Seminole

Would you consider releasing a virus like Stuxnet to be ‘a lawless act at complete loggerheads with supporting the international order’?
 
The notion the U.S. won’t break laws where it sees a benefit in doing so is laughable.  The only ‘international order’ under consideration is keeping the US on top.  
 
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted, “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

Can you point me to a single US pol or member of the security state suggesting the existence of the pipeline was in our interest?  It's easy to find a montage of the opposite, but I can't find anyone suggesting we should allow it to exist, much less use it as a carrot with the Russians (did anyone engage in the latter, or is that entirely a speculated position?).
The leverage was over Germany.  The pipeline was an incentive to Germany to see a deal made at Ukraine's expense.

Would you consider releasing a virus like Stuxnet to be ‘a lawless act at complete loggerheads with supporting the international order’?
 
The notion the U.S. won’t break laws where it sees a benefit in doing so is laughable.  The only ‘international order’ under consideration is keeping the US on top.  
 
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted, “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

Can you point me to a single US pol or member of the security state suggesting the existence of the pipeline was in our interest?  It's easy to find a montage of the opposite, but I can't find anyone suggesting we should allow it to exist, much less use it as a carrot with the Russians (did anyone engage in the latter, or is that entirely a speculated position?).
The leverage was over Germany.  The pipeline was an incentive to Germany to see a deal made at Ukraine's expense.

Can you point me to a single US pol or member of the security state suggesting the existence of the pipeline was in our interest?  It's easy to find a montage of the opposite, but I can't find anyone suggesting we should allow it to exist, much less use it as a carrot with the Russians (did anyone engage in the latter, or is that entirely a speculated position?).
The leverage was over Germany.  The pipeline was an incentive to Germany to see a deal made at Ukraine's expense.

Would you consider releasing a virus like Stuxnet to be ‘a lawless act at complete loggerheads with supporting the international order’?
 
The notion the U.S. won’t break laws where it sees a benefit in doing so is laughable.  The only ‘international order’ under consideration is keeping the US on top.  
 
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted, “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

The U.S. withdrawal was subsequent to the unearthing of radioactive material (via Israeli spying) that Iran wouldn’t explain and actively tried to cover up (they bulldozed the site of the ‘carpet warehouse’ before allowing inspectors - wasn’t good enough).
You’re dropping relevant context that I assume not everyone knows.    
 
In November 2019, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog urged Iran to explain uranium traces found at an undeclared site. Reuters reported that the site was a warehouse in Tehran’s Turquzabad district. What is known about the site? 
In his 2018 address to the U.N. General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alleged that there was a “secret atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and materiel from Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program” in the Turquzabad district of Tehran. He revealed a photo of the building in question and claimed that Iran stored “300 tons” of equipment at the site, including 15 kilograms of unspecified radioactive materials. Netanyahu said Israel shared intelligence about the site with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and urged it to investigate the warehouse.
The IAEA’s efforts to seek clarification from Iran about the site began in January 2019. Inspectors reportedly visited the warehouse in the spring and took environmental samples. Test results leaked in June indicated that uranium was found at the site, but the agency did not publicly confirm the presence of uranium until November.
On November 7, 2019, Acting-Director General Cornel Feruta convened a special meeting of the IAEA’s Board of Governors and reported that the agency “detected natural uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at a location in Iran not declared to the agency.” Diplomats present at the meeting confirmed to reporters that the samples were taken from Turquzabad and that the uranium detected was processed, but not enriched. The acting IAEA chief said that the composition of the particles indicated that they may have been produced through uranium conversion activities, according to U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA Jackie Wolcott.

What explanation has Iran offered? 
Iranian officials publicly denied that the warehouse was used to store materials and equipment from its nuclear program. Even after the IAEA’s disclosure, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) said that the warehouse was owned by a private company and could have been used to store old equipment from Iran’s uranium mine. The AEOI said that particles of uranium could “fly anywhere.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry has also accused Israel of setting a “trap” at the site and called on the IAEA to “maintain its vigilance.”
Besides its public denials, Iran does not appear to be fully cooperating with the IAEA’s investigation into the site. In his address to the IAEA Board of Governors on November 21, Feruta said that the investigation “remains unresolved” and urged Iran to comply with the agency’s inquiries. Rafeal Grossi, who took over from Feruta in December, said that the IAEA continues to question Iran about the site. But as of December 3, the agency had “not received an entirely satisfactory reply.” 

‘Stable government’ strikes me as a rather backhanded compliment, given the concerns of worldwide trend toward authoritarianism.  
It doesn’t seem that long ago helicopters were strafing protestors and we reading about an F-16 pilot who had orders to shoot down Erdogan.
But I admit I didn’t think of the last angle, that it’s a carrot for accepting Sweden without further conditions.  
I just think of Turkey’s position in the 2003 Iraq invasion and their position during the attempt to overthrow Assad.  Not exactly a strong ‘team player’.  That’s why I find it a surprising element, but not impossible.

