Lessons of Air War In Ukraine

[Picard]

Private Site

Since the beginning of the invasion, Russians have kept repeating that they had destroyed the Ukrainian air force. In fact, they had claimed on the first day of invasion that UAF had been destroyed. In March 2022., Russian Ministry of Defense again claimed that all Ukrainian aircraft had been destroyed or disabled, and repeated the claim yet again in June. Yet Ukrainian Su-27s bombed Snake Island in May, and Ukrainian Su-27s have been spotted over Donbass in mid-August. During August, Ukrainian MiG-29s had been filmed firing HARM. Russian Defense Ministry claimed to have shot down two Su-25s over Zaporizhzia on August 29. Like Lazarus, Ukrainian air force has risen from the dead time and again, zombified aircraft taking off to haunt the Russians.

Or have they? Rather than Ukrainians using witchcraft to raise their pilots and aircraft from the dead, more likely is that the Ukrainian air force had never been destroyed in the first place. And this has some important lessons for the future.

Before continuing however, I have to note that official kill claims – as so ofteen seen through history – are complete bullshit. If official kill claims were correct, Russians will have destroyed the entire Ukrainian Air Force at least twice over, whereas Russian Air Force would be fielding museum MiG-15s instead of Su-35s. This is simply a product of confusion and fog of war. If fighter shoots a missile at a target and target disappears from the radar, logical assumption is that target had been destroyed – when the most likely outcome was that the target had broken radar contact by diving to the ground and notching the missile. Attacking pilot is then likely to conclude that target had been destroyed.

List of acronyms I had used in the text is located at the end.

(Read more)

 

[Blademaster]

Iraqi Air force saved their planes by flying into Iran. So by your standards, USAF never beat Iraqi Air Force. And don't forget that countries have been replacing UkAir force losses by sending in their Mig-29s and Su-25s from their inventories.

 

[Picard]

Iraqi Air force saved their planes by flying into Iran. So by your standards, USAF never beat Iraqi Air Force. And don't forget that countries have been replacing UkAir force losses by sending in their Mig-29s and Su-25s from their inventories.

Please stop. Ukrainian Air Force didn't fly anywhere, it is still active in the combat zone.

And yes, I am aware Ukraine had been receiving replacement aircraft. Fact still remains that its losses on the ground had been minor compared to losses in the air, and even latter weren't enough to cripple it. Which could have easily happened: aircraft are of little use without trained pilots.

 

[blackjack]

Ukrainian aircrafts are still getting shot down. nowhere have the officials said they wiped out Ukraine's air force you post soviet block nazi.



To this day i think i have still not seen videos of Ukrainians bombing russians but more stories of their arcrafts getting shot down by tors or MANPADS. I am sure you're going to make more mentally retarded threads talking about russian air defenses or navy next. Did you get raped in the ass as a POW by Russian soldiers or what? why all the salty ass threads?

 

[DumbPilot]

Private Site

Since the beginning of the invasion, Russians have kept repeating that they had destroyed the Ukrainian air force. In fact, they had claimed on the first day of invasion that UAF had been destroyed. In March 2022., Russian Ministry of Defense again claimed that all Ukrainian aircraft had been destroyed or disabled, and repeated the claim yet again in June. Yet Ukrainian Su-27s bombed Snake Island in May, and Ukrainian Su-27s have been spotted over Donbass in mid-August. During August, Ukrainian MiG-29s had been filmed firing HARM. Russian Defense Ministry claimed to have shot down two Su-25s over Zaporizhzia on August 29. Like Lazarus, Ukrainian air force has risen from the dead time and again, zombified aircraft taking off to haunt the Russians.

Or have they? Rather than Ukrainians using witchcraft to raise their pilots and aircraft from the dead, more likely is that the Ukrainian air force had never been destroyed in the first place. And this has some important lessons for the future.

Before continuing however, I have to note that official kill claims – as so ofteen seen through history – are complete bullshit. If official kill claims were correct, Russians will have destroyed the entire Ukrainian Air Force at least twice over, whereas Russian Air Force would be fielding museum MiG-15s instead of Su-35s. This is simply a product of confusion and fog of war. If fighter shoots a missile at a target and target disappears from the radar, logical assumption is that target had been destroyed – when the most likely outcome was that the target had broken radar contact by diving to the ground and notching the missile. Attacking pilot is then likely to conclude that target had been destroyed.

