The United States' plan to strengthen its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region dates back to the presidency of Barack Obama. The Pentagon has long believed that the main military threat — namely China — lies in that part of the world. Military simulations indicate that if a conflict were to break out between the U.S. and China over Taiwan, the U.S. would lose however you want to look at it.

There aren't many regions outside of Europe from which military resources can be reallocated. Currently, the U.S. has roughly 80,000 troops stationed in Europe and that number could be reduced by as much as a third.

This isn't about relocating those soldiers to, say, Taiwan, but rather about redistributing financial resources. What's needed most in the Pacific theater are ships, aircraft (specifically the F-35) and missile systems. A final military assessment — outlining what, how and on what timeline — should be completed at the Pentagon by fall.

Whose business is it to save Europe?

The most important thing is that all of this must be done in coordination with allies. Europeans should gradually take over the military capabilities currently being handled by the Americans.

The United States' ongoing insistence that Europe must contribute significantly more to its own defense is not unfounded. The days when Europe could coast on American security guarantees are definitively over.

In that sense, the recent NATO summit in The Hague marked a major breakthrough. The joint commitment to begin spending 5 percent of GDP on defense means that a financially and economically powerful Europe now has the time and means to start taking responsibility for its own security. Taken together, the European Union already has over one million troops — about the same as the United States. Various countries also possess enough military aircraft. Up until now, the issue has been one of political will. Replacing missile systems (like the Patriot) is, of course, a longer-term process.

One can think what they will about President Donald Trump, but the fact remains that his often blunt pressure on Europeans has borne fruit. The era of lingering in the comfort zone has come to an end. Germany's sweeping rearmament program is the most striking example of this shift.

Another critical turning point is U.S. military aid to Ukraine. Until recently, there was widespread lament over why the U.S. wasn't giving enough weapons to Ukraine. Now, however, the agreement is that the U.S. will supply the weapons, but Europe must pay for them and deliver them to Ukraine. So, while it was once declared with great pathos that the Ukrainian army was defending all of Europe, the moment of truth — and of settling the bill — has now arrived. As the saying goes, saving a drowning man is the responsibility of the drowning man himself.

Nuclear umbrella

One thing the United States will continue to provide for Europe is nuclear deterrence — and that remains perhaps the most crucial element in containing Russia.

The U.S. nuclear doctrine, also known as forward-deployed nuclear deterrence, includes the defense of allies with nuclear weapons in the event of a threat of war. This is the much-discussed nuclear umbrella.

Put simply, the nuclear weapons belong to the United States, but the responsibility for delivery largely falls to aircraft operated by European allies. Currently, U.S. tactical nuclear weapons (B61 bombs) are stationed in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Turkey. It's also worth remembering that France and the United Kingdom are nuclear powers within NATO. According to British media, the U.S. is now considering deploying its thermonuclear weapons to the United Kingdom as well.

The Baltic concern

For Estonia and the other Baltic states, the most critical questions are, of course, whether U.S. troops will remain here — or how significantly their presence might be reduced.

At present, there is a brigade-sized contingent of American troops rotating through the Baltic states. It would be extremely short-sighted for the U.S. to withdraw these forces, especially considering that Western media constantly poses the question: is Narva next? Hopefully, our diplomacy is strong enough to make clear to the U.S. just how dangerous that would be.

The Americans place a high value on what they call the "human touch" — personal, human connection. At first glance, it may have seemed amusing when Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur, during his recent visit to the U.S., invited his American counterpart Pete Hegseth to come to Estonia and join American troops in an ice plunge.

Reportedly, President Donald Trump became fully disillusioned with Vladimir Putin after his wife, Melania, confronted him, saying: while you're having friendly phone chats with Putin, he's once again killing dozens upon dozens of peaceful Ukrainians.

Emotions carry a great deal of weight — even in international relations.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook, Bluesky and X and never miss an update!