September 20, 2024 • 50 mins
On this episode of The Middle we're exploring another topic tied to the 2024 election, in which the Presidential candidates have very different opinions: what is the value of NATO to the United States? We're joined by journalist Jill Dougherty, who spent years covering Moscow and is now a global fellow at the Wilson Center, and John Shattuck, former U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic, who is now a professor at Tufts University. The Middle's house DJ Tolliver joins as well, plus callers from around the country. #NATO #diplomacy #US #Russa #Ukraine #Putin #Trump #Harris
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Middle is supported by Journalism Funding Partners, a nonprofit
organization striving to increase the sustainability of local journalism by
building connections between donors and news organizations. More information on
how you can support the Middle at Listen tooth Middle
dot com. Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson along
(00:21):
with our house DJ Tolliver and Tolliver We've been covering
some of the biggest issues heading into the election here
on the show as we inch toward November, and this
hour is no different.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
You mean, we're finally going to talk about the merger
between Hawaiian Airlines and Alaska Airlines in the hope they'll
deal is tickets somewhere.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Yeah, right. Actually, Alaska is one of the three states
I've never been to, and I'd be happy to go.
But we are actually this hour going to be examining NATO,
the North Atlantic Treaty organization that now unites thirty two
countries the United States included into a strategic military pact.
NATO was formed back in nineteen forty nine after World
War Two, and Article five of NATO says that an
(00:59):
attack on any NATO country is an attack on all
of them. It's only been invoked once that was after
the nine to eleven attacks on the United States. But
the US relationship with NATO could look very different depending
on who wins the presidency in November. Vice President Kamala
Harris has voiced her strong support for America's European allies,
and the Biden administration has of course been an ardent
(01:21):
supporter of Ukraine following the Russian invasion. Former President Donald Trump,
on the other hand, has said that the US should
not protect allies in the Pact if they don't spend
the agreed upon two percent of their GDP on defense,
and some in the Trump orbit have suggested that he
would pull the US out of NATO in a second term,
including his vice presidential nominee j d Vance just the
(01:43):
other day. So our question this hour, what is the
value of NATO to the United States. We're going to
get to your calls in a moment at eight four
four four middle that's eight four four four six four
three three five three. But first, last week we asked
you whether media and social media companies have too much
sway in the selection. Here are some of the people
who didn't make it on air but did leave us
(02:04):
a message.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
This is Ernest from Salt Lake City, Utah. Is the
Mari conifroof Easton.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
Come best from Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 5 (02:13):
The folks who are watching TV tend to be a
little bit more inteligent with the drible news. Most of
this junk is coming off. I mean, the junk is
about people who start talking about their brothers, mothers, sisters,
dog's best friend and it doesn't have any sense to it.
But this is the problem. They believe it just because
they can see it on their phone.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
The media has come to the point where it is
usually leaning either left or right, and they will slant
their stories one way or the other.
Speaker 6 (02:44):
What I find is people of a younger demographic and
age are doing the research and are going above and
beyond and go find out what's really going on because
legacy media has other influences.
Speaker 7 (02:57):
Media has too much influence what we think, what we see,
and legislation should be in order to get things under control.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Well, thanks to everyone who called in, and you can
hear that entire episode on our podcast in partnership with
iHeart Podcasts on the iHeart app wherever you listen to podcasts.
So out of our topic, this hour what is the
value of NATO to the United States? Tolliver, what is
our number?
Speaker 2 (03:19):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three three five three, or you can
write to us that listen to the Middle dot com.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Let's meet our panel. Journalist Jill Dougherty spent years in
Moscow as CNN's bureau chief. She's now a Global Fellow
at the Wilson Center. Jill Dougherty, Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 8 (03:34):
Thank you very much. I really appreciate being here.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Jeremy, it's great to have you. And also joining us
is the former US Ambassador to the Czech Republic now
called Checkia, John Shattuck. He's now a professor of practice
in Diplomacy at Tuff's University. Ambassador Shattuck, great to have
you with us as well.
Speaker 9 (03:51):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Well, before we get to the phones, let me ask
each of you. Do you think the US membership in
NATO is at stake in this selection?
Speaker 8 (03:59):
Jill Doherty, I do you just have to judge by
what you said? You know, jd Vance is talking actually
I think taking almost more of a let's say forward leaning,
you could actually say more extreme position and on you know,
pulling out of NATO. If you look at the Democrats,
(04:22):
of course they are saying stay in it.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
Now.
Speaker 8 (04:25):
I think the big question has been how much are
all of the allies contributing? And that we can get into.
But I mean, right now you have what is it,
twenty two of the countries in NATO twenty three sorry,
contributing that two percent, and that is actually more than
(04:46):
under the Trump administration, which had about nine percent when
he left office.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
John Shaddick just to tell our listeners what jd Vance said,
He said in an interview with a YouTuber that the
American support for NATO should be predicated on the e
you not regulating Elon Musk and his ex social media platform.
But what do you think about that issue? Do you
think NATO is at stake? The US relationship with NATO's
at stake in this election.
Speaker 9 (05:12):
Definitely, and it's very important. In fact, i'd say more
important today than at any time perhaps since the end
of the Cold War. And the end of the Cold
War of course, came in part about because NATO was formed,
as you said at the very beginning of the show
back in nineteen forty nine, nineteen fifty when NATO got
started the Allies, that is, the European Allies and the
(05:37):
United States, but the United States was the major player
because the Allies have been so severely damaged in the war,
really rallied around NATO as a defense against Soviet subversion
and incursion, and as a result, I think over a
long period of time seventy years, the peace was kept
(05:58):
in Europe the result of NATO. Now we're in a
very volatile world and we all know what's happened in Ukraine.
Russian aggression has basically tried to take back take Ukraine
and cut it out from its own sovereignty, and NATO
really stands in the way of that. So it's a
critical time for NATO and we need it more than ever.
(06:20):
And NATO protects American security by basically having allies who
can do a lot of the fighting, so we don't
do it need to do it ourselves.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
But why, John Shaddock, are there still at least ten
countries in NATO that are not spending the agreed upon
two percent of their GDP on defense and giving people
like Donald Trump that ammunition to say, why are we
in this thing? They're not paying their fair share?
Speaker 9 (06:47):
Well, I'll give Trump some credit as well as others.
By the way, it was not just Trump. Other Americans,
going all the way back to the very beginning, have
called upon Europe to spend more for their own defense.
And you know, I think, as Jill said, we've gotten
many more of the allies now are spending at least
(07:07):
two percent sometimes more of their GDP on defense, and
in fact, in the defense of Ukraine, the Europeans have
spent significantly more than the United States. So you know, yes,
there are more. There are a few countries that still
need to come in and spend more money, and I
think that that will happen. That's very much the American
(07:28):
position that we want Europe to bear the Barrett's share
of the burden.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Let's get to the phones, and Mary is in Parksville, Tennessee. Mary,
what do you think about the value of NATO to
the United States.
Speaker 10 (07:42):
Well, generally, I believe in coalition. I think cooperation makes
strengths and efficiency.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Hopefully, so you think it's you think it's a valuable partnership.
Speaker 5 (08:00):
I do.
Speaker 10 (08:01):
I must admit that I am not as educated as
I should meet about MITO and about foreign policy, but
I just think that that cooperation.
Speaker 11 (08:16):
Is a good thing.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Mary, Thank you for that. Jill Doherty, I have to
say for people who like Mary may have questions about NATO,
it's been so merged in with the idea of defending
against Russia in recent years, but we should remember it's
about a lot more than Russia.
Speaker 8 (08:34):
Oh yeah, I mean, they've had operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosevo, Somalia,
and now the discussion actually is about Asia, because you know,
it's not, as the head of NATO just recently said,
it's not just a little part of the neighborhood. You know,
the entire world is knit together. And what China does,
(08:56):
what Japan does with the Philippines, what we do, it's
all kind of one world. And you know, I also
would say to Mary that it's we sometimes think of
NATO as a military alliance, and it certainly is, but
there's also a values component to that, you know, Western values,
(09:16):
and I think that that's really important because when countries
come in, they let's say, some of the newer countries,
you know, you have Finland and Sweden obviously democratic countries,
but some of the other countries, like the people the
countries want to be members, Ukraine, Georgia. It's not just
(09:38):
the military component. Is are you trying to get rid
of corruption? Are you you know, do you have a
civil society. It's that type of thing also that knits
these countries together.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Well, John Shattick, you were the ambassador of the Czech
Republic when they entered NATO, right, I mean, what was
what was valuable both to the Czech Republic to get
into the alliance and to the US to have check
in the alliance.
Speaker 9 (10:02):
Well, the Czechs were very concerned. I was there ten
years after the end of the Cold War, and I
was there in nineteen ninety nine. In the next couple
of years, and the Czechs were very concerned about Russia,
which even before Putin had you know, of course, Russia
had always been breathing hard down there next and They've
(10:24):
managed to develop a fairly secured democracy by then. And
they looked to NATO, and they were very proud to
become members of NATO. They looked to NATO as a
defense against the possibility that they might end up being
attacked from the east, as they had been so often
in the past. They had long memories in that regard,
(10:44):
and you know, they'd been forced to join the Warsaw Pact,
which was the old Soviet alternative to NATO, and now
to be able to become members of NATO made them
not only proud, but feel more secure and in fact,
I think made them more secure.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
And what about to the United States, just briefly, what
was the import of Czech Republic being in NATO?
Speaker 9 (11:09):
Well, I think, you know, the United States, as I
said earlier, benefits both directly and indirectly from NATO. It
benefits directly because it's part of the large security connections
that we have in the world. We have allies all
over and it's very important to have that. But also
(11:29):
what was most important was that it was not going
to be the US who was going to do the work.
It was going to be the Czechs who were going
to do the work defending themselves.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Well, and Tolliver I mentioned the only time that Article
five of NATO's ever been invoked was after the nine
to eleven attacks against the United States in two thousand
and one.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Yeah, here's George Robertson, who is the Secretary General of
NATO back then, speaking the day after the attacks.
