From Commitments to Corridors: NATO’s Eastern Flank Infrastructure

Introduction

The July 2026 NATO Ankara Summit was meant to be a summit of delivery, moving NATO’s focus from political pledges to the practical capacity to fulfill them. But the credibility of those agreements will rely on what is constructed, where it is built, and how well national infrastructure is integrated across the Alliance. During the summit, NATO Allies agreed that a major priority is to extend eastwards the pipeline infrastructure initially designed to sustain NATO’s containment line in Western Europe during the Cold War so that it reaches the Alliance’s current frontier on the Eastern Flank. This technically recognizes that the Eastern Flank has now become NATO’s primary line of containment and, if the war in Ukraine continues, an active strategic front as well. Infrastructure matters both as a network of roads, trains, ports, pipelines, and logistical hubs, and for how these assets support NATO’s operational objectives and improve deterrence by enabling Allies to reinforce one another, coordinate effectively, and sustain collective defense. Hence the need for a fresh examination of last year’s report^[i] on the infrastructure of NATO’s Eastern Flank.

Infrastructure on NATO’s Eastern Flank should be understood as a connected web linking the Baltic Sea, Poland, the Black Sea, the Aegean and the wider Mediterranean. The Alliance’s ability to fortify its frontier is not about particular roads, railways, ports, or bridges, but the interaction of north-south and east-west links. This means in practice that three infrastructure systems must be linked and mutually reinforcing for the corridor to work properly. The first is the Baltic–Poland trunk, anchored on Via Baltica / S61–A5 for road and Rail Baltica for future standard-gauge rail. The second is the Central European descent to Romania, which can run via Poland–Slovakia–Hungary–Romania and, conceptually, through the Baltic Sea–Black Sea–Aegean Sea European Transport Corridor created by the revised TEN-T framework, the European Union's policy framework^[ii] to improve and build the network of roads, railways, inland waterways, maritime shipping, and aviation infrastructure^[iii] (map available here). The third is the Romania–Bulgaria–Greece / Black Sea–Aegean distribution zone, where roads, railways, ports, Danube crossings, and ferries determine whether reinforcement can disperse southward and eastward.

In this sense, ports, railheads, highways, bridges, Danube crossings, airports, fuel networks, and logistics hubs are not separate infrastructure categories, but mutually dependent nodes in one strategic mobility system. A weakness at any point — the Suwałki corridor, the Carpathian crossings, the Giurgiu–Ruse bridge, the rail gauge break, or the limited access between the Black Sea and Aegean — affects the credibility of the entire network. The Eastern Flank therefore needs to be planned as an integrated Baltic–Black Sea–Aegean/Mediterranean web, where redundancy, interoperability, and dual-use capacity matter as much as individual road or rail upgrades.

Corridor Architecture Changes Since June 2025

"Corridor architecture" refers to the way transport, logistics and support infrastructure are organized into a coherent strategic mobility system. For the Eastern Flank, the interaction between land and maritime infrastructure shapes corridor architecture. Air mobility remains important, but the changing character of warfare increasingly affects the air corridor, especially the proliferation of drones, gray-zone incidents, airspace violations, and contested air-defense environments. For large-scale reinforcement and sustainment, the decisive system is therefore the integration of land corridors — roads, railways, bridges, and border crossings — with maritime access points in the Baltic, Black Sea, Aegean and wider Mediterranean. Ports and sea lines of communication are not separate from the land network. On the contrary, they provide the entry points, redundancy and strategic depth that allow the Eastern Flank to function as an integrated military mobility system.

In practical terms, the land corridor from the Baltic region into the Black Sea region improved most at the northern and Romanian internal ends. At the same time, the Romania–Bulgaria crossing remains the weakest section. On the northern end, Polish S61/Via Baltica was completed in 2025, materially improving the Suwałki-facing road approach from Poland into Lithuania. By contrast, the rail side remains structurally incomplete because Rail Baltica is under construction and still targets 2030 for phase completion, while also facing major funding pressure.

