe THE* defense economics analyst
@@Hjernespreng why yall gotta do this man jus keep it how it is now U fucked the whole shit up
As early Perun enjoyers i can attest that his point of view to get things done in the most complex and detailed explanation, managed to get him that far.
I love how Perun whent from small gaming channel to THE one channel that everyone point out if you want to start to undertand something as complex as defense economics
Same, good for him though
In my heart he is still the youtuber I discovered thanks to Terra Invicta !
It is pretty cool yeah. People were thirsty for Ukraine content, and he wasn't just turning out hot takes. Truly a legend
please daddy perun, give me that powerpoint presentation, talk dirty to me about defense economics and the international arms market!
I love the fact he amassed messive success by creating hour long powerpoint presentations on budgets and accounting in military procurement.
ireland is extremely lucky in its location, historically less so but currently. A actual threat or invasion to ireland is a massive strategic weakness for the UK and to a degree france. Allowing a hostile force so close to ones borders and destablise the region would simply not be allowed. So while ireland is neutral, it has no nearby hostiles and those neighbours would prevent hostile actions so close to themselves
As a Swede, it is not about fighting alone it is about Russia no longer following sane logic of invading countries when it makes sense. So this means our deterrence does not work anymore, the only deterrence that works against Russia now is nukes. The Swedish deterrence has always been about making it so not worth invading that they never would.
What the heck are you talking about? Invading Sweden is much easier than invading Ukraine.
And that's even after the recent year massive boost for the Swedish army. You are 10 million sitting on a vast valuable land with an incredibly rich industry. How is that "not worth it" with that very small army?
If Germany wanted to few decades ago, it could steamroll that "Swedish deterrence."
Take as an example for a country about the same size as Sweden with an actual deterrence - despite not being neutral, they still "stood alone" as the Finnish says. - Israel.
@@user-gr9fq9gt9w Well our army today would probably not have a chance of stopping the russians but you have to understand that under the cold war Sweden was one of the most militarized countries in the world.
With something around eight hundred thousand soldiers that could be called up during a mobilization and the rest of the population could be called up for total mobilization. Where essential industries (K-Företag) and workers would continue to produce goods in big mountain factories for the rest of the war.
So yes it would have been extremely costly for the russians to invade us back then
Russian dissident here. If you think Russia ever was sane and acted in good faith, you were not paying attention. Assassinations, lies and creation of hostile criminal enclaves in other countries never stopped ever since Transnistria.
@@user-gr9fq9gt9w lol Israel alone. Forgetting that we the US’s taxpayers bankroll your entire existence
Which is why we should just get Nukes, its not like it would be difficult for us.
As a South African, I can't tell you how ashamed I am that our government continues to claim "neutrality", even as it came out today that they sold weapons to Russia. Even China has flipped against Russia in the UN, so it's unclear at this point what our excuse is. I really can't emphasize just how badly South Africa is doing right now - our economy is taking such a beating, electricity is off 8-10 hours a day, and on top of everything, the government chooses the losing side in the most unpopular war in decades. I'm afraid this is becoming a failed state. I'll have to leave soon.
I have a question, here in the States after the end of the Jim Crow era there were a lot of unforeseen consequences such as the forceful firing of black teachers into integrated schools and the death of many black owned businesses and consequently a large portion of the black middle class. Is this at all similar to post-apartheid South Africa
@@andrewsandoval2685 It's hard to argue that the fall of apartheid had unforeseen negative consequences for black people in particular - but the ANC party has had disastrous consequences for the country overall. Corruption is unbelievably severe, it's absolutely crippling, and it infects so many different parts of our society in so many ways. The big ones at the moment are the complete neglect of infrastructure - our rail system basically doesn't exist anymore, electrical infrastructure is in extreme crisis, and many parts of the country are struggling with water infrastructure.
South Africa is often compared to Zimbabwe. Although we haven't fallen as hard as they have, many feel we are doomed to make the same mistakes - we actually have growing political movements dedicated to making the same mistakes.
@@andrewsandoval2685 Post apartheid resulted in the new political force blaming every bad thing ever on the white population while at the same time it was just an excuse to enrich the new leaders. Literally the country is in shambles, every part of infrastructure is crumbling to pieces and still all they have to do is say "it's those evil whites causing all these problems" and they once again win the election and continue to milk a dying cow for personal gain.
I haven't seen the news about arms delivery to russia, but i ll believe you on this. But even without it, it was kind of obvious who SA leadership supported, as neutral in this case almost always means pro-russian. And in Ukraine many people just assume that Africa hate us for nothing, and start to hate Africans (not black, but generally people from sub-Saharan region) in return. It is sad to see this loop of hate in return when at the start we didn't have any grievances to each other
@@andrewsandoval2685 Black South Africans as a whole are undoubtedly doing better then they were under Apartheid. The same thing is true for Jim Crow in the US it may seem as though things got worse after but that isn’t the case.
I think your pitch to Switzerland and Ireland is very good. Absolutely those roles need to be filled. I think asking the Swiss to do that would require more of a transition than it would for Ireland. I think Ireland is very befitting of that role. I'm not sure they're ready to build a military to do as Sweden did in certain circumstances, but the voice? 100%.
100% agree though knowing the internal politics of Ireland, my view is that it's very questionable indeed that an internal defence capacity can be developed. Time will tell.
Austria, Hungary and Serbia, what an iconic trio.
Ireland is a very active memeber in the UN and has been basically since the league of nations. Ireland and Canada I'd argue are similar as they represent the multilateralists, wanting to solve issues via multilateral bodies like the UN and ECHR. Ireland was also in the Congo along with the Lebanon, Liberia and dozens of other conflict zones. I dont think we'll adopt a domestic arms industry though. Thats a vast overestimation of what Ireland is willing to do. The current coalition barely increases defence and their opposition is led by Sinn Fein who think we're already not neutral enough and I don't see them ever increasing funding for the army. Ireland will have to rely on the UK and USA for security guarantees as we have in the past. Its a weird thing
The have the IRA to defend them though
@@tigerabraham5582 funny. But no, the IDF cannot effectively defend Ireland and we're not gonna be relying on a paramilitary who murdered Irish citizens during the troubles.
Either way I do think Kraut overestimates how far Russia is willing to go with Ireland. Putin is a complete bloody idiot but if they attacked the internet cables coming into Ireland that would also cut off half of Europe from the US, it would unquestionably lead to an American response. Ireland has always been neutral in favour of democracies and the US and UK have not so subtly acknowledged that.
Definitely in the Congo. Siege of Jadotville, which the film is surprisingly accurate
@@tigerabraham5582 The official army isn't called that it's just the Irish Army now, as part of the defence force of Ireland. And that couldn't hold of a Russian invasion despite utterly awful the Russian army is as the army has less then 10,000 people in it including reserves.
And if you mean the Para-military groups then they're more likely to take Russian money to 'liberate' NI then they are to fight them, given that they basically devolved into an organised crime just with a good front and PR department.
I don’t honestly know what my fellow countrymen’s prevailing opinion on the concept is, but this Englishman would come steaming over to defend Ireland the moment we got an invite. They certainly wouldn’t have to ‘beg’ for help.
Greetings from Gothenburg. In Sweden we have a specific phrase for what you referred to as active neutrality “Humanitär Stormakt” translated as “humanitarian great power” A phrase often used by Social democratic politicians for what Sweden in their mind should be or should act. It also has a double meaning since the Swedish empire is referred to here as “Stormaktstiden” translated to as “great power era” which says a lot about how we Swedes viewed our active neutrality as you called it
Do Swede's like the phrase, or do they find it conceited?
@@PjRjHj Depends on where you are on the political spectrum. As I mentioned Social democrats often use the phrase, especially during the migrant crisis 2015-2016. During this time it sorta became a meme. Right wing politicians often scoff at the phrase and especially the right wing populist. The phrase for obvious reasons has been dropped by its proponents since of last year
Hate to say it but the term Humanitär stormakt is a fallacy, these last 7 years have been nothing short of disastrous for us.
In my personal opinion we lose nothing of worth by finally dropping the pretense of neutrality.
