Posted on 10/03/2025 8:40:09 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
Russia’s war on Ukraine is a war on speed and scale: cheap drones by the hundreds; cruise and ballistic missiles by the scores; electronic warfare (EW) whose logic can mutate on quarterly cycles. That is the fight NATO must be ready for—not an elegant, unhurried campaign of exquisite platforms, but a drone-and-missile war where software changes faster than doctrine, where ammunition depth decides what survives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
Zeepers remain unconvinced and very Low IQ
“Zeepers remain unconvinced and very Low IQ”
Putinisters remain unconvinced and very Low IQ
NATO's air-force would easily establish air superiority against Russia
I suspect they'll find out.
It's OK if no Americans are involved and we get out of NATO.
Really! I want NATO to become Canada and then no one will care what they do.
The DoW/Raytheon mouthpiece speaks.
Oh NO! Russia is going to take over Europe and the weak USA.
I guess we should practice our French-like surrender dances!
//Sarcasm
PS. I bought some Drone stock a few weeks ago. AVA and KTOS are up about 25% in the past month. It’s better than NVIDIA.
The main problem would be depletion of current stocks of weaponry killing hordes of Russians and stopping Russian missiles. And even with the latter problem, unless the missiles carry nukes, they don't deliver enough ordnance to be operationally effective and Russia doesn't have enough of them to make them so.
The German papers have noted that some of Rheimetall's latest anti-drone vehicles are already being proven in combat in Ukraine before the German Waffenamt has finished accepting any.
For most of their years, NATO has had its mind of Soviet/Russian tanks overrunning one articular geological gap with many tanks, so new technology is before them.
Evidently it is Putin who was not adapting to the post empire situation which is why his troops are mired in the mud without air forces or navy while Kaliningrad has been cut off and neutered as he continues to keep moving backwards strategically.
Russia wasn’t ready for a drone war with Ukraine.
The primary target of Russia's missiles and drones has been Kyiv, and having launched almost 10,000 missiles (the entirety of the Soviet/Russian inventory), they have failed to inflict catastrophic damage to even one metropolis in Ukraine. Cities within artillery/MLRS and glide bomb range have suffered much worse, but it takes a huge quantity of missiles to inflict significant damage to a large city.
Of course, NATO's major advantage is Air Power. Our ability to destroy and penetrate Russia's air defense system would offset (Europe's) lack of long range strike weapons. I seriously doubt Russia wants a significant conflict with NATO, as they are currently outmatched. What Russia wants is to win the battle of escalation, without actual armed conflict. Striking a couple Euro cities would bring an embarrassing retaliation that would probably be the end of Putin's rule.
Lol. 30 Russian jets in Syria have managed to destroy four times the rate of sorties of 180 NATO jets in Syria with much better execution. They have pilots with a thousand combat missions on record. And Russians hold records for all top five of long range BVR air to air kills, all achieved over Ukraine there they definitely have air supremacy.
USAF on the other hand has never encountered a post-Vietnam echeloned air defense.
Then why did Putin remove his pilots from Syria? He did not have to do that much to prop up Assad.
There are several false assumption that reduce value of your response.
First, you imply that there is a Russian goal of inflicting a catastrophic damage to even one Ukrainian metropolis even though there is no evidence to prove it. What you are seeing is an extensive focused air campaign against military targets that prioritized reduction of collateral damage in the first place.
Cities within artillery range have suffered much more specifically because the Ukrainian military used every building as firing positions.
But the point of 10,000 missiles fired and the enemy is still fighting is a testament to a fact that your take on efficacy of air power is also badly flawed.
There are simply too many tactical targets on the battlefield to be effectively neutralized by air power, no matter how resourceful it is.
Also your idea of ability to penetrate air defenses is purely hypothetical because NATO has no experience in dealing with post-Vietnam integrated systems. If anything, most of means in NATO disposal were used against Russian air defenses to very minimal effect while allowing Russians to score all sorts of records in terms of destruction of attacking assets, from longest BVR air to air kill to the longest SAM to air kill.
Did he? For what I know the Russian base is still there but now it serves prarily as a logistical hub for African operations.
There was nothing left when the Rebels conquered Syria last December.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.