DOES AMERICA’S MILITARY STILL HAS EUROPE’S BACK?

The U.S. military presence in Europe has long been accepted as a fact of modern geopolitics. Yet today, this vast network of American bases, once a cornerstone of transatlantic stability, is being reassessed. Internal divisions in Washington, shifting global priorities, and the increasingly vocal call for European strategic autonomy raise one critical question, does America still have Europe’s back?

Ever since the end of Cold War, the U.S. security umbrella has sheltered Europe from its enemies. The presence of American forces on the continent was not merely about defense but also reassurance, deterrence, and alliance cohesion. As Mila Tanghe argues in her article Going, Going . . .? The US Base Network in Europe, these bases came to symbolize more than military strategy. They became political anchors, embedding American power into European soil and identity. However, the permanence of this arrangement is no longer guaranteed.

Despite debates within U.S. administrations, top military commanders see enduring value in maintaining the American footprint. General Christopher Cavoli, U.S. Army Commander in Europe, has time and again advised against reducing the 80,000 troops currently stationed across the continent, even after a reduction from the post-2022 surge that followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine. His rationale is rooted in the strategy that European bases offer "strategic depth" to the United States projecting influence, deterrence, and rapid logistical capability far beyond European borders.

The U.S. forces present in the continent are not just stationed to defend NATO allies but also to be the first responders in global crises. From Ramstein Air Base, a vital hub for airlift operations located in Germany, to the medical support system anchored by Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, these facilities enable the U.S. to project power globally while fighting wars far from its homeland. As former Deputy EUCOM Commander Stephen Twitty in an interview with CEPA put it, “We want to fight our wars not here on the homeland, but away. We want to play an away game.”

AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENCE IN EUROPE

The United States today maintains a robust network of permanent and rotational military bases across Europe to project power, support NATO operations, and enable rapid response capabilities. Key military hubs including Ramstein Air Base in Germany, RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall stationed in the United Kingdom, Aviano Air Base in Italy, NSA Naples, and NAS Sigonella support NATO operations, while NSA Souda Bay located in Greece provides strategic naval and reconnaissance support to the States.

Further east, Incirlik stationed in Turkey and Mihael Kogălniceanu in Romania serve as key staging grounds for Middle Eastern and Black Sea missions. U.S. Army garrisons in Vicenza and Stuttgart house crisis-response brigades and top-tier command units like USEUCOM and SOCEUR. Missile defense is anchored by NSF Redzikowo in Poland and NSF Deveselu in Romania with Aegis Ashore systems, while RAF Fylingdales and Menwith Hill in U.K. contribute to space surveillance and intelligence.

A RECEDING COMMITMENT?

But this military reality is clashing with political turmoil in Washington. While General Cavoli and others advocate for maintaining forces, senior Defense Department officials under President Trump had considered withdrawing up to 10,000 troops from Eastern Europe. Their rationale being the strategic rebalancing toward China and the Indo-Pacific, now seen as the Pentagon’s primary theater of competition.

This internal rift in the U.S. administration is not just bureaucratic but also geopolitical. Popular figures like Elbridge Colby, a key defense expert argue that the U.S. must prioritize China and reduce commitments to Europe. Such a shift, framed under Trump’s "America First" doctrine, challenges the very spirit of the Truman Doctrine, which pledged American support to threatened democracies worldwide. The bases in Europe are hard to rebuild once lost and more importantly, they are hard to replace politically. The loss of trust from allies may be irreversible.

THE RUSSIAN THREAT TO EUROPE

European confidence in America as its ultimate protector has been shaken. Trump's outreach to Russia and calls for NATO members to "pay up" have raised fears that America’s support might be conditional or worse, transactional. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s remarks that Europe should not assume the U.S. military presence is permanent, only deepens those anxieties.

This uncertainty is dangerous, particularly as Europe is on the brink to be at war with Russia. Recent intelligence assessments suggest that Moscow could reconstitute its forces and threaten Eastern Europe within five years if Ukraine’s war ends in a frozen conflict. The decision by the U.S., U.K., Germany, and France to lift restrictions on long-range weapons use by Ukraine signals Western resolve but it also heightens the stakes for U.S. troops in Europe, who remain within range of potential Russian retaliation.

