March 12, 2019
United States European Command: Overview and Key Issues
History
USEUCOM’s Current Geopolitical
United States European Command (or EUCOM,
Challenges
pronounced “YEW-com”) is headquartered in Stuttgart,
Events in recent years, particularly since 2014, have tested,
Germany, and was established in 1952. Today its area of
if not undermined, the strategic assumptions underpinning
responsibility comprises 51 countries stretching from
EUCOM’s posture. To Europe’s east, Russia annexed
Portugal’s Azores Islands to Iceland and Israel.
Crimea, began a proxy war in Eastern Ukraine, and is
USEUCOM’s commander is currently U.S. Army General
modernizing its conventional and nonconventional forces.
Curtis Scaparrotti, who is simultaneously NATO’s Supreme
Russia also increased its military activities in Europe’s high
Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR). During the Cold
north, particularly through reportedly adding nuclear-
War, the European theater was a primary focus for U.S.
capable missiles to Kaliningrad (a Russian territory on the
defense and national security and EUCOM was focused
Baltic Sea that is not contiguous with Russia itself),
almost exclusively on deterring, and if necessary defeating,
enhancing its air patrolling activities close to other states’
the Soviet Union. At the height of the Cold War, there were
airspace, and enhancing its naval presence in the Baltic Sea,
more than 400,000 U.S. troops stationed in Europe.
the Arctic Ocean, and the North Sea. Taken together, these
moves have heightened some congressional concerns about
The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a withdrawal of the
Russian aggression and its implications for NATO
bulk of forward-deployed U.S. troops in the European
territories, particularly among Central and Eastern
theater. Decisions to do so were arguably based on a
European NATO allies.
number of strategic assumptions held by successive
administrations after the end of the Cold War, including
Figure 1. Kaliningrad and the Baltic States
that
Europe could be stable, whole, and free;
Russia could be a constructive partner in the Euro-
Atlantic security architecture; and
particularly prior to September 11, 2001, threats posed
by terrorism and migration from the Middle East/North
Africa region were limited.
EUCOM subsequently focused its activities on non-
warfighting missions, including building the security
capacity and capability of former Soviet bloc states,
prosecuting “crisis management” operations in the Balkans,
Source: Graphic created by CRS using data from the Department of
and logistically supporting other combatant commands (by
State (2017), Garmin (2017), and NGA (2019).
providing, in particular, critical medical evacuation
facilities at Landstuhl), including U.S. Central Command
To Europe’s South, instability resulting in part from the
(USCENTCOM) and U.S. Africa Command
“Arab Spring” led to collapse of states, civil war in some
(USAFRICOM).
instances, and significant refugee flows into Europe. The
conflicts in Iraq and Syria are examples, although some
Over the past 25 years, decisions regarding U.S. basing and
European countries are also concerned about conditions in
posture in the European theater have largely reflected these
Libya. This has led to political tensions across the broader
assumptions. The bulk of U.S. forces in Europe have been
European Union, and to concerns about terrorists
withdrawn (as of FY2018, approximately 74,000 military
“embedding” within refugee flows. In 2014, EUCOM
service members were assigned to EUCOM and its
began transforming itself back into a warfighting command,
subordinate commands; see below). Many bases and
while retaining its missions to support USCENTCOM and
outposts were either consolidated or closed. However, two
USAFRICOM, perform crisis management operations, and
Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) were retained (in Italy and
build partner states’ security capacity.
Germany) as were some naval bases, particularly those
along NATO’s southern flank,
U.S. Forces in Europe Today
and a number of air force
bases that were deemed critical for supporting operations in
The United States fields two primary types of forces in
the Middle East, Africa and Europe.
Europe: permanent and rotational. “Permanent” refers to
those U.S. personnel who live in Europe and are assigned to
U.S. European Command. The length of these assignments
for most service members is between three and five years.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
United States European Command: Overview and Key Issues
Approximately 74,000 personnel are permanently assigned
Forward Presence (EFP) in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and
to EUCOM. These include
Lithuania. The U.S. battalion, based in Poland, consists of
close to 900 U.S. troops and 300 additional troops from
34,000 Army personnel,
Croatia, Romania, and the UK.
27,000 Air Force personnel,
Burden Sharing?
