What do we know about the leaked German plan concerning preparations for a potential military confrontation with Russia?

Since 2022, this plan has been linked to the repercussions of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which has reshaped NATO’s defense priorities.

The analysis begins with a fundamental observation: the leaked document isn’t merely a local tactical document, but rather a comprehensive operational framework that seeks to answer a single practical question: How can Germany be prepared to receive, equip, transport, and support a large number of NATO forces should the confrontation on the eastern front escalate?

This question defines the nature of the plan and justifies its broad scope, encompassing military, logistical, legal, civilian, and economic elements.

The origins and development of the plan indicate that it was prepared over a period of several years by a small team of officers, experts, intelligence personnel, and civilian coordinators.

The final document is estimated to be around 1,200 pages long, based on scenarios ranging from limited escalation to a full-blown regional conflict.

Among the details of the preparation process, the plan document includes detailed maps of transport routes, timelines for the deployment of formations and brigades, logistical requirements for each unit, and engineering upgrade requirements for dual-use civilian and military infrastructure.

In late November 2025, The Wall Street Journal published a report stating that Germany had secretly prepared a comprehensive war plan with Russia, codenamed “German Operational Plan” or OPLAN DEU.

According to the report, the document was drafted approximately two and a half years ago at a meeting of 12 high-ranking officers in Berlin.

The document reportedly comprised around 1,200 pages of plans and details.

This news sparked considerable debate: some considered it a reasonable defensive mobilization given the situation in Europe, while others viewed it as a worrying escalation.

More importantly, the implications of this plan and its actual readiness for implementation are being analyzed—a point we will attempt to clarify below.

The plan focuses particularly on the logistical dimension: identifying key ports on the North Sea and the Baltic Sea as primary reception points for troops and equipment, and connecting these ports to rail and highway networks to enable a continuous and organized flow of personnel and heavy vehicles.

The document also details assembly points within Germany, ammunition and logistical storage facilities, field maintenance centers, and temporary fuel depots.

In terms of troop capacity, the plan mentions the possibility of organizing the movement of approximately 800,000 troops through German supply routes in a rigorous scenario—a figure that reflects strategic planning rather than limited local preparation.

Infrastructure preparation is a vital component of the plan, as estimates indicate an urgent need for extensive modernization of railways, roads, bridges, and ports.

A percentage of existing roads and bridges may not be capable of withstanding the weights and dimensions of modern armored equipment.

The document also highlights the necessity of equipping specific ports to rapidly unload heavy cargo, provide secure storage areas, and connect them to high-capacity transport lines.

Furthermore, it outlines technical requirements related to quay depth, crane capacity, and handling capabilities.

In addition to physical infrastructure, the plan addresses modern threat dimensions: cyber warfare, drone attacks, disinformation campaigns, and sabotage operations targeting electricity, transportation, and communication networks.

Therefore, the document includes protocols for protecting industrial control networks, backup programs for critical data, and alternative command and control recovery points in case main centers are compromised.

The plan also establishes mechanisms for rapid coordination between security and intelligence agencies to exchange information on sabotage attempts or hostile cyber operations.

The legal and administrative dimension stands out as one of the most significant obstacles to rapid implementation.

Many German regulations are designed for peacetime, imposing restrictions on the transfer of civilian resources for military purposes without prior legislative approval.

The plan details the legal amendments required to enable the temporary use of civilian infrastructure, streamline the delegation of authority to military command in emergencies, and establish a legal framework for employing civilian personnel or the transport sector for military support.

It also acknowledges the sensitivity of issues related to privacy and freedom of movement, making any legislative change a matter with significant political and social implications that must be addressed beforehand.

The command and control system envisioned in the document adopts a hybrid approach, based on integrated federal military command with civilian coordination mechanisms at the state and municipal levels.

The plan outlines detailed timelines, progressing from early warning to partial mobilization and then full mobilization, and clearly defines responsibilities for each administrative and military level, including operational principles for ports, railway stations, and supply routes.

This arrangement necessitates frequent joint exercises, infrastructure readiness tests, and simulations of transporting massive quantities of supplies along designated routes within short timeframes.

The financial cost of implementing infrastructure upgrades and maintaining a rapidly deployable logistical reserve isn’t negligible.

