Braxton Taylor
A drawdown of U.S. forces in Eastern Europe would make it harder for NATO and the United States to respond to ever-increasing Russian aggression, Gen. Chris Cavoli, commander of U.S. European Command, or EUCOM, said Tuesday—just hours after NBC published a report suggesting U.S. defense officials are considering removing up to 10,000 troops from the region.
A move away from Europe’s Eastern flank would “increase the amount of time it took to respond [to a Russian attack.]” Cavoli told the House Armed Services Committee. “It depends, of course, on what forces were hypothetically to be removed. It depends on what kind of action was required to counter Russia. But clearly, moving things to the other side of the Atlantic increases the time-space challenge,”
When asked Tuesday about the NBC report, Katherine Thompson, who is performing the duties of assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, told the House Armed Services Committee that no decision has been made.
“We are taking into account not only the dynamics in [EUCOM] but in all of our theaters, and evaluating that based on President Trump’s stated interests,” as part of a global force posture review, she said.
Questions about U.S. military presence in Europe have been circulating for months. In February, Financial Times reported that some European officials were worried about a troop pullout. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at the time that the department had no immediate plans to move forces within or out of Europe. But later that same month, he told European leaders they shouldn’t anticipate U.S. forces remaining in Europe “forever.”
In March, officials told The Telegraph the White House was considering pulling troops out of Germany and deploying them eastward to Hungary—whose president, Viktor Orban, is more aligned with Putin than other European leaders.
Tuesday, Cavoli emphasized that European Command plays a central role in U.S. operations around the globe, and in defending the United States—not just European allies—from potential threats.
One threat he highlighted is that of Russian submarines slipping through the GIUK Gap—Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom—and into the open Atlantic. If they succeed, it becomes significantly harder to track them, and they could threaten the United States. Preventing that scenario “is the first line of defense” for U.S. and allied forces, he said.
America’s undersea surveillance capabilities remain unmatched, but the U.S. does not operate alone. Maritime patrol aircraft, anti-submarine helicopters, and destroyers from NATO allies all play critical roles in tracking and deterring Russian naval movements, with the U.S. providing the “exquisite capabilities” at the core of the effort, he said.
Cavoli also noted that European bases and agreements are vital not only for countering Russia, but also for wider global missions. Earlier this year, during Iran’s unprecedented missile and drone assault on Israel, much of the U.S. ballistic missile defense response was launched from ships in the eastern Mediterranean, under EUCOM command. EUCOM also supplied aerial refuelers and managed regional airspace, extending its reach into the U.S. Central Command and Africa Command areas of operation. That speed and flexibility stem from “our proximity and our familiarity with the area,” Cavoli said, reinforced by longstanding host-nation permissions.
One enthusiast of any plan for the U.S. to leave Europe is Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who reportedly made that demand to U.S. leaders in February. The request, made as part of a negotiation process to end the war in Ukraine, was reportedly rejected at the time.
The U.S. should also retain leadership of NATO, through the Supreme Allied-Commander Europe position, Cavoli told lawmakers. An American leader has held that position, known as SACEUR, for more than 75 years. But the future of the position is reportedly also under review.
Having an American officer in that seat allows the United States to control the U.S. nuclear weapons that play a role in Europe’s nuclear deterrent, he said. Were another country to take that position, it would complicate how the United States and NATO forces use those weapons, forcing the United States to either put nuclear forces under European military control or withdraw them entirely.
Moreover, U.S. leadership of NATO has financial benefits for the United States in terms of continued arms sales to European countries, he said, pointing to growing defense budgets across Europe—a trend long encouraged by President Donald Trump that is now gaining significant support.
European orders for U.S. military equipment have increased by 600% since 2022, he said.
“Right now there are 4,000 sales cases worth $265 billion that European nations are lined up to buy from the United States as arms manufacturers. As the allied commander, I encourage that. I want more capability and capacity as fast as we can get it,” he said.
Still, Cavoli may be underselling the negative impacts of a U.S. pullout. A February survey of European security experts, conducted by the European Union of Security Studies, found that a U.S. exodus would likely have massive, destabilizing effects—nearly the equivalent of Russia using a nuclear weapon.
Read the full article here