Estados Unidos en Europa: ¿compromiso de verdad o repliegue disfrazado?
LEGAL REVIEW Serrano García, Eugenio. “Estados Unidos en Europa: ¿compromiso de verdad o repliegue disfrazado?” Boletín CODESEL, vol. 2, no. 10, August 2026, ISSN-e: 3045-7750. Review The future of the transatlantic relationship has become one of the central questions of contemporary security policy. Russia’s war against Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, growing strategic competition with China and renewed debate over allied burden-sharing have forced the United States to reconsider how many resources it can devote simultaneously to Europe and other theatres. In this timely article, Eugenio Serrano García examines whether Washington is genuinely preparing to reduce its commitment to Europe or whether the apparent retrenchment reflects a transformation in the manner through which American power is exercised. His central argument is persuasive: the United States is not abandoning Europe, but is seeking to preserve its military, economic and political influence while transferring a greater share of the costs and responsibilities of collective defence to its European allies. The article begins by situating the present debate within the historical importance of Europe to American grand strategy. Since the end of the Second World War, the establishment of NATO, permanent military bases and unprecedented levels of trade and investment transformed the European continent into one of the pillars of the international order led by the United States. Serrano García nevertheless emphasises that this longstanding relationship now operates within a substantially more competitive global environment. Europe must compete for American strategic attention with the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East and other areas where Washington perceives increasingly significant challenges. One of the article’s principal strengths lies in its distinction between rhetorical retrenchment and actual strategic withdrawal. Although the Trump administration has repeatedly invoked an “America First” logic and demanded greater European responsibility, the practical evidence analysed by the author points towards continued American engagement. Washington may seek smaller or differently distributed forces, but it continues to preserve the operational infrastructure and capabilities required to project military power into Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean and beyond. The result is not disengagement but a redefinition of participation. The analysis of American troop deployments provides a particularly useful illustration. At the beginning of 2026, United States European Command maintained between 80,000 and 100,000 personnel in Europe, supported by a substantial network of permanent bases and additional facilities. Germany continued to function as the principal hub, followed by Italy, the United Kingdom and Spain. These installations perform functions ranging from logistics to the storage of nuclear weapons, demonstrating that American presence in Europe cannot be measured solely by troop numbers. Infrastructure itself constitutes a long-term strategic asset that enables rapid reinforcement and power projection. Particularly important is the article’s examination of the domestic legal constraints affecting any potential American withdrawal. Serrano García shows how the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act restricts the executive branch’s ability to reduce troop levels below specified thresholds without prior consultation, justification and congressional oversight. This constitutes a significant legal dimension of the transatlantic relationship: strategic commitments are not determined solely by presidential preference but are also embedded within domestic legislative mechanisms designed to prevent abrupt unilateral changes. The subsequent movement of forces towards Poland reinforces the author’s broader thesis. While Washington announced reductions in Germany, it simultaneously strengthened its presence on NATO’s eastern flank. This redistribution suggests that American strategy is becoming increasingly responsive to the geography of the Russian threat rather than simply reducing the overall importance of Europe. The temporary suspension of plans to remove substantial military equipment from the continent further illustrates how security conditions can rapidly override political rhetoric concerning retrenchment. Another major contribution of the article concerns burden-sharing within NATO. Serrano García interprets the commitment made at The Hague Summit to substantially increase allied defence expenditure not as evidence of declining American interest, but as an attempt to restructure the alliance economically. Washington seeks to preserve deterrence while reducing the proportionate financial burden borne by the American taxpayer. In this sense, European rearmament is not necessarily an alternative to the transatlantic alliance; it may instead become one of the conditions for its continued functioning. This point is especially important because the article avoids reducing NATO burden-sharing to a purely accounting exercise. Defence expenditure is connected to infrastructure, resilience, industrial capacity and the ability of European allies to assume operational responsibilities previously carried predominantly by the United States. The strategic objective is therefore not merely to spend more, but to increase Europe’s capacity to contribute meaningfully to deterrence and defence. The study’s economic analysis further strengthens the argument against a simple narrative of American withdrawal. Serrano García demonstrates that the transatlantic economic relationship remains extraordinarily dense. Trade in goods and services, mutual foreign direct investment and the extensive integration of American and European companies continue to make the United States-European Union relationship one of the most important economic partnerships in the world. Particularly striking is the observation that American investment in the European Union substantially exceeds its investment across the Asia-Pacific region, complicating any assumption that Washington’s strategic pivot towards Asia necessarily entails economic disengagement from Europe. The article also highlights the increasing convergence between economic and security interests. Recent trade arrangements incorporate energy purchases, defence equipment, nuclear energy and semiconductor technology, demonstrating that contemporary transatlantic relations increasingly blur the distinction between commercial policy and national security. Europe’s energy security, defence-industrial development and technological investment are becoming more closely intertwined with American economic interests. The war in Ukraine occupies an appropriately central position in the analysis. Serrano García argues that the continuing Russian invasion makes a rapid American departure from Europe strategically difficult. A complete withdrawal of support could weaken deterrence against Russia and simultaneously affect the credibility of American security guarantees elsewhere, including the Indo-Pacific. The article therefore correctly identifies Ukraine as more than a regional conflict: it has become a test of the credibility of American alliances and of Washington’s willingness to sustain commitments when they generate prolonged financial and military costs. The discussion of simultaneous strategic pressures is equally valuable. The United States must manage Russian aggression in Europe, conflict and instability in the Middle East and long-term competition with China. Serrano García describes the resulting approach as a form of forced alignment across several theatres. Rather than choosing completely between regions, Washington attempts to retain influence in all of them while encouraging regional allies to assume more responsibility. This provides a convincing explanation for the apparent contradiction between continued American engagement and increasingly insistent demands for European strategic autonomy. One of the article’s most insightful distinctions concerns the difference between presence and confidence. The evidence suggests that the American military presence in Europe remains substantial, yet the predictability of the political commitment underpinning that presence has weakened. Repeated announcements, reversals, tariff threats and political disputes create uncertainty even when material capabilities remain largely intact. Consequently, the principal strategic problem for European allies may not be the immediate disappearance of American forces, but uncertainty regarding the reliability of future American decisions. This distinction has important implications for European defence policy. Strategic autonomy can therefore develop not because Europe expects the United States necessarily to leave, but because European governments increasingly perceive excessive dependence upon an unpredictable external guarantor as a vulnerability. Greater European military capacity may thus coexist with continued American engagement rather than constituting its replacement. The visual presentation of the article reinforces this central argument effectively. Photographs of American personnel deploying to Poland and conducting exercises on NATO’s eastern flank illustrate the continuing operational reality of the United States military presence. The final image of the Port of Rotterdam provides an equally useful counterpoint, visually emphasising that the transatlantic relationship rests not only upon military cooperation but also upon extraordinarily dense commercial and investment ties. Methodologically, the article benefits from combining military deployments, domestic American legislation, NATO burden-sharing, trade, investment and the geopolitical consequences of the war in Ukraine. Rather than analysing the transatlantic relationship exclusively through alliance theory or military posture, Serrano García treats economic interdep
Also available via: Zenodo