Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff you should know, a production of I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark,
Speaker 1: and there's Charles w Chuck Bryant, and Jerry's here. And
Speaker 1: this is stuff you should know. The Triple Alliance coming
Speaker 1: at you, but not overstepping our bouts, being very delicate.
Speaker 1: Here correct because they tell you the Triple Alliance. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that was actually that the proper name for
Speaker 1: the Aztecs. Oh yeah, m hm, alright, no, but I
Speaker 1: like that. You know, hopefully this episode is coming out
Speaker 1: and we're getting some some guest listeners who are like,
Speaker 1: what is this native thing all about? Who are these
Speaker 1: dumb dumbs? They can explain it, and so I like,
Speaker 1: I like you lobbying out in a little factoid for everyone.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, well that's how we do. We tread lightly,
Speaker 1: we don't overstep our bounds, and we laugh about factoids.
Speaker 1: So welcome. This is stuff you should know. My name
Speaker 1: is Chuck and I'm a co host along with Josh Clark. Yeah, Hi,
Speaker 1: and we explain things and it's in my humorous way
Speaker 1: over the course of you know, a lot of podcasts
Speaker 1: do this every episode. They explain what their missions I
Speaker 1: would I would go berserk, man, I would have giant
Speaker 1: patches in my head where I've just pulled hair clean out.
Speaker 1: But we like to explain things in a in an
Speaker 1: approachable way to the common person, that is to say,
Speaker 1: that is what we are. We don't have lofty goals.
Speaker 1: There you go. Why did you write that one down?
Speaker 1: That was amazing? Yeah, we should do this every time
Speaker 1: and just let me wing it every time. Okay. I
Speaker 1: think we just came up with a new format in
Speaker 1: twenty two. So Chuck, we're talking about NATO, and if
Speaker 1: you didn't know, if you didn't know, we're in trouble.
Speaker 1: But if you the listener, especially the new ones, didn't know,
Speaker 1: NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is
Speaker 1: the kind of name that you can make your eyes
Speaker 1: glaze over with just one pass. It's just that boring sounding, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: But it's a pretty I mean, I don't know, maybe
Speaker 1: this is an opinion of my own, but I think
Speaker 1: it's pretty fundamentally uh integral body to the world order.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's certainly proved itself as such. And you know,
Speaker 1: we're Americans, we were kind of raised to think like
Speaker 1: NATO's fine and great, and it's a good thing. Don't
Speaker 1: even don't even bother thinking about it unless we need
Speaker 1: you to, and if so, we'll alert you through the
Speaker 1: media and then you can start thinking about it. Um.
Speaker 1: But if you dig into it a little bit and
Speaker 1: you actually like, look at the stuff that it does,
Speaker 1: the stuff that it has done, the reasons it was founded,
Speaker 1: and the reasons it's operating now, it actually does make
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of sense. If you're a fan of democracy.
Speaker 1: You know, even if you're not a fan of military operations,
Speaker 1: which I mean, like I'm not, I would rather everything
Speaker 1: just be at peace. It would be great if we
Speaker 1: could do everything through diplomacy, right, Um. But so even
Speaker 1: if you're not like, yeah, we gotta go get him,
Speaker 1: let's just get over there and shoot everybody. Um, you
Speaker 1: could still be like a supporter of NATO just because
Speaker 1: of the stability it does provide, like you were saying,
Speaker 1: or has provided all this time. I I and yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean in recent stuff with Ukraine and Russia has
Speaker 1: definitely made me rethink it in a more positive light
Speaker 1: and that it's more essential than I thought it was. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and we'll get into that obviously along the way in
Speaker 1: this episode and sort of explain what's going on in
Speaker 1: some detail. But I also just the idea that NATO
Speaker 1: is outdated and of a bygone era and not useful
Speaker 1: in a waste of money is I think, um folly
Speaker 1: and Uh, We're not gonna go down that road too much.
Speaker 1: We're just gonna probably explain how it works and hopefully
Speaker 1: through that to display why it's still necessary. The thing is, Chuck,
Speaker 1: is that particular opinion of NATO wasn't necessarily be wrong
Speaker 1: a year ago, two years ago, five years ago. And
Speaker 1: it's not like you and I just woke up to
Speaker 1: the importance of NATO. Literally, the world has changed in
Speaker 1: the last two months since Russia invaded Ukraine and NATO,
Speaker 1: which was struggling to find its way its purpose up
Speaker 1: until about two thousand and fourteen, when the last time
Speaker 1: Russia invaded Ukraine, UM suddenly became like important and had
Speaker 1: a reason to exist again. So things have changed that
Speaker 1: dramatically that a thirty nation allegiance organization that had been
Speaker 1: kind of like what are you what are you guys
Speaker 1: doing again? What's the point of all this was now
Speaker 1: one of the most important organizations in the entire world again.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, and I think there's a lesson in complacency there. Uh,
Speaker 1: Like it's like if you had this old panic room
Speaker 1: installed in your house in the seventies and and you
Speaker 1: know here in were like, you know what this panic room.
Speaker 1: I think I'm just going to turn it into a
Speaker 1: Benga hall. It's getting kind of useless. And then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden the purge happens, and you remember why
Speaker 1: you needed that panic room. Yeah, so the purge happened
Speaker 1: to Ukraine in February of this year, But the purge
Speaker 1: was always just sitting out there possibly could happen. And
Speaker 1: I guess that's the complacency I'm talking about. I think
Speaker 1: no one thought anything like, oh, everything's like, everything's fine
Speaker 1: these days, like Europe is not going to be at war,
Speaker 1: we don't need this stuff. And then but that possibility
Speaker 1: is always out there, and I think just the mirror
Speaker 1: and this isn't me, this is you know, highly respected
Speaker 1: people say that just the mere mention of exiting NATO
Speaker 1: and dissolving NATO emboldened people like Putin, Yes, so, um,
Speaker 1: what sucks is like the idea that that we're living
Speaker 1: in a world where NATO is essential, where that the
Speaker 1: purge is kind of always out there. Um, it didn't
Speaker 1: necessarily be that way. And if if you if you're
Speaker 1: uncomble living in that that kind of reality, if you're
Speaker 1: if you're like this reality actually sucks that the purge
Speaker 1: is out there and we have to have NATO. Now,
Speaker 1: we have to spend all this extra money on defense
Speaker 1: and all this stuff, and you know, peace seems to
Speaker 1: be you know, up in arms in question. Again, blame
Speaker 1: the people who invade other countries. Don't blame the people
Speaker 1: who have allied to fight against that kind of thing
Speaker 1: in the name of democracy, Well said sir. Should we
Speaker 1: go back to the beginning. Yeah, let's talk about the
Speaker 1: history of NATO, because it's a fairly um young organization
Speaker 1: comparatively speaking, like if you compare it to you know,
Speaker 1: systems of writing, it's very young, that's true, or the
Speaker 1: sun sure, very very young. Huh uh. So let's go
Speaker 1: back in time. I guess we should jump in the
Speaker 1: old way back machine. Rank it up. It's been a while.
