What’s NATO All About?

like that. You know, hopefully this episode is coming out and we're getting some some guest listeners who are like, what is this native thing all about? Who are these dumb dumbs? They can explain it, and so I like, I like you lobbying out in a little factoid for everyone. Oh yeah, well that's how we do. We tread lightly, we don't overstep our bounds, and we laugh about factoids. So welcome. This is stuff you should know. My name

is Chuck and I'm a co host along with Josh Clark. Yeah, Hi, and we explain things and it's in my humorous way over the course of you know, a lot of podcasts do this every episode. They explain what their missions I would I would go berserk, man, I would have giant patches in my head where I've just pulled hair clean out. But we like to explain things in a in an approachable way to the common person, that is to say, that is what we are. We don't have lofty goals.

There you go. Why did you write that one down? That was amazing? Yeah, we should do this every time and just let me wing it every time. Okay. I think we just came up with a new format in twenty two. So Chuck, we're talking about NATO, and if you didn't know, if you didn't know, we're in trouble. But if you the listener, especially the new ones, didn't know, NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is the kind of name that you can make your eyes

glaze over with just one pass. It's just that boring sounding, right, Yeah, But it's a pretty I mean, I don't know, maybe this is an opinion of my own, but I think it's pretty fundamentally uh integral body to the world order. I mean, it's certainly proved itself as such. And you know, we're Americans, we were kind of raised to think like NATO's fine and great, and it's a good thing. Don't even don't even bother thinking about it unless we need you to, and if so, we'll alert you through the

media and then you can start thinking about it. Um. But if you dig into it a little bit and you actually like, look at the stuff that it does, the stuff that it has done, the reasons it was founded, and the reasons it's operating now, it actually does make a tremendous amount of sense. If you're a fan of democracy. You know, even if you're not a fan of military operations, which I mean, like I'm not, I would rather everything just be at peace. It would be great if we

could do everything through diplomacy, right, Um. But so even if you're not like, yeah, we gotta go get him, let's just get over there and shoot everybody. Um, you could still be like a supporter of NATO just because of the stability it does provide, like you were saying, or has provided all this time. I I and yeah, I mean in recent stuff with Ukraine and Russia has definitely made me rethink it in a more positive light

and that it's more essential than I thought it was. Yeah, and we'll get into that obviously along the way in this episode and sort of explain what's going on in some detail. But I also just the idea that NATO is outdated and of a bygone era and not useful in a waste of money is I think, um folly and Uh, We're not gonna go down that road too much. We're just gonna probably explain how it works and hopefully

through that to display why it's still necessary. The thing is, Chuck, is that particular opinion of NATO wasn't necessarily be wrong a year ago, two years ago, five years ago. And it's not like you and I just woke up to

the importance of NATO. Literally, the world has changed in the last two months since Russia invaded Ukraine and NATO, which was struggling to find its way its purpose up until about two thousand and fourteen, when the last time Russia invaded Ukraine, UM suddenly became like important and had a reason to exist again. So things have changed that dramatically that a thirty nation allegiance organization that had been kind of like what are you what are you guys

doing again? What's the point of all this was now one of the most important organizations in the entire world again. Well yeah, and I think there's a lesson in complacency there. Uh, Like it's like if you had this old panic room installed in your house in the seventies and and you know here in were like, you know what this panic room. I think I'm just going to turn it into a Benga hall. It's getting kind of useless. And then all of a sudden the purge happens, and you remember why

you needed that panic room. Yeah, so the purge happened to Ukraine in February of this year, But the purge was always just sitting out there possibly could happen. And I guess that's the complacency I'm talking about. I think no one thought anything like, oh, everything's like, everything's fine these days, like Europe is not going to be at war,

we don't need this stuff. And then but that possibility is always out there, and I think just the mirror and this isn't me, this is you know, highly respected people say that just the mere mention of exiting NATO and dissolving NATO emboldened people like Putin, Yes, so, um, what sucks is like the idea that that we're living in a world where NATO is essential, where that the purge is kind of always out there. Um, it didn't

necessarily be that way. And if if you if you're uncomble living in that that kind of reality, if you're if you're like this reality actually sucks that the purge is out there and we have to have NATO. Now, we have to spend all this extra money on defense and all this stuff, and you know, peace seems to be you know, up in arms in question. Again, blame the people who invade other countries. Don't blame the people who have allied to fight against that kind of thing

in the name of democracy, Well said sir. Should we go back to the beginning. Yeah, let's talk about the history of NATO, because it's a fairly um young organization comparatively speaking, like if you compare it to you know, systems of writing, it's very young, that's true, or the sun sure, very very young. Huh uh. So let's go back in time. I guess we should jump in the old way back machine. Rank it up. It's been a while.