Within Romania, the best-documented 2025–2026 road improvements for north-south military-relevant movement were not on the routes connecting Romania and Bulgaria, identified as the weakest point in the previous report (the DN5 itself), but on the wider network that can support force concentration and redistribution. The A1 opened its second Pitești–Curtea de Argeș portion on 11 June 2025^[iv], and the^[v] expressway was fully in service by 31 July 2025, improving internal movement toward southern Romania and offering better alternatives for force redistribution even if they do not replace the direct Giurgiu axis. The A0 Bucharest South Ring also became materially more useful after the opening of the last southern section in 2025^[vi], enabling a full A1–A2 bypass around Bucharest and reducing congestion exposure for traffic that does not need to enter the city.

The table below updates the key infrastructure segments identified in the 2025 initial report on the Eastern Flank corridor architecture. It does more than revise project timelines or indicate whether individual infrastructure elements are completed, under construction, or still in planning. It also assesses two types of risk: first, risks related to financing, construction delays, cross-border coordination, and implementation; and second, risks related to how each project would function in practice under the specific conditions of the Eastern Flank. Some infrastructure segments are likely to come under greater stress than others, depending on geography, traffic concentration, and the availability — or absence — of alternative routes. As in business supply-chain management, where stable flows depend on diversified and redundant channels, deterrence and defense also require credible alternatives. At the same time, given Russia’s war against Ukraine, infrastructure that appears adequate in peacetime may still prove vulnerable to congestion, sabotage, cyber disruption, drone activity, border friction, limited redundancy, or pressure on civilian supply chains during a crisis.

 Since June 2025, there has been a visible shift in NATO and EU strategy: military mobility is no longer framed only in generic terms of connectivity or readiness, but increasingly through explicit references to mobility corridors, logistics chains, dual-use infrastructure, resilience, and critical-infrastructure protection. This is important for policy language and political understanding of the urgency of creating an integrated corridor architecture to serve the Alliance. However, the central operational judgment has not changed. NATO and EU requirements do not automatically become funded national infrastructure priorities. NATO capability targets must be incorporated into national planning, while implementation, budgeting and infrastructure development remain largely national responsibilities. In a special report issued last year^[vii]on why the EU is delaying implementing its military mobility plans, the European Court of Auditors has found that military-mobility governance remains fragmented, that member states were frequently only invited rather than obligated to undertake particular actions, and that no formalized system consistently required them to report on national implementation.

Consequently, investment decisions along the corridors remain exposed to domestic political priorities, electoral calculations, and regional interests. Evidence from both Romania and Bulgaria suggests that ministers and senior political officeholders may devote greater attention, administrative pressure, and funding advocacy to infrastructure projects connected to their home regions, electoral constituencies, or political bases. In Romania, local reporting has documented transport ministers personally promoting road^[viii] and rail projects affecting cities or counties^[ix] with which they were closely associated. At the same time, similar patterns have appeared in Bulgaria, including sustained ministerial attention to projects around Vratsa^[x] and Lovech^[xi]. Such interventions do not necessarily imply that the projects themselves lack economic or strategic merit, nor do they prove that other investments were deliberately displaced. They do, however, illustrate how territorial political incentives can influence sequencing, visibility, and implementation speed in the absence of strategic prioritization that aligns with national defense interests. In the context of NATO and EU military-mobility corridors, this creates a persistent risk that infrastructure development will reflect domestic political geography more closely than the operational priorities of an integrated Alliance-wide network.

Apart from the poor political selection and sequencing of projects that received national funding, the southern part of the Baltic–Black Sea–Aegean corridor also attracted the least EU support. The European Court of Auditors found in 2025 that EU military-mobility funding was concentrated in Poland and the Baltic states, while Romania received less, Bulgaria only modest support, and Greece none^[xii]. This funding imbalance reinforced existing infrastructure gaps instead of correcting them, leaving the corridor’s weakest links without the scale or urgency of investment required for military mobility. As a result, deficiencies in road, rail and cross-border capacity accumulated precisely where the network is most vulnerable and where alternative routes are limited.

 The southern part of the Eastern Flank remains the weakest section of the interconnected mobility system, and the Romania–Bulgaria segment is still the key vulnerability in the Baltic/Poland-to-Black Sea/Aegean land chain. The Giurgiu–Ruse bridge remains a classic single-point-of-failure bottleneck, concentrating both civilian and potential military traffic on an aging and capacity-limited crossing. A second bridge remains a distant political project rather than a tangible infrastructure solution. In contrast, the A5 Bucharest–Giurgiu motorway remains far from operational, and Romanian decision-makers do not appear to treat it as an immediate priority.