Speaker 1: You're showing off for the new people. Huh. I know,
Speaker 1: we have a way back machine and we can go
Speaker 1: back in time to take that April fourth, nineteen forty
Speaker 1: nine is when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed initially
Speaker 1: by the original uh the O G s the twelve
Speaker 1: founding member countries, which were ourselves here in the United
Speaker 1: States Canada are hat to the North. I like that
Speaker 1: you're adding a little bit to each one. But can
Speaker 1: you sing it as a song? No? I can't. Shoot.
Speaker 1: I just did did you hear that? I did? Uh?
Speaker 1: Where else? The United Kingdom, our friends across the pond,
Speaker 1: Uh France, those folks who make such good gravies, Uh Italy,
Speaker 1: which is all about those pillowy beautiful what are they
Speaker 1: called croissants? Well, sure, but I was thinking of the pasta.
Speaker 1: That's uh the gnocchi. Oh yeah, that's not pillowe. It's dense,
Speaker 1: it's densest pillowe. I don't think that's gnocchi. I think
Speaker 1: that's like um is delicious, but it's Yournoki's two dens.
Speaker 1: Isn't gnocchi? Stuff with something though? No key, Oh, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking of parogis Portugal delicious wines. Uh Norway. I just
Speaker 1: here they bike a lot over there. Denmark they bike
Speaker 1: even more. Iceland is not Greenland. People get those confused Belgium.
Speaker 1: I've been there, and that's where NATO is headquartered. We'll
Speaker 1: get to that. The Netherlands, they are largely below sea level.
Speaker 1: And then Luxembourg. I flew out of there once. It's
Speaker 1: very small. It is extremely small. And I've been to
Speaker 1: Belgium too, by the way. Uh, yeah, Belgium is nice.
Speaker 1: And then you got Greece and Turkey in fifty two
Speaker 1: West Germany and fifty five Spain and eighty two, and
Speaker 1: then in n when the Soviet Union collapsed, it was
Speaker 1: like a free for all of people and countries going
Speaker 1: oh me me, me, me, me, me me. Over the
Speaker 1: next eighteen years, Yeah, and NATO was saying, yes, come
Speaker 1: be friends, come become democracies. This is great for US. UM.
Speaker 1: And that was that. We'll talk about it kind of considered. UM.
Speaker 1: There's a guy named James stev RDIs. He was the
Speaker 1: Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from two thousand nine to
Speaker 1: two UM and he put it as that that was
Speaker 1: kind of the beginning of NATO two point oh. But
Speaker 1: NATO one point oh. The original mission of NATO was
Speaker 1: very clear, it was very purposeful, it was very complicated
Speaker 1: in execution, and it required tons of money, especially considering
Speaker 1: there were only twelve to sixteen members from two right
Speaker 1: um and the mission was contained the Soviet Union because
Speaker 1: after World War Two, Europe was just tow up from
Speaker 1: the flow up and it was up for grabs. And
Speaker 1: one of the first things the Soviet Union did was
Speaker 1: start pouring all of its economy into its military and
Speaker 1: say sing, okay, you're part of the Soviet Union. Now
Speaker 1: you're part of the Soviet Union. You're part of the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union. They drew whatevery eighties, kid Um knew was
Speaker 1: a line between Europe and the Eastern Bloc called the
Speaker 1: Iron Curtain. And you did not penetrate the Iron Curtain.
Speaker 1: The Iron Curtain penetrated you. All right, y'all think I'm
Speaker 1: glad you got that. Uh, that is true. And the
Speaker 1: one of the biggest parts of NATO, that's sort of
Speaker 1: one of the most fundamental parts of it, is Article five,
Speaker 1: which we won't read in full. You should go look
Speaker 1: it up online though and read it. But it basically,
Speaker 1: but we could sing it. It basically says, you know
Speaker 1: what these are all like, NATO isn't a military force.
Speaker 1: It is a bunch of countries and their military forces,
Speaker 1: and it's really up to each member to decide what
Speaker 1: they want to do when it comes to supporting an
Speaker 1: ally like you don't have to use military force. Uh
Speaker 1: you can though under an international law, but you basically
Speaker 1: it's up to each country. It's a it's a weird
Speaker 1: organization and that they don't vote on things. It's all
Speaker 1: just sort of hammered out as a consensus, including who
Speaker 1: the NATO Secretary General is. They don't even vote on that.
Speaker 1: They just sort of agree to who's gonna take that
Speaker 1: role and um which will you know, we'll get to
Speaker 1: what they do later, but it is I did find
Speaker 1: it fascinating that they don't you know, they don't sit down.
Speaker 1: I mean, how many countries are there now, thirty? They
Speaker 1: don't sit down and have a thirty country vote when
Speaker 1: it comes to anything. They just they just work it out.
Speaker 1: That means sometimes some countries are gonna get more of
Speaker 1: what they want and some times are gonna have to
Speaker 1: acquiesce and get less, Yeah, which I find kind of neat.
Speaker 1: But overall, most of the countries are in favor of
Speaker 1: doing whatever NATO is doing, or they're opposed to it,
Speaker 1: and NATO doesn't do something so that Article five, the
Speaker 1: basis of it is what's called collective defense and the
Speaker 1: maintenance of this. This is the thing that probably binds
Speaker 1: more than anything else the thirty countries that are members
Speaker 1: of NATO, is that if you attack one NATO country,
Speaker 1: you are effectively attacking all thirty NATO countries, and those
Speaker 1: thirty NATO right, those thirty NATO countries will bring their substantial,
Speaker 1: significant military might onto you the attacker who attacked that
Speaker 1: one country. That's ultimately the main and original purpose of
Speaker 1: NATO because when when NATO was formed and Russia was
Speaker 1: consolidating its military, Europe was not what The countries of
Speaker 1: Europe were in no shape to defend themselves. So they
Speaker 1: entered into this pact with the United States and Canada,
Speaker 1: who said, we'll come over and help you guys. And
Speaker 1: by the way, so you know, I hope you're listening.