You're showing off for the new people. Huh. I know, we have a way back machine and we can go back in time to take that April fourth, nineteen forty nine is when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed initially by the original uh the O G s the twelve founding member countries, which were ourselves here in the United States Canada are hat to the North. I like that you're adding a little bit to each one. But can you sing it as a song? No? I can't. Shoot. I just did did you hear that? I did? Uh?

Where else? The United Kingdom, our friends across the pond, Uh France, those folks who make such good gravies, Uh Italy, which is all about those pillowy beautiful what are they called croissants? Well, sure, but I was thinking of the pasta. That's uh the gnocchi. Oh yeah, that's not pillowe. It's dense, it's densest pillowe. I don't think that's gnocchi. I think that's like um is delicious, but it's Yournoki's two dens. Isn't gnocchi? Stuff with something though? No key, Oh, I'm

thinking of parogis Portugal delicious wines. Uh Norway. I just here they bike a lot over there. Denmark they bike even more. Iceland is not Greenland. People get those confused Belgium. I've been there, and that's where NATO is headquartered. We'll get to that. The Netherlands, they are largely below sea level. And then Luxembourg. I flew out of there once. It's very small. It is extremely small. And I've been to Belgium too, by the way. Uh, yeah, Belgium is nice.

And then you got Greece and Turkey in fifty two West Germany and fifty five Spain and eighty two, and then in n when the Soviet Union collapsed, it was like a free for all of people and countries going oh me me, me, me, me, me me. Over the next eighteen years, Yeah, and NATO was saying, yes, come be friends, come become democracies. This is great for US. UM. And that was that. We'll talk about it kind of considered. UM.

There's a guy named James stev RDIs. He was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from two thousand nine to two UM and he put it as that that was kind of the beginning of NATO two point oh. But

NATO one point oh. The original mission of NATO was very clear, it was very purposeful, it was very complicated in execution, and it required tons of money, especially considering there were only twelve to sixteen members from two right um and the mission was contained the Soviet Union because after World War Two, Europe was just tow up from the flow up and it was up for grabs. And one of the first things the Soviet Union did was start pouring all of its economy into its military and

say sing, okay, you're part of the Soviet Union. Now you're part of the Soviet Union. You're part of the Soviet Union. They drew whatevery eighties, kid Um knew was a line between Europe and the Eastern Bloc called the Iron Curtain. And you did not penetrate the Iron Curtain. The Iron Curtain penetrated you. All right, y'all think I'm glad you got that. Uh, that is true. And the one of the biggest parts of NATO, that's sort of one of the most fundamental parts of it, is Article five,

which we won't read in full. You should go look it up online though and read it. But it basically, but we could sing it. It basically says, you know what these are all like, NATO isn't a military force. It is a bunch of countries and their military forces, and it's really up to each member to decide what they want to do when it comes to supporting an ally like you don't have to use military force. Uh you can though under an international law, but you basically

it's up to each country. It's a it's a weird organization and that they don't vote on things. It's all just sort of hammered out as a consensus, including who the NATO Secretary General is. They don't even vote on that. They just sort of agree to who's gonna take that role and um which will you know, we'll get to what they do later, but it is I did find it fascinating that they don't you know, they don't sit down.

I mean, how many countries are there now, thirty? They don't sit down and have a thirty country vote when it comes to anything. They just they just work it out. That means sometimes some countries are gonna get more of what they want and some times are gonna have to acquiesce and get less, Yeah, which I find kind of neat.

But overall, most of the countries are in favor of doing whatever NATO is doing, or they're opposed to it, and NATO doesn't do something so that Article five, the basis of it is what's called collective defense and the

maintenance of this. This is the thing that probably binds more than anything else the thirty countries that are members of NATO, is that if you attack one NATO country, you are effectively attacking all thirty NATO countries, and those thirty NATO right, those thirty NATO countries will bring their substantial, significant military might onto you the attacker who attacked that

one country. That's ultimately the main and original purpose of NATO because when when NATO was formed and Russia was consolidating its military, Europe was not what The countries of Europe were in no shape to defend themselves. So they entered into this pact with the United States and Canada, who said, we'll come over and help you guys. And by the way, so you know, I hope you're listening. If you attack any of these guys, if you try to expand beyond that iron curtain, we're coming in like