@@fallout44454 I assume you are talking about the migration crisis being disastrous? Even if that's the case, we can still be a "humanitärian great power" on the global stage. What the phrase is talking about is Swedens ability to be the mediator in alot of conflicts. Sweden is in the forefront of humanitärian cases world wide. Kraut mentions a bunch of things at the end of the video that Sweden can take humanitärian pride in.
@@KevinUchihaOG Kraut likes to pretend Sweden is just going to stop acting sweden.
As an Austrian. Our people are pretty much the epitomy of "I just want to grill goddammit!" Which is frustrating.
Long-time Irish viewer, and I was so pleased to see us so heavily involved in one of your commentaries. Fantastic content as always, Kraut.
something I feel as a Englishman which also plays a part in irelands not spending money stance is that. if ireland was going to be under attack by anyone they would either have already gone through england or england would come to there aid because of the northern ireland and the hopes that it by helping ireland it would be seen more as mending of bridges
I was looking for this comment just so I could like it
you wanna mend bridges maybe get out of ireland first? @@si2foo
As a Finn, I would like to share my perspective. I recognize our accomplishments as a neutral country, but those don't get much emphasis at all in our history books or in our political conversations. The only positives we usually think of when thinking of our neutrality is maintaining our independence and having good economic ties to Russia. These two are what our history books generally talk about. The latter has become far less significant, because Germany is now our biggest trade partner far outweighing Russia. And when considering the former, it is no coincidence, that we began openly talking about NATO membership after the Soviet collapse, because after the second world war our neutrality was forced on us because of Russian geopolitical interests and it was not of our own free will.
Many European countries, such as Switzerland and Sweden adopted neutrality after disastrous wars, so that they could focus on internal development. This was our stance too after signing a treaty with Lenin's Russia after our independence, so that we could avoid a war with Russia. Something that is not often talked about, is that we trusted this treaty so much so, that we neglected our army so much so, that Mannerheim did not belie, that we could fight back the Russians and that we should capitulate to their demands in 1939. After the winter war we abandoned our neutrality to attack Russia, hoping that Hitler could defeat Stalin and remove the Russian irredentist threat to our independence. That didn't happen and we we're forced to accept neutrality on Russia's terms. This is made clear by the fact, that here and probably elsewhere the word Finlandization has a very negative tone.
We have always viewed our neutrality in contrast to Russia, not as to what we can do for the benefit to international community, and while Kekkonen, Ahtisaari and others have acted as international mediators, that role in our country's history is not very pronounced and it has never been seen as our moral responsibility. Saying that Russia and Finland ever were friends is kind of weird, because we have completely different cultures and values, even our army has always been designed to specifically fight Russia. We have always seen Russia as a boogeyman, or a school bully, who has no future, but who you should get along with, and pretend to like, so you can avoid being bullied. Our neutrality by it's very nature has been self centered.
We have always wanted to integrate closer to the west and after EU, NATO is the next logical step. In the past when we talked about NATO membership, most people would just dance around it, while talking about expenditures, the unrealistic prospect of involvement in foreign wars and such. I would like to point out, that the National Coalition party was the biggest supporter of membership, and it is now in power. The biggest reason why we didn't join, was because we saw what happened to Georgia and Ukraine and didn't want that here, because many of us believed, that we could not win a war against Russia and even if we could, war would still be devastating, win or lose. This latter one is important, because while the failures of the Russian military is laid bare for all to see, Ukraine is still devastated and we want to avoid that. So in my view we joined NATO to deter Russia from attacking us, unlikely as it may be and as a sort of payback and as a statement, that we are done pretending to be their friend.
Anyway, that was long, but I am glad to say, rest in peace Finlandization 6.4.1948 - 15.5.2022
so instead of massively increasing military spending,encoraging ther rigth to bear arms for citizens and forming nordic alliances finland decides to join nato?Like have finnish people forgot about what they are capabel of ,using the winter war as an ex.
As a swede i am dissapointed in sweden for the same reason.Especially when the Sweden prides itself of its morality abroad instead of i fixing the problems that are plaugeing swedish citizens and have an army that is not a joke compared to the rest of the world.
@@danieli9333 Even if we are well armed enough to beat Russia, neutrality simply makes you vulnerable these days and is not viable when being this close to a possible aggressor.
I too would prefer closer co-operation between the Nordic countries in terms of defense and other things, but NATO is a more straightforward option for all of us.
@@eliasjarvinen3035 Yeah this is an important thing to point out. It's unlikely Russia can ever conquer nations like Sweden or Finland; but the war has shown that as inept as Russia is, its complete lack of empathy for its own people means they can toss men into a meatgrinder and inflict horrific damage to another country anyway.
The only way to deal with Russia is for a much stronger power to smash their capabilities outright rather than let them drag the war into a horrific siege; and nations like Finland prolly doesn't have that capability.
@@danieli9333 Could we fight off Russia? Maybe, but even in the most positive and outlandishly stupid predictions nobody would claim that it wouldn't come without *incredible* cost to Finland.
To use an old joke, it seems like you are a Swede willing to fight to the last Finn.
@@danieli9333 Sweden's army is not a joke. It's decent for what it needs to do, and it is miles better than Germany's or Austria's. Joining NATO is more than just defense from a Russian invasion; it is a nuclear deterrent. Sweden probably won't be able to bear the cost of a nuclear weapons program and I don't think there is any political will for it. Becoming a contributing NATO member is a win/win for Sweden and NATO, and hopefully it will happen in the future.
As a Luxembourg resident this country is classic case of neutrality not working. In the first half of the 20th century Luxembourg tried so hard to be neutral and twice it was invaded and annexed. That’s why after WW II this country became such a key part of NATO and the even more so the EU.
I mean, coming from an ignorant American, it's not like Luxembourg is a full on country. It's more of a big city. They would get stomped either way.
@@zombieoverlord5173 “getting stomped either way” was true for most countries in Europe that weren’t France, Germany or Russia.
Belgium got stomped, as did the Netherlands, Denmark, Chech-Slovakia, Austria, etc. Only Italy, Spain and Poland were large & strong enough to fend of the big 3, and even then they could never military retake all their territory, so even if they did not get destroyed they’d still lose territory. Which makes the next war harder.
That is basic history of Europe:
The smaller neutral countries only exist because the big allow us so, or because we play the game using 1 great power against the other.
Luxemburg played that game very well, and as a Dutchmen I’m proud to call them our equal partners within the Benelux!
As a Dutchmen I'd like to say you guys gave up neutrality when you stole our flag
It's worth considering the context behind Luxemburg's neutrality. In the 19th century, its strategic location almost led to armed conflict between France and Prussia, with only the guarantee of neutrality (and dismantling of its fortifications) allowing it to continue to exist and eventually become independant. Its neutrality was thus based on an external balance of power, which means it was vulnerable to shifts in this balance (see world war I and II). You could argue this external guarantee was the result of its small size relative to its neighbours, but you could also argue that its continued existence, compared to say, Neutral Moresnet, is actually a success of its neutrality.
@@Pasteurpipette same as Swiss
Ukraine changed its constitution in 2019 and gave up its neutrality with the stated intention to join NATO, which was the reason why Russia insisted on security guarantees. As an Austrian, I can assure you that the overwhelming majority in Austria support our neutrality and oppose NATO membership some of the political parties push for. Austria is surrounded by NATO members, so our membership would be pointless.
Well you know, Austria is the land where Adolf Hitler was born, and most Austrians fought on the side of the Nazis during World War II, so much for Austrian Neutrality, and being neutral about the latest Fuhrer, Vladimir Putin, doesn't help! He's even got his own swastika, the letter "Z". So how many people are walking around with red armbands with a black 'Z' in a white circle. Do we call these the Z-Nazis? Vladimir Putin is a Z-Nazi and so are all the people who support him!
Which was done after the Russian attack on Ukraine in 2014.
@@philipmaltz4137 And why did Russia intervene in 2014 ?
@@Mastakilla91Why would Russia intervene on a sovereign country's popularly elected and mandated will on the first place?
@@Mastakilla91 Because they felt like it.
