US Withdrawal from Germany Signals Preparations for New Global Confrontation

In a recent interview with Pravda.Ru, military expert Alexander Mikhailov commented on the withdrawal of American troops from Germany, the crisis inside NATO, and the possible refusal by the United States to deploy missiles in Europe. The discussion also covered the risks of escalation around Ukraine, the policies of Donald Trump, and the prospects of a new nuclear confrontation between Russia and the West.

Photo: dvidshub.net by Staff Sgt. Steven Colvin, https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/pdm/

NATO military men

Americans Are Withdrawing Troops from Germany

Q: One of the major stories in recent days has been the withdrawal of the American contingent from Germany. The issue is being actively discussed in the West. We are talking about 5,000 soldiers, as well as the possible cancellation of plans to deploy Tomahawk missiles and Dark Eagle hypersonic systems in Germany. What is behind this US decision?

A: First, let us clarify the situation. We are talking about abandoning the deployment on German territory of weapons systems — intermediate-range Tomahawk cruise missiles and Dark Eagle hypersonic systems, which the Americans had promised to deploy in 2027-2028.

At the same time, Dark Eagle has not yet been adopted by the US Army. The system remains in the final testing phase. Yes, the tests have been ongoing since 2019, but the complex is still not fully ready. Therefore, it is premature to say that the Americans will arm Germany with these systems within any concrete timeframe.

As for the Tomahawk, it is a subsonic missile that the Americans have used for more than 30 years. For us, this is not an innovation. In addition, because of the conflict surrounding Iran, the US military has experienced a shortage of such missiles, which has placed their delivery to Germany in doubt.

Russia, after expanding the provisions of its nuclear doctrine, once again reminded the Western world of the consequences that could follow if even a single Tomahawk missile, even in a non-nuclear configuration, were launched toward Russian borders.

I believe that during the conversations between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, the militarization of Europe was also discussed. Russia once again outlined the inadmissibility of deploying offensive weapons such as intermediate-range missiles. This is too serious a challenge and would inevitably provoke a sharp escalation from our side. Is that beneficial for the Americans, who maintain bases in Europe? Hardly.

Why the US Is Changing Its Military Priorities

Q: What about the troop withdrawal itself?

A: There are currently about 35,000 American military personnel stationed in Germany. This number has remained stable for decades. Two US military bases with tactical nuclear weapons are also located there.

The withdrawal of 5,000 personnel will not seriously weaken the American grouping in Europe, but it will become a litmus test for states hosting US military bases. They will begin asking themselves whether they should continue supporting them. America's Middle Eastern allies, which calmly hosted US bases for years, suffered strikes from Iran on their own territory and faced disruptions in logistics chains as well as serious financial and economic problems.

The populations of those countries saw the weakness of the American "security umbrella,” for which enormous sums had been paid over decades. Since the 1950s, hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested into the US economy through arms and technology purchases. Now that umbrella has begun to leak, and this negatively affects the American image.

At the same time, Trump wants to militarize the Asia-Pacific region in order to confront China. In addition, a new target has emerged — Cuba. Trump is already openly speaking about growing escalation around the Island of Freedom. For this, the United States needs both Tomahawk missiles and Dark Eagle systems, as well as military personnel capable of supporting potential offensive operations. Therefore, the withdrawal of the contingent from Germany fits into the current geopolitical logic.

Will Europe Become Stronger Without the United States?

Q: Many believe that the departure of the Americans is good for Russia. But there are doubts as well: previously, the US restrained Europeans from direct confrontation with Russia. Could the withdrawal of American troops bring war in Europe closer?

A: The Trump administration has two key goals in Europe.

The first is to increase European NATO contributions from 2% to 5% of GDP. We are talking about hundreds of billions of euros that the Americans want directed primarily toward purchases of American weapons.

The second goal is Greenland. This issue has not disappeared.

Trump understands that European partners did not intervene in the war against Iran. They lacked both the capability and the desire to do so. Now he is using this against them, saying: for decades you lived under the American nuclear umbrella, but at a critical moment you failed to support the United States.