it's an attack on us. That was the basis of NATO, and it's been upheld ever since, although it's only been in once in the history um since nineteen yeah. And not only does that mean that these countries aren't getting attacked, which is uh been pretty ironclad. It means that other countries, like obviously in ninety one, like I said, with the fall of the Soviet Union, over the next eighteen years are scrambling to be a part of it because a lot of these are smaller countries who no way could

they stand up to a superpower like Russia. Uh so they were they want to be in NATO, and we'll talk about Ukraine and they're you know, whether or not their desire was to be a part of NATO and where that kind of lies now with the current situation. But the point is these countries like Slovenia and Albania and Croatia and Montenegro, like they want to be a

part of NATO because they need friends. Well they yeah, they do need friends because yeah, if if there was Russian aggression against them, they would just completely they would have no no choice. They I don't even think they could fight back in the way that Ukraine did. Some of these countries are so small and have such small militaries.

So yeah, so right now as it stands, as far as Article five is concerned, if any country attacks North Macedonia to the United States military, it is attacking the United States. That's just part of the NATO treaty, right, And and there's that's a point of contention from what I saw a chuck that that some people are like, Okay, are we really going to send our troops over to

like die in North Macedonia if Russia attacks it? And as far as our Article five is concerned, yeah, you would like you would do that, like that's part of the treaty, Like they are a NATO member nation. And to some people it doesn't make sense that you would sacrifice you know, blood and treasure as they say in North Macedonia. To other people, it's it's exactly sensible because if North Macedonia is a NATO country, you can put

whatever missiles you want in North Macedonia. They're a NATO country, and so there's strategically located, and their strategic location makes them extraordinarily valuable as a NATO member. So it makes sense in some ways, it doesn't make sense in other ways. But overall, the general idea is that the more NATO countries you have in Europe, the stronger the whole thing is, even including the little countries. Everybody has a role to play. Well, yeah,

and not only that, you know, the little countries. Uh, if you might think it's not worth expending all this kind of money to help and you know, maybe American

soldiers lives to protect them. The dominoes can fall very quickly when you have somebody like Putin in power, and um, the world wants most of the world wants peace, and that can very easily be very tenuous if these little, smaller countries start following like dominoes and all of a sudden you look up and the world map is being redrawn, right exactly, So that's exactly what they're trying to prevent

by by stringing together this cohesive group of NATO countries. Right. Um. On the other hand, if you are in Russia and you're in the Russian military, or say you're the head of Russia, when you see all these little countries that are along your border now suddenly saying we're a democracy and we're now NATO members and we can put missiles aimed at you, like right along your border, that's a huge menace to you. And um, that in some ways

explains the aggression that Putin carried out in Ukraine. Among some observers, that's not that hasn't been is necessarily the stated goal of the invasion of Ukraine. But a lot of Russian experts say this, this actually is is a huge response to NATO. He doesn't want to bring Ukraine into the Russian Federation necessarily. I remember when this started a few weeks ago. Um Emily, who was my wife? If you're new to the show, she gets mentioned occasionally.

Josh's a wife, name you me? She gets mentioned occasionally. We also have pets. I have a daughter. They might pop up as well, but I doubt it. My pet is my daughter and they Emily was just like, why what is you know? She didn't really understand what was going on at first, She said, what does Russia want with Ukraine? And I just very simply because it's more complex than that. But I was basically like, it's like

the oldest, the oldest reason in world history. It's land, and it's a big chunk of land, and where it sits next to Russia, it's strategically it's like it's troublesome for them to have uh NATO interests there, and it's troublesome for NATO to have Russian interest there. So it's you know, it's funny, like when you look back and

they're not funny, it's sad. But when you look back at like, there are many reasons for war, but like one of the biggest ones has always just been land acquisition and holdings totally and usually along your border, and you just expand. I mean, it was like expanding the Empire before for like resources and stuff, and I think that still clearly goes on, but it also in this case is like wanting a buffer between NATO and Russia on the one hand, Right, should we take a break.

