Hubbry Logo
Exercise ReforgerExercise ReforgerMain
Open search
Exercise Reforger
Community hub
Exercise Reforger
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Exercise Reforger
Exercise Reforger
Exercise Reforger
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A U.S. Army M60A1 Patton in Michelrieth during Reforger 82

Exercise Campaign Reforger ("return of forces to Germany") was an annual military exercise and campaign conducted by NATO from 1969 until 1993 during the Cold War. The exercise was intended to ensure that NATO had the ability to quickly deploy forces to West Germany in the event of a conflict with the Warsaw Pact. It was a basic military planning exercise to smooth out issues in the event of an invasion of western Europe, not just a show of force. Once the Cold War ended, it was superseded by other exercises. Although most troops deployed were from the United States, the operation also involved a substantial number of troops from other NATO countries including Belgium, Canada, France, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.[1][2]

The last Reforger exercise was Reforger 93. Exercise Steadfast Defender is the most similar military exercise that has taken place in the 21st century, also involving North American troops deploying across the Atlantic Ocean to exercise with European NATO allies.[3] There is also the biennial Exercise Bright Star that involves operations in the Middle East. However, while NATO members (and other countries friendly to Egypt and the US) are free to participate, Exercise Bright Star is not a NATO exercise.

History

[edit]
Civilians watching a formation of American M60 tanks during Reforger 82

The Reforger exercise itself was first conceived in 1967. During the ongoing Vietnam War, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson announced plans to withdraw approximately two divisions from Europe in 1968. As a demonstration of its continuing commitment to the defense of NATO and to illustrate its capability of rapid reinforcement, a large scale force deployment was planned that would deploy a division or more to West Germany in a regular annual exercise. The first such exercise was conducted beginning on 6 January 1969.[4]

A German woman and child watching a British Army soldier in their village during Reforger 80

Exercise Reforger 1988 is held to be the largest exercise during the Cold War.[5] Involving around 125,000 troops, it was billed as the largest European ground maneuver since World War II.[6]

These exercises continued annually past the end of the Cold War, except for the year 1989, until 1993. Reforger 75 marked the operational presence of the U.S. Marine Corps in Europe for the first time since World War I, when the 2nd Marine Division's 32nd Marine Amphibious Unit was deployed from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina as part of that exercise.[6]

Reforger was not merely a show of force—in the event of a conflict, it would be the actual plan to strengthen the NATO presence in Europe.[citation needed] In that instance, it would have been referred to as Operation Reforger. Important components in Reforger included the Military Airlift Command, the Military Sealift Command, and the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.

U.S. Army soldiers advancing past an M2 Bradley during Reforger 84

The U.S. Army also increased its rapid-reinforcement capability by prepositioning huge stocks of equipment and supplies in Europe at POMCUS sites. The maintenance of this equipment has provided extensive on-the-job training to reserve-component support units.

The last Reforger exercise was Reforger 93. No further Reforger exercises were held due to German reunification, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and the end of the Cold War.

Reforger units

[edit]
2nd Armored Division soldiers boarding civilian airport buses at Cologne Bonn Airport to take part in Reforger 90

The following units were earmarked to return to West Germany in case of war:[citation needed]

228th AHB (Attack Helicopter Bn.) 1st/227th.

