Reference News Network reported on April 18 that according to a report on the website of "Foreign Policy" magazine on April 14, the Trump administration began appointing political officials who will specifically plan the future of U.S. defense policy. Their agenda certainly includes one content, namely, an assessment of U.S. military deployments around the world, which the Pentagon calls "posture assessment". In this process, officials may carefully review the current status of U.S. military forces in Europe.

The policies of President Trump during his first term and his early remarks after returning to the White House indicate that the military posture assessment may lead to fundamental changes in U.S. military deployments in Europe. Since the end of World War II, the United States has played a leading role in conventional defense and deterrence in Europe for 80 years. However, the Trump administration has clearly stated that Europeans should bear the main responsibility for the defense of the European continent.

The report points out that there are several seemingly reasonable reasons for this policy shift. First, the U.S. Department of Defense is also not immune to various cost-cutting measures implemented by the federal government. Some U.S. officials have gradually realized that if the United States wants to focus on addressing threats in other regions, it simply cannot afford to maintain its commitment to Europe.

A second explanation is that the Trump administration hopes that reducing commitments to Europe can become part of a broader reset of U.S.-Russia relations. Recent interactions between senior officials from both countries indicate that the White House hopes to greatly improve relations with the Kremlin.

Finally, the Trump administration clearly views the EU as an opponent, while the NATO alliance leads to Europe's security dependence on the United States. As Vice President Vance said at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year: "Our European friends must play a greater role in the future of this continent." Observers may consider reducing U.S. troops in Europe as a correction of this imbalance.

With these potential reasons, the White House can take several ways to reduce U.S. military deployments in Europe. If history is any guide, a hasty large-scale withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe could have disastrous effects on the security of Europe and the United States, especially considering Moscow's aggressive tendencies for revenge. However, the Pentagon may have ways to adjust its strategy in Europe without sacrificing U.S. interests.

If the underlying logic of the Pentagon's posture assessment is to reallocate resources to counter China, then a wise strategy would be to assess which military capabilities currently deployed in Europe are most useful for the Indo-Pacific theater.

However, if other reasons drive the Pentagon to conduct a military posture assessment, then the reduction in U.S. military presence in Europe may be much larger, affecting all U.S. capabilities in Europe and having a more significant impact on global security.

The report pointed out from a realistic perspective that a large-scale reduction in U.S. troops in Europe might encounter immediate obstacles. Reducing U.S. forward deployment in Europe cannot happen overnight, as transferring U.S. military facilities to host countries such as Germany, Italy, or Romania requires years of negotiation.

A permanent reduction in U.S. troops in Europe cannot happen immediately. However, due to the possibility that government officials may want to see more immediate results, they are likely to seek to accelerate the process wherever possible.

The most obvious solution would be to reduce the number of U.S. troops rotating through Europe. Since 2014, the United States has sent large numbers of military personnel to Europe on rotation, mainly to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. If Trump orders the Pentagon to end these rotations, it might happen quickly, possibly within weeks.

There is a possibility that Poland might receive special treatment. Due to Poland's unstable security situation and its historical conquest by Russia, Warsaw leaders have spent billions of dollars building military facilities for U.S. troops. Poland has also agreed to provide most of the fuel, electricity, water, and heating needed to maintain about 10,000 U.S. troops.

However, even if some U.S. troops remain in Poland, a large-scale reduction in rotational forces in other ally countries facing the greatest threats would still have a heavy impact on European security and U.S. security.

In short, the prosperity of the United States and Europe is interdependent, and the stability of Europe is crucial to the American way of life. If Washington reduces U.S. troops in Europe, it would be wise to make reductions based on specific geopolitical goals rather than hastily cut troop levels significantly.

This is a more cautious approach that can meet the needs of U.S. military commanders in the Indo-Pacific region while protecting the security of the vital transatlantic alliance. (Translated by Zheng Guoyi)

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7494549722414662144/

Disclaimer: The article only represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by voting "upvote" or "downvote" below.