Let's take a break, so we'll be right back and we'll talk a little bit about some of the mess that NATO two point oh was in which led us to NATO three point oh. Okay, so we're back, and um, we're talking about what again Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis called, and I think Time magazine like two eighteen NATO two point oh and NATO two point oh came about because the whole purpose of NATO, which was then tain the Soviet Union out of Europe um, became pointless because there

was no Soviet Union anymore. After I believe the USSR broke up right. And on the one hand, when it first happened, Chuck, it was like you were saying, like, all of these these former Russian satellite states started scrambling to become part of NATO, and NATO was welcoming them with open arms. Um. And that that first part of that NATO two point oh, that second general point of NATO made a lot of sense, and it was consolidating

Europe into an even more peaceful, more democratic area. But then after that kind of stabilized and they got there that process under underway, um, it started to kind of like lose its point or its purpose a little bit. Yeah. I mean, I think post Cold War, the complacency set in and people did start to think, like what are we doing? And NATO two point oh said, well, you know what we can. Uh. We can engage in counter

terrorism uh campaigns. UH. We don't like the piracy that's going around the world, so we can help to combat that, uh. And we can get involved in these other uh in combating these other activities that are detrimental to world order and world peace. But this is kind of some of the stuff that not only did it, it caused some consternation in the citizens of the world, like what are

we doing here with NATO. It was also within NATO there was a lot of infighting within the board of like what you know or the council should I say, what should we do? I don't think we should be doing this. We should be doing this. And since they have to hammer everything out and agree even sometimes to disagree in order to do something, it was a little

bit fractured. On the interior, Yeah, big time because a lot of people are like, what the heck does combating piracy in the Gulf of Aiden have to do with protecting Europe, m the USSR, you know, the Cold Wars over what are we doing? Like, yeah, let's let's keep NATO together because who knows what what's going to be needed?

But do we need to engage in this adventurism? And then UM the Supreme Alley Commander position, which is the head of all NATO forces, that is like by nature in the treaty, I think always an American, so the Americans always de facto and also in a lot of

different ways really lead NATO. UM. But in the early two thousand's America squandered a lot of its credibility, a lot of its legitimacy in adventurism like invading Iraq unprovoked illegally um, which by the way, NATO had nothing to do with because the rest of the NATO nations are most of the other NATO nations were like, this is not right. We're not going anywhere near it, which is a mark in NATO's favor if you ask me, um that they saw like this is not this is not

a just war as an invasion um. But that that kind of stuff like really kind of made other member nations kind of question American leadership. Whereas up to that point, or a little before that point, it was just like America was leading the way, NATO was following, and it was all good. And then after that things started to

really kind of fracture and crack. Right. So this is sort of when Ukraine um comes into the picture, and that you don't have to be a NATO member to deal with NATO and to work with NATO and to read a lot of the benefits of NATO so they can partner with non NATO countries. This started back in ninety one with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the goal here is to basically to arm people, to

train people to ensure their democracy stays stable. Uh. And you know when that started happening, non NATO countries got interested in this kind of partnership, specifically Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and uk Rain. So all of a sudden, these uh, in the early nineties, these other countries are knocking on the door saying, hey, we don't want to be members

because they can you can join. Any European country can join NATO as long as they, you know, do what's required, which will you know, we'll get to that in a minute. But Ukraine has been working with them through what's called

the Comprehensive Assistance Package. They've been receiving NATO support. Uh. And this is the kind of thing that you know, Zelinski has a lot of this quagmire that is happening now is Russia was afraid that they were officially going to join NATO because Zelinski approved the National Security strategy, which it was almost like they were seriously kicking the

tires on one another. Finally, yeah, I think they. He said in September twenty twenty that that Ukraine's aim was to become a full member of NATO after being a partner for you know, three decades but basically um or at least two full decades um and even before that, the whole thing kind of kicked off. There was a summit in Bucharest called the Well the Bucharest Summit in two thousand and eight, and at that meeting, Georgia and Ukraine declared that it was their aim to become NATO members.

And that seems to be at least geo politically speaking, what what kind of kicked the tensions off big time and led to the two thousand fourteen invasion of Ukraine and Crimea and then also led to the two invasion that's going on right now. That's right. A little more nuts and bolts about NATO itself. They are, like we said at the beginning, they're headquartered in Brussels, and uh, everything's done by consensus. And you mentioned the military part

of NATO. It's different. It's called the Military Committee. It's different than the actual North Atlantic Council. Like that's headed by the NATO Secretary General and it's not a it's not a figurehead position, but they don't they're not in charge of like deciding anything they're just sort of uh,

they're the Secretary General, they head up the meetings. Uh. They have historically always been European and the head of the Military Committee has always been American, like you said, but there's nothing in the charter that says that has to be the case. It's just always been that way. Uh. So they're they're in Belgium and they're taking meetings every day and and and you know, answering the bat phone

when it rings. And then you've got your Military Committee, and then you've got your what's the other one, the nuclear the Nuclear Planning Group. Uh, And I guess the military is sort of the link between all of these. To make sure you know the military strategy is sound. Yeah, because DATO likes to to publicize itself as a both

a military and a political organization. And it definitely is like if you partner with NATO as a as a partner country or if you remember like you're you're you're engaged with them politically and they try to work things out diplomatically like um. Very famously, one of the first post Cold War missions that NATO embarked on was in the Balkans. When war broke out there. UM in for the former Yugoslavian states right back in the Wag the