3,000 Marine personnel, and
Some observers contend that European allies have not
10,000 Navy personnel.
invested sufficient resources in their militaries, and that as a
result, the United States has shouldered too much of the
An additional 20,000 permanent DOD civilians are also
financial burden associated with Europe’s defense. Such
authorized for EUCOM and its supporting commands.
observers often contend that while the United States spends
3.75% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense,
Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, DOD has
most of NATO’s allies in Europe have not yet met a 2014
also increased its rotations of temporary forces in and out of
pledge to increase their defense budgets to 2% of GDP by
EUCOM to assure allies of the United States’ commitment
2024. Others argue that the United States spends
to their security. Dubbed “heel-to-toe” rotations, air, ground
significantly more on defense than its European allies
and naval assets are deployed from the continental United
because the United States has global responsibilities that are
States to conduct exercises with NATO allies for several
independent of Europe’s security. It is difficult to parse the
months; they are then immediately replaced by other like
defense budget in a manner that identifies what specific
units. U.S. ground forces have been largely stationed in
percentage is dedicated to operations and presence in
Poland, with elements also conducting training and
Europe. Whatever the percentage, the investment is
exercises in the Baltic States, Bulgaria, Romania, and
intended to enable the United States to conduct military
Germany. The “heel-to-toe” rotations are part of Operation
operations in the Middle East and Africa and to respond
Atlantic Resolve (OAR). The European Deterrence
rapidly to other crises.
Initiative (EDI, formerly called the European Reassurance
Initiative; see below) is the key mechanism through which
The European Deterrence Initiative
activities under OAR are organized and funded.
Since its establishment in 2014, EDI has been a line within
the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) defense
Several observers have asserted that it might be more
account. EDI funding for FY2019 is being used for five
politically reassuring and financially efficient to
permanently station these “heel
priorities, some of which reflect the continued execution of
-to-toe” rotational forces.
multiyear activities:
Others contend that these rotations force military units in
the continental United States to routinely test their ability to
increased military presence, particularly through “heel-
deploy to other theaters and exercise critical logistics
to-toe” rotations;
capabilities. The Polish government has suggested the
additional military exercises and training;
United States establish a permanent base on its territory;
doing so would presumably require deploying additional
improved infrastructure;
troops to Europe or redeploying those already stationed
prepositioning equipment; and
there.
enhancing programs to build interoperability with
European Command and NATO
countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
EUCOM and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
In its FY2019 budget, the Trump Administration requested
(NATO), while strategically interconnected, are different
$6.5 billion for EDI, a more than sixfold increase from
organizations with different missions. NATO is an alliance
FY2015. Appropriations associated with EDI are located in
of 29 nations that are signatories to the 1949 Washington
multiple titles and budget lines. Some observers contend
Treaty; the United States is a NATO member. U.S.
that EDI should be made part of the “base” Defense budget
European Command, by contrast, is the focal point for the
rather than part of OCO. Doing so, in their view, has two
United States military’s presence in Europe. Only some of
primary advantages. First, it would signal to allies that U.S.
EUCOM’s activities support NATO’s operations and
security commitments to Europe are enduring, and second,
activities; the remainder advance U.S. objectives with
programs and capabilities that EDI supports are no longer
individual countries, across the region, and across the
“contingency” operations, but rather a part of DOD’s steady
Middle East and Africa, though they do generally reinforce
state programming. Others counter that shifting EDI to the
NATO as well. The complementary nature of these dual
base budget would subject EDI to inter-service rivalries and
roles and missions is one of the rationales behind dual-
priorities within the Pentagon, which may differ from those
hatting the Commander of U.S. European Command as
of EUCOM.
NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
Further Reading
Since 2014, EUCOM has been a key architect of and
CRS In Focus IF10542, Defense Primer: Commanding
contributor to NATO reassurance and deterrence initiatives.
U.S. Military Operations, by Kathleen J. McInnis
EUCOM has led numerous multinational training exercises
and rotational deployments of land, air, and naval assets.
Since 2017, the United States has commanded one of the
Kathleen J. McInnis, Specialist in International Security
four NATO battalions that make up NATO’s Enhanced
IF11130
https://crsreports.congress.gov
United States European Command: Overview and Key Issues
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11130 · VERSION 1 · NEW