Free Republic

Russian drones crossing into Poland and MiG-31s violating Estonian airspace revived the core question: how does a Russia vs. NATO war actually begin? Moscow will keep probing seams—airspace, air defenses, political will—aiming to force NATO into an Article 4/5 dilemma. Europe’s fragmented defense industry, ammunition shortages, and uneven appetite for risk create openings for a rapid, deniable “fait accompli” in the Baltics using EW, drones, and covert forces. That scenario wouldn’t resemble a set-piece tank battle; it would be a shock campaign designed to split allies before they can mobilize.

The current U.S. bomber force is a “hollowed-out sword,” dangerously antiquated and too small for modern great-power competition. With only 19 stealthy B-2s capable of penetrating advanced defenses, the fleet is ill-equipped for a potential conflict with China. The new B-21 Raider is the solution, but the planned fleet of 100 is a “dangerously inadequate half-measure.” To credibly deter and, if necessary, win a two-front war against both China and Russia, the United States must procure a fleet of at least 200 B-21s.

In a future conflict with China, technological superiority alone will not be enough; “mass matters.” The vast distances of the Indo-Pacific and the limitations of sea-launched airpower create a critical need for a large, land-based fleet of long-range, 6th-generation F-47 fighters. A substantial number of F-47s would be essential to overwhelm enemy defenses, deliver the necessary volume of ordnance, and create a resilient, networked force capable of shortening the sensor-to-shooter timeline. Without a large F-47 fleet, the U.S. risks being unable to effectively project power and prevail in a great-power conflict.

The upcoming Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, aimed at securing a peace deal for Ukraine, is being framed as a dangerous strategic error. Legitimizing Russia’s territorial conquests would set a horrible precedent, repeating the mistakes of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and potentially inspiring future Russian revanchist claims on Alaska itself. Any agreement is likely to be meaningless, as Putin has no genuine interest in a lasting peace.