List of acronyms I had used in the text is located at the end.

(Read more)

Great article!

However, I think this bit is incorrect:

Russian communication and interservice cooperation has been abysmal. Only the attached helicopter units have been able to successfully work with ground troops on a regular basis, and they too have many technical issues. This is actually a good argument for integrating air forces back into the armies.

I would specifically argue against this. Air power can not be tied into the army, because in war the army has a completely separate set of objectives than the air force. It is true that ultimately only the grunt on the ground has to plant the flag and win as per the objectives set for the campaign, however air power plays a major role in it.

In a conventional fight, you have to completely disable and maim the enemy's ability to wage war - your army can not do that without heavy expenditure in the modern era. It is the air power which can disrupt communication lines, power facilities, C3 infrastructure, not to mention running support missions like logistics transportation or recce runs on an effective scale.

If you tie the air force down to the army, you are greatly reducing the scope and potential of the air force - they can't plan their own missions, since they are subordinate to the army, they can't develop tactics specialized to them - because now their aim is to support the ground troops, not fight in the aerial domain.

Infact, it is exactly because of the VVS being tied to the army(bar some units), which causes the meagre coordination and results so disappointing in nature, as this former Indian Air Marshal writes:

Russia’s Military Understanding of Air Power: Structural & Doctrinal Aspects

www.vifindia.org

 

[mist_consecutive]

Private Site

Since the beginning of the invasion, Russians have kept repeating that they had destroyed the Ukrainian air force. In fact, they had claimed on the first day of invasion that UAF had been destroyed. In March 2022., Russian Ministry of Defense again claimed that all Ukrainian aircraft had been destroyed or disabled, and repeated the claim yet again in June. Yet Ukrainian Su-27s bombed Snake Island in May, and Ukrainian Su-27s have been spotted over Donbass in mid-August. During August, Ukrainian MiG-29s had been filmed firing HARM. Russian Defense Ministry claimed to have shot down two Su-25s over Zaporizhzia on August 29. Like Lazarus, Ukrainian air force has risen from the dead time and again, zombified aircraft taking off to haunt the Russians.

Or have they? Rather than Ukrainians using witchcraft to raise their pilots and aircraft from the dead, more likely is that the Ukrainian air force had never been destroyed in the first place. And this has some important lessons for the future.

Before continuing however, I have to note that official kill claims – as so ofteen seen through history – are complete bullshit. If official kill claims were correct, Russians will have destroyed the entire Ukrainian Air Force at least twice over, whereas Russian Air Force would be fielding museum MiG-15s instead of Su-35s. This is simply a product of confusion and fog of war. If fighter shoots a missile at a target and target disappears from the radar, logical assumption is that target had been destroyed – when the most likely outcome was that the target had broken radar contact by diving to the ground and notching the missile. Attacking pilot is then likely to conclude that target had been destroyed.

List of acronyms I had used in the text is located at the end.

(Read more)

Excellent article. Drilling down on exact numbers of aircraft losses is almost impossible due to rampant propaganda by both sides.

Few things I would like to add that I think are often missed or neglected by western society while doing such analysis -

• Intelligence is the most powerful tool in warfare and Ukraine has a massive upper hand in that. NATO is flying constant ISTAR and AWACS missions all around Ukraine, and these data are directly or indirectly being provided to relevant Ukrainian authorities. A simple warning as Russian strike package incoming can allow Ukrainians to hide their fighters and ready their mobile SAM solutions.
  
  
• Surplus supply of MANPADs has been a game changer. At one point it seemed a random Russian farmer has more MANPADs than it has tractors. MANPADs are stupid effective, and the fact that Russian helicopters and fighters lack any MAWS means they have no means of detecting them.
  
  
• Warfare is deception. It is highly likely Ukrainian fighter fleet was not only supported by replenishment of airframes, but also of pilots. Transferring Mig-29 airframes from Poland to Ukraine will be straightforward. Integration of western weapons (HARM) on Mig-29 shows the mission computer was re-programmed, but we miss that pilots firing them needed extensive training.

Overall, the situation of Ukraine is of a teenager trying to fight a bear, but the teenager is being supplied with bear spray, handguns and information while the bear is roaming wild wondering what is going on.

 

[DumbPilot]

Excellent article. Drilling down on exact numbers of aircraft losses is almost impossible due to rampant propaganda by both sides.

