And where is Europe dependant on the US for defence? NATO is an alliance, one that served, and serves, each member state quite well... Sometimes ignorant American exceptionalism is tiresome...
Clearest example is Iceland that doesn't even have its own military.
If NATO is such an equal alliance, why is US the only "partner" that e.g. has (a lot of) military bases, running on their own laws, in other "partner" countries.
Edit: And my point of view definitely isn't from American exceptionalism. I oppose my country's (Finland's) NATO membership and watch in horror how there's now going to be 12 bases in Finland that are essentially under pure US control (Finnish laws don't apply there, or even to the US personnel outside the areas, and Finland has no say in US military coming and going as they like).
Iceland as a nation has less residents the mid-sized German town I live in, guess what my home doesn't have a military of its own neither. What Iceland has is strategic importance, just google SOSUS.
Agree on the bases thing, some of the CIAs kidnapping flights went through Rammstein in Germany and nobody did anything.
Not much I can say about Finlands NATO memebership, I am actually neutral on that. Or rather fall into the group of people that see NATO expansion to former Warsaw pact countries as something Russia could be less than thrilled about. That being said, only the future will tell if NATO membership is agood thing for Sweden, Finland and co.
Being a NATO member defenitely doesn't make a nation a US vasal, se way EU membership doesn't make a nation a vasal of Brussels. And yes, I know opinions differ on that one as well.
Of course what is meant by being a vassal is up to definition and degree. But a foreign standing army probably is somewhere on that spectrum.
Brussels at least has the pretence of the member citizens having (some) democratic control, although I find EU so antidemocratic by design that this is indeed mostly a pretence. And EU e.g. sets quite tight limits of how the member countries can structure their economies.
> Edit: And my point of view definitely isn't from American exceptionalism. I oppose my country's (Finland's) NATO membership and watch in horror how there's now going to be 12 bases in Finland that are essentially under pure US control (Finnish laws don't apply there, or even to the US personnel outside the areas, and Finland has no say in US military coming and going as they like).
That's a very sensationalistic take. No military bases will be established. The agreement between Finland and the US is about prepositioned stockpiles for use in case of war. Since the stockpiles belong to the US government, it is natural that they demand unrestricted access to warehouses holding their stuff.
There will be areas which are under the rule of US military and can house weapons and troops at their will. What more would be needed for those to be characterized as bases?
Also a foreign country positioning weapon stockpiles is a bit questionable for sovereignty in itself, and I find it quite wild to use that as a rationale for giving up the country's rule of law in the areas. You think USA would be happy to have Finnish military areas within their borders because there happens to be Finnish weapons there?
When someone says "military base", then most people imagine barracks full of life, tanks and IFVs being worked on in garages, people coming and going, groups of soldiers doing their PT in the background like in establishing shots of Hollywood movies. Guarded warehouses in the middle of nowhere are none of that.
And defense agreements that establish exceptions from local laws are nothing out of ordinary either. For example, the agreement between Finland and Sweden stipulates that visiting forces are excluded from customs procedures related to weapons, explosives and other dangerous goods.
The Finnish-American one is much more detailed and goes into weeds like excluding vehicles transported by the US into Finland from car tax and VAT. :) It's common sense, but countries that are ruled by law must have these things written down.
Guarded warehouses in the middle of nowhere give at least as wrong image as military base. The areas are mostly next to Finnish military bases and USA will be taking over some Finnish military infrastructure. And the DCA allows for permanent US troops there.
My hunch is that the word "base" is avoided because the public opinion on even NATO bases is split at best, and I'm quite sure US bases are significantly less popular.
You'd be surprised how detachments from NATO militaries are treated at US bases. Pretty much the way NATO countries treat US bases and detachments. Obviously there are more US bases abroad than non-US ones in the states, but still.