If this happens, it will be for keeps. Once we give this up, there won’t be any do over or walking it back. We are talking about giving up the SACEUR position which a four-star general has held at NATO for the past 75 years, starting with Dwight D. Eisenhower. SACEUR stands for Supreme Allied Commander Europe. This could happen as early as this summer and and it would be a major power realignment — like Putin wants.
Giving up SACEUR would, if nothing else, be a major symbolic shift in the balance of power in NATO, the alliance that has defined European security and peace since World War II.
“For the United States to give up the role of supreme allied commander of NATO would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance,” retired Adm. James Stavridis, who served as SACEUR and head of European Command from 2009 to 2013, said in an email.
“It would be a political mistake of epic proportion, and once we give it up, they are not going to give it back,” he wrote. “We would lose an enormous amount of influence within NATO, and this would be seen, correctly, as probably the first step toward leaving the Alliance altogether.”
Since Eisenhower inaugurated the position, it has been held by some of the country’s most prominent military leaders. In addition to Stavridis, they include Alexander Haig, who was also chief of staff to two presidents and secretary of state for a third; John Shalikashvili, who became chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Wesley Clark, who was a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.
The proposed restructuring comes as the Trump administration has cut spending and staff across the federal government. And President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have made clear that the new administration wants European partners to take more responsibility for Europe’s defense. If the U.S. does give up SACEUR, the other NATO nations would likely have to choose among themselves which country would put forward the commander.
Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO members for not meeting a goal the alliance has set for the percentage of GDP each country should spend on defense. As NBC News previously reported, he is also considering a major policy shift under which the U.S. might not defend a fellow NATO member if it is attacked — a core tenet of the alliance — if the country doesn’t meet the defense spending threshold.
The timeline for the SACEUR move, if it does happen, is as yet undetermined. Army Gen. Chris Cavoli, the current SACEUR, is on a three-year tour due to end this summer.
You voted for this. All of you voted to confirm Pete Hegseth. If he didn’t tell you he was going to do this, then he either lied to you or you didn’t ask the right questions. https://t.co/RGAfeP33NO
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) March 19, 2025
This isn’t about saving money. This is about America abrogating its responsibility in the world. And this is exactly what Putin wants.
They’ll try and say that it’s about cost saving, but that merely confirms what we already know, they are people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
You’re right, it’s what Putin wants, he knows the value, he’s tried to pay the real cost before.
No doubt he can’t believe how cheap the USA has become for him, with his pet in charge.
Forget the doomsday clock. How long until the free world is fighting and killing US soliders, who are under orders to stand with the Russians? Second question: how long til the real patriots are forced to take on orange Hitler and his brownshirts? Nothing like senior citizen vets, who have taken the oath to defend the constitution, know how to handle weapons, and, with social security and Medicare gone, have nothing to lose, but are determined to save some freedom for their grandkids?
“Those who make democracy impossible, make revolution inevitable.” John F Kennedy
Did you find that in the files orangebob shitpants?
This wasn’t the focus of what I wrote about earlier but I did mention it. The savings that’s being talked about from this set of moves is 270 million. That’s Million with an “M” to make my point. Or .03 percent of the DOD’s budget. And what do we give up? Well, you’ve gone into all that to a fair degree but it goes much deeper. It’s a boneheaded, spectacularly stupid thing to do and you’re quite correct – once we give up being able to appoint SACEUR we will never get to do so again. We aren’t the only country that can produce sophisticated weapons and ships. Other countries will be eager to establish contracts with DOD contractors to have people move overseas and build up OTHER country’s ability to create ships, planes, and other weapons systems. Hell, while the U.S. Navy is way ahead in aircraft carrier capability it’s the freaking British who came up with most of the most important innovations!
I suspect that Germany would be the logical choice to replace an American as SACEUR, given their new chancellor’s pledge to increase military capability to offset America’s fading presence. But other European countries might, justifiably, get a tad nervous at that proposal, with Germany’s 20th-century activities still fresh in their minds. Perhaps formerly-neutral Sweden would be a good compromise. A Ukrainian general would be the ideal slap in the face to Putin and raised finger to trumpler.
All these moves are meant to weaken NATO and by extension Europe. It all leads me back to an exchange between Hillary Clinton and Tangerine Jesus from their debate where she said Putin would rather have a puppet in the White House.
His response was, “No puppet! No puppet! You’re the puppet” A few seconds passed and he spoke over her and again said, “You’re the puppet!” I think it’s pretty clear who the puppet is now.