[Goose]

Not at all sarcastic. Russia is comfortable shooting things at NATO. NATO should be comfortable sending a similar message back.

Sure it will be managed; we give Russia a brief warning telling them what's happening a bit before the launches. Has been done a lot recently in the middle east, including strikes on Russian airbases.

Unfortunately these two things are not at all equivalent either legally or in Russian eyes. Attacking Russian soil is a totally different kettle of fish that attacking a Russian military outpost located in another country. Legally the Russian air bases in the middle east are part of and acting for the state in which they reside (e.g Syria) and not part of Russia. Legally embassies are "different" but that is usually ignored :-). Emotionally to the Russian public there is no equivalence at all. NATO absolutely doesn't want to start a full-on war. Blowing up war material plants in Russia very probably would do that. The benefit isn't worth the cost because only repeated strikes can obtain the benefit.

Could also just give Ukraine a bunch of tomahawks to do it themselves, but I don't think the US or NATO should be scared to act on their own.

It isn't a matter of being "scared". It is a matter of recognizing what NATO's interests are and how to protect those interests in the face of Russia's intentional provocations. One thing that absolutely is NOT in NATO's interest is Poland invoking Article 5 and demanding "action". Essentially none of the NATO states would heed the call. That is Russia's "best case" outcome. That is why Poland went with Article 4.
 
It appears all the drones were actually armed with warheads and not intelligence equipment. That allows Russia to say they were just "off course". One possible response suggested by some ex-NATO leaders is for NATO to declare an extended air defense zone covering from the Bulgarian border to the Baltic. That ADZ would extend 200 km to the EAST of the border, which would include a 200 km strip of Ukraine (and Belarus, but who cares). NATO would declare that since Russia keeps sending drones into NATO countries, whether accidental or intentional, NATO reserves the right in cooperation with the Ukrainian government to shoot down any UAV inside that 200 km deep Ukrainian territory that NATO believes could be a threat to NATO territory. Totally a self-defense mission required by Russian irresponsibility.
 
This response would allow NATO to de-facto assume the counter-UAV mission for this strip of Ukraine. It would be a "proportional" response to the new threat introduced by Russia. The response IMO would harm Russia far more than any benefit they can obtain by launching "nuisance" drones into Poland. It would not be "boots on the ground" and the pilots would RTB in NATO nations after each mission. It would make a big swath of western Ukraine pretty safe from drones.

Of course, I also think the US should sell lots of long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine. There should be no strings attached to their use. I think we can trust Ukraine to "do the right thing" with them :-). Ukraine is already at war with Russia, so no widening of the conflict is required.
 
Unfortunately I doubt either one of those things will happen.

[Goose]

Not at all sarcastic. Russia is comfortable shooting things at NATO. NATO should be comfortable sending a similar message back.

Sure it will be managed; we give Russia a brief warning telling them what's happening a bit before the launches. Has been done a lot recently in the middle east, including strikes on Russian airbases.

Unfortunately these two things are not at all equivalent either legally or in Russian eyes. Attacking Russian soil is a totally different kettle of fish that attacking a Russian military outpost located in another country. Legally the Russian air bases in the middle east are part of and acting for the state in which they reside (e.g Syria) and not part of Russia. Legally embassies are "different" but that is usually ignored :-). Emotionally to the Russian public there is no equivalence at all. NATO absolutely doesn't want to start a full-on war. Blowing up war material plants in Russia very probably would do that. The benefit isn't worth the cost because only repeated strikes can obtain the benefit.

Could also just give Ukraine a bunch of tomahawks to do it themselves, but I don't think the US or NATO should be scared to act on their own.

It isn't a matter of being "scared". It is a matter of recognizing what NATO's interests are and how to protect those interests in the face of Russia's intentional provocations. One thing that absolutely is NOT in NATO's interest is Poland invoking Article 5 and demanding "action". Essentially none of the NATO states would heed the call. That is Russia's "best case" outcome. That is why Poland went with Article 4.
 
It appears all the drones were actually armed with warheads and not intelligence equipment. That allows Russia to say they were just "off course". One possible response suggested by some ex-NATO leaders is for NATO to declare an extended air defense zone covering from the Bulgarian border to the Baltic. That ADZ would extend 200 km to the EAST of the border, which would include a 200 km strip of Ukraine (and Belarus, but who cares). NATO would declare that since Russia keeps sending drones into NATO countries, whether accidental or intentional, NATO reserves the right in cooperation with the Ukrainian government to shoot down any UAV inside that 200 km deep Ukrainian territory that NATO believes could be a threat to NATO territory. Totally a self-defense mission required by Russian irresponsibility.
 
This response would allow NATO to de-facto assume the counter-UAV mission for this strip of Ukraine. It would be a "proportional" response to the new threat introduced by Russia. The response IMO would harm Russia far more than any benefit they can obtain by launching "nuisance" drones into Poland. It would not be "boots on the ground" and the pilots would RTB in NATO nations after each mission. It would make a big swath of western Ukraine pretty safe from drones.

Of course, I also think the US should sell lots of long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine. There should be no strings attached to their use. I think we can trust Ukraine to "do the right thing" with them :-). Ukraine is already at war with Russia, so no widening of the conflict is required.
 
Unfortunately I doubt either one of those things will happen.