Stuff You Should Know - What’s NATO All About?

Episode Date: March 31, 2022

NATO formed at a time when Russia threatened Europe as a potential invader. Then the Soviet Union broke up and NATO lost its way for a bit. Now Russia’s back to business as usual and NATO has found its purpose again, protecting peace in Europe.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hey, I'm Lance Bass, host of the new iHeart podcast Frosted Tips with Lance Bass. Do you ever think to yourself, what advice would Lance Bass and my favorite boy bands give me in this situation? If you do, you've come to the right place because I'm here to help. And a different hot sexy teen crush boy bander each week to guide you through life. Tell everybody, yeah, everybody about my new podcast and make sure to listen so we'll never, ever have to say bye, bye, bye. Listen to Frosted Tips with Lance Bass on the iHeart radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts. I'm Munga Chauticular and it turns out astrology is way more widespread than any of us want to

believe. You can find in Major League Baseball, International Banks, K-pop groups, even the White House. But just when I thought I had a handle on this subject, something completely unbelievable happened to me and my whole view on astrology changed. Whether you're a skeptic or a believer, give me a few minutes because I think your ideas are about to change too. Listen to Skyline Drive on the iHeart radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a production of iHeart Radio. Hey and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark and there's Charles W. Chuck Bryant and Jerry's here and this is Stuff You Should Know, the Triple Alliance coming at ya, but not overstepping

our bounds, being very delicate here. Oh no, correct. Yes, the Triple Alliance. Yeah. I think that was actually the proper name for the Aztecs. Oh yeah? Mm-hmm. All right. Did you know that? No, but I like that, you know, hopefully this episode is coming out and we're getting some guest listeners who are like, what is this NATO thing all about? Ooh, who are these dum-dums? They can explain it. Mm-hmm. And so I like you lobbing out a little factoid for everyone. Oh yeah, well that's how we do. We tread lightly, we don't overstep our bounds,

and we lob out factoids. So welcome, this is Stuff You Should Know. My name is Chuck and I'm the co-host along with Josh Clark. Yeah, hi. And we explain things in a semi-humorous way over the course of, you know, a lot of podcasts do this every episode. They explain what their mission is. I would go berserk, man. I would have giant patches in my head where I'd just pull the hair clean out. But we like to explain things 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. Wow, 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 22. Woo-hoo. 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 can make your eyes glaze over with just one pass. It's 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 integral body to the world order. I mean, it 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 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. 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? Sure. 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? Sure. But so even if you're not like, yeah, we got to go get them,

let's just get over there and shoot everybody, 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. 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 and a waste of money is, I think, folly. And we're not going to go down that road too much. We're just going to probably explain how it works and hopefully through that display why it's still necessary.

The thing is, Chuck, is that particular opinion of NATO wasn't necessarily 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. Right. Literally, the world has changed in the last two months. Yeah. Since Russia invaded Ukraine and NATO, which was struggling to find its way, its purpose up until about 2014 when the last time Russia invaded Ukraine suddenly became important and had a reason to exist again. So things have changed that dramatically that a 30 nation allegiance and organization that had been kind of like, 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. It's like if you had this old panic room installed in your house in the 70s and here in 2022, you're like, you know what, this panic room, I think I'm just going to turn it into a bingo hall. It's getting kind of useless. And then all of a sudden the purge happens. Right. 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's not going to be at war. We don't need this stuff. Yeah. And then, but that possibility

was 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 what sucks is like the idea that we're living in a world where NATO is essential, where the purge is kind of always out there. It didn't necessarily be that way. And if you're uncomfortable living in that kind of reality, if you're like, this reality actually sucks, that the purge is out there and we have to have NATO now, and we have to spend all this extra money on defense and all this stuff, and peace seems to be up in arms and 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 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. So let's go back in time, I guess, we should jump in the old way back machine, crank it up. It's been a while. You're showing off for the new people, huh? No, we have a way back machine and we can go back in time. So take that. April 4, 1949 is when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed initially by the original, the OGs, the 12 founding member countries, which were ourselves here in the United States,

Canada, our hat to the north. Hey, wait a minute. I like that you're adding a little bit to each one, but can you sing it as a song? No, I can't. Okay, shoot, I just did. Did you hear that? I did. Where else? The United Kingdom, our friends across the pond, France, those folks who make such good gravies, Italy, which is all about those pillowy, beautiful, what are they called? Croissants? No, well, sure. But I was thinking of the pasta that's the gnocchi. Oh, yeah. That's not pillowy. It's dense. It's dense as night. I like the pillowy gnocchi. I don't think that's gnocchi. I think that's like... No, a pillowy gnocchi is delicious. Yeah, but it's...

