Happy to find a legitimate source to balance it out. Any ideas?

Needle in Haystack, it will probaly end like all the rest.
Problem is:
We knew for sure that an hospital in Afganistan was bombe and there are well documented proof that civilian target in Yemen was bombed more and more times, still nothing happened.
Now they do a big fuss about the same thing happening because they are the ebil, ebil Russian.
So at the best we can call it unfair, at worst a Fall Weiss.

JDAM is widely used because it’s relatively cheap. It’s in place of unguided bombs, & targets which don’t need a more expensive missile. What does it matter if the basic bomb isn’t new? How much is it worth spending to replace a dumb bomb? And they have SDB, which you’ve ignored. Many other weapons have been dropped as no longer needed, now there’s something cheaper that does the job.

Laser seekers need designation, but western aircraft can generally self-designate. If that’s impractical, then they can use a different seeker type. JDAM, Paveway & the like can generally use GPS as a supplement to inertial navigation. This is deliberate, so that they will still work without GPS. Additional seekers such as IIR or MMW radar (which don’t need designation) are for greater accuracy – especially in the absence of GPS.

Actual SDB still use satellite terminal guidance, so i’ve put it in the same basket with JDAMS, SDB-II would be just another thing.
For the rest, seems we can agree that usual weapon for the standard engagementin the west is made by vanilla JDAMS bomb while russian still uses unguided bombs + advanced targeting/ computing systems but when it comes to need greater precision both NATO than russian use other types of terminal guidance.

Nato is content of its own choice, russian (that has however tried something similar in Syria with the KAB-500S) is content of its own, in future their new weapons would both evolve from there to a different, similar standard but some difference would still remain as their own doctrines and goals (almost when comparing USAF and VVS) are really diverse.
Let”s take it as a provisional conclusion and keep on with thread?

Western countries don’t confine themselves to JDAMs & Paveways – & even Paveways come in a few flavours, with significant differences, & so do JDAMs. There are dual-mode JDAMs, Paveways with additional sensors, SDBs with tri-mode seekers, air-surface missiles of different ranges such as JASSM & Griffin, & assorted non-US weapons such as AASM & Brimstone.

In one point you have reason, i would say USAF and not the whole NATO, still all of them uses us- made Jdams and Paweway in addition to their own.
And on what types of bombs they put this kits on? MK80 series, Mk80 series and Mk80 series low drag general pourpose bomb (french AASM excluded , of course). they have practically just one type of “do it all bomb” and this from the times of vietnam war.
with the widescale introduction of the jdams kit many other ordnance with different loading have been written off. This is the first important difference.
Paweway are there from the time of Vietnam war, so there are different generations, russian also have two type of Laser seekers on their KAB bomb + tv guided or MMW modular seekers on their own bombs and missiles.

My point,that seems howewer being missed by you, is about the percentage and the centrality of jdams (and other sat guidance device) in actual NATO aerial doctrine.
Your own list confirm that : ninety percent of the weapon you listed have them in addition to other seekers head.
So they would in any case use it from stand off distance, relying on eternal designation, so possibly incurring in many of the same shortcomings they are experiencing in actual campaign.

Third point : many of the weapon you listed are still not ready or have not been utilized in actual conflict against ISIS.
Same with russian, no stand off weapons but many tactical missiles like KH-25 and -29 instead, western corrispondent weapon is the excellent Brimstone, used by UK and Saudy only and one of the few without satellite guidance.
If you will gave a look to the weapon presented at MAKS 2015, you will find that also russian has the ecquivalents of many of the weapon you listed, and are actually NOT being utilized, in initial production.
So the future arsenal of both would be for many aspect similar, while actually there are consistent differences.
Still I expect that even in the future the Ruaf would still focus more in the direct support of troops and the western ones into indipendent deep strike missions.
Their basic doctrines are different, russian have experimented in this occasion also some western style operation with the Su-34 but it seems they have not been ompressed and actually are using them also (and Su-30) in direct support role, with unguided bombs.
What I think we would do now is exect their own final evaluations to fully understand their reasons and their future practises.

on the other hand, the west has been bombing ISIS (or, at least they say so) for over a year… and ISIS continuously moved forward and expanded its territory…

When one looks at the bombing campaign against Serbia almost 20 years ago, it was a completely different intensity. Was NATO weakened during that period? or do we read about a few strikes aimed mainly at giving the impression of a fight while in reality the main goal is to let ISIS completely destabilize the middle east (the russian action being, obviously, undesirable as they seem to really do something down there against pretty much anyone fighting against Assad who, like it ir not, is still the legal president of Syria)

Not need to going into cospirational teories: for political reasons (no boots on ground) coalition planes start outside Iraqi territory so they spend lot of time and fuel just to get there.
Add to this the fact that they simply have not enought information about possible targets and the filal outcome is the one you see.
Russians at the contrary start from very close to the battlelines and gets an impressive number of targets from the Syrian troops on ground so they are able to made two or three mission /plane every day.
For the rest russian Mod publish every day a report about the mission with the numbers of the air raids and the target attacked, so check for yourself.

