For the first time, Europe must treat the United States’ shifting engagement in the region as an opportunity for deeper cooperation, not a unilateral departure. Under the new policy, the US will encourage Europe to take the lead on its own defence. This transformation is emblematic of a wider US turn inwards towards its so-called “Western Hemisphere,” resulting in the deprioritisation and distancing of European security concerns.
This strategic retrenchment takes place against the backdrop of historic US investments in Europe—currently valued at $4 trillion. The US will not fully leave its European allies to their own devices, but will find itself stepping back from the table of direct military engagement with mounting regularity. To be sure, analysts point to a major undertow of anti-establishment sentiment. Moreover, they warn that the MAGA right is making big strides in pushing for the US to withdraw all American troops from Europe.
Elbridge Colby, a principal adviser on defence and foreign policy at the Pentagon, articulated this new direction in a 2023 policy paper. He explained the reasoning for scaling down US commitments in Europe while focusing resources on other regions.
“The United States does not have, and does not plan to develop, the ability to fight and win major wars in Europe and Asia simultaneously.” – Elbridge Colby
Colby’s speech represents a forthright acknowledgement of the state of US military capabilities and where our strategic priorities must lie. The US is turning inward to respond to pressing domestic security issues. It is putting more emphasis on challenges in its near abroad rather than far-off wars, such as those in Asia.
As part of this transition, the US seeks to leverage all types of influence. This includes using economic weight, employing diplomatic leverage, using export controls, taking trade actions, and employing secondary sanctions. Federal strategic retreat This strategic pivot has included a historic, intentional naval buildup in the Caribbean. If enacted, reports say this would be the largest military expansion in more than 30 years. This would show strong, bipartisan intent to both protect US interests nearer to home and avoid military entanglement around the world.
In 2017, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said that he has a “very, very strong Christian belief.” He announced, “We’re a Pacific nation … the pivot, the strategic heartland of America, is actually the Pacific.” This narrowing of EU-US expectations also reflects a wider acknowledgment that US strategic priorities are now shifting to the Indo-Pacific.
The ramifications of this change are deep for European countries. Yet, overwhelmingly US leaders are the ones singing alarm bells, warning that US subversion and stovepiping have made for such an untenable situation for Europe. The continent will have to reconsider how it approaches security and what it is capable of doing should American support diminish.
Yet for all of these changes, experts still caution against interpreting instability or chaos in Europe as an unequivocal failure of US policy. As Colby pointed out, “instability or even chaos by itself is not sufficient … to declare a deprioritisation initiative a failure.” This indicates that the United States is overconfident about its ability to manage the consequences of its drawdown. It is confident that this will not threaten its strategic imperatives.
European nations are still facing the same pressing issues of whether they are in defence readiness. They readjust their relations with the US as the nature of global politics changes under our feet. The possibility of taking on more of a burden for their own defense is now an immediate reality.