Your gnocchi is too dense. Isn't gnocchi stuffed with something though? No, gnocchi. Oh, I'm thinking of pierogis. Portugal, delicious wines. Sure. Norway, I just hear 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. Yeah, Belgium's nice. And then you got Greece and Turkey

and 52, West Germany and 55, Spain and 82. And then in 1991, 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 18 years. Yeah, and NATO was saying, yes, come be friends. Come become democracies. This is great for us. And that was, we'll talk about it, kind of considered... There's a guy named James Stavridis. He was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 2009 to 2013. And he put it as that. That was kind of the beginning of NATO 2.0. But NATO 1.0, 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 12 to 16 members from 1949 to 1982, right? And the mission was contain the Soviet Union, because after World War II, Europe was just toe 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 saying, okay, you're part of the Soviet Union now. You're part of the Soviet Union. You're part of the Soviet Union. And they drew whatever 80s kid knew was a line between Europe and the Eastern Bloc called the Iron Curtain. That's right. And you did not penetrate the Iron Curtain. The Iron Curtain penetrated you. All right, I'll cut off Schmierenau. Thank you. I'm

glad you got that. That is true. And one of the biggest parts of NATO that's sort of one of the most fundamental parts of it is Article 5, which we won't read in full. You should go look it up online, though, and read it. But it basically says... But we couldn't 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 they're 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. You can, though, under international law. But you basically... It's up to each country. It's a weird organization in 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 going to take that role, which we'll get to what they do later. But it is... I did find it fascinating that they don't sit down. I mean, how many countries are there now? 30? 30. They don't sit down and have a 30 country vote when it comes to anything. They just work it out. That means sometimes some countries are going to get more of what they want and sometimes they're going to 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's doing or they're opposed to it and NATO doesn't do

something. So that Article 5, the basis of it is what's called collective defense and the main tenant of this. And this is the thing that probably binds more than anything else, the 30 countries that are members of NATO, is that if you attack one NATO country, you are effectively attacking all 30 NATO countries. Yeah. That's why they don't get attacked. Right. Those 30 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 NATO was formed and Russia was consolidating its military, Europe was not... 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, 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. It's an attack on us. That was the basis of NATO and it's been upheld ever since. Although it's only been invoked once in the history since 1949. Yeah. And not only does that mean that these countries aren't getting attacked, which has been pretty ironclad. It means that other countries, obviously in 1991, like I said with the fall of the Soviet Union, over the next 18 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. Right. So they want to be a NATO. And we'll talk about Ukraine and

their, 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, yeah, they do need friends because yeah, if there was Russian aggression against them, they would just completely, they would have no choice. 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 that's a point of contention from what I saw, Chuck, that some people are like, okay, are we really going to send our troops over to die in North Macedonia if Russia attacks it? And as far as 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 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 they're 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, 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 most of the world wants peace. And that can very easily be very tenuous if these little smaller countries start falling 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 stringing together this cohesive group of NATO countries, right? 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 that in some ways explains the aggression that Putin carried out in Ukraine among some observers. That hasn't been necessarily the stated goal of the invasion of Ukraine, but a lot of Russian experts say this actually is a huge response to NATO.

It doesn't want to bring Ukraine into the Russian Federation necessarily. Right. I remember when this started a few weeks ago, Emily, who was my wife, if you're new to the show, she gets mentioned occasionally. Josh is a wife named Yumi. She gets mentioned occasionally. Hey, Yumi. 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 strategically is like, it's troublesome for them to have NATO interests there. And it's troublesome for NATO to have Russian interests there. So it's, you know, it's funny, like when you look back, or 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. Yeah, 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? Yeah, 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 2.0 was in, which led us to NATO 3.0. Seriously, I swear, and you won't have to send an SOS because I'll be there for you. Oh, man. And so my husband, Michael. Um, hey, that's me.

