"United States and Europe: A Divorce of Convenience" Topic

"For decades, the American military presence in Europe has remained one of the key pillars of the continent's security architecture. It provided not only deterrence against the Soviet Union and later Russia, but also ensured U.S. political and military leadership within NATO, forming the backbone of the entire Euro‑Atlantic security system. Even after the end of the Cold War and a substantial reduction of forward‑deployed forces, U.S. troops in Europe continued to play a leading role, shaping allied defense planning and operational assumptions.

Today, this structure is entering a phase of qualitative change. Washington's strategic shift toward the Indo‑Pacific, the intensifying competition with China, the reorientation of U.S. domestic political priorities, and the growing expectations placed on European allies are creating conditions in which a reduction of the American footprint in Europe is no longer a hypothetical scenario but a matter of practical planning. For Europe, this represents not merely a shift in the balance of power, but a fundamental reconfiguration of its strategic architecture — including NATO's role, the prospects for EU defense autonomy, and the status of individual states as central or peripheral actors.

This article examines the drivers behind a potential reduction of the U.S. military presence in Europe, its implications for European states and NATO, the risks associated with such a shift, and the potential beneficiaries of the emerging balance. The analysis is grounded in factual material and open‑source reporting; all conclusions are analytical and directly derived from documented trends, statements, and decisions…"

link

Armand

FWIW – then what would really Europe look like without NATO ?

I think that the derisive tone of the US toward Europe will end and a more moderate partnership will emerge. The clunky statecraft from the US currently is awkward, but in the end it will push both sides to a more equal and stronger partnership.

Without this, everything that matters to western society will be more vulnerable as Xi and Putin both think they see US decline right now. But the US leadership changes often enough to make adjustments. Our whole country was founded on unity, we have European heritage among our blend of cultures and strong alliances give aggressors second thoughts.

Tort,

I agree. Most of this is coming from the current president. He will be out in less than three years. My guess is his successors will steer us back to the mainstream view of foreign policy.

Should have been out of Nato years ago. Eisenhower said if we were still in Nato and Europe years later, we have failed. Too much reliance on US troops and money.

Ok guys.

What is the position of the U.S. in this new NATO you speak of after Trump?

US An equal partner?
Everyone contributing the same amount on everything?
What if one partner refuses? Two? Three?
Does the cost of our nukes override any need to pay for other conventional weapons? Or are they just a "given".
Should we be cornered by a guaranteed war alliance? What if that is not advantageous to us to go to war at that time. (Think WW1 and 2).
If we go to war and our partners don't like it, can we still use our bases?
Navies. Equal contributions by all? Everyone uses the trade lanes.
Air? Same question?

I've seen the arguments on both sides, but not convinced by the ones that believe NATO has NOT lived past its expiration date after the Warsaw Pact and the USSR disappeared.

Even with NATO, if XI does anything, I doubt we see much from most members other than a "bad boy!", meaningless sanctions and maybe some support items.

I hear those across the pond complaining about us.

Convince me I'm wrong, as I and others have lost faith in our allies and their ability to hold up their end in any major war against China.

This view for me, started under Barrack. So don't blame Trump.

NATO's a defensive alliance. Got any plausible scenarios in which China attacks a member in a way that would trigger article 5?

I can't wait to see what happens in Ankara Turkey at the next NATO summit scheduled for July.

CS how about 3

1: As highlighted in NATO's security assessments, China's "gray-zone" warfare and technological dominance present systemic challenges. A covert, state-backed Chinese cyberattack knocking out European telecommunication grids, or the physical severing of transatlantic undersea internet cables and disabling of GPS/military satellites, could be classified as an "armed attack". This would trigger emergency consultations among allies to determine if a collective response is required.

2: NATO closely monitors the deepening Sino-Russian cooperation. In the event of a Taiwan contingency, China could coordinate with Russia, directing Moscow to launch aggressive proxy or kinetic attacks against vulnerable NATO borders (such as the Baltic states or the Arctic). This coordinated strategy would intentionally overextend U.S. and European resources, forcing an Article 5 response in Europe while China solidifies its objectives in Asia.

3: If China attempts to seize Taiwan, it may preemptively strike U.S. forces to neutralize the immediate threat of intervention. A Chinese missile strike on U.S. bases in Guam or Hawaii—both of which are increasingly viewed by defense analysts as falling under the North Atlantic Treaty's geographic parameters—could force the U.S. to invoke Article 5, dragging the entire alliance into a major Pacific war.

There are many more. But 3 is enough.

But you are correct, with the death of the WP and USSR, NATO has been more advantageous to Europe than the U.S.

So many people forgetting the US invoked article 5 after 9/11 and NATO troops fought and died in Afghanistan because the US was attacked.
Not to mention how US bases in Europe including Ramstein help US foreign policy in the middle east.

Why should they not have?

We were attacked by a "foreign power". That was part of the agreement.

If you have home owners insurance and hail damages your roof, Do you not collect?

Does Europe consider it a favor they responded? That they honored a treaty?

But then, we have responded twice before, with much greater strength I might add, with No treaty forcing us at the time.

As far as using bases and aiding, I will site The Falklands.

I believe NATO as a peacetime alliance, has outlived its time.

A war happens then all things can be reconsidered. Depending on the situation and who is attacked and attacking, we can make an informed decision on how to and when to respond.

