Updated February 13, 2020
United States European Command: Overview and Key Issues
History
modernizing its conventional and nonconventional forces.
United States European Command (or EUCOM,
Russia also increased its military activities in Europe’s high
pronounced “YEW-com”) is headquartered in Stuttgart,
north, particularly through reportedly adding nuclear-
Germany, and was established in 1952. Today its area of
capable missiles to Kaliningrad (a Russian territory on the
responsibility comprises 51 countries stretching from
Baltic Sea that is not contiguous with Russia itself),
Portugal’s Azores Islands to Iceland and Israel.
enhancing its air patrolling activities close to other states’
USEUCOM’s commander is currently U.S. Air Force
airspace, and enhancing its naval presence in the Baltic Sea,
General Tod Wolters, who is simultaneously the North
the Arctic Ocean, and the North Sea. Taken together, these
Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Supreme Allied
moves have heightened some congressional concerns about
Commander, Europe (SACEUR). During the Cold War, the
Russian aggression and its implications for NATO
European theater was a primary focus for U.S. defense and
territories, particularly among Central and Eastern
national security and EUCOM was focused almost
European NATO allies.
exclusively on deterring, and if necessary defeating, the
Soviet Union. At the height of the Cold War, there were
To Europe’s south, instability resulting in part from the
more than 400,000 U.S. troops stationed in Europe.
“Arab Spring” led to collapse of states, civil war in some
instances, and significant refugee flows into Europe. The
The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a withdrawal of the
conflicts in Iraq and Syria are examples, although some
bulk of forward-deployed U.S. troops in the European
European countries are also concerned about conditions in
theater. Decisions to do so were arguably based on a
Libya. This has led to political tensions across the broader
number of strategic assumptions held by successive
European Union, and to concerns about terrorists
administrations after the end of the Cold War, including
“embedding” within refugee flows. In 2014, EUCOM
that
began transforming itself back into a warfighting command,
while retaining its missions to support CENTCOM and
Europe could be stable, whole, and free;
AFRICOM, perform crisis management operations, and
Russia could be a constructive partner in the Euro-
build partner states’ security capacity.
Atlantic security architecture; and
U.S. Forces in Europe Today
particularly prior to September 11, 2001, threats posed
The United States fields two primary types of forces in
by terrorism and migration from the Middle East/North
Europe: permanent and rotational. “Permanent” refers to
Africa region were limited.
those U.S. personnel who live in Europe and are assigned to
EUCOM subsequently focused its activities on non-
U.S. European Command. The length of these assignments
warfighting missions, including building the security
for most service members is between three and five years.
capacity and capability of former Soviet bloc states,
Approximately 74,000 personnel are permanently assigned
prosecuting “crisis management” operations in the Balkans,
to EUCOM. These include
and logistically supporting other combatant commands (by
providing, in particular, critical medical evacuation
34,000 Army personnel,
facilities at Landstuhl), including U.S. Central Command
27,000 Air Force personnel,
(CENTCOM) and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
3,000 Marine personnel, and
Over the past 25 years, decisions regarding U.S. basing and
10,000 Navy personnel.
posture in the European theater have largely reflected these
assumptions. The bulk of U.S. forces in Europe have been
An additional 20,000 permanent DOD civilians are also
withdrawn and many bases and outposts were either
authorized for EUCOM and its supporting commands.
consolidated or closed. However, two Brigade Combat
Finally, on February 11, 2020, DOD announced the
Teams (BCTs) were retained (in Italy and Germany) as
reactivation of the V Corps headquarters in Fort Knox, KY,
were some naval bases, particularly those along NATO’s
which will provide command and control for U.S., allied
southern flank, and a number of Air Force bases that were
and partner formations in Europe. Once a site for a forward
deemed critical for supporting operations in the Middle
command post is selected, approximately 200 V Corps
East, Africa and Europe.
personnel will rotate through Europe.
USEUCOM’s Current Geopolitical
Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, DOD has
Challenges
also increased its rotations of temporary forces in and out of
Events in recent years, particularly since 2014, have tested,
EUCOM to assure allies of the United States’ commitment
if not undermined, the strategic assumptions underpinning
to their security. Dubbed “heel-to-toe” rotations, air, ground
EUCOM’s posture. To Europe’s east, Russia annexed
and naval assets are deployed from the continental United
Crimea, began a proxy war in Eastern Ukraine, and is
States to conduct exercises with NATO allies for several
https://crsreports.congress.gov
United States European Command: Overview and Key Issues
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
EUCOM Funding
activities under OAR are organized and funded.