Kinda funny to get mad at them for refusing to enforce a treaty we refuse to sign. 
 
From NPR:
MARTIN: I do want to point out that Russia also does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but the ICC has already opened investigations into possible war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine. Can the U.S. help with these investigations, despite not being a member of the court itself?
BELLINGER: Well, it certainly can, and it should, in my view. There are some legal problems because when the court opened in 2002, Congress passed, on a bipartisan basis, a very draconian piece of legislation called the American Service Members Protection Act that strictly limits the U.S. ability to cooperate with the court, with some exceptions. So the Biden administration would have to work its way through these legal restrictions, which would, I think, ultimately allow some support to the court. 

I get where you're going with this, but your analogy breaks down a bit at the end there.

In 2018, the NRA admitted that it had received contributions from 23 Russians or Americans living in Russia since 2015, amounting to just over $2,500 in "routine payments" such as membership fees or magazine subscriptions. The NRA later said that it had received more money from two Russian nationals previously disclosed, including Alexander Torshin, a Russian banker, with links to the Kremlin. [ed. note: Torshin bought a lifetime membership - $1,500)
At the time, Torshin was under an FBI investigation into whether any Russian money was funneled through the NRA to help Donald Trump in the 2016 election. The NRA has denied that money they gave towards Trump's campaign came from Russia.
The FEC general counsel's office concluded in 2018 that there was "insufficient" evidence to state that Russian money was illegally funneled through the NRA to influence the presidential campaign.
 
These smears actually work better with less details, lets the imagination run.

Such as the way Serbia ‘provoked’ the NATO intervention in their civil war.  
Or perhaps the Libyan ‘provocations’ that necessitated NATO intervention in their civil war.
NATO would never intervene in a foreign civil war again, right?  Bonkers notion.  Unless maybe it was in essence on their ‘border’?  
 
I would think Russian leadership could look at the brutal civil war waged in Chechnya and conclude there is a greater than 0.0000000% chance NATO could intervene in a future Russian peripheral separatists conflict, if they had bases reasonably close enough to contribute.  Hence the desire to avoid the development of such bases, and thus render even more remote the possibility. 
 
After Kosovo and Libya you can’t truthfully argue that NATO is a ‘purely defensive’ organization. It’s become a multi-national end run on the UN’s monopoly of force.  That isn’t to argue whether that is itself desirable or not, it’s simply the case.  

Such as the way Serbia ‘provoked’ the NATO intervention in their civil war.  
Or perhaps the Libyan ‘provocations’ that necessitated NATO intervention in their civil war.
NATO would never intervene in a foreign civil war again, right?  Bonkers notion.  Unless maybe it was in essence on their ‘border’?  
 
I would think Russian leadership could look at the brutal civil war waged in Chechnya and conclude there is a greater than 0.0000000% chance NATO could intervene in a future Russian peripheral separatists conflict, if they had bases reasonably close enough to contribute.  Hence the desire to avoid the development of such bases, and thus render even more remote the possibility. 
 
After Kosovo and Libya you can’t truthfully argue that NATO is a ‘purely defensive’ organization. It’s become a multi-national end run on the UN’s monopoly of force.  That isn’t to argue whether that is itself desirable or not, it’s simply the case.  

Such as the way Serbia ‘provoked’ the NATO intervention in their civil war.  
Or perhaps the Libyan ‘provocations’ that necessitated NATO intervention in their civil war.
NATO would never intervene in a foreign civil war again, right?  Bonkers notion.  Unless maybe it was in essence on their ‘border’?  
 
I would think Russian leadership could look at the brutal civil war waged in Chechnya and conclude there is a greater than 0.0000000% chance NATO could intervene in a future Russian peripheral separatists conflict, if they had bases reasonably close enough to contribute.  Hence the desire to avoid the development of such bases, and thus render even more remote the possibility. 
 
After Kosovo and Libya you can’t truthfully argue that NATO is a ‘purely defensive’ organization. It’s become a multi-national end run on the UN’s monopoly of force.  That isn’t to argue whether that is itself desirable or not, it’s simply the case.  

Saying someone isn’t as bloodthirsty as Stalin is still on the other side of the spectrum from someone that eschews violence.  
 
Plenty of Stalinist states plug along, to his credit Gorbachev isn’t a Stalinist, but that’s the secret ingredient to keep a communist state operating.  See: North Korea

The idea we shouldn't worry about a Russian nuke because we imagine there is a percentage chance it won't work seems to ignore that they possess thousands of these things.  Just doesn't seem like a strong argument in favor of not worrying about them.
Is there really anything except the nuclear war prospect that is keeping the U.S. from being directly involved in this conflict?
If the prospect keeps us out, the reality would draw us in?  To what end?  The World's?
Crazy times.  Hope this all finds the least ugly end remaining.