 Rail continuity has improved in parts of the wider region, but full high-capacity, military-grade redundancy is still absent. This means that the corridor remains vulnerable not only to delays in reinforcement but also to congestion, disruption, and cascading pressure on adjacent routes during a crisis. Such weak infrastructure is particularly concerning in light of the security environment created by Russia’s war against Ukraine. The recent drone incidents near Romanian territory and port infrastructure in the Black Sea, including the June 2026 maritime drone explosion near the oil terminal in the Port of Constanța^[xiii], underline that this is not only a problem of delayed construction, but also one of operational vulnerability in a contested maritime and littoral environment.

 Against this background, the most meaningful improvement over the past year has not been the removal of the main land bottlenecks, but the broadening of how regional infrastructure security is understood. The weak Romania–Bulgaria land connection still limits the credibility of the north–south corridor. Yet, the security problem around the Black Sea has increasingly pushed Romania, Bulgaria, and Türkiye to treat maritime access, port infrastructure, and critical undersea assets as part of the same mobility equation. In other words, while the land corridor remains underdeveloped, the maritime side of the Eastern Flank has seen a more concrete institutional response. The expansion of the MCM Black Sea Task Group in July 2026^[xiv] marks this shift: it does not solve the Giurgiu–Ruse or A5 problems, but it improves the protection of the maritime infrastructure that gives the corridor strategic depth and supports Allied reinforcement, sustainment and resilience in a contested Black Sea environment.

 This is a substantial improvement because it moves the MCM Black Sea Task Group beyond a narrow mine-clearing function to a broader maritime-security instrument for the protection of the infrastructure on which military mobility depends. The July 2026 amendment signed by Romania, Bulgaria and Türkiye expands the group’s missions to include the protection of critical undersea infrastructure, while the Romanian Ministry of Defense describes this as requiring an integrated, long-term approach and as evidence of regional interoperability in the Black Sea. In practical terms, this links maritime security directly to infrastructure resilience: ports, sea lines of communication, undersea cables, pipelines, offshore energy assets, naval access routes, and coastal logistics nodes all become part of the same mobility architecture. For the Eastern Flank, this matters because reinforcement is not only a land problem. The Baltic–Black Sea–Aegean corridor also depends on secure maritime access, especially around Constanța and the wider western Black Sea. By maintaining a naval presence across Romania’s area of responsibility, including its Exclusive Economic Zone, the task group strengthens deterrence, improves response capacity, and helps protect the maritime infrastructure that supports Allied movement, sustainment, and crisis resilience.

Remaining Risks, Challenges and Vulnerabilities

The main risk to Eastern Flank infrastructure comes from the evolving character of the war in Ukraine. As Russia comes under greater pressure, it is likely to continue testing NATO along weaker points, especially where it calculates that the Alliance’s ability or willingness to react is more constrained. This makes infrastructure vulnerabilities strategically important because they directly shape how fast NATO can respond to a threat. Roads, bridges, rail links, ports, logistics hubs, energy assets, and communication networks are not only physical assets; they are the practical indicators of whether reinforcements, equipment, fuel, and supplies can move quickly enough to make deterrence credible. Given the slow pace of infrastructure build-up, the risk is highest where delays are greatest, redundancy is weakest, and bottlenecks remain unresolved. In practical terms, the less flexible and less diversified the corridor network is, the easier it becomes for Russia to probe it through gray-zone pressure, sabotage, cyber disruption, drone activity, or maritime incidents designed to test response thresholds without necessarily triggering open escalation. Infrastructure therefore does not simply support NATO’s reaction; it defines the speed, scale, and reliability of that reaction.

