9 ms·

That is a very American perspective on things. Hundreds of thousands of US troops are stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea here 75 years after the end of the seco

• csomar 5y ago
  I don't think so. > German Chancellor opposes US troop withdrawal plan https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-chancellor-opposes-us-troop-withdrawal-plan/1930332 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-chancellor-opposes-us... Without having a powerful army, Europe is just an order from being invaded by Russia.
  • kwere 5y ago
    thats silly
  • orbifold 5y ago
    Sure because Russia has a long history of attacking Western Europe unprovoked. Napoleon, WW1, UK US intervention in the Revolution, Polish Invasion and WW2 clearly had Russia as an Aggressor.
    • Paradigma11 5y ago
      Or more recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring or those russian soldiers on holiday in the ukraine.
      • paganel 5y ago
        In all fairness OP was mentioning Western Europe. One could argue about the validity of ideologically partitioning Europe into an Eastern and Western part (I know I'm also guilty of that) but that's another discussion.
        • kingsuper20 5y ago
          I'd say that was done fairly organically given the split between ethnicities and Orthodox vs. Catholic churches. Ukraine seems to straddle one of those boundaries.
    • frant-hartm 5y ago
      In WW2 Russia actually was one of the aggressors.
      • vasac 5y ago
        Was Poland too?
        • lumost 5y ago
          Russia invaded Poland in coordination with Germany as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact at the start of the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
          • vasac 5y ago
            I wasn't asking who was invaded by Russia but whether Poland was aggressor too? And here's the answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_border_conflicts#Annexations_by_Poland_in_1938 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_bo...
        • quickthrowman 5y ago
          I think you may need to revisit WW2 history, Poland was invaded by the USSR and Germany as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
          • vasac 5y ago
            Nope, it's you who needs to revisit WW2 history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_border_conflicts#Annexations_by_Poland_in_1938 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_bo...
        • kingsuper20 5y ago
          Hey, it's complicated (as usual). Check out all of the minor wars Poland was involved in between 1919 and 1938.
    • eloff 5y ago
      I think you don't know your Russian history. That territory has usually been controlled by an aggressive, expansionist regime. How did you think it got to be the largest country on earth? It's very strongly related to the geography of the region.
  • NicoJuicy 5y ago
    You are severely overestimating Russia's army and underestimating Europe's. Russia isn't even in the same league of spending power and the Soviet army of the past was way stronger. While Russia spends a lot of money on their army ( % wise), they don't have the resources to renew it. What's left is a lot of old gear and some renewed one. As a counter perspective, Ukraine would have made it's naval fleet completely unusable, as it needs to pass that country for getting anywhere. And Europe ( in the last 30 years) came within missile range of Moscow, since the fall of the USSR. The propaganda of Russia is mostly power related, but they are certainly not as powerful as they seem. And the cards don't look that great too. A lot of their resources depend on oil/gas purchases from Europe and Europe is investing in alternative sources, while Russia can't raise the prices for their citizens/neighboring countries. Eg. The pipeline Russia mostly invested in to Germany has been halted, because of Alexei Navalny: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/gas-pipeline-nord-stream-2-links-germany-russia-splits-europe https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/gas-pipeline-nord... And last but not least, as a belgian citizen, i appreciate US presence and have no desire for foreign troops to withdraw. We all share ( mostly) the same/similar culture and perception.
    • vasac 5y ago
      Russia buys most of their arms from their own industry so while their military budget in $ is far smaller than the US they get more bang for the buck (or in their case ruble). So while they nominally spend ~$60B per year when accounted for PPP (purchasing power parity) that looks more like equivalent of $150B (or $200). Things are obviously more complex than this but it's obvious that while they spend similar $ amount as UK or France they maintain significantly larger military. > As a counter perspective, Ukraine would have made it's naval fleet completely unusable, as it needs to pass that country for getting anywhere. They had open access to the Black Sea even without Crimea, I'm not sure how Ukraine could block them then or now? btw pipeline isn't halted (so far): https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/051021-just-100-km-left-to-lay-of-nord-stream-2-gas-pipeline-ambassador https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne...
      • NicoJuicy 5y ago
  • ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
    You can't seriously believe Europe is defenseless without America. Germany, the UK and France are among the most powerful militaries in the world, with economies that trump Russia, and enough nuclear weapons to flatten it a hundred times over.