Few things I would like to add that I think are often missed or neglected by western society while doing such analysis -

• Intelligence is the most powerful tool in warfare and Ukraine has a massive upper hand in that. NATO is flying constant ISTAR and AWACS missions all around Ukraine, and these data are directly or indirectly being provided to relevant Ukrainian authorities. A simple warning as Russian strike package incoming can allow Ukrainians to hide their fighters and ready their mobile SAM solutions.
  
  
• Surplus supply of MANPADs has been a game changer. At one point it seemed a random Russian farmer has more MANPADs than it has tractors. MANPADs are stupid effective, and the fact that Russian helicopters and fighters lack any MAWS means they have no means of detecting them.
  
  
• Warfare is deception. It is highly likely Ukrainian fighter fleet was not only supported by replenishment of airframes, but also of pilots. Transferring Mig-29 airframes from Poland to Ukraine will be straightforward. Integration of western weapons (HARM) on Mig-29 shows the mission computer was re-programmed, but we miss that pilots firing them needed extensive training.

Overall, the situation of Ukraine is of a teenager trying to fight a bear, but the teenager is being supplied with bear spray, handguns and information while the bear is roaming wild wondering what is going on.

The Russians also can't commit most of their air force, anyway. It's their biggest power projection tool aside from nuclear weapons, since their navy is basically a vegetable right now.

As per the HARM - as far as I understand, they basically engineered an adapter like we have, and strapped the HARM onto it. I think the HARM is pre-programmed at the ground, and the pilot basically only presses the pickle button to fire it - I don't believe the Ukrainian MiGs(still basically post-Soviet era planes) have the data buses necessary to communicate with the HARM with more complexity than that.

 

[blackjack]

MANPADs are stupid effective, and the fact that Russian helicopters and fighters lack any MAWS means they have no means of detecting them.

MANPADS would be an issue if the Russians used a radar in the millimeter range limiting its detection to 8kms like the APG-78 longbow but radar SAR resolution already has the capabilities to identify troops and tanks at a considerable distance which is further than what the MANPADs can strike with and it uses electronic warfare as countermeasures against incoming MANPAD Ka-52 attack helicopters to enter service with Russia’s Central Military Command - Military & Defense - TASS

A simple warning as Russian strike package incoming can allow Ukrainians to hide their fighters and ready their mobile SAM solutions.

still get energy facilities targeted and destroyed by footage.

Integration of western weapons (HARM) on Mig-29 shows the mission computer was re-programmed, but we miss that pilots firing them needed extensive training.

I dont think any further training will helpI don't think to this day I have seen a Ukrainian air force target and destroy russian armored vehicles or strategic places on twitter yet. but there is always footage of Ukrainian aircrafts getting destroyed.

The Russians also can't commit most of their air force, anyway

I dont think the Azeris used aircrafts but only artillery and drones on the Armenians the last time i remembered. If artillery gets the same job done without wasting aircraft fuel than why not?

since their navy is basically a vegetable right now.

their navy still carries out strikes with the constant russia is out of missiles weeks later a kalibr strikes happens, russia is out of missiles weeks later a kalibr strike happens...but you have to keep the pro-ukraine retards feel entertained that something is being done like the constant weapon packages are supposed to mean something.

 

[DumbPilot]

I dont think the Azeris used aircrafts but only artillery and drones on the Armenians the last time i remembered. If artillery gets the same job done without wasting aircraft fuel than why not?

Different requirements and capabilities. If the Azeris had an active air force, with working planes, I am sure they would have used it:

On top of that, Armenia did not have much in the way of air defense to my knowledge. Border harassement with drones in that scenario makes perfect sense.

their navy still carries out strikes with the constant russia is out of missiles weeks later a kalibr strikes happens, russia is out of missiles weeks later a kalibr strike happens...but you have to keep the pro-ukraine retards feel entertained that something is being done like the constant weapon packages are supposed to mean something.

I did not phrase it properly - the Russian Navy as a tool for power projection is useless. Most of their vessels are stuck in the Black Sea launching Kalibrs.

This is not the case with their air force. It is relatively more flexible and does work as a deterrent - however with more air defense systems appearing in Ukraine and the inability of Russians to do actual SEAD/DEAD operations, I'm guessing they will be forced to keep up the ground warfare with low level support sorties anyway.