Speaker 12 (11:53):
The Council agreed if it is determined that this attack
was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall
be regarded as an action covered by Article five of
the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against
one or more of the Allies in Europe or in
North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Got it? It's so crazy to hear that now, what
twenty three years after nine to eleven, Tolliver. I do
want to remind our listeners are loyal podcast listeners, that
you can contribute to the Middle, especially as we ramp
up our coverage heading into the election. We're going to
be doing a number of podcast extra specials coming up,
and you can make a tax deductrible contribution at listen
(12:40):
to Themiddle dot com in any amount, any amount that
you see fit. We really appreciate every single dollar. This
is an independent production after all, soo listen to the
Middle dot com and we'll be right back with more
of the Middle. This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
If you're just tuning in the Middle as a national
call in show, we're focused on elevating voices from the
middle geographically, politically, and philosophically. Or maybe you just want
(13:03):
to meet in the Middle. This hour, we're asking you
what is the value of NATO to the United States? Caliver,
what is the number of people to call in?
Speaker 2 (13:11):
It's eight four four four Middle, It's eight four four
four sixty four and three three five three. You can
also write to us to listen to the Middle dot
com or on social media.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
And I always feel bad giving people the number and
then seeing that all the lines are full, so sorry,
but leave a message if you can't get through it.
I'm joined by journalist Jill Dougherty, who spent years based
in Moscow and for US Ambassador to the Czech Republic
John Shaddock, now at Toughs University. And let's get to
those phones. And Eric is in Chicago. Eric, welcome to
the Middle.
Speaker 11 (13:37):
Go ahead, Yes, thank you. I believe that NATO is
incredibly important to the United States and to the citizens
of the United States because it seems like there's a concern,
an overly concern about money, and it's really not about money.
(13:58):
It's about the coily. It's about the checks and balances
because the nations, we hold ourselves accountable. I mean, Germany
just can't decide to take over Spain and England can't
just decide to go to war with France, you know,
without us all becoming involved and talking them down off
of that precipice. But I mean, this is just reeks
(14:21):
of American isolationism to try to pull us away from
those checks and balances.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
And is this an issue that is important enough that
you would make your decision in the presidential election because
of it.
Speaker 11 (14:34):
Well, there's other issues about my decision, but yes, I mean,
it's definitely a contributing factor. I'm a world traveler and
I appreciate the way that I am treated with my
American passport and the freedoms that that allows. And if
we move to this, let's walk away from Europe, let's
walk away from the world stage. When we're the strongest
(14:58):
military in the world. How does that look? It makes
us look weak?
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Eric, thank you for that. Jill Dougherty, your thoughts on
Eric's comments there.
Speaker 8 (15:08):
I think he makes several good points. I mean, you know,
walking away from our allies, you know, thinking of Trump,
let's get into the election a little bit Trump and
then what was happening you know after Trump and now
with Kamala Harris and the Biden administration, is that there's
(15:30):
a way of telling your allies that you need to
cough out more money. And as Ambassador Shaddock said, that
goes way back, did not start with Donald Trump. Now,
I think one of the factors that actually brought people
on board to spend more money and to you know,
come up to at least two percent is the invasion
(15:51):
of Ukraine. I mean, you look at after twenty fourteen,
when Russia next illegally Crimea and then back in February
of twenty twenty two that will know, freaked out Europe
and you had two countries that never wanted to be
involved in NATO or you know, they're completely independent, non aligned.
(16:16):
And again that's Finland and Sweden. They join, you know,
that's Vladimir Putin's nightmare. So keeping these countries in I think,
and let's say, working with our allies to create a
stronger union to face Putin is extremely important.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
Let's go to Steve, who's in Dallas, Texas. Steve, welcome
to the middle What do you think about NATO and
its value to the US?
Speaker 11 (16:46):
Well, thank you for taking a call.
Speaker 13 (16:48):
I do believe that.
Speaker 11 (16:51):
Is really, I think more importantly a question for NATO.
How important is NATO to the European nations. They're the
ones that are really citing this because the moment the
United States decides that we're not going to pay our
share and we're not going to pay their share, we're
effectively out. So this is really, I think a European question.
(17:13):
How important is NATO to them? And if it's important,
why don't they pay their share.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
What do you think, though, Steve, about the fact that
the only time that Article five has ever been invoked
by NATO was about the attacks on the United States
and that many soldiers from other NATO countries ended up
dying in the war in Afghanistan on behalf of the
United States.
Speaker 11 (17:35):
Well, I'm not suggesting necessarily that NATO is a bad idea.
I'm just simply saying that if you think it's a
good idea, then pay for it. It's really that simple.
They agreed to this going in. We agreed, all of
us agreed. But they're not doing their share. This does
go back a long long time. Presidents have complained about
this for a really long time. Nothing has happened. They
(17:58):
haven't done it until Donald Trump made an issue out
of it, and I think they will pay up. I
think they will do it if they're faced with no NATO.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Steve, thank you for that call, Ambassador Static. What do
you say to people like Steve? You know, if you
look at the polls right now, Democrats are far more
likely to be in favor of the US involvement in
NATO than Republicans.
Speaker 9 (18:22):
Well, I think, really it's not the biggest catalytic factor,
if you will, about building up NATO is Putin himself,
because I think he woke the European nations up to
the importance of their own defense. And it's really in
the last couple of years since, particularly since the invasion
(18:44):
of Ukraine, that Europeans have mobilized huge amounts of military
support and assistants that have gone to Ukraine and also
have increased their own internal spending on their own defense systems,
not just contributions to NATO's. So I think if we
didn't have NATO today, we would have to very quickly
(19:04):
figure out how to invent it, and that wouldn't be
easy in a short period of time to confront buten
In who is basically trying to change the whole makeup
of Europe, and if he's manages to succeed in Ukraine.
He could well threaten Europe directly in the Poland in
the Baltic country. So yes, Europe needs to be very active,
(19:29):
and I think they are very active in their own
defense right now, and that's why they're doing more on
behalf of NATO.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Let's go to Zach, who's in Kansas City, Missouri. Zach,
welcome to the middle go ahead.
Speaker 14 (19:42):
Hey, thanks for taking a call.
Speaker 15 (19:45):
So, as a young person, I'm going to turn twenty six,
you know, I don't even remember the Soviet Union existing,
and neither do other folks my age and so well,
I'm involved enough to be calling into a politics radio show.
I think a lot of those my age just kind
(20:06):
of don't think about it. And I think that's unfortunate
because to young people who don't remember, you know, when
Europe was a much more dangerous place.
Speaker 14 (20:14):
It's even all we kind of think of it as
a spot to go study abroad and take a backpacking trip,
but that's only possible because of NATO. NATO is what
made Europe safe. Europe's history, you know, in the twentieth
century is really awful. It's it's horrific and the only reason,
(20:36):
in my estimation, anyways that you know, authoritarians can't rise
to power and try and take over the neighbors like
they have for centuries is NATO, and that that mutual
defense brings everyone to the you know, diplomatic table instead
of you know, militarization and that cycle of violence.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Zach, I'm so glad you called that's such a great
point about people who obviously are younger and haven't lived
through some of these things. I mean, I think back
to my own childhood and thinking, you know, my grandparents
were living through World War Two and I wasn't, you know,
I was just I wasn't even a you know, sparkle
in my parents' eye, Tolliver. But Jill Dougherty about what
(21:17):
about Zach's point of so many people that don't have,
you know, firsthand experience with the Soviet Union, but maybe
they have an old globe that still has it on
it or something like that, but that just reminding them
of the relevance of NATO and the reasons it's there.
Speaker 8 (21:31):
Yeah, I was really glad that Zach said what he said,
because you know, let's let's look at it this way.
Let's pretend all of a sudden NATO falls apart. Every
country in Europe is on its own, and little tiny
countries like one of my favorite countries happens to be Estonia,
and it has a population of like, you know, two
(21:52):
and a half million people. It's very you know, a
tenth of New York, and yet they are you know,
contributing actually more way more than two percent. But if
they were left on their own, they would be swallowed
up in a minute, and every country would be on
its own. Putin would really take advantage. There's no question.
(22:16):
Even with NATO, he is nibbling around the edges of
a lot of those countries. So I think, you know, Americans,
really we don't know, as Ambassador Shaddock said, we don't
know the real downside because NATO has kept us safe
for the past seventy five years. But if it hadn't
been there, we could have been involved in a number
(22:40):
of wars.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
John Shaddick, By the way, could Trump pull the US
out of NATO on his own or would Congress have
to get involved in that?
Speaker 9 (22:49):
Couldn't do it on his own? No, I mean, he
could make it very unpleasant. He could obviously do whatever
he could possibly do politically to influence Congress, but it
is a NATO, it is a treaty, is a a
founding member of this treaty, and a treaty cannot be
simply abrogated unilaterally by a president. So Trump would not
(23:10):
have much authority to do it, but he could start
pushing his weight around. My real fear in terms of
the current situation, my concern is that we're Trump essentially
to announce that he was going to pull out of
NATO or reduce significantly the American support for NATO. I
think the European countries would then begin to really scramble
(23:31):
to try to make sure that they could defend themselves
in the event that Putin and Russia were to move
on beyond Ukraine, and you know, NATO could collapse, but
the individual countries, as Jill just said, would end up
having to kind of defend themselves, and that would be
a very very dangerous situation, and American soldiers might end
(23:54):
up being called in as a result.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Let's go to Karen, who's in Cherokee County, North Carolina. Karen,
welcome to the middle guy.
Speaker 16 (24:02):
I love, I loved all your people and their opinions,
and I have to tell you I'm seventy four. I
was nine years old when I was in South Florida
and Russia was ninety miles away in Cuba. I saw
American troops heading down south to our base in Homestead,
and my uncle was calling my mother and telling her
she had to come back to New England with me.
(24:24):
And my family was scared to death that the Russians
were gonna bomb us. So knowing that fear and remembering that,
when you look at Europe, Europe has to stand together
and we need to support them. We don't want another
World War two, we don't want a World War three.