Reforger exercises

[edit]
M901 ITVs passing civilian traffic in Herbstein, West Germany during Exercise Reforger 83
Name Start Date Major Units
Reforger I JAN 1969 (Germany based unit) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): HQ and 2nd Squadron of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Nuremberg. (U.S.-based unit): 24th Infantry Division (Mech).
Reforger II OCT 1970 (Germany based unit) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 3rd Infantry Division (Mech), Würzburg. (U.S.-based unit): 1st Infantry Division (Mech)[7]
Reforger III OCT 1971 (Germany based unit) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 1st Armored Division (Ansbach). (U.S.-based unit) 1st Infantry Division (Mech).
Reforger IV JAN 1973 (Germany based unit): 557 QMC Idar-Oberstein. (U.S.-based unit): 1st Infantry Division (Mech), 2nd Armored Division.
Reforger V "Certain Charge" OCT 1973 (Germany based unit) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 3rd Infantry Division (Mech), Würzburg; (U.S.-based units): 1st Infantry Division (Mech), 1st Cavalry Division.
Reforger 74 SEP 1974 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Nuremberg; 1st Armored Division, Ansbach. (U.S.-based units): 1st Infantry Division (Mech), 1st Cavalry Division, 8th Infantry Division, Bad Kreuznach.
Reforger 75 "Certain Trek" SEP 1975 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 3rd Infantry Division (Mech),Würzburg; 2nd Armored Division, Nuremberg; 3rd Armored Division, Frankfurt-am-Main. (U.S.-based units): 1st Infantry Division (Mech), 1st Cavalry Division, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (sent to Northern Germany to support British forces stationed there for the first time), II Marine Amphibious Force/36th Marine Amphibious Unit
Reforger 76 "Gordian Shield" SEP 1976 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 1st Armored Division, Ansbach; 2nd Armored Division, Nuremberg; 8th infantry Division (3rd Brigade, Mannhiem). (U.S.-based units): 101st Airborne, 1st Infantry Division (Mech)
Reforger 77 "Carbon Edge" SEP 1977 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 3rd Infantry Division (Mech), Würzburg; 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Nuremberg; (U.S.-based units): 1st Infantry Division (Mech), 4th Infantry Division (Mech), 1st Cavalry Division, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.
Reforger 78 "Certain Shield" SEP 1978 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 8th Infantry Division, Bad Kreuznach; 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Nuremberg. (U.S.-based units): 4th Infantry Division (Mech); 5th Infantry Division (Mech); 9th Infantry Division (Mech); 1st Cavalry Division; 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.
Reforger 79 "Certain Sentinel" JAN 1979 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 3rd Infantry Division (Mech), Würzburg; 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Nuremberg; 1st Armored Division, Ansbach. (U.S.-based units): 1st Infantry Division (Mech); 1st Cavalry Division.
Reforger 80 "Certain Rampart" SEP 1980 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 3rd Infantry Division (Mech), Würzburg; 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Nuremberg; 1st Armored Division, Ansbach. (U.S.-based units): 1st Cavalry Division.
Reforger 81 "Autumn Forge" SEP 1981 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 3rd Infantry Division (Mech), Würzburg; 8th Infantry Division, Bad Kreuznach; 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fulda; 3rd Armored Division, Frankfurt-am-Main; (U.S.-based units) 4th Infantry Division (Mech), 1st Cavalry Division.
Reforger 82 "Carbine Fortress" SEP 1982 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 3rd Infantry Division (Mech), Würzburg; 8th Infantry Division, Bad Kreuznach; 1st Armored Division, Ansbach. (U.S.-based units): 1st Infantry Division (Mech), 1st Cavalry Division.
Reforger 83 "Confident Enterprise" SEP 1983 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 8th Infantry Division, Bad Kreuznach; 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fulda; 2nd Armored Division, Garlstadt; 3rd Armored Division, Frankfurt-am-Main; (U.S.-based units): 1st Cavalry Division. Culminated in Able Archer 83.[8]
Reforger 84 "Certain Fury" SEP 1984 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 1st Infantry Division (Forward), Göppingen; 3rd Infantry Division (Mech), Würzburg; 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fulda. (U.S.-based units): 1st Infantry Division (Mech); 5th Infantry Division; 24th Infantry Division; 30th Armored Brigade (Sep); 2nd Armored Division (Mech): (TN-ARNG, Tennessee Army National Guard); 7th Infantry Division (Light): 3rd Brigade.
Reforger 85 "Central Guardian" JAN 1985 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 8th Infantry Division, Bad Kreuznach; 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fulda; 3rd Armored Division, Frankfurt-am-Main. (U.S.-based units): 4th Infantry Division (Mech), 5th Infantry Division (Mech), 197th Infantry Brigade.
Reforger 86 "Certain Sentinel" JAN 1986 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment: Fulda; 1st Armored Division: Ansbach. (U.S.-based units): 1st Infantry Division (Mech), 24th Infantry Division (Mech); 30th Armored Brigade (Sep) (TN-ARNG, Tennessee Army National Guard); 7th Infantry Division (Light) (3rd Brigade); 32nd Sep Inf Bdge (WI-ARNG).
Reforger 87 "Certain Strike" SEP 1987 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 2nd Armored Division (Forward): Garlstedt. (U.S.-based units): III Corps HQ: Ft. Hood; III Corps Artillery HQ and 212th Field Artillery Brigade HQ: Ft. Sill; 1st Cavalry Division: Ft. Hood; 4th Infantry Division (Mech): Ft. Carson; 6th Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat): Ft. Hood; 45th Infantry Brigade (Sep): 1-279th Infantry (OK-ARNG, Oklahoma Army National Guard); 13th Support Command/Sustainment Command: Ft. Hood; 504th Military Intelligence/Battlefield Surveillance Brigade: Ft. Hood; 3rd Signal Brigade, Ft. Hood; 89th Military Police Brigade: Ft. Hood; 139th Public Affairs Detachment (PAD), 233rd Military Police Company: (33rd MP Battalion, IL-ARNG, Illinois Army National Guard); 420th Engineer Brigade (USAR, U.S. Army Reserve). 723rd Military Police Company: (165th MP Battalion, PA-ARNG, Pennsylvania Army National Guard)
Reforger 88 "Certain Challenge" SEP 1988 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 3rd Infantry Division (Mech), Würzburg; 8th Infantry Division, Bad Kreuznach; 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Nuremberg; 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fulda; 3rd Armored Division, Frankfurt-am-Main; Berlin Brigade, Berlin. (U.S.-based units): 1st Infantry Division (Mech); 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment; ; 197th Infantry Brigade; 45th Infantry Brigade, 1-179th Infantry (OK-ARNG, Oklahoma Army National Guard).
Reforger 90 "Centurion Shield" 11 JAN 1990 to 28 JAN 1990 (Germany based units) USAREUR (U.S. Army Europe): 8th Infantry Division, Bad Kreuznach; 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Nuremberg; 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fulda; 1st Armored Division, Ansbach; 3rd Armored Division, Frankfurt-am-Main. (U.S.-based units): 1st Infantry Division (Mech), 2nd Armored Division, 10th Mountain Division (-); 31st Separate Armored Brigade Army (Alabama Army National Guard)
Reforger 91 SEP 1991 (U.S.-based unit) 4th Infantry Division
Reforger 92 "Certain Caravan" SEP 1992 (U.S.-based units): HQ, 1st Infantry Division (Mech); Parts 2nd Brigade, 1st (U.S) Infantry Division (Mech); HQ, 24th Infantry Division (Mech), 30th Armored Brigade (Sep) (Tennessee Army National Guard); HQ, 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (Light)[9]
Reforger 93 MAY 1993 (Germany based units) U.S. Army Europe: 1st Armored Division, Ansbach; 3rd Infantry Division (Mech) Würzburg.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Exercise Reforger

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Exercise Reforger, formally known as Return of Forces to , was an annual conducted from 1969 to 1993 to simulate the rapid deployment and reinforcement of allied forces in in response to a potential invasion. Initiated amid heightened Cold War tensions following events such as the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the exercise demonstrated the ' commitment to NATO's ground defense strategy by airlifting troops from the continental and integrating them with pre-positioned equipment and host nation support in . Its core objective was to test strategic mobility, logistical coordination, and operational among U.S., German, and other allied forces, thereby deterring Soviet aggression through credible proof of reinforcement capabilities. REFORGER exercises typically involved tens of thousands of personnel, with the inaugural iteration in 1969 deploying over 12,000 U.S. Soldiers for training alongside army groups, and later iterations incorporating field training exercises that scaled to 125,000 troops by 1988. These maneuvers enhanced U.S. Army readiness, reassured European allies of American resolve, and informed subsequent real-world deployments, such as those in the , by refining force projection and sustainment processes.

