This is the case in Ukraine right now and in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Russia is unwilling, right now, to challenge all of Ukrainian airspace, and Armenia/Russia was unwilling to challenge Azerbaijani airspace.
The moment this change is when the drone strategy is no longer effective. Drones only work when you have air supremacy over at least a staging area. When you do not, then there is not much to do.
Also, Russia has it's own drones, which they are not using because they are in the defensive position right now.
If there is a prompt for a Russian advancement or if the line becomes untenable, the drone-based strategies will collapse and the conflict will turn unless Ukraine can muster up something else. Simply put, Ukraine has no hope at all of contesting air supremacy with Russia. It's air force is incomparably worse, and drones have no anti-air capacity.
But we are not there. Russia is nowhere near attempting a full-scale invasion and hasn't, they limited themselves to taking the Donbass and Crimea and defending it strictly, more or less.
As for Russia in Armenia, there was not really any cake-on-the-face. Russia's policy was to stand-by unless Azerbaijan was threatening Armenia proper. Maybe Armenia could have negotiated another arrangement had their orientation been different, but as it stood Russia was unwilling to do much at all in the NK conflict.
As it stands the balance of power is still overwhelmingly in the favor of Russia and it is not close.
Turkey never fought Russia in Syria. They fought Assad's government with some help from Russian irregulars, even then they got stalled and recently had losses. Russia was however unwilling to escalate and there were no air battles, for example.
that is the key point. Turkey mastered how to use drones to kill Pantsir-S1 in Syria, and immediately applied that in Libya and Azerbaijan with great success. Pantsir-S1 - the first were brought to Donbass in August 2014 with the tank battalions which hit near Ilovaysk - is what caused Ukraine to stop using air force in Donbass. With Pantsir-S1 advantage removed, the tank-based Russian forces there would become much easy to deal with for Ukrainian air force and especially for the high-precision munition what is used from the Turkish drones.
>modern jets
Russia is really far from sending airforce there, while Ukraine doesn't have much barriers for allowing the F-16 to fight there - as result the F-16s will appear there earlier thus putting Russia in the position of the one escalating conflict if Russia decides to bring the airforce. And if Russia does decide to send the planes in the outcome is far from obvious- while F-16 is older and worse in direct dogfight than the modern Russian planes it isn't that important as for the last 40 years USSR/Russian planes were mostly shot down from stand-off distance where NATO weaponry and situation awareness is better.
Pantsir is not even an IADS. It is at its core 50 year old technology. S300 and S400 are fundamentally different and an order of magnitude more dangerous, they are real air defence systems.
The F-16 would have no situational awareness advantage. It would be without any AWACS and the Russian jets would be networked into the S400 system and sharing data. They would have the clear and obvious situational awareness advantage.
And this is only if Turkey is willing to fight the Russian airforce. So far even in Syria Turkey has not dated to do so, there is no chance Turkey will dare to do so that close to Russia.
it is a very effective system against 4th gen at the close range. As a result one has to use high-precision stand-off weapons in the presence of Pantsir . Ukraine doesn't have such weapons, and this is why Russian tanks operated so freely there. Turkey does have it and is using those weapons from the drones - that is how they have been so effectively taking out Pantsirs and Russian made armor in all those places recently.
Russia isn't going to deploy S-300/400 class of the systems in Donbass. There is pretty specific parameter envelope for fighting there without escalating it to the next level. Neither side has interest in doing so, at least currently. That also basically makes Russian jets non-participants there.
>there is no chance Turkey will dare to do so that close to Russia.
That is the point here that Ukraine is that chance for Turkey to get that close without officially fighting Russia, only supposedly helping Ukraine on its official territory like they did in Azerbaijan (and like Russia did in Syria - right near the Turkey btw, and, similar to Russia in Syria, Turkey can bring a lot into Ukraine, including AWACS - i think it is Ukrainians who may be not ready for that level of Turkish involvement - i mean for example my great-grandfather, a peasant from Kiev region, fought in the Russo-Ottoman war just 144 years ago and the historic memory of Ottoman rule and power projection in the Black Sea region is still alive). It isn't an open frontal war, it is more like a power- and kind of chess pieces moving play. No country wants to be slotted into a very disadvantageous position of an open aggressor - thus officially there is no Russia in Donbass and this is why it can't send S-300/400 there - and the play is to move as far and as aggressively as possible without being slotted that way.