Yeah, we know that Michael and a different hot, sexy teen crush boyband or each week to guide you through life step by step. Oh, not another one. Uh-huh. Kids, relationships, life in general can get messy. You may be thinking, this is the story of my life. Oh, just stop now. If so, tell everybody, everybody about my new podcast and make sure to listen.

So we'll never, ever have to say bye, bye, bye. Listen to Frosted Tips with Lance Bass on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts. I'm Mangesh Atikular. And to be honest, I don't believe in astrology. But from the moment I was born, it's been a part of my life. In India, it's like smoking. You might not smoke, but you're going to get secondhand astrology.

And lately, I've been wondering if the universe has been trying to tell me to stop running and pay attention. Because maybe there is magic in the stars, if you're willing to look for it. So I rounded up some friends and we dove in and let me tell you, it got weird fast. Tantric curses, major league baseball teams, canceled marriages, K-pop. But just when I thought I had to handle on this sweet and curious show about astrology, my whole world came crashing down.

Situation doesn't look good. There is risk to father. And my whole view on astrology, it changed. Whether you're a skeptic or a believer, I think your ideas are going to change too. Listen to Skyline Drive and the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, so we're back. And we're talking about what, again, Supreme Allied Commander James Stavritis called,

and I think Time Magazine, like 2018, NATO 2.0. And NATO 2.0 came about because the whole purpose of NATO, which was to contain the Soviet Union out of Europe, became pointless because there was no Soviet Union anymore. After 1991, 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 former Russian satellite states started scrambling to become part of NATO. And NATO was welcoming them with open arms.

And that first part of that NATO 2.0, 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 stabilized and they got that process underway, it started to 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 2.0 said, well, you know what, we can engage in counterterrorism campaigns.

We don't like the piracy that's going around the world, so we can help to combat that. And we can get involved in these other and 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 cause 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 Aden have to do with protecting Europe from the USSR? Right. You know, the Cold War is over. What are we doing?

Like, yeah, let's keep NATO together because who knows what's going to be needed, but do we need to engage in this adventurism? And then the Supreme Allied Commander position, which is the head of all NATO forces, that is like by nature in the treaty, I think, always in Americans. So the Americans always de facto and also in a lot of different ways really lead NATO. But in the early 2000s, America squandered a lot of its credibility, a lot of its legitimacy in adventurism, like invading Iraq, unprovoked illegally,

which, by the way, NATO had nothing to do with because the rest of the NATO nations, or 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, that they saw like, this is not a just war. This is an invasion. But 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 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 reap a lot of the benefits of NATO. So they can partner with non-NATO countries. This started back in 91 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. And when that started happening, non-NATO countries got interested in this kind of partnership, specifically Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine. So all of a sudden, in the early 90s, 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 do what's required, which 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. And this is the kind of thing that a lot of this quagmire that is happening now is Russia was afraid that they were officially going to join NATO because Zelensky approved the national security strategy, which it was almost like they were seriously kicking the tires on one another finally. Yeah. I think he said in September of 2020 that Ukraine's aim was to become a full member of NATO after being a partner for three decades, basically, or at least two full decades.

And even before that, the whole thing kind of kicked off. There was a summit in Bucharest called the Bucharest Summit in 2008. And at that meeting, Georgia and Ukraine declared that it was their aim to become NATO members. And that seems to be, at least geopolitically speaking, what kind of kicked the tensions off big time and led to the 2014 invasion of Ukraine and Crimea, and then also led to the 2022 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 everything's done by consensus. And you mentioned that the military part of NATO, it's different. It's called the Military Committee.

It's different than the actual North Atlantic Council. That's headed by the NATO Secretary General. And it's not a figurehead position, but they're not in charge of deciding anything. They're the Secretary General. They head up the meetings. They're not in charge of deciding anything. 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. So they're there in Belgium, and they're taking meetings every day and 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 Planning Group.