Initial estimates for upgrading ports, reinforcing bridges, and enhancing railway and road capacities could reach investment levels in the billions of Euros spread over several years.

These figures must be treated as a long-term funding priority, not as an emergency cost that can be covered in a single payment without realigning budget priorities at the federal and European levels.

The plan also requires specialized human resources in logistics, equipment maintenance, cybersecurity, and crisis management.

The document defines itself primarily as a deterrent; that is, its strategic objective is to make any aggression against NATO countries prohibitively costly and unlikely to succeed.

This strategy rests on the premise that a practical demonstration of capabilities and readiness reduces the likelihood of an adversary choosing escalation.

However, this approach isn’t without risk; a high level of preparedness could be interpreted by an adversary as escalation or a state of alert, forcing policymakers to carefully manage diplomatic messaging to avoid miscalculation.

The document’s release has generated mixed domestic and international political reactions.

Domestically, the leak has sparked debate between those who see it as a strategic necessity in the evolving security context and those who fear a shift in Germany’s traditional defense identity or a move toward militarizing its policies.

Regionally and internationally, NATO’s eastern flank countries have welcomed the signs of a stronger German commitment, while others, including official circles in Moscow, have exploited the leak to send political messages portraying the plan as a potential act of aggression.

This climate confirms that any actual implementation requires an intensive diplomatic initiative to explain the nature of the plan and its defensive objectives and to prevent the escalation of accusations.

The document includes detailed implementation scenarios that assume different temporal and spatial variables: The first scenario describes a limited regional escalation requiring the mobilization and deployment of rapid support units ranging from mechanized infantry formations to field companies, lasting for relatively short periods.

The second scenario addresses a prolonged confrontation relying on a continuous flow of brigades and heavy reinforcements, requiring the full operation of transportation networks and the activation of large storage and handling facilities.

The third scenario, the worst-case scenario, assumes hybrid attacks with simultaneous attempts to disrupt infrastructure, necessitating alternative scenarios for mobile command and control, data retrieval centers, and alternative supply routes (limited airlift, variable river/sea solutions).

At the readiness assessment level, the data shows that the gap between what is planned and what is available on the ground is significant.

There are temporal, technical, and structural differences that require years of intensive work, making the scheduling of the plan’s activation one of the most critical implementation issues.

The plan itself indicates that achieving full operational readiness in some components may take periods ranging from two to five years, depending on the level of funding, the ability to make rapid legislative amendments, and the required logistical coordination.

The strategic analysis leads to two interrelated conclusions:

First, the existence of such a plan reflects a significant shift in German and European security thinking and places Germany at the center of a deeper engagement with NATO.

Second, the success of this plan depends primarily on civilian and political, non-military measures: long-term infrastructure funding, legislative reforms that balance freedoms with security imperatives, and a diplomatic outreach plan to mitigate the risk of miscalculation by adversaries.

The practical recommendations include the immediate launch of a national program for a detailed assessment of infrastructure and prioritization of investments, and the initiation of a rapid legislative dialogue to implement flexible contingency mechanisms that preserve essential civilian safeguards.

Strengthening digital infrastructure protection programs, expanding civil-military integration exercises, and establishing specialized entities to manage critical supply chains are also recommended.

At the diplomatic level, it’s crucial that any domestic actions be accompanied by outreach efforts with allies and adversaries to explain that the objective is defensive and preventive, and doesn’t constitute an offensive policy.

Overall, the leaked plan represents an ambitious and comprehensive strategic document that demonstrates a growing German awareness of the nature of current and future security challenges.

However, its practical value will be measured by the extent to which state institutions can translate its planning elements into tangible action on the ground without simultaneously undermining democratic principles and international commitments.

Monitoring the implementation of infrastructure modernization measures, progress on legislative reforms, and the evolution of the diplomatic climate will be key indicators for determining whether the plan remains a theoretical document or becomes a real factor in the European balance of power.

The next step will be the development of a concise implementation document, including a timeline, a funding roadmap, and performance indicators for key phases: port modernization, strengthening critical land networks, building logistical reserves, and activating cybersecurity platforms.

Such an implementation document will serve as the transition from planning to execution and will be the crucial element determining the future implementation of the plan and its impact on European security in the coming decade.