DOD budget documentation does not break out total
funding by combatant command. Forces and operations
Several observers have asserted that it might be more
assigned to the commands are, in general, funded by the
politically reassuring and financially efficient to
military services (either in their regular, or base, budgets or
permanently station these “heel-to-toe” rotational forces.
with funding designated for Overseas Contingency
Others contend that these rotations force military units in
Operations, or OCO). Combatant command funding is, with
the continental United States to routinely test their ability to
some exceptions, limited to Operation and Maintenance
deploy to other theaters and exercise critical logistics
(O&M) accounts for headquarters and mission support
capabilities. The Polish government has suggested the
activities. In the case of EUCOM, the U.S. Army is the
United States establish a permanent base on its territory;
Combatant Command Support Agent (CCSA) and primarily
doing so would presumably require deploying additional
responsible for funding its headquarters. For FY2020, the
troops to Europe or moving those already stationed there.
Army requested approximately $320.0 million in the O&M
budget subactivity group (SAG) for U.S. European
European Command and NATO
Command, including $146.4 million in base funding and
EUCOM and NATO, while strategically interconnected, are
$173.7 million in OCO funding.
different organizations with different missions. NATO is an
alliance of 29 nations that are signatories to the 1949
European Deterrence Initiative
Washington Treaty; the United States is a NATO member.
Since its establishment in 2014 with funding designated for
U.S. European Command, by contrast, is the focal point for
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), EDI has
the United States military’s presence in Europe. Only some
prioritized the following activities:
of EUCOM’s activities support NATO’s operations and
increased military presence, particularly through “heel-
activities; the remainder advance U.S. objectives with
to-toe” rotations;
individual countries, across the region, and across the
Middle East and Africa, though they do generally reinforce
additional military exercises and training;
NATO as well. The complementary nature of these dual
improved infrastructure;
roles and missions is one of the rationales behind dual-
hatting the Commander of U.S. European Command as
prepositioning equipment; and
NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
enhancing programs to build interoperability with
countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
Since 2014, EUCOM has been a key architect of and
contributor to NATO reassurance and deterrence initiatives.
For FY2020, the Trump Administration requested $5.9
EUCOM has led numerous multinational training exercises
billion in OCO funding for EDI, including the Ukraine
and rotational deployments of land, air, and naval assets.
Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Appropriations
Since 2017, the United States has commanded one of the
associated with EDI are located in multiple titles and
four NATO battalions that make up NATO’s Enhanced
budget lines. Some observers contend that EDI should be
Forward Presence (EFP) in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and
made part of the “base” defense budget rather than part of
Lithuania. The U.S. battalion, based in Poland, consists of
OCO. Doing so, in their view, has two primary advantages.
close to 900 U.S. troops and 300 additional troops from
First, it would signal to allies that U.S. security
Croatia, Romania, and the UK. The U.S. EFP is a “heel-to-
commitments to Europe are enduring, and second,
toe” unit.
programs and capabilities that EDI supports are no longer
“contingency” operations, but rather a part of DOD’s
Burden Sharing?
regular programming. Others counter that shifting EDI to
Some observers contend that European allies have not
the base budget would subject EDI to inter-service rivalries
invested sufficient resources in their militaries, and that as a
and priorities within the Pentagon, which may differ from
result, the United States has shouldered too much of the
those of EUCOM.
financial burden associated with Europe’s defense. Such
Further Reading
observers often contend that while the United States spends
3.75% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense,
CRS In Focus IF10542, Defense Primer: Commanding
most of NATO’s allies in Europe have not yet met a 2014
U.S. Military Operations, by Kathleen J. McInnis
pledge to increase their defense budgets to 2% of GDP by
2024. Others argue that the United States spends
Kathleen J. McInnis, Specialist in International Security
significantly more on defense than its European allies
Brendan W. McGarry, Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget
because the United States has global responsibilities that are
independent of Europe’s security. It is difficult to parse the
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 2 · UPDATED