It’s a Gefest-made system and installed on some Su-24M’s. It’s not a targeting system (the old one is retained), but a computing system used to enhance the weapon release calculations. Unguided bombs can be dropped rather more precisely than it was possible with the older system used on those planes, especially when maneuvering while approaching the target, but it does not turn unguided bombs into guided ones.

That’s much worse than LGB CEP and about twice worse than GPS guided CEP. Again, it’s not a targeting system like LANTIRN (which in turn doesn’t calculate weapon release, but hands the target information off to the airplane’s WCS) so those two systems are incomparable.

Useful in circumventing ECM? How so?

Yes, SVP is a computing system. It is interfaced with the Gefest in the SU-24 and with other devices installed in other planes.
It could be even interfaced with a targeting pod, even LANTIRN itself, if some airforce would decide to have both.

Direct comparison in precision is not so simple to get as actually NATO forces uses practically only JDAMS bombs.
It’s about economy: every JDAM kit would cost around 20000 dollars and in every case the strike planes would need a Targeting System and a navigational computer anyway .
Russians obvious not limit themselves just to unguided bombs, as you can see in this very thread, SVP-24 just allow them not to be forced to convert, or better to substitute, their existing stocks while having both a good precision and an enhanced security for their planes at a infinitesimal fraction of cost.

Un-optimized as in the plane can likely get into launch range, but its rear aspect isnt stealthy. Its dead on egress, and dead facing pop up threats.

If Ukraine discreetly got Patriots Himaars, and M-1 (I know a big what if) they could not only keep the Russians out of the airspace, but make things very bloody.

Im not sure if anti-rad missiles are the answer. Are HARMs the U.S. answer?
Remeber Russia is trying to sell S-300 to everyone.

Jessmo23, please, don’t be ridicolous:the only plane with rear aspect stealth is the F-22 i.e. something that was absolutely dedicated to A2A or better air dominance missions.

Planes performing deep strike mission, beginning from the F-35 doesn’t have it as they doesn’t really need it so much as in such type of missions they usually come inside straight, drop load and turn away immediately: reduction of AD missile range due to passage to tail on engagement is superior to the gain they radar get for the loss of stealth.
Maybe it would instead be of some utility in CAS mission instead, as in this case the plane loiter at lower quote and velocity so it can expose its own rear aspect while vulnerable, but they are not mission PAK-FA would perform anyway.

For the rest, please again,almost read all my post, not just the last line: seems me you have lost all the part about the SU-30 and -34 integral EW suite and so on.
The part about T-50 having the possibility to carry ARM in their inner bays wasinstead just a reminder about the fact that F-35 just can’t do the same, almost not until a different ARM would be developed from scratch.

Either in case of US or better of USN the HARM alone is not the actual solution on itself: it is just a part of the package of the Growler together with a built-in ESM and dedicated jamming pods so to join the three in just one package what it was previously done by Prowlers and Wild Weasels.
Su-34 would perform the same in VVS ranks with a possible advantage given by their greater dimensions that would probably allow, not 100% sure, to fit the full package on a standard version instead than on a dedicated one.

The same that they do in a lesser scale in Syria with their Su-34 and Su-30.
Planes so big they can carry integral jamming system and ARM on board together with usual payload instead of relying on dedicated planes like USN Growler.

Plus the T-50 operative version when it will be available: maybe it is not really optimized (anyway, what you exactly means with this term Jessmo? Something like Tornado or F-111?) into deep strike but is still a full stealth and can carry more payload at a greater range than F-35.

P.S. I was just forgetting it: + ARM than can fit into its own inner bays.

Me thinks they’ve confused Russians for Westerners if they think human shields mean jack to them. Almost insulting.

Also because in every case they would have taken Ortodox, not Alawites to have some relevance there.
In every case I hope such a thing would earn them a visit from some polite party people like Vostok, Alpha,GRU and so on…