Why Ukraine Proves NATO Is a Failure
The war in Ukraine is the most destructive conflict that Europe has seen since the Second World War- and it's all NATO's fault, because NATO is weak. No, this video isn't sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defense. The fact is that the invasion of Ukraine is NATO's greatest failure in its short history, and it failed because the entire alliance is a shadow of its former self. The great peace dividend at the end of the Cold War finally made Europeans as weak as the Soviets always claimed they were. Even the United States severely curtailed its military capabilities. Now, the peace is over and war is in Europe because NATO decided to take a thirty year nap.
NATO was originally founded after the Second World War. Surveying the destruction in Europe and the rise of the Soviet Union, the US asked Europe, “Hey, what if we make the most Chad military alliance of all time?”, to which Europe replied, “Yeah that's a great idea and hey, also, what if you pay for like most of it?” Thus NATO was born out of a desire to ensure peace in Europe and deter a third, far more catastrophic world war. The containment and deterrence of the Soviet Union was a top priority for everyone who didn't like the idea of turning the world into a permanent Fallout LARP event. But even a conventional war with the Soviets would be catastrophic for Europe, and inevitably end with many of the continental European powers becoming yet another Soviet republic. That's why the United States was integral to the alliance, but this required it to station a large amount of its forces in Europe itself. Otherwise it would take months to build significant military power in Europe, by which time the Soviet hordes would have overrun most of the continent. But the alliance didn't just see the US as a safeguard against
Soviet invasion, it was also a check against the resurgence of a different evil altogether. For the better part of, well, its entire history, Europe has struggled with nationalism. During the first half of the twentieth century however, the rise of nationalism across the continent set the stage for two catastrophic wars. Left reeling in the wake of the Second World War,
both the US and the exhausted western powers feared that from the ashes, a fresh wave of nationalism would spring up. Some trilogies are great: Lord of the Rings, Alien- but other trilogies are crimes against humanity: The Hobbit, and world wars. Nobody had any interest in yet another world war arising from Europe's favorite hobby of electing a dictator into power and then bashing your neighbor's face in with a bunch of tanks. The United States took on a form of Hobbian 'Benevolent Leviathan', and was seen as a check against the rise of nationalism in Europe. NATO would make the US heavily invested in European security, ensuring it didn't simply lose interest again and piss off across the pond again like it did for much of the previous hundred years. Americans, for
their part, were extremely skeptical in further involvement in Europe after two world wars, and isolationism has always run deep in America due to the security of having two oceans between itself and the rest of the world. Rome may burn again tomorrow, but Americans will still be eating cheeseburgers and chasing bigfoot unless the barbarians build a fleet of aircraft carriers. But the best way to avoid conflict is for everyone to get along, in a nice, tight, little huddle where no one has the room to reach for a gun. That's why NATO's third goal was to promote European unity. After two world wars and centuries of devastating conflicts, the best and brightest military and political minds on the continent got together to debate the future of Europe. After making the observation that Europe has historically launched devastating war after devastating war every 10-20 years or so, someone got the brilliant idea of “what if we don't anymore?”, and the goal of European unity was born.
Thus NATO served to create the groundwork for the European Union, which would ultimately be the best guarantor of peace. If Europeans could stop fighting each other- here's looking at you, France and Britain, and Germany- then another world war would likely be prevented. Further, European unity encouraged political integration, a matter of much concern as Communism spread its tentacles across war-torn central Europe- and after the overthrow of the Czech Republic's government by rebels. Therefore the Soviet Union saw communism as the only way to ensure its own survival against
the capitalist west, and thus the stage was naturally set for conflict between the two blocs. In 1949, NATO was officially born, and war disappeared forever. Not quite, but to its credit, NATO truly is the most successful international alliance of all time. The Delian League may have protected Europe
from being overrun by a Persian invasion, irrevocably changing its entire history, but it didn't stop the outbreak of a world-ending nuclear war. NATO's greatest success is ensuring that the Cold War never turned hot. Through a combination of containment and deterrence, NATO was able to ensure that any conflict between itself and the Soviet Union would incur costs too unbearable, or simply not have the seeds it needed to ferment. Without NATO, a fragmented Europe would have been torn by the struggle between capitalist west and communist east, creating a nightmare of potential powder kegs that could signal the opening festivities to the third- and final- world war. NATO's greatest strength was in presenting a unified face against Soviet expansionism and political influence, even if that did mean that occasionally the individual states would take decidedly undemocratic measures to silence pro-Communist individuals. Hey, you either get to own the means of production, or you get to not live through a nuclear holocaust.
