AI in military operations: Lessons from the Russia-Ukraine conflict reshape military logistics

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, now entering its third year, continues to expose persistent vulnerabilities in Western military readiness – from munitions stockpiles to supply chain resilience and procurement agility. What was initially predicted by Moscow to be a swift campaign has evolved into a grinding, high-intensity war reshaping global assumptions about force structure, deterrence, and the future of military power.

The conflict has demonstrated the battlefield potency of blending low-cost asymmetric technologies with traditional kinetic operations. Ukrainian drone swarms have disrupted Russian armor formations; long-range artillery such as 155mm howitzers remains decisive, yet Western production capacity has struggled to meet ongoing demand. Wars of attrition, once thought relics of the 20th century, have returned to center stage.

As the war continues, nations are recalibrating their force posture and defense planning – not just to support Ukraine, but to prepare for the new contours of prolonged, multi-domain conflict. The next chapter of military evolution will be shaped by artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and automation – technologies already altering tactical outcomes, but the deeper question is which nations can sustain war over time.

Defense industrial base: Built for peacetime, unprepared for protracted war

Ukraine’s artillery consumption outstripped NATO’s production capacity within months, underscoring a fundamental issue: Western defense industries had become structured for peacetime efficiency, not wartime urgency. For decades, spending priorities reflected counterinsurgency operations, not large-scale conventional warfare. Defense manufacturers followed slow, bureaucratic procurement cycles, building to long-term program specifications rather than operational needs. This model is no longer tenable.

A key lesson from the Ukraine conflict is the critical link between battlefield endurance and industrial adaptability. Russia’s defense industrial base wasn’t built for a prolonged war and has struggled to pivot under pressure. In contrast, Ukraine’s ability to draw on external support networks has created a more resilient long-term position – underscoring the strategic value of a flexible, modernized Defense Industrial Base (DIB).

AI-driven logistics and quantum-enhanced simulations will determine which militaries can sustain modern war. Predictive logistics, already in use in Ukraine, anticipate battlefield demands, ensuring supplies are replenished before critical shortages occur. Indeed, in the context of contested logistics at the strategic level, variables including a dynamic, quickly changing threat environment require analysis at the speed of AI. At the operational and tactical levels, commanders on the battlefield who have access to sophisticated pattern analysis incorporating political, military, social, and physical environments – among others – can sustain combat operations in theater and force the enemy to consider multiple, complex dilemmas.

AI-driven supply optimization will analyze real-time battlefield conditions to adjust production and distribution dynamically. Nations failing to integrate AI into logistics, manufacturing, and deployment will be less responsive and fall behind.

The defense industry’s AI-powered reboot

Mass production of high-tech weaponry has failed under wartime conditions. The U.S. Replicator Initiative is attempting to reverse this inefficiency by integrating AI-driven automation into defense production. This shift mirrors World War II, when companies such as Ford, Hershey, and Singer Sewing Machines pivoted to war manufacturing. The difference now is software-defined warfare demands companies capable of real-time iteration, rapid scaling, and autonomous system integration.

Ukraine is already deploying AI-driven drone manufacturing, battlefield analytics, and smart munitions at speeds outstripping traditional defense manufacturers. At the Munich Security Conference, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned: “We have a problem, friends, if a country at war can produce faster than the rest of us.”

The future of defense production will favor firms leveraging AI to shorten the Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (OODA) loop, accelerating design, testing, and manufacturing cycles.

AI-driven asymmetric warfare: Cost vs. complexity

Traditional military platforms are being undermined by low-cost, high-impact technologies. A $500 drone can disable a $10 million tank. One-third of the Russian Black Sea Fleet has been neutralized by Ukrainian drones. AI-powered swarm warfare – networked, autonomous loitering munitions – has forced militaries to reconsider large, centralized command nodes, which now serve as easy targets. Ukraine’s success in AI-assisted reconnaissance, drone coordination, and battlefield analytics has compelled Russia to adopt similar tactics, signaling the rapid evolution of AI in modern conflict.

Speed and scale now outweigh cost and complexity. Monolithic, exorbitant, and slow-moving weapons programs – designed for decades-long procurement cycles – are being reconsidered in an asymmetric context where AI is already embedded in Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), autonomous drone targeting, and automated force coordination. In previous conflicts, nations without resources to repel larger, wealthier adversaries were at a significant disadvantage. Whereas Ukraine has demonstrated, through the precise application of low-cost asymmetric capabilities, they can effectively even the stakes against a much larger foe. Many smaller nations will likely take note and look to apply this same acquisition strategy as a hedge against aggression. Larger, wealthier nations can’t ignore this trend – they’ll need to counter this asymmetric threat and develop these capabilities to work alongside major weapon systems. Power projections and global deterrence still require the employment of majestic-type weapon systems on a global scale; however low-cost AI driven asymmetric capabilities allow a military to present multiple dilemmas to a potential adversary. A great example is collaborative combat aircraft (CCA) – autonomous uncrewed aircraft developed in concert and as a part of traditional fighter development.

