Another thing to add to that article on the lack of Russian air supremacy: if you're dropping dumb bombs near your front lines, why risk your high value aircraft (with undertrained pilots)? Just use artillery. It's cheap and just as effective (or at least close to it).
What we're seeing about this war so far is that the Russian method of warfare is largely as we've long planned/trained for. It still relies more on brute strength and numbers than on precision and skill. The US (and I presume NATO) has long assumed that our only chance in a ground war with Russia was to out perform it with both technology and training. We put a lot of time and money into both. Our pilots (and our seamen, marines, and soldiers) get a lot of high quality training (it doesn't always feel that way, but it's all relative...). Part of that training is inter-service coordination, so our Army can talk to our Air Force and our Navy/Marines effectively. That's something we do quite well, and it's something that clearly Russia does not (again, more or less as we've planned for over the last seven decades). That doesn't mean our fighting force has a massive advantage over theirs: their numbers are still very large, and their culture/ethos appears to bear big losses in a way that ours probably does not. But it's an interesting validation of our strategic planning.