>And this is only if Turkey is willing to fight the Russian airforce. So far even in Syria Turkey has not dated to do so
actually Turkey did it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo... . It was pretty clear demonstration of force. Russia didn't dare to respond in kind - that would be a major escalation Russia couldn't sustain as among other factors the number of Russian planes in Syria, and especially modern planes capable of dealing with F-16s, is miniscule.
Ukraine has to modernize army (including anti-air), stabilize economy (around 3% year to year growth prior to COVID). With each year more and more people understand that Russia is, unite against aggressor. It forces our government to implement much needed reforms. Meanwhile Russia economy is crumbling. All we need is time.
Unfortunately question today is not about deoccupation, but about preserving our freedom and sovereignty.
What's going to happen is that Russia will slice Ukraine at the Dnieper River and also take all of Ukraine's Black Sea territory. That will include taking Odsesa and Kharkiv. By taking the territory south of Odesa, they'll get a large border with Moldova, and then they'll annex Moldova at some point or otherwise entirely control it as a puppet.
There is no scenario where this doesn't happen. When Putin took Crimea, taking the rest of Ukraine's coastal waters was an obvious and inevitable step. The only thing left is timing, whenever Putin decides an ideal time to do it is.
There's nothing the West can do to Russia at this point to stop any of this and Putin knows that. No nation in the West is going to war with Russia over these lands.
The prime purpose of NATO is deterrence; no-one wants to be forced into a shooting war - hence I expect NATO to be very wary of accepting a member which may invoke article 5 pretty much the moment the accession ceremony is over.
The Ukraine would have a much easier time getting into NATO if relations with Russia were cordial; however, as the mere act of exercising their sovereignty to join an alliance of their choosing is sufficient to prevent cordial relations with Russia...
The problem, obviously, being that Russia is not content to be secure within its borders, but also desires to have a say in the affairs of neighbouring countries (Which, incidentally, makes these countries feel much less secure, hence making them more eager to join alliances to improve their lot, precisely the scenario Russia wishes to avoid.)
Sigh.
There is no point of deterrence when if Ukraine is gone, and you have Russian tanks in Vienna in one week, Munich the other, and the rest of Europe in a month.
Ukraine in comparison has a miserably weak military that is strongly outdated compared to Russia.
How much tanks does Germany have, and how much does Russia?
I will do Googling for you.
354 vs 12000
Russia's tank force biggest problem? Having more tanks than pilots.
Half of this tank fleet is in long term storage for this reason, and what's left half is in rather bad semi-written-off condition.
If we let Russians to regain their breathe, it would not take them long to restore them, and regain this enormous military asset.
Russia only has 3000 tanks in service. The rest are mothballed. That's not half, that's 75+%.
Even looking in total, the vast majority of these "12 000" tanks are in fact T-72s, 9000 of them. We already know how T-72s fare against modern tanks.
For sure, 3000 decent MBTs is a formidable force. But 3000 vs 1000 is not going to let Russia steamroll when their air force is set-up for defence and not offense. Even an advantage of 3:1 is not going to do you much good when your opponent has absolute air supremacy.
A Russian offensive into Western Europe will definitely get stalled, there is no question about it.
If relations with Russia were cordial, the Ukraine would have no need to get into NATO to begin with. In that ideal world, things would look different; we don't live in that world, sadly.
Joe Biden (78) just replaced Donald Trump (74). Prince Phillip died at the age of 99. Putin has a long way to go on natural lifespan.
https://www.levada.ru/en/ratings/
41% of Americans disapprove of Biden, according to this:
Russian thinking is wholly totalitarian, in the good old Hitleresque sense (while ofc, Russian state is absolutely NOT totalitarian, it's just a soft dictatorship not unlike vast majority of governments in the poor world). Totalitarian thinking means that Putin is "us", i.e. government, State overall, country, nation, and society are the same, they are inseparable: most Russians could not explain how is "society" is different from "state", or discard the whole concept of "society" as Western weed. Rejecting Putin thus means self-rejecting. Very few people can even think of it.