Germany: US ambassador Grenell should be expelled, says FDP deputy leader

A global military presence has allowed the US to exert influence throughout the world. It's a pretty interesting (and controversial) topic, but I recommend reading up on American imperialism[0], and the argument that the military base is modern America's version of a colony.

We don't maintain a military presence in Europe because they're incapable of defending themselves, we maintain a presence because it grants us influence in Euro politics.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

I don't think the U.S. wants Europe to figure out how to protect itself, or to create a European Union army/navy/air force.

It's another geopolitical block, one that could theoretically challenge U.S. dominance, what with almost equivalent GDP and levels of development and a greater population.

USA has troops in European countries (and elsewhere) not to protect them, but to have (1) political, military, intelligence and economic influence there, (2) to use those countries as a launchpad to threaten (and eventually easier attack) countries who still haven't submitted to its power and which are in the vicinity of the countries harbouring the US troops, (3) to make it seem like its power is much greater by having "allies" (but, in reality, "vassals", as Zbigniew Brzezinski has called them in his book The Grand Chessboard).

Or, as NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, has put it: NATO exists to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm

I don't think it is all about defending the countries that the bases are in. From a military point of view, if you had a choice between having a base somewhere in your own country, or having it in a distant country, I'd expect that you'd prefer the latter option. It gives you much more flexibility if you want to carry out operations away from home.

The US spending so much on European security allows Europe to have stronger social safety nets and many European style programs without significantly stressing their budgets. As you noted, spending is not in line with other nations on a per GDP basis.

The trade is the US foots the bill but gets bases (geopolitical control) out of it. Europe gets protection which they would normally have to pay for.

While currently things are strained, historically this has been an amicable relationship where both sides got what they wanted. Perhaps this will change in the future, but that is the context.

> It's more than a little ridiculous that the UK spends more on defense than Germany

Germany doesn't have a nuclear deterrent - mostly because the allies did not want it to have one. That costs multiple billions per year even in the bare-bones "4 subs and 50 missiles" version that the UK proposes.

Germany doesn't have a force projection capability, no carriers, assault/landing ship forces or even transport plane capacity. This is because their constitution (shaped by the WW2 allies) prohibits wars outside of national defense and their education curriculum emphasizes "never again" going to war. This is a stark contrast to the UK which still maintains an empire of military outposts only second to the US.[0]

Basically Germany doesn't have a strong military because the US, UK and France did not want it to have one, for the last 75 years. To want them to do a 180, just to sell them more F35s, is being ignorant of history.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_military_bases_of_the...