NOT JUST ABOUT EUROPE

The U.S. base network in Europe supports missions that go far beyond NATO’s eastern flank. These bases enable maritime surveillance of Russian submarines in the Atlantic, conduct electronic intelligence operations, and support rapid responses to crises in the Middle East and Africa. Closing them would mean losing crucial geopolitical leverage and operational readiness.

European bases also provide a gateway for the States to intervene elsewhere. During the Iraq invasion, Europe’s bases were logistical lifelines due to its strategic ports and airfields of the Sixth Fleet, whether in Naples or Rota, offer unparalleled access to contested zones.

Giving them up would mean reconfiguring U.S. force posture at immense cost and strategic disadvantage.

Beyond hard power, American bases in Europe send a powerful political message. Their very existence underlines America’s commitment to European stability and democratic values. They build trust with allies, serve as platforms for joint training, and foster interoperability. As General Twitty said, “by being forward stationed in Europe, we build trust. Our allies see us every day.”

The U.S. presence, then, is not merely about defense but about maintaining the security umbrella that has preserved peace on the continent since World War II. Removing that umbrella would not just encourage Russia to attack the vulnerable Europe but it would also fracture the transatlantic alliance and signal a retreat from global leadership.

Dwight Eisenhower, the 34th U.S. President once said, “if in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project (NATO) will have failed.” Yet seven decades later, the persistence of those troops marks not failure but success. It is precisely because they stayed that the security umbrella endured, shielding Europe through the Cold War, the Balkans crisis, the war on terror, and now, Russian aggression.

ANTI-WAR RESHAPING AMERICAN POLITICS

“But I ain’t marching anymore… It's always the old to lead us to the wars, it's always the young to fall”

America’s anti-war song, sung by Phil Ochs in 1965, left a significant mark mainly because of its timing. At a time when America’s direct involvement began to intensify in the Vietnam War, the song tried to portray how military and political agendas resulted in casualties of innocent or rather young men. After suffering nearly 60,000 causalities, the American anti-war movement grew stronger with the support of student activists, civil rights activists and media houses. This, however, was just the beginning of a complex cold war between the military and the American citizens as the fight became more intense post 9/11 with a new wave of anti-war sentiment particularly in opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The American anti-war movement, rooted in pacifist traditions and civil rights activism, has evolved over time in response to wars perceived as unjust or unnecessary, from the Mexican-American War to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The movement has influenced public opinion, pressured policymakers, reshaped political discourse which has at times drawn support from both the left and parts of the right.

To understand the growing anti-war sentiment of the American right, it is crucial to first understand the dominance of the neoconservative ideology held over Republican foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. Figures such as William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz were amongst the first to support America’s interventionist approach, advocating for the use of U.S. military power to spread democracy and maintain global dominance. This worldview, which came to define the George W. Bush administration’s foreign policy, drove the States into long, costly, and ultimately inconclusive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The failure of these interventions, both strategically and morally, gradually discredited neoconservatism among a growing segment of the Republican base.

One of the most striking indicators of this shift is Trump’s recent suggestion to cut U.S. military spending by up to 50% in coordination with Russia and China. While such a proposal may never materialize in practice, the fact that it is being floated by the president of United States, underscores how far the discourse has moved. Two decades ago, such a stance would have been a political suicide for a Republican leader. Today, it reflects an evolving consensus within parts of the party that questions America's global military footprint.

Nonetheless, the anti-war sentiment is already reshaping American foreign policy debates. It has disrupted bipartisan consensus on key issues, most notably U.S. aid to Ukraine, and may continue to constrain the range of acceptable policy options available to future administrations. This movement also challenges the intellectual foundations of both neoconservative and liberal internationalist paradigms, which have long dominated U.S. grand strategy. By opening space for alternative visions, however underdeveloped, they are catalysing a deeper reassessment of America’s global role.

CONCLUSION

The American military presence in Europe is not a relic of the past but a pillar of today’s security architecture. As global priorities shift and political winds blow unpredictably in Washington, one thing remains clear, the U.S. security umbrella in Europe is not just about bases or troop numbers. It is about maintaining a global order rooted in cooperation, deterrence, and peace. Without it, Europe stands exposed, and America's own credibility as a global leader hangs in the balance.