A-10s aren't for strike missions.  In this environment, and with Ukraine's air force, the deeper strike stuff is best left to missiles anyway.
The A-10 needs to operate at the edge of the Russian AD, not deep within.
Not some kind of silver bullet, but as mentioned, a more capable replacement for the CAS airframes that Ukraine already employs.
Couple the fact that the USAF is trying like hell to get rid of them (for 30+ years now...), better they get shot down serving their purpose in Donbass than succumbing to the elements at the Boneyard.
Throw it away in the desert, or throw it into the fight?
APR 13, 2023
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a-10-warthogs-sent-to-boneyard-for-the-first-time-in-years
Earlier this month, an A-10C Warthog ground attack jet arrived at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona. This jet is the first to head into retirement in years and is part of a batch of 21 the U.S. Air Force expected to divest in the coming months. This is in line with the service's desire to retire all of its Warthogs before the end of the decade, an effort that is now starting to move ahead after years of members of Congress blocking such plans.
The first of these 21 A-10Cs to go to the boneyard, which carries the serial number 80-0149, arrived at Davis-Monthan on April 5, but the Air Force only publicly announced it had touched down there earlier this week. The service said that the jet, which started life as an A-10A and was later upgraded to the C model configuration, had logged a total of 14,125 flight hours in the course of its career.
80-0149's last assignment was to the 74th Fighter Squadron, part of the 23rd Fighter Group at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia. The 74th received another A-10C to take its place from the Indiana Air National Guard, according to the Air Force. The Indiana Air National Guard's lone Warthog squadron, the 122nd Fighter Wing's 163rd Fighter Squadron, is in the process of converting to the F-16C/D Viper.
...
"This is bittersweet, it’s an old aircraft and there comes a time when each of them need to be retired," Air Force Staff Sgt. Austin Bryne, a crew chief from the 74th added. "They are still combat capable, but after all the hours put in, their time comes."
The Air Force currently has approval from Congress to divest 21 A-10Cs, which will bring the total size of the remaining Warthog fleet down to around 260 aircraft. Multiple Warthog units are expected to send A-10Cs with high flight hours to the boneyard and receive lower-time jets from the Indiana Air National Guard as part of this process.
...
According to data from the 309th, which is in charge of the boneyard at Davis-Monthan, 100 A-10s — 49 A-10As and 51 A-10Cs — are stored there as of March 15. Prior to 80-0149's arrival, the last time the Air Force divested a significant number of A-10s in a single year was in 2014.
...
As part of its 2024 Fiscal Year budget proposal, the Air Force is asking Congress for the authority to retire another 42 A-10Cs. The service's publicly stated goal is to have the last Warthogs out of service before 2030, and possibly much sooner than that.
“I would say over the next five, six years we will actually probably be out of our A-10 inventory,” Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the chief of staff of the Air Force, told reporters at the Air & Space Forces Association's annual Warfare Symposium in March.
 

I think the biggest 'threat' posed by Western fighters is the Western supply chain to keep them in the air.
I would expect the real readiness rate of Ukraine's Soviet fighter designs to be pretty abysmal after a year of war.
In addition to the hundreds already retired by the USAF, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Poland, Portugal and Romania have F-16s.  A few of those will be phasing out the F-16 for the F-35 anyway.
Hell, the US Navy operated 40 F-16s!

Yeah, it turns out that was a good litmus test.
If the person thinks the initial invasion avenues were just a clever feint, you know what you're dealing with.

Now we need something akin to Jackson’s Valley campaign in Bryansk oblast to give the Kremlin something to chew on…
 

Linebacker II is a much worse example:
 
 

When R2D2 decides if you live or die:
https://i.imgur.com/4mv34lb.mp4
 

Existing methods are too crude, just the best we could thus far to accomplish the goal.  Near future will see development of lasers for disabling enemy satellites. You don’t need to blow them into a million pieces, just burn holes in it until it doesn’t work.  
We’ll be developing something similar just to do clean up of dead satellites and rocket debris in due course.  

How long has it been since we’ve heard about attacks on the energy infrastructure?
Did they just throw in the towel on that?  My sense is that things are largely restored, but only because I don’t see the story anymore.

Mark Herman (who designed Gulf Strike) is designing a commercial board wargame on the first months of the 2022 invasion. Article here  >  First draft of history  and it shows the draft game map and some of the game materials. The article doesn't say who the piblisher will be, but the game is due out early next year.
The thread on Board Game Geek has a useful link to some of the other professional games being played or designed. The thread is here > Boardgame geek: modeling ongoing conflict