KFOR reorganization raises questions about the future of the US presence in Kosovo

For more than 20 years, US soldiers in Kosovo have been part of NATO’s peacekeeping mission and one of the country’s main pillars of security.

But as Washington reconsiders its military engagement in Europe and calls on European countries to take greater responsibility for the continent’s defense, the future of the US presence in Kosovo is being viewed in a new context.

This process also includes NATO 3.0, a concept aimed at redistributing responsibilities between allies on both sides of the Atlantic. Developments related to this approach also affect Kosovo.

KFOR, NATO’s mission in Kosovo since the end of the war in 1999, is undergoing a reorganization process. The US presence, which consisted of thousands of soldiers after the war, now numbers fewer than 600.

So far, no decision has been confirmed on any further reduction of this contingent. Nevertheless, the restructuring of US forces and plans to reorganize KFOR have prompted discussion about a possible change in the US role in Kosovo’s security.

Kosovo’s Prime Minister, Albin Kurti, has called for a sustained US military commitment and for Camp Bondsteel to be turned into a permanent United States base.

Kurti has said that such a presence would guarantee peace and security in Kosovo and the region, while Bondsteel would serve as a strategic base for NATO operations in southeastern Europe.

Change of command at Bondsteel raises questions

On October 12, the command structure of US forces in Kosovo was changed at Camp Bondsteel. For the first time in more than ten years, active-duty US Army units took over command of KFOR’s Regional Command East, replacing the Florida National Guard.

The move could be viewed as a technical change, but it came at a time when Washington is reviewing its military presence in Europe. Outside periods of mobilization, the National Guard generally serves part-time, while active-duty units consist of full-time soldiers.

The US Army explained the rotation by citing force availability and mission requirements. It did not say whether the change would also bring changes to the number of troops, their capabilities or their duties in Kosovo.

Radio Free Europe asked the US Department of War for clarification about the rotation and plans for the US presence in Kosovo in 2026 and 2027, but received no response.

Signs of possible adjustments had appeared earlier as well. In June, the US European Command told Radio Free Europe that the US contribution to KFOR would be gradually adjusted in line with a review led by NATO’s military structures. At that time, too, no details were provided about the nature or extent of the changes.

NATO now says that KFOR’s reorganization is under way and links it to the transition toward the NATO 3.0 concept. According to an Alliance official, the aim is to maintain the same strategic effect while using resources more efficiently and ensuring continued European leadership.

The Alliance emphasizes that KFOR’s mandate, established by the United Nations, has not changed. It also says it remains committed to the security of all communities in Kosovo and to stability in the Western Balkans.

NATO did not, however, clarify whether the rotation at Bondsteel is part of the reorganization process. Kosovo’s Government and Ministry of Defense also did not respond to Radio Free Europe’s questions about whether they had been informed of possible changes to the US contingent and whether they had received guarantees that the US presence in KFOR would continue.

Washington seeks a different division of responsibilities

The situation in Kosovo is only one part of a broader review of the US military role in Europe. For many decades, the United States has provided a considerable share of the forces, equipment and capabilities supporting the defense of the continent.

The US administration now wants responsibilities to be divided differently. In February, senior Pentagon official Elbridge Colby presented the NATO 3.0 vision, under which Europe would take the leading role in the continent’s conventional defense, while the United States would remain part of the Alliance with a redefined role.

Four months later, on June 18, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the deployment of US forces in Europe would be reviewed. He said the Department of War would conduct the review and would also assess military bases over the following six months.

The assessment is not limited to the number of soldiers who may remain on the continent. An analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), published in August, says the review also covers the location of forces and the military capabilities Washington will continue to provide to NATO.

According to Radio Free Europe sources, the results of the process could be made public around the end of November and provide greater clarity about the Pentagon’s plans in Kosovo.

Jim Townsend, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, expects the US contingent in Kosovo to be included in the review. He emphasizes that decisions on KFOR will be linked to the United States’ other military priorities.