Speaker 1: If you attack any of these guys, if you try
Speaker 1: to expand beyond that iron curtain, we're coming in like
Speaker 1: it's an attack on us. That was the basis of NATO,
Speaker 1: and it's been upheld ever since, although it's only been
Speaker 1: in once in the history um since nineteen yeah. And
Speaker 1: not only does that mean that these countries aren't getting attacked,
Speaker 1: which is uh been pretty ironclad. It means that other countries,
Speaker 1: like obviously in ninety one, like I said, with the
Speaker 1: fall of the Soviet Union, over the next eighteen years
Speaker 1: are scrambling to be a part of it because a
Speaker 1: lot of these are smaller countries who no way could
Speaker 1: they stand up to a superpower like Russia. Uh so
Speaker 1: they were they want to be in NATO, and we'll
Speaker 1: talk about Ukraine and they're you know, whether or not
Speaker 1: their desire was to be a part of NATO and
Speaker 1: where that kind of lies now with the current situation.
Speaker 1: But the point is these countries like Slovenia and Albania
Speaker 1: and Croatia and Montenegro, like they want to be a
Speaker 1: part of NATO because they need friends. Well they yeah,
Speaker 1: they do need friends because yeah, if if there was
Speaker 1: Russian aggression against them, they would just completely they would
Speaker 1: have no no choice. They I don't even think they
Speaker 1: could fight back in the way that Ukraine did. Some
Speaker 1: of these countries are so small and have such small militaries.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so right now as it stands, as far
Speaker 1: as Article five is concerned, if any country attacks North
Speaker 1: Macedonia to the United States military, it is attacking the
Speaker 1: United States. That's just part of the NATO treaty, right,
Speaker 1: And and there's that's a point of contention from what
Speaker 1: I saw a chuck that that some people are like, Okay,
Speaker 1: are we really going to send our troops over to
Speaker 1: like die in North Macedonia if Russia attacks it? And
Speaker 1: as far as our Article five is concerned, yeah, you
Speaker 1: would like you would do that, like that's part of
Speaker 1: the treaty, Like they are a NATO member nation. And
Speaker 1: to some people it doesn't make sense that you would
Speaker 1: sacrifice you know, blood and treasure as they say in
Speaker 1: North Macedonia. To other people, it's it's exactly sensible because
Speaker 1: if North Macedonia is a NATO country, you can put
Speaker 1: whatever missiles you want in North Macedonia. They're a NATO country,
Speaker 1: and so there's strategically located, and their strategic location makes
Speaker 1: them extraordinarily valuable as a NATO member. So it makes
Speaker 1: sense in some ways, it doesn't make sense in other ways.
Speaker 1: But overall, the general idea is that the more NATO
Speaker 1: countries you have in Europe, the stronger the whole thing is,
Speaker 1: even including the little countries. Everybody has a role to play. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: and not only that, you know, the little countries. Uh,
Speaker 1: if you might think it's not worth expending all this
Speaker 1: kind of money to help and you know, maybe American
Speaker 1: soldiers lives to protect them. The dominoes can fall very
Speaker 1: quickly when you have somebody like Putin in power, and um,
Speaker 1: the world wants most of the world wants peace, and
Speaker 1: that can very easily be very tenuous if these little,
Speaker 1: smaller countries start following like dominoes and all of a
Speaker 1: sudden you look up and the world map is being redrawn,
Speaker 1: right exactly, So that's exactly what they're trying to prevent
Speaker 1: by by stringing together this cohesive group of NATO countries. Right. Um.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, if you are in Russia and
Speaker 1: you're in the Russian military, or say you're the head
Speaker 1: of Russia, when you see all these little countries that
Speaker 1: are along your border now suddenly saying we're a democracy
Speaker 1: and we're now NATO members and we can put missiles
Speaker 1: aimed at you, like right along your border, that's a
Speaker 1: huge menace to you. And um, that in some ways
Speaker 1: explains the aggression that Putin carried out in Ukraine. Among
Speaker 1: some observers, that's not that hasn't been is necessarily the
Speaker 1: stated goal of the invasion of Ukraine. But a lot
Speaker 1: of Russian experts say this, this actually is is a
Speaker 1: huge response to NATO. He doesn't want to bring Ukraine
Speaker 1: into the Russian Federation necessarily. I remember when this started
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago. Um Emily, who was my wife?
Speaker 1: If you're new to the show, she gets mentioned occasionally.
Speaker 1: Josh's a wife, name you me? She gets mentioned occasionally.
Speaker 1: We also have pets. I have a daughter. They might
Speaker 1: pop up as well, but I doubt it. My pet
Speaker 1: is my daughter and they Emily was just like, why
Speaker 1: what is you know? She didn't really understand what was
Speaker 1: going on at first, She said, what does Russia want
Speaker 1: with Ukraine? And I just very simply because it's more
Speaker 1: complex than that. But I was basically like, it's like
Speaker 1: the oldest, the oldest reason in world history. It's land,
Speaker 1: and it's a big chunk of land, and where it
Speaker 1: sits next to Russia, it's strategically it's like it's troublesome
Speaker 1: for them to have uh NATO interests there, and it's
Speaker 1: troublesome for NATO to have Russian interest there. So it's
Speaker 1: you know, it's funny, like when you look back and
Speaker 1: they're not funny, it's sad. But when you look back
Speaker 1: at like, there are many reasons for war, but like
Speaker 1: one of the biggest ones has always just been land
Speaker 1: acquisition and holdings totally and usually along your border, and
Speaker 1: you just expand. I mean, it was like expanding the
Speaker 1: Empire before for like resources and stuff, and I think
Speaker 1: that still clearly goes on, but it also in this
Speaker 1: case is like wanting a buffer between NATO and Russia
Speaker 1: on the one hand, Right, should we take a break.
