Ukraine’s Asymmetric Strike: Responding to Russia’s Attacks on NATO

Source: Author’s Facebook page

It is clear that the Estonians have nothing to shoot down, and the NATO forces deployed to Estonia are also hesitant, fearing escalation. In twelve minutes, it may all be over, and in a week everyone will forget, except for the Eastern Europeans, who have a rough idea of what actually happened.

Someday — I wanted to write “next time,” but for now I’ll stick with the neutral “someday” — it will happen: Russian planes will approach their targets to launch missiles. The same KABs could be fired at Tallinn from international waters, without technically violating anything. NATO would then spend a long time collecting the wreckage and proving whether it was a Russian missile or bomb, scrutinizing radar data.

The Russians would point out that the KAB missile contained Western components, implying that it was NATO’s own weapon. In general, yes, our plane lost a KAB missile, but it happened in international waters — so what’s the problem? It didn’t hit parliament or a kindergarten, and, in general, people should get used to it.

Some NATO supporters will start arguing in Hungarian and Slovak that all this happened because too much air defense was sent to Ukraine, leaving NATO countries vulnerable.

But if there is no political will to shoot down Russian planes near Estonia, there is another solution — Ukraine should be allowed to shoot down Russian planes over the occupied territories. For some reason, the discourse on aid to Ukraine over the past few years has focused on what new paper sanctions could be imposed to make Russia run out of money and, somehow, make concessions. But what if that doesn’t happen?

There is a faster and more effective plan: simply transfer long-range missiles for F-16s to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. For a long time, these missiles were withheld; when they were finally transferred, Ukraine still lacked the necessary munitions to shoot down Russian planes. F-16s exist, but so far they have only been used to hunt Shaheds, launch single missiles, or target Russian radars. They have not shot down a single Russian plane, which is why Russian KABs have continued to rain down on the front line for years.

We are talking about the “legendary” AIM-120 air-to-air missiles for F-16s — the same missiles Erdoğan used to shoot down a Russian aircraft. Transferring the latest versions could be a game-changer. A real game changer for escalation — it would strip the Russians of their KAB trump card. After a few downed “Dry” aircraft, it would suddenly become much harder for them to attack.

Instead of asking Trump for another empty promise (and he will certainly deliver one) and trying to impose yet another round of meaningless sanctions on Russia, we need to demand more weapons for Ukraine. Not some miracle missiles arriving in a year, not bombs that still need to be developed, not another sanctions package — but missiles capable of shooting down Russian planes.

If you are afraid to take the shot yourself, give Ukraine the latest, longest-range versions of the AIM-120 or any other advanced air-to-air systems. Solve the KAB problem and send a clear message to Russia: it is unacceptable to fly near NATO borders.

Estonia said on Tuesday that three Russian MiG-31 fighter jets had entered its airspace without permission and remained there for 12 minutes. The country’s Foreign Ministry has already summoned the Russian chargé d’affaires to protest and hand over a note regarding the incident that occurred on September 19 over the Gulf of Finland.

The agency later clarified that the incursion of Russian MiG-31 fighters into Estonian airspace was deliberate. The country activated NATO’s Article 4 and also protested to the Russian diplomat.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.