Dog era. You remember that, of course? Yeah? Okay, so um do you remember in the movie Wag the Dog? Like that? Okay, so so, and then that happened basically in real life. It was such a close resemblance to it. I remember a reporter asking Bill Clinton, like, have you ever seen the movie Wag the Dog, because like, the Balkan NATO mission started like right as the Monica Lewinsky Lewinsky scandal was heating up, And he said, it depends on what your definition of scene is, right, I mean,

we're gonna be able to tee off on that guy forever. Huh, let's just cut that great. So the the so, they NATO entered the Balkans um and tried to like work everything out. There's a peacekeeping mission um, but there was also obviously a lot of military operations is how they kept the peace. But even still there's an ongoing Balkan mission there and they're trying to sort out the still

the longstanding hostility and promote democracy in these groups. So they are a political organization, but they're also really at the end of the day, their military just the incredible unrivaled might of the military combined military powers of the thirty countries involved in NATO. It's it's you just can't really look at it too many other ways. It's a it's a huge military, that's right. Uh. And as far as the the Main Committee goes, or the Main Council

it is headed, each country has their own ambassador. I think we got a new and is that right? What's her name, Julianne Smith, julian Smith. I want to say Julianne Moore, just because boy, she would be great at that. Sure we need more actors and roles like this, right for sure? That's I mean, if any job, actors have proven to be amazing politicians over the years, that's right. And actor would never like to get up on stage of the auctors and hit somebody. Man, I'm so disturbed

and just unsettled by that. It was very surreal. I was actually not going to watch the Oscars this year because I'm kind of over it, but for some reason I watched, so I saw it live. Wow, that must have been cereal, just like I think like everyone else thought. It was a bit at first, and then when the here in the United States the audio cut out, and it was clear from Chris Rock. When he came back, I was like, oh boy, did that Did I just see what I think I saw? Yeah, that's crazy. I

was telling you me. I couldn't find a clip with it, but I wanted to see, like or here the ham fisted way the conductor in the orchestra like tried to play everything back out, you know, from the weird, uncomfortable, awkward silence that just gripped the entire auditorium. I want to know how they got out of that awkward silence, because I'll bet it was equally well they didn't. He had to give out. He was right in the middle

of giving out an award. Oh so he had to continue on after that, Yes, dude, it was that joke was before he even started giving out the award. You know, when they go up there and just make jokes. So, I mean, that was one of the saddest things is that he gave out the award for Best Documentary to quest Love for his awesome documentary Summer of Soul, So like, all of a sudden, like his mom is overshadowed. It was jeez, what a train wreck. Anyway, off topic, Hey,

that's something we do sometimes, folks, We take tangents. Uh should we talk a little bit about the funding of NATO. I don't think you can get around that, chuck, just try. Oh wait, no, let's let's talk about one other thing. So where we are today before we hit finding? Okay, so we're at what um what? Uh? Supreme Commander, Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis. And if you can't tell, I like saying Supreme Allied Commander, you're not paying close enough attention.

But um what he calls NATO three point Oh, because he's he's in the cyber security I guess. And NATO three point is where we are today. And like I was saying, you know, there's been a lot of talk and movement towards NATO expansion, and some Russia experts are saying, you know, that's one of the main drivers, are one of the big drivers for these invasions of Ukraine that

have taken place of the last less than ten years. Um. But that aggression in response to NATO expansion or depending on how you take it, just straight up Russian aggression. Like it doesn't matter if NATO is talking about bringing Ukraine on and helping it become a democracy. You don't go waste a city, you don't waste a country. You don't gun down civilians, you don't bomb a theater where you know hundreds of civilians are hiding out. You don't

do that. There's no justification for it, and you know, damn you to hell for doing it, whoever you are. So that kind of aggression has actually, now, like we were saying at the beginning of the episode, changed the world order so dramatically that um, it's revived NATO. Like all of that bickering, all of the inner ally you know, dissent in UM in troubles and like what what's our purpose? All of that has been just pushed right to the back and all of a sudden, Europe in America are