Considering infrastructure only, the single biggest strategic risk for NATO remains the presence of single points of failure inside a corridor that is increasingly treated as reinforcement-critical. The Giurgiu–Ruse bridge is the clearest example. If it is degraded by sabotage, accident, drone activity, or heavy maintenance-related restrictions, there is no equivalent-capacity substitute in the immediate area. The same goes for the road connecting Bucharest and Giurgiu. This creates a vulnerability for NATO because the credibility of reinforcement depends not only on political decisions, but on whether troops, equipment, fuel, and supplies can move at scale and on time. A corridor that depends on a small number of overloaded crossings is easier to delay, disrupt, or pressure.

A second major challenge is civilian–military competition for the same infrastructure network. Constanța, the Danube routes, Bucharest-Giurgiu DN5 road and the bridge network are already heavily used by commercial freight, especially since Russia’s invasion redirected major Ukrainian trade flows through Romania. This is strategically important for Ukraine and for the EU, but it also means that NATO mobility planning must account for a corridor already operating under intense civilian demand. In a crisis, military convoys, commercial freight, refugee flows, energy logistics and emergency response could all compete for the same roads, ports, railheads, and crossings. The resulting vulnerability is not only congestion, but a loss of predictability: NATO may know where it needs to move but not be able to guarantee how quickly or reliably that movement can happen under pressure. 

A third challenge is the gap between civilian Schengen and what is often described as “military Schengen.” Romania and Bulgaria’s full entry into the Schengen area has improved civilian border movement, but this does not automatically translate into frictionless military mobility. NATO and EU planners still must deal with slow clearance procedures, divergent national transport rules, different requirements for moving dangerous goods or oversized equipment, and infrastructure that cannot always support the heaviest modern military loads. This creates a hidden vulnerability for the Eastern Flank: borders may be more open for civilians and commercial traffic, but permissions, paperwork, weight limits, and national-level procedures can still delay military movement. In a crisis, such delays matter because they can reduce the speed of reinforcement precisely when speed is central to deterrence. 

The fourth challenge is rail interoperability. At the Baltic end, Rail Baltica is designed to solve one of the region’s long-term structural problems by building a standard-gauge line that connects the Baltic states more effectively to Poland and the wider EU network. But in 2026, that solution remains incomplete. Further south and east, especially in relation to Ukraine and the lower Danube, gauge breaks, different technical standards and insufficient high-capacity rail links continue to complicate the creation of a seamless military-civil rail architecture between the Baltic and Black Sea theatres. For NATO, this means that rail remains both essential and imperfect: it is indispensable for moving heavy equipment at scale, but still constrained by interoperability gaps, border procedures, and uneven infrastructure quality across the corridor.

Finally, the corridor’s vulnerability is no longer only terrestrial. The June 2026 Constanța incident and the July 2026 expansion of the Black Sea infrastructure-protection mission show that the Eastern Flank mobility story now includes mines, drones, jamming, port vulnerability, and risks to seabed, energy, and undersea infrastructure. Corridors that end in ports are only useful if those ports can remain open, secure, and connected under pressure. This means that NATO’s infrastructure challenge can no longer be understood only as a question of building roads, bridges, railways, and logistics hubs faster. It also requires a clearer understanding of the new risks produced by the changing character of warfare. 

The key point is that the Eastern Flank is becoming a wider borderland than before. The gray zones associated with Russia’s war against Ukraine are expanding across land, sea, air, cyber and critical-infrastructure domains, making the distinction between rear area and front line increasingly difficult to sustain^[xv]. Ports, railheads, bridges, fuel networks, undersea cables, and energy assets are now part of the same contested space. For NATO, this creates a double challenge: to accelerate the physical build-up of mobility infrastructure, while also protecting that infrastructure against hybrid pressure, sabotage, electronic warfare, drones, and maritime disruption. The weaker and less redundant the corridor is, the more attractive it becomes as a testing ground for Russia below the threshold of open conflict.

What to do? Conclusions and Recommendations

While these challenges are substantial, they also point to a potential hierarchy of action for Allies on the Eastern Flank, especially those most exposed to the bottlenecks, borderland risks and gray-zone pressures described above. The answer is not only to plan - or worse - wait for major infrastructure projects to be completed, because the threat environment is moving faster than the construction cycle. Eastern Flank states should think in terms of short-term throughput fixes, medium-term redundancy projects, and long-term network completion. This would allow them, as well as NATO and the EU, to improve the corridor’s practical performance immediately, while still investing in the larger projects needed to make the Baltic–Black Sea–Aegean/Mediterranean architecture fully credible.

