| Dr. Arben Fetoshi Director at Institute for Hybrid Warfare Studies “OCTOPUS” arben.fetoshi@octopusinstitute.org Professor at University of Pristina “Hasan Prishtina” arben.fetoshi@uni-pr.edu | Dr. Gurakuç Kuçi Senior Researcher at Institute for Hybrid Warfare Studies “OCTOPUS” gurakuq.kuqi@octopusinstitute.org Professor at Universum College gurakuq.kuqi@universum-ks.org |
Recent geopolitical developments, particularly regarding the war in Ukraine and ongoing diplomatic efforts, have triggered discussions across various regions. A recent article published by the German newspaper Bild, titled “Europe in Fear! Intelligence Agencies Fear U.S. Troop Withdrawal,” has reignited pro-Russian hostile narratives, especially in the wake of negotiations initiated in Riyadh.
Redistribution of Resources as a Deceptive Narrative
Portraying the redeployment of U.S. military resources as a “withdrawal” is a biased report aimed at spreading fear and concern among the public. Regardless of whether the media’s motive is political agenda-driven or a tendency toward sensationalism, the interpretation of President Trump’s warning that he would reduce troop numbers by around 20,000—due to the financial burden that should not be borne solely by American taxpayers—while urging European countries to increase their defense spending, is misleading and unfounded.
The President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, after a meeting in Warsaw on February 19 with Keith Kellogg, the U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, categorically denied rumors of an American troop reduction in this part of Europe. President Duda’s statement directly contradicts Bild’s report, which cited an unnamed senior security official in Eastern Europe claiming that U.S. troops were being withdrawn based on Russia’s 2021 request for NATO to leave Eastern Europe.
Moreover, no indications of an American troop withdrawal from the European continent emerged from the Trump-Macron meeting at the White House. The summit discussions centered on achieving a ceasefire in Ukraine, the potential deployment of European peacekeeping forces, and economic agreements concerning Ukraine’s critical minerals. Both leaders emphasized the need for Europe to strengthen its defense contributions, while President Trump stated that even Putin agrees with the deployment of peacekeeping troops in Ukraine.
Currently, the U.S. maintains approximately 65,000 permanent troops in Europe, with additional rotational forces bringing the total to around 100,000 soldiers.
Regional Stability and Geostrategic Interests
The Bild article was cited by several international media outlets, but it resonated most strongly in the Western Balkans due to its implications for Kosovo. Serbian media placed the supposed “withdrawal” of U.S. troops from Kosovo at the center of their reporting, despite these speculations being swiftly addressed by KFOR. In an official statement, KFOR reassured that U.S. officials had made their commitment to the North Atlantic Alliance clear. However, this Serbian media narrative has been consistently revived whenever NATO reassesses the security situation in Kosovo. Since NATO’s deployment of over 50,000 troops in 1999, force levels have been gradually reduced based on security assessments, with the current contingent consisting of 4,686 troops from 29 countries.
The presence of U.S. troops within KFOR has been a decisive factor in maintaining peace in Kosovo, as evidenced by their role in repelling Serbian hooligan attacks in 2023 and the armed incursion in northern Kosovo in September 2024, which prompted NATO to increase troop numbers. A U.S. withdrawal could create a power vacuum that Serbian extremists might interpret as an opportunity to push their territorial ambitions. At the same time, Serbia, with its close ties to Russia, could see such a shift as a chance to expand its influence, increasing the risk of instability and potential conflict in the region.
On the other hand, the Kosovo Security Force (KSF), recognized and supported by the U.S. as the Army of Kosovo, is undergoing transformation into a proven force committed to transatlantic values through participation in joint peacekeeping missions. The U.S. military presence in Kosovo consists of two categories: (1) troops within KFOR under NATO’s command structure and (2) personnel operating outside this chain of command. Camp Bondsteel, the largest U.S. base in the Balkans, not only hosts KFOR troops but also intelligence, logistics, and security cooperation personnel working closely with Kosovo’s institutions.
The U.S. role in KSF’s transformation—demonstrated by the approval of Javelin missiles and, most recently, Black Hawk helicopters—further underscores Kosovo’s strategic importance. In this context, any potential withdrawal of U.S. forces from Kosovo would create a power vacuum that could be exploited by Russia and other hostile actors. Given Russia’s support for Serbia, a U.S. withdrawal would shift the regional balance of power in favor of Russian interests in the Balkans.
Moreover, such a move would undermine U.S. credibility among European allies, given Washington’s leadership within NATO. As seen in the case of Afghanistan, a premature withdrawal of forces from conflict zones often results in a resurgence of violence and regional instability.
The strategic importance of Kosovo to the U.S. is further highlighted by the construction of the American Embassy in Pristina, which spans nearly five hectares—making it the largest U.S. embassy in the Balkans.
Thus, the concerns raised by the Bild article illustrate how outdated information can be repurposed to shape new perceptions depending on the political context. Whether intentional or not, such information can serve as a strategic construct aimed at influencing public opinion and state decision-makers.