With the world’s attention focused on wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, a major geopolitical development in Europe has gone largely unnoticed: US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull 5,000 troops out of Germany after it refused to support US and Israeli attacks on Iran. While the move represents less than 10 percent of the roughly 80,000 to 90,000 US military personnel stationed in Europe, it amounts to a shot across the continent’s bow.
Is this gesture largely symbolic, or would the withdrawal harm NATO and weaken Europe’s security? Is there more to come if the Europeans continue to defy Trump? And what are the longer-term strategic implications — not just in Europe, but in Asia too?
Pressure to reduce the US military footprint in Europe is not entirely new. During my four years as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, I often dealt with such concerns. This was at the height of the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2009 to 2013, when we needed more combat power in those countries. It was also before Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and during the days of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia.” As a result, we looked hard at reductions in Europe.
WARSHIPS IN ROTA
What makes this moment different is the tone and rhetoric associated with the withdrawal. Trump is clearly frustrated with Europe, especially German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said the US was being “humiliated” by Iran. In addition to Germany, the UK, Spain and Italy have drawn Trump’s ire for not providing full access to US operations at their bases. It is certainly possible — even likely — that this could be the start of a broader shift.
The US could continue the drawdown trend by reducing the number of warships in Rota, Spain, which is the home port of six US Navy guided missile destroyers. (Rota is the most requested destination in the Navy by sailors indicating their duty preferences, by the way.) Another target could be the Army forces in Italy, including the 173rd Airborne Brigade, one of the rapid reaction forces for the US and NATO. The US could choose to pull Air Force squadrons out of the United Kingdom as well.
If the administration continues to cut forces in Europe, it would have two effects. One would be to supercharge the European defense “awakening” that has been in progress since Putin invaded Ukraine. If the US continues to pull out of Europe, the Europeans would respond by raising their defense spending, bringing more troops onto active duty and shouldering a greater share of the defense burden. This is not a bad thing overall, of course.
The other effect, however, would be to weaken US influence over NATO and its EU partners. Would those countries be as likely to accompany the US to Asia, for example, and challenge China’s claims of sovereignty over the massive South China Sea? Probably not. They would also be even less enthusiastic about participating in further US military operations in the Middle East — for example, helping to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Another potential effect of the troop withdrawals — especially if the administration goes on to cut forces in Italy, the UK and Spain — would be to discourage other nations from wanting to host the US. Being a host nation is not cheap: Japan covers up to 75 percent of the costs of stationing US forces in the form of offsets to salaries, utilities and base construction, for example, while South Korea contributes close to 50 percent. European nations also contribute significantly.
IMPORTANT BENEFITS
They do this because having the US military living within their borders provides a deeper sense of security, and offers a boost to the local economy. However, if they see the US pull out without any warning or consultation, they would begin to reconsider those benefits.
For the US, stationing troops overseas has some financial costs — but pulling them back to the US could ultimately cost even more. The advantages for the US in overseas stations, meanwhile, are clear: US forces are forward-deployed near global hotspots; they deter attacks on US allies and ultimately the US itself; and they are constantly training and interacting with allies. Those are important benefits.
On balance, while there can be day-to-day frustrations within the US’ global network of allies, partners and friends, the benefits of overseas basing generally outweigh the downside. If we are going to reduce forces overall — a questionable decision given the turbulent geopolitics of the moment — let us do it in careful consultation with our friends. A sudden, unplanned and angry departure could create more problems than it solves.
James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired US Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO, and vice chairman at Carlyle. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
When I visited Taiwan last summer, I called on the nation to use its status as a technology superpower to build superweapons. It is obvious to me as I return a year later that Taiwan is now answering that call. By 2030, Taiwan envisions a domestic drone hub, capable of producing large quantities of drones per year. The nation continues to tighten cooperation across the private sector, scientific researchers and the elected government, on creating new and innovative production avenues for defense, while efforts to become central to the “democratic supply chain” are only increasing. Anduril is seeing all of these positive
Singaporean former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien- Loong(李顯龍) last month stood on Chinese soil and told Beijing that Singapore cooperates because of “shared interests”, not because of common “ethnic descent,” a significant statement that has upended China’s cognitive warfare tactics of “ethnic nationalism.” Along with using its military buildup and economic growth to expand its international dominance, China has long deployed ethnic politics to promote the idea that all ethnic Chinese around the world, regardless of citizenship, share a tight bond with the Chinese motherland, by which it means the regime of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Taiwan’s economic momentum, driven by demand for artificial intelligence (AI) products, remains strong, with booming demand for advanced semiconductors, servers and key components. In the first quarter, GDP expanded 14.55 percent year-on-year, the second consecutive quarter of double-digit percentage growth and accelerating from the 12.95 percent expansion in the previous quarter, the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) reported on Friday. Net exports remained the dominant driver of growth, contributing 10.33 percentage points to Taiwan’s GDP growth in the first quarter. That came as exports rose 35.76 percent year-on-year in the first quarter, outpacing 26.34 percent growth in imports, the
RSS