It’s been a fascinating and fact-filled start to Combat Engineer & Logistics 2026, Europe’s leading forum for military engineers and logistics collaboration.
Staged this year in Krakow, Poland, the opening plenary session was kicked off by presentations from representatives of our host nation.
As one speaker observed: “If you look at this city, Krakow has survived centuries of conflict, partition and challenge: it’s a living symbol of endurance.”
He went on: “We will embrace a new role as the anchor for the entire alliance… when you travel through our country observe the connections; our new roads and railways are designed… to ensure that we can project power faster than any other NATO nation.”
He described the present-day situation as a vital moment for European security, and said engineering and logistics knowhow was central to collective security. As he observed: “Effective terrain management is the key to damaging the adversary and taking the initiative. Support forces truly lead the fight: we dictate the tempo.”
The audience was told it was incumbent on modern logisticians and engineers to integrate AI, helping to predict maintenance issues before failures occur. Meanwhile investment in autonomous systems was a moral imperative to keep soldiers out of the highest danger zones.
The speaker also mentioned “the need to humbly absorb the lessons of history happening right now with the war in Ukraine: there is no safe area. Mobility is key: if you stop, you will become a target… We need to be more agile, more dispersed, and more resilient.”
Championing a shared vision between military leaders and industry, he concluded: “Interoperability is the glue that holds allies together; without it we are just a collection of nations, with it, we are an integrated force… I ask you to build more than just networks: I ask you to build readiness.”
Later in the morning we heard about NATO Joint Support and Enabling Command (JSEC) and its role in ensuring credible deterrence. Essentially the presentation sought to provide “a 101 of where we are with NATO logistics.”
War in Ukraine was described as both an ongoing humanitarian disaster and very informative for practitioners of NATO military logistics “because it gives us a view of what bad looks like… and the impetus to change.”
The speaker noted: “The character of conflict is changing before our eyes… our Ukrainian colleagues are learning these lessons and paying for it with their blood.”
Understanding the concept of an expanded kill-zone essentially amounts to an “adapt or die” message, and autonomous resupply has to be a part of our future, he claimed.
Meanwhile a quiet revolution is occurring in NATO’s approach to logistics; medicine was cited as an example, with a shift in focus from exquisite care provided to the few, to adequate care for the many.
A Vilnius summit in 2023 had highlighted the need for change, with the loudest calls coming not from logisticians, but from warfighters. An action plan agreed in Washington in 2024 took in elements including increased use of additive manufacturing, better exploitation of railway networks, and multinational contracting and resupply agreements.
The speaker pointed out core criteria — speed, distance, time and data — did not change, reminding the audience: “The laws of physics still apply, regardless of whether we recognise them or not.”
He characterised NATO’s key task as “to be able to move forces quickly and efficiently enough to affect Russia’s calculus… so Mr Putin thinks, ‘Not today.’”
To this end JSEC is working to set up a Reinforcement and Sustainment Network (RSN) made up of physical elements (roads, ports, airports, seaways and so on) and functional elements (contracts, information, legal frameworks and the like).
Europe has been divided into six Military Mobility Areas (MMAs) covering bordering groups of countries. These MMAs are taking a common approach to harmonise cross-border military mobility. This means addressing related laws, regulations, processes and forms of infrastructure to enable seamless movement of assets and personnel.
The desired end-state, the audience heard, was essentially a ‘Military Schengen Agreement’ (the EU protocol establishing freedom of movement across internal borders).
As drawn out in a Q&A session at the end of the presentation, challenges included eliciting honest responses from nations about the true state of readiness of their infrastructure.
As the speaker admitted: “It’s hard as NATO to ‘force’ allies to do anything.” He added perhaps the alliance could aid implementation speeds by avoiding duplicating requests for information from its different arms.
A separate presentation sought to give the Canadian perspective and engineering and logistics, its themes taking in a return to Great Power politics, a renewed focus on the High North and the Arctic, and moving away from ‘Contribution Warfare’ to leading and sustaining large-scale combat operations (LSCOs).
It highlighted the problems of the ‘Messy Middle’ where planning for land, sea, air, joint and multinational requirements coincide. And asked what its expectations were as an expeditionary force from a given host nation, the speaker allowed: “What we are learning right now is that you need to come with some of your own capabilities — and that’s just in peacetime.”
