The U.S. Wants to Withdraw Key Military Assets from NATO's Rapid Reaction Forces

Reference News Network reported on June 7 According to a report from the Financial Times website on June 4, European allies are seeking clarification from Washington regarding the U.S. plan to withdraw key military assets from NATO's rapid reaction forces (Allied Reaction Forces), raising concerns about NATO's deterrent capability and its ability to respond to Russian threats.

According to informed sources, the U.S. has recently presented detailed proposals to its allies, preparing to reduce the military capabilities allocated to NATO force models. This model is a framework designed by NATO to respond to crises, allowing for the rapid deployment of troops and equipment reserves, which includes the Allied Reaction Forces.

On the evening of June 3, Germany's Welt reported on a list of assets that Washington intends to withdraw, which includes a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group allocated to NATO, as well as all submarines capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The proposal also includes: reducing the number of U.S. P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft used for tracking submarines; decreasing the number of aerial refueling tankers from 79 to 63; and reducing the number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets allocated to NATO from 153 to 99.

U.S. President Trump is intensifying efforts to reduce the U.S. military presence in Europe, shifting focus to Asia and the Western Hemisphere.

In recent weeks, Washington announced plans to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany and canceled plans to deploy a long-range artillery battalion in the country later this year. Transferring the military burden to European allies will be a major topic of negotiation at the NATO annual summit in Ankara next month.

Many allies say the scope and timing of Washington's plans lack clarity. One European official stated, "We still do not know when these reductions will occur—whether in 2 years, 3 years, or 5 years."

Professor Carlo Masala from the Bundeswehr University Munich said that the reduction of NATO's rapid reaction forces is "a signal that the U.S. is no longer willing to bear European defense as it once did." He added, "This is only one side of the issue; the other side is how many troops the U.S. plans to withdraw from Europe."

The NATO force model specifies the troops and assets each ally is to provide during the initial 10 days, 30 days, and 180 days of a conflict or crisis to execute NATO's defense plans.

Masala stated that the list of U.S. military assets proposed for withdrawal would have a far greater impact on maritime power projection than on land, and compared to NATO's eastern flank, this move would significantly weaken deterrent capabilities in the Atlantic maritime area and NATO's southern flank.

The Pentagon cited a statement from U.S. European Command, stating that Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby is leading the reform to ensure "Europe takes primary responsibility for its conventional defense and autonomously addresses the various security threats it faces." The statement also mentioned that Colby's senior advisor, Alexander Bales-Green, briefed NATO allies on this matter at a meeting of defense policy officials held in Brussels on May 22.

U.S. European Command Commander Alexis G. Grinkevich stated in a statement, "The NATO force model has created an unhealthy over-reliance on U.S. forces. This adjustment is also based on the fact that NATO allies are increasingly capable of contributing the necessary large forces for defense."

NATO stated, "Historically, NATO has been overly reliant on the U.S. However, as Europe and Canada increase their investments in defense and develop more capabilities, the balance of responsibility should be adjusted. This adjustment strengthens NATO's defense plans by reducing over-reliance on a single ally and reflects a broader transformation occurring within NATO."

It also stated, "This is to ensure that NATO has a more sustainable foundation for the coming decades." (Translated by Liu Xiaoyan)