Logistics as a Strategic Imperative: Lessons from Recent Conflicts

Post Views: 41

The study of history, particularly contemporary history, holds profound importance. Thucydides himself noted the utility of his work, offering “knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it”. His recordings of the Peloponnesian Wars continue to be a subject of discussion in strategic circles. The importance of retrospective analysis is indisputable, particularly of recent events, as they often indicate future trends. This article explores the key learnings in military logistics drawn from recent conflicts.

First, recent conflicts in Ukraine, in the Middle East, and in the sub-continent clearly indicate that logistics has evolved from an operational enabler to a significant component of deterrence. The side possessing greater logistical stamina demonstrably deters adversaries from initiating or prolonging conflict. The critical importance of strategic reserves, perhaps appreciated to a varying degree, is now significantly recognised by nations with recent combat experience. The protracted conflict has led Russia to significantly enhance its defence production, while Ukraine has adapted similarly, and by seeking increased allied support to sustain its efforts. A failure to meet the logistic demands by either side would have most likely led to the termination of the conflict. Closer home, the asymmetry in ammunition reserves within the subcontinent heavily disadvantages the side lacking them.

Second, the nature, intensity, and especially the duration of conflicts present a core dilemma. Strategists, operational commanders, and logisticians grapple with whether future wars will be short and intense, or long and protracted. Military logisticians, particularly in the Indian context, must prepare for both scenarios, despite their contradictory requirements. This challenge echoes F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1936 observation: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” For contemporary military logisticians, the true test lies in designing a paradigm that addresses the demands of both swift engagements and protracted wars.

Short conflicts are typically characterised by surprise, speed, and high operational intensity. They demand D-day sufficiency, ideally met by pre-positioned stocks, a minimal logistics footprint, and field-level maintenance. Conversely, more protracted conflicts necessitate a ‘D-day to P-day’ model, where the focus shifts from initial sufficiency to the point when production rates align with consumption and attrition in a prolonged war—a phenomenon evident in Russia today. The interim period between D-day and P-day must be hedged with strategic reserves, and support must extend beyond field repairs to encompass base repairs and overhauls. Recent conflicts have compelled nations to develop paradigms addressing these multifaceted challenges, and the just-in-time paradigms are now not seen as much of a solution. In the Indian context, Atmanirbharta (self-reliance) will be central to such initiatives, yet planners must develop a comprehensive framework around it, for arriving at functional mechanisms that yield stocks on the ground, when and where required.

Third, conflicts highlight technology’s dual role as both a threat and an enabler in logistics. Technology-enabled logistics offer a significant operational advantage, providing visibility for responsive sustainment through situational awareness, velocity by reducing distribution cycle times, precision in delivering correct supplies at the right time and place, and integration through seamless networks and commonality of sustainment processes. Modern militaries must align their processes, systems and structures to achieve visibility, velocity, precision, and integration in the flow of material needs.

Fourth, recent conflicts underscore the heightened vulnerability of logistic bases, making them increasingly attractive targets. The precision and reach of kinetic vectors have significantly enhanced the vulnerability quotient of the very means of war. The entire sustainment architecture—from tactical delivery points and forward-positioned reserves (short-war imperatives) to strategic reserves in depth (long-war imperatives)—requires appropriate siting and robust protection. Strategies such as dispersion, building of redundancy in placement planning, and transitioning from large storage depots to smaller echelons merit serious consideration. Contested logistics is a reality that armed forces must now address more rigorously.

Fifth, the military supply chain itself has proven to be vulnerable to interdiction, which can be used both to deny capability to the adversary and, with some innovation, even used for offensive action. The primary purpose of interdiction has been to prevent the adversary from acquiring critical resources that would give them a military advantage. Delay, divert, disrupt, or destroy the ability of a rival to deploy its resources are the four strategies for supply chain interdiction. The components that make up first-person view drones are a perfect example in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. The conflict has involved the use of all four interdiction strategies on this critical supply chain. Ukraine, on the other hand, responded with innovation in manufacturing in the face of interdiction, which was possible due to the protracted nature of the conflict. More innovative and unconventional approach was adopted in the pager attack in Lebanon. The supply chain itself became an agent of destruction. An understanding of the adversary’s supply chain is a field which thus has significant potential for exploitation.

Finally, resource integration, both in terms of means themselves and the ways to obtain them, must extend beyond the traditional confines of the three services. Greater integration and partnerships with public and private entities represent the path forward. The potential scope is vast, and pragmatic initiatives in the field can yield enhanced efficiency, greater agility, increased responsiveness, a reduced combat logistics footprint, and possible solutions to the challenges of contested logistics.

In essence, these multifaceted lessons from contemporary conflicts converge on a singular truth: military logistics has irrevocably transitioned from a supporting function to a decisive strategic imperative. For modern armed forces to maintain credible deterrence and achieve operational success in an increasingly complex and contested security landscape, they must internalise insights from recent conflicts with urgency. This demands the fostering of a culture of continuous adaptation, embracing innovative solutions, and committing to robust, forward-thinking investment in their logistical capabilities to secure operational advantage in future engagements.