It's silly to talk about goals - which is what the article is doing - while ignoring actual motivations, which are what the comment above reminds about.
If we were to discuss motivations it seems incredibly reductive to post a few links that paint a specific narrative rather than to focus on the whole picture.
I was convinced by the USofA politicians that Russia is "a gas station masquerading as a country" (Sen. John McCain, on the Senate floor nonetheless [1]) and that "Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbours, not out of strength but out of weakness" (POTUS Barack Obama [2]).
So, why is USofA obsessed with Russia, why is it even wasting its time on Russia? The US politicians must be right (and I really believe them; after after all, the US is the pinnacle in democracy and its representatives are all elected in free and democratic elections).
Even if rhetoric like “a gas station masquerading as a country” was literally true, plenty of non-state actors can be a significant threat to a nation.
And a regional power attacking others out of weakness, likewise, though without a dismissal of their existence as a nation.
Blackrock has thousands of funds, hedge funds, ETNs, subsidiaries resulting from acquisitions which have their own funds. It still matters that they are all under the control of Blackrock and this single entity may drive decisions at the board level through their different vehicles.
They basically own 10% of the DAX. Which is a massive concentration of power over german companies (and it must be similar in other countries).
To the point that if I was a regulator I would question whether it is ok to have a single entity (and the likes of Blackrock) have that much control over the country's corporate landscape.
It looks like they differ based on geographical location and how they are regulated. Two in Germany, two in the UK. Two are asset management companies, two are advisers.
People and countries outside the US don't use the dollar because of the US military, any more than they use the Swiss franc because of the Swiss military. They use both currencies (and the UK pound, and the Euro, and the Japanese yen) because decades of experience show that the countries that issue said currencies are the least likely to default on their financial obligations, and are most transparent about their own financials.
Russians and Chinese themselves avoid using their own countries' currencies when abroad as much as possible because they are most aware of this. To put another way, the primacy of the dollar isn't a supply issue (something that the US directly forces), but a demand issue (it's the currency everyone else prefers to use).
(This is where you'll bring up the "petrodollar". No, the petrodollar isn't real. Well, it's real in the sense that oil is, like almost every other product, usually denominated in US dollars when sold internationally. What's not real is the theory that the US has a particular need for (say) Iraq back in the day to denominate its oil sales in dollars, as opposed to Euro. Or that Venezuela attempting to denominate its oil in yuan today surely augurs the collapse of the US economy tomorrow.)
There is absolutely nothing stopping an American, Japanese, Iraqi, Venezuelan, Russian, Chinese, German, or Indonesian company in offering its products for sale to foreign customers in Canadian dollars, yen, renminbi, dinars, rubles, Euros, or bhats. A US carrier isn't going to appear off the shores of your country for doing so.
They don't do so (or, when they do so, they also denominate in US dollars) because customers by and large prefer using US dollars. They also like using Euros, yen, and Swiss francs. (They have no problem with Canadian or Australian dollars, but obtaining it can sometimes be more difficult.) But the US dollar is the one currency that is absolutely, positively, 100% guaranteed to be wanted by both the buyer and seller, no matter where and for what.
Let me repeat: The primacy of the US dollar is driven by demand, not supply.
Also, these days it's less the petrodollar and more the technodollar as shown by the handwringing over US/China technological dependence/independence and how many key technologies in electronics/aerospace/biotech each country has or can develop to create a globally competitive and resilient ecosystem of technology products.
Twenty years ago, a bearded man in a cave ("Ali Baba") and his 19 "thieves" have managed to attack the superpower with a combined security budget (military and all intelligence agencies) of around 1.000 billions (1) on its soil, (2) using only box cutters!
The explanation offered to the world by the superpower was: Everyone failed. Yet, no one of those in high positions in the security aparatus of the superpower who has failed at doing his highly responsible job has resigned and no one was prosecuted.