A minor correction about Finland... The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance of 1948 didn't actually state that Finland would need to join the USSR in war. It stated that Finland would be required to defend itself should it be attacked or should its territory be used to attack the USSR - which is actually required if Finland was a neutral state in any case. And that if required Finland would be allowed to enter consultations to gain aid from the USSR but it wasn't something that would happen automatically. Nor would it trigger if the USSR, but not Finland, was attacked. It also required Finland to not ally itself with the West and acknowledged Finnish neutrality.
And the military purchases were a Finnish solution to show neutrality. The goal was to spend roughly 1/3 on the western equipment, 1/3 on the eastern equipment, and 1/3 on either domestic or neutral. However as these were mostly done by value, and the Western stuff cost a lot more, it meant that Eastern stuff would be far more visible (but often retrofitted with Western equipment). But it also lead to interesting designs like the Finnish gunboats, which had Finnish-made hulls, West German engines, Western radar and electronic gear, a Swedish main gun, Soviet AA guns, and Soviet anti-submarine weaponry.
I still believe Kraut should be a Guest to NAFO's even rounder table
It seems everyone is joining the Cult of NonCredibleDefense😂
24:00 Sounds like he might be interested
@@thingsthatinterestedme7962 He definitely should have used Lazerpigs picture there
Kraut joining even rounder table (possibly getting drunk in process)? That's sounds like secend best thing after PowerPoint man also joining.
That podcast would be so legendary that It could rival Trash Taste.
After the (albeit short) Destiny x Lazerpig and Dylan Burns mentioning the Pig, nothing seems to be off the table.
As a Finn, I believe Finland's active role in mediating peace and cooperation within Europe came as a natural reaction to not feeling completely safe. Finland's inability to join the EU (until end of cold war) and NATO (until recently) due to pressure from Russia's forced-upon neutrality led to seeking alternate and sometimes creative sources of peace and stability to compensate. This in addition to a large defence force.
Here in Ireland we recently celebrated if that is the correct term the importance of the Good Friday agreement. However one thing that I noticed was that the mass media made little or no reference to the huge part that Finnish politicians played in helping to put together a forum for discussion . As an Irish citizen I want to pay tribute to Finland for their role in the peace process. Kittos Suomi.
“Peace” requires active maintenance as relative chaos and primal Survival of the Strongest rules apply without…
WW1 winners = USA
Ww2 winners = USA
Ww3 winners = USA
#1 Super power USA forever (the new Roman republic)
@@Tethloach1 yea but the Romans in the West were cocky and got done in by the Goths…
Finland has not had neutrality pressured on it for ages. Joining EU didn't bring significant change to the security situation, but it changed political alignment. The Baltic countries were wiser in that they first secured their backs by joining NATO as pretty much the first thing they did, after which questions of political alignment are rendered inconsequential from a security point of wiev.
NATO Finland could just as well even exit EU if it happens to want to since the security infrastucture is much more credible than that of the EU and comes with less would-be infringements on national sovereignty or other such political baggade that reduces or usurps agency of our political institutions.
We are a western country but we don't worship the west as an abstraction, even if some politicians might give that kind of idea.
really really great video Kraut!!! one of my aunts on my mom’s side of the family married a swiss man and moved to switzerland in the 80s. last summer, i finally met up with my swiss family after only seeing them once as a kid. it was fascinating talking to one of my swiss cousins about the ramifications of the ukrainian war. everybody i talked to felt the significance of switzerland condemning russia for the ukrainian invasion. everybody i talked to supported switzerland’s condemnation of the war but were still concerned about how the war and the end of swiss neutrality might influence the country in the long run. my mom and i were also staying at the house of my aunt’s friend and she just so happened to be hosting a ukrainian refugee woman. meeting her was very moving.
As an Irishman. This gave me a lot to think about. Defence has traditionally been ignored by the political establishment as a non-priority. However, things are changing in Ireland. Sinn Fein talk a lot about unity, which would require an increase in our defence capabilities. I think we need to have a serious discussion about our values, and our place in the world.
And, you're neighbors to the Eternal Anglo.
@chinchilla415 the anglosphere is a bigger threat to the Gael than any russian will ever be
The Swiss model would be much more preferable than joining NATO. The last thing we need is being further controlled by outside interests.
@IVIRnathanreilly personally I'd prefer if Ireland took the Russian model (conquering land that was historically ours but is currently held by our neighbours) but Swiss is also an improvement over our current situation
@@antadhgI think you mean liberation of occupied territories instead of conquest
The shadow of the status of Northern Ireland looms over any meaningful discussion of changes to Irish neutrality. The attempts by the more extreme elements of the unionist community in Northern Ireland to either scrap or erode the Good Friday Agreement via Brexit have only complicated this issue further. This is an important factor to consider and one you don't seem to have mentioned.
I'm not so sure, Ireland having a "clean break" might help it adopt a more self sufficient form of neutrality than its current form of being effectively reliant on the British to defend them (not that we wouldn't if it came down to it, but the whole NATO issue complicates things). Ireland has had to maintain a precarious status quo with the GFA and now Brexit, an end either through a "hard" border with NI or reunification (not sure which is more likely, but given current trends I'd say the latter) might give Ireland the flexibility to change its current stance without fear of breaking a lot of other things.
On the flipside, the RAF is the one chasing Russian bombers away from Irish airspace, which doubtless helps dissuade the Irish state from wanting to spend the money to build a functional airforce.
We could take back the while island and unify, but that would mean sharing a country with a lot of half brits who hate us. Ireland doesn't really have anything, I can't see us building anything. Other countries had industries, we had centuries of occupation and looting followed by decades if brain drain and economic stagnation. We just can't do it.
The whole good friday agreement needs to be reworked to account for the changes in geopolitical dynamics in Europe and the renewed friendship our two countries have. The only people who are angry about the Norther Ireland Protocol and Brexit and the potential for it to undo the Good Friday Agreement are the people who are violent already and are trying to find excuses to justify their violence.
The Conditions on Ireland joining NATO should be the ROI giving up all territorial claims on NI and removing the re-unification of Ireland from the Irish constitution. The premise that another country can have claims on it's neighbor due to "mistakes" and "ethnic" makeup is exactly what Russia used to claim Ukrainian land for itself. The people of Northern Ireland have the option of voting to rejoin Ireland and it should be down to the people of NI to decide that. Without interference from foreign governments, or threats of violence from extremist groups.
The UK for it's part should uphold the will of the people should they choose to join Ireland, but should otherwise treat NI as any other part of our sovereign nation. Meaning no borders in the Irish sea under any circumstances. The border between the UK and EU is on the island of Ireland, and should be a border just like the one with France. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and how we administer the region is down to the UK. Not a bunch of terrorists and their american allies.
@@bengoacher4455 saying Ireland has to give up claims on all of Ireland is like telling Ukraine they have to give up their claim to crimea
As a Swede, it’s sad to be giving up this position of neutrality, but it seems most people have agreed that there really isn’t any other way forward now. Great video
It's true - neutrality is something you need the opportunity to do. It's not something all countries can do, in practice.
Rip
It would be interesting if instead of NATO we could do some sort of defence deals with neighbouring states individually or a common Nordic defence group of some sort, but I don't see that likely happening and without any real support for a poll on NATO membership from the parties, I guess our government is still gonna try joining NATO
I don't think you have given up neutrality, it's a bit of a false narrative. NATO doesn't change how you conduct your foreign policy. Sweden is in the EU, isn't picking a side and conduct economic warfare? Sweden is so close to NATO it's almost a formality. NATO is a defensive alliance, others see it as a threat or Side because it blocks their aggression or want an excuse to not negotiate. I think physical distance from everything and low historical baggage will still grant the role as a 'neutral' mediator 95% as before.
As a Finlander I am very pleased over the fact that Sweden cannot hide under some thin veil of neutrality the next time the horrors of the world come knocking around. Because there will be someone else carrying a far bigger stick than Sweden, reminding it of its obligations. At the moment when the first, not the last inch of Finnish has been violated. No more freeriding - slut på snålskjuts.
