"Don’t Decimate U.S. Military Posture in Europe" Topic

"As NATO leaders gather in Ankara next week, there is much to celebrate. Ukraine is gaining the upper hand on the battlefield against Russia. European defense spending is way up. Many European allies are stepping forward to carry more of the security burden on the continent. These are major, positive developments.

Despite this good news, transatlantic ties have been strained in the past year. That could explain the calls for unity in pre-summit statements from many leaders, reflecting in part the need for more of it. Indeed, many European allies are understandably upset about the policy President Donald Trump pursued regarding Greenland and nervous that America may dangerously reduce its commitment to the alliance and its defense.

Understanding the stakes, one decision that policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic will be watching is where Washington will come down on U.S. troop posture in Europe. The Trump administration has already taken troubling steps, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced on June 18 a "review" of America's military force posture in Europe, which could lead to further reductions of American combat power on the continent.

Excessive or premature American military withdrawals from the continent will send a dangerous message to Putin regarding America's political will and reduce the American combat power necessary to deter costly additional Russian aggression…"

link

Armand

Agree!

Thanks!

Armand

There is more urgency and threat in the Pacific than any Russian invasion of eastern NATO. According to their own article Ukraine is winning yet Russia is ready to roll west? The europeans are just cranking up their defenses to the point everyone celebrates but the US not staffed at desired levels brings about Russian and Chinese plans to takeover? Please pick one narrative.

I have to admit that I do not have a clear picture how many combat troops the US Army actually has in Europe. Most personal in Europe seems to be logistics or reconnaissance. As it is doubtfull how the US government reacts to an article five situation in Europe, the other NATO troops can't depend on any US troops anyway. It is obvious that non-US NATO members have to fill in for the part the US played before the strategic Schwerpunkt of the US shifted.
@Striker: Russia does not roll that much at all at the moment, except for panje wagon.

Think are fluid right now. The present administration has taken a dislike to NATO. It will be around for another 2-3 years. Then a new administration will take over and things will change. My guess, unless it is Vance, the change will be back to supporting NATO. Really this comes down to one man's view. This is not the overall view of most Americans. So, Europe, just ride it out, don't give up on the US and remember "This to shall pass."

@Grattan54: I think that was the plan for 45. It would be amateurish not to consider the possibility of a long time rupture.

You could also as righfully say, "So, US, just ride it out, don't give up on the Europe and remember "This too shall pass."

One hopes they can arrest their nihilistic slide into dysfunctional authoritarianism… but when I shake the Magic 8-Ball, I only get "outlook uncertain, try again."

@SB:
the current Potus governs by bypassing checks and balances, even though everywhere republicans are in the majority. Your king is best buddies with Putin, Xi, Kim Jon Ung and every other dictator. So better look at your side of the pond.

the current Potus governs by bypassing checks and balances, even though everywhere republicans are in the majority.

Like what? Give me an example of a court order ignored (like Biden did), a law not followed? When he asked for permission to use US bases in the UK, Spain and Italy and they insulted him and said no -- did he use them anyway?? When Austria denied US overflight rights -- did we fly over Austria anyway? Or did we complain but comply even though it put US pilots at greater risk?

Your king is best buddies with Putin, Xi, Kim Jon Ung and every other dictator. So better look at your side of the pond.

LOL, sure buddy! I know you won't care, but with these leaders he's pursued hard-nosed deals, imposed costs, and often clashed with them, unlike predecessors who sometimes offered concessions without leverage.

Xi and Putin's buddy Maduro was grabbed from his Fuhrer Bunker in a stunning US raid and now sits in a US jail.

Xi and Putin's buddy Ayatollah Khamenei swallowed a 2000lb bomb and was atomized into Paradise along with his top leadership.