And if you leave these people on their own, they're
going to have nuclear weapons quite rapidly, as fast as
(24:48):
they can, and that would be a mess. Can you
imagine all those companies, all those countries having individual nuclear weapons.
Can you imagine what a mess this world would be
if Russia let's go well, when Russia is not going
to New anybody because they know that it will come
back on them and destroy their own country. We need
to stand with our alliances and our treaties, and we
(25:11):
need to be true to the people that we have
said we would defend, because they certainly do favors for us.
And we need to recognize this. We're not in a
world alone. We're in a world of people.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
Karen, thank you so much that what a great viewpoint
to bring. Really appreciate it. To Oliver, I know a
lot is coming in online as well.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Yes, so much. Doug, who is independent and UNDECIDEDED, says,
I agree that NATO has value, but when and what
can the US do to get these large economies to
meet their obligations. I've read that Canada may not meet
their obligations for a number of years. Classic Canada Phil
and Wilson, Wyoming says NATO is a bulwark against fascism.
Fascism is experiencing a resurgence across the globe, but Trump
(25:52):
is an avowed admirer of fascist leaders. It's imperative that
the United States be a member of NATO and support
NATO to the fullest extent. I will say, if we
have any callers out there who are who want us
to leave NATO, I think we'd like to hear from
them too.
Speaker 5 (26:05):
Right.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Well, when we hear that caller in Dallas, Texas seemed
to bit skeptain. Well, let's go to John who's in Allentown, Pennsylvania. John,
Welcome to the Middle What do you think about NATO.
Speaker 17 (26:16):
Yeah, like the caller who's twenty six, I'm a bit younger.
I'm only twenty, but I am of the very firm
opinion that we need to leave NATO. NATO is not
a benefit to the United States. NATO benefits Europe.
Speaker 7 (26:28):
You know.
Speaker 17 (26:29):
For a few callers, I think a lot of them
need to maybe press rush up on their history. The
caller talking about how in the nineteen and nineteen sixty
three Russia was only ninety miles away. She forgets, however,
that the United States had placed nuclear missiles in Turkey,
only a few miles, only about a few hundred miles
from the Soviet Union before placing before the Soviets placed
(26:50):
nuclear missiles in Cuba. You know the caller who or
one of your panelists who talked about Estonia. Estonia was
a sovereign country for thirteen year years after peacefully leaving
the Soviet Union in the Velvet Revolution. If Russia was
so hell bent on taking over Eastern Europe, why would
they not have invaded during those thirteen years?
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Well, you know what I'm gonna let I'm gonna let
Jill Doherty respond to that, John, thank you, thank you
for that call. I appreciate it. And Jill Doherty is
Jill Doherty your respect.
Speaker 8 (27:19):
There are a number of points that you made. I
think maybe the most important is in essence, what you're
saying is Europe is not our business and it predict
NATO protects only Europe. Let's think what would happen if
there were no NATO and Putin invades or takes over
(27:42):
countries in Europe. You would obviously have a war, and
maybe a number of different wars. Would the United States
stand back and let Europe blow up? I don't think so,
because it would affect everything. It would affect world economy.
We'd have, you know, a blazing war in Europe. This
(28:04):
would be like World War two. We would have to
get involved, and with NATO, we are in it together,
and that puts off Vladimir Putin from even trying to
do that. So I think, you know it's to me.
What I tried to do is figure out, okay, if
it did not exist, what would happen? And I guarantee
(28:26):
you I am convinced that we would be in probably
a world war if NATO were suddenly to disappear and
we pulled out.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
John Tattock, do you agree with that?
Speaker 9 (28:40):
Yeah, well, I agree with that, and I'd go even further,
I'd say, and I think NATO is above all a
huge deterrent. I think Jill is alluding to that. It's
not just a kind of military operation that is always
confronting on borders, but it's a deterrent against attack. And
I think think it actually acted in some ways as
(29:02):
a deterrent during the thirteen years that the caller was
talking about that Estonia was independent before it was a
member of NATO. I think had NATO been had Estonia
been attacked by Russia during that period, I think certainly
NATO would have mobilized. I don't know whether, I don't
know exactly what it would have done, but I think
it ended up being a fairly major deterrent NATO against
(29:26):
a Russian attack of Estonia even before Estonia became a member.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
You know, Russia, Vladimir Putin has made clear he does
not want Ukraine to be a member of NATO, wants
assurances that that won't happen. Do you think, John Shaddock,
that Western countries also don't want Ukraine to be a
member of NATO? Because it would mean that they'd have
to defend it.
Speaker 9 (29:48):
Well, I think, you know, I think the question of
NATO membership for Ukraine is a complicated one. My own
position is that they shouldn't be a member right now.
They ought to be brought into the European Union given
a pathway, they have a paathway to join Europe and
become part of the overall European Union. But I think
the integration of Ukraine into NATO would be not only
(30:14):
logistically complicated, but also politically complicated. It would, and it
would be highly provocative. So I think NATO needs to
stay as a member as a membership issue on the
back burner for the moment.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
Tolliver. As we mentioned, NATO was formed in nineteen forty nine,
right after World War Two.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Yeah, here's President Harry Truman, not the sheriff in Twin Peaks,
speaking when the treaty was first tigned in nineteen forty nine.
Speaker 18 (30:41):
A simple document. If it had have existed in nineteen
fourteen and in nineteen thirty nine, supported by the nations
who are represented here today, I believe it would have
prevented the acts of aggression which led to two World Wars.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
Harry Truman there and Talver. You know what our podcast
listeners don't know is that the people who heard this
on the radio got to hear you play a special
song right now.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
And I'm like a mystery DJ to half the audios,
you know.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
To half the audience right because we don't have the
rights for the podcast. But what did you play coming
out of that right right there?
Speaker 2 (31:17):
I played Abbo because they just joined NATO this year
and they're from Sweeten Obviously.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
Sweeden just joined NATO this year, not Abah, my God
of us. Well, we'll be right back with more of
the Middle. This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. This hour,
we're asking you what is the value of NATO to
the United States. You can call us at eight four
four four Middle that's eight four four four six four
three three five three, or you can reach out at
(31:43):
Listen to the Middle dot com. I'm joined by former
US Ambassador to the Czech Republic John Shaddock and journalist
Jill Dougherty now at the Wilson Center. And let's go
back to the phones and Nathan, who is calling from Lincoln, Nebraska. Nathan,
Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 11 (31:57):
Go ahead, Hi in about two thousand and five, right
after Vladimir Putin had been first reelected, I actually took
a trip in college to the Russian far East, to
a former military district called the Chakotka, and there I
met a lot of young men who loved talking about
(32:23):
how Putin was strong, Bush was weak. They wanted to
join the Russian military and hopefully get the chance to
fight Americans one day. You know, it was shocking stuff
to my years, but it was the result of the
constant misinformation, disinformation that just pervades Russian society, and so NATO,
(32:44):
to my mind, is not just some sort of theoretical backstop,
what if, you know, in case things get out of
hand in Europe. I think it is an immediate bulwark
every day against a society that is mobilized against us
in Russia and you know, throughout its alliances.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
Nathan, thank you for that. Jill Doherty, you spent many
many years based in Moscow until basically the beginning of
the war, the war by Russia against Ukraine. What do
you think about that from.
Speaker 8 (33:15):
Nathan Well, I think that's a really interesting comment, and
you know, I'm thinking about the image of Vladimir Putin
and NATO. It seems, you know, Putin hates NATO. That's
the impression that we get. But I think it's important
to remember that after the end of the Soviet Union,
the beginning of modern Russia, actually Russia, this would be
(33:39):
going back to nineteen ninety one, Russia actually was slowly
or at least there was the attempt to bring them
into NATO, to make it, you know, a European cooperative venture.
There was the North Atlantic Cooperative Council in nineteen ninety one.
There was another thing called the Partner for Peace. I
(34:01):
actually covered that nineteen ninety four when I was covering
Clinton at the White House. Then nineteen ninety seven NATO
Russia found a founding act, and then two I'm looking
at my notes here two thousand and two NATO Russia Council.
So why didn't Russia become part of NATO? Well, I
(34:23):
mean this is you know, John, Ambassador Shotack probably knows
a lot better than I do. But my feeling about
that is, yes, in the beginning, there worthies overtures, and yes,
Russia sounded interested. But Russia, even though it was weak,
you know, it had fallen apart in Soviet Union in
(34:43):
nineteen ninety one. Russia and especially under Putin, still considers
itself a great power, and so when it gets into organizations,
it not only wants to become a member, it wants
to run them. And so I I think that was
one of the problems that, you know, as they got
more and more, as Brutan got more and more angry
(35:06):
at the West for a variety of different things, he
also felt that they were being ignored and insulted and
it was all kind of fake that NATO was never
ever going to decide anything with them, And that's my
I think psychological understanding of how that happened.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
We've got a question from a listener, Peter is in
Saint Paul, Minnesota. Peter, what is your question?
Speaker 19 (35:32):
Yeah, I was just wondering, So NATO has value for defense,
and there's been a lot of talk about if the
US would pull out and NATO falls apart. I don't
understand the link between the US pulling out of NATO
and falling apart because I think it would have value
for Europe as you know, the European nations that already
are in there could stay in there. So that's my
(35:55):
primary question is, you know, yes, the value NATO. I
think we should stay in, but even if we didn't,
I don't understand why NATA then falls apart.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Okay, great question, Peter John Shaddock. Why would NATO fall
apart necessarily if the US were to pull out of NATO.
Speaker 9 (36:13):
Well, I think there are two reasons, whether it would
actually fall apart or just sort of begin to disintegrate
as another question of those are two similar kinds of phenomenon.
Speaker 12 (36:24):
You know.
Speaker 9 (36:24):
One reason is that it is true that the great
bulk of NATO spending and the capacities, and the military
capacity and the training and all the rest of it
do come from the United States. Increasingly that's being transferred
to Europe. And I think that the Ukraine War has
led to Europeans, as I said earlier, waking up much
(36:47):
more to their need to be active participants in events.
