Jeremiah specifically describes the 70 years as a period of servitude to Babylon, a period wherein the Land of Judah was
made desolate and the fact of a Jewish Exile.
See how the apologist needs to get vague about referring to the exile to try to associate it with the 70 years, because the fact is that the Bible never refers to 70 years of exile. Most of the Jews were exiled (early 597BCE) about 11 years prior to Jerusalem's destruction, and Jeremiah wrote to them (594BCE) about Babylon's 70 years several years before Jerusalem was destroyed (587BCE). It would be entirely meaningless to tell those people that the exile would end 70 years after some unstated future starting point. 'scholar' can't get around that fact, so he will continue to flounder, jeer and misdirect.
Further, the calling to account of Babylon could only have occurred after the fact of the
fulfilment of the 70 years which could have been at the Return of the
Complete nonsense. Jeremiah 29:10 is very clear that Babylon's 70 years would end, and then attention would be given to the Jews' return from Babylon after that. The authors of 2 Chronicles and of Daniel understood that the 'calling to account' of Babylon's king quite definitely referred to the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539BCE. No 'judgement' befell either Babylon or Cyrus in 537BCE.
You refer to Stern's article but this also supports the view that Judah was desolate for 70 years so you need to be careful with archaeology opinion and read more widely.
Stern's article supports the fact that much of Judea was desolate during the Neo-Babylonian period. Specifically, Stern's article refers to the period from Nebuchadnezzar’s first regnal year (604BCE) until Cyrus’ first regnal year in Babylon (538BCE), which is not 70 years. But even if he had said it matched a period of 70 years exactly, it would hardly matter, because it would remain the fact that Babylon's 70 years was not a period of exile. Additionally, Stern actually says "not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled", indicating that the towns that were destroyed remained desolate until the Persian period, which is quite different to the JW claim that all the towns of Judea were uninhabited.