Russian meddling in Ukraine is way more ancient than 20+ years. It started from 1054 when first principality broke off from old Rus'. In any case, Ukraine will be part of Russia one way or another, that is just the nature of historical cycles. When core Russia is weak, fringe regions break off for a varied period of time, when the cycle of power swings back, fringe territories are always reclaimed. Be it 1654, 1764, 1921, 1944 or 2015, the outcome is always the same.
Actually before they even refurbed them back to M2A2 status they were already being used in Iraq as otherwise normal Bradleys (as it wasn't like ADA troops sat the war out, and if you're not shooting TOWs or Stingers the platforms are more or less the same).
I'm of the mind retiring them was still a mistake. The Avenger isn't armored at all, so it's not like it is going to follow just behind the armor or something and snipe helicopters. It's just not survivable at all. Of course the bigger mistake was opting out of BRADATS or similar platforms back in 1993.
Re: A-10
Here's the thing. Both it and the SU-25 have about equal odds of completing a strike in the sort of CMBS scenario (while both do things better than the other one, neither commands some amazing advantage that makes it more likely to slip past fighters or heavy SAM presence). To that end if neither were in, I'd be okay as it's just excluding planes that would either be aborting because they've been locked up, or simply not deployed to the AO. However if the SU-25 is in, and able to complete strikes in scenarios, then it's equally valid to stick the A-10 in, because if anything it is more likely the US would be able to achieve the sort of air control to employ strike fighters in the long run, while the SU-25 just wouldn't be long for the air war.
So again, neither of them? Okay! Makes sense. One but not the other? Que?
Re: USAF
The bigger issue I feel with the A-10 is it is one of the few assets the USAF employs that is actually customer friendly. When it comes down to getting fixed wing support, the USAF is often very user unfriendly because their priorities are usually:
1. Shooting down enemy planes.
2.Proving air power can win a war by bombing things in the enemy capital city because that'll show em'
3. Shooting down enemy planes.
4. Killing ADA assets because they're super annoying and they keep triggering that damn alarm in the cockpit
5. Killing enemy aviation (planes)
6. Bombing things that might or might not be logistical assets for the enemy
7. Killing enemy aviation (drones and helicopters)
8. Crew rest
9. Routine Maintenance
10. Wishing the USAF would put out a movie that made them look as cool as Top Gun made Navy pilots look
11. Complaining about the food
12. Complaining about lack of enemy aviation to kill
13. Returning the Army's phone calls to find out what it wanted.
So to that end, the A-10 was something that wasn't going to be borrowed to go do CAP missions, bomb a palace, or conduct DEAD missions. It was all the time, every day going to be doing either CAS, or battlefield interdiction, both of which get thumbs up from the Army and USMC. And the A-10 was built from the ground up to liaison and fly CLOSE to the troops it was supporting.
The F-35 in contrast flies tens of thousands of feet above the battlefield, isn't really designed to talk with, or coordinate with someone in the mud, and drops two bombs and returns to an air conditioned hanger some hundreds of miles away. To make matters worse the USAF refers to the B-1 as a CAS capable plane, which is to say I have a brain surgery capable leaf blower.
More than the airframes involved the A-10 was that commitment to support the dude fighting and winning the war. The F-35 represents a reduction in that customer service, and removing it as an emphasis and instead shuffling it to the lowest priority.
Which is to make a really good argument for US Army fixed wing units, because by god the USAF doesn't want the job, might as well do it ourselves.
The T-90 is as good as it is because the ever so helpful FRENCH sold the Russians complete suites of modern thermals and all associated equipment. If they are mercenary enough to do that they are certainly willing to sell the CIA not just the specs, but the actual blueprints and test data. Its just business after all, and Parisian apartments are expensive. I dare say even the CIA has managed to distribute that info to the relevant bits of the U.S. army.
