The Rear Area Is Dead - The Battlefield is Coming Home
Since 1946, Americans, Canadians, Europeans, and ANZACs fought their wars somewhere else. That era is over.
This article is one of three weekly exclusive articles (Sundays, Mondays, and Wednesdays) for my paid subscribers. Thank you for continuing to support independent, approachable military analysis with a heavy dose of pro-Ukrainian sentiment and a side of anti-authoritarian humor.
Hey friends, for almost everyone reading this who was born after 1945, war has had a very specific geography.
War was where the soldiers went.
Home was where everyone else stayed, watched it on television, argued about it at Starbucks, slapped a yellow ribbon on the bumper, and tried not to think too hard about what “deployment” actually meant for the people doing it.
That was the deal. The military went away to fight. The homeland stayed open for business, gassed up, lit up, and stayed fundamentally safe.
The United States literally had a song titled “Over There.” It’s a banger.
Although that song was from 1917 and had more to do with American geography than anything else, that deal is ending, and a NATO commander just said so out loud.
Air Chief Marshal Sir John Stringer, NATO’s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the most senior British officer in the alliance, told Business Insider that in a serious near-peer war the West can no longer count on its homelands staying safe while its militaries fight overseas. He put it in almost wistful terms for the UK: the old model was that you deploy two or three thousand miles away, you fight, and then you come back to “a very secure rear area called the United Kingdom.”
Those days, he said, are over.
The reason is mechanical. The front lines learned to travel.
The World We Got Used To
For the better part of eighty years, Western war was an away game. The United States, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, and most of NATO fought expeditionary conflicts.
The homeland supplied the bases, the factories, the money, the politics, and the replacement troops, and it did all of that from behind a wall of distance that the enemy mostly couldn’t reach over.
Korea didn’t put DPRK MiGs over Seattle. The Viet Cong didn’t ambush Londoners on the Tube. Afghanistan never threatened a German rail yard or a British port. Iraq never forced anyone in Ohio to wonder which power plant needed a Patriot battery.
The fighting was genuinely awful, but it was contained, and the containment was geographic.
To be sure, there were cracks in that wall. September 11 demolished the comforting belief that oceans kept non-state actors out. The Cold War carried a permanent nuclear shadow that could have ended everything in an afternoon.
Terrorism, espionage, and cyber intrusions all reached home soil.
But for conventional, state-on-state war, Western publics still carried a deep mental map with a clean line down the middle.
Battlefield over there. Home over here.
The rear area was a product of geology and economics that happened to favor the West for a long time.
To strike Britain, France, Germany, or the continental United States in a conventional war, a Cold War enemy historically needed strategic bombers, ballistic missiles, submarines, or a serious special-operations capability.
All of those were expensive, scarce, and usually tangled up with nuclear escalation, which made any adversary think very hard before using them. So Western militaries got to build their entire war machine on the assumption of safe sanctuary behind the lines.
Look at what that assumption produced: Large, fixed airbases. Centralized command posts. Big, consolidated ammunition depots. Predictable logistics routes running through civilian ports and rail networks. Factories humming along on the assumption nobody would touch them. Power grids assumed to stay up. The whole architecture of Western military power quietly took for granted that the things behind the front would remain unbothered.
That worked beautifully right up until the enemy figured out how to reach the things we assumed were safe.
Ukraine Killed the Rear Area, and Filmed It
Ukraine is the proof of concept, in both directions, and that’s what makes it so instructive.
Russia has spent this entire war firing missiles and drones into Ukrainian cities, power grids, ports, rail hubs, airfields, depots, and factories.
Ukraine has survived by dispersing everything, hardening what it can, repairing under fire, and accepting a brutal new reality: the home front and the battlefront are now the same place. There is no quiet interior to retreat to. The substation in a city hundreds of kilometers from the trenches is a target, because it powers the war.
I think it’s worth noting that Ukrainian daily life has continued to some degree of normalcy despite the constant threat that Russian junk could land anywhere. Some less-informed Westerners, who only see frontline footage or the aftermath of a Russian missile barrage in their Facebook feeds, may be fooled into thinking all of Ukraine looks like the front lines.
This is very much not the case. Life goes on. People, especially Ukrainians, are resilient.
I’ve been thinking lately about the unusually strong connection between UK support and Ukraine.
A quick aside in an already long article…
Why Britain seems to understand Ukraine in its bones
There’s something unusually intense about British support for Ukraine. It feels personal.
Part of that is old-fashioned strategic hatred. Britain and Russia have been side-eyeing each other for a very long time. The Crimean War, the Great Game, Cold War espionage, murdered defectors, poisoned ex-spies, Salisbury, cyberattacks, oligarch money, and Moscow’s general habit of behaving like a Bond villain with worse tailoring have all left a mark.
But I think there is something deeper at work too.
Britain has a national memory of being bombed and not breaking.
The Blitz is not ancient history in the British imagination. It’s part of the country’s self-story. Cities under attack. Civilians in shelters. A larger authoritarian power trying to use terror from the air to break political will. Leaders refusing to leave. Ordinary people discovering that endurance is not glamorous when you are tired, cold, frightened, and still expected to function in the morning.
Ukraine fits into that memory with almost uncomfortable clarity.
