US halts troop deployment to Poland
The US last week called off plans to deploy 4,000 US troops to Poland. According to the Pentagon, the number of US combat brigades in Europe will be reduced from four to three. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called on Washington not to jeopardise its friendship with Warsaw. At the beginning of May, the US had also announced the withdrawal of around 5,000 troops from Germany.
A model ally with no direct line to Washington
This is a bitter pill for Poland's top politicians, notes Polityka:
“A political blame game has begun in Warsaw. ... After all, both ruling camps emphasised Poland's special status in relations with the US, thanks to its defence spending, the procurement of equipment and the country's position as a 'model student'. And President Karol Nawrocki emphasised his excellent personal relationship with Trump. Yet for days, no one managed to obtain an explanation or a response from Washington as to how to proceed. It became increasingly clear that the status of a model ally counts for little and that no Polish politician has a direct line to Trump or Hegseth.”
Not the main problem
It is not the actual size of the US military presence in Europe that is decisive, The Spectator explains:
“Much more worrying for Nato's European member states is the prospect of losing a range of capabilities of which the United States is the only or vastly predominant provider. Many of these come under the heading of what military jargon calls 'strategic enablers': functions and equipment which support combat forces and allow them to operate effectively. Nato relies almost exclusively on the US for space-based assets like satellites to provide comprehensive intelligence, surveillance, targeting acquisition and reconnaissance.”
Trust in the alliance crumbling
The fact that Washington is simultaneously seeking to increase its military presence in Greenland makes the situation doubly complicated, writes columnist Pierre Haski on France Inter:
“The next Nato summit is likely to prompt tense discussions: is the US security guarantee for Nato member states still worth anything? ... And above all: what does it mean when troops are withdrawn from areas where there are tensions in order to reinforce those in a territory that Washington is laying claim to? Trump's imperial ambitions are increasingly undermining the Atlantic alliance.”
Impact on Putin's plans
In a Facebook post, political scientist Abbas Gallyamov reflects on how a withdrawal of US troops might affect Putin's plans for an attack:
“The direct consequences will depend on how far along the Russian leader is in preparing to carry out his plans. If he has merely been toying with the idea of whether to risk a dramatic escalation of the situation in Europe – for example, by launching an operation to 'liberate Narva' – then he will undoubtedly be encouraged and more inclined to take such measures. ... On the other hand, if the Russian president has ALREADY DECIDED to attack Estonia and is only considering WHEN to do it, this new development could have the opposite effect and slow down the process. Putin would then wait until the US plans become more concrete.”
Withdrawal weakens Germany's economy
Tygodnik Powszechny warns of growing discontent over the economic impact of the withdrawal of US troops, most of whom are stationed in southern Germany:
“The government must act swiftly. The loss of thousands of jobs could lead to growing discontent among the population. The far-right populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) stands to benefit most from this – the party already achieved record results in the last local elections in Bavaria. The stagnation of Germany's economy is putting the wind in the AfD's sails. The CSU, which has governed this federal state for decades, must not underestimate this trend.”
Brussels should fill the gap
Gazeta Wyborcza is hoping for Europe to step up:
“We will have to get used to the fact that there will be several thousand fewer troops on Polish territory. Paradoxically there could be a positive side to this. ... To improve its defence capabilities, the EU has taken on debt as a bloc. Now it's time to take the next step. The US might be the most important military power in Nato, but it's certainly not the only one. Sending European troops to fill the gap that has been created by suspending the rotation of American troops in Poland would send a clear signal.”
US wants to minimise its risks
Former politician and Delfi columnist Egidijus Bičkauskas sees Lithuania in an awkward position:
“There are only two rational conclusions to be drawn here. Either the US intelligence services and diplomatic corps currently see no real threat from Russia and therefore consider large military deployments in the region to be unnecessary. Or – if they do perceive a threat here – the US has no intention of becoming embroiled in a direct military conflict for the sake of Eastern Europe. Neither scenario is good news for Vilnius. ... This shows there is a shift in US global strategy away from the unhesitating fulfillment of regional commitments and towards minimising its own risk.”