There was a fascinating update on progress being made on the Polish Eastern Shield, a plan to establish a physical defensive line along 500 miles (700km) of the country’s Eastern border at a cost of about 10bn PLN (circa £2bn).
Started in 2024 and originally envisioned as being completed in around 2028, it’s not only an engineering effort, but also includes enhancements to radars, CBRN detection, and so on.
The MilEng aspect comprises both a 400-metre-deep Linear Defence Line (LDL), plus an extended counter-mobility line up to 100km deep behind, which is more terrain-dependent.
After about 12 months 10km of the LDL had been completed; by the start of 2026 this figure had grown to about 60km fully or partially completed.
Challenges include acquiring the required land and procuring and installing the necessary equipment, including concrete ‘hedgehog’ tetrapods, minefields, palisades, anti-tank ditches, and so on.
While its MoD works on the legal hurdles, engineers have been establishing Fortification Element Storage Sites (FESS) close to the border to speed up LDL installations as land becomes available.
A total of 54 FESS are planned by 2028, with 13 established so far. For context, every 1km of border uses 2,000 tetrapods alone, each weighing 1.5 tonnes each.
One interesting insight was that the tetrapod shape was chosen instead of the ‘Dragon’s Teeth’ design adopted elsewhere, because it offers similar protection but is easier, cheaper and faster for civilian contractors to produce.
The morning session was rounded off with a presentation on engineering lessons learned from Ukraine, delivered by one of the nation’s foremost authorities on the subject.
The speaker said a conflict which had begun with regional anti-terrorist characteristics as far back as 2014 had gradually escalated into a full-scale invasion in 2022, characterised by high intensity operations.
In tandem with that escalation, tasks and the engineers’ approach to them had evolved from tactical to operational and strategic levels, now taking in nationwide fortification planning, protection of critical strategic infrastructure, support to air and missile defences, and resilience and recovery engineering.
Engineering projects initially restricted to active combat zones became a systemic, nationalised effort also taking in fortification of air defences and areas in the rear.
The speaker related how this was not just a task taken on by the armed forces alone, but encompassed a whole-society approach, with the development of a series of nested or ‘echeloned’ defensive lines spanning thousands of kilometres in a coordinated Nationwide Defence Plan.
One huge new area of effort is the establishment of anti-drone protection of movement routes using netting to counter attacks by uncrewed aerial systems (UAS).
Speaking via an interpreter, the presenter said: “The threat area has expanded a lot, and that’s why we needed to protect our personnel and equipment… the task is a complex one.”
The audience heard work is ongoing to cover more than 2,000km of strategic corridors with C-UAS netting. Another growth sector is the use of decoys and camouflage to protect not just artillery but also air defences, high-mobility rocket systems and other assets.
The nature of the camouflage has evolved from visual to multi-spectral to defend against “infra-red sensors, and any other sensors deployed by first-person and other types of drones.”
The speaker said power supply — both defending existing infrastructure and providing adequate energy sources to fighting units — was becoming another more and more vital consideration.
Ever-increasing speed of adaptation, constant exposure to enemy fire, and prioritisation of fast implementation and survivability over high sophistication were other striking features of day-to-day life in Ukraine.
He concluded: “The character of warfare has changed… and engineering support is decisive.”
The afternoon session included an overview of the engineering challenges facing NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC), a U.K.-led Strategic Reserve Corps designed to be deployable in peacetime and in crisis for deterrence, and during outright conflict as well.
The speaker outlined four key challenges facing the ARRC. Firstly, to be widely deployable: the ARRC doesn’t know precisely when and where it will be called upon, so needs large pools of data and resources. However, it can’t take a kitchen-sink approach, which is both too costly to sustain, and too easy to target.
The second challenge is facing mature and complex battle obstacles. The corps is likely to face established defences, and must formulate 20-40-40 breaching capabilities: 20% crewed and survivable assets, 40% considered fully expendable, and 40% attritable.
The third was characterised as the “transparent battlefield” and the need to reduce exposure via the use of decoys and deception, C-UAS, and force protection engineering.
And the fourth challenge was cultural: acknowledging finite resources. The speaker said the ARRC had to recognise that it was likely to be operating on the soil of NATO allies, that its own bring-along resources were not unlimited, and needed to get used to the idea of exploiting the expertise and assets of host nations.
