Frankly I agree, here is an example
The much talked about attack by Russians on a relatively few marines, I believe, in Syria
The amount of air assets unleashed was staggering, something the Ukrainians have never had.
Take away the air power, and the results are not going to be as favorable.
There is a reason artillery ammunition was not a priority in western nations, we rely on air power to do the job, and artillery to supplement . You don’t need millions of rounds of artillery if your air power can neutralize the enemy threat with precision bombs or a few B-52s dropping tons of bombs.
Enemy air power is not a threat when its aircraft are burning on the ramp and air fields are cratered. First thing we did in desert storm was take out command and control, air defense systems, and then air assets and air fields. After that enemy air power was an occasional issue, but mostly it was watching them fly to Iran. Ground level and very fast. Was at a briefing with a 3 Star, and general was asked what he thought about Iraqi aircraft flying to an Iran. His answer “Iranian air force just got larger”, but those aircraft never threatened allied forces for the rest of the war
Our doctrine to deal with minefields and fortifications is quite clear, blast all enemy threats with air power, then clear minefields
I was in DS1, remember one attack helicopter pilot being read the riot act for expending millions of dollars of rockets on one bunker complex
So yes NATO training and doctrine is shit without air power.
Even the Russians with a relative advantage in air power but not air superiority can only make incremental gains at heavy costs
