4 ms·

why not NATO troops but US troops? maybe because Muricans spend more money then Italians?

pjc50 5y ago
Well, because this was a press conference with the US Secretary of State. I'm sure he's going around various other NATO countries as well.
p_l 5y ago
Because there's very few "NATO troops", most of the time NATO serves as unified command and coordination structure, but there are very few "NATO" troops - just missions sent by different countries. This would be an agreement between Latvia and USA that might at most use NATO structures to organize.
- EE84M3i 5y ago
  Who are those "very few"? I'd be interested to read about it
  - jupp0r 5y ago
    There is the NATO response force: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49755.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49755.htm
  - p_l 5y ago
    An example of those very few would be NATO Airborne Early Warning & Control Force, main base located in Geilenkirchen, which is permanent organisation with multinational personnel operating IIRC ~13 Boeing E-3A sentry aircraft. Most other cases involve complete national units that are on permanent or temporary basis assigned abroad to another base, and some of them are also put under aegis of NATO operation, for example "Baltic Air Policing" mission - but this example involves a squadron from a NATO member's air force being rotationally assigned to bases in Baltics in order to provide Air Defense.
323 5y ago
Because the only meaningful NATO troops are US, and then far away UK and maybe France.
- newaccount2021 5y ago
  And France is only a kinda-member
smoyer 5y ago
Yep ... us "Muricans" generally spend more than we earn and are not very good at choosing what exactly we spend all that money on. To be a bit more serious, we've made a lot of promises to other countries that, unless we cancel treaties, we should stand by (I actually believe in keeping your word). On the other side of that coin, just because you've got to have a huge military doesn't mean you're allowed to invade arbitrary countries (Iraq, Afghanistan). It's theoretically possible to be a super-power without being imperial but think about the type of people that enter politics.
zerr 5y ago
Germany used to be Achilles' heel and saboteur due to close ties with russia.

Well, because this was a press conference with the US Secretary of State. I'm sure he's going around various other NATO countries as well.

p_l 5y ago

Because there's very few "NATO troops", most of the time NATO serves as unified command and coordination structure, but there are very few "NATO" troops - just missions sent by different countries. This would be an agreement between Latvia and USA that might at most use NATO structures to organize.

EE84M3i 5y ago
Who are those "very few"? I'd be interested to read about it
- jupp0r 5y ago
  There is the NATO response force: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49755.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49755.htm
- p_l 5y ago
  An example of those very few would be NATO Airborne Early Warning & Control Force, main base located in Geilenkirchen, which is permanent organisation with multinational personnel operating IIRC ~13 Boeing E-3A sentry aircraft. Most other cases involve complete national units that are on permanent or temporary basis assigned abroad to another base, and some of them are also put under aegis of NATO operation, for example "Baltic Air Policing" mission - but this example involves a squadron from a NATO member's air force being rotationally assigned to bases in Baltics in order to provide Air Defense.

323 5y ago

Because the only meaningful NATO troops are US, and then far away UK and maybe France.

newaccount2021 5y ago
And France is only a kinda-member

smoyer 5y ago

Yep ... us "Muricans" generally spend more than we earn and are not very good at choosing what exactly we spend all that money on. To be a bit more serious, we've made a lot of promises to other countries that, unless we cancel treaties, we should stand by (I actually believe in keeping your word). On the other side of that coin, just because you've got to have a huge military doesn't mean you're allowed to invade arbitrary countries (Iraq, Afghanistan). It's theoretically possible to be a super-power without being imperial but think about the type of people that enter politics.

zerr 5y ago

Germany used to be Achilles' heel and saboteur due to close ties with russia.