Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO
(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region.
Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice
One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing
JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads
NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports
Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe.
With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops.
The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region.
Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review.
Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter.
It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said.
Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region.
Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia.
'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.'
The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded.
The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back.
If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said.
A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies.
The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops.
But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill.
A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military.
'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.'
After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter.
'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.'
Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said.
Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops.
European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces.
'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.'
The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general.
A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage.
'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said.
--With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte.
(Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.)
Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags
Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028?
Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros
The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It
Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump?
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Error al recuperar los datos
Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Richard Hughes WILL finalise deal for £65m star - even if he doesn't know it yet
Richard Hughes WILL finalise deal for £65m star - even if he doesn't know it yet Liverpool were already a force of nature to be reckoned with in the transfer market before Richard Hughes became the club's sporting director, but now it seems the Reds have gone up a level. This summer's transfer business has been nothing short of remarkable so far, leaving the fans in awe of what they're seeing. By all accounts, the recruitment team still have plenty more up their sleeve. Advertisement Being the first club to trigger Jeremie Frimpong's release clause was a stroke of genius, signing Florian Wirtz for £100m plus £16m in ambitious add-ons and then getting £10m for Trent Alexander-Arnold to leave a month before his contract expired. These are just incredibly brilliant deals. And then we have the 'Here We Go' for Jarrel Quansah to join Leverkusen for £35m (including add-ons), which makes him the German club's record transfer. Embedding a buy-back clause into the deal made it a no-brainer. If he fails, we have £30m; if he excels, we have priority to sign him again. Now, the Reds might be on the brink of yet another piece of shrewd transfer market business. © IMAGO Guehi to Liverpool is just a matter of time Liverpool are reportedly interested in Marc Guehi - the Crystal Palace captain, who is a centre-back with vast experience. Despite having an extensive reputation, the Englishman is just 24 years old and he would help the Reds fill the homegrown hole left in the squad after Quansah's departure. Advertisement However, the player is in demand. Last season, Newcastle made a £65m bid for him which was declined and Tottenham also made an approach of £55m plus £15m in add-ons, which was also dismissed. Palace are unlikely to be helping Guehi pack his bags to move to Merseyside. But the situation this year is very different to last. He now has just one year left on his deal and contract talks are uncooperative. It is will understood that he will leave, either this year or next. As such, Liverpool are in a position to be a little bit cheeky with their approach. Claims of £30m might well be short of the mark, but £50m including add-ons might well suffice. After all, he's an extremely talented player who could replace Virgil Van Dijk in the long-term after 2027. One thing for sure is that Liverpool will get him if they want him. That much shouldn't be in doubt.


CBS News
16 minutes ago
- CBS News
Rubio says U.S. is ready to meet with Iran after strikes, warns closing Strait of Hormuz would be "suicidal"
Rubio says U.S. is ready to meet with Iran after strikes, calls closing Strait of Hormuz "suicidal" Washington — The U.S. is ready to meet with Iran following the U.S. bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday, while warning Iran that closing the crucial Strait of Hormuz would be a "suicidal" move for the regime. Rubio, appearing on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," urged Iran to pursue diplomacy after the U.S. carried out what the Pentagon called the largest B-2 operation in U.S. history in an effort to cripple Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. Rubio said the U.S. has no current plans for further attacks on Iran unless "they mess around." Rubio said the U.S. mission "was not an attack on Iran, it was not an attack on the Iranian people. This wasn't a regime change move. This was designed to degrade and or destroy three nuclear sites." "What happens next will now depend on what Iran chooses to do next," Rubio said. "If they choose the path of diplomacy, we're ready. We can do a deal that's good for them, the Iranian people, and good for the world. If they choose another route, then there will be consequences for that." President Trump continues to prefer the path of diplomacy, Rubio said, noting that the U.S. pushed Iran to make a deal to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions before the strikes. "We're prepared, right now, if they call right now and say, 'We want to meet, let's talk about this,' we're prepared to do that," Rubio said. The question of how Iran will respond has raised fears that the regime could seek to block ships from traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical choke point between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman that is used to transport about 20% of oil used around the