The principle is to lie frequently so that people don't know when to believe and when not to. — frank

I see. So if Putin said 'X' then X might be true or it might not be true.

I don't think he ever said anything negative about Ukraine, did he? Except maybe the Nazi Ukrainians. — frank

I don't know. That wasn't what I asked. I was asking for an example of this 'always lie' tactic in action. Something where the truth benefits Putin's interests but he lies anyway, even though that works against his goal.

Alternatively, let's say evidence came to light that American bombed the bridge, not Ukraine (just a hypothetical example). You're saying that Putin would keep schtum about this game-changing bit of propaganda because it happened to be true and he's committed to always lying?

There have been articles about it. It's a tactic for creating a general information fog. — frank

I see. So can you give me an example of where Putin has said something positive about America or Ukraine (that isn't true) in this recent crisis as part of this 'always lie' strategy. I'd be interested to see it in action.

you just discount everything he says because it's all lies. — frank

That's just draft. Why would Putin lie all the time? So you're saying if America did something terrible Putin wouldn't tell the truth about that? He'd lie and say they didn't do it, just because... What?

Liars lie because they want a particular narrative to be taken as true. Any bits of that narrative that happen to actually be true are going to be reported truthfully. I mean, this is obvious stuff.

I also don't think that if on some particular point, if an argument is given that happens to coincide with Russia's views, it must be "propaganda". — Manuel

This is a point which bears emphasis. Russia take a generally anti-Western position. It's in their interests to publicise any errors or injustices that Western governments might perpetrate.

If every comment that coincides with Russian talking points is ruled out by that alone then we are quite unequivocally saying that criticism of our governments is now to be treated with automatic suspicion.

As if our governments didn't already have enough influence over dissent...

I'm not sure what you're having trouble with here. One can over water one's houseplants. One can under water one's houseplants. Do you find the concept of two extremes difficult for some reason?

if one can't rely on evidence to discriminate between conflicting theories, then how to discriminate — neomac

Exactly. Now you're getting somewhere above adolescent positivism.

It's like the ludicrously idiotic idea that if Poland would have accepted Germany's demands (Danzig and the corridor to East Prussia), WW2 would have been prevented and Hitler would have announced that "Germany is satisfied with it's territories" and Hitler's Germany and the World would peacefully coexisted until the present. As if Hitler would be that kind of guy, who builds up a mighty army and never uses it (and forgets everything he has promised to do in his book). — ssu

We can't be responsible for your lack of imagination. That you think resistance is either war or nothing is your problem, don't project it on to others.

I believe the argument is that sentient creatures would have the same basic interests as human beings, which I suppose could be summarised as the freedom to pursue their own lives as they see fit. — Graeme M

Right. But for a prey animal that life includes being hunted, being free to roam, migrating, having large herds... We prevent much of that. Which should we take as a their priority?

Would your argument apply, for example, to pets? Keeping other humans on a lead would be degrading to a point where the victim might even choose death over such treatment. So is dog-owning up there with meat-eating for you?

what we do today by industrialising so much of our interactions with nature seems needing some kind of constraint. — Graeme M

Right, so better farming and slaughter methods. I'd be in favour of such a move. I'm not seeing the need for full veganism from that argument.

we could pose the claim that we want things to be good for other people because they have feelings about being alive. — Graeme M

Farm animals live longer than wild ones, so if it's being alive that's the objective, farming is better. If it's living some kind of 'fullest life' that matters, then being hunted is as much contender for part of a prey animal's natural life as any activity. I'm still not seeing in there the conclusion that we ought leave well alone.

It just seems good to want others to feel good (be happy rather than unhappy). — Graeme M

I agree, but I don't think you've made the case that a well cared for farm animal wouldn't feel good over its lifetime even if raised for slaughter. Even harder with an egg-laying chicken, or a fish.

we should pay more attention to protecting their interests — Graeme M

How do we work out what their interests are, since we can't ask, and we're not ourselves of those species?

And, having found out, why ought we concern ourselves with those interests being met?

Yeah Putin/Russian military is killing people to gain territory. How is that disputed? Where is the dispute? — schopenhauer1

I know, it's crazy isn't it?

It's almost as if there's a chance you might not actually know everything there is to know about the subject and other people have information to present that you're not already aware of.

It's almost as if the way things seem to you to be isn't necessarily the way things actually are.

... but you're right, how could either of those two things be the case... We should have come to you first.

