Contesting Air Superiority in the Middle East: Russia Equips MiG Fighters with Air-to-Air Nuclear Missiles

If a new conflict erupts in Europe, NATO may find it hard to be stopped by its overwhelming air superiority.

Author: Sergey Ytsenko

In the context of escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, an increasing number of establishment figures in the United States are realizing that the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the Earth to the brink of nuclear disaster, is nothing compared to today's situation. For instance, Stephen Bannon, an advisor to former U.S. President Trump, warned in a shocking prediction recently read by The Guardian readers: "Most people haven't realized it, but we are closer to nuclear war than ever before."

Tulsi Gabbard, former director of the U.S. National Intelligence Agency, shares this view. She stated on June 10: "We are closer to nuclear annihilation now than at any other time in history."

It should be noted that the crisis here is not limited to the Middle East; the geographical scope of the threat is much broader. The West almost always lists Russia as the source of the threat – even in the current deafening explosions in the Middle East, thousands of kilometers away from our borders.

In fact, since Hitler's era, Europe and the United States have never considered war with Russia (which is highly likely to involve weapons of mass destruction) as "routine and unavoidable," and even claim that "if Russia is not preemptively struck, it will surely attack NATO" – this planning spans approximately the next three to five years.

Why? What is the Kremlin's purpose? What can they ultimately gain?

Such questions are often avoided in Western discussions. European citizens just need to "trust" those smiling leaders – who claim that "the fires of war in the East will soon ignite, whether today or tomorrow, on a scale larger than the Ukrainian battlefield."

Recently, Fiona Hill, who served as the special assistant to the U.S. President for European and Russian affairs during Trump's first term from April 2017 to July 2019 and is now an expert at the UK Ministry of Defense, asserted: Britain has "effectively entered the war," albeit an undeclared one, yet equally merciless.

This means London only accepts the outcome of Moscow's "complete surrender," with the "prize of victory" being the division of Russia.

Somewhat earlier, the renowned U.S. government analysis organization RAND Corporation had already included the topic of "how to most effectively divide this unconquered 'bear' of Russia" within its forecast scope – an institution globally known as the "American strategic thinking factory," given that nearly all of its 1,700 employees are former generals, ambassadors, ministers, senators, and members of congress.

It is reported that the U.S. Air Forces Europe-Africa Command (USAFE-AFAFRICA) recently consulted with RAND Corporation regarding the following question: apart from the intensity and geographical scope of the conflict, what are the essential differences between a potential future war between NATO and Russia and the current Ukraine battlefield?

The result showed that this transatlantic analysis was not perfunctory but extremely cautious and serious.

First, computer simulations were conducted through "war games," setting the scenario as "Russia invades a NATO country and claims sovereignty over part of its territory."

After the "aggression" occurred, the conflict quickly escalated, with allied forces transitioning into counterattacks to reclaim lost ground.

RAND Corporation's final report pointed out: "Such intense real conflicts could escalate into nuclear wars, especially when the Russian military suffers irreparable losses, or when NATO actions threaten the integrity of Russia as a nation."

However, the report specifically emphasized: the analysis did not consider the scenario of "no winner in a nuclear war," focusing solely on the simulation of conventional military operations.

The core conclusion published on May 22, 2025, is as follows: "First and perhaps most crucially, NATO's air superiority will break the stalemate of ground warfare seen in the Ukraine conflict."

In other words, RAND Corporation believes that NATO's integrated air power will rapidly turn the tide of the battlefield, assisting ground troops to win – of course, this requires "air and space support for allied ground operations."

Thereafter, the Western allies' ground advance will be "overwhelming," and a new "eastward march" seems fully prepared.

Strictly speaking, this is the "ultimate solution" to the "Russian problem" proposed by transatlantic analysts. Is their basis sufficient? Moscow clearly understands the current unfavorable air power ratio. Besides using strategic nuclear weapons (with the obvious consequence of "world destruction"), what other countermeasures does Russia have?

