In a potential near-peer conflict, Western nations can no longer assume their home territories will stay secure while their forces fight abroad, a senior NATO commander told Business Insider.

Air threats have grown more numerous and reach farther than during the last major war against a comparable adversary, explained Sir John Stringer, NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

Alongside traditional aircraft, powerful missiles and low-cost long-range drones can now target locations once viewed as safely behind the lines.

Western forces spent at least two decades on counter-insurgency missions, Stringer noted. For Britain this meant deploying thousands of miles away, fighting, and returning to a secure rear area in the United Kingdom.

Those conditions, he said, have ended.

The issue goes beyond the possibility of strikes on NATO soil. Western planners have long recognized that stronger foes could threaten cities, bases, and infrastructure. The new reality involves cheap drones, missiles, sabotage, and massed air attacks that could make rear areas routinely contested, with insufficient defenses forcing difficult choices about what to protect.

Protecting the continent of Europe is now the priority, Stringer said.

Since the Cold War, the United States and its allies have fought with air dominance and homelands far from combat zones. Weapons today, however, extend much farther, with standoff ranges measured in thousands of miles rather than hundreds.

These systems include not only expensive munitions from heavy bombers but also affordable unmanned platforms, he added.

Ukraine's war against Russia illustrates the danger. The conflict has featured more drones than any prior war, with long-range versions launched by the hundreds in single nights alongside large-scale missile strikes.

Ukraine has also shown how drone threats can arise deep behind enemy lines, including an operation that smuggled devices into Russia and struck airfields, damaging dozens of aircraft and causing billions in losses. Western officials say this tactic requires close study.

Stringer's remarks echo earlier comments that distinctions between home and front no longer apply. US strategy documents have similarly stated that the homeland is no longer a sanctuary and that attacks on critical infrastructure must be expected in conflict.

Russia's invasion has reinforced these warnings. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte noted that the home front and front line have become one, requiring greater civil preparedness.

The UK government has warned that the homeland may face direct threats in a wartime scenario, while countries such as Sweden have advised citizens to prepare for possible attacks on home soil.

Russia remains the chief near-term concern, yet China also fields growing long-range capabilities that could reach the US homeland and regional bases. NATO must address threats from all directions, Stringer said.

The alliance is investing in air defenses, yet production delays and other constraints limit the number of interceptors, sensors, and launchers available for a major war.

Western forces may not achieve the air control they have relied on in recent conflicts. The sheer volume of inexpensive weapons means traditional responses using fast jets and surface-to-air missiles are no longer sufficient.

If adversaries can launch more drones and missiles than defenders can afford to intercept, Western countries will face hard decisions on which sites receive protection and which do not.