It is unlikely that the leaked report was an anti-war statement when surrounded by all the celebration of the strike. — Paine

Possibly. It seems odd to be both suspicious of the authenticity of a source but simultaneously convinced of the source's motivation.

doesn't look like Putin is going anywhere. — jorndoe

Not while he's still got a position he can milk, no. The moment things start going south you can guarantee he's not going down with the ship.

What do you think of a neutral Ukraine? — jorndoe

Could be useful. I don't care in the slightest bit for the fate of nations. It's the people in them that matter and they're the same whether they're Russian or Ukrainian or European. So if those with control over one completely arbitrary and anachronistic boundary have to avoid associations with other meaningless arbitrary groupings of humans, then I've no problem with that.

Short answer. Yes.

It is a break in established policy for either of the sources to speak of it. If it was an anonymous senior official, that could be an intended leak. — Paine

My point was that far lesser sources have produced far more sensational front pages.

I don't see the value in doing that since it helps the Moscow messaging. — Paine

Yes. Surprisingly Ukrainians are not an homogeneous mass of one hive-like opinion. Some disagree with the war effort.

Do you have a link from the Times story? I cannot find it. — Paine

Sure, I linked it earlier.

the NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/world/europe/ukraine-crimea-bridge-explosion.html

A senior Ukrainian official corroborated Russian reports that Ukraine was behind the attack. The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of a government ban on discussing the blast, added that Ukraine’s intelligence services had orchestrated the explosion, using a bomb loaded onto a truck being driven across the bridge. — Isaac

Ironically perhaps, Putin's war has put Russia at risk. — jorndoe

Yes. It's almost as if all the fantasy about warring 'nations' is just a pile of crap fed to stupid masses to keep them at each other's throats while the kleptocrats lap up the remaining wealth whilst there's still a planet to extract it from...

...but obviously that's just a mad conspiracy theory, the James Bond worldview version is way more realistic. I'm sure Putin will be gutted about the ruination of Russia whilst he's sipping cocktails in Malibu.

If the US was seen as pushing for negotiations, it would weaken Ukraine's hand in those negotiations. — Olivier5

In what way?

Yes, that would have been breaking news everywhere if confirmed. — Paine

The WSWS article...

The Ukrainian special forces immediately admitted having carried out the attack to the New York Times. — World Socialist Web Site

The NYT...

The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of a government ban on discussing the blast, added that Ukraine’s intelligence services had orchestrated the explosion — New York Times

...

So you're saying it would have been breaking news everywhere if the source had been 'The Ukrainian special forces', but barely a mention if the source is 'A senior Ukrainian official'.

Really? Because previous breaking news stories from Ukraine haven't required anywhere near as solid a source. What's the major difference you're seeing?

So you agree that Obama could have generated a military conflict over Crimea. — frank

Maybe. I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility, but he'd have had to have tried way harder than Biden did in February.

Oh, and just playing some more with your graphs (great resource by the way), have a look at this one...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-protection?tab=chart&time=2000..latest&country=BLR~RUS~UKR

Remind me who came to power in Russia in 2000?

From Wikipedia...

Putin's regime, fueled largely by a boom in the oil industry.[9][10][11] However, lower oil prices and sanctions for Russia's annexation of Crimea led to recession and stagnation in 2015 that has persisted into the present day.

Oh look. Human rights abuses match...wait for it...wealth. Not ideology, not Western culture, not NATO... Money. Richer countries can afford better human rights (which makes America's appalling score all the more horrendous). So what effect do we think Ukraine's now enormous debt is going to have on human rights?

From the State Department's website: — ssu

US is Costa Rica's largest trading partner and the countries have had good relations — ssu

So hang on. Your counter argument is seriously that country with a human rights record below Costa Rica is responsible for the human rights improvements in Costa Rica?

Priceless. How're the boots tasting from down there?

I follow the New York Times and I didn't see such a claim published there. This would have been front page news everywhere if true. Notably, there is no link or any other reference. — SophistiCat

Here's the same claim in that known hotbed of leftist radicalism... the telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/09/four-ways-ukraine-could-have-taken-crimean-bridge/

An unnamed senior Ukrainian Official corroborated this theory, telling the New York Times, Ukrainian special forces orchestrated the attack, loading a bomb onto a truck.

Oh, and the NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/world/europe/ukraine-crimea-bridge-explosion.html

A senior Ukrainian official corroborated Russian reports that Ukraine was behind the attack. The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of a government ban on discussing the blast, added that Ukraine’s intelligence services had orchestrated the explosion, using a bomb loaded onto a truck being driven across the bridge.

