ok here is one - will MLRS be another case in Gepard style?,
You might need to provide a little more context. 'Gepard style' as in, promised but not made immediately available?
other one is more general, if high tech only approach is affordable means of conducting warfare?
I don't think any military is "high tech only", but technology provides a force multiplier for militaries that makes things less expensive, not more expensive. The cost-effectiveness ratio is way higher.
It's probably cheaper to use a ~$2 million cruise missile or a $50 million drone and Hellfire combination to take out an ammo dump, radar or comms site than it is it put together a strike package of manned aircraft, for instance.
The West long ago decided it was cheaper and easier to expend things rather than people.
final one is about NATO readiness level to response in a case of full scale conflict?
'Full scale' with who? Readiness in what sense?
If the Western Military District decides to roll tanks into Estonia or Latvia (assuming they have much left after Ukraine), NATO is sending everything in Western Europe into the Baltic states and aircraft and rapid reaction forces from the US (MEUs, Airborne etc, etc) are deploying from the East Coast. Meanwhile, the navy is sending a couple of carrier groups that way and the SSNs are lobbing SLCMs at anything that looks like a target.
That's not going to happen instantly, but neither is a Russian attack on a country on its Western border. The Russian build-up preceding the Ukraine invasion took months - and even then it was poorly done.
www.abc.net.au
www.aboutamazon.com