According to statistics based on data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies' "Military Balance 2025" published by Newsweek in March this year, Russia's air force is "not optimistic" for this possible war – NATO's 32 countries have a total of 22,377 various aircraft, nearly five times that of Russia's Aerospace Forces' 4,957 aircraft, making it seem that Russia has no chance of winning at first glance.

If we extract only the tactical aviation data that plays a decisive role in modern battlefields, Russia's situation becomes even more dire: Newsweek points out that "Russia only has 449 fighter jets and attack aircraft, including the widely used Su-34 in Ukraine, and dozens of stealth-capable Su-57, which are mainly deployed far from the front lines by the Russian command."

The International Institute for Strategic Studies considers that Russia's rear bases still store 220 relatively older fighter jets and 262 attack aircraft, which could potentially be put back into service if necessary.

How about NATO's situation?

Britain alone has 159 fighter jets and attack aircraft, including 32 Lockheed Martin F-35B stealth fighters;

Germany has 211 Eurofighter Typhoon multirole fighters;

France has 192 Rafale and Mirage multirole fighters;

Italy's air force is equipped with 195 tactical aircraft, including 24 F-35A and 2 F-35B;

Netherlands has 40 F-35A fighters of the same type;

Poland is equipped with 59 F-16 Block 52 fighters and several MiG-29s, planning to replace them with F-35s.

Clearly, the number of aircraft possessed by European allies is not only "numerous" but also "very numerous."

However, Newsweek mentioned somewhat comfortingly that Russia's powerful air defense systems might reverse the unfavorable prospects of air combat – for example, Justin Bronk, a military expert at the Royal Defense Institute in London in 2024, pessimistically pointed out: "Europe alone cannot achieve air superiority over the Russian army, as its ground air defense systems pose a significant threat to NATO aircraft."

But Newsweek reminded: "The potential of the U.S. Air Force should not be overlooked." This means adding the tactical airpower of the United States to the above European partners: 762 F-16 "Viper" multirole fighters, 302 F-35A, 218 F-15E, 183 F-22A, 137 F-15C, and 8 F-15EX.

Such a comparison is indeed terrifying. Does Russia have any solace?

Certainly – though negligible, it is crucial, enough to make Brussels and Washington "scratch their heads."

As revealed by Military Watch magazine on May 22 (on the same day as the publication of RAND Corporation's report, with great significance): Russia's Aerospace Forces have globally equipped themselves with a completely new category of weapons: "air-to-air missiles with nuclear warheads."

The magazine stated that the U.S. Department of Defense intelligence agencies speculate that "this may be an improved version of the R-37M missile, with a range of up to 400 kilometers, and will be equipped on the MiG-31BM interceptor aircraft," and added: "R-37M is the fastest air-to-air missile in the world, reaching Mach 6, second only to China's PL-XX. Its maneuverability is extremely strong, and the combination of its nuclear warhead with the R-37M can paralyze an entire enemy formation, cruise missile fleet, or large drone cluster with just one Russian fighter jet or interceptor aircraft. Each MiG-31BM interceptor aircraft or Su-35 fighter can carry four such missiles."

If this is indeed the case, there is no need for a war game simulation to imagine the following scenario: when NATO launches a large-scale air strike against Russia, its fighter formations may simultaneously take off to conduct missile attacks aimed at "disarming" – and the countdown of the R-37M nuclear missiles will also begin, with their explosive power capable of instantly wiping out any threats to Russia from the air, tens or even hundreds of kilometers ahead of the front line. It is worth noting that thanks to the missile's ultra-long range, the launch point can even be deep within enemy territory, without flying over its own troops and civilians, yet causing radioactive and other consequences.

It is worth emphasizing that this "encouraging" news comes at an opportune time – it will inevitably force NATO command to significantly adjust its operational plans, perhaps even allowing it to "cool down," which is exactly what Russia currently needs the most.

Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7516863201292665380/

Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's views. Feel free to express your attitude by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.