Speaker 1: Let's take a break, so we'll be right back and
Speaker 1: we'll talk a little bit about some of the mess
Speaker 1: that NATO two point oh was in which led us
Speaker 1: to NATO three point oh. Okay, so we're back, and um,
Speaker 1: we're talking about what again Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis called,
Speaker 1: and I think Time magazine like two eighteen NATO two
Speaker 1: point oh and NATO two point oh came about because
Speaker 1: the whole purpose of NATO, which was then tain the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union out of Europe um, became pointless because there
Speaker 1: was no Soviet Union anymore. After I believe the USSR
Speaker 1: broke up right. And on the one hand, when it
Speaker 1: first happened, Chuck, it was like you were saying, like,
Speaker 1: all of these these former Russian satellite states started scrambling
Speaker 1: to become part of NATO, and NATO was welcoming them
Speaker 1: with open arms. Um. And that that first part of
Speaker 1: that NATO two point oh, that second general point of
Speaker 1: NATO made a lot of sense, and it was consolidating
Speaker 1: Europe into an even more peaceful, more democratic area. But
Speaker 1: then after that kind of stabilized and they got there
Speaker 1: that process under underway, um, it started to kind of
Speaker 1: like lose its point or its purpose a little bit. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think post Cold War, the complacency set
Speaker 1: in and people did start to think, like what are
Speaker 1: we doing? And NATO two point oh said, well, you
Speaker 1: know what we can. Uh. We can engage in counter
Speaker 1: terrorism uh campaigns. UH. We don't like the piracy that's
Speaker 1: going around the world, so we can help to combat that, uh.
Speaker 1: And we can get involved in these other uh in
Speaker 1: combating these other activities that are detrimental to world order
Speaker 1: and world peace. But this is kind of some of
Speaker 1: the stuff that not only did it, it caused some
Speaker 1: consternation in the citizens of the world, like what are
Speaker 1: we doing here with NATO. It was also within NATO
Speaker 1: there was a lot of infighting within the board of
Speaker 1: like what you know or the council should I say,
Speaker 1: what should we do? I don't think we should be
Speaker 1: doing this. We should be doing this. And since they
Speaker 1: have to hammer everything out and agree even sometimes to
Speaker 1: disagree in order to do something, it was a little
Speaker 1: bit fractured. On the interior, Yeah, big time because a
Speaker 1: lot of people are like, what the heck does combating
Speaker 1: piracy in the Gulf of Aiden have to do with
Speaker 1: protecting Europe, m the USSR, you know, the Cold Wars
Speaker 1: over what are we doing? Like, yeah, let's let's keep
Speaker 1: NATO together because who knows what what's going to be needed?
Speaker 1: But do we need to engage in this adventurism? And
Speaker 1: then UM the Supreme Alley Commander position, which is the
Speaker 1: head of all NATO forces, that is like by nature
Speaker 1: in the treaty, I think always an American, so the
Speaker 1: Americans always de facto and also in a lot of
Speaker 1: different ways really lead NATO. UM. But in the early
Speaker 1: two thousand's America squandered a lot of its credibility, a
Speaker 1: lot of its legitimacy in adventurism like invading Iraq unprovoked
Speaker 1: illegally um, which by the way, NATO had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with because the rest of the NATO nations are
Speaker 1: most of the other NATO nations were like, this is
Speaker 1: not right. We're not going anywhere near it, which is
Speaker 1: a mark in NATO's favor if you ask me, um
Speaker 1: that they saw like this is not this is not
Speaker 1: a just war as an invasion um. But that that
Speaker 1: kind of stuff like really kind of made other member
Speaker 1: nations kind of question American leadership. Whereas up to that point,
Speaker 1: or a little before that point, it was just like
Speaker 1: America was leading the way, NATO was following, and it
Speaker 1: was all good. And then after that things started to
Speaker 1: really kind of fracture and crack. Right. So this is
Speaker 1: sort of when Ukraine um comes into the picture, and
Speaker 1: that you don't have to be a NATO member to
Speaker 1: deal with NATO and to work with NATO and to
Speaker 1: read a lot of the benefits of NATO so they
Speaker 1: can partner with non NATO countries. This started back in
Speaker 1: ninety one with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and
Speaker 1: the goal here is to basically to arm people, to
Speaker 1: train people to ensure their democracy stays stable. Uh. And
Speaker 1: you know when that started happening, non NATO countries got
Speaker 1: interested in this kind of partnership, specifically Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Speaker 1: Georgia and uk Rain. So all of a sudden, these uh,
Speaker 1: in the early nineties, these other countries are knocking on
Speaker 1: the door saying, hey, we don't want to be members
Speaker 1: because they can you can join. Any European country can
Speaker 1: join NATO as long as they, you know, do what's required,
Speaker 1: which will you know, we'll get to that in a minute.
Speaker 1: But Ukraine has been working with them through what's called
Speaker 1: the Comprehensive Assistance Package. They've been receiving NATO support. Uh.
Speaker 1: And this is the kind of thing that you know,
Speaker 1: Zelinski has a lot of this quagmire that is happening
Speaker 1: now is Russia was afraid that they were officially going
Speaker 1: to join NATO because Zelinski approved the National Security strategy,
Speaker 1: which it was almost like they were seriously kicking the
Speaker 1: tires on one another. Finally, yeah, I think they. He
Speaker 1: said in September twenty twenty that that Ukraine's aim was
Speaker 1: to become a full member of NATO after being a
Speaker 1: partner for you know, three decades but basically um or
Speaker 1: at least two full decades um and even before that,
Speaker 1: the whole thing kind of kicked off. There was a
Speaker 1: summit in Bucharest called the Well the Bucharest Summit in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, and at that meeting, Georgia and
Speaker 1: Ukraine declared that it was their aim to become NATO members.
Speaker 1: And that seems to be at least geo politically speaking,
Speaker 1: what what kind of kicked the tensions off big time
Speaker 1: and led to the two thousand fourteen invasion of Ukraine
Speaker 1: and Crimea and then also led to the two invasion
Speaker 1: that's going on right now. That's right. A little more
Speaker 1: nuts and bolts about NATO itself. They are, like we
Speaker 1: said at the beginning, they're headquartered in Brussels, and uh,
Speaker 1: everything's done by consensus. And you mentioned the military part
Speaker 1: of NATO. It's different. It's called the Military Committee. It's
Speaker 1: different than the actual North Atlantic Council. Like that's headed
Speaker 1: by the NATO Secretary General and it's not a it's
Speaker 1: not a figurehead position, but they don't they're not in
Speaker 1: charge of like deciding anything they're just sort of uh,
Speaker 1: they're the Secretary General, they head up the meetings. Uh.
