Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2022/07/05 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Debunks concerns about Finland and Sweden joining NATO, showcasing how NATO serves as a deterrent to war and unites against aggression.
Foreign policy enthusiasts
The full transcript provides a detailed explanation of why allowing Finland and Sweden into NATO is beneficial, using historical context and strategic alliance dynamics.
#ForeignPolicy #NATO #Alliance #Deterrent #Russia
Well howdy there internet people. It's Beau again. So today we're gonna talk a little
foreign policy because I got a message and basically it's hey my friend he likes to
study foreign policy and he thinks that allowing Finland and Sweden into NATO is a bad idea
because it will present more opportunities for the alliance to get pulled in to a large conflict or a war.
I have seen a number of people make this argument and I've even seen foreign policy people make this
argument. To put it less than delicately, they're wrong. They're wrong. They're looking at it through
the dynamics of individual countries. It's more risk to the United States if these other countries
join because they may go to war and therefore the United States gets sucked in. We are going to
have to look at this particular scenario from NATO's point of view, from the West's point of view.
Finland, Sweden, are these opposition nations? No. Neither one of these countries is going to war
with the US, going to war with a NATO country. That's not happening. They are generally aligned
with NATO already. So given the fact that they're not going to go to war with a NATO country,
who are they going to go to war with? An opposition nation. Look at it from the perspective of the
alliance as a whole, not individual countries. If they go to war with an opposition nation, would
they attack or would they be attacked? Are these countries known as warmongering countries? No,
they're not. So they would end up being attacked, right? Now, a country that would attack Finland,
as an example, is that country more likely to attack Finland by itself or Finland, the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France? You get the point. All of NATO because
that's what it is now. If Finland completes and joins and they are a full-fledged member of NATO,
that's what it means. If somebody attacks Finland, they're going to war with everybody.
So the more likely dynamic is that it deters war because nobody wants to attack all of NATO.
Therefore, they don't attack Finland. However, without that membership, if a country attacks
Finland, what happens? You have a war in Europe. The West gets involved anyway.
This is a deterrent to that happening. When you look at it from the dynamics of the alliance as
a whole, rather than individual countries, there are not a lot of countries, there's really not any,
that want to go to war with all of NATO. Russia's attack on Ukraine accelerated
NATO expansion. It caused expansion where there probably wouldn't be any.
But because of that attack, because of that aggression, it sped NATO's expansion.
The end result of this will probably be even more nations beyond these coming into NATO.
And it will create an even larger European bloc of countries that agree, we're not going to attack
each other, and if anybody attacks us, it's all of us against them. That kind of power
is a deterrent to war. It doesn't increase the risk. But like I said, I've actually seen
that argument from people who are pretty well steeped in foreign policy. I just happen to
definitely believe that it's a wrong take. It's looking at it through the wrong dynamics.
It can be viewed a lot like
the bomb after World War II. Nobody wants to deal with that. It's a deterrent.
Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}