By GB News (World News) | Created at 2026-10-08 11:51:16 | Updated at 2026-10-09 15:48:36
1 day ago
Britain could be left exposed to new threats following the US's decision to pull its heavy bombers out of RAF Fairford, with defence analysts suggesting the wider pivoting of forces from the continent back across the Atlantic can be boiled down to a "serious mistake" made by European governments.
The Pentagon confirmed on October 4 that aircraft including B-1 Lancers, B-2s and B-52s had been redeployed from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire to the United States.
The move followed a British counter-terror investigation into a suspected Iran-backed plot targeting the base.
However, this year has seen several strategic troop movements by Washington, including the announcement it would withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany in May and disband a US strike drone unit in August.
In September, reports also emerged that the Pentagon was weighing the removal of a further 25,000 to 40,000 troops, plus ships and aircraft, from Germany, Italy and Spain.
Nato ambassador Matthew Whitaker has said no final decision has been made, but Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said on October 4 the US was looking to pivot resources to the Western Hemisphere.
Experts told GB News the picture is more nuanced than it appears.
When asked whether the withdrawal of the bombers would weaken Britain and Europe's national security, Joshua VerGow, a fellow with the Atlantic Council, urged caution over the language of retreat.
He said: "I'd be careful about characterising this as a withdrawal in the broad strategic sense. These are B-1s that were forward-deployed to Britain, and the Air Force moves bomber forces around the world routinely."
"We also know there was a security threat associated with the decision to move them, although there are still things we don’t know about exactly what drove the timing and decision.
"I think the more interesting point is that moving the aircraft doesn’t mean removing the capability.
"A B-1 can fly enormous distances, it can be refuelled in the air, and it operates as part of a much larger ecosystem of bases, allies, logistics, and intelligence.
"That kind of strategic depth is one of the great advantages the United States brings to Nato.
"So, yes, there is an important warning here about the vulnerability of forward-deployed forces but I would not make the leap from ‘the bombers moved’ to ‘Britain or Europe is now substantially less secure.’
"In some ways, the fact that you can move a high-value asset in response to a threat without giving up the military capability it provides is exactly what resilience is supposed to look like."
A review of the US's military presence is due to conclude by the end of the year and is part of a push by the Trump administration to have Europe rely less on the United States and instead take more responsibility for its own defence
REUTERS
Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, also played down the RAF Fairford move.
He said: "What it looks like is a temporary security measure because of the recent security incident."
He added: "The UK is going to remain an important platform for the US military, and I would expect that once the Pentagon is assured of the security environment, they will resume activities at RAF Fairford."
On the wider drawdown, he said: "The context looks to me to be more of a repositioning within Europe than a US withdrawal from Europe."
He blamed European governments for obstructing US operations against Iran earlier this year.
"That was a serious mistake by those governments," he said, "and it's not surprising that the US would review its force posture in those countries as a result."
Both men rejected the idea that Europe has simply handed its security to Washington, though they differed on where the weakness lies.
Asked whether Europe relies too much on the US for outsourcing defence, Mr VerGow said: "I'm not sure 'outsourcing defence' is quite the right way to describe Nato. The whole idea of the alliance is that countries bring different capabilities together and create something more powerful collectively."
He said the US "directly benefits from a secure and stable European theater, from access to European bases and infrastructure, and from allies that contribute forces, intelligence, logistics and capacity of their own".
Mr Rayburn was blunter about Europe's own record.
"It's not really prospective US withdrawal that is weakening European and British national security," he said.
"What's weakening European national security is that many European members of Nato, along with Canada, took a holiday from history a few decades ago and stopped investing in their own defence."
Arguing Ukraine had been a wake-up call, he continued: "Some countries have been aroused by the wake-up call - some are still stretching and yawning."
Many European states have yet to meet, or set out a path to, Nato's three per cent spending commitment.
The Ministry of Defence told GB News it does not comment on foreign military movements as a matter of policy.