There was also a talk on the U.S. Army V Corps’ contribution towards the Eastern Flank Deterrence Line. The speaker remarked: “We need to move forward from concepts to reality as soon as possible.”
He cited three key principles: speed, scalability, and integration. And he said America was planning a series of “Warfighter” exercises to test a series of cutting-edge capabilities in an operational environment.
These included use of uncrewed air and ground systems for logistics resupply, and use of AI for everything from predictive maintenance to avoid equipment failures and give real-time supply-level monitoring, to terrain-mapping and recommendations for breaching strategies.
The speaker also called for an extra term to be appended to the now-familiar sensor-to-shooter phrase — he said it should now read “sensor-to-shooter-to-sustainer.”
Elsewhere the main plenary audience was given insights into the German model of logistics planning. One interesting nugget to emerge was how the German forces have drawn up plans to give crisis-case priority to rail services carrying military equipment.
This is no mean feat when you consider that on a normal working day, about 3,000 cargo trains are running on the nation’s tracks.
The overall credo was aptly summed up thus: “If you have to fight with what you have, be ready… if you want to fight with what you need, get (it) ready.”
Towards the end of a packed first day, there was an insightful presentation on engineering lessons learned from the Marawi Siege. The five-month-long armed conflict in the Philippines in 2017 arguably represents one of the longest urban operations in recent history.
The 153-day siege against pro-ISIS forces led to the loss of more than 165 soldiers, with hundreds more injured, while 400,000 residents were displaced.
The speaker explained how the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ doctrines and tactics had previously focused on jungle warfare, but this proved of limited use. When their opponents deliberately turned the city streets into a kind of maze, soldiers were forced to innovate as they went along.
The presence of combat engineers in frontline operations proved pivotal; they were instrumental in clearing routes under fire, cutting off escape routes for the enemy, and disposing of both improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and unexploded ordnance (UXO).
The speaker noted: “Our engineers were not behind the lines, they were right at the point of friction… solving problems that no other unit was equipped to handle.”
Innovations during the siege included the use of ad-hoc armoured bulldozers, given “Transformers” nicknames, to clear routes and sustain the momentum of the army operation to relieve the siege.
Engineers also devised “rathole”tactics where holes were drilled into buildings and explosives inserted to create wall breaches for troops to move through, meaning they could avoid heavily-guarded street entrances.
The speaker concluded: “The Army Engineers proved decisive game-changers as masters of the terrain.”
Naturally, they also had a huge role to play after the conflict ended in clearing streets of rubble and ordnance, supplying temporary solutions to stand in for damaged infrastructure, and helping with longer-term restoration projects.
The first day wrapped up with another presentation from Ukraine, this one focusing on demining challenges and solutions.
The audience heard that since the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022, Ukrainian authorities estimated that 133,000 square kilometres of territory had potentially been contaminated by mines and ordnance, including 14,000 sq km of lakes, rivers and shoreline.
Since 2022 the Russians have been firing between 60,000 and 80,000 shells into Ukrainian territory daily; as much as 10% of which can end up as UXO.
At least 386 people had been killed by mines and UXO so far, and about 1,400 more injured, with 75% of those incidents being attributed to landmines alone.
The Russians were constantly updating their systems, the audience heard, and among the most deadly threats to civilians in recent times have been non-metallic explosives dropped from UAS.
Meanwhile the enemy has also been habitually mixing legacy Soviet-era mines with more modern ones, and adding booby traps and IEDs, complicating the task of mine-clearing teams still further.
Despite all this, the efforts of both EOD teams belonging to Ukrainian Armed Forces and certified third-party clearance groups have managed to detect and destroy more than 1 million devices since 2022.
Ukraine has also established a Centre of Excellence where it continues to develop and experiment with new mine-clearing methods, including the use of uncrewed ground and air systems, including the use of AI algorithms to analyse images and spot devices.
To date roughly 30% of potentially contaminated land has been declared safe again, although the speaker allowed that in an ongoing combat situation, only when hostilities had ceased altogether could any area confidently be re-swept and declared munition-free.
It was a sobering end to a thought-provoking first day at conference; we’re confident much more of the same will be provided by tomorrow’s presentations, when the conference splits into streams.