What sounds like a (bad) fairytale really happened. Over 3.000 people died that day and many more thousands have died and are still dying as a consequence of what happened that day.
Attackers budget was probably 0.00...1% of the budget of the superpower.
Yay... let's put a price tag on everything! Let "the market" decide. What could we also sell... let's see: Air, water, children... the highest (richest?) bidder decides.
Especially if he got rich by exploiting workers (through low wages and bad working conditions, like wearing diapers) and exploiting state regulations (through tax evasion).
“... to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” See Wolfowitz Doctrine
To ensure a ring of bases around Russia (like a potential base in Crimea before the war in Ukraine) so that any military activity of the latter can be interpreted as aggression (e.g., "Russia tries to re-establish its evil Empire"). [Here we skip intermediate steps]. To make sure people fight "left vs right", "West vs East" instead of the only really important battle of "poor vs rich".
p.s. this particular base is of importance because it is relatively close to future super-powers like China and India.
>The base became a critical hub in the early days of the war to provide airdrops, medical evacuation and airstrike support to U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan.
I wasn't precise, I am sorry: I get it that it was/is used for the support of US forces.
I am interested in how the US can put a military base on a piece of land that in not so distant past (ten years prior to 9/11) was part of its arch enemy - the USSR? It may be completely natural to some, but to me that's awkward.
>I am interested in how the US can put a military base on a piece of land...
First the US didn't put the military base there, the military based was already there, the US just put troops and supplies there.
Not sure what the land being part of the USSR in the past has anything to do with the then current military campaign, when the USSR no longer existed. For example the US has maintained military bases and presence in both Germany and Japan since WWII...no one asks how the US could do that in Countries that were former enemy combatants...not to mention no one asks why the US came to the aid of the UK in WWII when they too were former military combatants.
Today that is an US base, it doesn't matter if it existed before or not.
The US has not "maintained" the presence in Germany and Japan. US still maintains presence there. And that 75 years after the WWII ended! Also: The US has fought a major war with Germany and Japan and after their defeat it occupied them (still ocupies them?). All that does bot apply to the former USSR.
In the context of your "honest question" it matters. The US was conducting military operations in nearby Afghanistan and there was an unused military base nearby that the US could lease and the US leased it...its not their base or their land, its leased and belongs to Uzbekistan.
>The US has not "maintained" the presence in Germany and Japan. US still maintains presence there. And that 75 years after the WWII ended!
I am having a hard time following your English, but you seemed surprised the US would have a base in former enemy territory (USSR).
So here is a question, how much military experience do you have if any? Because it seems to be basic military strategy, going back to the times of Alexander the Great.
>The US has fought a major war with Germany and Japan and after their defeat it occupied them (still ocupies them?)
Well the US and USSR engaged in a very lengthy cold war...the USSR was defeated resulting in their own voluntary dissolution.
And no the US does not occupy Japan or Germany. We maintain a presence...the same as we maintain a presence in South Korea ever since the Korean war (and South Korea was never our enemy), we certainly don't occupy them.
Here is a list of Russian Military Bases around the World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases...), as you will note, they have bases in former territories they once occupied/controlled and no longer do. Of course Crimea is of particular concern as that was a sovereign territory and Russian recently violated their sovereignty with illegal use of military force and annexation.
You are right. But, why then do I keep hearing in the western mainstream media about Russia being a threat when it is the USA that puts its base near Russia?
You don't go out of your way to place a base near another state unless you consider them a threat, or consider them no threat at all but want to conquer them in the near future. I think the former is more likely the intention in this case. If a state's not perceived as a threat and also isn't a likely target for a very one-sided invasion, you probably don't care much about having bases near them.
This dynamic is behind military build-ups, arms races, and increasing tensions and effective ability to act threateningly. You believe a state threatens yours, so you build up on their border, now you threaten them, so they build up more, repeat. Notably this does not happen if neither side perceives the other as threatening in the first place.