I dont think any further training will helpI don't think to this day I have seen a Ukrainian air force target and destroy russian armored vehicles or strategic places on twitter yet. but there is always footage of Ukrainian aircrafts getting destroyed.

That's precisely why the map looks like this:

And not like this:

 

[mist_consecutive]

The Russians also can't commit most of their air force, anyway. It's their biggest power projection tool aside from nuclear weapons, since their navy is basically a vegetable right now.

As per the HARM - as far as I understand, they basically engineered an adapter like we have, and strapped the HARM onto it. I think the HARM is pre-programmed at the ground, and the pilot basically only presses the pickle button to fire it - I don't believe the Ukrainian MiGs(still basically post-Soviet era planes) have the data buses necessary to communicate with the HARM with more complexity than that.

Even to do that, you need to punch coordinates (to where? again, NATO intelligence comes into picture). Plus HARM basically acquires a passive radar lock on the emitting radar and homes into it, so the aircraft has to actually maneuver itself into the range of the radar, acquire a passive lock, fire and disengage. While this is not impossible, all these from Ukrainian pilots within a span of few months is impossible.

MANPADS would be an issue if the Russians used a radar in the millimeter range limiting its detection to 8kms like the APG-78 longbow but radar SAR resolution already has the capabilities to identify troops and tanks at a considerable distance which is further than what the MANPADs can strike with and it uses electronic warfare as countermeasures against incoming MANPAD Ka-52 attack helicopters to enter service with Russia’s Central Military Command - Military & Defense - TASS

I think you are misunderstanding both MANPADs and SAR radar. MANPADs are IR-guided and they need no radar lock. Second SAR radars cannot identify a troop on ground holding a MANPAD.

still get energy facilities targeted and destroyed by footage.

Easy to rain cruise missiles and attack drones on stationary targets.

 

[blackjack]

Before continuing however, I have to note that official kill claims – as so ofteen seen through history – are complete bullshit. If official kill claims were correct, Russians will have destroyed the entire Ukrainian Air Force at least twice over, whereas Russian Air Force would be fielding museum MiG-15s instead of Su-35s. This is simply a product of confusion and fog of war. If fighter shoots a missile at a target and target disappears from the radar, logical assumption is that target had been destroyed – when the most likely outcome was that the target had broken radar contact by diving to the ground and notching the missile. Attacking pilot is then likely to conclude that target had been destroyed.

I also forgot to add that the article references wikipedia and that wikipedia on russian losses references alot of western and ukrainian sources, which make amazing sensational stories like the ghost of kyiv or a babushka shooting down a russian aircraft with a jar of pickles. I dont know if you know if either of those things ever happened?

 

[blackjack]

Different requirements and capabilities. If the Azeris had an active air force, with working planes, I am sure they would have used it:

On top of that, Armenia did not have much in the way of air defense to my knowledge. Border harassement with drones in that scenario makes perfect sense.

using shells to destroy locations is still strategically cheaper than spending aircraft fuel along with missiles that use more electronics than a 300mm shell.

I did not phrase it properly - the Russian Navy as a tool for power projection is useless. Most of their vessels are stuck in the Black Sea launching Kalibrs.

This is not the case with their air force. It is relatively more flexible and does work as a deterrent - however with more air defense systems appearing in Ukraine and the inability of Russians to do actual SEAD/DEAD operations, I'm guessing they will be forced to keep up the ground warfare with low level support sorties anyway.

I dont know if those ukrainian SAMs work based on constant shahad and missile strikes on their locations, i think they even used their air defense to shoot their own helicopter down probably to blame it on Russia excluding the polish tractor. You ptobably saw it on the other thread but a Ukrainian SAM got destroyed by artillery fire.

That's precisely why the map looks like this:

And not like this:

Yes they used 300k in the 1st 2 months and withdrew the forces to use 80k, because a smaller force is enough to push a huge AFU unit back....This is why artillery power is important and why an airforce does not need to be used everyday.

 

[blackjack]

I think you are misunderstanding both MANPADs and SAR radar. MANPADs are IR-guided and they need no radar lock. Second SAR radars cannot identify a troop on ground holding a MANPAD.

humans have a radar cross section and wikipedia states it as 1m2, like a tank does with 10 meters from 50-70kms away on KRETs 2019 article that i provided on other thread and if we do the radar calculation for distance i already know it will fall between 30-50kms. Ka-52 uses flares against IR guided missiles.