Every time you upload I’m so happy that I found your channel. As an American I’m basically totally blind to the geopolitics of Europe and your channel is bar none the most educational and non biased (as far as I can tell) source on the whole internet. Keep up the good word bud :)
Even as a European I learn a lot from this channel and its comments 👍
This channel is absolutely sensational, so strange how you can find such great content by accident, sometimes the algorithm really hits. If anyone knows of any other GeoP channels of this guy's caliber please recommend!
Austria and Switzerland may not be NATO members, but being surrounded by NATO they're in fact free riders, since nobody can really attack them unless they go trough a NATO country, or it's a NATO country itself, which is quite improbable.
Austria is part of the EU and would therefore be required to defend other EU countries if attacked. Since most NATO countries in Europe are also EU member states Austria is defacto in NATO already.
Swiss on the other hand has a brilliant military and is spending big money.
Sooo just no to your statement.
@@hackbrettschorsch6855Austria should leave the EU therefore!
Better a free rider than an USA vassal state !
@@hackbrettschorsch6855 that doesn't change the fact that they benefit from NATO protection which let's be real here, is protection delivered mainly by America while they contribute nothing to NATO defense spending. Sure, they may have good equipment but they haven't fought a war. They have no combat experience and they don't train with NATO which would cause even more issues if a war popped off in their region. The Swiss have historically profited from both sides of any conflict and yet still depend on NATO due to geography or otherwise. Doesn't sit well with many people. Same for the Swedes. I don't think we should be applauding a country for speaking up about social issues in other countries while contributing very little itself. Both kind of come off like self-righteous turds while contributing nothing to the world stage which results in their insulation from having to make difficult geopolitical decisions. Decisions that both countries will openly criticize other countries who are more active in geopolitics for making.
That’s the main argument i have heard austrians use aswell which is a pretty frustrating. They want protection without helping out.
Side Note: I love how Kraut always shoutouts other channels in almost every single video, and redirects us to further-detailed information. That's the quality of a supportive community.
Even a nod to Lazerpig.
@@Miata822 ALL HAIL THE PIG!!! OINK OINK!
I'm from Bulgaria and right now there is a very strong nationalist party in Bulgaria that is advertising Bulgarian neutrality and leaving NATO. It is gaining more and more supporters every day. They are now the third biggest political party in Bulgaria.
Because of this I find this video extremely interesting and coming at the perfect time.
Are they the ones who claim greater bulgaria borders?
@@user-ot2yz7it7i no, I don't think that any party represented in the parliament claims greater bulgaria borders.
Outstanding commentary and summary of current events unfolding in Europe, please continue making such well thought out and capitvating content.
When Switzerland condemned Russia many months ago I was genuinely surprised that more people weren’t focusing on how significant that was. It seemed like it was accepted as “ok cool… and moving on…” instead of talking about how breathtakingly awful you have to be to illicit such a response from the Swiss.
Agreed
Condemning Russia and Putin is the bare minimum. What, we should applaud them for realizing that Russia is doing bad things? I think Western countries, and particularly "neutral" Western countries, are guilty of a fair bit of navel-gazing but applauding Switzerland, "do-nothing Switzerland", for realizing that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is unacceptable would just take the prize. How about they let NATO gift their Swizz produced weapons and munitions to Ukraine? Actions speak louder than words.
@@Boomerrage32 "Russia is doing bad things" Like, invading a country? Just like the US and NATO did alot more often them any other country like in Iraq, Vietnam, Yugoslavia etc.? So every country that isnt sanctioning the US/ UK/ NATO are just as guilty for every warcrime the west has done, in your logic.
@@Boomerrage32 Switzerland has been neutral since the 16th century. 500 years. They ignored everyone. EVERYONE. Even the Nazis.
@@Boomerrage32 "Condemning Russia and Putin is the bare minimum. What, we should applaud them for realizing that Russia is doing bad things?"
Did they ever condemn Nazi Germany? Like, during the war?
In any case, yes, we should applaud them. Political neutrality is supposed to be one of the modern Swiss guiding moral principles. If you disagree with that - fine, but, since your moral stance is divergent from that of the Swiss, your judgement has little value.
@Kraut this is wrong 9:31 Belgium did not choose neutrality after the First World War it was in an active military alliance with France that relied on the French army pushing through Belgium into Germany in a hypothetical another war. The main reason Belgium was neutral during the start of ww2 was due to a diplomatic falling out in the 1930s that led to Belgium leaving the plan. This is also the reason why the Maginot line did not expand past German Border.
True, except that the Maginot Line was never meant to extend to Belgium. The defense strategy was to have the Maginot Line funnel the Germans to Belgium, where the Allied armies would set up defensive lines along the river dykes and canals and meet the invaders there. The Belgians pulling out of the defense pact in the 1930s meant no more forward-deployed Allied troops on the Belgian border, which considerably delayed the response. That and the risky Ardenne offensive pretty much ruined the Allied defense of France.
Correction! The people of North Macedonia, never used any Yugoslav weapons (to achieve independence). By way of referendum it was decided to break away from the state of Yugoslavia and a deal was struck: no bloodshed. NMK disarmed, willingly surrendered any and all military equipment to the then JNA (which consisted of Serbs and Montenegrins by this point) and granted safe passage to the army to withdraw from NMK territory.
The war / insurgency of 2001 is a whole other can of worms that we won’t get into.
Just saying this because of the picture at 17:02.
As an American, I felt disconnected from the Ukraine-Russian conflict, knowing that we should aid the Ukrainians but in no way understood the seriousness of what was going on. When I heard of the talks of Sweden and Finland considering joining NATO it put everything in perspective. As you stated these countries worked hard to keep their neutrality and for them to even consider throwing all that way legitimizes the threat of this Russian aggression. Even though these two great nations are now willing to stand with us i think we lost two great pillars of morality in Europe, it is not something that should be taken lightly.
Ukraine gave the 3rd nuclear stockpile capable of incinerating the entire world in a nuclear fire approximately 2 times under security guarantees from the USA, Britain and Russia. Later, France and communist China joined.
In 2014, Obama gave Crimea to Russia, repeating the situation with the 3rd Reich and Czechoslovakia, but in miniature in the modern world, for which he received the Nobel Prize.
Then the Russian attack on Donbas began.
Everyone forgets that in that year Ukraine was in 10th place in the arms trade. Ukraine liberated more than half of the occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts by overpowering and disrupting the supply of weapons to buyers.
But instead of aid, Ukraine received an unofficial embargo on military products from Germany and the EU. While Russia received official sanctions, which were not observed by Germany and France, bypassing them by endless extension of contracts, they are not the only ones.
Then Russia killed the citizens of a NATO country by shooting down their plane.
In response, instead of aid, Ukraine was forced to sign a semi-capitulation in Minsk.
The conclusion is simple
If you give away nuclear weapons, half of your country will be burned by an insane neighbor. When black people start starving in Africa (more than usual), only then will they start helping you, but on the condition that you don't attack the enemy on his land. After all, a mythical escalation is possible and it is not important that it can reduce the losses of Ukrainians both among the military and among civilians many times, save the infrastructure and facilitate the recovery after the war, after all "escalation".
Although from a legal point of view, in 2014, the Kremlin should have had funnels made by non-nuclear bunker-busting bombs from unknown stealth bombers.
PS
What part of America remembers or knows? In Taiwan, there is a real China, which was the co-founder of the UN, which was betrayed by the most important ally whose decisions he always voted for in the UN, while investing trillions in a terrorist communist organization on the mainland that has created a threat to the economy of the whole world at the moment?
People have compared the invasion to 9/11 and i think that's a good comparison.
Lol nope, 911 was nothing compared to this.
NATO invades countries every now and then and nobody seemed to care, but when Russia decided to do something about it everyone deemed Russia as evil. Just wow, hypocrisy is ridiculous
@@Donnerbalken28 As an American, this is much more significant than 9/11. Not even in the same league
As an Irish person it was very interesting seeing an educated outsider’s perspective on my country. While I’m not certain what direction we will go in terms of military spending I do think a domestic arms industry is an overestimation due to our strict firearm control laws, the cost involved, and the risk of arming groups such as the UVF and IRA. While the Ukraine War has made people here more alert about defence it has also made us aware that our main security threat is quite inept. If we do increase the size of our military, I can imagine we’d practice active neutrality as you described, primarily because we already do. It’ll just be more noticeable with a bigger army.
