Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defense, has issued a direct warning to European allies: the American troop presence on the continent is under review. Speaking at a Pentagon briefing, Hegseth framed the move as a ‘strategic recalibration’ to counter emerging threats, but to British diplomats and NATO planners, it signals a potential rupture in the alliance’s forward defence posture.
The threat vector is clear. For decades, the US has maintained roughly 100,000 troops in Europe, a force designed to deter Russian aggression and reassure nervous allies. Hegseth’s remarks suggest that Washington now views this commitment as a liability: a static, vulnerable array of forces in an era of hypersonic missiles and cyber-enabled hybrid warfare. The Pentagon is exploring options to reduce forward-deployed units in favour of a more expeditionary model, with reinforcements held in the United States or rotated through Eastern European hubs. This is a pivot many intelligence assessments have warned about, but few expected it to come so soon.
British diplomats are scrambling. The Foreign Office has called for an emergency session of the North Atlantic Council, seeking a collective response that can anchor the alliance’s future. The subtext is that London fears a cascading effect: if the US draws down, other members might follow, leaving NATO’s eastern flank dangerously exposed. Whitehall sources acknowledge that the UK must now ‘shoulder more of the burden’, a phrase that masks deep unease about military readiness. The British Army is already understrength, and the Royal Navy’s surface fleet is stretched thin protecting transatlantic sea lines of communication.
Hegseth’s timing is deliberate. It comes as Russia intensifies its own strategic pivot: relocating forces from Kaliningrad to forward bases in Belarus, and increasing patrols by undersea cable-cutting vessels in the North Sea. The Kremlin views this as an opportunity. If the US reduces its European footprint, Russia could exploit the gap in a matter of hours, not days. NATO’s rapid reaction force, the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, is designed for a 30-day deployment, but in a modern conflict, that window is a strategic eternity.
The hardware tells the story. US bases in Germany and Italy are hubs for logistics, intelligence, and air power. A withdrawal would cripple NATO’s ability to surge forces. Meanwhile, the alliance’s new defence plans, agreed at the Vilnius summit, rely heavily on US enablers: tanker aircraft, electronic warfare platforms, and space-based reconnaissance. Without them, Europe’s own military hardware, from the Eurofighter to the Leopard 2 tank, becomes a collection of expensive but isolated systems.
Intelligence failures compound the problem. Reports suggest that NATO’s cyber defence systems are already compromised, with phishing campaigns targeting defence contractors. A US drawdown would leave these vulnerabilities exposed, and the British cyber force, while capable, lacks the depth to cover the gap.
The next moves are critical. Hegseth has given allies a deadline of six months to present viable alternatives. The UK will propose a new ‘Atlantic Anchor’ framework, which would see British forces double their presence in Poland and the Baltic states, supported by French nuclear assurances. But this is a stopgap. Without a fundamental shift in European defence spending and strategic thinking, NATO’s anchor is slipping. Hegseth’s review is not a threat, it is a wake-up call. Whether the alliance heeds it or fractures remains to be seen.