So perhaps reign in the condescending bullshit.

Is that enough? — neomac

No.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-rights-protection?tab=chart&time=2011..latest&country=RUS~CHN~IRN~DEU~ITA~ESP~POL~LTU~ROU~BGR~SVK~ECU~BLR~BTN~ALB~CRI~CUB~IND~IRQ~LBY~MDA~UKR~USA~GBR

The greatest gains have been made by Bhutan and Costa Rica, both outside of the Western sphere of influence.

The United States falls below Cuba.

Belarus (a Russian puppet state) has made comparable progress to others in its economic group.

Some of the worst losses are in Spain.

Ukraine have made virtually no improvements at all since the Maidan.

Iraq and Libya both 'benefited' from exactly the kind of Western military intervention you're advocating and their human rights records have worsened.

So no. Once you stop cherry-picking the data to match your theory you see exactly the pattern the experts I cited have described - a big gain post 1945 followed by a very mixed picture unrelated to 'Western' countries.

How would you negotiate with someone who is rational and yet who has constructed his own echo chamber of disinformation as to the power he wields? What inflated set of terms would he be willing to accept? And having inflamed the whole of Ukraine as a nation, why would anyone expect them to accept a patently bad deal? — apokrisis

The answer is fairly simple. You find out first by actually trying rather than committing the world to the brink of nuclear war on the basis of some armchair psychology from a thousand miles away.

The extent to which this is all treated like some computer game is truly frightening. We're talking about the threat of nuclear war here, at the very least we're talking about a protracted an bloody land war. The idea that either should be risked for even another day on the basis of some guesswork about Putin's mental state is absolutely insane. Until absolutely every avenue for peace has been thoroughly and uncompromisingly pursued, then any recommendation other than peace talks is warmongering.

You might have objected that it's incoherent or with little explanatory power and consequently I would have asked you for proofs. — neomac

It's this I was talking about.. But fine, you present 'conceptual frameworks' that apparently don't need proof and then ask for it from others. An odd habit, but understood. So. I'm asking you for you proof now then.

if you claim: “I'm quite happy with your position. I don't agree with it, but I've neither the interest, nor have any clue how I would go about 'disproving' it”, then why on earth do you keep making objections? — neomac

I don't. You do. It's astonishing how frequently this is happening on this thread. A narrative is presented, it's critiqued, then that criticism is treated as the claim. I'm not objecting to your position at all. I'm objecting to your implication that it counters my position.

Let's say there are two conflicting narratives on a subject theory A and theory B, but they are underdetermined by the evidence such that it cannot be said which is the case. My position is A and yours if B. You have claimed that my A is mistaken, you propose the alternative B. I'm not claiming your B is mistaken. I'm only countering your claim that my A is mistaken. That's not the same.

I'm upholding the position that A and B are underdetermined, against the position that B is correct and A mistaken.

I'm not upholding the counter-position that A is correct and B is mistaken.

So my political support for Ukrainian struggles is grounded more on the reasoning I exposed earlier (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746949). Reasoning and evidences grounded on historical/geopolitical assumptions that go beyond this war — neomac

Yes. There's no need to start over. Your reasoning is flawed for the reasons @boethius has already given - You have failed to take any account of the costs. It's insane to propose a course of action based only on the potential benefits without even holding a view on whether they outweigh the potential costs.

- How about “my figures” to support option 1 according to my standards? Here: how likely is that a pro-West country can implement human rights by being within the Western sphere of influence (so within NATO and EU) than by being within the sphere of influence of an anti-West Russia with a poorer implementation of human rights (see first step), if not now in the future? I say it’s more likely, based on historical evidence — neomac

Well then you should check your historical evidence...

As Janne Mende argues...

the Western human rights tradition cannot be equated with the contemporary human rights regime, which differs from its pre-1945 predecessors (Moyn, 2012). It was not the gradual increase of declarations or a smooth combination of natural law and citizenship rights that led to the foundation of the international human rights regime, but rather the international reaction to the genocide and atrocities committed by National Socialist Germany

Interpreting the pre-1945 declarations in their historical contexts reveals that they were not fully embraced by Western societies at the time but were the subject of highly controversial struggles (Bielefeldt, 2007: 182f.).3 What is more, pre-1945 non-Western movements and struggles encompassed similar or even further-reaching ideas that provided a foundation for human rights.