    • renw0rp 5y ago
      The countries you mentioned are as prepared for war as was France in 1939/1940
      • oblio 5y ago
        France was prepared, they just messed up the strategy. But they had the equipment, the manpower, the army was mobilized entirely after 1939, they had battle plans, etc.
    • rjsw 5y ago
      Germany doesn't have a powerful military or its own nuclear weapons.
    • konschubert 5y ago
      The German military has issues ordering guns that shoot straight, I doubt they can project any kind of deterrence against, say, nuclear threats.
    • rblatz 5y ago
      And add up all their militaries and they are still dwarfed by the US military.
  • _delirium 5y ago
    My read on Germany specifically is that it's less about Russian invasion worries and more about domestic economic politics. The bases are important economically to the towns/regions they're in, and closing them is unpopular in those areas, similar to how choosing when/if to close US bases in the US is controversial (https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45705.html https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45705.html).
  • throw0101a 5y ago
    Going by military spending, any single EU country spends less than Russia, but 2+ spend more: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... Of course raw numbers don't tell the whole story: * https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/russian-defense-spending-is-much-larger-and-more-sustainable-than-it-seems/ https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/ru... * https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/why-russian-military-expenditure-is-much-higher-than-commonly-understood-as-is-chinas/ https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/why-russian-military-expen...
• threeseed 5y ago
  Curious where you do live since you exclusively submit pro-CCP links.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• solveit 5y ago
  As a Korean, I would very much like US troops to stay for another decade and more. I'm not sure why everyone's talking about Russia, but my worries are firmly fixated around China.
• AYBABTME 5y ago
  I'm in Korea and I've yet to meet someone who actually wants the US troops out. I've met people vaguely annoyed with drunken US soldiers and stuff like that, but as far as annecdata goes, I think Korea wants US troops.
  • freeflight 5y ago
    > I'm in Korea and I've yet to meet someone who actually wants the US troops out. That's because voicing such opinions, particularly to foreign strangers, is so far outside the established Overton window that South Koreans have been jailed for voicing them while working in the wrong occupation [0]. Case in point: Just look at the history of the No Gun Ri massacre during the Korea war [1], to this day neither the US nor South Korean government have really fully acknowledged or taken responsibility for what happened there, and just like with similar massacres of that kind: For the longest time survivors were persecuted for speaking out about what happened [2]. Decades of that breeds a culture of silent compliance. There's also that whole politeness aspect: If you are a American, then no Japanese, Korean, or many Asian people in general will have small talk with you by opening a can of worms like "Your soldiers are/did occupying/bomb my country!", that would just be considered a very inappropriate thing to do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_(South_Korea) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_(South_K... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri_massacre [2] https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/south-koreas-own-history-problem/ https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/south-koreas-own-history-pro...
    • dboat 5y ago
      It is -just- because voicing those opinions is dangerous though? My understanding is that Chinese aggression is a major regional concern, even for average people.
      • scaramanga 5y ago
        So is the resurgence of fascism in Japan and Japan's re-armament. Those are big concerns in Korea, definitely bigger threat than North Korea, and probably a bigger threat than China.
• mlindner 5y ago
  I would not speak for Japan. Most Japanese I've met and talked to think that on balance having the US troops there is MUCH better than the alternative. The only Japanese I'm aware of where a significant minority are against the US presence is in Okinawa where US bases occupy double digit percentages of the available land.
  • freeflight 5y ago
    > The only Japanese I'm aware of where a significant minority are against the US presence is in Okinawa where US bases occupy double digit percentages of the available land. "Only" makes it sound weird considering it's in major parts these Okinawan's that have to pay the burden for the massive US presence [0]. While for most mainland Japanese it's as simple as "It doesn't affect me personally, it's an advantage for the whole nation, why not?" [0] https://apjjf.org/2018/03/Mitchell.html https://apjjf.org/2018/03/Mitchell.html
    • mlindner 5y ago
      Okinawa isn't the only US military presence in Japan. It's not even where the US Navy has it's fleet stationed out of. And not to diminish it, but the rate in your article is quite small considering the populations involved. I wouldn't be surprised if the assault rates by military personnel stationed in the US was much different.
