Watch Video Here 

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today led a hearing to examine the posture of U.S. European Command and U.S. Transportation Command amid growing global security challenges and ongoing military operations.

General Alexus G. Grynkewich, USAF, Commander, United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and General Randall Reed, USAF, Commander, United States Transportation Command, appeared before the committee.

In his opening remarks, Chairman Wicker emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong U.S. military presence in Europe to deter Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s invasion, and strengthening the global logistics capabilities of U.S. Transportation Command to ensure the Joint Force can operate effectively in an increasingly contested security environment.

Read Chairman Wicker’s hearing opening statement as delivered.

The committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the posture of the United States European Command and the United States Transportation Command. I would like to thank our witnesses today, General Grynkewich and General Reed, for being here. And I want to extend a special welcome to their families.

General Grynkewich oversees approximately 80,000 military personnel in U.S. European Command (EUCOM).  He also serves as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, making him the military commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO)—the world’s only nuclear alliance.

General Grynkewich comes before this committee at a time of great turmoil.  The United States is engaged in a high-intensity conflict in the Middle East while simultaneously supporting Ukraine’s self-defense against Russian’s invasion.

EUCOM is involved in both efforts. The command provides extensive operational and logistics support to Operation Epic Fury. At the same time, it facilitates the flow of weapons and intelligence to Ukraine. And of course, our forces in Europe remain at the ready to deter and defend against Russian aggression.

Our European allies provide access, basing, and overflight rights to our forces. This creates enormous military advantages for the United States.  Our presence in Europe enables us to project power into adjacent theaters—most obviously into the Middle East but also to Africa and now the Arctic.  Our European allies are rightly increasing their defense spending.  But we must recognize that they are sharing the political and military risk of war, too, and that is every bit as important to U.S. interests. So, this is a welcome development.

Defending against armed aggression from Russia remains the most compelling rationale for the NATO alliance.  Russia is led by Vladimir Putin, a war criminal and ruthless murderer and dictator.  He possesses the world’s largest and most diverse nuclear arsenal, and he always cheats on his arms control commitments.

In Putin’s twisted view of the world, Russia is the victim of historical injustices.  He has proven willing to take on extreme risks to redress these perceived historical injustices against Russia—most notably by launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, entirely a war of choice.

Some have proposed a precipitate reduction in U.S. forces deployed in Europe.  Such an action, which some have it titled “NATO 3.0,” would have us take an unnecessary vulnerability on at a precarious moment.  Putin could easily interpret that action as weakness rather than resolve.

During the Cold War, we shared the burden of conventional defense in Europe precisely because it was in America’s interests to do so. This remains the case today.  Europe has heeded President Trump’s call to step up on defense spending. We now need to ensure that political will is turned into hard combat capability as soon as possible.

Mr. Putin has a predilection for war and aggression. That is a fact, and it led this committee to place a floor on the U.S. military’s force posture in Europe, particularly the Army ground maneuver forces. Mr. Putin’s aggression has caused us to make that decision. We took that step in the National Defense Authorization Act that became law in December, a bipartisan achievement. The law reflects our collective judgment that now is not the time to accept unnecessary risk in Europe.

The best way to reduce the need for defenses in Europe is to degrade the threat posed by Russia’s military. Ukraine is doing exactly that. Its success in defending against Russia reflects Ukraine’s resolve and ability to innovate during wartime. We should support these efforts. We should immediately begin a crash program to take advantage of new production lines here in America—building new, low-cost weapons to help the Ukrainians defend themselves. This includes low-cost cruise missiles, which we can build thousands of every year, and it includes new, more easily producible air defense interceptors.

While General Grynkewich is focused on the European theater, General Reed supports the global joint force.TRANSCOM’s expertise and precision allows the joint force to extend its reach far beyond the safety of friendly confines—whether supporting Operation Midnight Hammer, Operation Absolute Resolve, or the hundreds of regular refueling and sealift missions required by the other combatant commands.

When most Americans think of the military, they imagine airplanes, warships, and big guns. Correctly, I might add. What they do not see is the system that moves all of those pieces around the globe.  A world-wide network of Americans logistics assets keeps our far-flung bases ready for action.  We are the world’s best military in part because TRANSCOM runs this complex system.  China and Russia know this. These adversaries are not simply modernizing their armed forces. They are intentionally targeting our global logistics network to prevent us from operating around the world.

Congress recognizes this danger. In the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, again which was passed on a bipartisan basis and signed by the President of the United States last December, elevated “contested logistics management” to a senior-leader responsibility.  We charged the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Vice Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Commander of TRANSCOM to work together to integrate contested logistics across the Joint Force.  This statutory direction makes explicit what the battlefield has already proven. Contested logistics is not owned by any single command or service.

As I have outlined, these witnesses come before the committee at an important moment for American national security. I thank them again for appearing today, and I look forward to our conversation.