Critical accounts identify a tendency to overemphasize human rights violations in the Global South. This tends to construct a non-Western “other” that needs to be saved by Western states (Chakrabarty, 2008; Kapur, 2006). Thereby, the human rights regime creates a dichotomy between the Western embracement and the non-Western violation of human rights (Mutua, 2008). This dichotomy neglects human rights violations in Western states and disregards the complicity of the latter with the former (Chowdhry, 2005).

Deliberations within UN human rights for a highlight fault lines characterized by regional, substantial, and strategic alliances, not simply Western versus non-Western states. Human rights activists and diplomats from the Global South use the human rights framework to strengthen their demands. In a recent example, a group of non-Western states initiated a working group dedicated to drafting a binding treaty for corporate responsibility for human rights. The group was led by Ecuador and South Africa, and supported by Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Kenya, Namibia, and Peru, among others, as well as by NGOs from all parts of the world. Although their proposal was opposed by the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Austria, Germany, and the European Union, they were successful in that the UN Human Rights Council founded an intergovernmental working group (Mende, 2017) that published its Zero Draft in 2018. — Janne Mende, Department of International Relations, Institute of Political Science, Justus Liebig University

Ahmed Shaheed gives some historical context...

Fifty-eight countries assembled in 1948 to affirm their “faith in the dignity and worth of all persons” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, wherein a framework for preserving that dignity and fostering respect for its worth was offered. Among these states were, African, Asian, and Latin American countries. Thirty-seven states were associated with Judeo-Christian traditions; 11 Islamic; six Marxist; and four identified as being associated with Buddhist-Confucian traditions.

...It was Egyptian delegate, Omar Lutfi, who proposed that the UDHR reference the “universality” of human rights

...social and economic rights were placed on the agenda as a result of pushes from the Arab States and the Soviet bloc, respectively.

...the Soviet bloc, which demanded more emphasis on socio‐economic rights than referenced in the document

...the UDHR was formed with major influence from non-Western states, thereby giving it legitimacy as a truly universally-applicable charter to guide humanity’s pursuit of peace and security.

...states like Chile, Jamaica, Argentina, Ghana, the Philippines and others were vanguards for the advancement of concepts such as “protecting,” in addition to “promoting” human rights.

In 1963, for example, fourteen non-Western UN member states requested that the General Assembly include a discussion on the Violation of Human Rights in South Viet-Nam on its agenda, alleging that the Diem regime had been perpetuating violations of rights of Vietnamese Buddhists in the country

in 1967, a cross-regional group of states from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Caribbean secured the adoption of two commission resolutions, establishing the first two Special Procedure mandates: the Ad-Hoc Working Group of Experts on southern Africa and the Special Rapporteur on Apartheid. The special procedures mechanism was thus established. Both resolutions were adopted by a vote, with most Western countries abstaining. — Dr. Ahmed Shaheed - UN Special Rapporteur

Your notion that human rights are associated with the Western Sphere of influence is nothing but Western propaganda.

- How about “my figures” to question option 2 according to my standards?
Here: “How likely is strategy 2 going to succeed? And how long is it going to take? The West has supported protests and political change for decades in Iran, North Korea, Russia and China with what results for their population's human rights? How about the ex-soviet union countries that had the chance to join NATO and EU? — neomac

None of those are figures, they're questions. I could provide the same level of counter-argument to the theory of a round earth - "how likely is it the earth is round?". Vague hand-waiving in the direction of possible counterweights does not constitute an argument that they do, indeed outweigh their opposing factors. As I said before, if all you've got is a vague 'feeling' that strategy (1) is more likely to succeed with less loss of life ultimately, then fine, but your vague feeling is not a counterargument to strategy (2) and shouldn't be presented as one.

Funding makes wars. Isn't that your argument? — frank

Not 'makes' no. I expect it would if it could, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it did, but my current claim is only that funding perpetuates war - makes continued war more likely than early peace.

Obama has been criticized for setting the stage for the present crisis by not acting decisively then.

So the notion is that if we don't punch Russia in the nose now, it's going to continue taking things. Biden wants Putin gone. He's already publicly stated that. — frank

Funny that...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/05/meet-bidens-new-foreign-policy-team-same-obamas-old-foreign-policy-team/

A war could have happened. — frank

Sure. Maybe Biden would have pushed harder. But the situations were not the same. Numerous other factors were at play, the main one being that there wasn't a war to fund.