Putin/Russia: Trump authorized lethal Javelin anti-tank weapons to Ukraine (blocked under Obama), ramped up sanctions (including CAATSA and Nord Stream 2 measures), and expelled Russian diplomats. His administration imposed further sanctions in his current term over Ukraine. Rhetoric was sometimes complimentary, but policy was competitive and even punitive, and despite his criticism and desire to end the bloodiest war in Europe since WW2 (which most Europeans don't seem to want to end), he has continued support to Ukraine and is now transferring Patriot batteries to Ukraine. And while the US is critical of NATO (as it should be) and is drawing down some units to focus on China, the US is positiong 5000 troops in Poland -- the actual frontline with Russia.

Oh, and y'all are angry and tired about being berated by Trump to meet your NATO obligations which BLOCKS Putin's ambitions! Why would Trump urge you to spend more on your own defense if he wanted Putin to suceed?? Come on, give me your logic on that.

Xi/China: Trump launched a major trade war with tariffs on hundreds of billions in goods, restricted tech exports, and confronted China on IP theft, forced labor, and fentanyl. He repeatedly called out Beijing's unfair practices. Trump has also challenged China GLOBALLY and pushed on all of its proxies and allies in Africa, LATAM and the Indo-Pacific, cementing new alliances and defense agreements AND removing Chinese influence (like Maduro, also removing 12% of China's oil supply)

Kim Jong-un/North Korea: Trump held direct summits (unprecedented) and secured a testing moratorium, hostage releases, and remains recovery—stopping the "fire and fury" trajectory of prior years. No new nuclear tests occurred during key periods of engagement, though full denuclearization stalled. Dang, Cheeky Trump did the summit, painted a vision of the future and Kim was on his way to DC when Xi called him to Beijing for a week and berated the sh1t out of him…he slunk back to Pyongyanh and issued a statement against the Yankee Running Dogs…

Trump's approach is always transactional deal-making (flattery + pressure), not alliance-building. He criticizes "nation-building" and endless wars but uses economic/military tools against adversaries—contrasting with Obama-era "reset" with Russia or lighter pressure on China. Claims of universal "buddy" status ignore these documented confrontations and policy records in favor of emotionalism.

SB +1

He also announced that the Ukraine can now manufacture Patriots.

He even got Spain to pay. 😂

"Spain agreed to a major payment request at this week's NATO summit in Ankara after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened the country with a complete trade embargo."

@35thOVI – I know, right? You can't tell ME what to do, Dad!! Screw you! Can I have the car keys??

As Arthur Conan Doyle wrote in his 1895 thriller "The Tragedy of the Korosko"

"Well now," said Headingly, in his slow, thoughtful fashion, "suppose I grant you that the Dervishes could overrun Egypt, and suppose also that you English are holding them out, what I'm never done asking is, what reason have you for spending all these millions of dollars and the lives of so many of your men? What do you get out of it, more than France gets, or Germany, or any other country, that runs no risk and never lays out a cent?"

"There are a good many Englishmen who are asking themselves that question," remarked Cecil Brown. "It's my opinion that we have been the policemen of the world long enough. We policed the seas for pirates and slavers. Now we police the land for Dervishes and brigands and every sort of danger to civilisation. There is never a mad priest or a witch doctor, or a firebrand of any sort on this planet, who does not report his appearance by sniping the nearest British officer. One tires of it at last. If a Kurd breaks loose in Asia Minor, the world wants to know why Great Britain does not keep him in order. If there is a military mutiny in Egypt, or a Jehad in the Soudan, it is still Great Britain who has to set it right. And all to an accompaniment of curses such as the policeman gets when he seizes a ruffian among his pals. We get hard knocks and no thanks, and why should we do it? Let Europe do its own dirty work."

link

A US trade embargo against Spain does not make sense, as you cannot embargo a single EU member. Spain will spend 2,1 % GDP on its military.

Trump did not want Javelins to go to Ukraine, that was due to the republicans in congress. He stopped supporting Ukraine as 47.
The whole 5% agenda of Trump aims at money that was supposed to be spend buying US weapon systems. As the US is not considered reliable (not even honouring weapon contracts), the money will be spend outside of the US.