Origins and Objectives

Cold War Context and Inception

During the , NATO faced the persistent threat of a potential Soviet-led invasion of , where the alliance maintained a strategy of forward defense reliant on both stationed forces and rapid reinforcements from the . By the mid-1960s, the had amassed over 500,000 troops and thousands of tanks in , underscoring the need for credible deterrence through demonstrable reinforcement capabilities. US troop commitments in Europe, peaking at around 400,000 in the early , began declining amid the and fiscal pressures, dropping to approximately 300,000 by 1968, which heightened concerns among allies about America's ability to surge forces across the Atlantic in a . This reduction, coupled with the alliance's dependence on prepositioned equipment stocks in , necessitated exercises to validate , deployment timelines, and against a numerically superior adversary. Exercise REFORGER, acronym for Return of Forces to , was inaugurated in 1969 as REFORGER I to test and affirm NATO's capacity for swift transatlantic reinforcement, involving the deployment of over 12,000 soldiers who linked up with prepositioned in . The exercise simulated wartime , emphasizing and operations to counter aggression, and served as an annual signal of resolve to both allies and potential foes.

Core Strategic Goals

The core strategic goals of Exercise Reforger centered on validating the rapid reinforcement of NATO's Central Front in against potential invasion, primarily by testing the ' capacity to deploy tens of thousands of troops and equipment across the Atlantic within days to weeks. These exercises operationalized NATO's Forward Defense doctrine and strategy, emphasizing conventional force buildup to counter Soviet numerical superiority without immediate reliance on nuclear escalation, as articulated in U.S. defense planning from the late onward. For instance, early iterations like REFORGER I in 1969 aimed to redeploy approximately 12,000 troops to , evolving by the to simulate five U.S. divisions arriving within 30 days, supported by pre-positioned matériel in POMCUS sites. A parallel objective was to enhance logistical and operational readiness through full-scale testing of , , and sustainment systems, including integration with allies' infrastructure. This involved joint exercises across U.S. branches—such as the and —and occasional inclusion of units like the 36th Marine Amphibious Unit in REFORGER 75, ensuring seamless marriage of deploying personnel with prepositioned equipment upon arrival in . Such drills addressed vulnerabilities exposed in prior operations, like the 1963 Big Lift, by refining command-and-control processes and terrain familiarization for reinforcing units. Deterrence formed an overarching goal, with REFORGER serving as a visible demonstration of U.S. resolve to Soviet observers, thereby bolstering cohesion and discouraging through proven feasibility. By annually showcasing —such as airlifting 19,000 troops in REFORGER 83—the exercises reinforced diplomatic assurances to European allies amid domestic U.S. debates over defense spending, underscoring NATO's collective defense credibility.

Historical Development

Early Phases (1969–1979)

Exercise REFORGER, short for Return of Forces to , was initiated in 1969 as an annual exercise to test the rapid deployment and reinforcement of allied forces to in response to potential aggression. The inaugural iteration, REFORGER I, began on January 6, 1969, with U.S. ground troops arriving at aboard C-141 Starlifter aircraft. More than 12,000 U.S. Soldiers participated, focusing on the integration with pre-positioned equipment stocks in to simulate swift assembly of combat-ready units. Deployment proceeded to training areas such as Nuernberg, where coordination occurred despite inclement weather, culminating in redeployment phases by early February. The early exercises emphasized logistical validation, including and capabilities, as well as the "marriage" of arriving personnel with prepositioned configured to unit sets (POMCUS). Soviet authorities criticized REFORGER I as a major military provocation, highlighting its deterrent signaling amid tensions. V Corps units from the U.S. were central, underscoring the commitment to NATO's central front defense. Through the 1970s, REFORGER continued annually, refining procedures and addressing operational challenges, such as funding shortfalls that limited participation of elements like the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in REFORGER II in 1970. These phases prioritized deployment efficiency and interoperability with NATO allies, laying groundwork for larger-scale maneuvers in subsequent decades while demonstrating U.S. resolve to reinforce Europe promptly. Participation scales remained in the tens of thousands, focusing on corps-level reinforcements without the extensive field training assemblies seen later.

Escalation in the 1980s

During the 1980s, REFORGER exercises expanded significantly in scope and participation amid heightened East-West tensions, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the Reagan administration's military buildup to counter perceived Soviet aggression. This escalation aligned with increased U.S. defense spending, which rose from $134 billion in fiscal year 1980 to $253 billion by 1985, enabling larger-scale deployments to demonstrate NATO's rapid reinforcement capabilities against a potential Warsaw Pact offensive. The exercises grew from typical involvement of 40,000 to 50,000 troops in earlier years to over 100,000 by the late , incorporating multiple divisions, advanced equipment, and allied forces for enhanced testing. In REFORGER 1982, the U.S. Army's III Corps led operations with substantial ally participation, focusing on rapid and of heavy forces to . REFORGER 1983, part of the Autumn Forge series, involved the of 16,044 U.S. troops alongside ground maneuvers simulating frontline reinforcement. By mid-decade, exercises incorporated newer systems like the , as seen in 1984 iterations emphasizing tactics in European terrain. REFORGER 1987 mobilized 115,000 troops from six militaries, testing logistics across the Atlantic under realistic combat conditions. The pinnacle came with REFORGER 1988, deploying approximately 125,000 personnel—the largest European ground maneuver since —validating prepositioned stocks and surge deployment procedures critical for deterrence. These amplifications underscored 's commitment to credible defense, though they occasionally heightened Soviet anxieties, as evidenced by intelligence assessments of potential misinterpretations during overlapping exercises like Able Archer 83.

