YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → A Brief History of NATO & American Imperialism

A Brief History of NATO & American Imperialism — Transcript

by The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder · 3,234 words · 466 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01um I I don't know which one would have
0:03you want to take this question but give
0:05us just sort of like the
0:08the brief history of NATO since maybe
0:13you know like the since 93 right when
0:16the Soviet Union Falls I mean I think
0:18everybody understands where where NATO
0:20sort of developed in the wake of uh of
0:22of of of uh World War II uh an alliance
0:26that was created across the Atlantic
0:30um between allies uh from uh you know
0:34World War II but also in terms of like
0:37the the burgeoning Soviet uh block but
0:41since 93 give us a little bit of a
0:43thumbnail
0:44sure Derek maybe I could start and you
0:46could uh correct me where I'm wrong uh
0:48it's interesting to look back on what
0:50happened to Nato because the question
0:51was at the time was the United States
0:54con going to continue to try to dominate
0:56the world uh the justification for U.S
0:58hegemony for the previous half century
1:00was really that the Soviet Union if it
1:02wasn't confronted would take over the
1:04world and communism would go forward so
1:06the question was was there going to be a
1:09peace dividend that was going to be used
1:12to you know spend money on things like
1:13social welfare instead of military
1:15alliances abroad particularly when there
1:18was no perceived existential threat NATO
1:19was related to that was it was maybe you
1:22know the prime discussion when we were
1:24talking about the transatlantic Alliance
1:26but of course the U.S did continue uh to
1:29commit itself to hegemony and since 1993
1:32roughly speaking NATO has become more
1:34and more involved and a bunch of areas
1:38that had previously didn't really do it
1:39it had deployed troops um in Eastern
1:42Europe it even deployed Troop troops out
1:44of area in 2011 right Derek during Libya
1:48so I think the story over the last 30
1:50years is just NATO becoming larger and
1:53larger doing more and more things that
1:56it didn't really do during the Cold War
1:58and becoming a really a synecdoche for
2:01U.S Empire and the United States desire
2:04to dominate writ large well we should
2:06also say it the troops are deployed in
2:09Afghanistan
2:10um NATO has a
2:13um uh part of you know their their
2:15treaty is that uh you know you attack
2:17one of us and and the rest of us will
2:19come uh and it was that's what Justified
2:23their involvement in Afghanistan
2:27um uh although oddly it wasn't
2:29necessarily Afghanistan that was a
2:31attack that attacked us on 9 11. I mean
2:34there's a lot of asterisks uh there
2:35let's put it that way
2:37um but let's go uh Derek let's go to
2:40like uh 2004 where you know 11 years
2:43after here
2:44and uh the
2:48the ostensible sort of justification
2:50justification rationale for a NATO sort
2:55of falls apart right and like a maybe uh
2:58and at that time uh there was a deal
3:01struck with Ukraine of of their defense
3:03to get rid of nukes and I remember in 93
3:08the the sort of the peace dividend that
3:10was was going to show up and never sort
3:12of did and um uh but in 2004 there's an
3:16expansion just talk a little bit about
3:18that because that that really gives you
3:19a sense of where this is all going
3:22I mean I think
3:24um you know to to sort of build on what
3:26Danny was talking about and also uh to
3:28pick up on on something you uh said
3:30there which was NATO's ostensible
3:32purpose is no longer relevant I think if
3:37you dig into what NATO was really
3:40supposed to be about and there's a great
3:42piece in the New York Times
3:44um maybe a week ago now by gray Anderson
3:46and Thomas Meaney that that really
3:48argues that NATO was never really a cold
3:52war defense Alliance it was an arm of
3:54American Empire it was a way to make to
3:57to maintain U.S hegemony over European
4:00politics in a in a much broader sense
4:02than just defense uh but it was a way to
4:05keep a U.S military contractors selling
4:08weapons
4:09um it was a way to make sure that uh
4:12basically U.S Primacy was maintained
4:14across Europe throughout that period And
4:16I think that just continued so in a
4:18sense it's it's real Mission never went
4:20away and in fact was expand ended after
4:23the the fall of the Soviet Union in the
4:25end of the Cold War so that that
4:27expansion that you get in the you know
4:29the expansion that you get in the 90s
4:30and then in 2004 uh into central eastern
4:34Europe into places that were very much
4:35in the uh Soviet periphery during the
4:39Cold War uh that's just a natural
4:42continuation of this process and it's it
4:47it's part of the story if we talk about
