Pentagon Launches Major Review of US Military Posture in Europe, Signalling Potential Generational Shift
The Pentagon initiated a comprehensive six-month review of the United States’ military presence in Europe on 28 July, a move that analysts suggest could represent the most significant reassessment of American force posture on the continent in a generation. This review is poised to redefine the division of defense responsibilities between the United States and its European allies.
John Foreman CBE, a distinguished former UK Defence Attaché with postings in Kyiv (2008-2011) and Moscow (2019-2022), articulated the potential impact of this review in an analysis for the Council on Geostrategy’s Strategic Defence Unit. Foreman emphasizes that the true significance of this undertaking extends beyond mere troop numbers, focusing instead on the delineation of military functions and capabilities between the United States and its European partners.
According to Foreman, Washington is grappling with a complex strategic dilemma: how to effectively maintain a credible deterrent against potential Russian aggression while simultaneously reallocating essential military resources to counter emerging Chinese military dominance in the Indo-Pacific region. This rebalancing act must, crucially, avoid undermining the political cohesion and operational effectiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which remains the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security.
The United States’ preferred long-term outcome for this strategic shift has been termed “NATO 3.0.” Under this envisioned framework, European allies would assume primary responsibility for their conventional defense capabilities. Concurrently, the United States would concentrate its military efforts on providing strategic enablers, such as advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), command and control systems, and strategic mobility assets. This would liberate American conventional forces for deployment in other critical theaters, predominantly the Indo-Pacific, while the US would continue to provide its extended nuclear deterrence umbrella over Europe. This strategic pivot, Foreman notes, is underpinned by Washington’s assessment that European allies collectively possess a substantial conventional military advantage over Russia, particularly when considering the broader capabilities of the alliance.
General Alexus Grynkewich, commander of US European Command (EUCOM), has already signaled to allies that force reductions are a distinct possibility. Foreman’s analysis highlights that EUCOM currently comprises more than 80,000 military and civilian personnel. Of these, approximately 65,000 are permanently based in Europe, with a significant concentration in Germany. This figure represents a notable decrease from the peak of roughly 100,000 personnel deployed immediately following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and a stark reduction from the hundreds of thousands present during the Cold War era.
In his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Grynkewich outlined three priority missions for US forces in Europe. These include securing the strategic approaches to the continental United States, with a particular focus on the Atlantic and Arctic regions; projecting combat power both within and beyond the European theater; and positioning NATO to effectively defend against and deter external aggression. Foreman contends that the inherent overlap and complexity of these responsibilities underscore why the ongoing review must transcend “simplistic arguments about troop numbers.” Instead, he argues, the review must critically determine which missions European allies are capable of assuming and performing effectively, and which continue to necessitate unique, indispensable American capabilities.
To illustrate this point, Foreman references recent operations against the Russian shadow fleet, monitoring of Iranian nuclear facilities, and counter-terrorism efforts targeting Daesh affiliates in Africa. All these operations, he notes, have relied heavily on American military bases situated in Europe and have benefited from close intelligence and operational cooperation with European allies. This demonstrates the enduring importance of a forward-deployed US presence in Europe for projecting power into adjacent regions. Consequently, the review must carefully consider which capabilities and infrastructure must remain in theatre to allow the United States to sustain its broader global power projection capabilities.
Adjustments to the US force posture in Europe were already underway even before the formal announcement of this latest review. For example, a rotational US Army Brigade Combat Team returned home at the end of 2025 without being replaced, indicating an earlier trend towards reducing conventional deployments. Furthermore, the Pentagon had initially cancelled a planned deployment of another brigade to Poland, although this decision was subsequently reversed by President Donald Trump. His administration also announced the withdrawal of 5,000 personnel from Germany, a move Foreman suggests was widely interpreted as a direct response to Berlin’s criticism of American operations against Iran. Concurrently, a previous commitment to periodically deploy long-range missiles, including ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, to Germany was also rescinded.
This pattern of shifting deployments, cancellations, and reversals, the analysis highlights, creates a significant “planning problem” for European allies. While European governments are “being encouraged to assume greater responsibility for their own defence,” their long-term strategic planning is “complicated if US deployments can be announced, cancelled, or reversed with little or no consultation.” This unpredictability can hinder Europe’s ability to develop coherent, self-sufficient defense strategies and invest in necessary capabilities.
