My read on Germany specifically is that it's less about Russian invasion worries and more about domestic economic politics. The bases are important economically to the towns/regions they're in, and closing them is unpopular in those areas, similar to how choosing when/if to close US bases in the US is controversial (https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45705.html).

Going by military spending, any single EU country spends less than Russia, but 2+ spend more:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

Of course raw numbers don't tell the whole story:

* https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/ru...

* https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/why-russian-military-expen...

You are severely overestimating Russia's army and underestimating Europe's.

Russia isn't even in the same league of spending power and the Soviet army of the past was way stronger.

While Russia spends a lot of money on their army ( % wise), they don't have the resources to renew it. What's left is a lot of old gear and some renewed one.

As a counter perspective, Ukraine would have made it's naval fleet completely unusable, as it needs to pass that country for getting anywhere.

And Europe ( in the last 30 years) came within missile range of Moscow, since the fall of the USSR.

The propaganda of Russia is mostly power related, but they are certainly not as powerful as they seem. And the cards don't look that great too.

A lot of their resources depend on oil/gas purchases from Europe and Europe is investing in alternative sources, while Russia can't raise the prices for their citizens/neighboring countries.

Eg. The pipeline Russia mostly invested in to Germany has been halted, because of Alexei Navalny: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/gas-pipeline-nord...

And last but not least, as a belgian citizen, i appreciate US presence and have no desire for foreign troops to withdraw. We all share ( mostly) the same/similar culture and perception.

Russia buys most of their arms from their own industry so while their military budget in $ is far smaller than the US they get more bang for the buck (or in their case ruble). So while they nominally spend ~$60B per year when accounted for PPP (purchasing power parity) that looks more like equivalent of $150B (or $200). Things are obviously more complex than this but it's obvious that while they spend similar $ amount as UK or France they maintain significantly larger military.

> As a counter perspective, Ukraine would have made it's naval fleet completely unusable, as it needs to pass that country for getting anywhere.

They had open access to the Black Sea even without Crimea, I'm not sure how Ukraine could block them then or now?

btw pipeline isn't halted (so far): https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne...

Oh indeed, I didn't saw reports about it being continued. Thanks

For why Ukraine is important, i once read this: https://www.ft.com/content/1f749b24-9f8c-11e3-b6c7-00144feab...

Which was what influenced my judgement about Ukraine and Russia's fleet.

You can't seriously believe Europe is defenseless without America. Germany, the UK and France are among the most powerful militaries in the world, with economies that trump Russia, and enough nuclear weapons to flatten it a hundred times over.

The countries you mentioned are as prepared for war as was France in 1939/1940

France was prepared, they just messed up the strategy. But they had the equipment, the manpower, the army was mobilized entirely after 1939, they had battle plans, etc.

Germany doesn't have a powerful military or its own nuclear weapons.

And add up all their militaries and they are still dwarfed by the US military.

The German military has issues ordering guns that shoot straight, I doubt they can project any kind of deterrence against, say, nuclear threats.

Sure because Russia has a long history of attacking Western Europe unprovoked. Napoleon, WW1, UK US intervention in the Revolution, Polish Invasion and WW2 clearly had Russia as an Aggressor.

Or more recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring

or those russian soldiers on holiday in the ukraine.

In all fairness OP was mentioning Western Europe. One could argue about the validity of ideologically partitioning Europe into an Eastern and Western part (I know I'm also guilty of that) but that's another discussion.

I'd say that was done fairly organically given the split between ethnicities and Orthodox vs. Catholic churches. Ukraine seems to straddle one of those boundaries.

I think you don't know your Russian history. That territory has usually been controlled by an aggressive, expansionist regime. How did you think it got to be the largest country on earth?

It's very strongly related to the geography of the region.

In WW2 Russia actually was one of the aggressors.

Well Poland had the brilliant idea of attacking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War, right after the end of WW1, so I am sure there was no love between them.

Was Poland too?

Russia invaded Poland in coordination with Germany as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact at the start of the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...

I wasn't asking who was invaded by Russia but whether Poland was aggressor too?

And here's the answer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_bo...

I think you may need to revisit WW2 history, Poland was invaded by the USSR and Germany as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Nope, it's you who needs to revisit WW2 history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_bo...

Hey, it's complicated (as usual).

Check out all of the minor wars Poland was involved in between 1919 and 1938.

thats silly