Donald Trump is offering Vladimir Putin a huge strategic gift by weakening NATO in the midst of the conflict in Ukraine. Annoyed by the allies’ refusal to commit militarily alongside him in the intervention against Iran, the American president has decided to reduce the Alliance to a sort of “paper tiger.” Troop and armament withdrawals, reduction of U.S. forces available in case of serious crisis or attack, doubts about nuclear protection: all these decisions are presented as punishments.
The disintegration of NATO is underway and Europeans are becoming anxious. Will they be able to unite and show the Americans that they can survive without them and integrate Ukraine into the defense of the old continent?
In the coming days, the American administration will inform allies of the decision to reduce the military capabilities provided by the United States to help European NATO members in case of serious crisis. The news leaked yesterday, shortly before the presentation of the Helsingborg meeting by Mark Rutte, NATO’s Secretary General. This information was obtained in Washington by the Reuters agency.
The decision was expected. The United States must provide a precise picture of the forces it intends to make available to NATO and the mobilizable reserves. The question is how substantial the American “cavalry” that could come to the aid of Europeans in case of attack is. The fear is a drastic reduction of these reinforcements. Sources consulted by Reuters specified that the Pentagon intends to “significantly reduce its commitment” in the NATO Force Model.
The NATO Force Model is the mechanism by which each Alliance member designates national forces available to the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in peacetime, crisis, and war. It is an essential component of conventional deterrence. Tomorrow in Brussels, defense chiefs will declare how many forces each allied country is ready to commit in case of aggression. The NATO Force Model is based on a three-level readiness system: the first level includes forces that can intervene within 0 to 10 days; the second level includes those that can be deployed within up to 30 days; the third level represents troops to be mobilized within six months. The latter would be called to intervene not only in case of an attack against a NATO member but also to try to liberate the country. Rutte assured that the reduction of the American presence will have “no impact on NATO defense plans.”
Donald Trump cannot reduce the American presence in Europe at will. The United States Congress has set a cap of 76,000 American troops deployed in Europe within NATO. Currently, the United States has 80,000 troops stationed in Europe, of which 36,000 are in Germany. Trump will withdraw units, not replace them, reduce rotations, but his room for maneuver remains limited. The American president can instead act on the reserve of U.S. forces available outside Europe, mobilizable in case of crisis or conflict. It is a strategic choice, and Europeans understand it. But this decision can call NATO defense plans into question, as they rely on forces and reinforcements ready to intervene, pre-assigned and deployed. A significant reduction could compromise the Alliance’s ability to react very quickly in case of crisis.
Europeans are preparing for the worst after two bad surprises: the confirmation of the withdrawal of 5,000 American troops from Germany announced by Donald Trump after criticism from Chancellor Friedrich Merz for his lack of strategy on Iran, and the surprise cancellation of the rotation of about 4,000 American troops to Poland.
On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced the decision to reduce the number of American combat brigades in Europe from four to three. “This brings us back to the levels of BCTs (Brigade Combat Teams) in Europe in 2021. This decision is the result of a comprehensive, multi-level process focused on the posture of U.S. forces in Europe. This entails a temporary delay in the deployment of American forces in Poland, which is a model ally of the United States,” the Department of Defense specified.
Mark Rutte justified the American decision. “Europe, together with the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Norway, represents over 500 million people. We face a Russian adversary counting about 120-140 million people. We are now too dependent on a single ally, the United States, which counts about 350 million people, to ensure we can defend ourselves against Russia. This is not sustainable in the long term. And this ally cannot continue to explain this to its own public,” Rutte said.
The stronger the reduction of American support, the greater the pressure to push Europeans to demonstrate they can mobilize sufficient capabilities to act without the United States. It will not be easy. Europe is slowly building its own capabilities, while the United States can rapidly reduce its commitment. Washington has already revised its deployment plans for some long-range systems in Europe, including Tomahawk missiles and hypersonic weapons, has reduced strike capabilities, and, above all, is questioning the American response in case of crisis.
“The Kremlin does not necessarily need NATO to collapse. It is enough that doubts arise among allies about the effectiveness and reliability of the Alliance,” observes former Ukrainian Deputy Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko in an analysis of American decisions.
The way the Americans proceed bewilders Europeans. Donald Trump does not hide his disdain for NATO, compared to a “paper tiger” without the United States. The president multiplies “punitive orders,” threatens and insults European allies, calling them “cowards.” His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has questioned the transatlantic bond and has called for a review by the United States of the relationship with the Alliance. The Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, no longer participates in NATO meetings and halts arms supplies.
(Excerpt from the European Mattinale)
