Pentagon Launches Review of European Force Posture Amid Munitions Shortages

The arithmetic of European defense relies on a simple substitution: as the United States withdraws its conventional forces, European militaries must generate the mass and munitions to replace them. Right now, that equation does not close.

With U.S. air-defense stockpiles severely depleted by the ongoing war with Iran and European rearmament still years away from its 2035 targets, the Pentagon has formally launched a comprehensive review of its European force posture. The six-month assessment, which will present options to the Secretary of Defense in November, aims to shift primary responsibility for conventional deterrence to NATO's European members.[1]

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby formally initiated the review in late July, following an initial announcement by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The assessment examines the distribution of the roughly 80,000 American personnel currently stationed across the continent. The administration's stated goal is to transition to a "NATO 3.0" model, where European nations provide the bulk of conventional military capabilities while the United States acts primarily as a nuclear guarantor and strategic backstop.[1]

The push for a reduced footprint is driven by acute resource constraints. The U.S. military campaign against Iran has burned through scarce, high-demand munitions faster than industrial production lines can replace them. The expenditure of PAC-3 and SM-3 interceptors has created a severe sustainment bottleneck. Consequently, the Pentagon has already informed NATO allies that it is reducing the number of military assets it makes available for the alliance's defense plans.[4]

"The days of the United States propping up the entire world like Atlas are over," the 2025 National Security Strategy declared, a sentiment echoing through the current review. Advocacy groups like Americans for Prosperity argue that the review should fully implement recommendations to transition to a pre-2014 European force posture, which would leave around 60,000 U.S. troops on the continent.

They note that the U.S. surged to over 100,000 troops following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and contend that maintaining excessive deployments undermines the political will of European allies to rebuild their own defense capabilities.

In response to Washington's pressure, European NATO members have agreed to a new defense-spending target, requiring members to devote 5 percent of their gross domestic product to security-related spending by 2035. However, translating financial pledges into operational military capability takes time. Germany has donated about one-third of its Patriot systems to Ukraine, while Poland transferred five PAC-3 interceptors to Kyiv, leaving their own stocks heavily depleted just as the U.S. signals a pullback.[4]

The timing of the U.S. review has generated significant anxiety in European capitals. The assessment coincides with an increasingly active Russian kinetic campaign against European infrastructure. Recent incidents, including an airport attack in Germany directly attributed to Moscow and an arson at a Polish drone factory, demonstrate a clear pattern of escalation. Analysts warn that Moscow appears willing to test how far it can push NATO before the alliance fractures.[2][3]

"It will take time to translate this spending into military capability," noted Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker. "The ongoing force posture review in Europe must account for this reality and for the risk that a wounded and failing Putin might seek to change his circumstances through opportunistic aggression in Europe."[2]

As the Pentagon prepares its final recommendations for early December 2026, European diplomats are attempting to present a unified message to demonstrate that the continent is collectively increasing its defense capabilities. The deciding factor of the Europe Force Posture Review will not be whether the United States can withdraw its forces, but whether European capability generation can close the resulting critical gaps faster than Russia can exploit them.[1][2][4]