Canceling the deployment of a U.S. long-range strike battalion ...

❗️Canceling the deployment of a U.S. long-range strike battalion in Germany could become a greater threat than the withdrawal of 5,000 troops. In effect, this means abandoning the ground deployment of Tomahawks and SM-6 air defense systems, - Reuters reports, citing a defense industry expert.

\\

As became known overnight into Saturday, in addition to withdrawing 5,000 troops from Germany, Trump canceled the deployment of a long-range strike battalion planned for 2026.

As Reuters explains, this was a battalion armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, whose deployment Joe Biden ordered in 2024 in response to the growing Russian threat. European countries do not have equivalent strike capabilities\, which reduces U.S. strategic deterrence against Russia.

"The U.S. has an effective monopoly on long-range strike capabilities within NATO. Therefore, from an operational standpoint this step is more serious than a [reduction] in troop numbers," - Christian Mölling, director of the European EDINA institute.

Tomahawks deployed in Germany could potentially have reached Moscow.

\A clarification is needed here. NATO has never particularly relied on ground-based long-range strike systems. The same Tomahawks were originally designed to be launched from the sea. The Typhon launchers used to fire Tomahawks from land are more an expansion of Tomahawk employment options than some radically new solution.

It should also be added that NATO, as part of exercises, simulates long-range strikes from the sea against the Russian border area - the latest such strikes were practiced during the Neptune Strike exercises off the coast of Sardinia (Italy) in the Mediterranean in November 2025.

True, you cannot hit Moscow with Tomahawks from the Mediterranean, unlike from German territory. But you can hit it from the Baltic Sea, that should not be a problem.

Nevertheless, the unilateral U.S. refusal of the de facto deployment of Tomahawks in Germany is a step backward in the strategic deterrence of Russia. Especially in light of the fact that Russia has deployed the Oreshnik in Belarus (even though the Oreshnik and the Tomahawk are not equivalent strike systems, the Oreshnik is an IRBM while the Tomahawk is a cruise missile, but still).

Moreover, refusing to deploy the long-range strike battalion entails canceling the deployment in Germany of SM-6 missile defense systems, which could have intercepted the same Kinzhal missiles launched from Belarus or Kaliningrad.

A few more details:

▪️Trump said on Saturday that he will withdraw "far more than 5,000" troops from Germany.

▪️Republican heads of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees Roger Wicker and Mike Rogers are "very concerned" by the Pentagon's statement on the troop withdrawal and believe the troops should not be withdrawn but moved farther east. (Okay, and what are you going to do about it?)

▪️German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said this troop withdrawal had been expected and that Germany is on the right path by expanding the size of its armed forces and increasing military procurement and infrastructure construction.

▪️Ruling CDU member Peter Beyer also downplayed the significance of the troop reduction, saying it was more likely not a thought-out U.S. strategy but a "political reaction due to irritation" tied to poor polling numbers.

▪️NATO spokesperson Allison Hart said they are trying to determine which U.S. bases the troops are to be withdrawn from and where they are going to be redirected.

One final thing, from me: so, where are Europe's "ELSAs" (ELSA) - ground-launched cruise missiles with a range of up to 2,000 km, planned in 2024?

Right now many people are throwing stones at the Ukrainian Flamingos, but all of Europe in two years still has not bothered to develop its own long-range cruise missile. And yes, they also have not started moving on air and missile defense either, and without America things are very bad there too.