Follow us on social

google cta
Us-military-scaled

Biden taps US reserves for NATO mission in Europe

This is what happens when the alliance promises Zelensky 300,000 response troops for the war.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

The question over how "involved" the U.S. is in the Ukraine War is becoming increasingly rhetorical, as President Biden quietly signed an executive order on Thursday authorizing the call up of "the reserve and selected members of the individual ready reserve" for "the effective conduct of Operation Atlantic Resolve in and around the United States European Command’s area of responsibility."

The E.O. is brief and notes that no more than 3,000 reserves may be called up under the measure.

The question is, why? The military spin was on full display in Military.com yesterday: "This new designation benefits troops and families with increases in authorities, entitlements and access to the reserve component forces and personnel," said Lt. Gen. Douglas Sims, Joint Staff Director for Operations, who assured reporters the order would not result in higher U.S. troop levels in Europe.

The Pentagon's top spokesman Big. Gen. Pat Ryder put it more plainly: "It's unlocking additional forces for use in support of this operation."

After the invasion Washington increased its troop presence on the continent to 20,000. There were big headlines late last year when it was reported that members of the Army's 101st Airborne Division were "practicing for war with Russia just miles from the Ukraine border." We know from the Discord leaks there is a minimal number of U.S. Special Forces working with even more European military counterparts on the ground in Ukraine. There are at least 100 CIA officers on the ground there, too, according to reports, in non-combat roles.

A POLITICO article on yesterday's announcement gets right to the point: "the move suggests that the U.S. military’s training mission in Europe, along with the deployment of several new brigades after the invasion, has stretched active-duty forces."

Especially since NATO assured this week — as a consolation to Ukrainian President Zelensky, who wanted NATO member assurances — that the alliance would be upping its high readiness forces (ready to deploy in 30 days or less) to 300,000 strong. Right now the number of NATO troops on the continent is 100,000.

"It’s a tall order for the 31-member alliance whose individual members struggle with equipment and troop readiness after decades of skimping on military funding," said POLITICO writers Lara Seligman and Paul McLeary.

It's also a tall order for an American military that is struggling with the worst recruitment numbers in recent history. The Army experienced a shortfall of 25 percent in enlistments in the last fiscal year, and the other forces — Marines, Navy and Air Force — barely made their quotas. By all reports, it’s supposed to be worse this year.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of complaints that our European partners in "Operation Atlantic Resolve," are still not pulling their weight. As CATO's Justin Logan has charged many times, there is a dependency on the U.S. crutch and the war in Ukraine has more than encouraged that. At a time when it could be moving toward autonomy, Europe is hurtling faster into Uncle Sam's arms. From Logan:

It’s reasonable that our allies would like to use the U.S. economy and the U.S. military to their own ends. It’s unreasonable when American elites choose to indulge them. In multiple meetings with Biden administration officials after the war began, I was told that the United States would like Europe to do more for itself, but as one official put it, “we aren’t willing to put an ‘or else’ at the end of that sentence.”

Unfortunately, it now looks like Washington is stretching itself to accommodate, calling up reserves to meet a massive goal of 300,000 NATO troops on "high-readiness" ready to fight on the continent. Given the recruitment crisis and domestic needs at home, not to mention tensions with another great power in Asia, maybe it's time Biden take a moment to explain his strategy for ending this war, or short of that, asking directly for a greater commitment from the American people.

Update: Defense Priorities fellow and RS contributor Daniel Davis sent along these comments on the E.O.:

"If there's anything Russia has proven after 17 months of all-out warfare, is that the most they have been able to accomplish is to hang on to 17% of one neighboring state, 1/4th its size, which has no air force to speak of an no navy at all — and we believe we need to ramp up to a ground force of 300,000 "at a high state of readiness" to protect a 32 member alliance, with a population five times larger than Russia, an economy that dwarfs it, and an especially powerful and large air force and navy? I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague Raj Menon in today's New York Times: it's time for Europe to defend itself (based on reality of Western military and economic superiority, not on the fiction of a massive Russian conventional giant)."


(Bumble Dee/Shutterstock)
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Trump Central Asia
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) attend a dinner with the leaders of the C5+1Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 6, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

Central Asia doesn't need another great game

Asia-Pacific

The November 6 summit between President Donald Trump and the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. represents a significant moment in U.S.-Central Asia relations (C5+1). It was the first time a U.S. president hosted the C5+1 group in the White House, marking a turning point for U.S. relations with Central Asia.

The summit signaled a clear shift toward economic engagement. Uzbekistan pledged $35 billion in U.S. investments over three years (potentially $100 billion over a decade) and Kazakhstan signed $17 billion in bilateral agreements and agreed to cooperate with the U.S. on critical minerals. Most controversially, Kazakhstan became the first country in Trump's second term to join the Abraham Accords.

keep readingShow less
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Golden Dome, mission impossible

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Xi Jinping
Top image credit: Photo agency and Lev Radin via shutterstock.com

Why Texas should invite Xi Jinping to a rodeo

Asia-Pacific

Last year, Texas banned professional contact by state employees (including university professors) with mainland China, to “harden” itself against the influence of the Communist Party of China – an entity that has governed the country since 1949, and whose then-leader, Deng Xiaoping, attended a Texas rodeo in 1979.

Defending the policy, the new provost of the University of Texas, my colleague Will Inboden, writes in National Affairs that “the US government estimates that the CPC has purloined up to $600 billion worth of American technology each year – some of it from American companies but much of it from American universities.” US GDP is currently around $30 trillion, so $600 billion would represent 2% of that sum, or roughly 70% of the US defense budget ($880 billion). It also amounts to about one-third of all spending ($1.8 trillion) by all US colleges and universities, on all subjects and activities, every year. Make that 30 cents of every tuition dollar and a third of every federal research grant.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.