Easy to rain cruise missiles and attack drones on stationary targets.

mobile targets get hit by ATGMs and artillery, have you seen my posts when i was more active on the ukraine war thread?

 

[DumbPilot]

Even to do that, you need to punch coordinates (to where? again, NATO intelligence comes into picture). Plus HARM basically acquires a passive radar lock on the emitting radar and homes into it, so the aircraft has to actually maneuver itself into the range of the radar, acquire a passive lock, fire and disengage. While this is not impossible, all these from Ukrainian pilots within a span of few months is impossible.

While this is true that you need to know where the SAM is, the HARM does not need the coodinates itself - internal seekerheads inside the missile will home onto the pre-selected(on the ground) type of SAM by cross-referencing it with the internal electronic signature library, and if the SAM goes offline, it will use inertial systems to guide.

As for maneuvering into the range of the SAM FCR: I think a ballistic rocket like SMERCH or HIMARS could do the same thing. The HARM can lock onto even the leaking sidelobe of the SAM to my knowledge, and if the SAM is already active tracking the guided rocket then the pilot does not need to put himself inside the WEZ of the SAM.

Technically speaking, even the US does not see the HARM as a weapon to put down the SAM, but to suppress it. You have the coordinates of the SAM, you have the HARM suppression missile, fire away a few HIMARS rockets and you have your own version of whack-the-air-defense.

For that intent and purpose, the HARM is basically like firing an A2A missile at a designated range from the probable location of the SAM, so while I am sure US contractors are definitely involved teaching and installing stuff on Ukrainian MiGs, I am kind of sure they are Ukrainian pilots themselves(remember, we did see HARMs only from September-ish)

 

[blackjack]

HARMS can be fooled by decoy emitters or lured towards short range air defense systems.

HARM as SAMs? let's not drink too much when using this forum. Next Generation Missile - Wikipedia and I dont think there is any T3 updates

 

[Picard]

I also forgot to add that the article references wikipedia and that wikipedia on russian losses references alot of western and ukrainian sources, which make amazing sensational stories like the ghost of kyiv or a babushka shooting down a russian aircraft with a jar of pickles. I dont know if you know if either of those things ever happened?

I do not think either did.

Excellent article. Drilling down on exact numbers of aircraft losses is almost impossible due to rampant propaganda by both sides.

Few things I would like to add that I think are often missed or neglected by western society while doing such analysis -

• Intelligence is the most powerful tool in warfare and Ukraine has a massive upper hand in that. NATO is flying constant ISTAR and AWACS missions all around Ukraine, and these data are directly or indirectly being provided to relevant Ukrainian authorities. A simple warning as Russian strike package incoming can allow Ukrainians to hide their fighters and ready their mobile SAM solutions.
  
  
• Surplus supply of MANPADs has been a game changer. At one point it seemed a random Russian farmer has more MANPADs than it has tractors. MANPADs are stupid effective, and the fact that Russian helicopters and fighters lack any MAWS means they have no means of detecting them.
  
  
• Warfare is deception. It is highly likely Ukrainian fighter fleet was not only supported by replenishment of airframes, but also of pilots. Transferring Mig-29 airframes from Poland to Ukraine will be straightforward. Integration of western weapons (HARM) on Mig-29 shows the mission computer was re-programmed, but we miss that pilots firing them needed extensive training.

Overall, the situation of Ukraine is of a teenager trying to fight a bear, but the teenager is being supplied with bear spray, handguns and information while the bear is roaming wild wondering what is going on.

Yeah, excellent points. Russia actually is at massive information disadvantage in this conflict.

Great article!

However, I think this bit is incorrect:



I would specifically argue against this. Air power can not be tied into the army, because in war the army has a completely separate set of objectives than the air force. It is true that ultimately only the grunt on the ground has to plant the flag and win as per the objectives set for the campaign, however air power plays a major role in it.

In a conventional fight, you have to completely disable and maim the enemy's ability to wage war - your army can not do that without heavy expenditure in the modern era. It is the air power which can disrupt communication lines, power facilities, C3 infrastructure, not to mention running support missions like logistics transportation or recce runs on an effective scale.