Dog

AP:

"Germany agrees deal to buy long-range US Tomahawk missiles, Merz says"

😱

Another from a man who dislikes Trump.

Subject: Rapid Response 47 on X: "Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on NATO defense spending: "It's not just [President Trump] is winning the argument — he has won the argument." t.co/lYHLFTYTmY / X


link

It is quite obvious that the US society is obsessed with winning, no matter what the costs. So if Mark Carney is telling Trump exactly what PotUS wants to hear, you better look again. Do you remember Carneys speech in Davos? The other NATO members do what they need to do in their interest and make Trump feel respected and loved. "There was tremendous love in the room" GT$OH. Germany needs those Tomahawks because it takes time to develop and produce our own. Those men are politicians, not narcissistic real estate dealer.

Dog, I don't make up the stories they are not just my opinions.

Bottom line, after you said the EU would buy elsewhere, just one day ago.

Your government is buying "our weapons", from "Donald Trump".
As are many other EU nations.

That sure smells like a win to me.

Are others buying elsewhere, sure, even Canada. "c'est la vie"

Yeah, short term compromises are needed, but in the long run:
hasta la vista!

Doubtful

But let's say it's true, wouldn't it be for the U.S. like finally divesting oneself of a 80 year old child who has been living in one's basement and not paying rent the whole time? 🤔😏

The US was instrumental in designing NATO to prevent European nations adopting independent, competitive military policies. Indeed the SACEUR has been an American to ensure military operations can not proceed without US oversight.
Basing rights have also allowed US power projection in Europe, Africa, Middle East and Asia.
So there is an argument to be made that European nations dependance on the US in NATO was a design feature not a bug. A design feature that the US has benefited from financially and militarily.

Now things have changed. The US wants NATO countries to take charge of their own defense and not be dependent of the US. Indeed the US has made clear it may not honor Article 5 obligations. The main regional threat is Russia and the European nations are currently capable of handling this threat alone. While no one wants Ukraine to escalate, Russia doesn't have the military power to win a conventional war against Ukraine if NATO became fully involved.
With increased military expenditure of the European NATO members (which they can thank the US posture for), the balance certainly will not be swinging in favor of Russia any time soon.

So if the US does not want to be part of NATO, then it should develop a plan to leave NATO. Rather than just keep complaining and threatening to leave, actually leave. The kind of outside sniping that we are seeing from the US is not helpful to anyone. For example Article 5 only works if there is no doubt that all members will honor it.
There is no value to trying to burn the house down from the inside before leaving. The best way to leave would be to develop a five or ten year plan to leave and then implement it. That would allow the European members to fill in the gaps in a controlled way.

To summarize, NATO can survive and even flourish in the new global environment without US support. This transition phase should be professionally managed by both sides.
Then I believe that NATO should predominantly concentrate on European and North Atlantic regional defense. Potential Asia Pacific conflicts between China and the US should be kept at arms length.

Actually if I were the Central Europeans, I'd form my own alliance and forget about NATO with or without the U.S.

They would be independent of all interference and they are the most threatened.

Actually, that is not a bad idea 35th. However, I do think there are excellent trade advantages to being in NATO. It is not just military.

In response to comments on how Europe should organize once the US withdraws from NATO, I have two possible ways of responding:

1) What does the US care – they are leaving?

2) Mind your own business – you have chosen to leave.

Let's go with the first – potentially a less confrontational response.

Actually M I could say the same for all the comments on our internal affairs from non U.S. here on TMP. Yet they still believe it's their prerogative to do so.

Yet when we respond in kind, they complain to the TMP bosses.

But again, the CE would be Better off with their own alliance for defense. What they do is not the business of Western Europe. Of course if they pull out of NATO first.

I discount the EU in defense alliances.

Since we are still in NATO. I can still make my recommendations.