AI in command and control: Will humans always be in charge?

Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) are no longer theoretical. AI-assisted targeting is already operational, with Ukraine leveraging AI-enhanced ISR to predict enemy movements. The debate is no longer whether AI will be used in battlefield decision-making, but how to ensure it remains ethically constrained, legally accountable, and aligned with international human rights norms.

The key ethical and legal distinction now lies between human-in-the-loop (oversight required), human-on-the-loop (oversight optional), and human-out-of-the-loop (fully autonomous lethal decision-making). A shift toward removing human oversight in lethal engagements risks violating the fundamental principles of proportionality, accountability, and distinction in warfare. If AI decision loops become too fast for meaningful human intervention, we risk ceding moral and legal responsibility to algorithms, diminishing the very accountability that underpins the laws of war.

A nation entrusting real-time combat decisions to AI would redefine military power and fundamentally alter the rules of engagement, setting a dangerous precedent for warfare devoid of human ethical judgment. This shift would mark the most profound military transformation since nuclear weapons, but unlike nuclear deterrence, where human deliberation remains central, fully autonomous weapons could remove the last safeguard between war and unchecked machine-driven violence. Any integration of AI in lethal force must be bound by strict legal frameworks and international oversight to prevent an irreversible slide toward algorithmic warfare without moral restraint, a step closer to the cliff-edge of dehumanized conflict.

Quantum computing: The coming cyber arms race

Quantum computing’s military potential remains largely theoretical, but its long-term implications are existential. The most immediate concern is encryption: current cryptographic systems will be obsolete the moment quantum decryption achieves practical deployment. NATO, China, and Russia are already racing to develop quantum-resistant security protocols. The winner of this race will have a significant advantage in the future of digital warfare.

Technology is reshaping the theatre of war along with the preparation and context: Quantum-enhanced simulations could transform military planning, allowing strategists to model complex, multi-variable conflicts with more granular precision. Not to mention, AI-driven cyber warfare is already escalating – deepfake disinformation campaigns as a part of a broader psychological operation, automated hacking, and AI-enhanced cyberattacks are becoming standard tools of statecraft.

Who is leading the AI-powered arms race?

The AI-powered arms race is unfolding on multiple fronts. Traditional defense firms are struggling to match the speed and adaptability of AI-driven warfare, while AI-native companies, from agile startups to tech giants, are rapidly moving into defense. China and Russia have embedded AI into military doctrine at a strategic level, ensuring tight integration across defense, intelligence, and cyber warfare. However, the U.S., the UK, Israel, and key European nations are also integrating AI into military operations through private-sector partnerships, autonomous weapons programs, and AI-enhanced command-and-control systems. The outcome of this race will determine who dictates the future of military power in the 21st century – not just through AI adoption, but through the ability to scale, iterate, and operationalize AI-driven capabilities faster than their adversaries.

As the war in Ukraine continues, it’s become a live testing ground for the future of conflict – where asymmetric tactics, real-time decision systems, and digital capabilities are recalibrating how power is projected and sustained. The states shaping the 21st-century security order aren’t simply those integrating AI first, but those scaling it fastest – across defense, logistics, manufacturing, and industrial resilience.

Just as nuclear weapons redefined deterrence in the 20th century, AI and quantum technologies are redefining the conditions for strategic endurance today. The future of warfare isn’t about which nation fields the most advanced fighter jets or missile systems; it’s about who fuses intelligence, autonomy, and agility across the entire defense ecosystem.

Beyond its direct military applications, AI’s economic leverage is equally decisive, as nations harnessing AI for industrial productivity, financial systems, and technological innovation will generate the economic surplus necessary to fund sustained defense efforts. A nation’s ability to sustain a war economy is inextricably tied to its domestic AI capacity, as AI-driven efficiencies in manufacturing, energy, and resource management form the productive base underwriting long-term military power. In an AI-dominated era, economic resilience and defense capability will be inseparable, reinforcing the idea that technological supremacy isn’t just a battlefield advantage – it’s the foundation of strategic endurance.

IFS
https://www.ifs.com

About the author: Chris Morton is global industry director for Aerospace & Defense at IFS. A retired attack helicopter pilot with 21 years of military and aviation experience, his career ranged from leading combat units in operational theatres to shaping strategic planning at the Pentagon. He now advises A&D clients on transformation while driving industry strategy within IFS.