Exclusive: U.S.-supplied drones disappoint Ukraine at the front lines

Reuters ^ | December 21st, 2016 | By Phil Stewart | WASHINGTON

[Mariner]

Millions of dollars' worth of U.S.-supplied drones that Kiev had hoped would help in its war against Russian-backed separatists have proven ineffective against jamming and hacking, Ukrainian officials say.

The 72 Raven RQ-11B Analog mini-drones were so disappointing following their arrival this summer that Natan Chazin, an advisor to Ukraine's military with deep knowledge of the country's drone program, said if it were up to him, he would return them.

"From the beginning, it was the wrong decision to use these drones in our (conflict)," Chazin, an advisor to the chief of the general staff of Ukraine's armed forces, told Reuters.

[Mariner]

The US has no interests in Ukraine.

Why would we be supplying even non-lethal military equipment?

[McGruff]

John McCain tells Ukraine protesters: ‘We are here to support your just cause’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause

He won’t stop until we are at war with Russia.

[thorvaldr]

“Why would we be supplying even non-lethal military equipment?”

Because Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia

[Paladin2]

Send Hussein. He can drone on forever. Best we have....

[PapaBear3625]

Well, this way we get to find out how bad our equipment is, without our troops being at risk in the process.

[Mariner]

Going to existential war “for justice”.

That’s neocon all the way.

[dfwgator]

"You know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine."

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I wonder if we gave them drones without full anti-jam and cyber security features, figuring we didn’t need to risk the crown jewels in a local civil war?

[tcrlaf]

Meanwhile, the rebels have been using $79 and $299 Chinese made Walmart-type drones to good effect since almost the very beginning.

[Daffynition]

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

You may say that the US has no interest in the Ukraine. The caveat being “that you are aware of”. I am not claiming deep expertise nor am I apologizing for Putin. I think the effort is a lot more Euro-centric and the US has just gone along to appease the Euros. It has never been well thought out.

The US has meddled massively in the Ukraine over many years in an effort to get them to join NATO. IMO it has been a misadvised exercise to encroach on Russias border with such obvious intent. This is something that Russia is going to be very sensitive to and I for one think it has always been a mistake to swagger up to Russias border(s).

[Mariner]

Agreed

[Big Red Badger]

173 thousand bucks for one System,,,
Yeah
I’d be Pissed too.

[Redwood71]

Who do you think sold the separatists the jamming device technology?

red

[rmlew]

The US has no interests in Ukraine.

Other than showing people that defense agreements with America mean something, and taht giving up nuclear weapons is a good idea.. The US and Russia agreed to respect and protect Ukrainian sovereignty. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/49/765

[Mariner]

“The US and Russia agreed to respect and protect Ukrainian sovereignty.”

Sir, you are wrong.

Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin made that agreement. And neither executive ever submitted such to their respective ratification body for approval.

Neither the United States or the Russian Federation agreed to ANYTHING concerning Ukraine.

[rmlew]

I didn’t say there was a treaty. I said we agreed to it.

[Mariner]

The United States agreed to nothing.

Unless you say Bill Clinton, a lone man, can commit the nation to a treaty obligation.

That’s an entirely different argument.

Again, we, the United States, agreed to nothing.

[Mariner]

Perhaps you also agree the United States is legally committed to the Iran Nuclear Pact?

[nathanbedford]

Executive agreements concededly do not have the authority of treaties approved by the Senate but they do have authority nevertheless. In this case there was reliance by Ukraine on the explicit promise of the United States (and Russia) in return for which Ukraine surrendered its atomic weapons. That promise was relied on, in part, because the United States had a reputation of honoring its executive agreements. In reliance on the American promise, Ukraine gave up its sure and certain power to preserve its structural integrity and it did so relying on the United States.

Even the original change of government in Ukraine was done on our instance and hence we owe a certain responsibility to those people for the consequences. Whether we should have made that representation or not is a wee bit late to debate because the question now is what happens around the world if America is seen to renege on its promises when those promises are so vital and fundamental as they were to Ukraine?

You have a similar problem of reliance with respect to the Iran nuclear deal, other European nations were involved and they also acted in concert with the United States, one might say in reliance on the United States' commitment. At least in this context, we can say that the United States vital interests are clearly involved and if we renege it will be on a calculation of that interest. Anyway, there is an argument to be made that Iran has already broken the deal opening the way for us to declare it void.

I say all this as one who has long and often in this forum argued that the United States should approach its international relationships from the basis of its own self-interest rather than from altruistic impulse. Here however, the faithfulness of the United States is at issue because the mistakes have already been made and positions have changed in reliance.

Finally, I refer you to this VANITY which perhaps puts our relationship with Russia in a different and larger context, a context which may well reshape the thinking of all of us on how to treat with Russia over Ukraine. At any rate, it should put to rest all of these half-baked assumptions about the integrity of Vladimir Putin or the benign nature of Russia today.