NATO's second greatest strength was, well, its strength. Unified, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was far more powerful than any individual state, and this is what allowed the alliance to stand against an at-times aggressive Soviet Union. The alliance was ready to exact a blood cost from the Soviets for any push into western Europe, both by conventional or nuclear means.
But that was tricky given that the alliance's greatest military power- by a long margin- was all the way across the ocean. In essence, the United States was like the Justice League's Superman to Europe's Batman. Batman is cooler, often has better story arcs, and has free healthcare, but when the Soviets and Darkseid come invading, you really want Superman out there punching T-62 tanks with his big, dumb super-strong fists.
The challenge for the alliance was that most of America's firepower was across the sea, or in other potential hot spots. Sometimes its military was heavily involved elsewhere- such as during the Vietnam War- and other times it was busy liberating South American democracies from themselves. During the Vietnam War alone, a significant amount of US firepower was tied up for nearly two decades, and it was here that NATO was more important than ever before. By
presenting a unified front, the western European powers presented a significant obstacle to the Soviets even without full US commitment. But things may not have been that way, which is why NATO's political maneuvering was also one of its greatest victories. Spain, for example, could have been a serious chink in NATO's armor up until it joined the alliance in 1982. But this future was far from certain- after Spain's Francisco Franco died in 1975, it was Juan Carlos, king of Spain and appointed ruler by Franco, who led the nation through democratic reforms. But the Soviets had attempted to heavily influence Franco, albeit without much success given that Franco fought the communists during the Spanish Civil war.
Had things gone differently, Spain may have been the western-most member of the Soviet bloc, a move which would have escalated tensions in Europe to unfathomable levels. Deft political maneuvering and the culture of European unity fostered by NATO helped ensure that this did not come to pass. NATO's unity however also helped to severely curtail nuclear proliferation, further adding to its list of successes. Under Article 5 of the alliance's charter,
an attack on one member is an attack on all- and this includes nuclear weapons. The early Cold War was a crazy time, the world was rebuilding from a catastrophic war, liberalizing its values, the Beach Boys were selling Americana around the world, and the threat of nuclear annihilation hung over the head of every nation on the planet. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent a very loud and clear message to every country: the only way to not get nuked, is to have nukes. Thankfully, the scientific knowledge and technical expertise to build a nuclear weapons program made it both very expensive and extremely hard to develop nuclear weapons, but that still left it within the scope of many of the world's leading nations. Working to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, and reduce the risk of self-extinction via aggressive stupidity, the United States brought in countries around the world under its nuclear umbrella- and NATO was instrumental in helping that happen. But NATO also legitimized America's promise to go nuke for nuke with anyone launching a nuclear weapon against a non-NATO partner, such as Japan or South Korea. Without that legitimacy, both of these nations would rightly question whether
the United States would truly be willing to trade Los Angeles for Seoul or Tokyo in a nuclear war. And the answer is no, absolutely not, but we would gladly trade the entire state of Florida. With an ironclad commitment to NATO's article 5 though, nations under the American nuclear umbrella could feel safe and snug in America's big, strong, radioactive, nuclear arms, knowing that the US had the credibility to respond in case of crisis. This directly helped limit nuclear proliferation, and thus reduce the risk of humanity permanently logging off because it was too stupid to not blow itself up. Averting global nuclear disaster, stopping Europe's favorite hobby of waging war against itself, and setting the stage for the EU is basically going to make you a ringer for the gold medal in the 'best alliances in history' category. But despite that, Ukraine has proven that NATO is a failure, completely biffing its biggest challenge since the Cold War.
If the early Cold War was a crazy time, the end of it was even crazier. The entire world breathed a sigh of relief as the specter of nuclear annihilation vanished, Europe's unity took massive steps forward, and grunge music was destroying the majesty of 80s hair metal power ballads. Humanity had negotiated the nuclear minefield that was the Cold War, with NATO at the forefront. But the moment that the Berlin Wall fell, so too did NATO spending. By the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO defense spending was in free fall, and it was its European contingent which was the worst offender by a very long shot. The next war would be fought with hugs and kind affirmations, at least if you asked European NATO members busily slashing defense budgets so they could buy more croissants and build more discotheques.
