3 ms·

« Russia can retreat into their internationally recognized borders at any time. » The US has around 900 military bases abroad. Far more than all other countrie

by Lumich 1mo ago

« Russia can retreat into their internationally recognized borders at any time. » The US has around 900 military bases abroad. Far more than all other countries combined. These bases are a constant source of threats and bullying, deploying and projecting a GDP largely based on death and destruction. Why don't the US retreat into their internationally recognized borders?

pjc50 1mo ago
The simple answer is that those bases aren't considered US territory and do not constitute annexation, and in most cases are there by invitation, such as to defend against the other, worse, hegemon. (Some exceptions apply for e.g. the Chagossians)
- leonidasrup 1mo ago
  If those bases aren't considered US territory whose territory are they? In case of United States Army installations in Germany: " The legal status of Americans stationed in Germany is governed by special international agreements including the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. People stationed at overseas bases or posts must remember German laws apply to them, too. To protect yourself, know what rights you have as an American. Whether German authorities exercise their right of jurisdiction depends on the circumstances of the case. " https://www.ramstein.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/303721/status-of-forces-agreement/ https://www.ramstein.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Articl... In case of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base: "At the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2013, Cuba's Foreign Minister demanded the U.S. return the base to Cuba." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Cold_War_and_beyond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Cold...
  - pjc50 1mo ago
    Guantanamo is leased like Hong Kong used to be, and has been since the Spanish-American war. It is an exception because the US refuses to normalize relations with Cuba. That is not the case for Ramstein and the European bases, which are generally just there by agreement which does not convey sovereignty. Another special case is the UK sovereign bases in Cyprus, which really are UK territory; I only know about those because during Brexit they kept getting mentioned in the treaty documents. Bonus pull out sovereignty section: to whom does Transnistria belong? How about Nagorno-Karabakh?
  - bulbar 1mo ago
    It's German territory where we granted an ally special rights to enforce their own rules to some large degree.
ben_w 1mo ago
> Why don't the US retreat into their internationally recognized borders? Mostly they were allowed there by the government of the place. They are criticised for the exceptions. > GDP largely based on death and destruction For all the flaws of the USA, this is not really what their GDP is "based on", though perhaps one could say that functionally they hide conscription by giving many unemployed men a Hobson's choice of signing up vs. going hungry.
leonidasrup 1mo ago
As the current situation in Middle East shows, these military bases loose their military function very fast in 21st century.
- Lumich 1mo ago
  Yes, the increased effectiveness of cheap weapons is positive for the global underdogs. And the enormous military network the US entertains is costly. Which is why they have vassals (to foot the bills, at least in part). We'll see how this is going to develop – development of effective counter-measures shouldn't be ruled out. If “nukes” existed many of these bases, being somewhat removed from human settlements, could be destroyed much more effectively and without much “collateral damage”. As the US and NATO hide behind Ukraine, other “players” could hide behind just any type of “terrorist”, just as the US/UK have done again and again.
bulbar 1mo ago
Crazy comparison, military bases based on political agreements has nothing to do with invading a country.

by Lumich 1mo ago

pjc50 1mo ago

The simple answer is that those bases aren't considered US territory and do not constitute annexation, and in most cases are there by invitation, such as to defend against the other, worse, hegemon. (Some exceptions apply for e.g. the Chagossians)

leonidasrup 1mo ago
If those bases aren't considered US territory whose territory are they? In case of United States Army installations in Germany: " The legal status of Americans stationed in Germany is governed by special international agreements including the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. People stationed at overseas bases or posts must remember German laws apply to them, too. To protect yourself, know what rights you have as an American. Whether German authorities exercise their right of jurisdiction depends on the circumstances of the case. " https://www.ramstein.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/303721/status-of-forces-agreement/ https://www.ramstein.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Articl... In case of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base: "At the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2013, Cuba's Foreign Minister demanded the U.S. return the base to Cuba." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Cold_War_and_beyond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Cold...
- pjc50 1mo ago
  Guantanamo is leased like Hong Kong used to be, and has been since the Spanish-American war. It is an exception because the US refuses to normalize relations with Cuba. That is not the case for Ramstein and the European bases, which are generally just there by agreement which does not convey sovereignty. Another special case is the UK sovereign bases in Cyprus, which really are UK territory; I only know about those because during Brexit they kept getting mentioned in the treaty documents. Bonus pull out sovereignty section: to whom does Transnistria belong? How about Nagorno-Karabakh?
- bulbar 1mo ago
  It's German territory where we granted an ally special rights to enforce their own rules to some large degree.

ben_w 1mo ago

> Why don't the US retreat into their internationally recognized borders? Mostly they were allowed there by the government of the place. They are criticised for the exceptions. > GDP largely based on death and destruction For all the flaws of the USA, this is not really what their GDP is "based on", though perhaps one could say that functionally they hide conscription by giving many unemployed men a Hobson's choice of signing up vs. going hungry.

leonidasrup 1mo ago

As the current situation in Middle East shows, these military bases loose their military function very fast in 21st century.

Lumich 1mo ago
Yes, the increased effectiveness of cheap weapons is positive for the global underdogs. And the enormous military network the US entertains is costly. Which is why they have vassals (to foot the bills, at least in part). We'll see how this is going to develop – development of effective counter-measures shouldn't be ruled out. If “nukes” existed many of these bases, being somewhat removed from human settlements, could be destroyed much more effectively and without much “collateral damage”. As the US and NATO hide behind Ukraine, other “players” could hide behind just any type of “terrorist”, just as the US/UK have done again and again.

bulbar 1mo ago

Crazy comparison, military bases based on political agreements has nothing to do with invading a country.