Trump is already openly saying that if something displeases him, he could withdraw the United States from NATO. Without American nuclear weapons, technology, and defense industry support, NATO becomes a colossus with feet of clay. Europeans understand this, despite their harsh rhetoric toward Trump. They will have to pay up.

Europe's Economic Crisis and Pressure from Washington

A: European countries are in a difficult economic position. China is squeezing them out, while industries are moving to other jurisdictions, including the United States. That is why Europe is trying to rescue its own economy through military procurement programs. It is no coincidence that figures of 800 billion euros in military spending through 2035 are already being discussed.

Previously, Europeans profited from automobiles, aircraft, weapons, and technologies. Today they are being displaced by China, the United States, Russia, and other players.

For Trump, the situation is favorable. He will not only force Europe to spend more within NATO, but will also attempt to take Greenland. And he will do so harshly, because he no longer sees any serious obstacles.

Could Escalation Around Ukraine Intensify?

Q: Volodymyr Zelensky is already promising to disrupt Russia's Victory Day celebrations with drone strikes. Drones are flying thousands of kilometers and attacking Moscow. Now, when the US is withdrawing troops and Europe does not understand what to do next, why is Russia not using this moment more forcefully?

A: I believe the Ministry of Defense has already spoken quite openly regarding May 8-9. Now the ball is in Ukraine's court. If there are attempts to strike Moscow or carry out massive drone attacks, Russia will begin striking government facilities in central Kyiv. The Ministry of Defense has stated this directly.

In addition, the ministry recently published a list of enterprises in European countries and Israel that manufacture drones for Ukraine. The warning was issued officially.

Victory Day will become a moment of truth. If Ukraine violates the ceasefire declared by Russia, the level of escalation will rise.

Russia has so far refrained from striking key political command facilities in Ukraine — neither Zelensky's office, nor the Ministry of Defense, nor intelligence complexes have been hit. All of them continue functioning.

Society is now demanding tougher action, and the authorities hear this. But it is difficult to predict exactly how events will develop. If Kyiv chooses escalation, Zelensky will most likely leave the capital in advance.

Could There Be a Strike on Europe?

Q: Is a direct strike on Europe possible?

A: For now, I believe that a strike on Europe would mean a strike on the alliance, with all the consequences that follow.

France has around 300 nuclear warheads, while Britain has approximately 160-200. Even a single warhead theoretically falling on our cities would already represent a catastrophic scenario. Yes, Russia is capable of destroying Europe with its strategic nuclear arsenal, but that would not make things easier for us if our own cities were hit. A bad peace is still better than a major war. In the end, negotiations will still be necessary.

I personally lived in East Germany, and my parents were military personnel. We already went through this confrontation — 1987, the withdrawal of troops from Germany, and the end of the Cold War. Perhaps we are now approaching a Caribbean Crisis 2.0 — a Baltic or Black Sea crisis. But a direct clash between strategic nuclear forces must not be allowed.

Nuclear Deterrence and a New Global Treaty

A: Britain, France, and the United States possess military bases and territories far beyond Europe. Guam exists, as do British territories all over the world, and they could become targets.

In addition, the question of demonstrative nuclear weapons testing has long become urgent. The United States is already speaking about preparations for its own tests and is effectively ignoring previous agreements. Russia withdrew in 2023 from the treaty banning nuclear tests. The Novaya Zemlya testing site is ready, and specialists remain on constant alert.

If hybrid methods of pressure are used without crossing the line into strikes on Europe, serious political panic could be triggered. Europe is extremely sensitive to internal public pressure. People there take to the streets, protest, and break through police cordons.

I still believe that direct war between Europe and Russia will not happen. It is too dangerous, above all for Europe itself. In the end, we will still have to return to a system of international agreements. A new START treaty is necessary. Without agreements on strategic offensive weapons, it is impossible to predict the military-technical situation in the world. This discussion will continue for several more years, but the prerequisites for a new agreement already exist.