\n Trump has declared<\/a> that the US will withdraw 5,000 \u2013 and probably many more \u2013 troops stationed in Germany, after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticized the US handling of the Iran conflict, saying Tehran had humiliated Washington.\n <\/p>\n \n Trump also took a swipe at Spain and Italy for not helping the US campaign against Iran. Asked if he would consider withdrawing US troops in those countries, Trump responded: \u201cProbably\u2026 look, why shouldn\u2019t I? Italy has not been of any help to us and Spain has been horrible, absolutely horrible.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Spain has denied the US military permission to use its bases or its airspace for missions or strikes linked to the conflict. Trump\u2019s criticism of Italy comes despite its Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, being a key ally.\n <\/p>\n \n Trump has long complained that the US is unfairly shouldering the burden when it comes to western security, once singling out European economic powerhouse Germany as \u201cdelinquent\u201d on the issue. The partial US withdrawal is another iteration of this saga – but one that underlines bigger problems.\n <\/p>\n \n As US willingness to underpin European security frays \u2013 and the Russian threat grows \u2013 Germany, the United Kingdom and France are promising to usher in a new era of spending. But they have a mountain to climb, and not very long to do so.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cIf we are to remain transatlantic, we must strengthen the European pillar within NATO,\u201d German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Saturday after Trump spoke of pulling out troops.\n <\/p>\n \n Pistorius suggested the drawdown was expected, calling it \u201cforeseeable.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Thousands of US troops remain in Germany, although levels are a fraction of what they once were.\n <\/p>\n \n As of December 2025, 36,436 US active service members were stationed in Germany, according to US Defense Department data. At the height of the Cold War, some 250,000 active-duty troops were based in what was West Germany.\n <\/p>\n \n The umbrella has been taken down even though Russia remains a threat \u2013 and the latest US move \u201cunderscores the need for Europe to invest more in defense,\u201d NATO spokesperson Allison Hart said Saturday.\n <\/p>\n \n Washington wants to focus on challenges \u201cwhere only American power can play a decisive role\u201d in Asia and its own hemisphere, according to a senior Pentagon official, Elbridge Colby<\/a>. It is demanding \u201cmuch greater efforts by our allies to step up and assume primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe,\u201d Colby added.\n <\/p>\n \n In the US perspective, he said, \u201cthere is nothing anti-European about this vision. To the contrary, it reflects hope and indeed confidence in Europe\u2019s capacity to act substantially and vigorously.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Some Europeans see it differently \u2013 as a loss of solidarity and common purpose – and a striking example of US unilateralism.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cThe greatest threat to the transatlantic community is not its external enemies, but the ongoing disintegration of our alliance,\u201d Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Saturday. \u201cWe must all do what it takes to reverse this disastrous trend.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Reversing the trend requires higher defense spending among most NATO members, a resurgence of weapons production, investment in new technologies and deeper collaboration.\n <\/p>\n \n On current plans, Europe\u2019s defense annual spending is set to almost double by 2030, reaching nearly $750 billion.\n <\/p>\n \n But using that money wisely also demands a different mindset. When it comes to defense, governments jealously guard national preferences, so there has been an historic lack of collaboration in production and procurement.\n <\/p>\n \n Smaller production runs mean that equipment like the German Leopard battle tank costs far more than its US counterpart, analysts say. The US produces one main battle tank; Europe makes a dozen.\n <\/p>\n \n The collapse of a Franco-German project to build a new generation of jet fighters is an example of irreconcilable national interests. Amid constant bickering over leadership of the project, the CEO of French plane-maker Dassault, Eric Trappier, said<\/a> of their neighbor: \u201cIf they want to do it themselves, let them do it themselves.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n There is another challenge as Europe weans itself off US hardware. The European Union wants at least half of member states\u2019 defense spending to stay inside the EU by 2030.\n <\/p>\n \n The rationale is simple: you can\u2019t build up your own capabilities if you are buying off-the-shelf elsewhere. Historically, nearly 80% of purchases have gone outside the zone, mainly to the US.\n <\/p>\n \n Managing that transition without creating new vulnerabilities will be a vast challenge, one that is already creating headaches for Europe amid a surge in US consumption of weapons and munitions in the war against Iran, both by its own forces and Gulf allies.\n <\/p>\n \n Shortages in missile defense systems are especially acute \u2013 an area in which Europe is already weak. Analysts describe a \u201cstaggering\u201d<\/a> burn-rate of missile defense interceptors such as Patriots and THAADs in the Gulf conflict, with the US set to send Gulf allies more such weapons worth several billion dollars.\n <\/p>\n \n Notably, in addition to the troop drawdown in Germany, the Pentagon said it would no longer be sending as planned a Long-Range Fires battalion equipped with Tomahawk and hypersonic missiles.\n <\/p>\n![\"Germany's](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/gettyimages-2271919745.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/gettyimages-2273228627.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/gettyimages-2214278846.jpg\")
<\/p>\n