And I guess the military is sort of the link between all of these to make sure the military strategy is sound. Yeah, because NATO likes to publicize itself as both a military and a political organization. And it definitely is. Like if you partner with NATO as a partner country, or if you're a member, like you're engaged with them politically, and they try to work things out diplomatically. Like very famously, one of the first post-Cold War missions that NATO embarked on was in the Balkans when war broke out there in the former Yugoslavian states, right? Back in the Wag the Dog era. You remember that? The Wag the Dog era, of course. Yeah. Okay, so do you remember in the movie Wag the Dog? Sure. Okay, so that happened basically in real

life. It was such a close resemblance to it that 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 scandal was heating up. And he said, it depends on what your definition of scene is. That's right. I mean, we're going to be able to tee off on that guy forever, huh? Yeah, let's just cut that great voice. So NATO entered the Balkans and tried to like work everything out. There was a peacekeeping mission, 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, they're military, just the incredible unrivaled might of the military combined military powers of the 30 countries involved in NATO. You just can't really look at it too many other ways. It's a huge military. That's right. And as far as the main committee goes or the main council, it is headed, each country has their own ambassador. I think we got a new one in 2021, is that right? Mm-hmm. What's her name? Julianne Smith. Julianne Smith. I want to say Julianne more just because boy, she would be great at that. Sure. We need more actors in roles like this, right? For sure. I mean, if anything, actors have proven to be amazing politicians over the years.

That's right. And actor would never like get up on stage at the actors and hit somebody. Man, I'm so disturbed and just unsettled by that. It's 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 surreal. It's 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 hear the

hamfisted 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 awkward. Well, they didn't. He had to give out, I know 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. Man. So I mean, that was one of the saddest things is that he gave out the award for best documentary to Questlove for his awesome documentary, Summer of Soul. Oh, man.

And so like, all of a sudden, like his mom is overshadowed. It was, oh geez, what a train wreck. Yeah. Anyway, off topic. Hey, that's something we do sometimes, folks. We take tangents. 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 talk about one other thing. So where we are today before we hit funding, okay? Okay. So we're at what 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 what he calls NATO 3.0, because he's in the cybersecurity, I guess. And NATO 3.0 is where we are today. And like I

was saying, there's been a lot of talk and movement toward NATO expansion. And some Russia experts are saying, that's one of the main drivers or one of the big drivers for these invasions of Ukraine that have taken place over the last like less than 10 years. But that aggression in response to NATO expansion, or depending on how you take it, just straight up Russian aggression, 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 it's revived NATO. Like all of that bickering, all of the inner ally, you know, dissent in troubles and like what's our purpose. All of that has been just pushed right to the back. And all of a sudden, Europe and America are friends again. Europe is friends with one another again. And NATO is probably stronger than it has been in the last 30 years, thanks to ironically Vladimir Putin. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, yeah, I've read a lot about this and that doesn't seem to be like a controversial hot take. It seems to be fairly indisputable that NATO is as allied and as together as 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 wondering, is the U.S. up to the task of taking that on? Is 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 1949, a lot of countries have had some kind of 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? Yes. 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 NATO and thus the strengthening of belief and 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. So maybe we should take the break now and we'll come back and talk about that funding, previously mentioned funding, right after this. Hey, I'm Lance Bass, host of the new iHeart podcast, Frosted Tips with Lance Bass. The hardest thing can be knowing who to turn to when questions arise or times get tough, or you're at the end of the road. Okay, I see what you're doing. Do you ever think to yourself,

what advice would Lance Bass and my favorite boy bands give me in this situation? If you do, you've come to the right place because I'm here to help. This I promise you. Oh, God. Seriously, I swear. And you won't have to send an SOS because I'll be there for you. Oh, man. And so my husband, Michael, um, hey, that's me. Yep, we know that Michael and a different hot, sexy teen crush boy band are each week to guide you through life step by step. Not another one. Kids relationships, life in general can get messy. You may be thinking this is the story of my life. Just stop now. If so, tell everybody, yeah, everybody about my new podcast and make sure to listen so we'll never ever have to say bye, bye, bye. Listen to Frosted Tips with Lance Bass on the iHeart radio

app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to podcasts. I'm Mangesh Atikular and to be honest, I don't believe in astrology, but from the moment I was born, it's been a part of my life. In India, it's like smoking. You might not smoke, but you're going to get secondhand astrology. And lately, I've been wondering if the universe has been trying to tell me to stop running and pay attention because maybe there is magic in the stars if you're willing to look for it. So I rounded up some friends and we dove in and let me tell you, it got weird fast. Tantric curses, major league baseball teams, canceled marriages, K-pop. But just when I thought I had to handle on this sweet and curious show about astrology, my whole world came crashing down. Situation doesn't look good.