The United States also severely curtailed its defense budget, and sat down leaders from its entire defense sector for a teary eyed break-up. Unlike Europe however, the United States was now the world's sole superpower, which put the responsibility of upholding the new global order on its shoulders. Plus, it turns out that shaping the world in your own image is crazy lucrative. Thus while defense spending plummeted across NATO, the US and a few other partners maintained a strong commitment to defense spending. But as the world entered the 2000s, it was clear that Europe had become drunk on peace and free healthcare, and its militaries were in a truly sorry state. While
just ten years prior, European militaries were the vanguards of the first Gulf War, in 2002 Europe struggled to meet the combat requirements of the new war in the Middle East. Then, over the course of the next eight years the continent learned exactly the wrong lesson, though here it's not alone in its blame- the United States also got terror-tunnel vision, practically reshaping its military to fight low intensity guerrilla wars against terrorists and insurgents and leaving it completely unprepared for the rise of China and Russia as new conventional rivals. In 2006, it was clear that the alliance had allowed its military power to atrophy. Thus
NATO Defense Ministers collectively agreed to a commitment of 2% of GDP to be spent on defense spending. However, this proved a tough sell to the European people. After all, the Soviets were gone, Russia was just a big, cuddly, corrupt teddy bear that gave you cheap gas, and who would fund free art classes for stray street dogs if the government spent money on the military? Unsurprisingly, nations failed to meet the 2% spending goal. Incredibly though, even after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, still only seven nations meet this spending goal: the US, UK, Poland, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, and Lithuania.
We're not going to say that Europe freeloaded off the US' commitment to defend Europe, but Europe definitely freeloaded off America's treaty obligations to defend Europe- a fact which has over the years brought increasing frustration for US voters. But the truth is that a stable, secure Europe is of direct national security interest for the United States, and America benefits greatly politically and financially from a peaceful Europe. Thus US military investments in European security pay a peace dividend that both sides of the Atlantic have enjoyed for decades. However, it would be nice to see Europe start picking up the tab for their own defense. The Russian invasion of Ukraine showed what many western defense analysts had known for years: Europe has allowed its military capabilities to atrophy to criminal levels. Germany can't meet NATO rapid response force requirements without cannibalizing its own military for spare parts and battle-ready personnel. The British military has shrunk to its smallest
size since the Napoleonic wars, and is set to shrink even further- to a level not seen since the 1700s. The French military is probably the best prepared on the continent, but it’s poorly suited for a modern, high-attrition campaign such as the current war in Ukraine. In 2021, Analysts Hugo Meijer and Stephen G. Brooks released an article in the journal International Security, arguing that Europeans were incapable of mounting a credible defense of their continent without direct US support. Their first claim is that Europe's defense deficiencies
are so deep that it would require a massive and protracted effort to fix them. Second, they argue that while Europe outmatches Russia in GDP, population, defense spending, and technology, Russia was still more than a credible match for a unified Europe. But the biggest problem is what Brooks and Meijer called “strategic cacophony” inside Europe. Simply put, European security experts- at the time- couldn't agree on what threat to focus on and what capabilities to prioritize to counter it.
Given all these problems, the article claimed that Europe was deeply reliant on the United States as guarantor of their security, and incapable of providing for their own defense. At the time the article drew intense criticism, and not just from the Europeans. Meijer and Brooks argued that the US needed to remain deeply embedded in European security, and also drew criticism from Americans. However, just one year later, Russia invaded Ukraine and proved that Europe was exactly what they had predicted it was: uncoordinated, deficient, and completely reliant on the United States.