Termination and Immediate Aftermath (1990–1993)

In early 1989, amid Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's peace initiatives and declining East-West tensions, the decided to reduce its participation in the annual REFORGER exercise, reflecting a broader reassessment of NATO's reinforcement needs. The 1990 iteration, REFORGER 90, proceeded in January but on a scaled-down basis, involving approximately 75,000 troops overall—fewer than in prior years—and focusing on lighter, more agile deployments without the full scope of heavy mechanized reinforcements typical of earlier exercises. It featured U.S. units including the 1st Division, 2nd Armored Division, and , alongside allies, to test rapid sealift and airlift capabilities amid the accelerating collapse of communist regimes in . Subsequent exercises in 1991 and 1992 maintained the annual cadence but continued the trend of reduction, as the (1990–1991) diverted resources and attention while underscoring shifts toward expeditionary operations rather than European theater reinforcement. The final exercise, REFORGER 93, occurred in May 1993 with markedly diminished scale, relying predominantly on U.S. forces already in and involving only limited additional deployments, signaling the program's obsolescence in a post-Cold War environment. The termination of REFORGER after 1993 stemmed directly from the Soviet Union's dissolution on December 25, 1991, and the 's earlier disbandment on July 1, 1991, which eliminated the primary existential threat justifying large-scale transatlantic reinforcements. In the immediate aftermath, closed most prepositioned equipment storage sites in , including key POMCUS facilities in , and withdrew or redistributed stored materiel as alliance priorities pivoted from deterring aggression to managing regional instabilities and . This transition facilitated U.S. force reductions in under the administration's "peace dividend" policies, with troop levels dropping from over 200,000 in 1990 to around 100,000 by 1993, though it later prompted debates over diminished readiness for potential future contingencies.

Participating Forces and Structure

United States Contributions

The United States contributed the primary reinforcing forces to Exercise Reforger, deploying approximately 40,000 to 50,000 troops annually from the continental United States to West Germany to simulate rapid reinforcement of NATO's central front. These deployments tested the US military's ability to transport personnel via airlift and integrate them with prepositioned equipment stored at Prepositioned Organizational Materiel Configured to Unit Sets (POMCUS) sites across Europe. US Army units formed the core of these contributions, including mechanized and armored divisions such as elements of the 1st Infantry Division from , and the 2nd Armored Division. For instance, during REFORGER 87, over 6,000 pieces of equipment from were transported by rail to the port of , for sealift to , demonstrating the scale of logistical support required. Troops upon arrival would "marry up" with pre-stocked vehicles, including M60 tanks, M113 armored personnel carriers, and later M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, enabling full combat readiness within days. The Air Force played a critical supporting role, conducting massive airlifts of personnel; in Autumn Forge 83, which encompassed REFORGER, 16,044 troops were airlifted to using 84 C-141 Starlifter sorties. This inter-service coordination enhanced rapid deployment timelines, with exercises like REFORGER V in 1973 involving up to 51,000 troops in field training phases. Prepositioned stocks, managed under programs evaluated by the Government Accountability Office, included repair parts and supplies issued at varying stock levels to support sustained operations. These contributions underscored the commitment to deterrence, with REFORGER exercises from 1969 onward validating the feasibility of reinforcing against potential aggression through empirical testing of deployment speeds and .

NATO Allied Involvement

allied involvement in Exercise Reforger primarily centered on host nation support, joint maneuver training, and integration with U.S. reinforcing forces during the exercise's combat simulation phases, such as those under the broader Autumn Forge series. , as the primary host, provided including rail networks, ports, airfields, and vast training areas like the and Hohenfels ranges, enabling the reception and staging of up to 100,000 U.S. troops annually by the 1980s. The contributed thousands of personnel as blue force elements, simulating integrated defenses against a hypothetical invasion, while also handling logistical coordination and civil-military liaison to minimize disruptions in populated areas. Other NATO members participated selectively, often deploying , , and support units to enhance multinational . In REFORGER 87's Certain Strike phase, forces from five allied nations—, the , , the , and —joined 35,000 U.S. soldiers, totaling 115,000 personnel across six countries, with approximately 78,000 troops, 20,000 wheeled vehicles, and 2,200 tracked vehicles engaged in maneuvers across northern and central . The contributed elements like tank squadrons from regiments such as The , focusing on integration, while Dutch and Belgian units provided and artillery support. 's involvement typically included smaller contingents from its European-based brigade, emphasizing rapid response and command structures. Allied contributions extended beyond ground forces to include air and logistical elements, with nations like the and providing and augmentation via national assets. These roles tested NATO's collective defense doctrine under Article 5, verifying command-and-control linkages and sustainment chains amid real-world constraints such as congested European rail lines. Participation varied by year, peaking in the amid heightened East-West tensions, but remained secondary to U.S. reinforcements, reflecting allies' reliance on American rapid deployment for credible deterrence.

Operational Mechanics

Deployment and Logistics

The deployment phase of Exercise Reforger emphasized rapid transatlantic movement of and forces from to , simulating reinforcement against a incursion. Personnel, typically numbering in the tens of thousands per iteration—reaching 125,000 in Reforger 1988—were primarily transported via airlift using the , augmented by the and commercial charter flights. This enabled division-sized elements to cross the Atlantic in approximately 2-3 days, with troops arriving at airfields such as Ramstein or before proceeding to reception centers. Heavy equipment deployment relied heavily on prepositioned materiel configured to unit sets (POMCUS) stored at sites across , the , and , allowing arriving units to rapidly equip and mobilize without awaiting full . For instance, in Reforger 87, units from , , shipped around 6,000 pieces of equipment via 34 trains comprising 1,900 railcars to the port of , for to European ports like or . From there, cargo moved inland by rail and road to POMCUS facilities or exercise areas, coordinated through the U.S. Military Traffic Management Command and host-nation infrastructure, including Germany's rail network for onward distribution. Logistics encompassed the full spectrum of reception, staging, onward movement, and integration (RSOII), testing sustainment chains from U.S. departure points to forward assembly in the Central Region. The handled ocean transport of non-prepositioned assets, while European allies provided critical host-nation support, such as port handling and rail capacity, to validate NATO's timelines. This structure underscored Reforger's role in rehearsing just-in-time , though critics within U.S. Army Europe noted its dependence on prepositioning as potentially overstating wartime sealift feasibility.