So that's one reason the loss of US leadership would
be critical. And then the second thing is that I
think the European would then pretty much forget about anything
that they needed to do on behalf of the United States.
I mean, at least theoretically that no longer would the
(37:09):
Article five which you cited at the beginning be available
to be cited again in the event that the US
was attacked. So you know, the US has a very
strong and immediate interest in remaining in NATO, and NATO
has a very strong and immediate interest in having the
US stay.
Speaker 1 (37:30):
Let's go to Jill, who's in Denver, Colorado. Jill, Welcome
to the middle What do you think about the value
of NATO to the United States.
Speaker 7 (37:38):
Oh, I think it's very valuable. I agree it is
a deterrent when I think as a younger callers Zah said,
I don't think a lot of Americans realize, you know,
what happened in nineteen ninety one, and that is Suton's
(38:00):
main reason, I believe for going into Ukraine. He wants
to take back all those territories that were divided up
and taken away from the USSR. And if Ukraine had
been in NATO, I don't believe it ever would have
been invaded. He hasn't invaded Poland, he hasn't invaded in
(38:24):
the European countries. And if we're not there, it's going
to be like drump said, Oh, let him do what
the hell he wants. And that's what I Yeah, that's
what I'm afraid of. Is we need we you know,
we need each other. We're all in this together.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
Jill, thank you for that, you know, Jill Doherty, she
brings up Poland. Many people have said about this war
that you know, if Putin gets Ukraine, he's not going
to stop there and he'll go after Poland and then
we really get Then then an actual NATO country is
going to be in the mix. Do you do you
agree with that?
Speaker 8 (39:02):
Oh, yes, definitely, But you know, I would say, and
Jill makes a couple of really interesting points. You know Putin.
The way Putin looks at this, if I can jump
into his head, is that he feels that NATO is
right up against his borders. And so you could say, yes,
(39:24):
that's that is true in some cases, especially right now,
we've got Finland certainly right on the border and other countries.
But I think my question for Putin would be how
far do you want this belt, you know, to protect you?
He seems to want to have countries along his border
(39:44):
that will remain neutral, that's what he's talking about with Ukraine.
But how long do you do that? How big is
this border? What happens to those countries like Ukraine, like Georgia,
albeit they're not ready right now to join name, but
they have a right to want to be part of NATO.
And this is the big debate, you know, should we
(40:06):
have let the Baltics in, should we have let NATO,
et cetera. I think that those that if a country
does want to get in and can meet the criteria
and then most importantly the other members of NATO say yes,
then they ought to be in, and that putin should
(40:27):
not have any type of you know, consent or negation
on that ambasadorsatic.
Speaker 1 (40:33):
Do you see a moment when countries like Argentina or
even countries in Asia end up joining NATO.
Speaker 9 (40:42):
Well, I think the whole concept of a global alliance
for democracy is something that has been considered in the past,
and I'm not sure NATO is the vehicle necessarily. NATO
is a focus on Europe, but I do think it's
important and Jill brought this up earlier. So remember what
the values are that NATO is to protect. It's the
(41:03):
value of democracy and self determination. And as she just said, now,
I mean any country that's really exercising its own self
determination through a democratic process, and certainly that's a complicated
thing to do. We're having trouble in our own country
doing that. But nonetheless, I think any country that can
(41:25):
do that really deserves to have allies who are similarly minded,
whether they're members of NATO or some other alliance. Now
we are also allied with countries in Southeastern Asia, with
Australia and New Zealand and a number of other countries,
and I think NATO is in a sense of paradigm,
(41:46):
it's a kind of example of the kind of alliance
that could exist on behalf of democracy in other parts
of the world.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
Let's go to Silver. Who's in Pine City, Minnesota. Silver,
Welcome to the Middle Go ahead, Yeah, I.
Speaker 20 (42:02):
Just wanted to chime in here. I'm listening to your
show and I find the conversation extremely interesting. I was
born in Estonia in the eighties and moved to Finland
with my family in nineteen ninety. At that point this
was still officially it was still Soviet Union, although although
it was already changing and there was hope, but we
(42:24):
wouldn't really, we wouldn't really talk about it then. As
a kid, I wanted to be hopeful, and everybody was
hoping for there's the free Estonia. But when even in
small gatherings. If I would mention that my parents would
will immediately shush me. And so we were really cautious
about it. On a side note, Estonia is one point
three million people, not two point five million people. So
(42:47):
we're a tiny country that has always had the compulsory
army and as films have as well. But Estonia has
never really thought that Russians in tensions wouldn't be to
take it, take us back, basically, take take the land.
It was always so that that we knew, we knew
(43:10):
that that was booting, was all about that. Then even
when you know, I feel like Germans were much more
positive about it and we're having dinners and thinking that
that would actually make a difference.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
What kind of difference did NATO make to you and
to Estonia?
Speaker 13 (43:24):
Do you think, well, I mean, it's a huge security
to us and the alliance and knowing that the Americans
have our back back, so what what would we do
as this the size of.
Speaker 20 (43:37):
Our country, you know, and the distance that we're talking
about is if the Russians decided to march into Tally
in our capital, you know this, it would be done.
It would be over in hours. If we didn't have
the alliances like NATO and also the you know, europe
is obviously is stronger now. But but a lot of
(43:59):
Estonians have gone to Ukraine to voluntarily fight there because
they want to keep it out of our backyards. You know,
you go out there because otherwise you know what's next.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Yeah, Silver, thank you very much for that call, Jill.
I want to let both of you weigh in on that.
But Jill Dougherty first year thoughts on that call from
an Estonian American listener.
Speaker 8 (44:23):
Well, number one, I'm embarrassed I forgot that it is
one point two million people.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
How do you forget the population of every nature country?
Speaker 8 (44:30):
But yes, well I was memorizing actually the population of Georgia,
which I think is four million, because I'll be going
to the Republic of Georgia very soon. But you know,
there was a question before like why didn't putin grab Estonia.
You know, there was a period after the end of
the Soviet Union. Where do you think of Boris Elton?
(44:53):
He had his hands full just making sure that Russia
didn't fall apart, and the economy was a mess, I think,
And when you look at the Baltics, the Baltics were
never let's say, culturally part of the Soviet Union, they
were forcefully taken in, and I think after, you know,
(45:14):
the end of the Soviet Union, Moscow basically said, look,
you know what, let them go. That's it. We've enough
on our hands. So I find Estonia and other small
countries that are part of NATO really inspiring because they
really do want their own freedom and their own to
(45:36):
to be able to define their own future. And Vladimir
Putin right now is really intent on's especially in Ukraine,
of simply stopping a country from doing what it wants
to do. And that is quite shocking when you think
of it in terms of Europe taking over another country.
Speaker 1 (45:59):
Johnshack just stand by. I want to get to one
more call and then I'll come to you. Rock Island, Illinois.
Chris is on the line. Chris, go ahead, welcome to
the middle, Hi, Chris, what do you think?
Speaker 3 (46:15):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (46:16):
Last that seeds two questions and then we move on,
and I'm just gonna go to one more here. Tonsu
is in Tallahassee, Florida. Tonsue, quickly, go ahead, tell us
what you think about the value.
Speaker 20 (46:27):
Of NATO, Welliam Vallio.
Speaker 4 (46:32):
NATO has multiple aspects. Actually, first of all, let's stop
the economy. Europe is one of the main economic partners
of the United States, including Mexico and Canada. Can you
think all of the effects will be into the United
States economy if the Europe is in full full of
war with Russia. That's that's one thing. Second, obviously, if
(46:58):
Russia gets into Europe, we will with Europe and wins
like decisively. Don't you think that we're gonna fight the
war with our own soldiers at the end of the day.
Think of it this way in World War two, if
Britain fell down before United States got into the world
in World War two, so Britain is German Land, do
(47:18):
you think that we could have goten't hit there out
of Germany or out of Europe, though we wouldn't have none, Okay,
And at the end of the day, a few years
later there was gonna develop a pure weapons and they
were gonna come to our shores. So it was so
crucial at that land to have brittn to stand the case,
and we help the Britain and we got out of victors.
Speaker 11 (47:37):
Thinking here, if Europe.
Speaker 4 (47:39):
Is gone, you're gonna fight with believe your except or not,
you're the world. There are several books written in the
several in the past several years that we're gonna go
to two pole two pole world Authorityrian section and the
Democratic section.
Speaker 1 (47:56):
We've got a time to let me let me, let
me get that to our to our guest, John Shack.
And you know, this is not the first caller that
we've had who said exactly this, And it's sort of
what Harry Truman said in that clip that you know,
if we don't stand with NATO now, we're going to
end up with a war later that we have to
deal with absolutely.
Speaker 9 (48:14):
And this is you know, this is why this is
not a question of sort of theoretical or distant interest
on the part of the United States. It's our direct
interest because were we not to have allies, we would
have our own boots on the ground in the in
the countries that get attacked by Russia because we are
in the United States is very much at the center
(48:36):
of a lot of geopolitical security interests and we've got
to defend them, and we've got to defend them with allies.
And I think allies are the future of the security apparatus,
and NATO is a good example of them.
Speaker 1 (48:51):
Well, we heard from so many great callers this hour.
I want to thank my guests, former US Ambassador to
the Czech Republic John Shattuck, now professor at Toughs University,
journalist Jill Doherty now Doherty Global Fellow, now at the
Wilson Center. Thanks so much to both of you for
joining us.
Speaker 9 (49:07):
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1 (49:09):
And next week we're going to be looking at social
security and whether or not you think it'll be there
for you when you need it, and what if any
reforms you think should be made to social Security.
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Be sure to call in at eight four four four Middle.
That's eight four four four six four three three five three,
where you can reach us at Listen to the Middle
dot com, where you can also sign up for our
free weekly newsletter.
Speaker 1 (49:30):
The Middle is brought to you by Longnok Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media in Urbana, Illinois, and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, Sam Burmis, Dawes and John Barthur. Internzanikadeshler.