And it was Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Europe's failure to meet its own defense requirements, that directly led to NATO's greatest failure- one that could still spell disaster for the entire planet. NATO's failure began all the way back in 2013. At the time, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych prompted Ukrainians to revolt in what would be known as the Euromaidan protests. Under the direct
influence of Russia's Vladimir Putin, Yanukovych canceled plans to sign a political association and free trade agreement that would have brought it closer to the EU and on the pathway to membership. Instead, Yanukovych opted to pull Ukraine closer to Russia. To say that this was an unpopular move would be the understatement of the century, and the Ukrainian people politely voiced their displeasure by setting half the country on fire and getting into street wars with the police. Learn to read a room, Vlad. The Euromaidan protests would become the Revolution of Dignity, with President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia after being ousted from power. The country saw
brutal street battles between protesters and the police. Eventually, the revolution would be victorious- but Russia would take advantage of the chaos to make its first move on Ukraine. Russian disinformation agents stoked fears amongst large segments of the pro-Russian Crimean population. One such tool was a documentary claiming that pro-Maidan Ukrainians had stopped several buses full of anti-Maidan protesters and killed and tortured many of them. This stoked fears of the new Ukrainian government, which Putin would use to aid him
in the annexation of the Crimean peninsula. On February 22nd and 23rd, Putin convened an all-night meeting with the chiefs of his security services to discuss how to extricate President Viktor Yanukovych from Ukraine. By the end of the meeting though, Putin made it clear that Russia needed to act soon to quote- “return Crimea to Russia”. The GRU and FSB immediately began dispatching agents to negotiate with pro-Russian locals and ensure the creation of well-armed local defense groups which would support a Russian invasion. The Crimean government, which operated with a high degree of autonomy, declared that it would support the new Kyiv government. In response, a pro-Russian rally was held in Simferopol where
the Ukrainian flag was replaced with a Russian flag, while a pro-Euromaidan rally demanded the resignation of the Crimean parliament. In Sevastopol, Russia used criminal elements such as the Night Wolves motorcycle club to arm and organize pro-Russian supporters into civil defense squads, setting the stage for Russia's invasion. On February 27th of 2014, Russian forces carrying no insignia invaded Crimea and seized the Crimean parliament building. There, the parliament was forced to vote in an emergency session to replace the Prime Minister with a member of the Russian Unity party, which had received only 4% of the vote in the latest election. MPs would later tell the press that Russian troops forbade them from talking to journalists and took their phones, and later they found out that most of them had had their votes cast for them. Russian President Vladimir Putin denied accusations that his troops were in Ukraine, claiming instead that the entire affair was being organized and executed by Ukrainian separatists.
However, by summer Crimea was annexed as a territory of the Russian Federation, and Russia finally admitted to having troops on the peninsula. The international response was swift and... flaccid. The UN passed a non-binding resolution with 100 in favor, 11 against, and 58 abstentions declaring the annexation invalid- sending Russia the equivalent of a frowny face emoji over text. Sanctions preventing Russian and Crimean officials from traveling to Canada, the US, or the EU were passed, and Japan issued mild sanctions suspending talks relating to military, space, investment and visa requirements with Russia. The sanctions were
largely seen as a joke by the Russian Federation, with the Russian Duma passing a resolution by unanimous vote asking the west for all members of the Duma to be included on the sanctions list. NATO's failures in Ukraine began with the Russian annexation of Crimea. While economic sanctions did have some effect on the Russian economy, they failed to target Putin or those closest to him directly. They also were not targeted in their scope, limiting their impact on Russia's ability to wage further aggression against Ukraine. Future sanctions would be a bit more robust, forbiding the sale of certain dual-use technologies to Russia that could be used for both civilian and military applications, seriously hurting Putin’s ability to provide drones to his armed forces, for example. However, overall, the sanctions failed to deter Russia from further aggression.
NATO's military response was equally flaccid, and consisted mostly of the alliance's easternmost members asking for more American presence in their countries. The Baltic states, as well as Poland and Romania, saw the writing on the wall and realized that they were now on the front line of a new conflict with Russia. Thus, they demanded permanently stationed brigades on their territory from NATO- but naturally, only the US was prepared to meet that requirement. Poland reached out to the US directly and asked for protection, with the US deploying two brand new infantry brigades to Polish bases as well as strengthening its armored forces in the region.
