The reaction of German politicians to the decision of the United States to withdraw part of its troops from the territory of Germany was cold-blooded: “We will see.”

Foreign Minister Heiko Maas noted that relations between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States are complex, and the domestic political situation is not simple: “If it is clear that such a decision was not completely agreed upon in the US government and many in Washington are unhappy with how this decision was made, then it’s not surprising that it was not agreed with us either. ” The next day, the German ambassador to the United States, Emily Haber, indicated that "American troops (present in Germany. - M. S. ) are not for defending Germany, they are present to defend transatlantic security, as well as to demonstrate American power in Africa and Asia" .

Most likely, Trump was counting on a slightly different reaction. Not for the first year, he insists that NATO allies must pay America more for ensuring Europe’s security. When, despite all his speeches, the Federal Republic of Germany, although it increased its financial contribution to NATO, was clearly not enough, from Trump's point of view (in Russian, the concessions were made “to get rid of it”), Washington decided to talk sternly with Berlin: "Lost without us."

About the year 410 from R.H., when Rome withdrew its legions from Britain, declaring that the salvation of drowning men was the work of the drowning men themselves, after which the Romanized Celts were left face to face from the east, that is, before the Anglo-Saxon raids. They plaintively asked Rome for help, but the requests were ignored. After 16 centuries, the Anglo-Saxons defended Germany from the threat from the east (“Russians are coming, etc.”). Obviously, a similarly mournful reaction of the Germans was supposed. However, the Germans took this philosophically.

Perhaps the threat was not such a dagger. According to Trump’s decree, 9.5 thousand troops are withdrawn from Germany, and 25 thousand bayonets remain. For comparison: in the peaceful year of 2006, that is, before the Five-Day War of 2008 and before the Crimean events of 2014, after which the thesis about aggressive Russia was greatly strengthened, there were 72,000 American bayonets in the FRG. From which, by the way, it follows that the threat from the east (real or imaginary) is in itself, and the presence of American troops in Germany is in itself.

There is no clear connection here. What the German Ambassador to the USA said in plain text: the appointment of the American corps in Germany is not to fight heroically on the Oder for German freedom, but to have an important communication base in Central Europe. But then Germany’s interest in the issue is more likely to be commercial. The Americans need a base - and the Germans can set their conditions.

The idea of ​​Trump, according to which the Americans will set the conditions for the necessary US base, is strange: "You excuse me this impudent laugh, your logic is a little wild."

Although, of course, Germany also has its own interest in bases.

Firstly, purely economic. The American garrison empowers many Germans. Including completely peaceful Germans, containing restaurants, pubs, bowling alleys, etc., in which freedom soldiers rest. Therefore, the local authorities with all their hands and feet for the preservation of American military units, as this solves the problem of employment in some Schweindorf. True, this has nothing to do with security.

But secondly, the security issue cannot be completely discounted.

Germany, from the time of Bismarck a former first-class military power, has now ceased to be. And not only first-class, but even some. In times of peace, this is not very important, but actually (since today are times of peace, and others may come tomorrow), it’s uncomfortable without an army. And since the German government does not want to feed its army in this way, Donald Trump authoritatively indicates that then the American should be fed. And feed to the dump.

Whether this solves the problem is difficult to say, but with the indistinct concept of German military construction, Americans can put forward various intelligible theories of their military presence (or absence). Perhaps bickering with Trump, to whom only give money, and in large quantities, will encourage Berlin to more clearly articulate the basics of its foreign and defense policy.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.