US forces in Europe cut back despite possible Russian threat

THE UNITED STATES has been the guarantor of Europe’s safety since the end of World War II. But now, globally stretched and under ongoing pressure to reduce the budget deficit, the US is pulling the plug on many of its overseas operations, not least in Europe, writes World Review expert, Luke Coffey. It still makes sense for the US to station forces in Europe. It provides a hub from which to monitor and if necessary act, not only in Europe but in North Africa and the Middle East. However, since the end of the Cold War (1947 - 1991), American forces in Europe have been viewed as a source of savings in the US defence budget. From a peak of 400,000 troops in 1953, the number has dwindled to 65,000, from all services. The number of US military installations in Europe has also declined steadily to approximately 350, from more than 850 for the Army alone in 1990. Another 15 sites will be closed in coming years, according to the European Infrastructure Consolidation Review announced by the Department of Defence in January 2015. Its recommendations would leave the US with 17 main operating bases on the continent, primarily in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Turkey and Spain. More than 12,500 US combat troops have been withdrawn from Europe since 2012. In particular, the removal of the two armoured brigades left a significant hole in the capabilities of Nato and US ground forces committed to Europe. Savings made on the ground have been matched by significant cutbacks in the air component, especially the removal of the 81st Fighter Squadron, which played a key role in US-led operations in the First Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Libya. In April 2015, the US Army announced it would ‘restructure’ the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade headquartered in Katterbach, Germany. The move would withdraw 1,900 more soldiers from Europe and shift 24 Apache attack helicopters and 30 Blackhawk transport helicopters back to the US. Events of the past two years have forced the US into a number of policy U-turns to mitigate the impact of its force reductions in Europe. These steps began after the September 2012 attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, which resulted in the deaths of four American officials, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and were expanded after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and incursion in eastern Ukraine in 2014. The most important of these military measures include: • The basing of 1,550 US Marines (The Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response-Africa) in Spain, Italy and Romania to provide a rapid response force for deployment in North Africa and the Middle East. • Pre-positioning of equipment for a heavy brigade - about 250 Abrams tanks and other armoured vehicles - in the Baltic countries, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, reversing the decision made in 2013 to remove all battle tanks from Europe. • Rotation of A-10 ground attack aircraft to Central and Eastern Europe. • Increased participation in European exercises, reversing the Defence Department’s cancellation of 45 per cent of its training events with European partners in 2013. In addition to these embarrassing but necessary reversals in policy, the US has taken some modest steps to boost the defences of Nato’s eastern members - these include: • The continuous deployment since May 2014 of a US Army company (about 150 soldiers) in each of the three Baltic states and Poland. • The deployment of F-16 fighters and ground crew to the 32nd Tactical Air Base in Lask, Poland. • An increase of US and Nato-led training exercises in the region. • The June 2015 decision to pre-position a brigade’s worth of heavy equipment – the so-called European Activity Set – in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. • Funding for improving military infrastructure in the Baltic region, including training and staging sites for ground and air units. These measures, while welcome, cannot be regarded as sufficient. Stationing a company in the Baltic states and Poland may send a useful message to Moscow, but it will not have any tactical effect in the case of a Russian invasion. But cuts to US capabilities in Europe are generally supported by isolationist elements in the US Congress who believe Europe should be doing more for their own defence; it looks as though they may have to. For a more in-depth look at this subject with scenarios looking to future outcomes, go to our sister site: Geopolitical Information Service. Sign in for 3 Free Reports or Subscribe.

RB metadata

ID: 

1439810891467826400