Plans for a new forward deployment base in Poland to house 1,000 US soldiers were quickly finalized, and Romania followed suit by building a new military base on the Black Sea to serve as a forward deployment point for US troops. Bulgaria partnered with the US to expand its military bases and bought tanks and missile systems from US firms, with Lithuania hosting a rotating US motorized brigade and buying new US equipment to train with. While in many ways these decisions were a boon to the US defense industry, they also severely strained America's military and logistics. Americans, rightfully so, began to question why it was them picking up the tab for European defense- a sentiment which President Donald Trump made very clear as he mulled over removing the US from NATO. The lack of a credible military deterrent on NATO's borders allowed Putin to act with near impunity in his Crimean invasion, as did the divisiveness amongst NATO's members on Russia itself. The United States and the Baltic nations, alongside Poland and Romania, have long called for the continued containment of Russia as a potential adversary. But the rest of NATO's European members
have been extremely reluctant to cooperate on any measure to contain Russia. Instead, they all but sabotaged NATO from within. Germany aggressively pursued economic ties with Russia, working under the false assumption that close economic ties would make Russia a more agreeable neighbor. However, despite repeated warnings from the US,
Germany basically handed Russia all the leverage it wanted over it. It not only helped speed Europe's energy dependence on Russia through investments in the Nordstream pipeline, but it actually helped sabotage energy sanctions against Russia over its invasion of Crimea by lobbying for their removal. In its hunger for cheap energy and new markets, Germany did all it could to hand Russia the keys to Europe. Turkey, France, Italy, and Hungary too scuttled
NATO plans to mobilize more resources to counter potential Russian aggression. Seeking closer financial ties, the four nations feared that pursuing a containment strategy and clearly naming Russia as a European security threat would jeopardize economic relations with Russia. Turkey, now a thorn in NATO's side under President Erdogan's rule, even went against NATO policy and purchased air defense systems from Russia. As a result, the US kicked Turkey out of the F-35 program, resulting in chilly relations that persist to this day. Indeed,
Turkey has since been walking a tight rope between its commitment to NATO and its ties to Russia. Right when it mattered most, the NATO alliance was too busy enriching itself to effectively deter Russia. The failure of NATO to react strongly to Russia's invasion of Ukraine directly opened the door for 2022's invasion of Ukraine- but this larger invasion would prove NATO had catastrophically failed yet again. The US warned for months that Russia could be considering an invasion of Ukraine, but was met with consternation from most of the European powers. Like in 2014, most European nations didn't wish to antagonize Russia and disrupt
lucrative energy and business ties- leaving the US and the easternmost NATO members alone in their warnings that a Russian invasion was becoming increasingly probable. Even when it became painfully obvious that an invasion was coming, western Europe was reluctant to believe it. Once more, NATO's disparate agendas ensured that Putin would be free to act- and thanks to the lobbying of many NATO members, Russia believed it had great leverage over NATO in the form of energy to prevent it from responding. Exactly when NATO should have been unified and immediately delivering military aid to a Ukraine about to be under siege, the alliance was too disjointed to tie its own shoe laces. And this aid could have turned the tide of history, had it been provided pre-invasion- or even after it. A significant buildup of western
military hardware in Ukrainian hands would have served as a powerful deterrent to Putin, as would have the promise of immediate and strong sanctions. While those sanctions would eventually come around, they only did so after the invasion had begun, when they should have been threatened before it was launched in order to deter Putin. As the invasion began though, NATO hesitated to send any military hardware for fear that the Ukrainian government would collapse under a fierce Russian onslaught. This was back when the west was still drinking Russia's kool-aid, and believed it was a capable combined arms power simply because it put on a fancy, choreographed exercise once a year or so across the border from the Baltic countries. However, this highlights yet another of NATO's failures. After the annexation of Crimea, the US and a few NATO partners undertook a training and restructuring program with the Ukrainian military.
What should have happened however is a full commitment by NATO to bring the Ukrainian military up to par with western militaries- well, the ones that actually work anyways- including a continued replenishment of its old Soviet equipment with modern western counterparts. This, even more than sanctions, would have been the strongest deterrent against further Russian aggression. When it became clear that Ukraine would hold, talks began to supply Ukraine with the heavy equipment it needed to defend itself from Russia. And continuing its long tradition of doing everything possible to help Russia win, NATO once more dropped the ball. Spurred on by fears of an imaginary escalation, NATO refused to provide Ukraine with large amounts of heavy equipment- to which Poland said “Hold my Pierogi” and sent as much heavy equipment as it could anyways. Even the US appeared timid about hurting Putin's feelings by stopping his genocide of the Ukrainian people, as it took months to send a limited amount of advanced weapons such as HIMARS to Ukraine.
But it wouldn't stop there, because while NATO gradually opened up its armories to Ukraine, it was like pulling teeth. Every single shipment of new weapons had to be 'hemmed' and 'hawed' over by each NATO member, carefully deliberated over the course of weeks and months to gauge just how much of Putin's feelings it would hurt. Tanks, the weapons Ukraine needed the most, would take almost an entire year to begin to consider sending to Ukraine, and even then only after Germany gaslit the entire alliance over Leopard 2s and then just straight up lied and moved the goalposts three times, were the tanks finally approved to be sent to Ukraine.