Speaker 1: They have historically always been European and the head of
Speaker 1: the Military Committee has always been American, like you said,
Speaker 1: but there's nothing in the charter that says that has
Speaker 1: to be the case. It's just always been that way. Uh.
Speaker 1: So they're they're in Belgium and they're taking meetings every
Speaker 1: day and and and you know, answering the bat phone
Speaker 1: when it rings. And then you've got your Military Committee,
Speaker 1: and then you've got your what's the other one, the
Speaker 1: nuclear the Nuclear Planning Group. Uh, And I guess the
Speaker 1: military is sort of the link between all of these.
Speaker 1: To make sure you know the military strategy is sound. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because DATO likes to to publicize itself as a both
Speaker 1: a military and a political organization. And it definitely is
Speaker 1: like if you partner with NATO as a as a
Speaker 1: partner country or if you remember like you're you're you're
Speaker 1: engaged with them politically and they try to work things
Speaker 1: out diplomatically like um. Very famously, one of the first
Speaker 1: post Cold War missions that NATO embarked on was in
Speaker 1: the Balkans. When war broke out there. UM in for
Speaker 1: the former Yugoslavian states right back in the Wag the
Speaker 1: Dog era. You remember that, of course? Yeah? Okay, so
Speaker 1: um do you remember in the movie Wag the Dog?
Speaker 1: Like that? Okay, so so, and then that happened basically
Speaker 1: in real life. It was such a close resemblance to it.
Speaker 1: I remember a reporter asking Bill Clinton, like, have you
Speaker 1: ever seen the movie Wag the Dog, because like, the
Speaker 1: Balkan NATO mission started like right as the Monica Lewinsky
Speaker 1: Lewinsky scandal was heating up, And he said, it depends
Speaker 1: on what your definition of scene is, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: we're gonna be able to tee off on that guy forever. Huh,
Speaker 1: let's just cut that great. So the the so, they
Speaker 1: NATO entered the Balkans um and tried to like work
Speaker 1: everything out. There's a peacekeeping mission um, but there was
Speaker 1: also obviously a lot of military operations is how they
Speaker 1: kept the peace. But even still there's an ongoing Balkan
Speaker 1: mission there and they're trying to sort out the still
Speaker 1: the longstanding hostility and promote democracy in these groups. So
Speaker 1: they are a political organization, but they're also really at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, their military just the incredible
Speaker 1: unrivaled might of the military combined military powers of the
Speaker 1: thirty countries involved in NATO. It's it's you just can't
Speaker 1: really look at it too many other ways. It's a
Speaker 1: it's a huge military, that's right. Uh. And as far
Speaker 1: as the the Main Committee goes, or the Main Council
Speaker 1: it is headed, each country has their own ambassador. I
Speaker 1: think we got a new and is that right? What's
Speaker 1: her name, Julianne Smith, julian Smith. I want to say
Speaker 1: Julianne Moore, just because boy, she would be great at that.
Speaker 1: Sure we need more actors and roles like this, right
Speaker 1: for sure? That's I mean, if any job, actors have
Speaker 1: proven to be amazing politicians over the years, that's right.
Speaker 1: And actor would never like to get up on stage
Speaker 1: of the auctors and hit somebody. Man, I'm so disturbed
Speaker 1: and just unsettled by that. It was very surreal. I
Speaker 1: was actually not going to watch the Oscars this year
Speaker 1: because I'm kind of over it, but for some reason
Speaker 1: I watched, so I saw it live. Wow, that must
Speaker 1: have been cereal, just like I think like everyone else thought.
Speaker 1: It was a bit at first, and then when the
Speaker 1: here in the United States the audio cut out, and
Speaker 1: it was clear from Chris Rock. When he came back,
Speaker 1: I was like, oh boy, did that Did I just
Speaker 1: see what I think I saw? Yeah, that's crazy. I
Speaker 1: was telling you me. I couldn't find a clip with it,
Speaker 1: but I wanted to see, like or here the ham
Speaker 1: fisted way the conductor in the orchestra like tried to
Speaker 1: play everything back out, you know, from the weird, uncomfortable,
Speaker 1: awkward silence that just gripped the entire auditorium. I want
Speaker 1: to know how they got out of that awkward silence,
Speaker 1: because I'll bet it was equally well they didn't. He
Speaker 1: had to give out. He was right in the middle
Speaker 1: of giving out an award. Oh so he had to
Speaker 1: continue on after that, Yes, dude, it was that joke
Speaker 1: was before he even started giving out the award. You know,
Speaker 1: when they go up there and just make jokes. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, that was one of the saddest things is
Speaker 1: that he gave out the award for Best Documentary to
Speaker 1: quest Love for his awesome documentary Summer of Soul, So like,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, like his mom is overshadowed. It
Speaker 1: was jeez, what a train wreck. Anyway, off topic, Hey,
Speaker 1: that's something we do sometimes, folks, We take tangents. Uh
Speaker 1: should we talk a little bit about the funding of NATO.
Speaker 1: I don't think you can get around that, chuck, just try.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, no, let's let's talk about one other thing.
Speaker 1: So where we are today before we hit finding? Okay,
Speaker 1: so we're at what um what? Uh? Supreme Commander, Supreme
Speaker 1: Allied Commander James Stavridis. And if you can't tell, I
Speaker 1: like saying Supreme Allied Commander, you're not paying close enough attention.
Speaker 1: But um what he calls NATO three point Oh, because
Speaker 1: he's he's in the cyber security I guess. And NATO
Speaker 1: three point is where we are today. And like I
Speaker 1: was saying, you know, there's been a lot of talk
Speaker 1: and movement towards NATO expansion, and some Russia experts are saying,
Speaker 1: you know, that's one of the main drivers, are one
Speaker 1: of the big drivers for these invasions of Ukraine that
Speaker 1: have taken place of the last less than ten years. Um.
Speaker 1: But that aggression in response to NATO expansion or depending
Speaker 1: on how you take it, just straight up Russian aggression.
Speaker 1: Like it doesn't matter if NATO is talking about bringing
Speaker 1: Ukraine on and helping it become a democracy. You don't
Speaker 1: go waste a city, you don't waste a country. You
Speaker 1: don't gun down civilians, you don't bomb a theater where
Speaker 1: you know hundreds of civilians are hiding out. You don't
Speaker 1: do that. There's no justification for it, and you know,
Speaker 1: damn you to hell for doing it, whoever you are.
