Why is the European Union (445million) + UK (68 million) so petrified of Russia (145 million) that they need the US to bear the load of their defense? Sure, Russia has nukes, but so do France and UK, and they would likely lend a few to Germany if needed. Moreover, Russia's economy is moribund in all aspects except oil and gas.

Bring the troops back home. Give Euroland thoughts and prayers and "support from behind" as the Sainted One used to say.

We will thank you not to poke fun at our Greek allies, OB. :E

Why is US media so worried about Russian media spend who spent <$100k in total on promoting news stories on Twit/FB etc in 2016 and apparently influenced the election. Must pee off Soros who spent $100 million and Rothshcilds who spent the same. Still can't get to the bottom of how folks in Ohio voted for Trumpo instead of HRC, don't have a computer and look sparingly at TV.

The days of Russia threatening anybody are long gone. Yup it uses its influence overseas but ahem so does everybody else.

I am not in the slightest bit worried about Russia, more worried about getting run down by some of the "we oppose Putin now folk because we caught with hand in the till so we reside in UK" brigade and the way they drive in the UK and fight with their mafia friends.

The economy bit is overdone and comes from same sources who fact check nothing. It could pay off all its foreign debt and still have shed loads of cash in the bank.
Russia is the biggest Wheat exporter in the world and has been for a few years so hardly the moribound economy people think.

Russia will use Nukes if the country is invaded and threatened. Strangely these see the same reasons why UK / France would use nukes.

Agreed, Racedo, I've no idea why US media gets so worked up over Russia. A former superpower, it's not one now. No reason to have a bunch of US troops over there to fend them off.

On the contrary, Russia has been an incredible conservator of Western culture -- art, music, literature. We should be friendlier with them, despite their love of authoritarian leadership.

racedo, obgraham,

The good people of the Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic States most probably do not share your complacency.

Tend to agree with you. It begs the question then of why don't the euro nations feel the need to prepare for the next threat? The CW is over, the chances of tanks rolling down the Fulda gap taking on the entirety of NATO are nil. What’s happening in the areas you listed is the new normal and is what must be expected. Lacking the clear focus a Soviet armored column provides, low intensity wars have lulled Europe into a false sense of security. Couple that with the US tiring of shouldering the burden and it doesn’t make for a good combination.

This puts that "next thread" into perspective:
Book Review: 2017: War With Russia. An Urgent Warning from Senior Military Command by Andrew Monaghan ? The Changing Character of War Centre

They have seen to their detriment how they can't rely on Europe, nor the EU, to care about them.
League of Nations, part 2, insofar as collective security goes.

The major political motives for joining NATO had nothing to do with joining or not joining the EU.
The perception was: we need a big friend, not a whole lot of unreliable friends.
(I got to see some of this up close and personal during some of the pre NATO expansion activity in the mid to late 90's).

Undeniably so. Pure Maslowian motives: Security first, prosperity next. Namely any security arrangement not involving USoA was considered insufficient, lacking a raison d'être.

For joining the EU, we ran a referendum: 70 per-cent agreed.
Joining the NATO 5 year earlier was done as a political act. All parties except for one, thus representing 90% of votes from the last election, worked jointly to achieve the goal they promised before the ballots.

What did the European countries do in response to Putin's aggression?

Besides signing up for more Russian oil and gas.

We voted to join the European Economic Community, a totally different thing to the European Union that it turned into later.

Crimea - people there happy to be part of Russia, not a single poll since 2014 has shown otherwise including the ones carried out by Western media. People there never wished to be part of Ukraine and when they sought indepence in 1990's were threatened with military Invasion from Kiev. At a rough count 9% of Crimean population have left and incomers have increased population by 25%. People see no threat from Russia

Ukraine - real split between Western Ukraine who see themselves as European and Eastern Ukraine who see themselves as Russian, the Independence vote in 1990's showed a lack of entusiasm for being ruled by Kiev, they decided post Maidan to protest and were attacked by own Govt. Many in Eastern Ukraine have always seen themselves as Russian, nothing will have ever changed that. The population of Ukraine have voted with their feet as 2.5 million now live in Poland (Polish Govt stats) and another 3-4 million live across Europe since 2014, not counting those who went to Russia. Internal persecution of people's language rights be it Russian / Hungrarian / Polish has driven out many families who were a hodge podge of many backgrounds. Suggested population from census Million is 39 million reality is closes to 33 million or less. Eastern Ukraine do not want to be part of rest of Ukraine, you can let them decide their own future after a vote or can attack.