There is risk to father. And my whole view on astrology, it changed. Whether you're a skeptic or a believer, I think your ideas are going to change, too. Listen to Skyline Drive and the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. So the aforementioned NATO funding, and by the way, thanks to our former colleagues at HowStuffWorks.com for the original NATO article that kind of started us down this road. But there's a lot of misconceptions about NATO funding and how that works. The official guidelines say that member nations are expected to commit a minimum of 2% of their GDP, their gross domestic product, to spending on defense. But there's not a... Like I said,

NATO, it's not Lucy 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 and make that up right now, that would be fantastic. There's no penalty. No, there's no penalty. That's not how it works. And I think in 2014, only three members spent 2% of their GDP or more on defense. I think the US spends about three and a half. Is that the most recent number? Yeah, as of 2021.

Right. And everyone in NATO has basically said though, all right, we get it. We'll try and up our spending. And we would like to meet that goal in the next couple of years here by 2024. Yeah, because again, as NATO was like, what are we doing here again? That really led to a big decline in military spending and that huge increase in military spending among European nations of recent years has largely been because of Vladimir Putin rattling his saber and then actually following through on it. But one thing, Chuck, that I think is really important as 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 2% 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 30 member nations defense, what those defense budgets buy, which when you add it all up is extremely substantial, both in amount spent, but also in 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. NATOs, we do contribute to run NATO with their own budget, but that's about two billion bucks. And that's just day-to-day operations and logistics and operations and keeping the headquarters nice and tidy.

Clean, someone's got to clean those bathrooms. That's not a lot of money though, but that 2% right is spending on your own military. It's actually apportioned out in the original, I guess, charters, that what you say, the original agreement. The treaty. The what? The treaty. Yeah, the treaty. It's right there. That's what I'm saying. It's so boring. It's hard to even pay attention to. I keep wanting to find a better name. The apportionment for the United States, our cost share is 22% here in the US. If you look at our GDP, it's about the same size as the other 27 nations put together. So it's not based on like how big an economy you have, because then we would be, our apportionment would be about 50%, but it's 22. If that makes sense.

Right, it does make sense. That's just for chipping into that two billion dollars that keeps NATO operational ready at all times. That's not a drop in the bucket for us. It is. And so the US is far in a way, we spend on defense, I think almost three times more than the other NATO nations combined. So we spent about $811 billion in 2021, and the rest of the NATO allies spend a combined $363 billion from I think the UK's $59.2 billion down to North Macedonia's $108 million. But if you look at proportion of GDP, there are plenty of nations who go beyond that 2%. Greece actually spends more of its GDP by percentage on defense than the United States does. We spend three and a half percent. Greece

spends 3.82%. Croatia is 2.79. The UK is 2.29. Poland is 2.1%. 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 30 item balance sheet and say, well, this is a bad deal because I'm looking at 30 different numbers of what these countries contribute. It's much more complex than that. You have to look at it relative to the size of the nation and their economies and overall spending. It's frustrating. That's all I'm going to say. No, it really is. But when you add it all up, what you have is a combined in 2021 $1.174 trillion dollars among the NATO allies spent on defense. In total spending. Yeah. That comes to 3.5 million troops who are committed to NATO's alliance,

