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

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.

First, Ukraine was fully aware of US Constitutional law when the agreed to the those provisions.

Second, to suggest the United States has any obligation to Ukraine as a result, or Iran, is a ludicrous contention in law.

You say the United States agreed with Russia and Ukraine. I say there was never an agreement beyond what Bill Clinton could personally guarantee.

And everyone was fully aware of such before they signed.

The United States loses NOTHING in credibility or stature as a result.

If Iran and Ukraine think Clinton and Obama feckless, all the better.

Lesson learned.

First, Ukraine was fully aware of US Constitutional law when the agreed to the those provisions.

Therefore Ukraine was fully aware that the United States Supreme Court has declared executive agreements to the constitutional.

Second, to suggest the United States has any obligation to Ukraine as a result, or Iran, is a ludicrous contention in law.

I have not argued that the United States owes Iran any obligation as a matter of law or otherwise. The United States certainly owes Britain and France and even China its obligation to live up to the agreement. The obligation is not a "legal" obligation in the sense that it can compel military action, the obligation is one in which the reputation of the United States is at stake. That reputation translates, if positive, into power or it translates into lack of power on the world stage when we are shown to be faithless.

You say the United States agreed with Russia and Ukraine. I say there was never an agreement beyond what Bill Clinton could personally guarantee.

The United States has entered into countless executive agreements one of the most notable of which was the lend lease agreement done by Roosevelt before America entered World War II. It is intended that these agreements be respected. If they are not it is because the United States is not respected and, chicken and egg like, it will result in the United States not being respected.

The United States loses NOTHING in credibility or stature as a result.

Rubbish.

If Iran and Ukraine think Clinton and Obama feckless, all the better. Lesson learned.

The problem is you cannot control who will "learn the lesson."

My invitation to look at the vanity stands. This matter should be put in its proper context which is our geopolitical posture globally against several existential threats, one among them being Russia.

“Therefore Ukraine was fully aware that the United States Supreme Court has declared executive agreements to the constitutional.”

Of Course! Any POTUS can sign any international agreement they wish. And it’s Constitutional to do so.

And everyone knows they are not binding on any future executive, nor the United States.

Do you believe these governments do not know this?

If our allies believe otherwise, they are delusional.

Our power, like all power, comes through the barrel of a gun.

Dude, what you espouse was never intended by the founders and sounds ominously like the rantings of the neocons.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.