friends again, europe as friends with one another again. UM, and NATO is probably stronger than it has been in the last thirty years, thanks to ironically vot Vladimir Putin. Yeah absolutely, I mean yeah, I have. I've read a lot about this and that doesn't seem to be like a controversial hot take. Um. It seems to be fairly indisputable that NATO is as UM as allied and as

and as together. It's it's been in decades, and it couldn't have come at a better time because you know, I don't know if you noticed or not, but democracy itself has been kind of under assault, and people were wonder is the US up to the task of taking that on? Is that Europe up to the task of

taking that on? And one of the main tenants of NATO is promoting democracy not just around the world but within its own countries, its own member nations, since a lot of countries have had some kind of weird, weird times that it's gone through where NATO has had to basically call those countries out, I think Turkey most recently, where it said, hey, you're a NATO member, we expect

you to uphold democracy and democratic values. Right, So it promotes it not just around the world, but among member nations, and that's a huge important point. And so this strengthening of strengthening of NATO, and thus the strengthening of belief and in placing value in the idea of democracy and a willingness to defend democracy could not have come at a more vital time. So in that sense, thank you Vladimir Putin. It's just a shame and very sad that that had to come at the expense of the people

of Ukraine. Agreed. Uh, so maybe we should take the break now and we'll come back and talk about that funding, previously mentioned funding right after this. George. Alright, so the aforementioned NATO funding. And by the way, thanks to our former colleagues at house stuff works dot com for the the the original NATO article that kind of started down this this road. But uh, there's a lot of misconceptions

about NATO funding and how that works. Uh. The official guidelines say that member nations are expected to commit a minimum of two percent of their GDP their gross domestic product to spending on defense. But it's there's not a uh because like I said, NATO, it's not loosey goosey. But it's not like someone checks the books every year and then goes to Luxembourg and says, Hi, you actually spent this and this is what you owe. So if you could just get the checked book out, uh and

make that up right now, that would be fantastic. Well, no, there's no penalty. That's not how it works. Uh. And I think um, only three members spent two percent of their GDP or more on defense. I think the US spends about three and a half. Is that the most recent number? Uh? Yeah, as right, and um, everyone in NATO has basically said, though, all right, we get it, we'll we'll try and up our spending and we would like to meet that goal in the next couple of

years here. Yeah, because again as NATO is like, what are we doing here? Again? That really led to a big decline in military spending, and that huge increase in in military spending among europeanations of recent years has largely been because of Vladimir Putin rattling a saber and then actually following through on it. But one one thing, Chuck that I think is really like important, that's a misconception is we don't contribute three and a half percent of

our GDP to NATO. No, A lot of people think that the requirement is that you as a nation spend two percent on your own nation's defense. And then, because you're all tethered together through this invisible alliance of NATO, NATO combined has access to those thirty member nations defense all what those defense budgets by which, when you add it all up, is extremely substantial. Both an amount spent, but also in like like what you get for that

kind of money. Yeah. I do think that some people might think that everyone chips in this money to NATO and that there are NATO forces and stuff like that. That's not how it works. NATO's we do contribute to run NATO with their you know, with their own budget. But that's about two billion bucks two and that's just day to day operations and uh, you know, logistics and operations and keeping the headquarters nice tidy clean. Someone's gotta

clean those bathrooms. Uh. That's not a lot of money though, But that two percent, right is spending on your own military. Uh, it's actually apportioned out uh in the original I guess charters. That what you say of the original agreement? Um the what the treaty? Yeah, the treaty. It's right there, That's what I'm saying. It's so boring, it's keep wanting to

find a better name. Uh. There the apportionment for the United States, our cost share is here in the US, if you look at our g d P, it's about the same size as the other twenty seven nations put together. So it's not based on like how big in an economy you have, because then we would be our apportion it would be about fifty but it's twenty two. Yeah, right, it does make sense. That's just for chipping into that two billion dollars that keeps NATO operation operation already at

all times. That's not for US, it is um and so the US is, as you know, far in a way. We we spend on defense um I think almost three times more than the other NATO nations combined. So we spent about eight hundred and eleven billion dollars in one and the rest of the NATO allies spend it combined three hundred and sixty three billion, from I think the UK's fifty nine point two billion down to North Macedonia's

hundred and eight million. But if you look at proportion of g d P, there are plenty of nations who go beyond that two percent, Like Grease actually spends more of its GDP by percentage on defense than the United States does. We spend three and a half percent. Grease spends three point eight two, Crowa just two point seven nine, The UK is two point two nine, Poland is two point one. So plenty of nations have started topping that.

