War in the Mind: Deep, Close, and Rear Operations in the Battlefields and Living Rooms
In the realm of military strategy, an old adage exists that politicians conveniently remember when victories ensue on the battlefield but promptly forget when things go awry: “Armies don’t fight wars, nations fight wars; armies just do the shooting.” Unraveling this short but powerful phrase exposes a comprehensive philosophy on winning wars — not just on the frontlines, but also within the domestic confines of our homes.
Britain, during the protracted years of counter-insurgency campaigns post-9/11, seemed to forget this simple truth. Successive British governments outsourced the immense task of nation-building in Afghanistan to the Ministry of Defence — an assignment it was ill-equipped to handle. The lack of interest from central government was palpable, leading to the failure of Britain’s national objectives, despite our military forces generally prevailing in contact with the enemy.
To understand what went wrong and assess the likelihood of Ukraine and Russia’s current strategies leading to success, it’s crucial to consider the philosophical underpinnings of how national will — in its military, economic, political, and societal forms — is coordinated, organized, and deployed against an adversary.
A military campaign is often seen through the geographic lens of deep, close, and rear operations: the long-range strikes and raids disrupting key infrastructure (deep), the brutal close-quarters combat (close), and the essential support mechanisms such as logistics and headquarters (rear). This is not a rigid model but a conceptual framework that assists commanders in assessing their operational environment, identifying potential oversights, and seizing opportunities.
However, the true challenge lies in aligning the actions of disparate elements across a nation. How do you ensure that the actions of a soldier in a mortar team at the front are aligned with those of a citizen in a local football team back home? The key lies in understanding deep, close, and rear operations as more than just geographic terms — they are the architecture needed for the battle in the mind, where wars are won and lost.
Deep operations, in this expanded understanding, aim to unsettle and intimidate the enemy. An example can be seen in Ukraine’s recent ‘plans of silence’ tweet, wherein General Kerala Badanov, the head of Ukraine’s Military Intelligence, spent 30 seconds staring at the camera without uttering a word. This silent self-confidence could terrify a Russian conscript in a trench in southern Ukraine. Similarly, psychological operations target global audiences, as when Ukraine’s Defence Minister Alexi Resnickoff or Foreign Minister Dimitri Kuleba engage in diplomatic outreach, essentially conveying, “We’re friends, we have the same vision of a values-based future.”
Psychological rear operations are also vital — they offer hope to societies under siege, ensuring the citizenry that their national spirit remains unbroken. Examples include Ukrainian President Zelenskiy visiting the front lines or attending a book fair during wartime. These actions may seem trivial in the face of a military conflict, but they feed the national morale, displaying culture, grace, and humanity under extreme pressure.
While it’s essential to consider this psychological front in tandem with physical operations, it’s equally important to recognize that the underlying moral values form the thread binding a nation together during a war. In Putin’s campaign, the thread appears to be one of fear, grievance, and self-interest — elements that can erode the moral foundation of a nation at war.
Russia, under Putin, has tried its hand at deep, close, and rear psychological operations, but the results have often been awkward and disjointed. Perhaps the long years of brutalized existence have left Russia under a fear-driven Darwinian model where the fittest survive. It’s a harsh base on which to build a military and a societal model that can appeal to the masses. This disjointedness was visible when Putin, who often secludes himself at the end of a lengthy table, suddenly appeared practically crowd-surfing in Dagestan — it simply doesn’t add up.
When a nation’s psychological operations — in the battlefield, the mind, and for international consumption — are in alignment and presented with mutual respect by military commanders, political leaders, and civil society, the system works. The nation fights its war unified in a common purpose. But when the machine is built on fear and driven by an isolated figure, the structure may endure for a while, but cracks will eventually appear — until one day, things fall apart.
War isn’t fought merely on the battlefields — it unfolds in the minds of soldiers and citizens, in diplomatic circles, and even in seemingly mundane activities. The essence of winning wars is in the comprehensive alignment of a nation’s efforts, both on the front lines and the home front.