Speaker 1: So that kind of aggression has actually, now, like we
Speaker 1: were saying at the beginning of the episode, changed the
Speaker 1: world order so dramatically that um, it's revived NATO. Like
Speaker 1: all of that bickering, all of the inner ally you know,
Speaker 1: dissent in UM in troubles and like what what's our purpose?
Speaker 1: All of that has been just pushed right to the
Speaker 1: back and all of a sudden, Europe in America are
Speaker 1: friends again, europe as friends with one another again. UM,
Speaker 1: and NATO is probably stronger than it has been in
Speaker 1: the last thirty years, thanks to ironically vot Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: Yeah absolutely, I mean yeah, I have. I've read a
Speaker 1: lot about this and that doesn't seem to be like
Speaker 1: a controversial hot take. Um. It seems to be fairly
Speaker 1: indisputable that NATO is as UM as allied and as
Speaker 1: and as together. It's it's been in decades, and it
Speaker 1: couldn't have come at a better time because you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you noticed or not, but democracy
Speaker 1: itself has been kind of under assault, and people were
Speaker 1: wonder is the US up to the task of taking
Speaker 1: that on? Is that Europe up to the task of
Speaker 1: taking that on? And one of the main tenants of
Speaker 1: NATO is promoting democracy not just around the world but
Speaker 1: within its own countries, its own member nations, since a
Speaker 1: lot of countries have had some kind of weird, weird
Speaker 1: times that it's gone through where NATO has had to
Speaker 1: basically call those countries out, I think Turkey most recently,
Speaker 1: where it said, hey, you're a NATO member, we expect
Speaker 1: you to uphold democracy and democratic values. Right, So it
Speaker 1: promotes it not just around the world, but among member nations,
Speaker 1: and that's a huge important point. And so this strengthening
Speaker 1: of strengthening of NATO, and thus the strengthening of belief
Speaker 1: and in placing value in the idea of democracy and
Speaker 1: a willingness to defend democracy could not have come at
Speaker 1: a more vital time. So in that sense, thank you
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin. It's just a shame and very sad that
Speaker 1: that had to come at the expense of the people
Speaker 1: of Ukraine. Agreed. Uh, so maybe we should take the
Speaker 1: break now and we'll come back and talk about that funding,
Speaker 1: previously mentioned funding right after this. George. Alright, so the
Speaker 1: aforementioned NATO funding. And by the way, thanks to our
Speaker 1: former colleagues at house stuff works dot com for the
Speaker 1: the the original NATO article that kind of started down
Speaker 1: this this road. But uh, there's a lot of misconceptions
Speaker 1: about NATO funding and how that works. Uh. The official
Speaker 1: guidelines say that member nations are expected to commit a
Speaker 1: minimum of two percent of their GDP their gross domestic
Speaker 1: product to spending on defense. But it's there's not a
Speaker 1: uh because like I said, NATO, it's not loosey goosey.
Speaker 1: But it's not like someone checks the books every year
Speaker 1: and then goes to Luxembourg and says, Hi, you actually
Speaker 1: spent this and this is what you owe. So if
Speaker 1: you could just get the checked book out, uh and
Speaker 1: make that up right now, that would be fantastic. Well, no,
Speaker 1: there's no penalty. That's not how it works. Uh. And
Speaker 1: I think um, only three members spent two percent of
Speaker 1: their GDP or more on defense. I think the US
Speaker 1: spends about three and a half. Is that the most
Speaker 1: recent number? Uh? Yeah, as right, and um, everyone in
Speaker 1: NATO has basically said, though, all right, we get it,
Speaker 1: we'll we'll try and up our spending and we would
Speaker 1: like to meet that goal in the next couple of
Speaker 1: years here. Yeah, because again as NATO is like, what
Speaker 1: are we doing here? Again? That really led to a
Speaker 1: big decline in military spending, and that huge increase in
Speaker 1: in military spending among europeanations of recent years has largely
Speaker 1: been because of Vladimir Putin rattling a saber and then
Speaker 1: actually following through on it. But one one thing, Chuck
Speaker 1: that I think is really like important, that's a misconception
Speaker 1: is we don't contribute three and a half percent of
Speaker 1: our GDP to NATO. No, A lot of people think
Speaker 1: that the requirement is that you as a nation spend
Speaker 1: two percent on your own nation's defense. And then, because
Speaker 1: you're all tethered together through this invisible alliance of NATO,
Speaker 1: NATO combined has access to those thirty member nations defense
Speaker 1: all what those defense budgets by which, when you add
Speaker 1: it all up, is extremely substantial. Both an amount spent,
Speaker 1: but also in like like what you get for that
Speaker 1: kind of money. Yeah. I do think that some people
Speaker 1: might think that everyone chips in this money to NATO
Speaker 1: and that there are NATO forces and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: That's not how it works. NATO's we do contribute to
Speaker 1: run NATO with their you know, with their own budget.
Speaker 1: But that's about two billion bucks two and that's just
Speaker 1: day to day operations and uh, you know, logistics and
Speaker 1: operations and keeping the headquarters nice tidy clean. Someone's gotta
Speaker 1: clean those bathrooms. Uh. That's not a lot of money though,
Speaker 1: But that two percent, right is spending on your own military. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's actually apportioned out uh in the original I guess charters.
Speaker 1: That what you say of the original agreement? Um the
Speaker 1: what the treaty? Yeah, the treaty. It's right there, That's
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. It's so boring, it's keep wanting to
Speaker 1: find a better name. Uh. There the apportionment for the
Speaker 1: United States, our cost share is here in the US,
Speaker 1: if you look at our g d P, it's about
Speaker 1: the same size as the other twenty seven nations put together.
Speaker 1: So it's not based on like how big in an
Speaker 1: economy you have, because then we would be our apportion
Speaker 1: it would be about fifty but it's twenty two. Yeah, right,
Speaker 1: it does make sense. That's just for chipping into that
Speaker 1: two billion dollars that keeps NATO operation operation already at
Speaker 1: all times. That's not for US, it is um and
Speaker 1: so the US is, as you know, far in a way.
