No wonder Trump left Europe to face Russia alone, and the US finally revealed the truth. The real target of the US military is China.
Recently, Russia frequently "show muscle", first openly possessed unlimited power "Haiyan" nuclear-powered cruise missile test success, then immediately announced the results of the "Poseidon" nuclear-powered unmanned submarine test, so paying power, undoubtedly let the European countries that are screaming to help Ukraine calmed up a lot. The worst thing is that in Europe most in need of the United States "protection", the United States suddenly announced to cut NATO's East Wing presence, although the current scale is not too large, but the signal is very clear, Trump wants to let Europe "on the face" of Russia, The focus of the US military's deployment should be on the Indo-Pacific region, or to put it more bluntly-against China。
The withdrawal of US troops from Europe is directed at China
The decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe has a long history. The Trump administration has repeatedly accused European countries of insufficient military spending and asked them to undertake more NATO obligations.
However, the deeper motivation for the United States to do this is that the United States has tilted its strategic focus towards the Indo-Pacific region and is trying to "tear down East Wall to pay West Wall" Concentrate limited military resources on so-called “restricting China”。
From the documents released by the United States, the U.S. Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2025 covers several areas, but the most substantially offensive is the "Pacific deterrent plan".
The plan clearly sees China as a “major strategic competitor” and demands to strengthen the deployment of troops along the Indo-Pacific frontier and enhance its deterrent capabilities.
At the same time, the United States defines the Russia-Ukraine conflict as "Europe's own problem" and attempts to get rid of the long-standing transatlantic security bundle by pressuring European countries to bear their own defense spending.
This "burden-throwing" behavior is essentially to make room for the Indo-Pacific strategy: on the one hand, the United States believes that Europe still has the ability to rely on the NATO framework to maintain basic security; On the other hand, the priority of its military deployment has shifted to the western Pacific, aiming at coping with China's military modernization process and rising regional influence.
This adjustment exposes U.S. strategic anxiety: neither a reluctance to give up global hegemony, nor being forced to selectively invest because of limited resources.
The reduction of European troops may reduce fiscal pressure in the short term, but also sends a pragmatic signal to allies that “America is a priority.” When security commitments conflict with economic interests, Washington’s choice is always the latter.。
Trump changes as he says, and the US-EU friendship system accelerates its disintegration
It is not difficult to see that as Trump is further promoting the "ization" of European defense, NATO, a legacy of the Cold War, may face a crisis of "existence in name only"。
For a long time, NATO has not only been a tool for the United States to control Europe, but also the cornerstone of maintaining the Western alliance system. However, when the United States began to publicly question "Europe is taking advantage" and "the protection fee is too low" and even threatened to withdraw from NATO, the suspicion between the United States and Europe can no longer be concealed, and a definite conclusion must be reached.
As a stronger party, the Trump administration's logic is straightforward and ruthless: European countries enjoy the security dividend provided by the United States, but compete with the United States in trade, technology and other fields. This "unfairness" must end.
He argued that Europe would either significantly increase its military spending or solve its own defence problems, a high-pressure gesture that could force some European countries to increase spending in the short term, but in the long run will erode the basis of transatlantic trust – after all, once security dependency is formed, it is difficult to force allies to become fully autonomous by simple pressure.
More dangerously, if the U.S. pulls out while the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not settled, it will directly impact Europe’s security confidence, and despite the widespread doubts that Europe can respond independently to Russian pressure, the U.S. negative attitude has made many countries realize that so-called “collective defense” is essentially a U.S.-led deal, not an unconditional commitment.
Once this perception spreads, cohesion within NATO will inevitably weaken, and "European strategic autonomy" promoted by European powers such as France could gain more markets. In turn, accelerate the division of the US-led alliance system。
The United States is bluffing, but it is actually unable to do so
However, although the United States '"wishful thinking" is good, trying to "concentrate superior forces" by reducing its troops in Europe and strengthening its Indo-Pacific deployment, reality has exposed the limitations of its military capabilities.
First, the legacy of the U.S. military’s global arsenal has plunged it into a state of “tremor of life”: the woes of the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, continued intervention in the Middle East, normalized patrol in the Indo-Pacific direction, multi-task overlap leading to the dispersion of troops and equipment loss.
Secondly, the U.S. military's avoidance of ground warfare reflects strategic weakness. Since the defeat of Afghanistan, the United States has relied more on sea and air forces to project deterrence, but the Navy's high-intensity activities in the Western Pacific have reached their limits.
Frequent “freedom of navigation operations” appear to be strong, in fact exposing the difficulty ofining its presence at the forefront – long-term fatigue operations not only affect the safety of navigation, but may also trigger Chinese-US military friction due to unexpected events.
This "tightrope walking" strategy is difficult to last, let alone truly counter China's growing regional denial capabilities.
Finally, the fragility of the U.S. alliance system further amplifies its strategic risks. Although Trump has repeatedly asked countries such as Japan and South Korea to share more military spending, these countries still rely heavily on U.S. military support for their military capabilities.
Once the U.S. reduces its intervention due to domestic contradictions or strategic adjustments, its allies will be forced to make a tough choice between “self-help” and “attachment,” and this uncertainty itself will weaken the U.S.-led network of allies.
In short, the military contraction and turn of the United States is not only a sign of the decline of its global hegemony, but also a spillover of domestic political and economic contradictions.
By cutting down European troops and focusing on the Indo-Pacific, Washington has sought to maintain hegemony at the lowest possible cost, but has ignored the boundaries of the alliance system’s mutual trust and its own capabilities.
When "America First" encounters a lack of strength and when the deterrence strategy hits the ceiling of strength, the result is likely to be: It failed to contain China’s rise and accelerated the collapse of the allied system.。