But that is a fairly new thing. Yeah, Like you just can't look at NATO as a a thirty item balance sheet, uh and say, well, this is a bad deal because I'm looking at thirty different numbers of what these countries contribute. It's it's much it's much more complex than that. You have to look at it relative to the size of the nation in their economies and overall spending.

It's it's frustrating. Say no, it really is. But when you add it all up, what you have is a combined in two thousand, twenty one, one point one seven four trillion dollars among the NATO allies spent. That comes to three and a half million troops who are committed

to NATO's alliance. Three and a half million troops. And just that dollar amount alone, by the way, one point one seven four trillion, that's basically more than the rest of the world combined, and just the NATO allies, the non US NATO allies spending is more than China and Russia's defense budgets combined. So it's it's substantial not to

mention that three NATO members are nuclear powers allied together. Like, so when you put all that stuff together, the idea of NATO like being this stabilizing force in global security makes total sense. It doesn't even have to do anything, It just has to exist to keep things stable and to promote democracy around the world and to reach out to like formerly non democratic countries and say, hey, here's

how you become democratic. Here are the values. Let's see if you can stick to them, if you want to become a NATO member. Just from this kind of defense spending. It's kind of ingenious in a way. Well, it is, and I think it's I think it's part of just modern society to get complacent about our memories are so short these days, I think, and there's so little um acknowledgement and realization of like the history of the world and not just like the last thirty to fifty years.

You know, there's been peace in Europe for about seventy years now, and that's all anyone, you know, that's all most people remember, unless you're like in your eighties, probably you know what I'm saying. That it's been previous to that, there were a couple of millennia of of war in Europe, and like the fact that NATO, and I think I mean not not singly NATO, But I think NATO has been the biggest driver of ensuring that piece over the last seven decades. Yeah, I mean you're not the only one.

Like pretty much global security experts will will say, yes, NATO has kept the world order stable for that long and basically as long as it's been around. I think it's just sad that I think the the short term memory of how kind of people are today, it's like, you know, the could rules over. Do we really need

this stuff anymore? Yeah, But I mean it's tough to blame people because again, it's like the world you grew up into the world you're born, and then just the relief of like, wow, democracy actually one, we actually did it. We can just relax for once for a little while. It was funny, Chuck, I was thinking today there are plenty of people who I'm sure listen to our podcast who have never lived under the threat of nuclear attack and are now for the first time in their life.

And I've settled back into it like it's an old smoking jacket and some comfy slippers, you know, like this is just like normal, normal stuff to me. And I realized, like I wonder how many people out there super anxious about that idea of dying in a nuclear attack, and UM, all I can say is you get used to it, you do you get used to to uh doing drills in school where you would go get under your desk, hallway, duck and cover because that would do a lot in

the case of a nuclear bomb. Or uh, you know, watching Matthew Broderick bring us back from the brink of nuclear war. What a hero, what a movie. So Chuck, we should probably before we finish, we should probably talk about the future of Ukraine and NATO, because, as we've said a few times here, you know, Ukraine making moves towards becoming a NATO member and being like in deep

cahoots with NATO. UM has has created this situation, at least in part where Russia's feeling like emboldened about invading Ukraine to either put a stop to that or whatever putin saying he's doing so. Um, if you've been paying attention to the news of Voldemir Zelinski has been saying like, Okay, we're we're we're willing to maybe start talking about neutrality now.

And what he's talking about has almost everything to do with NATO, right, Yeah, I mean, neutrality isn't just a isn't just something like just say, oh, you know, we're we're neutral. We just don't feel that strong about anything over here. Right, That's not what it means. Neutrality in terms of the world order. I believe it means you don't get involved in the third country's problem. It doesn't mean you're like a nihilist Libski What was that? That

was my fleet? Okay, the one the Lincoln Berry pancakes. Uh yeah, Neutrality means you won't get involved in the third countries, uh issues. Isn't that right? Totally? Yeah, No matter what like, So you wouldn't join NATO, you wouldn't send arms, you wouldn't do anything like that, which, by the way, I mean, since we said Ukraine is a partner country, they're just getting a steady flow of arms

through Poland from NATO um allies. And it's been super effective from what I saw, because Russia is a tank based military and the anti tank weaponry that we've been sending Ukraine and Ukraine has been using the great effect has actually stalled stalled a hundred thousand Russian troops from taking over Ukraine, which everybody thought was gonna happen in a matter of days. Now they're finally backing off of Kiev.

