The answer is yes, technically it can if sufficient motivation is there. The real question is *will it*?Oh, certainly. But the point that part of the article is making is that the equipment is shaped by doctrine, or rather the way military is supposed to fight. So the question is whether NATO will have the proper equipment in quantities Ukraine needs. The war in Ukraine has seen air force much less relevant than NATO assumes (though certainly not neutered the way uncritical view may imply), and far more focus on artillery. So the issue is basically what you said in the bolded part... Can NATO supply Ukraine with sufficient artillery? Can NATO supply Ukraine with sufficient amount of munitions for the artillery?
Also there isn't some special doctrine and special equipment here. Mechanized warfare in this form has not changed much from the late cold war on either side, and most of the equipment involved is just various modifications and improvements of gear that was designed (if not built) back then. Don't forget that available equipment also shapes the doctrine. The war is in a stalemate because neither side can do the massive maneuver warfare moves cold war doctrines would call for due to various shortcomings preventing their success (occasionally it did happen in this war, sometimes successfully, sometimes not), but if one side manages to amass the right resources to overcome those, it would not surprise me if Ukraine repeats Kharkiv counteroffensive somewhere else.
Of course a second rate ex-USSR airforce cannot make itself as relevant as expected of NATO forces, that much is not a surprise. If Ukraine had something like 200-300 western tactical jets, including EW/wild weasel ones, naturally their air force would be more relevant.