In the short term, the fastest gains are not glamorous political mega-project announcements. They are operational measures that make the existing network work better under stress. The Romania–Bulgaria–Greece agreement signed on the sidelines of the 2024 Washington Summit should be treated as a standing implementation mechanism, supported by a visible annual scorecard that tracks what has improved^[xvi]. To address one of the most vulnerable bottlenecks along the Eastern Flank, Romania and Bulgaria should develop a binational contingency plan for the Giurgiu–Ruse bridge, including a priority-convoy protocol for military and emergency movements, while also pre-designating alternative detour packages through the A0, A1, DEx12 and Danube ferry network. At corridor level, Allies should adopt a common concept for priority access, dangerous-goods handling, customs derogations, and host-nation support during crisis activation. The logic is simple: NATO and the EU cannot wait for all capital projects to be complete before improving mobility. Even before new bridges, motorways or rail links are completed, better procedures, clearer priorities and rehearsed contingency plans can raise throughput, reduce uncertainty, and make the corridor harder to disrupt.

In the medium term, the priority should be redundancy at the Romania–Bulgaria crossing. A second Giurgiu–Ruse bridge should not be treated as a peripheral infrastructure wish-list item, but as the key resilience investment for the entire southern corridor. This should be matched by accelerating the A5 Bucharest–Giurgiu motorway, because the military-mobility problem is not only the bridge itself, but also the fact that the main approach to it still lacks motorway-standard continuity. The same logic applies on the rail side. On the southern segment, this means developing parallel crossing capacity, strengthening rail-side marshaling areas and creating priority-handling procedures on both sides of the Danube. On the Baltic segment, it means accelerating the completion and military usability of Rail Baltica, because the corridor’s northern end also depends on standard-gauge rail connectivity capable of moving heavy equipment efficiently from Poland into Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

In the long term, the corridor must be completed as a dual-use strategic system, not as a collection of disconnected national projects. The Baltic–Black Sea–Aegean axis should be funded, monitored, and evaluated as an integrated route, with military-mobility criteria attached to road segments, port railheads, loading gauges, bridge classifications, border crossings, and node security. The problem is not only that infrastructure funding has been unevenly distributed between the northern and southern parts of the Eastern Flank (something that has become a solid argument for the uneven development of the infrastructure), but also that a clear corridor logic has often been missing at national, NATO, and EU levels. The southern route must be treated as strategically equal to the northeastern route. At the same time, the Baltic rail component and the Black Sea–Aegean land-maritime interface need to function as parts of the same reinforcement architecture.

Understanding the corridor architecture in this way — as an integrated political, economic, and military web — would strengthen the Alliance well beyond the infrastructure domain. It would improve deterrence by making reinforcement more credible, reduce the vulnerability created by single points of failure, and give Eastern Flank Allies a shared framework for prioritizing investments, coordinating crisis response, and demonstrating that NATO can move, sustain, and defend across the full length of its frontier.

^[i] Antonia Colibășanu, “NATO’s Eastern Flank: Key Priorities for Developing Regional Infrastructure to Address Critical Weaknesses,” Delphi Global, accessed July 17, 2026, https://delphigrc.org/research/nato-s-eastern-flank-key-priorities-for-developing-regional-infrastructure-to-address-critical-weaknesses.

^[ii] European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, “Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T),” accessed July 17, 2026, https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/infrastructure-and-investment/trans-european-transport-network-ten-t_en.

^[iii] European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, “TEN-T Schematic Map,” accessed July 17, 2026, https://transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/3f55bcf7-d2cf-4244-bbf1-fc4f132115ad_en?filename=TEN_T_Schematic_map.pdf.