Training and Simulation Elements

Exercise Reforger incorporated a mix of live and simulated elements to prepare U.S. and forces for rapid reinforcement of , emphasizing deployment , unit integration, and command under wartime conditions. Live components focused on field exercises (FTX) involving actual troop movements, equipment handling, and tactical maneuvers across West German terrain, allowing units to practice reception, staging, onward movement, and integration (RSOI) with in-place allies. Command field exercises (CFX) extended this by mid-level elements in field conditions with partial live forces augmented by simulated opposing forces, testing real-time coordination without full-scale combat. Simulations played a growing role, particularly in command post exercises (CPX), where only staff and command elements participated—either in the field or —to rehearse battle planning, , and via computer models, mitigating risks and costs associated with live play. Systems like the Battle Simulation () enabled corps-level staffs to simulate large-scale engagements, while tools such as SIMNET provided immersive, networked views of dynamics for crew and small-unit . In REFORGER 1990, these simulations enhanced command/control and reduced transportation costs by over $4 million compared to prior iterations, alongside projected 40% lower maneuver damage claims from decreased live vehicle use. By the early 1990s, advanced distributed interactive simulations (DIS) and protocols like Aggregate Level Simulation Protocol (ALSP) were integrated, as in REFORGER 1992, to network virtual and constructive models across units, enabling satellite-linked maneuvers against simulated adversaries at reduced expense—costing less than half of previous fully live exercises. These elements addressed live limitations, such as and environmental impacts, while improving and higher-echelon readiness without deploying full forces. Map-based tools like further supported - and company-level indirect simulations for staff coordination in REFORGER scenarios. ![U.S. Army during REFORGER '82][float-right]
CFX and CPX often incorporated opposing forces (OPFOR) simulated via role-players or basic models to replicate threats, fostering realistic decision cycles and electronic warfare training. Overall, this hybrid approach validated NATO's reinforcement , with simulations evolving to handle complex variables like sustainment and portrayal, though early efforts noted weaknesses in enemy representation.

Notable Exercises and Milestones

Key Annual Iterations

REFORGER exercises occurred annually from to , with each iteration testing the rapid deployment of U.S. and forces to via air and sea lift, followed by integration into defensive maneuvers against simulated aggression. These iterations evolved in complexity, incorporating prepositioned equipment sets and multinational participation, though troop deployments from the U.S. typically ranged from to over personnel per exercise. The inaugural REFORGER I, conducted in January 1969, marked the return of more than 12,000 U.S. Soldiers to , validating the concept of reinforcing NATO's central front from continental bases. Subsequent early iterations in the , such as REFORGER 74 and REFORGER 76, emphasized armored and mechanized unit movements, including M113 armored personnel carriers and preparations from U.S. installations like Fort Hood, . In the , exercises peaked in scale and realism; REFORGER 82 featured leadership by the U.S. III Corps in major field training, while REFORGER 83, under the Autumn Forge 83 umbrella, involved a radio-silent of 16,044 U.S. troops across 84 C-141 flights, heightening Soviet perceptions of imminent conflict. The zenith came with REFORGER 88 (Certain Challenge), spanning August to November 1988, which mobilized 125,000 soldiers in the largest such maneuver since , testing rear-area threats and host-nation support amid extensive civilian disruptions. Post-Cold War drawdowns reduced scope; REFORGER 90 employed fewer units than prior decades, REFORGER 91—postponed from 1989 and amid demands—limited participation to 28,000 allied troops with simulation-heavy components, and REFORGER 93 concluded the series amid and dissolution.
YearKey FeaturesApproximate U.S./Allied Troops Deployed
1969 (REFORGER I)Initial validation of reinforcement concept; focused on air/sea lift to Europe>12,000 U.S. Soldiers
1983Radio-silent airlift as part of Autumn Forge; linked to Soviet war scare16,044 U.S. troops airlifted
1988 (Certain Challenge)Largest iteration; extensive field training and logistics testing125,000 total soldiers
1991Simulation-reliant due to ; postponed from 198928,000 allied troops

Innovations and Adaptations

REFORGER exercises evolved to incorporate prepositioned organizational configured in unit sets (POMCUS), enabling arriving U.S. forces to rapidly draw pre-stocked equipment from sites in , such as those at and , rather than shipping heavy gear across the Atlantic. This innovation, expanded during the Carter-Reagan military buildup in the late and , reduced deployment timelines from weeks to days by allowing troops to focus on personnel while assembling combat-ready units on-site; annual REFORGER iterations tested and refined these stocks, ensuring compatibility with evolving . Doctrinal adaptations integrated concepts starting in the early 1980s, shifting from static defense to dynamic, maneuver-oriented operations emphasizing deep strikes against follow-on echelons using combined air-ground fires. Exercises like REFORGER 83 and 87 practiced this through corps-level maneuvers involving U.S. III Corps as a three-division reserve, coordinating with allies to simulate counterattacks in ; this marked a departure from prior attrition-focused models, incorporating real-time joint air support for . Technological advancements featured field-testing of second-generation U.S. equipment, including main battle tanks, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, and infantry fighting vehicles, deployed via REFORGER to validate their performance in European terrain and weather against Soviet analogs. For instance, REFORGER 82 and 84 iterations exposed these platforms to operational stresses like and live-fire integration, informing upgrades such as improved Abrams armor packages. Logistical and planning innovations included early adoption of computer-aided modeling for mobility assessment, as in REFORGER 87, where Landsat satellite data and the Computer-Aided Mobility Model (CAMMS) predicted vehicle off-road performance across varied German landscapes, enhancing route planning and reducing deployment risks. Adaptations also emphasized , with REFORGER 80 focusing on command-control linkages and communications among U.S. and NATO forces to streamline multinational reinforcements.

