B-based??? - eviltoast
  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 month ago

    More specifically, I would LOVE if the long term dynamic became more of equal partnership and division of concerns - up to and including mutual basing agreements on BOTH sides of the pond.

    We have Ramstein and Incirlik and Lakenheath and a bunch of others; maybe it makes sense for the EU to have a few disused bases in the US too - some joint, some just for them. Something in Texas, Alaska, somewhere in the PNW, East coast somewhere, Florida, and Guam would make a lot of sense, I think, even if (outside of Guam and Alaska, for somewhat obvious reasons), I would think they’d be largely training focused - but I think that sort of thing would be extremely helpful in terms of strengthening the alliance, and making the EU as a whole a much more obviously equal partner.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      The only valuable US territory for EU nations to host troops would be Alaska and the Pacific territories, and Alaska would be the only decent location for European defense. Any other locations would only be useful for power projection, in which the EU seems rather disinterested in.

      That said, the US hosts a lot of training centers for EU troops, including hosting a ton of pilot training schools. So there are a lot of EU troops in the US, they are just on American bases.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Any other locations would only be useful for power projection, in which the EU seems rather disinterested in.

        Maybe the French? That said, the EU is not directly benefiting from the petrodollar, so there’s no point in playing world police American style.