Germany: US troops in both countries' interests — BBC News

[0:00] Germany's defence minister says the presence of American troops in his country was in the interests of both Germany and the U.S. [0:07] Boris Pistorius was speaking after President Trump said he would withdraw many more than the 5,000 he's already said will leave Germany. [0:15] Mr Pistorius said the withdrawal did not come as a surprise. [0:19] It follows criticism of President Trump by Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the war in Iran. [0:24] Our correspondent Joe Inwood reports. [0:26] For more than 80 years, the U.S. has maintained a significant military presence in Germany. [0:34] Hundreds of thousands has gradually reduced to tens of thousands. [0:38] And that figure now looks set to fall further. [0:40] We're going to cut way down and we're cutting a lot further than 5,000. [0:44] Thank you very much. [0:46] It comes amidst a deepening row between the leaders of the two countries. [0:51] Last week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told a group of students that the U.S. [0:55] had no strategy when it came to Iran and was being humiliated by their negotiators. [1:01] Donald Trump responded by saying Merz was doing a terrible job and threatened to withdraw troops from his country. [1:08] The Trump administration had long signaled that it wants to shift resources away from Europe. [1:12] And, you know, plans had probably been in the drawer and were now brought forward to do it at an opportune time to really punish what the U.S. president thought Friedrich Merz's unacceptable comments were on the Iran war. [1:26] Germany hosts Europe's biggest U.S. bases, but it's not the only country being threatened to have troops withdrawn. [1:32] Would you be considering the same thing for Spain and Italy? I mean, they haven't been exactly on board. [1:39] Yeah, probably. Yeah, I probably will. Why should I? You know, look, why shouldn't I? [1:44] Italy has not been of any help to us and Spain has been horrible, absolutely horrible. [1:54] This is just the latest fracturing of the European-U.S. relationship and the NATO military alliance it underpins. [2:01] Yes, there is a feeling that both sides would lose from a move that will surely be welcomed by Moscow. [2:08] Joe Inwood, BBC News. [2:12] Well, the top Republicans on the U.S. Armed Services Committee in Congress have issued a rare joint statement saying they're concerned about the troop withdrawal. [2:20] They say it risks sending the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin. [2:24] Jim Townsend is a former U.S. Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for European and NATO policy, [2:29] and he spoke to my colleague Carl Nazman congratulating the Republicans on their statement. [2:34] Well, it was good to hear that. And it underlines that really within the Congress and even among Republicans in the Senate, [2:42] NATO is popular. And so the idea that the president would do something that undermines the alliance, [2:49] as well as bilateral relations with our allies, is something that's really got them on the move. [2:55] And it's good to see. But let's see what kind of impact it's going to have with the president. [2:59] Do we know, I mean, how significant of a move is this, the removal of 5,000 troops from Germany? [3:05] Will that have an impact on any ongoing operations, whether we're talking about the war in the Middle East or the ongoing war in Ukraine? [3:12] Well, it won't have an impact in terms of the Middle East or in terms of Ukraine. [3:19] It'll have an impact on deterrence. How well can these U.S. forces contribute to the deterrence of things that the Russians might have up their sleeve, [3:29] whether it's this year or five years from now, three years from now? [3:32] They're part of that NATO deterrence force and very important parts. [3:36] Both of these brigades are combat brigades. One is infantry and the other is a missile brigade, [3:42] which includes long-range fires, you know, long-range artillery and missiles, [3:47] something that the Russians don't like to see and are probably very happy to hear the president's news. [3:53] How do you think NATO will respond to this? According to NATO's spokesperson, [3:57] the alliance is seeking clarification from Washington, [3:59] and so apparently may be caught off guard there as well in terms of looking at NATO. [4:04] Well, you're right. I think they're very much caught off guard. I think a lot of people are. [4:08] I mean, this is something that has been in the wind for a while, [4:11] that the U.S. was doing a force posture review, that there might be troops moving out of Europe, [4:16] but there wasn't anything firm for a long time. And now suddenly this has popped up. [4:21] He has telegraphed this, Trump has, even from his first term, that he wanted to move forces. [4:26] So while it's not necessarily news to the experts, certainly it is to the alliance and certainly it [4:34] is to the German people and to the U.S. And so this is something that for NATO, they're going to [4:41] have to figure out, so what about our war plans now that depend on these forces? How are we going [4:45] to fill those gaps? Will there be a transition? Will there be some other allies that might be [4:51] able to fill in the gaps left by the United States? When will this kick off? There's a lot [4:55] of questions that the military planners at NATO need to have answered. [4:59] You know, we heard there from Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius, saying that having [5:03] U.S. troops there in Germany and in Europe is in both countries' interests. But he also said this, [5:09] he said that Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security. Do you think moves like this [5:15] one, you know, President Trump beginning to move troops out of Germany, could have a similar effect [5:20] the way that the president demanded that NATO countries begin to step up and spend more on [5:25] their own defense? Well, that has already happened in terms of allies stepping up and spending more [5:31] money, not just in terms of pledges at NATO summits, but money is being put on the table. [5:35] There's a lot of procurements that were done, and now they understand that the U.S. won't be [5:41] delivering what they've already purchased anytime soon. But there is money being put on the table, [5:46] and there is work being done to increase troop numbers. And Germany is leading that. And that's [5:52] what's so incredible about this punishment of Germany. If there's an ideal ally in terms of taking [5:59] on more of the burden, buying more of the equipment, spending more money on defense, it's Germany. [6:03] And so to punish them this way is just counterproductive. [6:07] Well, you're using the word punishment there. I'm curious, do you see this as some sort of [6:11] political punishment over that back and forth that we outlined between the two leaders of [6:15] the two countries? Absolutely. I think this could have been, like I said, it was in the wind among [6:21] force posture experts that we might be moving forces around. So I think what was probably proposed [6:28] to the president by Secretary Hegseth is, look, you've been talking about punishing allies. You [6:34] don't like what Mertz said. Why don't we move up, moving 5,000 troops out of Germany, and you can [6:39] show, throw that at Mertz and say, I'm punishing you because of what you've said. [6:43] And I think that's what's happened.