I don't like peacetime alliances. 1914/1939

Kitboy + 1

If the USA doesn't see Putin and his gang (and Russia in general) as a potential antagonist to the free world… we're in trouble.

The Chinese may present themselves as a strong opponent… but they haven't taken a single step militarily speaking so far… Russia has and will continue to do so until it sees that it runs a real risk of receiving a severe blow to its ambitions by crashing against a wall of democracies led by the USA.

Armand

I will say, we did not invoke it when:

"The 1993 World Trade Center Bombing – Eligible but UninvokedOn February 26, 1993, terrorists detonated a truck bomb below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people and injuring over one thousand.

Why it qualified: Like 9/11, this was an act of international terrorism carried out by a foreign-directed cell on North American soil.Why it wasn't used: In 1993, the attack was handled strictly as a federal law enforcement and domestic criminal investigation. At the time, NATO had not yet modernized its strategic concepts to view non-state actor terrorist networks as a collective "armed attack", a legal framework that was only established after 9/11."

I'll also say, I don't think the President should have invoked it for Afghanistan. I believe we should have handled that ourselves.

A few EU nations have refused as well. Most that qualified were minor and not worthy. But 2 should have been. One of which also involved Radical Fundamentalist Muslims.

Tango be absolutely honest.

After 5 years of the Ukraine. Do you really believe Russia has plans or even could steam roll over Europe?

I doubt they could steamroll Poland. Not conventionally.

But no matter. We DON'T need NATO to be existence for that. Russia rolls into Poland, countries can make their own decisions independently as to a proper response.

If Europe fears it, then have the forces built up and ready to go. Poland and others are doing that.

But you don't need a peacetime treaty for it.

Obama began the shift to the Pacific, it's true. And he chided Europe for not carrying their weight. NATO needs a tune up, with conditions that match today's global challenges. This takes persuasive global statesmanship and a group of leaders who can think at a higher level than mere transactional wealth and politics agendas. I don't know where such leaders could appear for now.

35th, I know you don't favor peacetime alliances. But I think there must be a way to build a global network with the right terms and conditions that address situations with some flexibility while leaving no doubt about the commitment.

History shows how some alliances have triggered world conflict. But do you not see a deterrent value to a healthy new NATO?

Article 5 covers armed attack in Europe or North America and article 6 imposes geographic limitations on the scope of NATO's mutual assistance obligation, primarily limiting it to the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

I doubt that China, a country very reliant on international trade, would be dumb enough to attack US forces in the Pacific. Even if they did and article 5 somehow applied, the treaty obligation is to provide mutual assistance. I don't see the US's NATO allies having the will or wherewithal to get physically involved in a shooting war in the South China Sea.

Citizen, you asked for examples, so I found them. They were not my examples, hence the quotes.

Yes I agree, I doubt much help from NATO members… even if Trump had never been.

Tort, I think everything you are asking for, could be easily accomplished by the European countries themselves. We really are not necessary… unless Russia decided to use nukes.

You can only let your kids live in the basement of your home for so long. 80 plus seems long enough to me.

Honestly though, China attacks, I don't have a lot of faith in many in the alliances in the pacific either. But a story for another day.

People also forgot that NATO has a number of economic benefits as well.

I think since Europe was suffering attacks from islamists, it was to their advantage to get involved in A'stan after 9/11.

Not to mention how US bases in Europe including Ramstein help US foreign policy in the middle east.

Not to mention how much revenue US Forces in Europe generate for the host nations. We see the consternation caused by the US leaving Germany with 4-5000 troops. That have been stationed there for decades …

I think the US having troops in Europe is beneficial for all involved.

"Germany is pledging to become a more powerful military force inside NATO, with Berlin's ambassador to Washington telling Fox News Digital that the country is ready to assume greater responsibility for European security after decades in which the United States carried much of the alliance's military burden.

"Germany is stepping up — we heard the call!" German Ambassador to the United States Jens Hanefeld told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said Germany's armed forces should become the strongest conventional army in Europe, a goal Hanefeld said is now backed by Berlin's new military strategy."

Well we know what happened in the 20th century. i.e. 1914-1918, 1939-1945. Is Germany on that course of action again? I don't think so. The situation on the ground is much different now than those of WWI and WWII …

Perhaps less focus on military alliance and more focus on economic alliance would have made more sense in the 21st Century. Expanding NATO did push all of Russia's paranoia buttons after the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, Putin emerging as strongman for life and Russia's security framework transforming into an organized crime syndicate that managed to take over the government undermined European and world security.

It was Obama who famously poo pooed Russian threats to world security as ‘the 50s called and they want their foreign policy back.' American 4-8 year short sidedness when it comes to global policy is nothing new. American voters voting vibe over reality started back in 1992 when we elected the good old party boy from Arkansas. It has been a string of unserious folks ever since. I long for a boring adult (who isn't obviously suffering age related issues) in the room again. Much to my chagrin, I don't think the run of populism in the US is over, though. The spate of very non serious but self congratulatory contenders lining up for 28 does not give a lot of hope.

Watching a lot of European you tubers shows me that there is a lot of uncertainty and worry well beyond what the US is up to there as well. Both Europe and the US are under a lot economic and social pressure that isn't all tied to how we get along with one another. I don't think giving up our long standing friendship with one another while sorting out these issues is a wise decision. We need each other as close friends at least, even if the need for a blood pact with one another may have outlived its usefulness.