world. Rubio declined to say whether the U.S. would take military action if Iran closes the strait, or whether the U.S. would consider attacks on oil facilities by Iran's proxy militias as direct acts by the regime: "I'm not going to take options away from the president, that's not something we're talking about right now in terms of being immediate." Rubio said closing the strait would affect the U.S., but it would have "a lot more impact on the rest of the world," particularly on China. "That would be a suicidal move on [Iran's] part, because I think the whole world would come against them if they did that," Rubio said. Retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, the former head of U.S. Central Command and a CBS News contributor, said the U.S. would be able to clear the strait if Iran lined it with underwater mines. "The Iranians do have the capability to mine the Strait of Hormuz. We have very good plans to clear that if we had to do it. We work on those plans all the time," McKenzie told Brennan later in the show. "It would be a blow to world commerce, for a period of time, but at the end, the strait would be cleared, and I'm pretty confident the Iranian navy would all be sunk at the end of that operation." The U.S. operation on Saturday, which the Trump administration named "Operation Midnight Hammer," bombed three nuclear sites in Iran, causing what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said was "extremely severe damage and destruction." The Pentagon acknowledged that capturing a complete assessment of the operation's effectiveness will take time. Brennan pressed Rubio on what specific intelligence pushed the president to make the decision to strike Iran. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress that Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, testimony Mr. Trump declared "wrong." Rubio said Iran, ahead of the strikes, had "everything they need to build nuclear weapons," and pointed to assessments by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. "Here's what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence," Rubio told Brennan. "What the IAEA knows, they are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a civil nuclear program. So why would you enrich uranium at 60% if you don't intend to use it to one day take it to 90 and build a weapon? Why are you developing ICBMs?" Brennan asked Rubio whether the U.S. will defend other nations in the Middle East if Iran launches attacks on their soil in response. Rubio said that's why U.S. bases — and about 40,000 U.S. troops — are positioned across the Middle East. "Well, that's exactly why they're there," he said, adding, "All those bases are there because they're afraid that Iran will attack them." Rubio insisted that the U.S. will defend Americans, including U.S. soldiers on military bases, from Iran and its proxies. "They'll attack us, is what they're threatening to do," he said. "So we'll defend our people, obviously. We'll defend our people. Well, they'll attack our bases. And those are our bases, and we're going to defend our personnel, and we're prepared to do that." Rubio said he didn't want to forecast what the U.S. might do if Iran retaliates. "There are no planned military operations right now against Iran unless they mess around and they attack Americans or American interests, then they're going to have a problem," he said. "Then they're going to have a problem, and I'm not going to broadcast what those problems are."


CBS News
17 minutes ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 22, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 22, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to "Face the Nation." Democrat Ro Khanna joins us from San Francisco, and here, in studio, is Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie. Good morning to both of you, gentlemen. I'll start with you, Congressman Massie, you know, I know this is an unlikely pairing. You are on completely different ends of the political spectrum, but you both worked on this war powers resolution to prohibit US forces from engaging in hostilities against Iran without authorization from Congress. President just blew right past that. CONGRESSMAN THOMAS MASSIE: Well, you know, I think I represent part of the coalition that elected President Trump. We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East, and tired of wars in East- Eastern Europe. And we were promised that we would put our veterans, our immigration policies, and our infrastructure first. And so what Ro and I did, we did this last week, when, you know, they were rattling the sabers. Because we saw this coming, we put forward this War Powers Resolution. I've teamed up with Ro Khanna before on this, to his credit, when Joe Biden was President; we tried to rein in the executive and reassert Congress's authority, sole authority, to declare war and to- and to engage or authorize the engagement of acts of war. MARGARET BRENNAN: Something we talked to other lawmakers about, as well, in the Senate, I know there's efforts to support you. But, the Speaker of the House, who is from your own party, has, really, rejected this. He says the Article I power of Congress, really, allows for the President to do this. It was a limited, necessary, targeted strike, he says. REP. MASSIE: Well, he's probably referring to the War Powers Act of 1973, but that's been misinterpreted. There were no imminent threat to the United States, which was what would authorize that. And I think that's peculiar to hear that from the Speaker of the House. Look, Congress was on vacation last week when all this was happening, MARGARET BRENNAN: You haven't been briefed. REP. MASSIE: We haven't been briefed. They should have called us all back. And, frankly, we should have debated this war powers resolution that Ro Khanna and I offered, instead of staying on vacation and doing fundraisers, and saying, oh, well, the President's got this under control, we're going to cede our constitutional authority. MARGARET BRENNAN: Ro Khanna- Congressman Khanna, and we didn't hear from the Secretary the explanation as to why now. We haven't heard that from anyone, other than a reference to the President had a, roughly, 60-day timeline on diplomatic talks, but we also know we had more talks scheduled when Israel launched this attack. So, it's just it's not exactly clear the emergency. You will be briefed along with other members of Congress Tuesday. What are the questions you have? CONGRESSMAN RO KHANNA: First of all, the tragedy in this country is that we keep entering these overseas wars. We triumphantly declare the mission is accomplished the day after, and then we're left with Americans bearing the consequences for decades. Now, Thomas is absolutely right, and showing courage. I mean, the headlines all across this country says the United States enters