Our current defence from invaders is kind of weird. It’s like we’re a small poisonous animal. You could easily eat us but it’s probably a bad idea.
For one our border situation somewhat unique. One lost bomber or inaccurate artillerist and you’ve attacked Northern Ireland and by extension NATO. We’re also surrounded by countries that have a vested interest in keeping us alive. While we were owned by the Brits they didn’t really do much with us, to the extent were we basically skipped the Industrial Revolution. However, Britain kept a firm grip on us because if they didn’t own us, France, Spain or someone else could use us as a staging ground to invade Britain. The same is true now, if a military power occupied us they’d be able to threaten Britain and Western Europe. The main reason we were occupied is now one of our best guarantees of safety.
We’re also quite well liked internationally. We’re very active in the UN and EU and invest heavily in diplomacy. We have a massive diaspora, especially in the US and Britain. We’re also in a unique position of being both a western nation and a victim of colonial aggression by a western nation which opens a lot of doors. As a recent nation we also haven’t had many opportunities to make people hate us. As such any full-scale military invasion would not be popular globally and potentially at home depending on the invader. It also means our dimished but still extant paramilitary organisations will have plenty of potential sponsors.
We also don’t have much to offer a would-be invader. We have fertile soil but not a lot. Our economy is strong but that’s dominated by multinational corporations that could jump ship as they’re doing with Russia now. Even the benefit of being a staging ground for further conquest is limited due to our lack of military infrastructure.
Okay, but I hope you understand that if the import of charming Irish panel-show comedians for the BBC ever dries up, we will be re-annexing you to secure the supply.
@@BalsiefenOkay, but on your end you have to get the BBC to stop calling our actors British.
Not happening pal
Plenty of countries with strict firearms controls have strong defense industries. The risk of arms being misappropriated is real, but they are probably cheaper to get from other sources. The cost? That's the cost of neutrality
Here in the United States there are heavy Irish roots. My hometown mascot is a Fighting Irish man since many people emigrated here after the Irish Potato famine of the 1840’s. Also, much of the hatred (justified and unjustified) towards the Catholic Church in America has been pushed towards the Vatican and some of their priests (we all know which ones I’m talking about) and not everyday citizens practicing Catholicism. I would agree that any attack on Ireland would bring hostility from all corners of the world to the aggressor.
I'm from Croatia and a taxi driver told me he was in the yugoslav army when Tito died, he said they moved about 3000 tones(or more) of anti tank mines to the yugoslav-hungarian border because the expected an attack from the soviet union
Beautifully done as usual, Kraut!
* 12:24 Correction:
-Military Service is for a minimum of 1 year (soldier-private)(depends on rank for more), not 5 years. However, there are 2 types of services: the long service (1 year non-stop) or the short service (4 months of basic training and then every years for 2-3 weeks/year).
Swiss military budget: around 5 billion/year (with modernisation program and new equipment buys), a very small investment compared to the economy and the current financial situation.
27:15 Kraut, I have to step in for Ireland here. You're referring to Sweden defending Congolese villagers from mercenaries. I'd advise you to look up the siege of Jadotville - it was Irish soldiers that put up a heroic defence, which was subsequently ignored at home for resulting in a defeat, despite it being against overwhelming odds.
I think I watched a movie about that. It was very good
You guys have a very long history of being against injustice.
In Mexico we still remember the San Patrick's Battalion.
@@Yha1000itz I thought the San Patricios were Irish Americans and other Catholic Americans that were tired of how mistreated they were by the Protestants. There were some escaped slaves and free Blacks too. I think it was a segregated unit in the US Army that wondered why they were fighting for a country that hated them against a Catholic country that already banned slavery.
Yeah but it wasn't just the irish, the siege of Jadotville took place during operation Rumpunch however both swedish and Indian UN troops partook aswell, heck you can even see the indian forces during the siege of the radio building in the movie.
Furthermore it was the Swedish forces who protected the Balubas since neither the Indians or the Irish wish to take on the burden which led to the Swedes having to deal with the Baluba jeunes and the local population duking it out.
Finally I'd like to point out that it was the Swedish forces that stormed Camp Massart which served as the HQ of the "Gendarmes".
@@fallout44454they didn't take place in the siege, the troops under siege were 155 Irish men, the Swedish, and indian troops were part of the 500 man counter attack that failed at a bridge, they were not part of the siege it's self and were repealed quickly
Kraut mentioning both Perun and Lazerpig?
Man Kraut is really getting into nonCredibleDefense
NCD is leaking again
@@niklasw.1297 NCD Intelligence Service. Nothing is beyond our reach.
@@sugandesenuds6663 War Thunder Players.
Challenge accepted.
Now let me go and leak the Intel for the B-21 Raider
@@marseldagistani1989 if you want, i have the patent of the SU57 on my harddrive.
@@sugandesenuds6663
Eh...
Why do I need the schematics on that flying city block?
Neutrality doesn't mean you have no enemies, it means you have no friends.
Kraut, I wanna say thank you. You, along with Brain4Breakfast (god rest his soul) have changed the way I consume information. Your videos have taught me that understanding the history of an issue is the most important part of gaining a proper perspective. Im hungry for it, I love it, I love discovering historical context like it’s some ancient treasure that I found the key to, so much makes sense. I’m able to pull from across history and across fields of study in the strangest ways, I never would have thought that understanding the steps of genocide in foment Yugoslavia would translate to a school project on American immigration reform. My father is Estonian, your video about the history of vodka really touched me. It all clicked, everything, why men drink themselves to death, the tragedy of the Russian people, the cyclical nature of tyranny and oppression.
Now as I enter university I feel like I have a leg up over my classmates, especially as an American it’s shocking how historically illiterate people are in general. I can almost assign a spiritual importance to it, there is nothing that gives me more purpose in anything than reading great historical epics and pouring over the intricate details of napoleons campaigns. Or reading Yukio Mishima and being consumed by the beauty of his literature. What a disgrace, colonial Americans were among the most educated in history and now we’re reduced to this. We’re all inheritors of the greatest story, the only story, there isn’t a higher purpose than telling it. Consider yourself among those great orators of history, you have touched millions of people who are better for it
Not readin all that.
At this point I had finished binging your channel. Please make more.
The fact that the Irish rely on the British, of all people, for their defense is incredibly funny to me.
It is, on the contrary, incredibly sad. A country that doesn't even speak its mother language anymore.
@@stefanodadamo6809 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
@@stefanodadamo6809 um no? I live with a Irish national, this isn't true at all
@@fuzzyhair321 as an Irish national, I can confirm that the Irish language is effectively out of our mainstream society. A lot of it is down to failing to teach Irish as a language in schools, with many people I know knowing more French, German or Spanish in the years after graduating secondary school than Irish. Its a shame too, its an amazing language
@@ramblingrenegade6346 yeah my roommate is from the north west Donegal and he can speak it. It was fun listening to it
The Swiss missile knows where it is because it knows where it isn't
27:47 I don’t think Sweden has to stop supporting Palestine, Kurdistan, etc. just because they’re in NATO now. Plenty of NATO members disagree with each other politically, but will stand together if invaded.
Sweden isn't NATO yet. Finland is. Neither Turkey nor Sweden is backing down over the Kurds.
"Germany was planning on invading Sweden..."
Not really, Sweden was "happy" to adhere to Germany's rules. While Sweden was preparing for a conflict in response to WWII, Sweden was also very much on good terms with Germany during the war. Providing them with good iron ore and other resources for basically free. And many Swedes joined the wehrmacht, including the SS.
The same with Finland, Germany provided manpower and equipment to Finland in support of Finlands war with Russia. Many finns joined the wehrmacht and the SS and fought with Germany on the Russian front even after the Winter War ended. And when the continuation war struck, Finland was still on side with Germany.
On the other side of that coin is Great Britain, who invaded Iceland "to prevent Germany from doing it"...
Yes, they INVADED Iceland. They could just have protected Iceland but they took over completely.