Our technical director is Jason Croft. Thanks to our podcast
audience as well as the more than four hundred and
ten public radio stations that are making it possible for
people across the country to listen to the middle I'm
(49:51):
Jeremy Hobson and I will talk to you next week.
Speaker 19 (50:00):
Inst
The Middle is supported by Journalism Funding Partners, a nonprofit
organization striving to increase the sustainability of local journalism by
building connections between donors and news organizations. More information on
how you can support the Middle at Listen tooth Middle
dot com. Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson along
(00:21):
with our house DJ Tolliver and Tolliver We've been covering
some of the biggest issues heading into the election here
on the show as we inch toward November, and this
hour is no different.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
You mean, we're finally going to talk about the merger
between Hawaiian Airlines and Alaska Airlines in the hope they'll
deal is tickets somewhere.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Yeah, right. Actually, Alaska is one of the three states
I've never been to, and I'd be happy to go.
But we are actually this hour going to be examining NATO,
the North Atlantic Treaty organization that now unites thirty two
countries the United States included into a strategic military pact.
NATO was formed back in nineteen forty nine after World
War Two, and Article five of NATO says that an
(00:59):
attack on any NATO country is an attack on all
of them. It's only been invoked once that was after
the nine to eleven attacks on the United States. But
the US relationship with NATO could look very different depending
on who wins the presidency in November. Vice President Kamala
Harris has voiced her strong support for America's European allies,
and the Biden administration has of course been an ardent
(01:21):
supporter of Ukraine following the Russian invasion. Former President Donald Trump,
on the other hand, has said that the US should
not protect allies in the Pact if they don't spend
the agreed upon two percent of their GDP on defense,
and some in the Trump orbit have suggested that he
would pull the US out of NATO in a second term,
including his vice presidential nominee j d Vance just the
(01:43):
other day. So our question this hour, what is the
value of NATO to the United States. We're going to
get to your calls in a moment at eight four
four four middle that's eight four four four six four
three three five three. But first, last week we asked
you whether media and social media companies have too much
sway in the selection. Here are some of the people
who didn't make it on air but did leave us
(02:04):
a message.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
This is Ernest from Salt Lake City, Utah. Is the
Mari conifroof Easton.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
Come best from Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 5 (02:13):
The folks who are watching TV tend to be a
little bit more inteligent with the drible news. Most of
this junk is coming off. I mean, the junk is
about people who start talking about their brothers, mothers, sisters,
dog's best friend and it doesn't have any sense to it.
But this is the problem. They believe it just because
they can see it on their phone.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
The media has come to the point where it is
usually leaning either left or right, and they will slant
their stories one way or the other.
Speaker 6 (02:44):
What I find is people of a younger demographic and
age are doing the research and are going above and
beyond and go find out what's really going on because
legacy media has other influences.
Speaker 7 (02:57):
Media has too much influence what we think, what we see,
and legislation should be in order to get things under control.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Well, thanks to everyone who called in, and you can
hear that entire episode on our podcast in partnership with
iHeart Podcasts on the iHeart app wherever you listen to podcasts.
So out of our topic, this hour what is the
value of NATO to the United States? Tolliver, what is
our number?
Speaker 2 (03:19):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three three five three, or you can
write to us that listen to the Middle dot com.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Let's meet our panel. Journalist Jill Dougherty spent years in
Moscow as CNN's bureau chief. She's now a Global Fellow
at the Wilson Center. Jill Dougherty, Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 8 (03:34):
Thank you very much. I really appreciate being here.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Jeremy, it's great to have you. And also joining us
is the former US Ambassador to the Czech Republic now
called Checkia, John Shattuck. He's now a professor of practice
in Diplomacy at Tuff's University. Ambassador Shattuck, great to have
you with us as well.
Speaker 9 (03:51):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
Well, before we get to the phones, let me ask
each of you. Do you think the US membership in
NATO is at stake in this selection?
Speaker 8 (03:59):
Jill Doherty, I do you just have to judge by
what you said? You know, jd Vance is talking actually
I think taking almost more of a let's say forward leaning,
you could actually say more extreme position and on you know,
pulling out of NATO. If you look at the Democrats,
(04:22):
of course they are saying stay in it.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
Now.
Speaker 8 (04:25):
I think the big question has been how much are
all of the allies contributing? And that we can get into.
But I mean, right now you have what is it,
twenty two of the countries in NATO twenty three sorry,
contributing that two percent, and that is actually more than
(04:46):
under the Trump administration, which had about nine percent when
he left office.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
John Shaddick just to tell our listeners what jd Vance said,
He said in an interview with a YouTuber that the
American support for NATO should be predicated on the e
you not regulating Elon Musk and his ex social media platform.
But what do you think about that issue? Do you
think NATO is at stake? The US relationship with NATO's
at stake in this election.
Speaker 9 (05:12):
Definitely, and it's very important. In fact, i'd say more
important today than at any time perhaps since the end
of the Cold War. And the end of the Cold
War of course, came in part about because NATO was formed,
as you said at the very beginning of the show
back in nineteen forty nine, nineteen fifty when NATO got
started the Allies, that is, the European Allies and the
(05:37):
United States, but the United States was the major player
because the Allies have been so severely damaged in the war,
really rallied around NATO as a defense against Soviet subversion
and incursion, and as a result, I think over a
long period of time seventy years, the peace was kept
(05:58):
in Europe the result of NATO. Now we're in a
very volatile world and we all know what's happened in Ukraine.
Russian aggression has basically tried to take back take Ukraine
and cut it out from its own sovereignty, and NATO
really stands in the way of that. So it's a
critical time for NATO and we need it more than ever.
(06:20):
And NATO protects American security by basically having allies who
can do a lot of the fighting, so we don't
do it need to do it ourselves.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
But why, John Shaddock, are there still at least ten
countries in NATO that are not spending the agreed upon
two percent of their GDP on defense and giving people
like Donald Trump that ammunition to say, why are we
in this thing? They're not paying their fair share?
Speaker 9 (06:47):
Well, I'll give Trump some credit as well as others.
By the way, it was not just Trump. Other Americans,
going all the way back to the very beginning, have
called upon Europe to spend more for their own defense.
And you know, I think, as Jill said, we've gotten
many more of the allies now are spending at least
(07:07):
two percent sometimes more of their GDP on defense, and
in fact, in the defense of Ukraine, the Europeans have
spent significantly more than the United States. So you know, yes,
there are more. There are a few countries that still
need to come in and spend more money, and I
think that that will happen. That's very much the American
(07:28):
position that we want Europe to bear the Barrett's share
of the burden.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Let's get to the phones, and Mary is in Parksville, Tennessee. Mary,
what do you think about the value of NATO to
the United States.
Speaker 10 (07:42):
Well, generally, I believe in coalition. I think cooperation makes
strengths and efficiency.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Hopefully, so you think it's you think it's a valuable partnership.
Speaker 5 (08:00):
I do.
Speaker 10 (08:01):
I must admit that I am not as educated as
I should meet about MITO and about foreign policy, but
I just think that that cooperation.
Speaker 11 (08:16):
Is a good thing.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Mary, Thank you for that. Jill Doherty, I have to
say for people who like Mary may have questions about NATO,
it's been so merged in with the idea of defending
against Russia in recent years, but we should remember it's
about a lot more than Russia.
Speaker 8 (08:34):
Oh yeah, I mean, they've had operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosevo, Somalia,
and now the discussion actually is about Asia, because you know,
it's not, as the head of NATO just recently said,
it's not just a little part of the neighborhood. You know,
the entire world is knit together. And what China does,
(08:56):
what Japan does with the Philippines, what we do, it's
all kind of one world. And you know, I also
would say to Mary that it's we sometimes think of
NATO as a military alliance, and it certainly is, but
there's also a values component to that, you know, Western values,
(09:16):
and I think that that's really important because when countries
come in, they let's say, some of the newer countries,
you know, you have Finland and Sweden obviously democratic countries,
but some of the other countries, like the people the
countries want to be members, Ukraine, Georgia. It's not just
(09:38):
the military component. Is are you trying to get rid
of corruption? Are you you know, do you have a
civil society. It's that type of thing also that knits
these countries together.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
Well, John Shattick, you were the ambassador of the Czech
Republic when they entered NATO, right, I mean, what was
what was valuable both to the Czech Republic to get
into the alliance and to the US to have check
in the alliance.
Speaker 9 (10:02):
Well, the Czechs were very concerned. I was there ten
years after the end of the Cold War, and I
was there in nineteen ninety nine. In the next couple
of years, and the Czechs were very concerned about Russia,
which even before Putin had you know, of course, Russia
had always been breathing hard down there next and They've
(10:24):
managed to develop a fairly secured democracy by then. And
they looked to NATO, and they were very proud to
become members of NATO. They looked to NATO as a
defense against the possibility that they might end up being
attacked from the east, as they had been so often
in the past. They had long memories in that regard,
(10:44):
and you know, they'd been forced to join the Warsaw Pact,
which was the old Soviet alternative to NATO, and now
to be able to become members of NATO made them
not only proud, but feel more secure and in fact,
I think made them more secure.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
And what about to the United States, just briefly, what
was the import of Czech Republic being in NATO?
Speaker 9 (11:09):
Well, I think, you know, the United States, as I
said earlier, benefits both directly and indirectly from NATO. It
benefits directly because it's part of the large security connections
that we have in the world. We have allies all
over and it's very important to have that. But also
(11:29):
what was most important was that it was not going
to be the US who was going to do the work.
It was going to be the Czechs who were going
to do the work defending themselves.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Well, and Tolliver I mentioned the only time that Article
five of NATO's ever been invoked was after the nine
to eleven attacks against the United States in two thousand
and one.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Yeah, here's George Robertson, who is the Secretary General of
NATO back then, speaking the day after the attacks.