Challenges, Criticisms, and Controversies

Logistical and Operational Difficulties

The REFORGER exercises frequently encountered logistical bottlenecks during initial deployments, particularly in and operations, where mechanical failures and limitations delayed offloading. For instance, in REFORGER 77, the was withdrawn on August 9, 1977, due to mechanical issues, necessitating a switch to the USNS Comet with only marginal delays, while ports like experienced vehicle backups from distant documentation checkpoints and faced challenges from steep stern ramp angles requiring adjustments for discharge completion by September 3, 1977. These issues highlighted the vulnerability of reliance on commercial shipping and host nation support, with minimal but notable damage reported, including 27 cracked truck windshields whose causes remained undetermined. Rail transport presented persistent operational difficulties both in the United States and Europe, exacerbating deployment timelines and risking equipment integrity. Domestic rail loading at Forts Riley and Carson during REFORGER 77 violated Association of American Railroads rules, resulting in improper tiedowns, chocking, and cargo shifts upon arrival at military ocean terminals; Train #5 from Fort Carson arrived 14 hours late on August 9, 1977, due to bad-order cars, while poor spur and ramp conditions at these forts necessitated future upgrades. In Europe, narrow-gauge German rail cars complicated loading of tracked vehicles, requiring specialized training, and staging areas at Bremerhaven overflowed due to unit-specific lining and inadequate train arrival notifications, with 31 railcars arriving post-notification between September 25 and October 7, 1977; communication breakdowns further hampered coordination. Funding constraints and planning inaccuracies compounded these challenges, often threatening exercise execution and unit completeness. REFORGER I in 1969 nearly faced postponement due to an $11.1 million cost amid congressional cuts, while REFORGER II in 1970 excluded the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored for similar budgetary reasons; inaccurate deployment lists and personnel shortages—such as 400 soldiers initially short in REFORGER I—delayed preparations and required reassignments. Early iterations like precursor Operation BIG LIFT in 1963 revealed outdated and faulty prepositioned in POMCUS sites, underscoring sustainment risks despite later improvements through exercises like CAR CREW in 1968. Operational reports noted that vacant transportation units could create serious problems, emphasizing the need for dedicated REFORGER support assets. Interoperability and tracking issues added layers of complexity, with host nation dependencies and procedural lapses hindering efficiency. Poor CONEX container conditions—rusted and bent—demanded on-site repairs like banding at Fort Riley during REFORGER 77, while initial truck movement tracking failed for July 27-28, 1977, due to carrier non-reporting; European maneuver damage to civilian property required compensation, straining relations despite fostering goodwill. After-action analyses, such as for REFORGER 79, documented broader operational problems in surface deployment and redeployment, including rail outloading and seaport cargo handling, though specific mitigations evolved over time. These difficulties, drawn from military after-action reports, revealed systemic limitations in rapid reinforcement capabilities, prioritizing logistical rehearsal over tactical maneuvers in assessments by figures like Col. Mansoor.

Geopolitical Tensions and Soviet Perceptions

The REFORGER exercises unfolded amid escalating geopolitical tensions, particularly following the Warsaw Pact's 1968 invasion of , which prompted to emphasize rapid reinforcement capabilities to counter perceived Soviet offensive threats in . By simulating the deployment of up to 100,000 U.S. and allied troops annually, REFORGER underscored 's commitment to collective defense under Article 5, but it also intensified East-West rivalry as the maintained a substantial forward-deployed force of over 500,000 troops in , outnumbering ground forces by roughly 3:1 in conventional assets. Soviet doctrine, emphasizing preemptive deep battle tactics, viewed such demonstrations as disruptive to their planned blitzkrieg-style advances aimed at seizing key territory before reinforcements could arrive, thereby heightening mutual deterrence dynamics without direct confrontation. Soviet perceptions framed REFORGER as a provocative rehearsal for aggression rather than mere defense, with official propaganda outlets like Pravda routinely denouncing the exercises as "imperialist maneuvers" designed to encircle and intimidate the socialist bloc, often linking them to broader NATO expansionism and U.S. militarism. Warsaw Pact intelligence closely monitored deployments, interpreting logistical surges—such as sealifts across the Atlantic—as indicators of impending hostilities, which fed into the KGB's RYaN program tracking potential NATO surprise attacks. This lens was amplified during periods of crisis, including the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the 1983 Euromissile deployments, where REFORGER served as a focal point for Soviet diplomatic protests accusing NATO of destabilizing arms control negotiations. A peak in tensions occurred during REFORGER 83 in September-October 1983, integrated into the larger Autumn Forge 83 series, which involved radio-silent airlifts of 19,000 U.S. troops over 170 flights at a cost of $2.4 billion; Soviet marshals later described these as "most dangerous" due to their opacity, fearing they masked mobilization for nuclear escalation amid concurrent events like the KAL 007 shootdown. Declassified assessments reveal Soviet high command placed forces on elevated alert, interpreting the exercises' scale and secrecy—coupled with unnotified elements—as prelude to a decapitating strike, though U.S. intelligence later debated whether this reflected genuine paranoia or calculated to portray as the aggressor. In response, the conducted mirroring maneuvers, such as Tsvetnaya Pesnya, to project parity and deter perceived adventurism, perpetuating a cycle of escalatory signaling without verified intent for immediate conflict.