By the way, feel free to exclude Poland and the Baltic states from all of this- if they had been in charge of NATO, they would have given Ukraine every single tank in NATO's inventory on day 2 of the invasion. Poland would have probably personally driven the tanks straight to the front lines itself. It's exactly this disharmony amongst the alliance that created NATO's biggest failure in the alliance's history, and is only compounded by the absolutely terrible state of its military and military industrial capacity. Heavy weapons should have been provided from the moment that the assault on Kyiv was defeated, and the decision to slowly trickle them in makes NATO directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian service members and civilians both. Even when it became clear Russia was engaging in a campaign of war crimes against Ukrainian civilians, NATO refused to move quicker on weapons deliveries. But NATO's terrible readiness for conventional
conflict is also wrapped up in its massive Ukraine failure pie. While Europe was on a peace bender, its militaries and defense industries atrophied- the fact that the entirety of NATO has been unable to out-resupply Russia inside of Ukraine is absolutely criminal. Perplexingly, NATO's European members have even further slowed deliveries of heavy weapons to Ukraine by refusing to send from their own active inventories. When the question of sending Leopard 2s to Ukraine came up, Europe collectively scrambled to see what Leopards it thought it could afford to send- coming up with a token force of around 80 tanks. To date, very few of those 80 promised tanks have actually been sent though. And here we have to ask, why? Why so few tanks?
Ask the western Europeans and they'll say that they need their tanks for their own defense, to which we would respond with: defense from what? What war exactly does western Europe think it needs tanks to defend from, when no power on earth save the Untied States has the logistics to even reach western Europe, and Russia is such a failure of a military power that it's stuck in the east of Ukraine. If anyone needs tanks, it's NATO's eastern members, who are the shield Russia would have to punch through just to get to Germany. Unless Russia learns how to grow T-14s and T-90s on trees, and then teleport them a thousand miles from Russia into the heart of France, we're pretty sure that western Europe needs its tanks right now like the ocean needs water. And the United States isn't off the hook either, as it alone has hundreds of armored vehicles in storage that could easily be provided to Ukraine- many of them already in prepositioned stocks in Europe, specifically placed there to fight Russia. Make no mistake, Russia is fully committed in Ukraine and completely incapable of threatening the rest of Europe. Russian KIA were estimated at 60,000 in February, by now this number is estimated to have reached as high as 100k.
Two to three times that number are estimated to have been wounded. The Russian military is in such a sorry state, that it's even now beginning another round of quiet mobilization, and blocked the Wagner Group from recruiting in prisons so that the regular Russian army could do it instead. And still NATO acts as if there is a credible threat to its European members that it needs to defend from, refusing to open up its active inventories to Ukrainian requests for tanks and other aid. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been NATO's greatest failure- from a failure to respond to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, a failure to properly prepare for conventional war, a failure to deter the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and a failure to quickly end the war by providing Ukraine with large amounts of badly needed equipment. Instead of the decisive action needed to stop Vladimir Putin dead in his tracks,
the NATO alliance's response has been glacial, disjointed, and inadequate. And NATO's failures have only opened up the door to further conflicts around the world of the exact type the alliance was initially determined to deter from ever happening. While western sanctions against Russia have given China a slight pause in its ambition to retake Taiwan by force, NATO's flaccid military response has only emboldened it to act, knowing that Taiwan would be much harder to supply in the midst of a full-scale war than Ukraine is.
An invasion of Taiwan would disrupt the global semiconductor market, throwing the entire global economy into a tailspin. A successful invasion however would then place an authoritarian China hostile to democratic ideals in charge of the most important resource of the 21st century, with Taiwan producing over 60% of the world's computer chips and 90% of the most advanced ones critical for cutting edge technologies. To prevent China from holding the western-led liberal world order hostage through chip embargos, decisive action and unity is needed from the only international alliance capable of stopping the Chinese Communist Party. And right now the odds of that happening aren't looking too good, as the most successful international alliance in history, made up of the richest nations in history, struggles to win a war in its own backyard. Now go check out Putin's New Major Problem
For Russian Military Revealed, or click this other video instead!