▲ 62 points
back
47 comments
> The Pentagon said the withdrawal was expected to be completed over the next six to 12 months. Germany is home to around 35,000 active-duty U.S. military personnel, more than anywhere else in Europe.[1]
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-troops-germany-withdraw-nat...
The articles mention withdrawing a BCT (which is ~4000 people) form Germany.
The US currently has 2 BCTs "fully" in Germany. The 2nd Cav Regiment (a Stryker unit.. so infantry mounted on 8x8 APCs) and an Armoured BCT on 9 month rotation (so tanks and IFVs).
There have been a bunch of studies indicating that the rotational ABCT costs more than even a truly forward deployed ABCT. My bet is that it's the ABCT that is going to get withdrawn. It's both the flashier unit, and likely has the highest impact on freeing up money. This also lines up with the withdrawal timelines... since the unit is rotational, they just need to wait for the end of rotation, and just... not send another. Much less disruption.
While the timing was obviously conjunction with current events, this draw down was likely to happen at some point in this term, even in absence of Iran things. Trump literally tried to do this at the end of his last term.
If this is the Trump Administration's "punishment" for "disloyalty", then we are in for a treat. Hopefully US forces can also be withdrawn from Japan, Iraq, Italy, Guam, and the other 180 locations where they are currently unnecessarily stationed.
I'm thinking it's meant to appear as a punishment for disloyalty, but withdrawing troops like this only hurts the US and NATO. As we've seen in the Middle East recently, the hosts don't get any kind of security guarantees.
Overall it meets the primary directive of this administration, which is to weaken the United States as a superpower and make way for Russia.
It does remove money from local economies. The drawdown of the British hurt my regional economy quite a bit.
That makes sense. It's like packing up a very small city of US influence abroad, just more embarrassing self-destructive petulance from Trump. He probably wants a headline that looks like he's hitting back more than anything.
Withdrawing 5k troops that are probably just rotational troops that ... go home without replenishment is different from actually shutting down bases.
Unless Germany denies the US Ramstein airbase and spying operations, you can safely bet they'll stay. Even if they withdraw everything that isn't required to just keep operating the airbase and listening posts, they'll at least keep those around for as long as they are able to actually use them.
Maybe Germany will stop being the Trojan horse of the US inside the EU, at least for the defence.
Trump honestly have been great for EU sovereignty. It's a shame that his decisions caused that much suffering, which prevents me to truly be happy that he controls the US, but I do believe he is a net positive for the EU.
Not sure this really means anything, but we've been fairly transparent that we want to redirect attention and funding towards the pacific.
This may not be the end of the days of America the Superpower... but it may be the beginning of the end.
For the many commenters that can't be bothered to exercise their reading comprehension skills:
This is not reducing to pre-WWII levels, this is reducing down to 2022 levels (pre-Russia discovering their military can't win a war against Ukraine). It's mostly symbolic because Trump is a thin-skinned idiot and his staff wanted an easy way to appease him and make it look like something important was happening.
Good. It’s not 1945 anymore, we don’t need to keep occupying Germany.
Every time you comment on here you show a little bit more of how little you understand of how the world works.
It is not 1945 anymore, indeed. But that's not why the US has bases in Germany. It has bases in Germany to serve as 'stationary aircraft carriers' on friendly foreign soil, which is a privilege and as part of NATO a mutual benefit and which were there on account of Russia and the Middle-East, not because Germany was still perceived as a threat or a country that needed occupation, that particular need ended well before the Unification and the withdrawal of Russians from Eastern Europe.
Tossing all of that into the grinder isn't 'making America great' it is making America smaller, much smaller. The EU has spent an absolute fortune on US military hardware in return in the past. That will end now, and this is being said out loud. EU military spending has been on the rise, but the US fraction of that spending is diminishing, and is expected to diminish further.
This will hurt the US much more than that it will help. So these are - like most MAGA inspired actions - at best own goals, at worse active aid to Putin.
You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense outside of the context of being ostensibly as pay-back for Merz stating that the US has been humiliated by Iran - which they have, there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so. But instead, the use of one particular word that your king is a bit sensitive to because it hits home is what set this off.
