4 ms·

I'm genuinely interested to know: why does the US maintain bases in Europe when they have clearly zero imperial gain from it, the would-be vassal states derivin

I'm genuinely interested to know: why does the US maintain bases in Europe when they have clearly zero imperial gain from it, the would-be vassal states deriving tribute from the US by robbing their companies rather than the usual reverse? Perhaps someone better versed in geopolitics could explain why the US doesn't absolutely ditch Europe to fend for themselves and exit all military and otherwise engagements with them and fall back to ordinary international trade relationships.

qeternity 2y ago
Zero imperial gain? This is a rather incredible claim: why do you say so?
crvdgc 2y ago
My two cents: isn't this arrangement more of a continuation of the Marshall Plan? If the US did nothing, post-war Europe was likely to fall into the influence of the Soviet. Now even the Soviet has dissolved, there's always the menace of Europe allying with Russia or China (from the US perspective). So it's worth to pay a premium to prevent your opponent from getting the same thing.
- jalapenos 2y ago
  Can't imagine why they'd ally with Russia, or to what end.
kaedroho 2y ago
There wasn't any direct threat to Europe between 1990 and 2014, yet the US kept their bases there. The US has been interested/involved in a number of conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa over the last few decades. Europe provides safe and friendly place to station military equipment nearby.
dns_snek 2y ago
Why do you believe that the EU is attempting to "rob" US companies when it's quite clearly just a tit-for-tat retaliation to tariffs imposed by the US?
- jalapenos 2y ago
  They've been doing it for years prior to the new tariffs. Seems the EU is keen to regulate it's tech sector into nothingness, only stodgy big corporate crap like SAP making it through, and then when the good tech, which logically must appear overseas, shows up on their shores, they spitefully fine them constantly for everything they can think of. Seems they're ruled by their worst.
  - jurmous 2y ago
    The EU isn’t trying to “rob” American tech companies or punish them just out of spite. They’ve introduced strict regulations like GDPR or the Digital Markets Act, because they’re genuinely concerned about protecting consumer rights, privacy, and maintaining fair compettion. These aren’t random fines aimed only at US firms, European companies get fined too if they break the rules. It’s true Europe struggles to build big global tech companies, but that’s mainly due to factors like fragmented markets, less venture capital, and more cautious investors, not just regulation. Cities like Berlin, Amsterdam, and Stockholm actually have thriving tech scenes despite these rules. So it’s really not about hurting US tech, it’s more about making sure huge companies, wherever they’re from, follow clear rules and don’t abuse their market power.
n4r9 2y ago
Because Russia and Iran are on the other side.
ChocolateGod 2y ago
> why does the US maintain bases in Europe when they have clearly zero imperial gain from it They're much closer to the Middle East and Africa, can be used for refuelling/restocking, provides intelligence and obviously NATO. > Perhaps someone better versed in geopolitics could explain why the US doesn't absolutely ditch Europe I don't think you'd have much opposition to the removal of US military bases, they're probably not popular with the local populations (certainly not Croughton). It's the US that has been the one that's been opposed to a European army or independent European military strategy outside of NATO under fear of loss of influence (and defence sales).
- jalapenos 2y ago
  Just begs the question further "and why are they there.
KoolKat23 2y ago
Think you need to update your worldview, I know it's resurged in popularity among MAGA but we intentionally left the imperial world behind post world war 2. We moved to a rules based world order, there is no imperialism after that, unless we want to return to a world of war (people forget how frequent this was before this, this is the reason the nations of the world agreed to the move, they didn't want to live in this terrible uncertain type of world). This world was also unproductive as people are too scared to take risks. A war economy isn't productive in the true sense as it doesn't improve the human condition. A rules based world order needs someone to enforce those rules, with the US as hegemon, they ended up being the largest enforcer (in addition to the UN security council which has been neutered by China and Russia's moves to ignore it). The benefit for the US is a prosperous, stable world. A consumer base with plenty of money to spend on US goods (the world economy is demand based), and a stable supply chain.
- sunaookami 2y ago
  This is such a US-biased view. This "rules based order" never existed, it was a convenient way for the US to say that they are the "world's government". Even after the cold war ended the US waged wars. No thanks. It's good that we have counter forces like Russia and China in the security council.
  - KoolKat23 2y ago
    You may have read my comment wrong, but either way your take on my comment is completely wrong. Of course it's good Russia and China are on the council. Them being there is an acknowledgement and example of rule based order. The idea is that the "market makers" (the countries with the largest influence in the world) adhere to the security council's decisions. And then if smaller players ignore it, the bigger players on the council can bring them back in line to preserve world order. And sorry you're delusional if you think rules based order never existed, you're welcome to take the US out of the equation, it still exists! There are a number of institutions including the WTO, the UN amongst others and various agreements in the bretton woods agreement, all created post WW2. Seriously don't be dismissive and don't listen to propaganda, go read the history. This dismissive attitude, you've co-opted, are part of efforts to dismantle it as part of this imaginary "multipolar world" (which only means might is right, a return to war). It's only beneficial to the likes of those who know they have enough might and who wish to ignore the rules. The existing order is multipolar, if a country is influential enough they can be added to the council. Removing the councils influence is destroying order, creating chaos and war. It also may be ignorance, people aren't being taught the reasons in school anymore.
buyucu 2y ago
American bases in Europe are worthless to Europeans. Go ahead, close them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

qeternity 2y ago

Zero imperial gain? This is a rather incredible claim: why do you say so?