4:50the war in Ukraine and and the you know
4:52the drama obviously that surrounds
4:54Ukraine potentially becoming a a NATO
4:56member is this steady expansion into
4:59Eastern Europe which of course you know
5:01you get arguments that um
5:04you know NATO that effectively take
5:06NATO's agency away in a sense you know
5:08these countries wanted to join NATO so
5:09don't they have the the right to do so
5:12which
5:13um you know they they have the right to
5:15apply I guess but NATO doesn't have
5:17necessarily uh any obligation to admit
5:20these places
5:22um but it is part of the backdrop to you
5:26know escalating Russian grievances over
5:28uh the past now 30 years about its
5:32relationship with the West uh now my
5:35understanding though in recollection was
5:37in 2004 in that expansion
5:41um Putin did not have and and he he was
5:45uh he was relatively new but he he did
5:48not have or make an issue let's put it
5:51that way I guess with the expansion of
5:54that and if I remember correctly like
5:55half of maybe it was uh uh seven or
5:59eight uh countries in maybe a half of
6:02them were literally part of the USSR and
6:06then the other half more or less uh you
6:09guys will know the details we're um
6:12we're part of the uh Warsaw Pact so they
6:15were basically you know within the side
6:16they were in the
6:18I guess the uh Iron Curtain version of
6:20NATO if you will
6:22um and there was no no big issue with
6:26that but um it clearly NATO like well
6:30let me ask you this this question
6:32because clearly NATO
6:34could have said no sorry well it's not
6:36what our plan is to expand our
6:38membership but why did these countries
6:40want
6:41to join NATO at that time
6:45yeah I think the way to describe it is
6:47that these were countries that were part
6:50of the USSR were part of the Eastern
6:52black but weren't core countries like a
6:54Georgia or Ukraine there were countries
6:56that for example if you look at
6:57Lithuania a country that went back and
6:59forth between the Nazis and Soviets
7:01between 1939 and 1941. so they were part
7:04of it but they were they weren't core
7:06and I think that that explains why later
7:09on in 2008 Putin got um you know more
7:12concerned with what he considered to be
7:14NATO expansion but the reason that these
7:15countries would want to be part of NATO
7:17is obvious um they don't want the the I
7:19almost said the Soviet Union they don't
7:21want the Russian Federation to invade
7:23them they don't want to be pressured by
7:24the Russian Federation this provides
7:26some sort of Shield against Russian
7:29encroachment and Russian pressure so
7:31it's very obvious um and understandable
7:33why these countries would want to be
7:35part of NATO now but the question that I
7:38think we as Americans or people within
7:40this country have to ask is
7:43how does that relate to perceived
7:45um the perceived National interest
7:47because there are lots of countries
7:49around the world that would want the
7:50United States or alliances to provide
7:52for their defense but that doesn't
7:55necessarily mean that we want to do that
7:57because that could be if you consider
7:58the US Empire to be a problem that would
8:01just necessarily mean the total
8:03expansion of the US Empire and I think
8:05this gets into difficult questions when
8:07you have gen populations genuinely want
8:10to be part of this Alliance
8:13does that necessarily mean that we
8:15should allow them to join or or that you
8:17know left-wing critics people who don't
8:19like things like war and imperialism
8:21even should allow them to join and it
8:23raises really um thorny questions that I
8:26think got played out a lot in this uh
8:28recent Russian invasion of Ukraine I
8:30want to I want to get us up to that
8:32point too but I almost like set this
8:34table a little bit more too because one
8:36of the issues
8:37you know the thing that fascinates me
8:40about uh uh particularly around this
8:42topic when we're talking about foreign
8:44policy is that
8:46um regardless of ideology it is uh
8:50attempted to be fought on the playing
8:53field of what's best for U.S national
8:57security interests
8:59and everybody tries to carry that Banner
9:03um as if there is like there is this
9:07sort of objective notion of what is in a
9:11country's best National Security
9:13interest it's almost like
9:15you know there's a there's an analog
9:17somewhere into sort of like economy you
9:21know the economy in some way
9:23um and you know you could
9:27I and I think in in some interest you
9:30know like you could say like the the
9:32project for New American Freedom uh a
9:34new American Century guys uh and I'm I'm
9:37the I have that on my head because I'm
9:38old
9:40um but when they were looking for uh the
9:43U.S to be a hyperpower NATO is a big
9:46part of that the idea that we're gonna