Either way, Hitler had no plans to invade Sweden and he could easily have done so after taking Denmark and Norway without much trouble. Sweden was pretty much defenseless during the capture of Denmark and Norway, and Sweden didn't have much in terms of defense after the fact either. What prevented Germany from taking Sweden was the fact Sweden played along just fine with Germany and Hitler got a huge chunk of his inspiration from the (Swedish) State Institute for Racial Biology. In many ways, Sweden and Germany had very similar ideologies at the time. And the overwhelming majority of Swedes were TRUE "Aryans", while not of German nationality they were the IDEAL people. Putting most of Germany to shame in that respect.
If Hitler invaded Sweden, it would basically be a live action roleplay for the spectators. In reality, Sweden would just let it happen and nothing would really change.
You can imagine how much peace our NATO membership really brings to my mind as a Finn, considering I'm a fit 23-year old whom has recently done military service lol
It's cozy here under the nuclear umbrella
I'm sure you guys will be a valuable addition to the alliance but please don't just become another Iceland. There is always a danger the next US president might just lose interest.
@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 Oh we certainly cannot afford to become another Iceland with a hostile dictatorship lashing out amid its demographic decline
@@andrex6288 You are also in a vital position to help the balkan states not to get forcefully russified if russia would ever try a "special military operation" there
@@MetalKingII You probably mean Baltic states, but yes absolutely
As a Finnish, I think people analyze too much why Finland joined NATO. A very simple reason for that is that a big majority of Finns in pollings were in favor of joining and it would have been politically damaging in elections to be opposed to that. This is not the only reason but I do think it made it impossible not to join. And I say this because even if the Ukraine war never happened and if polling for some other reason not related to Russia would have shown similar change we would have still joined NATO. Most Finn voters are not very knowledgeable about geopolitics and personal feelings drive people's opinions the most.
Neutrality is a national mindset and it seems Finns just aren't very neutral anymore, for a good reason.
@@arnarogbjorn Neutrality is also perspective, Finland has cooperated a lot with NATO, had military exercises with the USA, and our whole defense force is designed to defend against invasion from the east against an enemy who has exactly the same military capability as Russia. The only reason we plan to defend other directions is if we think the enemy will try flanking maneuvers. After the fall of the soviet union, the whole military has been built on the premise that we can as fast as possible join nato when the time comes as it did. Finland also joined sanctions against Russia after the Crimean invasion.
Yes, I agree that neutrality is a national mindset but in this case, the biggest change will be the other nations mindset towards Finland's neutrality.
I mean, plenty of individual Finns are still neutral. Heck, I'd say almost every human on the planet is technically neutral when it comes to international politics, in the sense that the average human, no matter what nation they live in, is only going to be concerned with their immediate surroundings, or whatever large events will affect them most. That sounds pretty practical to me.
True! For the average person, feelings are much more important than facts and logic. And I mean this as a neutral statement, not as a negative thing.
No wonder Finland is so left wing.
Feelings cause irrationality most times.
As a Mexican, although our own military is internally a mess (and worryingly, each moment carrying more and more power in civil politics), formal neutrality is at least partially good for us, and the Mexican passport has relatively high power for a Latin American country
Mexican here...
Mexico's neutrality is based on the concept of "No intervention" because basically: "We had been invaded by foreign powers, so we will no support those kind of interventions" In the past (When the Estrada's Doctrine was established), Mexico had an active role for neutrality (And maybe wanted to emulate the current examples of Sweden and Finland)
As a little example, we have the NS annexation of Austria, Mexico was the first (If not, the only) country that actively condemned that.
Now, today, Mexico's foreign policy acts more like "I don't want to know anything about other's problems, and I'll not criticize your government, so I can became a mediator when the negotiations appears."
If Mexico would keep practice the original Doctrina Estrada, they they would the be first nation in the world to criticize the Russian Government for invade Ukraine.
Today, Mexico's Neutrality looks more like being a passive country in times of crisis.
So many people says: If you are not with me, you are against me. This was used by mainly Venezuelans and Americans because Mexico refused to not give recognition to Maduro's regime, or the government decided to ignore Ukraine into the arms request (but to be honest, that was going to be impossible because Mexico had never do that kind of stuff) So, this is why many people believe that Mexico is basically "on my enemies side".
Now, I need to also mention...
Many Mexicans are very untruthful on Americans because many politicians in the USA say that they want the American Army to enter to Mexico and "help" with the Drug War. And Mexicans usually think more like if the USA will do something similar to what Russia is doing with Ukraine, or what the US did with Iraq, or Afghanistan. (And the political Atmosphere in the USA doesn't help anything, because some Americans Politicians are just to aggressive against Mexico, and it's people, and a sizeable number of people support them)
So, many people believe that there are real posibilites if war with the Americans. I think that this would the the most stupid idea that Americans would do, because well... a very sizeable percentage of trade is with Mexico, and around 35 millions of people in the USA have to do something with Mexico. So, that means more instability inside the USA.
Now in terms of war, Mexico is inside the Northern Command for the USA. That means that if anyone invades Mexico, the USA will consider it as an invasion to their territory and will protect Mexico basically for free.
But now, the only country that technically could invade Mexico and partially success in the beginning, is the same United States.
This is why (I think) They try to not piss off Russia and China, because many people believe that Russia or China would intercede for us in case of an American Invasion.
That is the little detail why I think the Mexican Neutrality looks weird.
If Mexico were more so much more stable, and relations with the USA were more relaxed and less tense (Such as Switzerland has with the European Union/NATO) I think Mexico would be the perfect Finland/Sweden Active Neutral country.
I feel you mexican friend as another latino person from a """neutral""" country
This was illuminating. Especially the part about why mexico is so buddy buddy with their biggest trading partner's enemies.
Unrelated note, but I doubt the US has any intentions of using soldiers to combat the narco wars in Mexico maybe in the 80s unlikely now. Those politicians use it to rile up their voting base, and show they're "tough on crime". Obviously the first step would be to get Americans to stop using so many damn drugs, but it's easier for politicians ( and us) to blame Mexico for our shortcomings. Wish our neighbors to the South the best and sorry some of us are asshats.
Lol nobody wants to invade Mexico, the only reason why some americans suggest to do something about the cartels and drug war is because it directly affects them in either spillover, or the many mexican-americans families who are being affected.
As the saying goes "Mexico, so far from god, so close to the United States"...
Heii Kraut im swiss.
Its not 5 years, its a roughly 1.5 years of Basic Training (Rekrutenschule RS) followed by a total of 6 Repeat-trainings (Wiederholungskurs WK)with each being 3 weeks long.
Love ur channel bye
Beat me to it. The basic is something like 1.5-2 in total, but more for higher ranks.
Hi Swiss, I’m dad
Huh? It s more around 1 year total. Around 300 days for me.
You're right. I forgot I "did further" xD
If they actually consider you. When I was drafted I felt like 50% was UT and sorted out on the first day at the Rekrutierungszentrum. But then again, I feel this could change with the new situation
Started my college undergraduate career in international politics 4 years ago, largely because of the videos from this channel. I graduated today, came back home, and saw this new video up.
Not sure what the message here
Is supposed to be, but thanks for inspiring me through my academic career. ☺️
I Hope Kraut sees this msg
What’s the plan now you’ve graduated
I got that degree and another liberal arts one, worked in politics for a bit and now do logistics
I will not pay for my kids to get a degree in this , there’s enough info online
Congratulation for your graduation.
I guess the message is if neutrality makes sence or not.
The answers i think is it depends on the situation..
I also have seen better videos from kraut..
As an American, I've never really thought about how many countries in Europe/Asia have traditionally been neutral, with the exceptions of Switzerland and Sweden. Thanks for making such a well produced, informative video!
well thats because as a american you really only have 4 countries with in 1000 miles of you that you need to give a shit about. russia, canada, mexico and cuba too a much lesser degree. Europe doesn't matter what happens there really too the average american. there are also just way fewer countries per mile in the america's then there are in europe and asia.
You and Perun are my favourite long-form content creators. Cool to hear you recommend his channel.
Always love to hear your takes, Kraut. I may not agree all the time, but they certainly make me think!