If you tie the air force down to the army, you are greatly reducing the scope and potential of the air force - they can't plan their own missions, since they are subordinate to the army, they can't develop tactics specialized to them - because now their aim is to support the ground troops, not fight in the aerial domain.

Infact, it is exactly because of the VVS being tied to the army(bar some units), which causes the meagre coordination and results so disappointing in nature, as this former Indian Air Marshal writes:

Russia’s Military Understanding of Air Power: Structural & Doctrinal Aspects

www.vifindia.org

I'd say that at least a portion of air power has to be tied to the army. In modern battlefield specifically, you just need cooperation: army needs air force to provide reconnaissance, rapid response etc., while air force needs army to suppress enemy frontline air defenses, provide groundside intelligence and so on.

And in the end, it is army that wins the war. Everything else is just an enabler for the army maneuver - either directly or indirectly. Air power can disrupt all it wants, but if that disruption is not followed by the successful ground offensive, it is meaningless.

Ukrainian aircrafts are still getting shot down. nowhere have the officials said they wiped out Ukraine's air force you post soviet block nazi.

To this day i think i have still not seen videos of Ukrainians bombing russians but more stories of their arcrafts getting shot down by tors or MANPADS. I am sure you're going to make more mentally retarded threads talking about russian air defenses or navy next. Did you get raped in the ass as a POW by Russian soldiers or what? why all the salty ass threads?

You have obviously missed the main point that Ukraine still has aircraft to be shot down despite all the pre-war Russian claims.

As I said: both sides are talking bullshit out of their ass.

 

[Blademaster]

The Russians also can't commit most of their air force, anyway. It's their biggest power projection tool aside from nuclear weapons, since their navy is basically a vegetable right now.

As per the HARM - as far as I understand, they basically engineered an adapter like we have, and strapped the HARM onto it. I think the HARM is pre-programmed at the ground, and the pilot basically only presses the pickle button to fire it - I don't believe the Ukrainian MiGs(still basically post-Soviet era planes) have the data buses necessary to communicate with the HARM with more complexity than that.

If they take out that RQ-4 drone in the black sea, they can start using their navy. They should take it out anyway. Let's see how US and NATO want to escalate this.

 

[DumbPilot]

If they take out that RQ-4 drone in the black sea, they can start using their navy. They should take it out anyway. Let's see how US and NATO want to escalate this.

Which makes sense. Again, I don't know why Russians aren't doing it . It's clearly a problem for their operations.

If we were to decode Russia's actions with Clausewitz's philosophy, the Russian actions in Ukraine are a combination of both their political and military intentions. Then, those intentions either are not strong enough, or they are so strong such that the military is not able to cope with them, atleast not enough to shoot down the US drones, as you say.

Also, the possibility could be that the intention and might are both there, but they are tempered by a deterrent: shooting down the RQ-4 does certainly mean that the Russians are ready to start an international incident directly with the US - and that they haven't makes me believe the Russians in the Black Sea have been specifically ordered not do so.

 

[DumbPilot]

I'd say that at least a portion of air power has to be tied to the army. In modern battlefield specifically, you just need cooperation: army needs air force to provide reconnaissance, rapid response etc., while air force needs army to suppress enemy frontline air defenses, provide groundside intelligence and so on.

And in the end, it is army that wins the war. Everything else is just an enabler for the army maneuver - either directly or indirectly. Air power can disrupt all it wants, but if that disruption is not followed by the successful ground offensive, it is meaningless.

You are correct in this regard, which is where the army aviation comes in. However, fully tying an air force to an army will bring nothing but detriment in the longer run, in the modern era, because air warfare as a doctrine has matured greatly since the times air power was subordinate to the land forces.

 

[Blademaster]

Which makes sense. Again, I don't know why Russians aren't doing it . It's clearly a problem for their operations.

If we were to decode Russia's actions with Clausewitz's philosophy, the Russian actions in Ukraine are a combination of both their political and military intentions. Then, those intentions either are not strong enough, or they are so strong such that the military is not able to cope with them, atleast not enough to shoot down drones, as you say.

However, shooting down the RQ-4 does certainly mean that the Russians are ready to start an international incident directly with the US - and that they haven't makes me believe the Russians in the Black Sea have been specifically ordered not do so.

US and NATO have already escalated. It is time Russia start returning the favor. And by the way, it is time for you to stop thinking that Russia is the bad guy. It should be abundantly clear that US and NATO are the bad guys in this conflict.