IOW placing a base on a rival state's border both is threatening and is also exactly what one does when one perceives same rival as a threat.
There are many vectors that foreign adversaries can be a threat. In Russia's case, they are a threat to our Democratic institutions, but more so a threat to our allies in the region. They are a country well known for their desire for expansion into adjacent nations, even after the fall of the USSR. That's the #1 reason neighboring nations are our/NATOs allies, because they are in fear of Russia.
That base was there long before "the western mainstream media [talked] about Russia being a threat". Its original purpose was to support operations Afghanistan.
Look on a map -- the base is nowhere near Russia proper. You'd have to go well north through the rest of Uzbekistan, then Kazakhstan. If anything it is a statement to Pakistan or Iran.
They were supposed to pay the Uzbeks for access to the base (an old Soviet base) for the Afghanistan war. In the mid-2000s, when it came time to pay the Uzbeks (about $500 million, if memory serves), the Americans decided the Uzbeks were terriss and opted not to pay. The Uzbeks hated the US after that. Absolutely loathed.
(I ended up living there for a year at the end of 2005, so my recollection of details around the finances might be spotty, but my recollection of having Uzbeks explain why it was so fucked up what we did, I will live with forever.)
The US and Uzbekistan initially signed an agreement that let them use the base for free. Then the Uzbeks wanted money, so we started paying ~$20million a year.
Relations got really bad after the Andijan Massacre. The US government (state department and congress) was REALLY critical of Uzbekistan and talked a lot about human rights abuses and cutting aid. Maybe that's where you're getting the $500 million figure from? Canceled aid payments that were conditional on the government making humans rights improvements, not the use of the base? Anyways, 2 months after Andijan and one day after the first planeload of refugees got a flight to Romania, the US received an eviction notice. We continued to pay the rest of the lease, and actually delivered a final $22.9 million payment after we got the eviction notice, days before the final Americans left.[1] If you want to read a description of events that is still biased, but in the other direction you can see the Air Force's timeline of what happened [2].
In the era of John Yoo and Dick Cheney, the Uzbeks felt like any US posturing on human rights was just that -- posturing. They were also resentful at the US treating their sovereignty as a new-millennium extension of the Great Game. As for the $500 million, you're right, I don't remember what they said it was for, it's been close to 15 years.
According to the graphic, those are NATO bases. NATO != USA. Countries join NATO willingly because they perceive some kind of threat and want help from others if they're attacked.
There are about three dozen people being held in Guantanamo. A total of around 780 people were detained in total by the US military over a decade and a half. Of those 780, around 730 were let go. Nearly all of the detainees were granted representation and visitation rights, along with Guantanamo itself being subject to public observation & access by human rights groups. The US Supreme Court ruled that the Guantanamo detainees have specific protections, such as habeas corpus and have a right of access to the US court system.
Your comparison is between Guantanamo and what China is doing. Therefore it begs the question: when is China going to stop forcibly stripping millions of Muslims of their religion and beliefs, torturing those people, and let go the million or more people they're actively holding in camps? And does the fact that China keeps building more camps, indicate that it's all going to stop soon? Will China allow media access to the camps? Do those being held in the camps have any rights of representation? Do prominent human rights groups have routine access to the camps for observation purposes? Has China publicly declared where every camp is located and how many people are being held in the camps?
So jailing an ethnic minority based on the possibility that they might commit a crime in the future and forcing them to go through brainwashing (sorry, reeducation) programs is somehow OK because there are a few terrorists? No amount of rationalization is going to make that sound OK.
> Analysis Facing Worldwide Jihadist Violence and Conflicts
While "The US has helped ISIS":
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2015-00935...
and "The Dirty War on Syria: Washington Supports the Islamic State (ISIS)":
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-dirty-war-on-syria-washing...
And how and why USA supported Bin Laden in Afghanistan:
https://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview
And to close this: NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” (from the horse's mouth)
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm