I Know It Must Hurt ...

 ... but when I speak without the mitigating professional courtesy about NATO's militaries, let alone civilian lackeys who are bestowed with largely ceremonial title of NATO Secretary General, I must constantly stress a professional incompetence of both military and civilian bureaucracies of NATO from Pentagon, to London, to Brussels et al. Here is a demonstration: 

Rikhard Husu, Finnish Broadcasting Company

Thanks for taking the question. Rikhard Husu, Finnish Broadcasting Company, this is for both the Secretary General and the Supreme Commander, if I may. The threat of airspace violations and drone attacks is obviously a shared concern for all allies. But would you say that countries with a longer border to Russia are more exposed in this regard, and could they expect some specific or enhanced help from NATO to tackle this situation?  Thank you.

NATO Secretary General

Of course, the problem is, this is about the eastern flank, because here is a direct threat to the eastern flank from, for example, drones or whatever, could threaten our Allies on the eastern flank. But more generally speaking, you know, I don't like that whole eastern flank thinking, because it gives the impression that if I live in Madrid or in London, I am safer than when I live in Tallinn. And it is not true. Because these latest Russian missiles, when they will be launched, they come down with five times the speed of sound, and they will take five or 10 minutes longer to reach Madrid or London than they take to reach Tallinn or Vilnius. So, in that sense, let's agree that within this Alliance of 32 countries, we all live on the eastern flank. Why is this Eastern Sentry so important? Because this concentrates on this very specific issue, which is airspace violations and making sure and whatever other threat is there, that we can better and with more flexibility, defend ourselves in that part of NATO territory.

I am talking here about things which are IMPLICIT in Rutte's answers and which many people will simply overlook. But here is the truth even AFTER the signing of the INF Treaty--USSR in 1980s and Russia ALWAYS had the ability to wipe out Madrid or London by classic strategic missiles either form SSBNs or RVSN, including mobile and stationary ICBM systems. It wouldn't have made ZERO difference in terms of warning time because NATO never had, has and will not have for a foreseeable future anything even remotely capable of intercepting MIRVs of ICBMs. None, zero--all this SM-3, SM-2 "capabilities"--all crap and we saw the state of "development" of the US AD/ABM in SMO and Israel. 

So, it is not JUST "latest Russian missiles", it was always the case starting from late 1960s. By late 1970s NATO could do shit about any kind of defense other that cartoons about SDI (aka Star Wars) and the largest secret was not the capability but a complete lack of thereof. Considering the dynamics of the reduction of the physical fields of Soviet strategic missile submarines with USSR getting on par with the US in terms of quieting already by mid-late 1980s, all this talk about "latest Russian missiles" is just the only thing these morons in NATO can do today--words' play, semantic maneuvering, while in reality it was only cretinism and treason of Gorbachev and his "team" which gave the US (NATO) a respite from what has been already clear before the collapse of the Soviet Union--the US was beginning to lag behind in critical military technologies, especially missilery. Today we merely see delayed effect which caught up with NATO, which was merely saved by the bell of the Soviet collapse. They really believed their own propaganda BS and NATO is defenseless. Well, it is also bankrupt and unprofessional. 

They should have taken a note in 1980s when they saw this. Some did, but they don't like bad news in D.C. and Brussels. Albeit these things did produce an impression. 

And then the rest happened and here we are today in 2025.