The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has forced the U.S. and NATO allies to confront the hard truth that the European continent is no longer a secure, uncontested environment for military logistics, according to a new white paper.
The 16-page document, titled “The Defense Logistics Agency’s Review of Contested Logistics in Europe: Beyond the Tactical,” is written by DLA’s Director of Logistics Operations Air Force Maj. Gen. David Sanford.
Sanford noted for nearly 80 years, Europe has stood as a beacon of stability, economic growth, and strong alliances. Anchored by NATO, nearly all Europeans enjoyed the peace and prosperity borne from membership in the international community.
“On February 24, 2022, this peace was shattered when Russian forces invaded Ukraine, sparking the most significant conventional conflict Europe has seen since World War II,” he writes. “For the US and NATO, the invasion resurrected a dormant concept: Europe as a contested logistics environment.”
Sanford writes, the U.S. and Europe have an expansive history together but have been inextricably linked politically, militarily and economically since the end of WWII, codified in one of the most successful military and political alliances in the history of the world. NATO successfully prevented great power conflict for decades, providing stability and accessibility to Europe.
He highlighted how the intensity and pace of the conflict have exposed weaknesses in how the U.S. sources, produces and moves essential goods. America’s ability to sustain a military campaign in Europe could be undermined by vulnerabilities in its global supply chains and industrial base with reduced readiness stemming from such issues as ammunition shortages and critical component delays.
In 2023, trade between the U.S. and European Union topped $1.3 trillion and included vital defense materials like semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and fuel. Disruptions to that flow could cripple military operations, Sanford writes. Adversaries may also increasingly aim to erode “national will” by targeting consumer markets and critical infrastructure, he adds.
Sanford calls for a strategic overhaul in logistics planning that looks beyond battlespace to include raw material sourcing, manufacturing dependencies and coordination with allies. As global tensions rise and industrial capacity is tested, U.S. planners should also adopt a more holistic, forward-looking approach to sustaining the joint force. The stakes, he writes, are not just about readiness, but about the ability to win a protracted, modern war in a contested global landscape.
“This requires logistics planners who can look through their own stovepipes, to assess wartime and peacetime supply demands will not provide the industrial base needed to sustain forces on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean,” Sanford writes.
Sanford also writes that logistics planners must also understand the second- and third-order effects of a contested logistics environment, something he describes as a paradigm shift.
“It is no longer the tactical focus of what unit material is needed and where, but how is it produced, where is it produced, raw material challenges, labor availability, transportation lead times and national trade implications,” he added.
To reduce the risks associated with the identified challenges, Sanford writes that the U.S. must visualize the prosecution of combat operations, and corresponding logistics requirements, in totality.
“The logistics forces of the services are too decentralized to pull together this view, leading to stove-piped assessments from the unit’s standpoint,” he writes. “It requires a dedicated team of experts to review operational planning and determine how to sustain the Joint Force from the proverbial factory to the foxhole. The U.S. could take similar steps to strengthen our industrial capacity and capabilities and shield it from the effects of a contested logistics environment.”