It's just insane to even say it out loud. But um, under neutrality, there would be no arms going from NATO to Ukraine. UM. Russia would not be allowed to invade Ukraine. Ukraine would be what Finland is. Finland has a huge amount of border that it shares with um Russia, and it serves as a buffer state between Europe and Russia. It's not allied with Russia, it's not allied with Europe. Finland's just its own jam. The proposal on the table now is that Ukraine become like the southern Finland. It

will be a neutral state. It'll be its own sovereign democracy, can do whatever it wants, but it can't join NATO and it's not certainly going not going to be allied with Russia, not after this invasion or ever, because of its neutrality status. Yeah, and I think the idea at first is that people thought, and it may have been the case that Russia wanted to absorb Ukraine as part of a building back uh maybe not a new Soviet Union, but just expanding Russia. And that may have been the case.

I don't know, but I think the last few weeks it's become clear that that's not possible, and that like occupation of Ukraine isn't possible, like long term occupation. So it seems like neutrality may be the only way forward here. But I mean, yeah, definitely, I guess. I mean, yeah, it's you like, I can't imagine how difficult occupying Ukraine would be for Russia, like over any period of time.

I don't think they have enough troops to do that, no, And I mean the Ukrainians certainly have the will to resist for as long as they need to to get Russia out of there. So yeah, it's um, I I feel like now that seems to be I think we read an Al Jazeera article on it, right, Yeah, it was super interesting. They talked a lot about how, you know, not all pro Russian sentiment in Ukraine has been dissolved, because there there was some obviously, but uh, this has

done a lot of damage to that. Oh yeah, I'm sure anybody who's on the fence before is like, Okay, I'm not Russian or even considering pro Russian anymore. But that does seem to be that and this is you know, obviously up to Ukraine. But if Zelinski is making gestures and overture saying we're willing to talk about neutrality, um,

it seems like that could be their decision. But um again, global security experts, at least ones that were quoted in Al Jazeera are are saying like this is actually probably the most viable and quick, short term or like at hand solution to ending this invasion and actually stabilizing things again for a while. That's right. That article, by the way, is Ukraine, what does neutrality mean? And could it lead to peace? From Thomas oh Falk And that was just

from a few weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago. Yeah, And in addition to how stuff works in the Al Jazeera article, we got stuff from Brooking's, the Brennan's Center, Time BBC and a bunch of other ones to Sesame Street. This is definitely one of the u is for up yours, um. And this is one of those definite moments in in

history that it's worth paying attention to. So if this this our episode struck your fancy it all, go go read up on it because it's there's a lot of really interesting and important stuff to read literally, the world has changed in the last couple of months more than it has in years. Since two thousand one, I would say, since two thousand one, are you got anything else? I don't think so. Okay, Well, if you want to know more about NATO, you can go check that out online.

And since I said check that out online, everybody, it's time for listener mail. That's right, I thought, why not, let's read one from a brand new listener. Uh, this is the first episode they listened to, and I have foretold the future with his email. Wow, we uh just kidding. Hey guys. Last week, though, I found out about your podcast, uh, and I'm loving it. I become tired of the radio so decided to start looking at podcast for my work commute,

and yours caught my eyes. It looked interesting without being too heavy, educational, but not as depressing as the news. Perfect nice Okay. I was waiting for a response. Well, I mean, yeah, nice, was my response. I'll take it. You two make a great pair and work off each

other seamlessly. When I listen, I cannot help but think of you two as a mash up of burten Ernie and SNL's The Delicious Dish okay, and a gasto Shannon, So I will respond to that part because, um, that is probably the greatest description anyone's ever come up with for it, wetty balls. I mean that in the most complimentary way, by the way. I love it and it works so darnwell obviously, since the show is going strong

for years now, thank you for noticing. I just wanted to reach out and saying thanks for saving me from boring radio and crazy news and helping my mind grow while being entertained. And that is from Samantha Burns Maloney. Well, thanks Samantha. We really appreciate that. That was a great email. Seriously, the best descriptor I've ever heard. Yeah, if you're new to the podcast, or you're a long timer, or you

email every week, we want to hear from you. You can send us an email to Stuff podcast at iHeart radio dot com. Stuff you Should Know is a production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.