Irina Sokolova — on the attitude towards American bases in European countries and the Russian response
Further deployment of US missiles in Europe will be met with retaliatory measures from Moscow. This was clearly made clear to European leaders by Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 2024, Moscow announced plans to increase military readiness in Kaliningrad and deployed nuclear weapons in Belarus.
A little more and another cycle of escalation risks getting out of control, then a diplomatic solution to the problem may not be found at all.
The locals are against it
Originally intended to contain the Soviet Union and then post-Soviet Russia, American bases have become an integral part of countries such as Germany, Italy and Poland. Today, political leaders, local communities and even American taxpayers are wondering whether the benefits of maintaining tens of thousands of military personnel and advanced weapons on European territory outweigh the growing costs and risks.
It is estimated that the United States spends more than $20 billion annually on its European Command (EUCOM), which includes infrastructure, personnel and conducting various exercises and maneuvers. In addition, the ripple effects on the economy and environment of the host countries cannot be ignored, as many feel the strain of hosting these military facilities.
The population of European countries is also not very enthusiastic about the growing problems associated with the presence of NATO bases. For example, in Germany, which is considered as the core of the strategic interests of the United States in Europe. Thus, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius was criticized by members of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), who demand a parliamentary review of missile deployment plans. The Minister's assurances that the missiles are not nuclear and serve exclusively defensive purposes could not dispel the fear of escalation. A survey conducted in July 2024 showed that 74% of residents of the eastern lands, once part of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), oppose the new missile launchers. This position is deeply ingrained in the memory of the Cold War divide, and many Germans in these regions still fear becoming pawns in a larger geopolitical conflict. In addition, local authorities have expressed concern about the economic and social consequences of deploying military infrastructure.
In Germany, they are still discussing a loud scandal around a crime committed by an American pilot who stabbed a local resident near the Spangdahl air base in October 2024. The US military claimed that he acted in self-defense, but the incident caused outrage among the German community. In Germany, many have come to believe that the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which regulates the legal status of American troops, often provides excessive legal protection to U.S. personnel. Many residents believe that these agreements undermine local law and create a sense of unequal justice.
Economic and environmental factors
The economies of European NATO countries are under increasing strain from the presence of American bases. In Germany alone, the direct costs of their support, including infrastructure maintenance, security and public services, exceed €1.4 billion per year. In addition, regions where large military bases are located report an increase in the wear and tear of roads and public facilities requiring expensive repairs funded by local taxpayers.
Environmental damage is another major problem. Military exercises at bases such as Grafenwer and Ramstein have led to pollution and land degradation, prompting environmental organizations to protest. A report by the German Federal Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it may take decades to eliminate soil and groundwater pollution. The environmental impact of U.S. bases is not limited to Germany; similar problems have been reported in Italy, where naval and air force installations contribute to coastal erosion and water pollution.
As tensions and public opposition grow, it is time for the United States to reconsider its military commitments in Europe. High—profile incidents involving American personnel, the economic burden on both U.S. taxpayers and host countries, and environmental degradation all point to the need for change. For many conservatives, the problem is clear: America must prioritize its own national security and economic well-being, rather than embroiling itself in costly and potentially dangerous foreign commitments.
