Half of US soldiers to potentially pull out of Europe.

[bannork]

Donald Trump is considering withdrawing some American soldiers from Europe, which could affect Poland and Romania. Approximately 80,000 American soldiers are stationed in Europe, and the planned reduction would affect half of them.

However, reducing American forces in Europe would be a disastrous signal to Moscow, warns General Chris Cavoli, the commander of NATO forces in Europe.

In addition, The influential House Armed Services Committee, led by Chairman Michael Rogers, strongly opposes Trump's plans. The congressman firmly rejected reducing the number of American soldiers in Europe, and any potential withdrawal of the US from commanding NATO formations on the continent.

 Rogers stressed that U.S. leadership in NATO is essential to ensure armed American forces, including US nuclear weapons, always remained under U.S. command.  

In addition, The Armed Services Committee said a cut back in the number of American troops stationed in Europe might be seen as a falling-off of US commitment to protecting its allies.

Trump's troop pullback plan sparks congressional backlash

 

[Mike_Hunt]

It’s time the people of Europe built their own armies for defense. 

[NorthernRyland]

This is good. Why does Europe wan't to rely on American troops instead of supplying their own defense?

[rough diamond]

4 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Are the new Europeans going to leave a cushy life of bennies and their huge inbred families

Americans should avoid talking about inbreed families!!

[rough diamond]

European allies "pay us $2.5 billion a year to keep our forces there. It would cost us more money to bring the troops home than to keep them in Europe."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jul/12/nicholas-burns/do-european-allies-pay-us-25-billion-yearly-keep-t/

[NorthernRyland]

7 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

European allies "pay us $2.5 billion a year to keep our forces there. It would cost us more money to bring the troops home than to keep them in Europe."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jul/12/nicholas-burns/do-european-allies-pay-us-25-billion-yearly-keep-t/

it's just not a sensible policy regardless of money. Do you really want to rely on American troops being there when you need them? Do even trust them in the worst case scenario? None of this seems wise to me. 

[Mike_Hunt]

35 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

Americans should avoid talking about inbreed families!!

OK…we will leave you out of this conversation. 

[placeholder]

Given that, under Trump, they might end up fighting for Putin, maybe it's best that they do leave.

[NickyLouie]

1 hour ago, bannork said:

 

However, reducing American forces in Europe would be a disastrous signal to Moscow, warns General Chris Cavoli, the commander of NATO forces in Europe.

 

 

Time for Cavoil to be relieved of his duties. 

 

EU can defend herself from now on from those Big Bags Ruskies .... 

 

YOU PAY TO PLAY 

[englishoak]

50% draw down is a good start . After 80 years its about time US Occupation of Europe reduced or even ended.

 

 

[Cryingdick]

6 hours ago, rough diamond said:

Americans should avoid talking about inbreed families!!

Actually America is one of the more diverse places racially and ethnically. You look at England the entire country has the same bad teeth, Holland everybody until recently is tall, has blond hair and those disturbing glazed over blue eyes.  I could go on but you get the point. 

[JimHuaHin]

The apparent exponential growth in ignorance is surprising.

[jimmybcool]

Have to wonder why the US has had to keep that much military there that long.  I mean I get it at the end of WWII Russia was a serious threat and most of Europe was gasping on life support with little chance of rebuilding military power adequate to face off with Stalin.  And the US Army was already there.  Easy enough to stay there and prevent Stalin completing the vision Hitler had of a conquered Europe. 

 

But it's 80 years now.  If there were promises made it seems they were kept and time to move on.  If Europe is complaining about the US removing some troops maybe some introspection as to the decisions made that leaves them vulnerable.  Or those complaining should perhaps show more appreciation that the US has kept the peace there (mostly) for a long time.

 

 

[Tarteso]

 Ladys & pubic lices ! Be ready, They will be relocated
..To Pattaya ! ! ! 😁

[metisdead]

Posts using derogatory and toxic nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly, this applies to both sides of the political debate.

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

The only recent attack on Europe was the bombing of Nordstream, and ummm, well, okay then.

You sure about that?

How a Ukrainian Teen Became a Suspected Foot Soldier for Russia
The teenager faces terrorism charges in an arson attack on an IKEA store in Lithuania. Investigators say it was part of a Russian sabotage campaign.

Shopping malls, warehouses, undersea cables and railways in Europe have all been hit over the past two years in what the Center for Strategic and International Studies describes as a drive to sow havoc led by Russia’s military intelligence service, the GRU.
The number of covert Russian attacks nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024.

https://archive.ph/usVWU#selection-4591.0-4603.74

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, jimmybcool said:

Have to wonder why the US has had to keep that much military there that long.  I mean I get it at the end of WWII Russia was a serious threat and most of Europe was gasping on life support with little chance of rebuilding military power adequate to face off with Stalin.  And the US Army was already there.  Easy enough to stay there and prevent Stalin completing the vision Hitler had of a conquered Europe. 