war with Iran. He is, actually, representing a lot of the people in the MAGA base. People like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Theo Von, who has had them on, who's saying, we don't want this war. And I heard your interview with Secretary Rubio, he's saying, well, we want a peace deal. We want to make sure that Iran can enrich uranium through civil purposes. Well, we had that. We had that at the JCPOA, and there was not a single violation that the IEAE found during that time. So, my question, I guess, is, now you're going to force Iran to go covertly in developing this nuclear material. Now you put American troops at risk. Now you're wasting billions of our dollars because we're sending more troops to the Middle East. What did you accomplish? And why are you oblivious to the American people who are sick of these wars? MARGARET BRENNAN: But, Congressman, are you open to the idea that there could be intelligence that is disclosed to you in this classified setting on Tuesday that could justify this? Or, is any military action, in your view, you know, war? REP. RO KHANNA: Well, I'm always open to new intelligence. But, the procedure should have been that Congress was briefed before we decided to enter war, and that we actually had a vote on it. You had Tulsi Gabbard, who, just months ago, the Director of Intelligence, saying that was not the case. The reality is, and we should just speak openly, there are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail. We need to pass Thomas Massie and my War Powers Resolution to make it clear that we're not going to get further entrenched into the Middle East. MARGARET BRENNAN: And Congressman Massie, it's interesting because you were. Talking about a part of the party you represent. The Secretary of State comes from a different part of that same party, as you know. And I did hone in on the question about intelligence, and what it showed. He called it an ambition to weaponize. Weaponization ambition. That's different than they're making a nuclear weapon. REP. MASSIE: Yeah. MARGARET BRENNAN: But are you open to intelligence and persuasion here? REP. MASSIE: I'm open as well. But look, in the first Iraq war, the second Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan, Congress first got the briefings. Congress met and debated. It should have been declarations of war, but at least they did an authorization of use of military force. We haven't had that. This has been turned upside down- this process. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you heard from Mitch McConnell, the former Republican leader, the senator, say it was a bad week for the isolationists. He was talking about Tucker Carlson and he was talking about Steve Bannon. Do you think that the President is making a choice here, or is he trying to have it both ways, both saying I'm going to please the Hawks of the party by bombing, but then I'm going to say I want a peace deal and make the isolationists happy by saying, you know, I'm not committing to anything more than one and done? REP. MASSIE: Well, I'll concede this. It was a good week for the neocons and the military-industrial complex, who want war all the time. I wouldn't call my side of the MAGA base, isolationists. We are- we are exhausted. We are tired from all of these wars, and we're non-interventionists. I mean, this is what- this was one of the promises. I mean, are you going to call President Trump's campaign an isolationist campaign? What he promised us was we would put America first. And I think there are still voices in this administration. You've still got JD Vance, you've still got Tulsi Gabbard, you still- RFK Jr, you still got calmer heads that could prevail. MARGARET BRENNAN: They were not persuasive in this case, clearly. REP. MASSIE: Well, somebody was persuasive. AIPAC is very persuasive, for instance. The Israeli lobby in Congress. If you- if you look at my colleagues feeds now this- they all look the same. They're all tweeting the same message that we've got to support Israel and we've got to do this. My question is, does- you know, three bombings and we're done with- with Iran's nuclear ambitions, is that the two weeks to slow the spread of 2025? Is this- you know, we were told two weeks to slow the spread then, now we're told it's just going to take three bombings. But what happens when Israel gets bombed again? Is Trump going to sit by and say, no, we're not going to further engage in this war? MARGARET BRENNAN: I tried to get answers from the Secretary on that question. But when you say the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, do you see a difference between Israel's interests and American interests? REP. MASSIE: Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, look- the- Iran, the reality is, they don't have a missile that can reach the United States. They're not near to getting a missile that can reach the United States. I think this- what has happened, what has transpired this week has been planned for months. That- that you know this administration, and maybe even the administration prior to that, said, you go in and soften them up, take out their air defense capabilities, and then we'll send in the big bombers. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, Congressman Khanna, I know you have raised objections on this program in the past about Israel's operations in Gaza, for how it has conducted that war against Hamas. That was a different context, but now you very well may be asked to provide more weaponry to Israel to defend itself. Do you oppose that as well? REP. RO KHANNA: Well, first, let me just say that it's a totally unfair smear to call people isolationists, the vast majority of Americans who don't want more war and want diplomacy. Diplomacy and engagement is not isolationism. But look on Israel, I have supported aid and support defensively. And even the War Powers resolution says that if Iran is striking Israel, they- you- we can provide defense so that Israel isn't hit. What I opposed was giving Israel offensive weapons to go kill more people in Gaza. I think that war needs to end. But I think the bottom line, Margaret, is, what have we achieved here? We have- we're going to push Iran to now be like Pakistan or North Korea going and try to develop a nuclear bomb covertly. We have put more American troops at risk. We're going to spend more resources put- going and getting more entrenched in the Middle East, and we've created a generation of hate. It's like, can this country learn? We keep voting for people for president who say we're not going to get into war, and then they keep getting pushed by the Washington beltway to get us into this mess. MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman Khanna, Congressman Massie, thank you. In a rare bipartisan meeting of the minds, at least on this issue, we'll be right back.