^[iv] Egis, “Completion of Section 5, Egis Marks a Milestone on the Sibiu–Pitești Motorway Project,” June 18, 2025, https://www.egis-group.com/all-news/completion-of-section-5-egis-marks-a-milestone-on-the-sibiu-pitesti-motorway-project

^[v] Economedia, “VIDEO OFICIAL Moment istoric. A fost deschisă circulația pe ultimii 12 kilometri de pe Drumul Expres Craiova–Pitești,” July 31, 2025, https://economedia.ro/video-oficial-ultimii-12-kilometri-ai-lotului-4-din-drumul-expres-craiova-pitesti-vor-fi-deschisi-circulatiei-joi-31-iulie-la-ora-16-anunta-un-secretar-de-stat-la-transporturi.html

^[vi] Magda Purice, “A0 South Highway Is Complete: AKTOR Opens Lot 3 to Traffic,”, The Diplomat, June 30, 2025, https://www.thediplomat.ro/2025/06/30/a0-south-highway-is-complete-aktor-opens-lot-3-to-traffic/

^[vii] European Court of Auditors, “EU Military Mobility: Full Speed Not Reached Due to Design Weaknesses and Obstacles En Route,” Special Report 04/2025 (Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors, 2025), https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/SR-2025-04/SR-2025-04_EN.pdf.

^[viii] Marcel Hoster, “Contractul pentru Centura Vest Timișoara a fost semnat. Începerea lucrărilor, așteptată în acest an, spre final,” January 2025, deBANAT.ro,  https://debanat.ro/2025/01/contractul-pentru-centura-vest-timisoara-a-fost-semnat-inceperea-lucrarilor-asteptata-in-acest-an-spre-final_435305.html

^[ix] Florin Negoiță, “Lucian Bode: ‘Ne vom canaliza energia pentru a urgenta procedurile aferente demarării lucrărilor la Centura municipiului Zalău,’”, Magazin Sălăjean, accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.magazinsalajean.ro/economic/lucian-bode-ne-vom-canaliza-energia-pentru-a-urgenta-procedurile-aferente-demararii-lucrariilor-la-centura-municipiului-zalau

^[x] Konkurent.bg, “Петя Аврамова: Никога в България не се е строила толкова много пътна инфраструктура,” accessed July 17, 2026, https://www.konkurent.bg/news/16125991778599/petya-avramova-nikoga-v-balgariya-ne-se-e-stroila-tolkova-mnogo-patna-infrastruktura.

^[xi] Pavlin Ivanov, “С новите 60 км АМ ‘Хемус’ ще стигне до Ловеч в района на Тенекиения хан,” Ловеч днес, June 30, 2017, https://lovechtoday.eu/%D1%81-%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-60-%D0%BA%D0%BC-%D0%B0%D0%BC-%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%81-%D1%89%D0%B5-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%B4%D0%BE-%D0%BB%D0%BE/.

^[xii] European Court of Auditors, “EU Military Mobility: Full Speed Not Reached Due to Design Weaknesses and Obstacles En Route,” Special Report 04/2025 (Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors, 2025), https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/SR-2025-04/SR-2025-04_EN.pdf.

^[xiii] Luiza Ilie, “Drone Explodes in Romanian Port as Ukraine Blames Russia for Jamming It,” Reuters.com, June 5, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/marine-drone-self-detonates-romanian-black-sea-port-defence-ministry-says-2026-06-05/.

^[xiv] Romanian Ministry of National Defence, “Romania, Bulgaria and Türkiye Expand the MCM Black Sea TG Missions,” July 8, 2026, https://english.mapn.ro/cpresa/6813_Romania,-Bulgaria-and-T%C3%BCrkiye-expand-the-MCM-Black-Sea-TG-Missions.

^[xv] Antonia Colibasanu, “NATO in 21st Century: Managing Maritime Security across Gray Zones,” Insight Turkey 28, no. 2 (Spring 2026): 71–85, https://www.insightturkey.com/commentary/nato-in-21st-century-managing-maritime-security-across-gray-zones.

^[xvi] Reuters.com, “Romania, Bulgaria, Greece Sign Deal to Boost Military Mobility,” July 11, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romania-bulgaria-greece-sign-deal-boost-military-mobility-2024-07-11/.

Featured Image and Cover Design by: Naia Begashvili

Original Image Sources used:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_map_of_NATO_Countries_%28Europe%29.png 

2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nato_Ships.jpg

3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ramstein_Air_Base_hosts_NATO_aerial_combat_simulation_(8466431).jpg 

4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DB_Cargo_train_departs_from_K%C3%B8benhavn_H_09.jpg