5 ms·

General question: Who pays for something like this? Or how does the cost splitting work? Because, in theory, why wouldn't every small nation ask for this if so

General question: Who pays for something like this? Or how does the cost splitting work? Because, in theory, why wouldn't every small nation ask for this if some other nation's taxpayers foot at least 50% of bill?

jcfrei 5y ago
Don't know about the Baltics but Japan for example pays $1.8B per year for US troops.
glogla 5y ago
Russian ruling class is very oldschool and only considers USA equal enemy (though their performance in Ukraine shows any larger NATO army would destroy them alone). So the deterrence is probably better with specifically US troops.
- vkou 5y ago
  That's not the reason for this. The reason for this is that it makes it far more difficult for NATO to not carry out it's defensive obligations when you get invaded, and US forces are automatically involved in the fight. US presence on the DMZ if why it would immediately be involved in a restarted Korean war, and the lack thereof is why it will think long and hard before getting involved in a China-Taiwan conflict.
  - waffleiron 5y ago
    It's always funny to me that the Korean border is called a DMZ, when it's very far from "de-militarized" :)
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Even though the US often pays for much of it, you're effectively giving up a fair portion of your sovereignty. It makes your military forces somewhat subservient to the US. So if the US wants you to do something maybe not in the best interest for your nation, you're still going to have a really difficult time saying no. And if you try to say no anyway, the US already has a solid base to help support an opposition. Plus, as we've seen both in Ukraine and the Middle East, seeming to accept US support can make you a target for anti-US factions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- waffleiron 5y ago
  > you're effectively giving up a fair portion of your sovereignty. Yup, for example the 2020 US - Poland agreement includes: - (Art3.4) Access to any private and public land and facilities on request - (Art9.1) Waves authority/right to need to countersign movement order under Article III, Paragraph 2(b) of NATO SOFA - (Art13.1) Free movement within, and in and out of, Poland of any aircraft, vessels or vehicles. These can not be inspected without US consent when in Poland or entering/leaving Poland. - (Art14.1) Poland waves it's criminal jurisdiction over U.S. forces in Poland. And a whole bunch more: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20-1113-Poland-EDCA.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20-1113-Pol...
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    Seems much less than the rumored demand of having a Russia-installed PM in Ukraine.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      Russia's official demands are similarly tame, mostly Ukrainian neutrality. In practice, neither Poland nor Ukraine could easily pick an anti US/Russian leader.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- fomine3 5y ago
  Even civils forces somewhat subservient to the US. US soldiers sometimes cause trouble in Japan, and don't obey the local law.
pembrook 5y ago
The market for defense services over the past 70 years has consolidated similarly to what’s happened in other markets. If you look at defense spending in NATO member countries as a percentage of GDP it has steadily declined since WW2. What’s basically happened is the US is now AWS, providing cloud defense services via NATO membership, and is paid back via purchases of military tech, favorable trade, and cemented US dollar and cultural dominance. The US military’s economies of scale mean adding another country to the alliance is a trivial cost. When you already have enough nukes to cause human extinction, it’s not like you need to build more. You can of course attempt to self-host your own military. However, self-hosting is cost-prohibitive for a small country, so I would argue it actually makes sense for all parties to outsource to the US, and is a good deal for everyone involved. While it’s cute that a tiny country might pretend to have a military, if you’re Latvia with less than 2 million people, you have to know there’s no amount of spending you could do that would protect against invasion from a 70X bigger country like Russia.
- siruncledrew 5y ago
  Thanks for explaining, the AWS metaphor helped a lot.

jcfrei 5y ago

Don't know about the Baltics but Japan for example pays $1.8B per year for US troops.

glogla 5y ago

Russian ruling class is very oldschool and only considers USA equal enemy (though their performance in Ukraine shows any larger NATO army would destroy them alone). So the deterrence is probably better with specifically US troops.

vkou 5y ago
That's not the reason for this. The reason for this is that it makes it far more difficult for NATO to not carry out it's defensive obligations when you get invaded, and US forces are automatically involved in the fight. US presence on the DMZ if why it would immediately be involved in a restarted Korean war, and the lack thereof is why it will think long and hard before getting involved in a China-Taiwan conflict.
- waffleiron 5y ago
  It's always funny to me that the Korean border is called a DMZ, when it's very far from "de-militarized" :)

boomboomsubban 5y ago

Even though the US often pays for much of it, you're effectively giving up a fair portion of your sovereignty. It makes your military forces somewhat subservient to the US. So if the US wants you to do something maybe not in the best interest for your nation, you're still going to have a really difficult time saying no. And if you try to say no anyway, the US already has a solid base to help support an opposition. Plus, as we've seen both in Ukraine and the Middle East, seeming to accept US support can make you a target for anti-US factions.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
waffleiron 5y ago
> you're effectively giving up a fair portion of your sovereignty. Yup, for example the 2020 US - Poland agreement includes: - (Art3.4) Access to any private and public land and facilities on request - (Art9.1) Waves authority/right to need to countersign movement order under Article III, Paragraph 2(b) of NATO SOFA - (Art13.1) Free movement within, and in and out of, Poland of any aircraft, vessels or vehicles. These can not be inspected without US consent when in Poland or entering/leaving Poland. - (Art14.1) Poland waves it's criminal jurisdiction over U.S. forces in Poland. And a whole bunch more: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20-1113-Poland-EDCA.pdf https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20-1113-Pol...
- lostmsu 5y ago
  Seems much less than the rumored demand of having a Russia-installed PM in Ukraine.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Russia's official demands are similarly tame, mostly Ukrainian neutrality. In practice, neither Poland nor Ukraine could easily pick an anti US/Russian leader.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
fomine3 5y ago
Even civils forces somewhat subservient to the US. US soldiers sometimes cause trouble in Japan, and don't obey the local law.

pembrook 5y ago

The market for defense services over the past 70 years has consolidated similarly to what’s happened in other markets. If you look at defense spending in NATO member countries as a percentage of GDP it has steadily declined since WW2. What’s basically happened is the US is now AWS, providing cloud defense services via NATO membership, and is paid back via purchases of military tech, favorable trade, and cemented US dollar and cultural dominance. The US military’s economies of scale mean adding another country to the alliance is a trivial cost. When you already have enough nukes to cause human extinction, it’s not like you need to build more. You can of course attempt to self-host your own military. However, self-hosting is cost-prohibitive for a small country, so I would argue it actually makes sense for all parties to outsource to the US, and is a good deal for everyone involved. While it’s cute that a tiny country might pretend to have a military, if you’re Latvia with less than 2 million people, you have to know there’s no amount of spending you could do that would protect against invasion from a 70X bigger country like Russia.

siruncledrew 5y ago
Thanks for explaining, the AWS metaphor helped a lot.