 

But it's 80 years now.  If there were promises made it seems they were kept and time to move on.  If Europe is complaining about the US removing some troops maybe some introspection as to the decisions made that leaves them vulnerable.  Or those complaining should perhaps show more appreciation that the US has kept the peace there (mostly) for a long time.

 

 

Who is complaining?

US kept troops in Europe to wield influence. According to the US it was in their strategic interest to keep the troops there.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You sure about that?

How a Ukrainian Teen Became a Suspected Foot Soldier for Russia
The teenager faces terrorism charges in an arson attack on an IKEA store in Lithuania. Investigators say it was part of a Russian sabotage campaign.

Shopping malls, warehouses, undersea cables and railways in Europe have all been hit over the past two years in what the Center for Strategic and International Studies describes as a drive to sow havoc led by Russia’s military intelligence service, the GRU.
The number of covert Russian attacks nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024.

https://archive.ph/usVWU#selection-4591.0-4603.74

Yes, you nailed it again ....... IKEA is vital to the defense of Europe.

[placeholder]

27 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Yes, you nailed it again ....... IKEA is vital to the defense of Europe.

Had your read past the first paragraph, you might have learned that the article wasn't just about the IKEA attack. And it's kind of weird how selectively right wingers and fake socialists get all heated up about terrorism.

[impulse]

Half of US soldiers to potentially pull out of European wimmuns.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

Over paid, over sexed and over here...  Not to mention drop dead hansum.

 

[black tabby12345]

So what happens to the US grunts after closure of European bases？

Do they face mass retrenchment？

That sort of thing already happened in the past(after the Gulf War 1991).

And it happened on US soil.

 

 

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Had your read past the first paragraph, you might have learned that the article wasn't just about the IKEA attack. And it's kind of weird how selectively right wingers and fake socialists get all heated up about terrorism.

Your posts are never worth reading beyond the first four or five words.

[NoDisplayName]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Investigators say

 

They always do.

But they never prove it.

They make an announcement, spread it amongst their trained journalists on call.

It floats through the blogosphere being liked and shared, and brought up on message boards as a talking point.

 

........and then disappears, to be replaced by yet another

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Investigators say

 

[candide]

Putin, say thank you! 

[placeholder]

50 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Your posts are never worth reading beyond the first four or five words.

Even if that were the case, it wasn't my words that are in question. 

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

They always do.

But they never prove it.

They make an announcement, spread it amongst their trained journalists on call.

It floats through the blogosphere being liked and shared, and brought up on message boards as a talking point.

 

........and then disappears, to be replaced by yet another

 

You're making an excellent point here. Clearly the that Putin is ex KGB, has engaged in a brutal war of aggression against a neighboring country, has that journalist murdered, has troop stationed in neighboring countries against their will, and outlawed any serious criticism of Russia's conduct in Ukraine war, clearly makes it unlikely that he would ever condone engaging in this kind of sabotage and terrorism. Basically, he's a big pussycat. 

[NoDisplayName]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're making an excellent point here. Clearly the that Putin is ex KGB, has engaged in a brutal war of aggression against a neighboring country, has that journalist murdered, has troop stationed in neighboring countries against their will, and outlawed any serious criticism of Russia's conduct in Ukraine war, clearly makes it unlikely that he would ever condone engaging in this kind of sabotage and terrorism. Basically, he's a big pussycat. 

 

Oh, goody.

Talking points.

What next...........links to articles with "Ukrainian officials say...."?

[NanLaew]

15 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

This is good. Why does Europe wan't to rely on American troops instead of supplying their own defense?

 

Did you miss the importance of retaining command and control of their stockpiled nuclear capabilities? Hand over the keys to the European nuclear "football" to crazies from France and the UK?

 

If the US downsizes their European "boots on the ground", does that equate with a proportional reduction on their wholly-owned European nuclear assets?

 

Ukraine handed back their nukes to Russia as part of the deal guaranteeing their independence and freedom. We can see how well that turned out.

[NanLaew]

5 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Have to wonder why the US has had to keep that much military there that long.  I mean I get it at the end of WWII Russia was a serious threat and most of Europe was gasping on life support with little chance of rebuilding military power adequate to face off with Stalin.  And the US Army was already there.  Easy enough to stay there and prevent Stalin completing the vision Hitler had of a conquered Europe. 

 

But it's 80 years now.  If there were promises made it seems they were kept and time to move on.  If Europe is complaining about the US removing some troops maybe some introspection as to the decisions made that leaves them vulnerable.  Or those complaining should perhaps show more appreciation that the US has kept the peace there (mostly) for a long time.

 

 

They are there to support NATO expansionism, that's why.

 

And NATO expansionism is why Russia invaded Ukraine.

 

It's the biggest proxy war in town 

[NanLaew]

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Yes, you nailed it again ....... IKEA is vital to the defense of Europe.

 

Beware the flat-pack army.