Georgia - again areas people by Russian emigres with loyalty to Moscow, local Govt wished control and they failed to consider who was safeguarding certain areas. Not the first to ignore a big neighbour or badly drawn borders like Nagorno-Karabak.

Baltic states - depends on the country by a number have completely disenfranchised anybody with a Russian background, irrespective of how long they have lived there, making them non citizens. i.e. Estonia where 30% of population have Russian roots and were refused citizenship. So who speaks for minorities ?

Of course there is a case for demanding people of the wrong Ethnic identity be forced out of a country where they have lived for centuries or frig the border to make it different. Perhaps closer to home that could come home to roost in Ireland or Scotland or elsewhere.

Seeing it from both sides doesn't mean you have to agree with any side but at least you understand a different viewpoint.

Followed Obama and made the Russians become self sufficient in many areas and screwed European farmers. Yup that strategy really worked. Vicky Nulands 500 million was paid to who again ?

Under Stalin the Tartars were deported wholesale to Siberia and elsewhere in a diaspora, returning after the fall of the USSR. Now they are fleeing or suppressed. Since 2014 140,000 have fled whilst Russia has encouraged and funded resettlement with 250,000 ethnic Russians moving to the peninsula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mejlis...n_Tatar_People

Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People

https://emerging-europe.com/news/und...ion-and-abuse/

Under Russian rule, Crimean Tatars face oppression and abuse

Stolen from the internet
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1a3caae161.png

Another example of Trump'esque loudmouthing while saying nothing really substantial. The number of US soldiers has both risen and fallen quite a bit over the last couple of years, so there is no real outcome here, apart from the obvious propaganda effects. US troops in Germany mostly have support functions. The Ramstein/K-Town base is an enormous logistical hub, whereas the Grafenwöhr/Hohenfels training grounds provide ample opportunity to train with the various NATO and other European allies. Wiesbaden and Stuttgart largely provide command and control to various theaters in Europe and the Middle East.

However, the main function of these bases, from a German/European standpoint, is to keep the Americans in the game, should the balloon go up in Europe for whatever reason. Therefore, the resources put into supporting the deployment of US troops in Europe are usually considered money well spent, compared with the huge financial efforts required if we wanted to build up the same capabilities ourselves. There are a couple of studies deealing with these costs. So, as usual, there is some truth to the comments of the current US president, even though it is covered in a lot of half-truths and outright lies for the sake of his loyal supporters.

@recedo: Rothschilds? Soros? Russia having a stable and viable economy? Jesus, your Kool-Aid is some hard stuff.

Exhorder, you haven't addressed the basic question:
Why should the US taxpayer pay to defend another country when that country's tax payers can't be bothered to pay for their own defense? Despite repeated promises to the contrary, Germany has not been fulfilling their NATO treaty commitments for many years.
Get Germany's defense spending up to their NATO commitment, then we can talk...

Well TD I think he gave the reason in the post above: Why should they spend their own money on defense if the US will do it for them?

In The Times today:-
We’ll host troops you’re pulling out of Germany, Poland tells US

I agree. Which is what I meant when I wrote "So, as usual, there is some truth to the comments of the current US president". It's not like the German defense spending malaise hasn't been addressed time and time again over the years, by various "real" presidents as well. It took the whole Crimea/Eastern Ukraine malarkey for us to wake up, at least to a certain degree.

However, as usual with the way the current president is doing things, he is doing more harm than good with his tone and the impulsive nature of his decisions - which, in turn, makes it easy for German politicians to dismiss his remarks. Especially since he, in truth, does not give the slightest of f*cks about defense and foreign policy, if it does not serve the purpose of increasing his re-election chances. Sorry for the political rant.