• quickthrowman 5y ago
  > Hundreds of thousands of US troops are stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea here 75 years after the end of the second world war. Do you think we would like them to stay for another decade? Yes, I believe those countries would prefer if we stayed. Japan and S. Korea are particularly close to China and prefer we’re around to tamp down Chinese aggression. Germany is hoping we don’t withdraw our troops: https://m.dw.com/en/germany-welcomes-bid-to-halt-us-troop-withdrawal/a-55829501 https://m.dw.com/en/germany-welcomes-bid-to-halt-us-troop-wi... Edit: This may offend some Europeans, but I think the world is better off with the US having bases in Europe and as a NATO member. Internecine squabbles in Europe don’t have a good track record over the past 100 or so years. One might even say the bases should be located where the trouble seems to start.
  • mempko 5y ago
    I don't know, seems a lot of wars start from USA after WW2. The US is an empire and those bases are there to protect the empire, not the countries they sit in.
    • flyinglizard 5y ago
      How do US bases in South Korea protect the US rather than, well, South Korea?
      • KptMarchewa 5y ago
        US interests, not US land.
      • jollybean 5y ago
        Pax Americana, or Pax Nato etc. For the same reason the US pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. The 'world order' we grew up with seems like it's strong but it's not, it's very fragile. US protection of S. Korea / Japan / Europe is like 'propping up key dominoes' in the chain. Wars break out sometimes fairly easily, having bullwarks ostensibly keeps them from falling down. Obviously there are many costs and risks.
  • 5y ago
• tw04 5y ago
  And you think if the US were completely isolationist that China wouldn't assist North Korea in "unifying" the peninsula? I wouldn't want to bet my freedom on that.
  • FooBarWidget 5y ago
    And just why would they do that? The only reason China supported North Korea historically is because they don't want US troops at their doorstep.
    • oblio 5y ago
      Puppet states, influence, a thorn in the Japanese side. Why would China need or want Tibet or Xinjiang? Remote regions without Han populations.
      • artificial 5y ago
        I’d say Tibet is for water. The Chinese built many dams and several big rivers which flow through several countries originate there.
        • oblio 5y ago
          Well, not just water. Tibet is a high plateau overlooking the Chinese plains. It's an obvious entry point for a land invasion into the Chinese heartland. Xinjiang is a mountainous and desert region with a similar role. I know why they're doing it, it's just cynical for the locals. Similar story for Korea, if you're a great power, wouldn't you move the possible battle like a few hundreds of kilometers away from your capital? You would. It would still suck for the locals.
      • FooBarWidget 5y ago
        Are you willing to bet on this?
        • oblio 5y ago
• konschubert 5y ago
  Most Germans who understand geopolitics are very happy that American troops are stationed in the country.
• jollybean 5y ago
  " but we would really like our land to be free of foreign troops. " You are probably not in the majority there. Do you want the Russians grabbing larger of E. Europe and seeing how far they can go with it? At the end of the cold war it seemed as though maybe NATO might be past it's usefulness, but after a resurgent Russia, it seems more like it's going to take another 70-100 years probably. Also, the 'rest of the world' is a more chaotic place, and it bodes well for Europeans to be playing well with American forces. North Africa is a hot-spot and Europe (except UK/France in very limited form) doesn't have the ability to project power, even in the Libya intervention, it was backed by US AWACS, drones, and organization. It was kind of a folly, but there's no doubt that those interventions could be much more necessary in the future. Politicians know this and there's no real popular urgency for the Americans to leave. Both Norway and Sweden, the later a non-NATO country, are going more coordination with the Americans, not less. Such will be the situation for a few decades.
  • throwaway21_ 5y ago
    Great work in the Libya guys - 10 years later country is still at war, 10s of thousands dead (and counting), people are worse in every possible way than during Gadaffi rule... Can't wait to see more similar interventions in the future.
• bpodgursky 5y ago
  These comments always confuse me, because the US troops in Germany, Japan and Korea are there entirely at the pleasure of the local government. If Germany ordered US troops out, they would leave. Even Iraq, barely a functioning country, did this, and the US left. But Germany, Japan and South Korea have not asked. And you might say, "well, the US is functionally bribing them with the economic boost of stationing troops there". And... OK? That's the tradeoff. Germany is a wealthy country, and the populace can vote and make choices themselves.