Tf are you doing here?
Hehe I see where you get your inspiration for the server. Good to see you about!
I only listen to videos that I already agree with because thinking is for dweebs
I srsly didn't expect to see a comment from you here.
Hey aren’t you that world building guy?
Mexican here. I just wanted to add regarding Mexican neutrality, that it was used as an excuse against accountability. On the foreign front, Mexico used the principle of non-intervention to keep foreign institutions from looking into state abuses and corruption. It also gave them some diplomatic clout since they were not seen as wanting to take advantage of other countries. Domestically, the regime touted its "defense" of weaker countries against imperialistic governments to garner support, especially among the country's intelligentsia, anti-American as they were (and many still are). In spite of this, there were some legitimate successes, like the Chapultepec Peace Agreement between the Salvadoran government and the guerrilla. I know this info was not relevant to your video's point, but that's what the comments are for! Awesome analysis, as usual.
So in other words, the social-political structures of colonial spain adapted for an independent Mexico yada yada then adapted to continue into the future.
Mexico is neutral because 1. It poses 0 threat to any real nation of power 2. Mexico would have to be aggressive with the blessing of DC.
Mexico is a de facto American protectorate. This is because Mexico is an extremely critical part of the US economy, and becoming more so as industry moves out of China. If you were to look at a map of economic flows, you would discover northern Mexico to be more economically integrated with the US than with central Mexico.
@@gavros9636 Unfortunately, that is the truth. Colonialism is alive and well in Mexico. It has just evolved into paternalism and caudillismo.
@@SU1C1D3xPR4D4 Exactly. Anything Mexico does must have approval from DC, even critiques against Washington. Politicians that claim to be "anti-yanqui" also acquiesce. Just look at AMLO. His rhetoric is anti-American (except, tellingly, regarding Trump), but he does Washington's bidding with regard to undesired migrants.
This video was very insightful. I completely agree with you on this topic and I'm glad to see people talking about neutral countries in Europe and having a strong opinion on weather it's right or wrong and what they can do with neutrality. Sadly my country does not have the option of neutrality being America's next door neighbor.
The trouble with Neutrality since WW2 is that, aside from a few localized holdovers, a major factor was anti-Americanism in domestic politics. Such a childish stance only existed because the Americans never gave a damn about their internal political debates and the Soviets tacitly chose to ignore these states (trying to exert influence wasn't worth the costs). Even Swedish neutrality managed just a token influence on the causes they championed, never seriously imagining that their own independence was at stake. President Kekkonen's achievements deserve that much more applause: Sweden didn't have the Red Army on its doorstep. That's why Neutrality was so commonly seen as a stance of the cowards: there was never a real threat to anyone invading most neutral states, merely the risk of a disapproving glance from Washington.
kraut is the type of youtuber to make a video about the how living rooms has changed over time and turn it into a discussion about the socio economic secution of the world
Well, there is a huge impact of society on how we build our habitats. Kraut has actually discussed a similar topic (how backyards are built in countries with high corruption) in his video on the Greek debt crisis.
@@hlibushok reminds me of that phrase, "sometimes, the curtains are blue because the author wrote that the curtains are blue."
In real life, though, it's just as likely that the curtains are blue because somebody made a geopolitical cockup two steps short of WWIII and it meant that blue dye was cheap as chips, or something.
@@MarkusAldawn I prefer "Nothing happens without reason"
Even the author who puts no meaning behind the blue curtains chose blue for a reason. They might imagine it would look nice based on aesthetic tastes inherited from their values and life experiences that are in turn derived from the places they've lived.
At its the simplest, anyway.
@@monsieurdorgat6864 very true, very true.
Great video! One small correction though, Switzerland has actually fought in several wars since 500 years ago, notably the Napoleonic Wars. It was at the Congress of Vienna (1815) that Swiss Neutrality was ratified. Interestingly, the ratification was delayed by the coalitions when Napoleon left exile. The coalition countries finally granted Swiss neutrality after the end of the War of the 7th Coalition. So it has been closer to 200 years, not 500 years, that Swiss neutrality has been in place.
Well to be exact Switzerland has been neutral since 1515. But this was brought to an end when the french invaded in 1798, after that Switzerland fought alongside the french as a puppet state of France. And Switzerland also declared on France 1815 when it was forced to do so by the European powers so Switzerland did fought wars but is wasn't it's choice. That's why he talk about 500 years of neutrality.
The Swiss, not the Swiss Confederacy, fought in every European war up to well into the 19th century when mercenary service abroad was finally forbidden.
The Swiss cantons in the meantime had some small civil war of their own...
One minor point on Ireland that I think is worth bearing in mind - America. It's widely accepted that they're the world's security guarantors, albeit grudgingly. They love to show support, but that support invariably wanes. The two countries that America will never abandon are Israel but more heavily, Ireland, these ties are deeply social and bipartisan. America funneled millions to the IRA for years and there were no calls to stop like there are with Ukraine and all other conflicts they exited messily and the funds going to the IRA were personal and private, not state.
America probably won't go to war for Ukraine, but it would for Ireland. If Ireland needed boots on the ground to defend against Russia, America would be there in a heartbeat. UK would almost certainly help due to N. Ireland and wanting to make up for repeated genocides, but even the UK going all in and moving to a war footing (unlikely), wouldn't hold a candle to America showing a slight interest.
America has over 50 attack submarines of various types, with more on the way, the UK has 7, none of which are currently operational.
I love this message and I am commenting to help getting this seen more. Love the work, be well and enjoy your breath!
Have not watched the whole video yet, but Finland and Sweden were only neutral ever on paper, not on practice. I think that is an important point. We here in Finland have always been anti russian and pro western.
Our whole millitary doctrine has been for 80 years now how to best fight against the russians.
My Grand father fought against the russians in the continuation war and got a leg injury, bad enough that he had to use a walking stick for the rest of his life. And i remember this as a kid, our whole nation remembers this. People have their own grand fathers who never came back.
That is very true but many people don't understand that Finland had to remain apparently neutral to appease Russia despite Finland's full distrust of Russia. Hence all the underground bunkers in Finland in such numbers per capita not seen anywhere else in the world.
Correct me if Im wrong but I belive Sweden has never claimed officially to be netural instead the term non-belligerent was used.
@@joythoughtTrue we did appease Russia during the cold war. So on paper we were friendly with them but on practice we prepeared for a possible new russian invasion, thats why millitary service is manditory. And why we have so many underground bunkers.
We know the russians just love to bomb innocent children and civillians don’t we? We see that in Ukraine and they did bomb Helsinki in both winter and continuation war.
@@TheZeyon Sweden has officially been neutral since about 1834, but non-belligerent specifically in the Soviet war against Finland, so that Sweden could send gear to Finland. Then back to neutral(not counting conspiracy theories) until either now or when we joined the EU.
make no mistake though, if Russia had invaded Finland instead of Ukraine, you would not be receiving any more help than Ukraine is receiving now.
The mandatory bunkers in urbanism projects and defense against a possible Russian invasion in Finland shows that neutrality is not living in peace of mind of not being invaded by the neighbouring country wanting a chunk of you (if not all of you).
Now that I'm rewatching this video, I can't help but be struck by the fact that Ireland and Switzerland are basically on their way to do exactly that. Ireland with their relentless activity regarding the war in Gaza, and Switzerland with the massive incoming peace summit for Ukraine that is being organized.
Great very informative Videos. Thank you Kraut!
Switzerland was never really neutral, there is a joke that encapsulates this perfectly: A Swiss banker does business with two countries that are at war with each other, a friend of his asks him why he does it, if whoever wins he will lose half of his business? to which the banker replies: "Doing business with both allows me to determine who wins the war, and that's my real business"
The Iron Bank of Bravos.
Until a bunch of Mossad-like agents arrives in the banker's house and the last thing he hears is "Доброго вечора ми з України!" We would donate to that org endlessly. Until ALL who worked with russians end up the same.
Always love your conversations Kraut!! Thanks for helping your US audience understand the complexities in Europe.