Domestic and Allied Debates

In the United States, Exercise Reforger sparked domestic debates primarily over its substantial costs relative to perceived strategic benefits, amid congressional scrutiny of overall Cold War-era military spending on European commitments. Lawmakers, including those advocating for reduced overseas deployments, questioned the expense of airlifting up to 16,000 troops and prepositioned equipment annually, with the 1988 exercise alone costing nearly $218 million in 2017-adjusted dollars. Proponents defended REFORGER as a cost-effective alternative to expanding permanent U.S. garrisons in , estimating it saved billions by enabling rapid reinforcement rather than sustaining an additional 28,000 forward-based soldiers. Critics, however, highlighted frequent budget overruns—such as early iterations exceeding planned expenditures by double—and argued resources could better address domestic needs or alternative readiness measures like simulations. These discussions reflected broader tensions between fiscal restraint and deterrence priorities, with reports from bodies like the examining ways to optimize exercise funding without compromising effectiveness. Among NATO allies, particularly West Germany as the primary host, REFORGER fueled debates on the practical burdens of accommodating massive reinforcements, including logistical strains, environmental impacts, and public opposition from pacifist groups. Local communities reported significant property damage from tracked vehicles and troop movements across rural areas, prompting compensation claims and calls for scaled-back operations; by 1989, U.S. officials acknowledged these issues contributed to plans for reduced exercise scope post-Cold War. In September 1984, during REFORGER '84 under the Autumn Forge umbrella, hundreds of West German protesters blockaded U.S. Army exercise sites in efforts to halt maneuvers they deemed provocative and disruptive to civilian life, leading to arrests and heightened tensions with authorities. Such actions tied into wider European movements, which criticized drills—including REFORGER—for escalating East-West frictions amid the 1980s , though government leaders viewed the exercises as essential for alliance cohesion. Burden-sharing discussions within framed REFORGER as a direct response to allied about U.S. credibility, initiated in to prove America's capacity and intent to defend without relying solely on European forces. West European partners, facing domestic political pressures against , welcomed the demonstration of U.S. surge capabilities as a means to distribute deterrence responsibilities more evenly, reducing calls for unilateral European buildup. Nonetheless, left-leaning factions in countries like argued the exercises unfairly imposed hosting costs and risks on front-line allies, exacerbating internal divisions over NATO's forward defense strategy versus détente-oriented policies. These debates underscored REFORGER's dual role: bolstering transatlantic trust while exposing fractures in alliance unity over , escalation fears, and equitable contributions.

Strategic Impact and Legacy

Deterrence Effectiveness

REFORGER exercises served as a key component of NATO's conventional deterrence strategy by demonstrating the ' ability to rapidly deploy and integrate substantial forces into European theater defenses, countering the Warsaw Pact's numerical advantages in ground troops and tanks stationed in . Annual deployments involved airlifting tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers—typically around 30,000 to —along with prepositioned , achieving full operational capability within weeks, which validated the feasibility of against a potential Soviet . This logistical execution signaled resolve to adversaries, as the exercises rehearsed the exact sequences required for wartime surge, from strategic lift via to onward movement through European rail and road networks. Soviet monitoring and reactions provided indirect evidence of REFORGER's perceptual impact on deterrence; Warsaw Pact intelligence tracked deployments closely, with Soviet generals occasionally attending as observers in West Germany during iterations like those in 1979 amid heightened tensions over SS-20 missile deployments. The exercises' visibility, involving over 150,000 allied participants at peak scales, underscored NATO's commitment to forward defense, potentially dissuading opportunistic aggression by illustrating that U.S. intervention would not be delayed by transatlantic distances. U.S. efforts to withhold advance notifications on related maneuvers, such as Autumn Forge, further highlighted REFORGER's role in maintaining operational surprise elements within a predictable annual framework, enhancing its credibility as a deterrent signal rather than mere theater. Military analyses, including post-Cold War reviews, credit REFORGER with bolstering alliance cohesion and conventional credibility, as the absence of invasions from 1969 to 1993 aligned with demonstrated reinforcement capabilities, though isolating causal effects remains challenging amid concurrent nuclear postures and economic pressures on the USSR. Critics note potential overemphasis on scripted maneuvers that may have underestimated real-world friction, yet empirical success in repeated large-scale mobilizations—without major breakdowns—affirmed the exercises' contribution to a layered deterrence architecture prioritizing rapid response over permanent forward basing.

Influence on Post-Cold War Doctrine

The annual REFORGER exercises, which practiced the rapid deployment of up to 125,000 U.S. and personnel from the continental to , validated the logistics of strategic mobility and prepositioned configured to unit sets (POMCUS) sites, directly informing the U.S. Army's post-Cold War doctrinal shift toward a "force projection army" emphasizing global deployability over permanent forward basing. This evolution, articulated in the early under the Base Force concept, prioritized the ability to mobilize, deploy, and sustain forces to multiple theaters within 75 days, drawing on REFORGER's tested reception, staging, onward movement, and integration (RSO&I) processes to address reduced European forward presence after the drawdown of U.S. troops from over 200,000 to fewer than 100,000 by 1993. REFORGER's emphasis on joint inter-service cooperation, particularly between the and for operations involving aircraft like the C-141 Starlifter, enhanced capabilities demonstrated in the 1990-1991 , where similar rapid reinforcements—such as airlifting 15,180 soldiers in Desert Shield using 110 sorties—relied on REFORGER-honed procedures for equipment marriage with prepositioned stocks and augmentation via roll-on/roll-off ships. These lessons underscored the need for scalable in expeditionary operations, influencing U.S. under the two major regional contingencies framework, which required projecting a heavy division to a crisis area within weeks, as validated by the final scaled-down REFORGER in 1993 involving about 2,000 transatlantic deployments. In contexts, REFORGER's reinforcement model persisted in post-Cold War planning, transitioning from Warsaw Pact-focused deterrence to flexible crisis response, with its RSO&I frameworks adapted for operations like those in the during the ; this legacy emphasized allied and U.S. strategic lift as cornerstones of collective defense, evident in subsequent exercises such as the 2018-2020 Defender-Europe series, which echoed REFORGER by deploying over U.S. troops to preposition sites and rail networks in . The exercises highlighted enduring vulnerabilities in strategic transport—such as limited capacity (e.g., only 46 roll-on/roll-off ships available by the )—prompting doctrinal refinements in sustainment and host-nation support to enable rapid scaling against peer threats beyond .

