On this point:

NATO war with Serbia is definitely not an example to compare with these wars of Middle East.

from what I read in your response, the difference you see comes down to the demographic make-up of the territory being defended:

As for Kosovo as much as we feel attached fact is that we have lost most of the territories there by simple fact as birth rate is. So sooner or later we'll have to say goodbye to at least half of it because it's simply not praiseworthy to maintain. Too costly...

since you also pointedly write that

if NATO solders let ground forces enter Serbia the guerilla war would be present till this very day.

In other words, Colman's thesis -- when limited to guerilla warfare -- still holds.  The Kosovo War was not a guerilla war.  But would have become one, had NATO invaded Serbia.  In which case, according to Colman's thesis, air power would not have been enough to defeat Serbia, and moreover would have caused far more civilian casualties then it did.  At least on this point, NATO seems to have been smart.

Out of curiosity, do you agree with DoDo's point above:

what NATO got from Miloševi? in the end was not more than what he offered himself in Rambouillet, before the KLA representatives made talks fail.