crvdgc 2y ago

My two cents: isn't this arrangement more of a continuation of the Marshall Plan? If the US did nothing, post-war Europe was likely to fall into the influence of the Soviet. Now even the Soviet has dissolved, there's always the menace of Europe allying with Russia or China (from the US perspective). So it's worth to pay a premium to prevent your opponent from getting the same thing.

jalapenos 2y ago
Can't imagine why they'd ally with Russia, or to what end.

kaedroho 2y ago

There wasn't any direct threat to Europe between 1990 and 2014, yet the US kept their bases there. The US has been interested/involved in a number of conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa over the last few decades. Europe provides safe and friendly place to station military equipment nearby.

dns_snek 2y ago

Why do you believe that the EU is attempting to "rob" US companies when it's quite clearly just a tit-for-tat retaliation to tariffs imposed by the US?

jalapenos 2y ago
They've been doing it for years prior to the new tariffs. Seems the EU is keen to regulate it's tech sector into nothingness, only stodgy big corporate crap like SAP making it through, and then when the good tech, which logically must appear overseas, shows up on their shores, they spitefully fine them constantly for everything they can think of. Seems they're ruled by their worst.
- jurmous 2y ago
  The EU isn’t trying to “rob” American tech companies or punish them just out of spite. They’ve introduced strict regulations like GDPR or the Digital Markets Act, because they’re genuinely concerned about protecting consumer rights, privacy, and maintaining fair compettion. These aren’t random fines aimed only at US firms, European companies get fined too if they break the rules. It’s true Europe struggles to build big global tech companies, but that’s mainly due to factors like fragmented markets, less venture capital, and more cautious investors, not just regulation. Cities like Berlin, Amsterdam, and Stockholm actually have thriving tech scenes despite these rules. So it’s really not about hurting US tech, it’s more about making sure huge companies, wherever they’re from, follow clear rules and don’t abuse their market power.

n4r9 2y ago

Because Russia and Iran are on the other side.

ChocolateGod 2y ago

> why does the US maintain bases in Europe when they have clearly zero imperial gain from it They're much closer to the Middle East and Africa, can be used for refuelling/restocking, provides intelligence and obviously NATO. > Perhaps someone better versed in geopolitics could explain why the US doesn't absolutely ditch Europe I don't think you'd have much opposition to the removal of US military bases, they're probably not popular with the local populations (certainly not Croughton). It's the US that has been the one that's been opposed to a European army or independent European military strategy outside of NATO under fear of loss of influence (and defence sales).

jalapenos 2y ago
Just begs the question further "and why are they there.

KoolKat23 2y ago

Think you need to update your worldview, I know it's resurged in popularity among MAGA but we intentionally left the imperial world behind post world war 2. We moved to a rules based world order, there is no imperialism after that, unless we want to return to a world of war (people forget how frequent this was before this, this is the reason the nations of the world agreed to the move, they didn't want to live in this terrible uncertain type of world). This world was also unproductive as people are too scared to take risks. A war economy isn't productive in the true sense as it doesn't improve the human condition. A rules based world order needs someone to enforce those rules, with the US as hegemon, they ended up being the largest enforcer (in addition to the UN security council which has been neutered by China and Russia's moves to ignore it). The benefit for the US is a prosperous, stable world. A consumer base with plenty of money to spend on US goods (the world economy is demand based), and a stable supply chain.

sunaookami 2y ago
This is such a US-biased view. This "rules based order" never existed, it was a convenient way for the US to say that they are the "world's government". Even after the cold war ended the US waged wars. No thanks. It's good that we have counter forces like Russia and China in the security council.
- KoolKat23 2y ago
  You may have read my comment wrong, but either way your take on my comment is completely wrong. Of course it's good Russia and China are on the council. Them being there is an acknowledgement and example of rule based order. The idea is that the "market makers" (the countries with the largest influence in the world) adhere to the security council's decisions. And then if smaller players ignore it, the bigger players on the council can bring them back in line to preserve world order. And sorry you're delusional if you think rules based order never existed, you're welcome to take the US out of the equation, it still exists! There are a number of institutions including the WTO, the UN amongst others and various agreements in the bretton woods agreement, all created post WW2. Seriously don't be dismissive and don't listen to propaganda, go read the history. This dismissive attitude, you've co-opted, are part of efforts to dismantle it as part of this imaginary "multipolar world" (which only means might is right, a return to war). It's only beneficial to the likes of those who know they have enough might and who wish to ignore the rules. The existing order is multipolar, if a country is influential enough they can be added to the council. Removing the councils influence is destroying order, creating chaos and war. It also may be ignorance, people aren't being taught the reasons in school anymore.

buyucu 2y ago

American bases in Europe are worthless to Europeans. Go ahead, close them.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]