Anyone who thought that NATO, now that its member states will in principle gradually increase their defense spending to 5% in the coming years, has prevented Trump from withdrawing some of the American forces from Europe is mistaken. A report called Global Military Posture will be released at the end of this summer or the beginning of this fall, in which the Americans will determine how many troops, aircraft, and ships will be stationed where in the world. The important think tank Defense Priorities, affiliated with the MAGA Republicans, has just published its initial recommendations.

This recommendations are clear. The report partly confirms the troop reductions that have been informally circulated for some time; on the other hand, it is merely a recommendation. Nevertheless, the final Global Military Posture will not differ much from it. Let’s take a look at what the authors have to say about Europe, the threat from Russia, and the situation in the rest of the world.

In the report Aligning global military posture with U.S. interests authors Jennifer Kavanagh and Dan Caldwell write that, due to a moderate threat from Russia (an analysis largely based on the poor performance of Russian forces in Ukraine), US military presence in Europe could be reduced to pre-2014 levels, that is, before the first Russian invasion of Ukraine. According to the authors, European NATO members currently possess sufficient resources to counter a limited Russian attack on any of them. Ultimately, in the future, they argue, the US presence should be reduced to around 20,000 ground troops plus a small number of naval and air force personnel.

For now, the authors recommend withdrawing three combat brigades of 5,000 troops each from Romania, Germany, and Poland to the US, along with three of seven air force squadrons (from Great Britain and Italy) and three of six existing naval destroyers (from the Rota base in Spain). The authors also suggest that the US Navy’s Carrier Strike Group (i.e., an aircraft carrier plus a number of destroyers, frigates, and supporting vessels) could be withdrawn from the Mediterranean, as the navies of Spain, France, Italy, Greece, and Turkey collectively possess sufficient capacity to fend off any potential threat.

For the Middle East, the authors propose an even more drastic troop reduction, including a complete withdrawal from Syria, Iraq, and Kuwait, plus the closure of the large, vulnerable Al-Udeid air base in Qatar. This would also free up a large amount of air defense equipment for the defense of the US homeland. Furthermore, they recommend withdrawing three of the five air force squadrons from the Middle East to the US and recommend that the US Navy’s presence be reduced to a very limited minimum of one nuclear submarine in the entire region, partly by bringing the aircraft carriers and their squadrons home.

It’s radical advice, and the question is what the Pentagon will ultimately adopt. Aside from the fact that, if the authors get their way and Al-Udeid is closed, Qatar’s lobbying (including the donation of a Boeing to Trump) will have been for nothing, Israel’s usually very strong lobbying in the US may be underrated. The withdrawal of an aircraft carrier from the Mediterranean and a large portion of US air defenses from the Middle East will be a significant setback for Israel and will undoubtedly lead to major objections. We’ll see!

Now for Asia. Kanavagh and Caldwell also have a major surprise in store for this continent. This isn’t so much about the withdrawal of a large portion of the troops, but rather their geographical redistribution. This will essentially mean the US withdrawing a large portion of its troops from both South Korea (half of them: approximately 10,000 troops and two air squadrons) and Japan. In the latter case, a previously planned removal of 9,000 US Marines from Okinawa should now be carried out as a transfer towards the US island of Guam and the US itself, in addition to the relocation of two air force squadrons from Okinawa to bases further north in Japan itself.

Finally, the authors recommend against sending additional attack missiles to this region, as this would provoke China (sic). The 500 US military advisors on Taiwan should be pulled out for the same reason, thus removing a significant tripwire against potential Chinese aggression.

Remarkably, the authors have good news for Australia and want to station three US nuclear submarines there, in accordance with the previously agreed-upon AUKUS plan. The AUKUS partnership however, which has since become controversial, is being reconsidered by the Pentagon. But we’ll hear about that evaluation soon.

All in all, the grave fears of numerous traditional American allies appear to be coming true, at least if this advice proves to be close to the final decision. The Americans will largely withdraw, wherever they are in the world: mostly from the Middle East, Taiwan and Eastern and Southern Europe, partly from South Korea and Okinawa. On top of that, in Asia they will largely concentrate on the so-called Second Island Chain (see map – a defense line more easily maintained against China or North Korea) instead of the first. Japan and South Korea will have to hugely increase their own defense efforts, while Taiwan, located on the front line of the First Island Chain, will find itself in a very vulnerable position and prepare for the worst.

If this advice becomes reality, the US will undoubtedly lose its most loyal allies much faster than is currently the case. The country’s current government also makes it clear that every lobby attempt and every adjustment to new American demands—such as the 5% NATO target—has not been able to prevent the Americans from withdrawing from the rest of the world. Instead the Allies inadvertently facilitated it by improving their own defense. But with the US pulling away soon, let us hope it is not leaving too much room for those who wish to do evil.

Arnout Nuijt