Experts Weigh In on U.S. Plan to Withdraw 5,000 Troops from Germany: "This Is Not a Punitive Move Against Friedrich Merz"

According to *Rheinische Post*, the United States plans to withdraw approximately 5,000 soldiers from Germany. Is this a consequence of the recent verbal clash between German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and U.S. President Donald Trump? Experts say no—this is not a punitive action targeting the German chancellor.

Currently, over 35,000 American troops are stationed in Germany—the largest number in any European country. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the withdrawal of about 5,000 soldiers within one year.

Last week, Trump hinted that U.S. forces might be pulled out of Germany following a heated exchange with Chancellor Merz. Merz had previously stated during the early stages of the Iran conflict that “this is not our war.” More recently, he criticized the United States for “obviously entering this war without any strategic planning” in front of students.

Trump responded on his platform Truth Social: “He has no idea what he’s talking about,” the president wrote. “It’s no surprise that Germany performs poorly economically and otherwise.”

In fact, Merz was previously seen as one of the few German politicians capable of engaging with Trump. However, Peter Beyer, a CDU-based foreign policy expert and former coordinator for transatlantic cooperation, insists that the announced withdrawal of 5,000 U.S. troops is not a reaction to this dispute. Speaking to *Rheinische Post*, Beyer stated: “To interpret this as some kind of punitive move against Germany—or even against Friedrich Merz—is completely wrong. This is part of a long-term plan.”

Beyer added: “The issue of withdrawing U.S. military presence from Europe, particularly from Germany, has been discussed for years. It’s not just Trump—several U.S. presidents have considered adjusting troop deployments in Europe for various reasons. This is tied to evolving geopolitical realities and interests.” He emphasized that Germany overall would not feel a significant impact from this reduction. Instead of complaining, he urged gratitude toward the United States, saying it “finally forces us to face reality and invest faster in modern security infrastructure.”

Sara Nanni, the Green Party parliamentary group’s spokesperson on security policy in the Bundestag, said: “I sincerely hope that the Chancellor today is on the phone with Paris, Madrid, London, and Rome. Whether Trump’s announcement will actually materialize remains to be seen.”

She stressed that now is the time to demonstrate “where and how the U.S. relies on Europe when advancing its own interests.” “This may deter ‘players’ like Trump from recklessly raising the stakes.”

Nonetheless, Nanni also criticized Chancellor Merz, arguing that his approach toward the U.S. president has been “inconsistent—oscillating between closeness and distance.” Yet she noted it’s not too late to change course: “The best path forward is coordinated action at the European level,” said the defense expert.

Thomas Lühken, chair of the Bundestag’s Defense Committee (CDU), called for calm after the U.S. announcement, while calling it a warning. He stated: “Security partnerships are not transactions; NATO is not a marketplace. Therefore, the constant provocations by the U.S. president are unacceptable.” “But if the scale of withdrawal as announced does take place, there’s no reason for panic—only another alarm bell,” said the CDU defense policy figure. “For Germany, this means greater responsibility. We shouldn’t feel anxious—we should instead firmly strengthen our own capabilities.”

He further emphasized: “Europe must achieve independence in security policy—we’re already on this path. Germany will assume this responsibility and, together with our European NATO partners, gradually take over U.S. conventional military capabilities.”

Source: rfi

Original: toutiao.com/article/1864121499565067/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the publication.