Speaker 12 (11:53):
The Council agreed if it is determined that this attack
was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall
be regarded as an action covered by Article five of
the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against
one or more of the Allies in Europe or in
North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Got it? It's so crazy to hear that now, what
twenty three years after nine to eleven, Tolliver. I do
want to remind our listeners are loyal podcast listeners, that
you can contribute to the Middle, especially as we ramp
up our coverage heading into the election. We're going to
be doing a number of podcast extra specials coming up,
and you can make a tax deductrible contribution at listen
(12:40):
to Themiddle dot com in any amount, any amount that
you see fit. We really appreciate every single dollar. This
is an independent production after all, soo listen to the
Middle dot com and we'll be right back with more
of the Middle. This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
If you're just tuning in the Middle as a national
call in show, we're focused on elevating voices from the
middle geographically, politically, and philosophically. Or maybe you just want
(13:03):
to meet in the Middle. This hour, we're asking you
what is the value of NATO to the United States? Caliver,
what is the number of people to call in?
Speaker 2 (13:11):
It's eight four four four Middle, It's eight four four
four sixty four and three three five three. You can
also write to us to listen to the Middle dot
com or on social media.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
And I always feel bad giving people the number and
then seeing that all the lines are full, so sorry,
but leave a message if you can't get through it.
I'm joined by journalist Jill Dougherty, who spent years based
in Moscow and for US Ambassador to the Czech Republic
John Shaddock, now at Toughs University. And let's get to
those phones. And Eric is in Chicago. Eric, welcome to
the Middle.
Speaker 11 (13:37):
Go ahead, Yes, thank you. I believe that NATO is
incredibly important to the United States and to the citizens
of the United States because it seems like there's a concern,
an overly concern about money, and it's really not about money.
(13:58):
It's about the coily. It's about the checks and balances
because the nations, we hold ourselves accountable. I mean, Germany
just can't decide to take over Spain and England can't
just decide to go to war with France, you know,
without us all becoming involved and talking them down off
of that precipice. But I mean, this is just reeks
(14:21):
of American isolationism to try to pull us away from
those checks and balances.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
And is this an issue that is important enough that
you would make your decision in the presidential election because
of it.
Speaker 11 (14:34):
Well, there's other issues about my decision, but yes, I mean,
it's definitely a contributing factor. I'm a world traveler and
I appreciate the way that I am treated with my
American passport and the freedoms that that allows. And if
we move to this, let's walk away from Europe, let's
walk away from the world stage. When we're the strongest
(14:58):
military in the world. How does that look? It makes
us look weak?
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Eric, thank you for that. Jill Dougherty, your thoughts on
Eric's comments there.
Speaker 8 (15:08):
I think he makes several good points. I mean, you know,
walking away from our allies, you know, thinking of Trump,
let's get into the election a little bit Trump and
then what was happening you know after Trump and now
with Kamala Harris and the Biden administration, is that there's
(15:30):
a way of telling your allies that you need to
cough out more money. And as Ambassador Shaddock said, that
goes way back, did not start with Donald Trump. Now,
I think one of the factors that actually brought people
on board to spend more money and to you know,
come up to at least two percent is the invasion
(15:51):
of Ukraine. I mean, you look at after twenty fourteen,
when Russia next illegally Crimea and then back in February
of twenty twenty two that will know, freaked out Europe
and you had two countries that never wanted to be
involved in NATO or you know, they're completely independent, non aligned.
(16:16):
And again that's Finland and Sweden. They join, you know,
that's Vladimir Putin's nightmare. So keeping these countries in I think,
and let's say, working with our allies to create a
stronger union to face Putin is extremely important.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
Let's go to Steve, who's in Dallas, Texas. Steve, welcome
to the middle What do you think about NATO and
its value to the US?
Speaker 11 (16:46):
Well, thank you for taking a call.
Speaker 13 (16:48):
I do believe that.
Speaker 11 (16:51):
Is really, I think more importantly a question for NATO.
How important is NATO to the European nations. They're the
ones that are really citing this because the moment the
United States decides that we're not going to pay our
share and we're not going to pay their share, we're
effectively out. So this is really, I think a European question.
(17:13):
How important is NATO to them? And if it's important,
why don't they pay their share.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
What do you think, though, Steve, about the fact that
the only time that Article five has ever been invoked
by NATO was about the attacks on the United States
and that many soldiers from other NATO countries ended up
dying in the war in Afghanistan on behalf of the
United States.
Speaker 11 (17:35):
Well, I'm not suggesting necessarily that NATO is a bad idea.
I'm just simply saying that if you think it's a
good idea, then pay for it. It's really that simple.
They agreed to this going in. We agreed, all of
us agreed. But they're not doing their share. This does
go back a long long time. Presidents have complained about
this for a really long time. Nothing has happened. They
(17:58):
haven't done it until Donald Trump made an issue out
of it, and I think they will pay up. I
think they will do it if they're faced with no NATO.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Steve, thank you for that call, Ambassador Static. What do
you say to people like Steve? You know, if you
look at the polls right now, Democrats are far more
likely to be in favor of the US involvement in
NATO than Republicans.
Speaker 9 (18:22):
Well, I think, really it's not the biggest catalytic factor,
if you will, about building up NATO is Putin himself,
because I think he woke the European nations up to
the importance of their own defense. And it's really in
the last couple of years since, particularly since the invasion
(18:44):
of Ukraine, that Europeans have mobilized huge amounts of military
support and assistants that have gone to Ukraine and also
have increased their own internal spending on their own defense systems,
not just contributions to NATO's. So I think if we
didn't have NATO today, we would have to very quickly
(19:04):
figure out how to invent it, and that wouldn't be
easy in a short period of time to confront buten
In who is basically trying to change the whole makeup
of Europe, and if he's manages to succeed in Ukraine.
He could well threaten Europe directly in the Poland in
the Baltic country. So yes, Europe needs to be very active,
(19:29):
and I think they are very active in their own
defense right now, and that's why they're doing more on
behalf of NATO.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Let's go to Zach, who's in Kansas City, Missouri. Zach,
welcome to the middle go ahead.
Speaker 14 (19:42):
Hey, thanks for taking a call.
Speaker 15 (19:45):
So, as a young person, I'm going to turn twenty six,
you know, I don't even remember the Soviet Union existing,
and neither do other folks my age and so well,
I'm involved enough to be calling into a politics radio show.
I think a lot of those my age just kind
(20:06):
of don't think about it. And I think that's unfortunate
because to young people who don't remember, you know, when
Europe was a much more dangerous place.
Speaker 14 (20:14):
It's even all we kind of think of it as
a spot to go study abroad and take a backpacking trip,
but that's only possible because of NATO. NATO is what
made Europe safe. Europe's history, you know, in the twentieth
century is really awful. It's it's horrific and the only reason,
(20:36):
in my estimation, anyways that you know, authoritarians can't rise
to power and try and take over the neighbors like
they have for centuries is NATO, and that that mutual
defense brings everyone to the you know, diplomatic table instead
of you know, militarization and that cycle of violence.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Zach, I'm so glad you called that's such a great
point about people who obviously are younger and haven't lived
through some of these things. I mean, I think back
to my own childhood and thinking, you know, my grandparents
were living through World War Two and I wasn't, you know,
I was just I wasn't even a you know, sparkle
in my parents' eye, Tolliver. But Jill Dougherty about what
(21:17):
about Zach's point of so many people that don't have,
you know, firsthand experience with the Soviet Union, but maybe
they have an old globe that still has it on
it or something like that, but that just reminding them
of the relevance of NATO and the reasons it's there.
Speaker 8 (21:31):
Yeah, I was really glad that Zach said what he said,
because you know, let's let's look at it this way.
Let's pretend all of a sudden NATO falls apart. Every
country in Europe is on its own, and little tiny
countries like one of my favorite countries happens to be Estonia,
and it has a population of like, you know, two
(21:52):
and a half million people. It's very you know, a
tenth of New York, and yet they are you know,
contributing actually more way more than two percent. But if
they were left on their own, they would be swallowed
up in a minute, and every country would be on
its own. Putin would really take advantage. There's no question.
(22:16):
Even with NATO, he is nibbling around the edges of
a lot of those countries. So I think, you know, Americans,
really we don't know, as Ambassador Shaddock said, we don't
know the real downside because NATO has kept us safe
for the past seventy five years. But if it hadn't
been there, we could have been involved in a number
(22:40):
of wars.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
John Shaddick, By the way, could Trump pull the US
out of NATO on his own or would Congress have
to get involved in that?
Speaker 9 (22:49):
Couldn't do it on his own? No, I mean, he
could make it very unpleasant. He could obviously do whatever
he could possibly do politically to influence Congress, but it
is a NATO, it is a treaty, is a a
founding member of this treaty, and a treaty cannot be
simply abrogated unilaterally by a president. So Trump would not
(23:10):
have much authority to do it, but he could start
pushing his weight around. My real fear in terms of
the current situation, my concern is that we're Trump essentially
to announce that he was going to pull out of
NATO or reduce significantly the American support for NATO. I
think the European countries would then begin to really scramble
(23:31):
to try to make sure that they could defend themselves
in the event that Putin and Russia were to move
on beyond Ukraine, and you know, NATO could collapse, but
the individual countries, as Jill just said, would end up
having to kind of defend themselves, and that would be
a very very dangerous situation, and American soldiers might end
(23:54):
up being called in as a result.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Let's go to Karen, who's in Cherokee County, North Carolina. Karen,
welcome to the middle guy.
Speaker 16 (24:02):
I love, I loved all your people and their opinions,
and I have to tell you I'm seventy four. I
was nine years old when I was in South Florida
and Russia was ninety miles away in Cuba. I saw
American troops heading down south to our base in Homestead,
and my uncle was calling my mother and telling her
she had to come back to New England with me.
(24:24):
And my family was scared to death that the Russians
were gonna bomb us. So knowing that fear and remembering that,
when you look at Europe, Europe has to stand together
and we need to support them. We don't want another
World War two, we don't want a World War three.
And if you leave these people on their own, they're
going to have nuclear weapons quite rapidly, as fast as
(24:48):
they can, and that would be a mess. Can you
imagine all those companies, all those countries having individual nuclear weapons.