three and a half million troops. Yeah. And just that dollar amount alone, by the way, 1.174 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 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 part of just modern society to get complacent about our memories are so short these days, I think. And there's so little acknowledgement and realization of like the history of the world and not just like the last 30 to 50 years. There's been peace in Europe for about 70 years now. And that's all anyone, you know, that's all most people remember unless you're like in your 80s probably. You know what I'm saying? Right. That was that's how it's been previous to that. There were a couple of millennia 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 peace over the last seven decades. Yeah. I mean, you're not the only one like pretty much global security experts will say yes, NATO has kept the world order stable for that long, 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. Yeah. It's like, you know, the Cold War was 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 in. It's the world you were born in. And then just the relief of like, wow, democracy actually won. 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've 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 are super anxious about that idea of dying in a nuclear attack. And all I can say is you get used to it. You do. You get used to doing drills in school where you would go get under your desk or in the hallway duck and cover because that would do a lot in the case of a nuclear bomb. Right. Or, 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 toward becoming a NATO member and being like in deep cahoots with NATO 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's saying he's doing. So, if you've been paying attention to the news of Voldemort Zelensky has been saying like, okay, 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 neutral. We just don't feel that strongly 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 a third country's problem. It doesn't mean you're like a Nile, this is a Lebowski. What was that? That was my flea. Okay. They want the lingonberry pancakes. Yeah. Neutrality means you won't get involved in a third country's 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 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's been using the great effect has actually stalled. Stalled 100,000 Russian troops from taking over Ukraine, which everybody thought was going to 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 under neutrality, there would be no arms going from NATO to Ukraine. 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 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'll be a neutral state. It'll be its own sovereign democracy. It can do whatever it wants, but it can't join NATO. And it's not certainly 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 building back a 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 occupation of Ukraine isn't

possible, like long-term occupation. So it seems like neutrality may be the only way forward here for both sides. Yeah, definitely. 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, 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 not all pro-Russian sentiment in

Ukraine has been dissolved because there was some, obviously, but 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 pro-Russian or even considering pro-Russian anymore. But it does seem to be that, and this is obviously up to Ukraine, but if Zelensky is making gestures and overtures saying we're willing to talk about neutrality, it seems like that could be their decision. But again, global security experts, at least ones that were quoted in Al Jazeera are saying this is actually probably the most viable and quick short-term or hand solution to ending this invasion and actually stabilizing things again for a while. That's right. That article, by the way, is Ukraine colon.

What does neutrality mean and could it lead to peace from Thomas O. Faulk? 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 Brookings, the Brennan Center, Time, BBC, and a bunch of other ones too. And Sesame Street. This is definitely one of the... You is for up yours. And this is one of those definite moments in history that it's worth paying attention to. So if this episode struck your fancy, it all go read up on it because there's a lot of really

interesting and important stuff to read. Literally, the world has changed in the last couple months more than it has in years. Since 2001, I would say. Since 2001. You got anything else? I don't think so. Oh, 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.

This is the first episode they listened to and I have foretold the future with this email. Wow, we... Just kidding. Hey, guys, last week, though, I found out about your podcast and I'm loving it. I've become tired of the radio, so decided to start looking at podcasts 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. You two make a great pair and work off each other seamlessly. I want to listen. I cannot help but think of you two as a mash-up of Burton Ernie and SNL's The Delicious Dish with Anna Gastard and Molly Shannon. So I will respond to that part because that is probably the greatest description anyone's ever come up with for us. Take it. Yeah.

Schwitty balls. I mean that in the most complimentary way, by the way, I love it and it works so darn well. Obviously, since the show is going strong for years now. Oh, thank you for noticing. I just wanted to reach out and say 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 for sure. 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 stuffpodcastsatihartradio.com. Stuff you should know is a production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts, My Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Hey, I'm Lance Bass, host of the new I Heart Podcast Frosted Tips with Lance Bass. Do you ever think to yourself, what advice would Lance Bass and my favorite boy bands

give me in this situation? If you do, you've come to the right place because I'm here to help. And a different hot, sexy teen crush boy bander each week to guide you through life. Tell everybody, yeah, everybody about my new podcast and make sure to listen. So we'll never, ever have to say bye, bye, bye. Listen to Frosted Tips with Lance Bass on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. I'm Munga Chauticular, and it turns out astrology is way more widespread than any of us want to believe. You can find it in Major League Baseball, International Banks, K-pop groups, even the White House.

But just when I thought I had a handle on this subject, something completely unbelievable happened to me and my whole view on astrology changed. Whether you're a skeptic or a believer, give me a few minutes because I think your ideas are about to change too. Listen to Skyline Drive on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.