Speaker 1: We we spend on defense um I think almost three
Speaker 1: times more than the other NATO nations combined. So we
Speaker 1: spent about eight hundred and eleven billion dollars in one
Speaker 1: and the rest of the NATO allies spend it combined
Speaker 1: three hundred and sixty three billion, from I think the
Speaker 1: UK's fifty nine point two billion down to North Macedonia's
Speaker 1: hundred and eight million. But if you look at proportion
Speaker 1: of g d P, there are plenty of nations who
Speaker 1: go beyond that two percent, Like Grease actually spends more
Speaker 1: of its GDP by percentage on defense than the United
Speaker 1: States does. We spend three and a half percent. Grease
Speaker 1: spends three point eight two, Crowa just two point seven nine,
Speaker 1: The UK is two point two nine, Poland is two
Speaker 1: point one. So plenty of nations have started topping that.
Speaker 1: But that is a fairly new thing. Yeah, Like you
Speaker 1: just can't look at NATO as a a thirty item
Speaker 1: balance sheet, uh and say, well, this is a bad
Speaker 1: deal because I'm looking at thirty different numbers of what
Speaker 1: these countries contribute. It's it's much it's much more complex
Speaker 1: than that. You have to look at it relative to
Speaker 1: the size of the nation in their economies and overall spending.
Speaker 1: It's it's frustrating. Say no, it really is. But when
Speaker 1: you add it all up, what you have is a
Speaker 1: combined in two thousand, twenty one, one point one seven
Speaker 1: four trillion dollars among the NATO allies spent. That comes
Speaker 1: to three and a half million troops who are committed
Speaker 1: to NATO's alliance. Three and a half million troops. And
Speaker 1: just that dollar amount alone, by the way, one point
Speaker 1: one seven four trillion, that's basically more than the rest
Speaker 1: of the world combined, and just the NATO allies, the
Speaker 1: non US NATO allies spending is more than China and
Speaker 1: Russia's defense budgets combined. So it's it's substantial not to
Speaker 1: mention that three NATO members are nuclear powers allied together. Like,
Speaker 1: so when you put all that stuff together, the idea
Speaker 1: of NATO like being this stabilizing force in global security
Speaker 1: makes total sense. It doesn't even have to do anything,
Speaker 1: It just has to exist to keep things stable and
Speaker 1: to promote democracy around the world and to reach out
Speaker 1: to like formerly non democratic countries and say, hey, here's
Speaker 1: how you become democratic. Here are the values. Let's see
Speaker 1: if you can stick to them, if you want to
Speaker 1: become a NATO member. Just from this kind of defense spending.
Speaker 1: It's kind of ingenious in a way. Well, it is,
Speaker 1: and I think it's I think it's part of just
Speaker 1: modern society to get complacent about our memories are so
Speaker 1: short these days, I think, and there's so little um
Speaker 1: acknowledgement and realization of like the history of the world
Speaker 1: and not just like the last thirty to fifty years.
Speaker 1: You know, there's been peace in Europe for about seventy
Speaker 1: years now, and that's all anyone, you know, that's all
Speaker 1: most people remember, unless you're like in your eighties, probably
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. That it's been previous to that,
Speaker 1: there were a couple of millennia of of war in Europe,
Speaker 1: and like the fact that NATO, and I think I
Speaker 1: mean not not singly NATO, But I think NATO has
Speaker 1: been the biggest driver of ensuring that piece over the
Speaker 1: last seven decades. Yeah, I mean you're not the only one.
Speaker 1: Like pretty much global security experts will will say, yes,
Speaker 1: NATO has kept the world order stable for that long
Speaker 1: and basically as long as it's been around. I think
Speaker 1: it's just sad that I think the the short term
Speaker 1: memory of how kind of people are today, it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, the could rules over. Do we really need
Speaker 1: this stuff anymore? Yeah, But I mean it's tough to
Speaker 1: blame people because again, it's like the world you grew
Speaker 1: up into the world you're born, and then just the
Speaker 1: relief of like, wow, democracy actually one, we actually did it.
Speaker 1: We can just relax for once for a little while.
Speaker 1: It was funny, Chuck, I was thinking today there are
Speaker 1: plenty of people who I'm sure listen to our podcast
Speaker 1: who have never lived under the threat of nuclear attack
Speaker 1: and are now for the first time in their life.
Speaker 1: And I've settled back into it like it's an old
Speaker 1: smoking jacket and some comfy slippers, you know, like this
Speaker 1: is just like normal, normal stuff to me. And I realized,
Speaker 1: like I wonder how many people out there super anxious
Speaker 1: about that idea of dying in a nuclear attack, and UM,
Speaker 1: all I can say is you get used to it,
Speaker 1: you do you get used to to uh doing drills
Speaker 1: in school where you would go get under your desk, hallway,
Speaker 1: duck and cover because that would do a lot in
Speaker 1: the case of a nuclear bomb. Or uh, you know,
Speaker 1: watching Matthew Broderick bring us back from the brink of
Speaker 1: nuclear war. What a hero, what a movie. So Chuck,
Speaker 1: we should probably before we finish, we should probably talk
Speaker 1: about the future of Ukraine and NATO, because, as we've
Speaker 1: said a few times here, you know, Ukraine making moves
Speaker 1: towards becoming a NATO member and being like in deep
Speaker 1: cahoots with NATO. UM has has created this situation, at
Speaker 1: least in part where Russia's feeling like emboldened about invading
Speaker 1: Ukraine to either put a stop to that or whatever
Speaker 1: putin saying he's doing so. Um, if you've been paying
Speaker 1: attention to the news of Voldemir Zelinski has been saying like, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're we're we're willing to maybe start talking about neutrality now.
Speaker 1: And what he's talking about has almost everything to do
Speaker 1: with NATO, right, Yeah, I mean, neutrality isn't just a
Speaker 1: isn't just something like just say, oh, you know, we're
Speaker 1: we're neutral. We just don't feel that strong about anything
Speaker 1: over here. Right, That's not what it means. Neutrality in
Speaker 1: terms of the world order. I believe it means you
Speaker 1: don't get involved in the third country's problem. It doesn't
Speaker 1: mean you're like a nihilist Libski What was that? That
Speaker 1: was my fleet? Okay, the one the Lincoln Berry pancakes.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, Neutrality means you won't get involved in the
Speaker 1: third countries, uh issues. Isn't that right? Totally? Yeah, No
Speaker 1: matter what like, So you wouldn't join NATO, you wouldn't
Speaker 1: send arms, you wouldn't do anything like that, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, I mean, since we said Ukraine is a
Speaker 1: partner country, they're just getting a steady flow of arms
Speaker 1: through Poland from NATO um allies. And it's been super
Speaker 1: effective from what I saw, because Russia is a tank
Speaker 1: based military and the anti tank weaponry that we've been
Speaker 1: sending Ukraine and Ukraine has been using the great effect
Speaker 1: has actually stalled stalled a hundred thousand Russian troops from
Speaker 1: taking over Ukraine, which everybody thought was gonna happen in
Speaker 1: a matter of days. Now they're finally backing off of Kiev.