Can you imagine what a mess this world would be
if Russia let's go well, when Russia is not going
to New anybody because they know that it will come
back on them and destroy their own country. We need
to stand with our alliances and our treaties, and we
(25:11):
need to be true to the people that we have
said we would defend, because they certainly do favors for us.
And we need to recognize this. We're not in a
world alone. We're in a world of people.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
Karen, thank you so much that what a great viewpoint
to bring. Really appreciate it. To Oliver, I know a
lot is coming in online as well.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Yes, so much. Doug, who is independent and UNDECIDEDED, says,
I agree that NATO has value, but when and what
can the US do to get these large economies to
meet their obligations. I've read that Canada may not meet
their obligations for a number of years. Classic Canada Phil
and Wilson, Wyoming says NATO is a bulwark against fascism.
Fascism is experiencing a resurgence across the globe, but Trump
(25:52):
is an avowed admirer of fascist leaders. It's imperative that
the United States be a member of NATO and support
NATO to the fullest extent. I will say, if we
have any callers out there who are who want us
to leave NATO, I think we'd like to hear from
them too.
Speaker 5 (26:05):
Right.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Well, when we hear that caller in Dallas, Texas seemed
to bit skeptain. Well, let's go to John who's in Allentown, Pennsylvania. John,
Welcome to the Middle What do you think about NATO.
Speaker 17 (26:16):
Yeah, like the caller who's twenty six, I'm a bit younger.
I'm only twenty, but I am of the very firm
opinion that we need to leave NATO. NATO is not
a benefit to the United States. NATO benefits Europe.
Speaker 7 (26:28):
You know.
Speaker 17 (26:29):
For a few callers, I think a lot of them
need to maybe press rush up on their history. The
caller talking about how in the nineteen and nineteen sixty
three Russia was only ninety miles away. She forgets, however,
that the United States had placed nuclear missiles in Turkey,
only a few miles, only about a few hundred miles
from the Soviet Union before placing before the Soviets placed
(26:50):
nuclear missiles in Cuba. You know the caller who or
one of your panelists who talked about Estonia. Estonia was
a sovereign country for thirteen year years after peacefully leaving
the Soviet Union in the Velvet Revolution. If Russia was
so hell bent on taking over Eastern Europe, why would
they not have invaded during those thirteen years?
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Well, you know what I'm gonna let I'm gonna let
Jill Doherty respond to that, John, thank you, thank you
for that call. I appreciate it. And Jill Doherty is
Jill Doherty your respect.
Speaker 8 (27:19):
There are a number of points that you made. I
think maybe the most important is in essence, what you're
saying is Europe is not our business and it predict
NATO protects only Europe. Let's think what would happen if
there were no NATO and Putin invades or takes over
(27:42):
countries in Europe. You would obviously have a war, and
maybe a number of different wars. Would the United States
stand back and let Europe blow up? I don't think so,
because it would affect everything. It would affect world economy.
We'd have, you know, a blazing war in Europe. This
(28:04):
would be like World War two. We would have to
get involved, and with NATO, we are in it together,
and that puts off Vladimir Putin from even trying to
do that. So I think, you know it's to me.
What I tried to do is figure out, okay, if
it did not exist, what would happen? And I guarantee
(28:26):
you I am convinced that we would be in probably
a world war if NATO were suddenly to disappear and
we pulled out.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
John Tattock, do you agree with that?
Speaker 9 (28:40):
Yeah, well, I agree with that, and I'd go even further,
I'd say, and I think NATO is above all a
huge deterrent. I think Jill is alluding to that. It's
not just a kind of military operation that is always
confronting on borders, but it's a deterrent against attack. And
I think think it actually acted in some ways as
(29:02):
a deterrent during the thirteen years that the caller was
talking about that Estonia was independent before it was a
member of NATO. I think had NATO been had Estonia
been attacked by Russia during that period, I think certainly
NATO would have mobilized. I don't know whether, I don't
know exactly what it would have done, but I think
it ended up being a fairly major deterrent NATO against
(29:26):
a Russian attack of Estonia even before Estonia became a member.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
You know, Russia, Vladimir Putin has made clear he does
not want Ukraine to be a member of NATO, wants
assurances that that won't happen. Do you think, John Shaddock,
that Western countries also don't want Ukraine to be a
member of NATO? Because it would mean that they'd have
to defend it.
Speaker 9 (29:48):
Well, I think, you know, I think the question of
NATO membership for Ukraine is a complicated one. My own
position is that they shouldn't be a member right now.
They ought to be brought into the European Union given
a pathway, they have a paathway to join Europe and
become part of the overall European Union. But I think
the integration of Ukraine into NATO would be not only
(30:14):
logistically complicated, but also politically complicated. It would, and it
would be highly provocative. So I think NATO needs to
stay as a member as a membership issue on the
back burner for the moment.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
Tolliver. As we mentioned, NATO was formed in nineteen forty nine,
right after World War Two.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Yeah, here's President Harry Truman, not the sheriff in Twin Peaks,
speaking when the treaty was first tigned in nineteen forty nine.
Speaker 18 (30:41):
A simple document. If it had have existed in nineteen
fourteen and in nineteen thirty nine, supported by the nations
who are represented here today, I believe it would have
prevented the acts of aggression which led to two World Wars.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
Harry Truman there and Talver. You know what our podcast
listeners don't know is that the people who heard this
on the radio got to hear you play a special
song right now.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
And I'm like a mystery DJ to half the audios,
you know.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
To half the audience right because we don't have the
rights for the podcast. But what did you play coming
out of that right right there?
Speaker 2 (31:17):
I played Abbo because they just joined NATO this year
and they're from Sweeten Obviously.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
Sweeden just joined NATO this year, not Abah, my God
of us. Well, we'll be right back with more of
the Middle. This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson. This hour,
we're asking you what is the value of NATO to
the United States. You can call us at eight four
four four Middle that's eight four four four six four
three three five three, or you can reach out at
(31:43):
Listen to the Middle dot com. I'm joined by former
US Ambassador to the Czech Republic John Shaddock and journalist
Jill Dougherty now at the Wilson Center. And let's go
back to the phones and Nathan, who is calling from Lincoln, Nebraska. Nathan,
Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 11 (31:57):
Go ahead, Hi in about two thousand and five, right
after Vladimir Putin had been first reelected, I actually took
a trip in college to the Russian far East, to
a former military district called the Chakotka, and there I
met a lot of young men who loved talking about
(32:23):
how Putin was strong, Bush was weak. They wanted to
join the Russian military and hopefully get the chance to
fight Americans one day. You know, it was shocking stuff
to my years, but it was the result of the
constant misinformation, disinformation that just pervades Russian society, and so NATO,
(32:44):
to my mind, is not just some sort of theoretical backstop,
what if, you know, in case things get out of
hand in Europe. I think it is an immediate bulwark
every day against a society that is mobilized against us
in Russia and you know, throughout its alliances.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
Nathan, thank you for that. Jill Doherty, you spent many
many years based in Moscow until basically the beginning of
the war, the war by Russia against Ukraine. What do
you think about that from.
Speaker 8 (33:15):
Nathan Well, I think that's a really interesting comment, and
you know, I'm thinking about the image of Vladimir Putin
and NATO. It seems, you know, Putin hates NATO. That's
the impression that we get. But I think it's important
to remember that after the end of the Soviet Union,
the beginning of modern Russia, actually Russia, this would be
(33:39):
going back to nineteen ninety one, Russia actually was slowly
or at least there was the attempt to bring them
into NATO, to make it, you know, a European cooperative venture.
There was the North Atlantic Cooperative Council in nineteen ninety one.
There was another thing called the Partner for Peace. I
(34:01):
actually covered that nineteen ninety four when I was covering
Clinton at the White House. Then nineteen ninety seven NATO
Russia found a founding act, and then two I'm looking
at my notes here two thousand and two NATO Russia Council.
So why didn't Russia become part of NATO? Well, I
(34:23):
mean this is you know, John, Ambassador Shotack probably knows
a lot better than I do. But my feeling about
that is, yes, in the beginning, there worthies overtures, and yes,
Russia sounded interested. But Russia, even though it was weak,
you know, it had fallen apart in Soviet Union in
(34:43):
nineteen ninety one. Russia and especially under Putin, still considers
itself a great power, and so when it gets into organizations,
it not only wants to become a member, it wants
to run them. And so I I think that was
one of the problems that, you know, as they got
more and more, as Brutan got more and more angry
(35:06):
at the West for a variety of different things, he
also felt that they were being ignored and insulted and
it was all kind of fake that NATO was never
ever going to decide anything with them, And that's my
I think psychological understanding of how that happened.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
We've got a question from a listener, Peter is in
Saint Paul, Minnesota. Peter, what is your question?
Speaker 19 (35:32):
Yeah, I was just wondering, So NATO has value for defense,
and there's been a lot of talk about if the
US would pull out and NATO falls apart. I don't
understand the link between the US pulling out of NATO
and falling apart because I think it would have value
for Europe as you know, the European nations that already
are in there could stay in there. So that's my
(35:55):
primary question is, you know, yes, the value NATO. I
think we should stay in, but even if we didn't,
I don't understand why NATA then falls apart.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Okay, great question, Peter John Shaddock. Why would NATO fall
apart necessarily if the US were to pull out of NATO.
Speaker 9 (36:13):
Well, I think there are two reasons, whether it would
actually fall apart or just sort of begin to disintegrate
as another question of those are two similar kinds of phenomenon.
Speaker 12 (36:24):
You know.
Speaker 9 (36:24):
One reason is that it is true that the great
bulk of NATO spending and the capacities, and the military
capacity and the training and all the rest of it
do come from the United States. Increasingly that's being transferred
to Europe. And I think that the Ukraine War has
led to Europeans, as I said earlier, waking up much
(36:47):
more to their need to be active participants in events.
So that's one reason the loss of US leadership would
be critical. And then the second thing is that I
think the European would then pretty much forget about anything
that they needed to do on behalf of the United States.