Foreman anticipates that the most probable outcome of the review will be a leaner American military presence in Europe. This restructured force would likely be built around core American strengths: nuclear deterrence, strategic enablers (like advanced intelligence and logistics), robust command and control capabilities, strategic mobility, and specialized naval, air, and special operations forces. This approach would systematically reduce conventional capabilities that European allies could plausibly replace or develop within a decade, while preserving those uniquely American assets that remain critical for alliance defense and global power projection. However, Foreman cautions that the cuts could potentially go deeper. He notes that former President Trump, prior to the Ankara summit, had mused about reducing troop numbers in Europe by as much as a third. Such a reduction would return US force levels to those preceding Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, fundamentally altering the security landscape.
Adding another layer of complexity, Foreman observes that US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, speaking at the Ankara summit, explicitly stated that the review’s results were not predetermined. Yet, Hegseth simultaneously linked the review to what he characterized as European resistance to unrestricted American access to air stations during operations against Iran, suggesting a potential linkage between European cooperation and future US force levels.
In his concluding remarks, Foreman reiterates the central thesis of his analysis: “The central question for the review is not how many American troops remain in Europe, but which military functions the US should continue to perform itself and which Europeans must provide for themselves in the future.” This functional approach, rather than a purely numerical one, will ultimately define the future of the transatlantic security partnership.
You can read the full report here.
Why This Matters
The Pentagon’s ongoing review of its military posture in Europe carries profound implications for global security, the future of NATO, and the strategic calculus of both the United States and its allies. Its outcome will reverberate across multiple domains:
- For NATO Cohesion and Burden Sharing:This review is a critical test of NATO’s principle of collective defense and burden-sharing. A significant reduction in US conventional forces could compel European nations to rapidly increase their defense spending and develop capabilities they previously relied on the US to provide. While proponents argue this strengthens European sovereignty and military capacity, critics fear it could expose gaps in defense, especially during a transition period, and potentially strain alliance cohesion if implemented without sufficient consultation and support. The “NATO 3.0” concept aims for a more balanced partnership, but the path to achieving it is fraught with political and financial challenges for European capitals.
- For European Security and Defense:A leaner US presence would place greater responsibility on European nations for their own conventional defense against a resurgent Russia. This could accelerate efforts toward greater European strategic autonomy, potentially fostering deeper defense integration among EU members. However, it also raises concerns about capabilities gaps, especially in high-end areas like air defense, long-range precision strike, and strategic lift, which European nations have historically underinvested in. The capacity of Europe to quickly fill these potential gaps will be crucial for maintaining credible deterrence.
- For US Global Strategy and the Indo-Pacific Pivot:The review directly reflects the US strategic imperative to shift focus and resources towards the Indo-Pacific to counter China’s growing military influence. By potentially offloading conventional defense responsibilities in Europe, the US aims to free up assets and personnel for deployment in Asia. This rebalancing is central to Washington’s long-term great power competition strategy, but it requires a delicate equilibrium to ensure that gains in one theater do not create dangerous vulnerabilities in another.
- For Russia’s Strategic Calculus:Any perceived weakening of NATO’s conventional deterrent in Europe, or a lack of cohesion within the alliance, could embolden Russia. Moscow closely monitors Western defense postures and could interpret significant US withdrawals as an opportunity to further destabilize neighboring regions or exert greater influence. The effectiveness of remaining US strategic enablers and nuclear deterrence would therefore become even more paramount.
- For Transatlantic Relations and Diplomacy:The manner in which this review is conducted and its findings implemented will shape the future of US-European relations. Unilateral decisions or a lack of consultation could breed resentment and mistrust among allies, as seen with past withdrawals under previous administrations. Conversely, a collaborative and transparent process that empowers European defense could strengthen the transatlantic bond by fostering a more equitable and resilient partnership. The mention of European resistance to US access for operations against Iran highlights the complex interplay of political cooperation and military posture.
In essence, this review is not merely an administrative exercise; it is a strategic inflection point that will redefine the roles and responsibilities within the world’s most powerful military alliance, with profound consequences for international security for decades to come.