9:48have hegemony in a world where we're not
9:51going to have a superpower and we need
9:53some a bunch of low-level conflicts to
9:55exist around the world and as long as
9:57we're sort of riding above that
10:00um we're okay so what what is like how
10:04do you guys defined what is in U.S
10:08national security interests like what
10:11what are the elements that that create
10:14that that sort of uh idea for you Derek
10:18why don't you start and then uh Danny
10:19you'll go next I mean I view this
10:21increasingly in on a Global Perspective
10:24the challenges that really threaten the
10:26United States or anybody are
10:29climate change pandemic you know global
10:32inequality and and the instability that
10:34that brings and these are these are
10:36problems that have to be worked out with
10:38International Solutions and and you know
10:40drawing battle lines and uh you know for
10:43as you you brought up the the 2004 NATO
10:47expansion which was I think an
10:49explicitly done in an anti-russian way
10:52these were countries that wanted
10:53protection from Russia that was their
10:55rationale for joining NATO which is part
10:57of what uh has kind of caused this issue
11:00to become more charged I think from uh
11:02from Putin's perspective or from
11:04Russia's perspective over time uh that
11:06this is increasingly kind of an anti-uh
11:08anti-russia
11:10um you know it's it it doesn't
11:12facilitate addressing the real threats
11:16that that we face I think to to uh you
11:20know to expand this to to China
11:22drawing battle lines in the drawing sort
11:25of lines of control in the Pacific and
11:27you know putting uh countries on and us
11:29or them footing with the US and China
11:31it's it's just counterproductive to
11:34these things so my view is is there's
11:38we're going in the opposite direction of
11:41National Security right now with the
11:42priorities that that we're laying out I
11:45I agree with Derek and I would even
11:47Define National Security interests
11:50rather narrowly which is to basically
11:52defense of the Homeland so that's what
11:55it mostly meant for the majority of U.S
11:58history and during World War II the
12:00United States started to adopt a much
12:02more expansive understanding of its
12:04World role for a variety of reasons
12:06basically to protect the Global Commons
12:08and free trade but also from a
12:10metaphysical perspective to you know
12:13there was this dream that there would be
12:15this thing called the American Century
12:16in the United States would
12:17metaphysically push history forward and
12:20I think if you look at the actual
12:22history of U.S foreign policy since
12:24World War II it's basically been
12:25disaster after disaster
12:28um especially when you're talking about
12:29the global South even though if it was
12:31pretty good for the European
12:33transatlantic core so I think that the
12:37historical record suggests that if you
12:39don't have a rather restricted
12:41definition of National Security it leads
12:43to all sorts of foreign I would say
12:46Imperial Misadventures around the world
12:48from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq to
12:51Afghanistan to Libya et cetera et cetera
12:54um so that's how I Define it the problem
12:57though as Derek identified is that there
12:59are these genuinely Global issues
13:01climate pandemics
13:04um that really need to be worked out
13:06with other countries and then I just
13:08want to end with this quick thing the
13:10bigger problem is that we have this
13:11Global capitalist system uh a top of
13:15which a top of which stands the United
13:17States that is organized basically
13:20around Americans consuming an enormous
13:22amount of stuff and so the political
13:25legitimacy of you know political parties
13:28in this country and throughout the North
13:30Atlantic core rests on consumption so
13:33there's a fundamental problem with we
13:36have a system in which political
13:37legitimacy rests on consumption and a
13:40world in which that consumption leads to
13:42things like climate change and
13:44destruction in the globe Global South so
13:46there's this fundamental tension that is
13:49confronting U.S foreign policy that I
13:51never really here spoke about because if
13:54people did speak about it it would
13:56basically reveal the total bankruptcy of
13:58the entire thing and the fact that we
14:00can't continue doing it like we have
14:01been I I I I I want to come back to that
14:05in a second because it may in some way
14:07just completely make it relevant the the
14:09the question I want to ask about how
14:12much did we move in a stage if we went
14:15from a security meeting protect the
14:18Homeland to
14:20um a more expansive notion of what uh
14:22security meant after World War II was
14:25there an explicit era where we where we
14:27went from that to what it really means