I mean, at least theoretically that no longer would the
(37:09):
Article five which you cited at the beginning be available
to be cited again in the event that the US
was attacked. So you know, the US has a very
strong and immediate interest in remaining in NATO, and NATO
has a very strong and immediate interest in having the
US stay.
Speaker 1 (37:30):
Let's go to Jill, who's in Denver, Colorado. Jill, Welcome
to the middle What do you think about the value
of NATO to the United States.
Speaker 7 (37:38):
Oh, I think it's very valuable. I agree it is
a deterrent when I think as a younger callers Zah said,
I don't think a lot of Americans realize, you know,
what happened in nineteen ninety one, and that is Suton's
(38:00):
main reason, I believe for going into Ukraine. He wants
to take back all those territories that were divided up
and taken away from the USSR. And if Ukraine had
been in NATO, I don't believe it ever would have
been invaded. He hasn't invaded Poland, he hasn't invaded in
(38:24):
the European countries. And if we're not there, it's going
to be like drump said, Oh, let him do what
the hell he wants. And that's what I Yeah, that's
what I'm afraid of. Is we need we you know,
we need each other. We're all in this together.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
Jill, thank you for that, you know, Jill Doherty, she
brings up Poland. Many people have said about this war
that you know, if Putin gets Ukraine, he's not going
to stop there and he'll go after Poland and then
we really get Then then an actual NATO country is
going to be in the mix. Do you do you
agree with that?
Speaker 8 (39:02):
Oh, yes, definitely, But you know, I would say, and
Jill makes a couple of really interesting points. You know Putin.
The way Putin looks at this, if I can jump
into his head, is that he feels that NATO is
right up against his borders. And so you could say, yes,
(39:24):
that's that is true in some cases, especially right now,
we've got Finland certainly right on the border and other countries.
But I think my question for Putin would be how
far do you want this belt, you know, to protect you?
He seems to want to have countries along his border
(39:44):
that will remain neutral, that's what he's talking about with Ukraine.
But how long do you do that? How big is
this border? What happens to those countries like Ukraine, like Georgia,
albeit they're not ready right now to join name, but
they have a right to want to be part of NATO.
And this is the big debate, you know, should we
(40:06):
have let the Baltics in, should we have let NATO,
et cetera. I think that those that if a country
does want to get in and can meet the criteria
and then most importantly the other members of NATO say yes,
then they ought to be in, and that putin should
(40:27):
not have any type of you know, consent or negation
on that ambasadorsatic.
Speaker 1 (40:33):
Do you see a moment when countries like Argentina or
even countries in Asia end up joining NATO.
Speaker 9 (40:42):
Well, I think the whole concept of a global alliance
for democracy is something that has been considered in the past,
and I'm not sure NATO is the vehicle necessarily. NATO
is a focus on Europe, but I do think it's
important and Jill brought this up earlier. So remember what
the values are that NATO is to protect. It's the
(41:03):
value of democracy and self determination. And as she just said, now,
I mean any country that's really exercising its own self
determination through a democratic process, and certainly that's a complicated
thing to do. We're having trouble in our own country
doing that. But nonetheless, I think any country that can
(41:25):
do that really deserves to have allies who are similarly minded,
whether they're members of NATO or some other alliance. Now
we are also allied with countries in Southeastern Asia, with
Australia and New Zealand and a number of other countries,
and I think NATO is in a sense of paradigm,
(41:46):
it's a kind of example of the kind of alliance
that could exist on behalf of democracy in other parts
of the world.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
Let's go to Silver. Who's in Pine City, Minnesota. Silver,
Welcome to the Middle Go ahead, Yeah, I.
Speaker 20 (42:02):
Just wanted to chime in here. I'm listening to your
show and I find the conversation extremely interesting. I was
born in Estonia in the eighties and moved to Finland
with my family in nineteen ninety. At that point this
was still officially it was still Soviet Union, although although
it was already changing and there was hope, but we
(42:24):
wouldn't really, we wouldn't really talk about it then. As
a kid, I wanted to be hopeful, and everybody was
hoping for there's the free Estonia. But when even in
small gatherings. If I would mention that my parents would
will immediately shush me. And so we were really cautious
about it. On a side note, Estonia is one point
three million people, not two point five million people. So
(42:47):
we're a tiny country that has always had the compulsory
army and as films have as well. But Estonia has
never really thought that Russians in tensions wouldn't be to
take it, take us back, basically, take take the land.
It was always so that that we knew, we knew
(43:10):
that that was booting, was all about that. Then even
when you know, I feel like Germans were much more
positive about it and we're having dinners and thinking that
that would actually make a difference.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
What kind of difference did NATO make to you and
to Estonia?
Speaker 13 (43:24):
Do you think, well, I mean, it's a huge security
to us and the alliance and knowing that the Americans
have our back back, so what what would we do
as this the size of.
Speaker 20 (43:37):
Our country, you know, and the distance that we're talking
about is if the Russians decided to march into Tally
in our capital, you know this, it would be done.
It would be over in hours. If we didn't have
the alliances like NATO and also the you know, europe
is obviously is stronger now. But but a lot of
(43:59):
Estonians have gone to Ukraine to voluntarily fight there because
they want to keep it out of our backyards. You know,
you go out there because otherwise you know what's next.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Yeah, Silver, thank you very much for that call, Jill.
I want to let both of you weigh in on that.
But Jill Dougherty first year thoughts on that call from
an Estonian American listener.
Speaker 8 (44:23):
Well, number one, I'm embarrassed I forgot that it is
one point two million people.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
How do you forget the population of every nature country?
Speaker 8 (44:30):
But yes, well I was memorizing actually the population of Georgia,
which I think is four million, because I'll be going
to the Republic of Georgia very soon. But you know,
there was a question before like why didn't putin grab Estonia.
You know, there was a period after the end of
the Soviet Union. Where do you think of Boris Elton?
(44:53):
He had his hands full just making sure that Russia
didn't fall apart, and the economy was a mess, I think,
And when you look at the Baltics, the Baltics were
never let's say, culturally part of the Soviet Union, they
were forcefully taken in, and I think after, you know,
(45:14):
the end of the Soviet Union, Moscow basically said, look,
you know what, let them go. That's it. We've enough
on our hands. So I find Estonia and other small
countries that are part of NATO really inspiring because they
really do want their own freedom and their own to
(45:36):
to be able to define their own future. And Vladimir
Putin right now is really intent on's especially in Ukraine,
of simply stopping a country from doing what it wants
to do. And that is quite shocking when you think
of it in terms of Europe taking over another country.
Speaker 1 (45:59):
Johnshack just stand by. I want to get to one
more call and then I'll come to you. Rock Island, Illinois.
Chris is on the line. Chris, go ahead, welcome to
the middle, Hi, Chris, what do you think?
Speaker 3 (46:15):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (46:16):
Last that seeds two questions and then we move on,
and I'm just gonna go to one more here. Tonsu
is in Tallahassee, Florida. Tonsue, quickly, go ahead, tell us
what you think about the value.
Speaker 20 (46:27):
Of NATO, Welliam Vallio.
Speaker 4 (46:32):
NATO has multiple aspects. Actually, first of all, let's stop
the economy. Europe is one of the main economic partners
of the United States, including Mexico and Canada. Can you
think all of the effects will be into the United
States economy if the Europe is in full full of
war with Russia. That's that's one thing. Second, obviously, if
(46:58):
Russia gets into Europe, we will with Europe and wins
like decisively. Don't you think that we're gonna fight the
war with our own soldiers at the end of the day.
Think of it this way in World War two, if
Britain fell down before United States got into the world
in World War two, so Britain is German Land, do
(47:18):
you think that we could have goten't hit there out
of Germany or out of Europe, though we wouldn't have none, Okay,
And at the end of the day, a few years
later there was gonna develop a pure weapons and they
were gonna come to our shores. So it was so
crucial at that land to have brittn to stand the case,
and we help the Britain and we got out of victors.
Speaker 11 (47:37):
Thinking here, if Europe.
Speaker 4 (47:39):
Is gone, you're gonna fight with believe your except or not,
you're the world. There are several books written in the
several in the past several years that we're gonna go
to two pole two pole world Authorityrian section and the
Democratic section.
Speaker 1 (47:56):
We've got a time to let me let me, let
me get that to our to our guest, John Shack.
And you know, this is not the first caller that
we've had who said exactly this, And it's sort of
what Harry Truman said in that clip that you know,
if we don't stand with NATO now, we're going to
end up with a war later that we have to
deal with absolutely.
Speaker 9 (48:14):
And this is you know, this is why this is
not a question of sort of theoretical or distant interest
on the part of the United States. It's our direct
interest because were we not to have allies, we would
have our own boots on the ground in the in
the countries that get attacked by Russia because we are
in the United States is very much at the center
(48:36):
of a lot of geopolitical security interests and we've got
to defend them, and we've got to defend them with allies.
And I think allies are the future of the security apparatus,
and NATO is a good example of them.
Speaker 1 (48:51):
Well, we heard from so many great callers this hour.
I want to thank my guests, former US Ambassador to
the Czech Republic John Shattuck, now professor at Toughs University,
journalist Jill Doherty now Doherty Global Fellow, now at the
Wilson Center. Thanks so much to both of you for
joining us.
Speaker 9 (49:07):
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1 (49:09):
And next week we're going to be looking at social
security and whether or not you think it'll be there
for you when you need it, and what if any
reforms you think should be made to social Security.
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Be sure to call in at eight four four four Middle.
That's eight four four four six four three three five three,
where you can reach us at Listen to the Middle
dot com, where you can also sign up for our
free weekly newsletter.
Speaker 1 (49:30):
The Middle is brought to you by Longnok Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media in Urbana, Illinois, and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, Sam Burmis, Dawes and John Barthur. Internzanikadeshler.
Our technical director is Jason Croft. Thanks to our podcast
audience as well as the more than four hundred and
ten public radio stations that are making it possible for
people across the country to listen to the middle I'm
(49:51):
Jeremy Hobson and I will talk to you next week.
Speaker 19 (50:00):
Inst
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.