AWACS, JSTARS are not effective against Russia. And against third world countries that the West generally fights against you don't need AWACS. They barely have anything called air defence.
That is not true at all... when the opponents choose not to engage them or can't reach them because they lack the suitable aircraft or weapons to do so JSTARS and AWACS are the best choice for a fight over someone elses territory... the Russian Navy plan to use the same setup for their future forces with AWACS type aircraft monitoring the airspace around them and aircraft filling the role of interceptor to defend the airspace around their ships, but unlike HATO even in this case these AWACS aircraft and fighter planes will be linked into an IADS that include those ships and their rather formidable air defence missiles and guns and jammers and decoys etc etc... a Russian carrier based AWACS could operate above a radar silent Cruiser like an upgraded Kirov or a brand new design with S-400 and S-500 based SAMs so any attempt by an opponent to shoot down the Russian navys AWACS platforms will have to get passed a solid air defence network that can shoot down incoming missiles... S-350 in the larger missile can reach 140km and hit targets at 30km altitude... even if the Russians go for an enormous airship for their AWACS platform with enormous radars including proper 20m square L band low frequency radars which together with other higher frequency sets also mounted inside the enormous shell of the airship could track any sort of stealth platform you like at very long range... they could have it operating at 30km altitude which is the equivalent of putting your forces at the top of a mountain making any attacks difficult already... many AAMs wont even reach it and long range ground launched SAMs would struggle too, yet at its altitude all the ships below it would see even a sea skimming missile hiding below the horizon 30km before it got anywhere near the airship and the airship itself could warn the ships operating with it of targets out to thousands of kilometres down to sea level.
You could fill the airship with nitrogen between the bags of hydrogen so even armour piercing missiles that penetrate and explode inside the airship wont start any fires... and in the very thin air at 30km altitude the blast of a HE warhead wont be very effective at all.
Being part of an IADS makes AWACS platforms more useful and more capable and actually safer...
Against third world countries the AWACS is critical to HATO tactics... even if the enemy has shit planes having an AWACS to look everywhere at once... locate all enemy threats including radar and comm centres is very useful and being able to then direct fighters to the ideal launch position to shoot down those planes so those planes are facing the wrong way and never even see what hits them... the AWACS uses its radar so HATO fighters don't have to... so they never give away their presence except when enemy aircraft start blowing up when hit by missiles. The AWACS can also locate enemy radar emissions so they can direct ground attack aircraft with ARMs to take those out too... the AWACS effectively managed the destruction of the enemy defences and is critical... without it each group of fighters would be on their own with their much more limited fighter aircraft radar that only sees where it looks... you would need thousands of more flight hours and patrols to watch the skies 24/7 to see when and where the enemy uses their aircraft from fighters to helicopters and today drones... the AWACS makes everything much much easier.... which is why Russia has adapted its AAMs for shooting down bombers to also shoot down AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft and JSTARS aircraft.
Long range air2air missiles are not always successful because you are giving the enemy enough time to detect it and adopt evasive maneuvres.
Against a fighter yes you are absolutely correct... after travelling 300km and coming down in a slashing attack the missile gets one go at you, so if you keep changing direction and altitude it needs to continually change course to different locations to intercept you... after a few changes it is going to get to the point where it doens't have enough fuel or energy to get to the new intercept point and you are safe.
With an AWACS plane that simply is not going to happy because you are huge and your ability to change speed and direction are vastly more limited and when it comes down in a slashing attack there is no chance to dodge. Even as it is the R-37M can hit targets pulling 8g and the size and weight of its warhead is designed to bring down very large aircraft so for a fighter you can probably dodge better but its proximity fused warhead is most likely going to come down nearly vertical on you and rip you a new one before you even know you are under attack...
A lot of the time my money would be on a smaller fighter that is modern having a reasonable chance of escaping after some serious manouvering, but they are not going to waste these huge long range missiles on fighter sized targets... they want to take down the inflight refuelling planes and AWACS and JSTARS... effectively they are doing what HATO does to third world countries... they are taking down their comms and HQs and IADS... and then that is probably it... a broken fragmented HATO air force is no longer a threat to Russia.... any aircraft try to enter Russian airspace or interfere with Russian aircraft outside of Russian airspace and they will shoot them down but otherwise it will most likely be nukes hitting their airfields that take down their planes...
They can also receive fuel mid air &, if withdrawn, could support E-3s/JSTARs from 2-3x farther away, while being escorted by fighters.
Fighter escorts wont do much good to protect AWACS and JSTARS... they don't intend to fly up and shoot them down with cannon fire... why would it be any different for inflight refuelling planes?
Besides long range cruise missiles attacking major HATO airfields will be just as much of a problem... HATO fighters will be busy trying to chase those down anyway...
They could use bases/airports in France, Spain, Portugal, & Iceland.
They could but extended range Iskanders will now be able to target them there too.
New longer ranged manouvering hypersonic cruise missiles are on their way too..
The only plans of moving assets east would be, as Garry says, when there is no risk of an actual conflict in Europe as opposed to just poking the bear. Now of course Europe is waking up to the risks of US nuke bombs being stationed where they always have been but that politically hidden from the public ants nest has been poked by the US insistence that Luftwaffe aircraft carrying them must be US and not Tornadoes. Big mistake waking that sleeping dog!
Given the financial pressures heading our way NATO might be history by then anyway.
Personally I think the Russians should be rather more proactive and openly state that now that the US has walked out of the INF treaty... a treaty that Russia honoured and adhered to, that Russia will now build new weapons enabling Russia to defend itself by directly targeting all European countries with American nuclear weapons, French nuclear weapons, and British nuclear weapons and any bases for US troops in Europe. Soviet troops left Eastern European bases last century and it is pure aggression that the US moved forces east instead of out of europe. New Russian intermediate range missiles will target US bases in Europe and also all nuclear weapons held by America and Europe to make Russia safe from HATO aggression.