> You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense … there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so
If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Iran. Not to mention Somalia, Kosovo, and Libya, and countless minor skirmishes. We’ve been throwing kids into the meat grinder for 75 years, and lighting dollars on fire, for no good reason. There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us.
I’d also point out that “MAGA” is not united on this. A third of Republicans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Iran war: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/05/01/americans.... Traditional republicans have long wanted to attack Iran so they’re pleased. But the America First people have been vocal in their opposition: https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/04/28/iran-war-trump-coalitio...
> If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea
YGBFShM.
(As to most of the others you do have a point, but hindsight is always 20-20 — and the Dem decisionmakers about Vietnam had to contend with a revanchist, Red-baiting GOP that had attacked the Dems for having "lost" China.)
> There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us.
Yes, that helped so much on the 9th of September in 2001... MAGA is a fairly direct result of those attacks.
And I think you missed Afghanistan in your little list, which was not exactly a minor skirmish. Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. That the proceeds were not shared equally is not the fault of the clients, but an internal affair. A diminished United States has a non-zero risk of collapsing much like the former USSR.
Meanwhile, you're lighting money on fire in Iran right now, and lots of it (though, according to Mike you are not at war and if you were it is over, a 'special military operation' of sorts). If only there was some kind of lesson to be learned from starting wars. Meanwhile, the oil people are making out like bandits, Israel is happy, what's not to like? And who cares about the price of eggs, gas, the Epstein files or immigrants. That's so yesterday.
> Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States.
The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it.
Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II. If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities. America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards.
We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.
> The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence
If you change “America” to “the American Military Industrial Complex”, then the claim is self-evident. There are some that equate those two.
Division of the spoils is not up to the outside.
> The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence.
So, if I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA should have never joined World War II or created the Marshall plan in the immediate aftermath, that's a logical extension of that argument since that's universally seen as the launch of 'Pax Americana'.
It also seems as though you fail to see how the rest of the developed world perceived the USA roughly up to 2002, whereas of course some other countries had a markedly different view.
You're a lawyer, that means you should have at least basic evidentiary research skills, especially for something so well documented. I suggest you use those skills and try to steelman the argument that Pax Americana was a massive net benefit for the United States in terms of world wide power (both soft and hard), income, prestige and less directly visible benefits, and helped to make it the most wealthy nation in the world (but not on a per-capita basis, however, that's an internal affair).
But I'm not going to do your work for you, it is absolutely ridiculous that you would make a request that can only stem from something close to willful ignorance.
> America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II.
So?
> If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities.
You do know when the US joined WWII don't you?
And you do know what the Germans were up to at the time?
And you do know that it wasn't exactly the US doing this by its lonesome?
> America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards.
America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause (and what led directly to the cold war). And it didn't take long for the Russians to get theirs which caused Europe to live under the threat of nuclear war and total annihilation once again.
> We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.
You don't really have a point. The USA is not larger than the rest of the world, not in the number of people and not in the economic, military or industrial power that it has. Yes, it - for now - is a superpower. But that power is rapidly diminishing and other countries - most notably China - are ascendant. Just like Ukraine has shown Russia to not deserve its super power status any more Iran just showed that beyond all doubt about the United States. All that is happening right now is that one empire is dying and another will take its place.
WWII ended 80 years ago, America came out of it with absolutely massive credit and goodwill all over the developed world. That credit and that goodwill is now spent and/or destroyed on purpose and you are presenting this as a 'good thing'?
I don’t think this issue is so settled that you just get to say “research it yourself” instead of making your case. Whether the global empire makes America as a whole richer or poorer is highly disputed. And it’s not just the distribution of the spoils as you say. The longstanding view of Americans opposed to the empire has been that the empire enriches defense contractors, but is a deadweight loss for the country as a whole. Your theory could actually change the premise of the anti-empire left significantly.
> America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause
But the goal isn’t to be a superpower. The goal is to be rich. America was already the richest country by far before it used that wealth to become a military superpower. In fact the GDP per capita ratio of the U.S. to France was about the same before World War II as it is today. Heck, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about how much richer Americans were than Europeans back in the 1830s.
> I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA should have never joined World War II or created the Marshall plan in the immediate aftermath, that's a logical extension of that argument since that's universally seen as the launch of 'Pax Americana'.