Retweet^
@@tylernaturalist6437 this isn't twitter
@@regarded9702 r/Whooosh
@@regarded9702 why not
Here, here 🍻
Yooo Perun got mentioned! Thanks Kraut for bringing attention to such an underrated channel. Kiwi land rise up!
I learned a lot from this video. Very informative
As a swiss viewer I would like to correct that we do not need to serve for 5 years. The solders that do not proceed to an officer position serve a total amount of days a bit shorter than a year, usually distributed over multiple years. But it is true that our army is rather large and expensive for our size.
Switzerland spent 0.8% of GDP on the military in 2022, which is actually very little. Every NATO member spent more than that except for the very small countries of Luxembourg and Iceland and the overall NATO average is more than three times as high at 2.5%.
Switzerland piggybacking off of NATO and EU and giving virtually nothing in return. Not our finest hour.
I belive he may have meant that we serve more or less over 5 years (but only 3 weeks). I agree it is confusing the way he said it. And for our size we pay very little ;) check out the budgets of our neighbors in comparison to their army size and gdp :D
The army budget by GDP is little, in absolute numbers it is with 6 billions per year still in the top 35 of the world according to the Stockholm Int. Peace Research Institute. Which isn't great but not terrible.
@@yes.7852 You have to keep in mind that a conscript is contributing almost nothing to the economy while larping war. people generally work between 40-50 years in their life, and all men in Swizerland lose one of those years. This leads to an over 1% loss in GDP for the country. However, Nato doesn't count loss of GDP as defense spending, because you are not directly paying for it, so the military spending seems small, even though in reality it is much larger.
Switzerland joined the UN only in 2002 for the exact same reasons. Just to demonstrate how slow that process is.
Thank you for the video. I learned a lot.
Great video! Very informative and interesting. Thank you!
as a swiss i think the reason why we see neutrality different is because its no longer as profitable as it used to be. back then much of our wealth came directly from things like banking, where neutrality is very helpfull. today banks are still important but not as much as our export industry. most of our export goes to our neighbour countries, that are also the most powerfull in the EU. We are dependent on free trade and labour from them.
The EU does not want to give us all the benefits of a member without payment and thats why there is a big discussion on how much we have to pay.
If we did not sanction russia these benefits whould be at risk, and that whould be a terrible for our country
How do you see the decisions made by the Swiss government as it relates to arms and their arms industry?
not allowing swiss weapons beeing exportet to ukraine is sure not good for our arms industry and i think it should be allowed. but we dont need a big army anymore. as i said, we have good relations with all our neighbours and we dont need to spend so much on defence because of geograhpy
@@nickhtk6285 don't think much of the swiss or the government would have minded.
but we basically gutted your weapons industry, with those strict regulations long ago. the reason it's so strict, is that it is a slippery slope to make exemptions. you quickly end up with the government giving in to business interests, undermining the will of the people.
Swiss neutrality is mainly due to our various language groups and therefore a concession we make towards our emidiate neighbours.
Switzerland was not neutral towards south africa, and has no problems to compromise, when there are no internal interests to not compromise.
Full stop on that EU point: You lot REJECTED EU membership in a referendum in 2002. For the same reasons the UK left the EU.
Little correction: in Budapest memorandum beyond US and Russia, UK and France also participated
As a Greek personal, I think you're absolutely right about neutrality. Here's the thing: what do we gain from aiding Ukraine in this war they're fighting against Russia? I know you'll say it's the right and moral thing to do and I understand that, but I really feel like it's shooting ourselves in the foot here, for two main reasons. First of all, who will help us? Greece doesn't face any danger from Russia, but a far larger threat from within NATO, a threat which nobody recognizes and with which we've had problems for a long time now, but NATO, with the exception of France, doesn't seem to care. That is Erdogan's Turkey, which has ambitious neo-ottoman ambitions to conquer our lands and expand in the Mediterranean and Middle East. The only reason why NATO is helping Ukraine now is that America is fearful of Russia becoming too strong. I don't think they'd help us with the same fervor in a similar case, which is why we've had to increase our military spending so much, despite being an indebted bankrupt country. Our only allies are other regional powers which have an interest in containing Turkish aggression and expansionism, namely Egypt, Israel, France, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. We've been forced to cooperate with autocratic Arab gulf dictators to save our skin... And even worse, we might even have to cooperate with Russia for that. Because at the end of the day, and this is the most important thing, Russian power and influence in the Caucasus balances out Turkish expansionism. If Russia is weakened considerably, Erdogan will capitalize on that to dominate the Caucasus. By helping Ukraine against Russia, we'd be digging our own graves, as painful as this sounds.
I hope the best for the Ukrainian people in this time of their hardship. May you soon have peace and prosperity in your land
As a young boomer, I was geopolitically stunned at Finnish and Swedish applications to NATO. Honestly, even more than the Wall falling because that was kind of just a matter of time and, well, you know, economics. To me, this move means another sort of Wall is going up, its form and historical significance as yet determined
Having lived in Vienna for 4 years, I think the Austrian approach can be summed up in one phrase; “Schau ma mal dann seh ma schon”.
Translation ?
Google say “Take a look and then see”
@@zurielsss "We're gonna take a look and then see what we'll do"
@@zurielsss better translation: Fuck around and find out
Very nice, but if you/they really want to be more Swiss, the phrase would be "Zerscht luege mer mol denn gseh mer scho!"
@@zurielsss "let's see what happens and then we know what's going on"
As a Mexican, I loved the node to the president daily morning "conference".
In that matter, a video analyzing the current regime and the severe controversy it has caused among mexicans could be helpful. If you decide to embark on it, I can act as a "ground agent" here in Mexico City providing information or translations of certain things.
props for using your platform to promote civil engagement!
Just want to say that I really appreciated this video! Thank you.
Another thing I find important to note is geographical location. Finland and Sweden share a border with Russia. It is easy for Switzerland and Austria to be neutral when they do not share a border with Russia. Of note should be also that Soviet and later Russian planes have constantly been crossing into Finnish airspace constantly as well despite the Finlandization.
Sweden has a border with Russia?
Please read the surrender treaty by Finns after WWII - who invaded Soviet Union with the Germans in 1941-1944. Hello? Oh, from prosperous and peaceful boarder with Russia, who released Finns from WWII treaties, into being a lapdog of the Americans who will use Finns as bait [ see Ukraine]
@@AgnieszkaNishka Finland invaded to take back the territory the Soviets stole in the previous war
or my country, Luxembourg. We arent neutral (actually one of nato founding members), but tbh who would attack us, sandwiched between france and germany? No one.
Austria did share a border with the Warsaw pact for 35 years, and it was occupied by the Soviets and the Allies after WW2 for nearly 10 years. One of the main pillars of it gaining back its independence was Austria becoming and remaining a neutral country.
The Finns had to fight alone.
When they had to fight again, they joined the flipping AXIS because at least they'd fight with them.
That's how much fighting alone sucks.
That turned out to be very unfortunate for Finland.
More like Finland _joined with and supported the Nazis_
They never joined the axis. They only fought alongside then against a common enemy...
@@theemperor-wh40k18 "They were not allies. They just fought together as brothers in arms against a common enemy."
They were an honorary axis member, the only reason they joined the axis was because Russia was an existential threat.
Thank you, Mr. Kraut.
Thank you for appealing to people. It seems like a rare thing, but it gives me hope.
Irish Citizen living in the US here. Ireland is deeply connected economically and culturally through emigration to both the US and to the UK, even acting as a stopover for US troops during the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. Ireland's neutrality is complex and different to Sweden and Switzerland. Any threat to the island could be easily repelled by US naval & air forces, as could any threat to fibre cables. Given the lack of a reason for Russia to invade an island on the outskirts of Europe with little to no strategic use for them, it's far more likely and appropriate that Ireland enters into a defense agreement with the US to protect international infrastructure (cables) within it's territorial waters. The idea of Russia projecting air/naval power to directly threaten Ireland's territory in any way is far fetched given it cannot even defend it's fleet in the Black Sea.
The "scuffles" mentioned in the video were between fishing boats carrying protestors and a Russian ship, not a military encounter. As for nuclear threat - that again seems overblown since Ireland is not a nuclear power and Russia would have no strategic reason to attack Ireland.