Do US military bases actually provide security for the country they're in?
The Poles are sucking US dick to get even more troops stationed there, but what would happen if Russia ever actually decided to invade? Would the US forces in those bases actually fight?
In what scenario would someone invade an country with a US base in it and not have that base high on the list of priority targets? If you don't want trouble with the US, why invade and risk accidentally getting into a shooting war with them?
Nooo, the Russians would just go around it and we'd stand and wave with one thumb up our ass. Retard.
Okay, but hypothetically, let's say the Russians do a Crimea in Poland and cut off the northeastern bit, without touching US troops.
Hypothetically, could Russia and the US make a backroom deal to leave each other out of it? Or would the mean the effective end of NATO?
>Do US military bases actually provide security for the country they're in?
Yes you fucking retarded piece of shit. Jesus christ, have like a month and a half before summer...
No unless somethng really bad happened in the US, Article 5 would come into effect.
Ok, so what if Russia nuked the US and crippled it's military. Then what would happen?
NATO is already dead, the institutions behind it are just on autopilot. Europe has gotten complacent and the US is facing bipartisan domestic pressure to reduce its hegemony and focus on home.
They'd get nuked back and have its military crippled?
There hasn't exactly been a time in recent memory where a country with a permanent US military base was invaded by a foreign power.
Let's say that the Russian army is already marching into Poland before the attack? Also, a preemptive attack would destroy US nuclear silos so they can't retaliate as hard.
They'd still get nuked by US second strike capability? Unless you're in a super fantasy land where Russia somehow has the capability to neutralize the US's entire nuclear triad, which makes the entire question academic as to why they haven't taken over the world already.
>Do US military bases actually provide security for the country they're in?
They do in the same way that the mafia protects your business when you pay them protection money.
Literally the exact same concept.
There's absolutely no way a nuclear war could happen, barring some kind of devastating military defeat of either side.
>implying
I say the opposite. Everyone is vaguely aware that we need to control everything to stay safe because Europeans are selfish assholes that don't help with anything and everyone else in Asia/Africa hates our guts. We just need another 9/11 to get the Zoomers on board with pillaging the middle east to build out the empire.
>we need to control everything to stay safe
LOL what?
Invade Poland? A war
Invade the Baltics? Doubtful. The Baltics have been racist dickheads towards the ethnic Russian minority, to the point disallowing them citizenship, voting rights, and shafting them in terms of job opportunities.
So yeah, Baltics are probably fucked
>okay what IF Russia had magical powers that prevented ANYONE from stopping it, how would you stop it?
>Literally the exact same concept.
It would be the same concept if we invaded Poland if they didn't agree to host a base.
>NATO is already dead, the institutions behind it are just on autopilot.
It really isn't - otherwise, you would not see forward-deployed troops and exercises.
>The Baltics have been racist dickheads towards the ethnic Russian minority
Oh no, how terrible. If only they could look past the decades of occupation and oppression from said Russians.
Every nation that had to endure the cold war on the wrong side of the wall and get rammed in the ass by the USSR hates Russians and rightfully so.
>let's say the Russians do a Crimea in Poland and cut off the northeastern bit, without touching US troops.
Setting aside that unlike Ukraine, Poland can actually defend itself such an attemp would lead to Russia getting its shit pushed in by NATO.
>Poland can actually defend itself
Doubtful. The main thing keeping Russia from doing it is the lack of a sympathetic local populace.
To answer your first question....
No, the US doesn't necessarily provide security
Germany is basically used as a hospital/medical base for soldiers injured in the middle east
They do a lot of critical care
Ukraine and Poland mainly have anti-missile defenses such as patriot missiles, but no infantry
Korea is all artillery and some hospitals
Japan is slowly kicking out marines and contractors
a lot of POGs
Guantanamo Bay is medical support/prisoner security, pretty much a vacation
afghanistan has soldiers protecting poppy fields, not people
Source: volunteered for a lot of easy deployments/rotations in the army
t. Peter Zeihan
I hope that's true but I don't see NATO coming apart fully soon
The only thing doubtful is Russia's ability to invade Poland and not resort to throwing nukes in an attempt to save itself.
Zeihan is too optimistic. Ian Bremmer has a more realistic view of what will happen once we disengage.
It’s not. Trump is temporary, and literally the entirety of the US government, excepting him, is smart enough to realize being the global hegemon is a good thing for America and it’s allies.
>Subjugate a population for decades
>Arrest, torture, and kill political dissidents
>Destroy local economies with your shitty economic system, sucking wealth back into Moscow
“Why do they hate Russia guys? Must be racists.”
1) Trump is a symptom not the cause. Things arent just going to "go back to normal" after 2020/2024.
2) How has maintaining our hegemon benefitted us post cold-war? The Soviets are gone, so how do we benefit now?
Okay Russia invades Poland, respects tbe church, does not attack whites(why would they) have a wodka, what is problem? We make solution. No brother war.
They discriminate because allowing ethnic Russians to take hold in your country is a mistake. See Transnistria or Crimea. The baltics are doing it right, the presence of too many Russians is an existential threat to the country. That's just the way it is.
reminder that chink shills are the ones making these russia threads
>Would the US forces in those bases actually fight?
They would fight valiantly against the incoming Iskanders
I study International Security at a top school.
This comes up a lot. The TL;DR is that yes, probably
US troops stationed in Poland are what's called a tripwire. They can't fight off the Russians on their own, but they can die horribly trying to fight them off, and if the Russians kill Americans, then America is going to be drawn into the war.
That's why the US stations small forces abroad. So that the host country knows the US won't puss out at the last minute.
It kept the commies out of Western Europe for fifty years.
>Zeihan is too optimistic.
Zeihan is a freelancer these days but he comes from Stratfor and it shows. Most of what Zeihan/Stratfor claim is simply what American neocons and boomers would like to see happen, regardless wether it's likely, plausible or realistic. This is why Zeihan is so "optimistic".
>Ian Bremmer has a more realistic view of what will happen once we disengage.
Link?
>Okay guys you have to pass this simple language + history test to get full citizenship.
>REEE how dare you ask Russian masterrace to learn state language, you nazi??? Stalin did nothing wrong, we should have sent you all to Siberia!!!
And thanks to this decision Baltic states don't have some form of self - proclaimed republics or in general being politically torn between Russian swamp and West
>Would the US forces in those bases actually fight?
No they'd surrender like those guys on the boat did, then blubber about it as k goes full damage control
>Do US military bases actually provide security for the country they're in?
Yea. They act like deterrents, and have an economy boosting effect.
>learning the language of the host country is racist
russians truly are honorary niggers
>dat unconfirmed lily pad in Vietnam
I know the US military have visited Vietnam but to claim a US base is there is laughable.