Townsend told Radio Free Europe’s Expose program that the US contribution would be determined in line with the Alliance’s decision. He explained that when NATO reviews the deployment of forces, as in the case of KFOR, member states may agree on the direction to be pursued and then determine the types of forces required to implement it.

The redistribution of responsibilities between Europe and the United States has occurred continuously since the end of the Cold War. Townsend notes, however, that this time US pressure on European allies could accelerate and expand the changes.

Europe may take on more responsibility, but does it have the capabilities?

Increasing European responsibility does not simply mean adding more troops. NATO operations have relied for decades on US capabilities that many European countries do not possess to the same extent.

These include intelligence and surveillance, strategic transport, aerial refueling, air defense and long-range strike systems. Some of these could be relocated or reduced, depending on the United States’ new priorities.

Townsend says European allies are examining how to compensate for possible changes, but equipment, specialized personnel and the ability to operate together cannot be provided immediately.

He points out that the US military has more capabilities and equipment than European militaries. Even when the latter have similar equipment, they possess less of it, meaning that filling the gaps takes time.

The challenges of defending Europe as a whole are not necessarily the same as those facing KFOR. The mission was not created for the conventional defense of NATO territory, but to contribute to a secure environment and freedom of movement.

KFOR’s importance was also highlighted during tensions in northern Kosovo, where most residents are Serbs. Members of the mission were also injured in the clashes in 2023.

Under the current division of security responsibilities, the Kosovo Police responds first, EULEX second and KFOR third. The mission also has reserve forces that can be deployed if the situation deteriorates.

Most KFOR troops now come from European countries, and the mission is led by a European commander. An analysis by the International Centre for Defence and Security (ICDS), published in September, estimates that replacing US capabilities in KFOR would be easier for Europe than replacing the US contribution to the continent’s overall defense.

The message conveyed by the US presence also matters

Even if European countries replace some US troops, it is not certain that the effect of KFOR’s presence would remain unchanged. For experts, the importance of US soldiers in Kosovo is linked not only to their military capabilities, but also to the political and strategic signal conveyed by the US presence.

Michael O’Hanlon, a defense expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, does not believe there would be major obstacles to replacing US combat capabilities in Kosovo. His concern is the message that a major reduction in forces or their complete withdrawal could convey.

O’Hanlon told Expose that he is not as concerned about combat capabilities as he is about the presence of a certain number of US soldiers in Kosovo. In his view, perhaps a few hundred would be enough to demonstrate the US commitment and avoid the impression that the country has lost interest in Kosovo.

The ICDS analysis also warns of political consequences in the event of a US withdrawal. According to the analysis, this could affect the calculations of Serb nationalist forces in Kosovo, while Russia might see it as a development that serves its interests.

Retired US Colonel Ray Wojcik, of the International Centre for Defence and Security, says the issue is not limited to Kosovo. In his view, a greater US focus on the Pacific should not come at the expense of its presence in Europe.

Wojcik told Radio Free Europe that European leadership should not imply the absence of America. He warned that a significant reduction in US forces in Europe, including the Balkans, in order to focus on the Pacific could weaken US influence.

According to him, the United States needs its allies, and Europe’s security remains closely linked to global security.

Regarding the latest rotation at Bondsteel, Wojcik cited several possible reasons: the reorganization of forces, unit readiness or the security situation. He said he could not determine which of them explained the US decision.

O’Hanlon sees no reason for alarm at this stage, but says future developments in Washington should be closely monitored. He noted that some officials at the Pentagon are trying to significantly reduce the US commitment in Europe and that the US president and vice president hold mixed views on NATO.

He added that this requires vigilance and attention, as well as opposition to these efforts if necessary, although he still does not consider the situation alarming.

According to data published during 2026, around 80,000 US soldiers are deployed in Europe. They serve at permanent bases or on a rotational basis in countries including Germany, Italy, Poland and Romania, contributing to the security of the continent.

Kosovo represents a small part of this map, but, as Wojcik warns, a complete US withdrawal could carry costs for the region. / RFE