I don't agree with him a lot of the time but I think his request is reasonable and I share his skepticism about the idea that US military presence and interventions are somehow beneficial to the American's wellbeing, both the median American and the polity as a whole.
why should i not be skeptical? the first order effects of military are inherently destructive - why should i assume that having more military makes anyones lives better? its not obvious at all and requires a better explanation IMO.
now Germany has a choice - to spend hundreds of billions for conventionally armed military to defend itself and still face risks of war or just a few billions to develop and produce nukes (using already existing Pu from the power plants) and have everlasting peace. Germans are rational people as i heard.
The nuke is a tricky thing: deterring many scenarios like a full scale invasion, but a risk of mutual suicide when the enemy also has it. As a matter of fact it does not stop from "hybrid war", there are so many possibilities to harm a country (disorganize society, promote a friendly leader, attack critical infrastructures,...). So having nukes certainly increases security in many cases but is not sufficient to have everlasting peace !
They can learn a lot from the Swiss who spend a whole lot of less time and energy reacting daily to what the US thinks, says and does.
How many military bases does the US have in Switzerland again?
Oh, the number is zero?
Germany? Well guess what, the US has a very prominent airbase and listening station in Ramstein and a bunch of other military installations there. Also: History.
But none of that benefits Germany that much. Being in aliance like NATO with duty for mutual protection benefits them, but american military basis are setup primary for american benefit.
Germany would want them in Poland or such, near to Russia which is an actual threat.
Isn’t the main benefit to America of bases in Germany connected to its commitment to defend European security? If the U.S. didn’t have NATO obligations, how much would it benefit from having German bases?
To be able to take territory when it wants something like greenland? Cause speaking about NATO, exactly one country triggerend article 5 and then threatened other members.
Second, more to the point they have rather large military hospital there. It is also used as a safe place to transfer troops through or have them ready for outside of eu operations.
Commitment to European security would be to not support Russia. Or soldiers in Poland and Latvia. As of now, European countries paid for missiles and US is refusing to deliver.
America complained and pressured whenever Europeans bought arms from non american manufacturers. Thr first time it started to matter for real, it stopped delivering.
Switzerland benefits from being surrounded by well protected neighbors. They also try to be MAD without being mad, they will just blow up all the roads and retreat to the mountains if they are invaded.
Do you think Germany doesn’t have nukes? I’ve always assumed it’s like Japan. They don’t “have nukes.” Just all the parts to make a nuke in five minutes.
Of course making an actual bomb is extremely easy especially when you have Pu from the power plants. And Germany has great stealth cruise missiles which potentially can carry those warheads. Yet actually making and possessing a nuclear arsenal is still a pretty large continuous endeavor - all the facilities for producing and storing of the warheads and delivery missiles, the security for that infrastructure, the ongoing technical maintenance of the weapons, all the people of what is, though small, still basically a separate branch of military, maintenance of the readiness level, integration of these weapons into overall military strategy and training exercises, etc.
It is still much cheaper and more effective than a large conventional army, yet sufficiently large and complex to not be doable overnight, so a political situation is required which would allow to, still very quickly, do it.
Germany is silent on the Gaza genocide, and silent on the ethnic cleansing of Lebanon. Also Donald Trump doesn't have a fucking clue.
To get back to the point, I actually do not understand why there are any US soldiers here to begin with. Is it just posturing?
There are two broad reasons why the US has troops in Germany (and in Europe overall).
1. Because the Europeans wanted them there. NATO was a big security blanket, and certainly since the end of the cold war, up to say... 2014, America -wanted- a compliant Europe.
2. Because Europe is an amazing springboard into the middle east, and America just can't help but get itself involved in dropping bombs on the middle east.
1 ties into 2. A compliant Europe is less likely to raise objections to being used as a forward base for bombing Iraqis and Iranians. It's only in the last 10-15 years that the US realized that perhaps it was/had squandered it's lead to China, and dropped the ball (Europe at fault too) on properly containing (or addressing) Russia, and it would sure be nice if it could focus on the Pacific.
And number 3:
To ensure that Germany and Russia never team up to be a world super power that would rival the USA.
That's the main reason they are there.
OP is probably from the US and only see "America" as the good guy.
That's just an empty pane saying "please disable your ad blocker".