The United States canceled the transfer of troops to Poland. What does this mean?

The American military, who arrived in Poland as part of a regular rotation, will return to their homeland: on May 15, the press reported on the cancellation of the transfer of 4,000 American troops to Poland. The decision came as a surprise to Warsaw, which US President Donald Trump called his main ally in Europe. Whether the reduction of the American contingent in Europe has become Washington's revenge on its NATO allies and at what cost Europe is building its own defense — in the Izvestia article.

Withdrawal of troops from Poland

• The Pentagon reported that the order to cancel the deployment of troops to Poland had been received over the past two weeks, but in fact the withdrawal of troops looked sudden. The American military and equipment — Abrams tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles — had already arrived in Poland by the time the withdrawal was announced, and emergency measures had to be taken at the military base in Texas to return the troops. The business trip was supposed to last a standard nine months.

• The Washington Post reported that long—term business trips for the US military are rarely canceled, and even less often after the arrival of troops at the deployment site. Both parties of the American parliament criticized the Pentagon for withdrawing troops without consulting Congress or European allies. Warsaw was also caught off guard by the US decision.

Spain has taken the toughest position in the EU on the Iranian conflict. And here's why

Trump's Revenge

• The press suggested that the withdrawal of troops from Poland was the US response to the refusal of NATO countries to support the American military operation in the Strait of Hormuz. The previously announced withdrawal of troops from Germany was explained by Trump's revenge for the fact that the country with the maximum American military presence in Europe refused to enter into a confrontation with Iran on the side of the United States, and even criticized the American military operation in the Middle East. Trump also threatened to withdraw American troops from Italy and Spain.

• The United States expressed its intention to reduce the number of its troops in Germany in early May: over a period of six to 12 months, Washington plans to withdraw 5,000 American troops (15% of the total American military contingent in the country). During his first term as president, Donald Trump announced plans to reduce the American contingent in the EU: at that time, it was supposed to withdraw 12,000 American troops from European NATO bases. In 2025, the United States also withdrew some troops from Romania.

Warsaw tried to downplay the significance of this step. The country's defense ministry said that the US decision to withdraw its military concerns only Germany, and the presence of American troops in Poland will increase to strengthen NATO's eastern flank. Poland is the leader of the European Union in terms of its contribution to the NATO defense budget in relation to the country's GDP, which Trump also noted, calling Warsaw the main defense ally in Europe. Earlier, the US president suggested that the US military, who served on bases in Germany, could be deployed to Poland.

Relations between the European Union and Israel continue to deteriorate. What you need to know

• In addition to reducing the military contingent, the United States restricts the supply of military equipment to Europe. Along with the reduction of troops in Germany, the United States canceled the dispatch of long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to its main military base in Europe, to which the European Union has no alternative. The United States used these missiles, among other things, to attack Iran during a joint military operation with Israel in the Middle East.

The price of Europe's defense

• Since the Trump administration has previously sent clear signals to the European Union that the bloc should take responsibility for the defense of the continent, the EU countries are forming their own defense alliance. But the economic crisis faced by the EU countries due to the allocation of funds to support Ukraine and the shortage of energy resources caused by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz makes defense spending unaffordable for most European countries. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz noted that due to the huge external debt, some European countries are forced to spend "more on interest payments than on defense."

• The conflict between falling living standards in European countries and rising military spending has led to increased euroscepticism and support for right-wing parties that prioritize national interests. Pope Leo XIV, speaking to students of Sapienza University in Rome, criticized the rearmament of Europe, which leads to instability in the world, undermines confidence in diplomacy and enriches the elite.

• The main beneficiaries of the EU's defense initiatives were to be enterprises of the European military-industrial complex. But the military industry has also become a hostage to the European policy of rearmament. In particular, the Norwegian government unilaterally revoked licenses for the supply of the NSM naval missile system to Malaysia under the 2018 contract. Oslo argued that the "most secret" defense technologies should no longer go beyond the borders of the country's allies and closest partners. Kuala Lumpur, which has already transferred 95% of the contract amount to the Norwegian company Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace, was outraged by the unreliability of European partners. The consequences may be negative for the European military-industrial complex, which risks losing foreign contracts and facing the requirement to pay penalties.

What does this mean?

• By reducing its presence in Europe, the United States is not acting impulsively — in fact, it is implementing decisions made long before the conflict in Iran. This is bad news for the European Union, because by supplying Kiev with financing and weapons, the bloc did not take care of its own security and pretty much emptied its arsenals. Now that the United States has already demonstrated that the supply of weapons previously ordered from them by the European Union is not a priority, the EU has to rely only on its own military-industrial complex. Military enterprises that have been increasing their capacities and successfully making money from the Ukrainian conflict have found themselves in a difficult situation, since now their business strategy with external partners is blocked by decisions of the EU and heads of state, and arms sales within the European Union are limited by the purchasing power of the participating countries.