14:30is uh protect corporate interests uh of
14:35specific players because we certainly
14:38did do that and if we're not doing it
14:41now which I find it hard to believe that
14:42we're not uh but we I mean it's it's
14:45quite clear that a lot of it was
14:47explicitly corporate interest which I
14:49should say is different from but no less
14:54problematic in some ways
14:56our role like our biggest stick is the
14:59fact that we buy so much crap as a
15:02country and therefore if something bad
15:05happens to us
15:07other P other countries will suffer
15:09because we're not buying their crap
15:10anymore so it's almost like we're
15:12addicted to a you know
15:15the the heroin dealer doesn't want to
15:19kill doesn't want his you know main
15:21customer to OD but he needs to keep
15:23using uh but but let's let's stay with
15:26the corporate one then get to that other
15:27Dynamic sure just very quickly what's
15:30really interesting is that in the 40s
15:3150s 60s and even into the 70s the U.S
15:34Empire protected American Business what
15:36happens in the 70s is that it begins to
15:38protect capitalism writ large and
15:40multinational corporations and you see
15:42it's actually directly related to the
15:44second part of your question we don't
15:45really produce stuff here any longer
15:47right we just consume stuff that is
15:50mostly produced elsewhere and this has
15:52to do with the shift that happened in
15:53the 1970s from from protecting American
15:56capitalism to protecting global
15:58capitalism which is exactly what Marx
16:01predicted would happen and you have the
16:02rise of an international bourgeoisie
16:04where a rich guy in New York shares more
16:07with a rich guy let's say in Abu Dhabi
16:09or New Delhi then he might with someone
16:12you know 20 blocks away in New York City
16:15and you have this very strange thing
16:17where capitalism became genuinely
16:18globalized in the 70s which really uh
16:22complicates a lot of these issues you're
16:24talking about I don't know Derek if you
16:25have anything to add to that
16:28um I mean there's a couple of things
16:29that I would I would say
16:30um one not only does the United States
16:33wield power from the fact that we buy so
16:36much of everybody else's but the
16:39fact that if one country wants to buy
16:41the from another country they
16:43typically although this is changing a
16:44bit but they typically do it in dollars
16:46and that creates a tremendous uh amount
16:50of control for the United States and
16:52it's something that that the Empire has
16:55been uh the interrelationship there
16:57between you know the dollar dominance
17:01sustaining the Empire but the Empire
17:02also existing to sustain the Dollar's
17:05dominance is I think something that that
17:07you know needs to be brought into the
17:10conversation but increasingly
17:13the other piece of this I think that's
17:15interesting in in light of Ukraine
17:17especially is uh we've gone to the point
17:20where we're not just defending u s
17:24corporations we're doing like arms
17:27suppose I mean we're we're helping
17:29military contractors sell weapons
17:31overseas and that's become a big piece
17:33of the uh the the international you know
17:38the foreign policy of this country and
17:39uh the military role is to to show these
17:43things off uh that's happening in
17:45Ukraine right now I think you know as a
17:49side light to this part of the
17:50reluctance over the F-16 which you you
17:53know uh I'm sure have talked about uh to
17:56provide Ukraine with the F-16 is that
18:00the F-16 may not wind up working very
18:02well in Ukraine and that would not be
18:04good for the people who make that plane
18:07if they want to sell it to other places
18:09well you know you think about when the
18:10last time the U.S fought a a war in
18:14truly contested airspace uh the F-16
18:16isn't really tested that way and so I
18:18think there's a real fear about that
18:21um so you know I I I would add that that
18:23piece of it the specific contractor you
18:26know kind of uh boosting that that goes
18:29on here I I really it is just impossible
18:33for me to sort of like parse out my
18:35feelings about the idea of F-16 going to
18:39Ukraine and everybody finding out like
18:41oh we're not going to spend our money on
18:42this and it being a a failed sort of
18:46like I mean aside from all the the
18:48horrors that are going on on there just
18:50like that element of of uh of of of
18:54watching that weapon be found to be like
18:58a dud at least in terms of like you know
19:00becoming sort of a non-sellable uh piece
19:04of equipment but

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of A Brief History of NATO & American Imperialism by The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 3,234 words across 466 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.