Speaker 1: It's just insane to even say it out loud. But um,
Speaker 1: under neutrality, there would be no arms going from NATO
Speaker 1: to Ukraine. UM. Russia would not be allowed to invade Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Ukraine would be what Finland is. Finland has a huge
Speaker 1: amount of border that it shares with um Russia, and
Speaker 1: it serves as a buffer state between Europe and Russia.
Speaker 1: It's not allied with Russia, it's not allied with Europe.
Speaker 1: Finland's just its own jam. The proposal on the table
Speaker 1: now is that Ukraine become like the southern Finland. It
Speaker 1: will be a neutral state. It'll be its own sovereign democracy,
Speaker 1: can do whatever it wants, but it can't join NATO
Speaker 1: and it's not certainly going not going to be allied
Speaker 1: with Russia, not after this invasion or ever, because of
Speaker 1: its neutrality status. Yeah, and I think the idea at
Speaker 1: first is that people thought, and it may have been
Speaker 1: the case that Russia wanted to absorb Ukraine as part
Speaker 1: of a building back uh maybe not a new Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: but just expanding Russia. And that may have been the case.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I think the last few weeks
Speaker 1: it's become clear that that's not possible, and that like
Speaker 1: occupation of Ukraine isn't possible, like long term occupation. So
Speaker 1: it seems like neutrality may be the only way forward here.
Speaker 1: But I mean, yeah, definitely, I guess. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's you like, I can't imagine how difficult occupying Ukraine
Speaker 1: would be for Russia, like over any period of time.
Speaker 1: I don't think they have enough troops to do that, no,
Speaker 1: And I mean the Ukrainians certainly have the will to
Speaker 1: resist for as long as they need to to get
Speaker 1: Russia out of there. So yeah, it's um, I I
Speaker 1: feel like now that seems to be I think we
Speaker 1: read an Al Jazeera article on it, right, Yeah, it
Speaker 1: was super interesting. They talked a lot about how, you know,
Speaker 1: not all pro Russian sentiment in Ukraine has been dissolved,
Speaker 1: because there there was some obviously, but uh, this has
Speaker 1: done a lot of damage to that. Oh yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: sure anybody who's on the fence before is like, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not Russian or even considering pro Russian anymore. But
Speaker 1: that does seem to be that and this is you know,
Speaker 1: obviously up to Ukraine. But if Zelinski is making gestures
Speaker 1: and overture saying we're willing to talk about neutrality, um,
Speaker 1: it seems like that could be their decision. But um again,
Speaker 1: global security experts, at least ones that were quoted in
Speaker 1: Al Jazeera are are saying like this is actually probably
Speaker 1: the most viable and quick, short term or like at
Speaker 1: hand solution to ending this invasion and actually stabilizing things
Speaker 1: again for a while. That's right. That article, by the way,
Speaker 1: is Ukraine, what does neutrality mean? And could it lead
Speaker 1: to peace? From Thomas oh Falk And that was just
Speaker 1: from a few weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And in addition to how stuff works in the Al
Speaker 1: Jazeera article, we got stuff from Brooking's, the Brennan's Center,
Speaker 1: Time BBC and a bunch of other ones to Sesame Street.
Speaker 1: This is definitely one of the u is for up yours, um.
Speaker 1: And this is one of those definite moments in in
Speaker 1: history that it's worth paying attention to. So if this
Speaker 1: this our episode struck your fancy it all, go go
Speaker 1: read up on it because it's there's a lot of
Speaker 1: really interesting and important stuff to read literally, the world
Speaker 1: has changed in the last couple of months more than
Speaker 1: it has in years. Since two thousand one, I would say,
Speaker 1: since two thousand one, are you got anything else? I
Speaker 1: don't think so. Okay, Well, if you want to know
Speaker 1: more about NATO, you can go check that out online.
Speaker 1: And since I said check that out online, everybody, it's
Speaker 1: time for listener mail. That's right, I thought, why not,
Speaker 1: let's read one from a brand new listener. Uh, this
Speaker 1: is the first episode they listened to, and I have
Speaker 1: foretold the future with his email. Wow, we uh just kidding.
Speaker 1: Hey guys. Last week, though, I found out about your podcast, uh,
Speaker 1: and I'm loving it. I become tired of the radio
Speaker 1: so decided to start looking at podcast for my work commute,
Speaker 1: and yours caught my eyes. It looked interesting without being
Speaker 1: too heavy, educational, but not as depressing as the news.
Speaker 1: Perfect nice Okay. I was waiting for a response. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, nice, was my response. I'll take it.
Speaker 1: You two make a great pair and work off each
Speaker 1: other seamlessly. When I listen, I cannot help but think
Speaker 1: of you two as a mash up of burten Ernie
Speaker 1: and SNL's The Delicious Dish okay, and a gasto Shannon,
Speaker 1: So I will respond to that part because, um, that
Speaker 1: is probably the greatest description anyone's ever come up with
Speaker 1: for it, wetty balls. I mean that in the most
Speaker 1: complimentary way, by the way. I love it and it
Speaker 1: works so darnwell obviously, since the show is going strong
Speaker 1: for years now, thank you for noticing. I just wanted
Speaker 1: to reach out and saying thanks for saving me from
Speaker 1: boring radio and crazy news and helping my mind grow
Speaker 1: while being entertained. And that is from Samantha Burns Maloney. Well,
Speaker 1: thanks Samantha. We really appreciate that. That was a great email. Seriously,
Speaker 1: the best descriptor I've ever heard. Yeah, if you're new
Speaker 1: to the podcast, or you're a long timer, or you
Speaker 1: email every week, we want to hear from you. You
Speaker 1: can send us an email to Stuff podcast at iHeart
Speaker 1: radio dot com. Stuff you Should Know is a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts my heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to your favorite shows.