Relevance to Contemporary NATO Exercises

The REFORGER exercises, conducted annually from 1969 to 1993, emphasized the rapid transatlantic deployment of U.S. and Allied forces to , simulating reinforcement against a invasion and honing logistical chains, interoperability, and deterrence signaling. This framework directly informs contemporary drills, which prioritize similar capabilities amid renewed great-power competition, particularly Russia's invasion of in 2022. Modern exercises adapt REFORGER's core tenets—testing surge deployments from to Europe's flanks—while incorporating multinational contributions from an expanded now comprising 32 members. Steadfast Defender 2024, NATO's largest exercise since the , exemplifies this continuity, involving over 90,000 personnel from all Allies and to validate rapid reinforcement of the eastern flank against potential aggression. Like the final REFORGER iteration in 1988, which mobilized around 125,000 troops focused on West German defense, Steadfast Defender rehearsed deploying forces from the U.S. and other regions to high-threat areas, including simulated contested over rail, sea, and air routes. However, contemporary variants address post- evolutions, such as reduced permanent U.S. forward presence in Europe and hybrid threats, by integrating cyber defense, prepositioned stocks, and enhanced host-nation support, building on REFORGER's logistical validations without replicating its exact scale or unilateral U.S. focus. This legacy underscores REFORGER's enduring role in shaping NATO's deterrence posture, where exercises like Steadfast Defender and predecessors such as Defender-Europe 2020 demonstrate credible reinforcement to allies, signaling resolve to adversaries in a manner akin to precedents. Empirical data from these drills, including deployment timelines and throughput rates, continue to refine readiness, affirming that REFORGER's emphasis on executable surge capacity remains a benchmark for validating collective defense under Article 5 scenarios.

References

  1. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Books/Browse-Books/iBooks-and-EPUBs/Rapid-Reinforcement-of-NATO/
  2. https://www.army.mil/article/184698/countdown_to_75_us_army_europe_and_reforger
  3. https://www.ausa.org/articles/we-were-there-reforger-exercises-designed-counter-soviet-threat
  4. https://kb.osu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e04b76fb-f599-46ee-ac02-f6393d2bcb70/content
  5. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/return-to-reforger-a-cold-war-exercise-model-for-pacific-deterrence/
  6. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/reforger.htm
  7. https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/us_soldiers_arrive_at_frankfurt_airport_for_reforger_i_military_manoeuvres_6_january_1969-en-3b250af4-b80a-42e7-84de-326af948d18e.html
  8. https://www.stripes.com/history/2023-03-08/reforger-debut-germany-1969-9402523.html
  9. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0854087.pdf
  10. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB427/
  11. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/09/nato-russia-military-mobilization-zapad/140747/
  12. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/02/02/us-cuts-role-in-nato-exercise/0dca4d66-fec0-49ee-ad43-5fecb119970d/
  13. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-02-02-mn-2563-story.html
  14. https://www.joint-forces.com/features/29256-reforger-90-into-the-archives-pt-1
  15. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2009/03/25/from-amf-to-nrf/index.html
  16. https://www.hoover.org/research/return-us-forces-europe-back-future
  17. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF11407/IF11407.2.pdf
  18. https://soldiersystems.net/2021/08/17/the-baldwin-files-old-army-stories-reforger-1975/
  19. https://www.gao.gov/assets/lcd-78-431a.pdf
  20. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA500794.pdf
  21. https://www.tankograd.com/cms/website.php?id=/en/REFORGER-87-Certain-Strike.htm
  22. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4596074970424220&id=1087446214620464&set=a.1091585310873221
  23. https://www.quora.com/During-the-REFORGER-exercises-how-long-did-it-typically-take-to-transport-a-US-Armored-Division-from-the-US-to-West-Germany-assuming-no-use-of-pre-position-stocks
  24. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA093672.pdf
  25. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADB024755.pdf
  26. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADB033190.pdf
  27. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA428267
  28. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R4156.pdf
  29. https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-67.pdf
  30. http://www.davidalexanderbooks.com/distribu.htm
  31. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.1997-3592
  32. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA428267.pdf
  33. https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Mission-History/
  34. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_194081.htm
  35. https://history.army.mil/portals/143/Images/Publications/catalog/101-20.pdf
  36. https://history.army.mil/portals/143/Images/Publications/catalog/101-22.pdf
  37. http://m.3ad.com/history/cold.war/feature.pages/reforger.1990.htm
  38. https://ahec.armywarcollege.edu/documents/Bell_POMCUS%2520_Modernization_Study%2520_Complete.pdf
  39. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA235123.pdf
  40. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA119691.pdf
  41. https://kb.osu.edu/bitstreams/e04b76fb-f599-46ee-ac02-f6393d2bcb70/download
  42. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADB038097.pdf
  43. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/context/polisci-faculty-publications/article/1216/viewcontent/ConstrainingGroundForceExercises.pdf
  44. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_139274.htm
  45. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/aa83/2018-11-05/soviet-side-1983-war-scare
  46. https://unredacted.com/2014/04/18/the-us-effort-to-not-notify-the-soviets-of-able-archer-reforger-or-autumn-forge-76-and-77/
  47. http://www.bblankenship.com/uploads/6/6/2/1/66215933/blankenshipkuo_do_military_exercises_escalate_conflict.pdf
  48. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1119077.pdf
  49. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/26/world/around-the-world-west-german-protesters-try-to-block-war-games.html
  50. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/social-unrest-and-american-military-bases-in-turkey-and-germany-since-1945/social-unrest-and-the-american-military-presence-in-germany-during-the-cold-war/EC6B953AF5EAE82A8D748040C633808E
  51. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027211023147
  52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2626732
  53. https://www.yakimaherald.com/opinion/column-how-can-europe-deter-putin-revive-the-reforger/article_bbdc81a5-0d47-419f-ba76-e758d9e9fa3a.html
  54. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/222847.htm
  55. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/ac-turkey-defense-journal/nato-exercises-the-guarantee-of-alliance-security-and-test-of-readiness/
  56. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3656703/nato-begins-largest-exercise-since-cold-war/
  57. https://shape.nato.int/news-archive/2024/natos-largest-exercise-in-decades--steadfast-defender-2024--set-to-get-underway
  58. https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI%2520Memo%25208860
  59. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/defender-europe-not-21st-century-reforger
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.