Combined ResolveEdit

Combined Resolve is a multinational military exercise conducted in Europe, principally by the United States Army and partner nations, designed to practice large-scale, interoperable operations across alliance forces. Held at major training areas such as the Grafenwoehr Training Area and the Hohenfels Training Area in Germany, the exercise focuses on integrating armor, infantry, aviation, air defense, and sustainment elements under unified command and control. The goal is to sharpen interoperability, readiness, and rapid-response capabilities in a security environment shaped by renewed attention to deterrence on the eastern flank and the need for credible alliance commitments. Participants typically include units from the United States Army, alongside allies from the United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, France and others, reflecting a sustained commitment to burden-sharing and alliance cohesion.

From its origins in the early 21st century, Combined Resolve has evolved into a recurring program that tests the practicalities of coalition warfare in realistic, contested environments. It is emblematic of a broader strategy to maintain a ready, interoperable force posture in Europe, capable of aligning with NATO standards and procedures. While the exercise is not a combat operation, it serves as a crucial gauge of how allied forces would operate together under pressure, including joint maneuver, logistics, command-and-control workflows, and communications across multinational units. The exercise also emphasizes civilian-military coordination and the role of regional partners in sustaining a credible defensive posture in the continent’s most sensitive theaters.

History and scope

Combined Resolve emerged as a response to evolving security challenges in Europe and the recognized need for close allied preparation. Over time, the exercise has shifted among different training venues and expanded its participant roster to reflect growing alliance capabilities and regional commitments. Its framing within NATO interoperability goals means that lessons learned feed back into host-n nation defense planning, doctrine, and equipment acquisitions. The exercise often situates operations along the lines of combined arms maneuver, counter-mobility, and integrated air-ground operations, testing systems and procedures that would be essential in a real-world crisis.

Participants and structure

Primary organizers and hosts: the United States Army and its European component commands, in coordination with partner nations.
Key partner nations: United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, France and others.
Capabilities exercised: armored and mechanized infantry formations, aviation and air defense units, engineering and logistics teams, and command-and-control nodes designed for multinational operations.
Training emphasis: interoperability with allied protocols, cross-border logistics, secure communications, and standardized procedures for combined fire support and maneuver.
Geography and venues: major sites include the Grafenwoehr Training Area and the Hohenfels Training Area in Germany.

Objectives and capabilities

Deterrence through credible alliance readiness: by rehearsing the coordination of multinational forces, Combined Resolve reinforces the political and military signal that aggression would meet a unified, capable response from a coalition.
Interoperability and standardization: exercises emphasize common operating procedures, shared language of command, and compatibility of equipment across partner militaries, advancing seamless coalition operations.
Rapid deployment and sustainment planning: the exercise tests logistics pipelines, pre-positioned stocks, airlift and sealift requirements, and medical evacuation sequences.
Readiness across domains: ground maneuver, combined arms integration, aviation support, and fires coordination are practiced in concert, reflecting the full spectrum of potential crisis-response activities.
Strategic conditioning of alliance culture: participation helps cultivate trust, mutual confidence, and professional relationships among units that may have to trust each other under adverse conditions.

Controversies and debates

Burden-sharing and cost: critics argue that the United States shoulders a disproportionate share of European defense commitments, while supporters contend that credible deterrence requires a robust, multinational capability that spreads risk and strengthens alliance cohesion. From a practical standpoint, the costs are weighed against the strategic value of deterrence and the potential savings from preventing conflict.
Mission focus and political considerations: some observers argue that exercises should prioritize pure readiness over political signaling. Proponents counter that deterrence and alliance credibility are inseparable from readiness, and that the political dimension of defense—such as maintaining alliance morale and signaling unity—directly supports operational effectiveness.
Inclusion and readiness narratives: in some circles, criticisms are leveled at emphasis on diversity and inclusion within the force. Advocates for the exercise argue that diverse perspectives strengthen problem-solving, expand cultural competence, and reduce friction in multinational operations. Critics who label these efforts as distractions may underestimate how inclusive training translates into disciplined, adaptable units. In this view, the concerns about “wokeness” are seen as overstated; a professional army advances by emphasizing merit, cohesion, and mission focus while broadening the pool of capable soldiers.
Environmental and sovereignty considerations: hosting large-scale drills in allied territory raises questions about environmental impact, land use, and host-nation consent. Supporters highlight careful planning, compliance with host-country regulations, and the long-term security benefits of stable, well-trained forces in the region.

Impact and assessment

Readiness gains: Combined Resolve is widely credited with improving the ability of participating forces to operate side-by-side, understand each other’s tactics, and execute synchronized moves across combined arms formations.
Alliance cohesion: by practicing shared procedures, liaison structures, and decision-making processes, the exercise strengthens trust and reliability among NATO members and partner militaries.
Deterrence value: a capable, interoperable coalition raises the political and strategic costs of aggression, contributing to regional stability and the defense of critical allies.
Lessons learned: the exercise yields insights into logistics, communications, and command relationships that feed back into doctrine, training plans, and acquisition decisions for participating nations.
Strategic signaling: publicly visible multinational drills reinforce commitments to collective defense and signal a durable, long-term stance regarding security in europe.