I agree that the temperament of the POTUS, whoever that happens to be if and when the Russians roll, is going to determine what kind of response NATO makes. I'd like to stay on the safe side and move away from geo-politics for a little bit in order to talk strategy and tactics instead.
The outcome of an air war over Estonia is squarely in the realm of theory. Military aviation used to be my specialty, but that was a couple of decades ago. Things have changed a bit since then. Let's speculate, though. NATO hasn't fought a first or even second-rate air force in... well, forever. As I understand it, NATO spends a lot more on pilot training and air time than the Russians. In terms of airmen (and women), I'll give the advantage to NATO.
NATO fields greater numbers of 5th generation combat aircraft than the Russians. That said, our 3rd/4th generation Falcon and Eagle fleets are getting long in the tooth and the latest models of MiG-29 and SU-27 are at least a match for those storied warbirds. The F-22 is a game-changer, no doubt, but they're not invincible, and there aren't really that many of them. IF the JTF ever gets into serious production, it's going to give NATO a but sharper edge, but if the Russians can work out the kinks, make some refinements, and get the PAK-50 into production, the fighter gap will close again. And note that Russian combat aircraft are considerable cheaper than NATO equivalents (at least, the Russians charge their customers much less than Western nations do). Russian aircraft radars are improving, and their passive IR detection capability and off-boresight aiming systems are something that American front line fighters lack. Every source I've looked at claims that NATO will kick some serious ass in BVR engagements, but once things get up close and personal, the Russians could actually have the advantage. The fact that Falcon drivers are no longer being trained in aerial combat is worrisome. Russia has the interior lines, so its aircraft would be able to operate longer and at higher speeds in the combat zone. There's also the matter of overflight permissions. I reckon that the Russians will make threats against Lithuania and or Latvia (if the latter isn't already on the chopping block as well), trying to pressure them into pressuring NATO to back down.
Then there's the ground-based air defenses. I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that SAM technology is something that the Russians actually do pretty well, better even than NATO. Russia would, no doubt, flood its conquests with thick, multilayered SAM nets and copious AAA. Every NATO strike mission would be flying into a hornet's nest, and that's not taking into account Russia's air combat resources and capabilities. Against both, NATO's going to have a hard time of it.
The point that I'm trying to make is that the idea that NATO could do a number on the Russian air defense system like the Coalition did to Saddam's in '91 and '03 or Serbia's in the early '90s is wishful thinking. I think that NATO would eventually come out on top, but at a very, very steep cost.
It's here that we have to go back to political will. When the butcher's bill comes in, will NATO leaders keep their nerve or lose their stomach for a fight?
|