NATO’s European allies are focused on passing this week’s summit unscathed. But even as President Donald Trump is happy with the new obligation to increase spending, anxiety about the military presence of the U.S. military in the region is increasing.
Only after the summit meeting in The Hague from June 24 to 25 – North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will Guaranteed to spend 5% of GDP On defense – whether the United States will propose its military review will shed light on the scope of a possible substantial reduction in Europe.
There are about 80,000 U.S. troops in Europe, and the region’s government has brought at least about 20,000 soldiers former President Joe Biden into a military surge.
The bet has grown higher after the U.S. attacks Iran’s nuclear site. His foreign policy turnaround will be a topic that is difficult to avoid gatherings, especially in the case of NATO allies Türkiye and key stakeholders in the region.
Europeans have been in the darkness of the Trump administration’s plans. However, officials in the area may offer the possibility of withdrawals that may pose dangerous security risks to refuse to identify them as officials who negotiate behind closed doors, according to officials familiar with the discussion.
Until early June, U.S. officials did not come to NATO until early June to talk about posture reviews of U.S. forces, which sparked concern among allies that this could be done in a short period of time, according to a person familiar with the matter.
It is unclear whether European countries have begun planning to fill any potential gaps left by the U.S. military. Withdrawal of the 20,000 soldiers mentioned above could also have a greater impact if other NATO allies follow the U.S. leadership and remove their troops from the East. Familiar people also say there will be deeper cuts that affect U.S. bases in Germany and Italy, and they can encourage Russia to test NATO’s collective defense Article 5 and conduct hybrid attacks throughout the league.
Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned the European capital that despite growing threats from Russia, they still have to be responsible for their security as the United States shifts its military and diplomatic priorities to the Indo-Pacific region.
NATO contacted Bloomberg and refused to answer the question, but mentioned a statement from NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about the US expulsion in Europe, he said it was normal and they would pivot towards Asia.
“I’m not worried about this, but I’m absolutely convinced that we’ll do it step by step,” Rut said at the time. “So, Europe will not have the ability gap.”
The White House handed over the issue to the Pentagon. A defense official replied: “The United States constantly evaluates the posture of force to ensure it is consistent with the strategic interests of the United States.”
The geopolitical shift could have huge consequences for the 32-member coalition, as it was the biggest challenge since it became a bastion of opposing Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European military relied on the powerful American power for a long time to fill the gap in Washington’s shrinking.
A European diplomat said that if the reduction of troops focuses on efficiency, the problem of key assets and personnel that Europe cannot replace immediately is much smaller for Europeans. The person said the nature of the withdrawal was more important than the number of troops.
A dramatic retreat announcement could trigger an immediate response from the eastern member states, while those closer to Russia immediately demanded deployment from Western European Union countries.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the overall review of the U.S. military should focus on the threats facing the U.S., aiming to reflect the tilt in global power dynamics, bringing potential massive redeployment of weapons and forces.
But European diplomats grasped the timing of the review, and it only happened after NATO signed The most ambitious new weapon target Since the Cold War, member states have agreed to pay.
The withdrawal is more dramatic than expected, meaning that after joining Trump’s escalation in defense spending, they may still bear a heavy burden to deal with the rapidly growing Russian army.
“We will not review the posture of force everywhere, but saying ‘The United States is giving up'” or leaving Europe is a wrong plan assumption. “No, America is smart enough to observe, plan, prioritize and project capabilities to stop conflicts.”
According to people familiar with the matter, more and more U.S. troops may incite Russia’s Vladimir Putin after the Trump administration provides support for European security assurance.
“The question is, when the more stressed focus is on what capabilities they need to consider when the Indo-Pacific is,” said Matthew Savill, head of military science at defense think tank Rusi. “I don’t give them the impression that they haven’t decided what this means for the level of force in a particular term.”
Germany, the richest and most populous country in Europe, positioned himself as the largest share in the reallocation. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius leads the military after the country lifts constitutional debt restrictions on security. He said Berlin will do “heavy weightlifting”.
Pistorius recently announced a new chariot brigade in Lithuania Up to 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has approximately 182,000 active-duty troops.
The European government is prompting Washington to communicate its plans clearly and to stop any troops, giving them time to step up with their own troops.
“There are some capabilities, such as deep and precise strikes, and Europeans need some time to catch up,” said Stefan Schulz, a senior German Defense Ministry official. He called for any reduction in the United States in an orderly manner so that “match our reduction process with the improvement of European capabilities.”
Camille Grand, the European Council on Diplomatic Relations and former NATO Assistant Secretary-General, said the ideal situation would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe, which would take about a decade.
A more terrifying situation would involve the frustration of the U.S. government with European progress and greatly reduce the presence of the troops. Grand said the “reasonable” situation would be a cut of about 65,000 U.S. troops, which was a level that NATO could manage before Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.
“But if we are below that, we will go into unknown waters, and it’s a different world,” Grand said.
