Just keep growing our bases, underpinned by economic performance of our economy. In other words build what we can afford, not sacrificing any home based security features and weaponry, just for world reach. We need bases that are a return on investment, not albatroses around our necks. If we do it this way, we will build strength, whilst at the same time weakening our enemies, who have uneconomically sustainable military positions. Indeed such an approach can hopefully keep the pressure up on them to sustain military, thus diverting funds from their own economies. Pay back time. On top of this if the enemies can be drawn into wider conflicts of their own making, then this will also hasten their demise. So the strategy is simple, build up based on sustainability, force the enemy to keep diverting resources from their economies and continue to develop weapons that can be devastating to NATO and the US homesteads. Because isn't democracy not only about the peoples will, but also the peoples accountability, for their individual decisions. Indeed sick bags all round and luekemia treatment does tend to affect the disney viewing experience in a negative way!

In 1804 the Russian ships arrived to Hawaii to trade fur for fruits and vegetables. The ruler of Hawaii granted his permission to build a warehouse to store the goods for exchange. Instead, the Russians built two forts with Russian flag - Fort Alexander and Fort Elisabeth, in honour of Tsar Alexander I and his wife. Eventually, the ruler had to ask the Russian sailors to leave... Applying the "building strength" and "weakening enemies" motto, this one is definitely not to be missed.

When America has military bases it is Imperialism but when Russia does it, it is for Russia economy. Typical hypocrisy from Russia.

To Sean - Diplomatic language is always more or less hypocrite, but, if America has so many military bases all around the world, why Russia can not have some bases as well?

@Sean Almost 2,000 bases outside U.S. exist. If that's not Imperialism, I don't know, what is? Russia only wants to secure its near border perimeters, nothing more - since NATO's Imperial March is closing in on Russia, as Russian neighbors are falling one by one under NATO foots, or get occupied from inside, with CIA backed coups ("democratic revolutions"). From Baltic states to Balkans and throughout the Arab world to Afghanistan. Not to mention Iran and North Korea...

To Dust!  the US navy has bases around the world to protect their economic interests and partners to counter balance the roughed nations, they were welcomed to the bases, they don't just take it like the Chinese or Soviet Union took lands and islands of other countries with force.  It's not imperialism because that is the term of the past.  While Soviet or Russia navy doesn't have that many bases around the world because there were no economic interested, that because besides gas and guns, Russia has no other business doing with other countries and Rusia is poor.
Vietnam today is difference; in 1979, the Soviet navy at their Cam Ranh base just watched the Chinese navy invaded the Paracell and Spratly islands, since then, the Vietnamese government can't 100% count on this ally.  Russia just banked on 7 US$ billion dollars from selling navy ships and submarines to Vietnam, so saying there is no money to pay for Cam ranh base is hard to think.  Where is the money?

Dust! Russia only secure it's border because that is all they can afford, but they have no commercial dealings or very little with any other countries besides their gas pipe line, so there was no commercial value to have navy ports around the world.  Otherwise, Russia or China, communist or not, they are  imperialists and took lands by force. e.g  the Eastern communist block.