And somehow the US passed up an opportunity to blow some shit up. :chin: — frank

To be fair, they were quite happily occupied blowing shit up in Afghanistan.

Odd coincidence the appearance of a new war to fund barely a few months after leaving the last one.

Sell them weapons? Who sold anybody any weapons? — frank

Sorry, I meant military aid. The arms industry sells them the government because they're donating them to Ukraine. Point is the same, that can't happen if there's no fight to start with.

Oh, c'mon. Be genuine for a second — frank

If Ukraine don't mount an armed response we can't very well sell them weapons for it can we? I don't understand what your problem is with that argument.

So one cannot say that the US is evidently blocking negotiations. It is not. — Olivier5

Funny how the threshold of evidence suddenly increases dramatically when criticicing the US.

You seem to have no trouble saying...

Let's face it: the Ukrainians are not really interested at this point, and nor are the Russians. — Olivier5

With absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

One of the reasons it doesn't make much sense to point to arms dealing as the main reason for American involvement is that Obama declined to take forceful action when Russia took Crimea in 2014. You have to explain what changed between now and then. — frank

There was no fight back from Ukraine. We can't sell weapons to an army that isn't fighting can we?

you have no "duty to hold Biden to account", not anymore than you have a duty to hold Putin to account. — Olivier5

The US are our allies and we tend to follow their lead unless their moves are seen as very unpopular. — Isaac — Olivier5

Do you need it translated?

And believe it is morally commendable. — Manuel

Yes.

I know my generation are on their way out (to be replaced by those with enough emotional confidence to dye their hair blue) but us old fogeys aren't in the habit of wearing our hearts on our sleeves. In this day and age that often gets mistaken for a lack of empathy. We must, it seems, be constantly announcing to the world how we feel.

I have said I don't know, over 10 times that what Russia is doing is criminal. I don't know if you want me to recite a poem about how stupid this decision was. — Manuel

You have to say it to the exclusion of all other speech, apparently.

Of course. — frank

See. I was right about that.

If you don’t want to play this game, I don’t care. If you don’t want to play this game with me, then stop answering me. — neomac

That's not the game at all. As I said, you started this little conversation with...

But it can be a means to achieve “humanitarian goal” if by “humanitarian goal” you are referring to human rights as we, in western democracies, understand them and sovereignty can be a pre-condition for the implementation of state apparatuses supporting human rights. — neomac

No evidence, no 'proof'. The requests for 'proof only started when I objected to that position.

You present a position without proof, I object to it, you demand proof of my objection. That's the game we're playing. It's a game of toss and catch with the burden of proof.

Classic example...

Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that “In 2 fewer die” is correct and that that’s all that counts. How likely is strategy 2 going to succeed? And how long is it going to take? — neomac

No, let's instead do that with the actual claim I'm arguing against. If you think 1) is the better course of action then you give your figures to support it. And if you just 'reckon' it probably is then stop being so hypocritical in expecting others who disagree with you to do so to any higher standard of proof than you yourself use.

You're probably right. — frank

I'm always right. You know that!

I regret to inform that your government is not in Washington but in London. — Olivier5

The US are our allies and we tend to follow their lead unless their moves are seen as very unpopular.

Let's say the US support is more diversified, but in terms of armor, Russia's abandoned tanks and carriers did 'give' to Ukraine more than all western nations combined. — Olivier5

So you mean manipulate the data until it gives you the message you want? Got it.

Here you go: — Olivier5

From the article...

The Ukrainian army is not confirming whether these numbers are accurate

Even so, Ukraine’s counteroffensive largely depends on the supply of modern weapons from its NATO allies.

Nowhere in the article are any comparative figures given all that's given are the estimates the Ukrainian government will not verify...

460 Russian main battle tanks, 92 self-propelled howitzers, 448 infantry fighting vehicles, 195 armored fighting vehicles and 44 multiple-launch rocket systems,

The U.S. has sent 126 howitzers and 200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers so those two comparable units are false for sure. Not a good start. And there seems to be no equivalent of the 6,500 javelins. Where are the equivalent weapons on the Russian list?

The full US list... From https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3597492-heres-every-weapon-us-has-supplied-to-ukraine-with-13-billion/

Major weapons

High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and ammunition
The U.S. has committed 16 HIMARS since late-May. It is a lighter wheeled system that can allow Ukrainians to hit Russian targets within Ukraine from further distances.
1,500 Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles
Manufactured by Raytheon, the TOW missiles are long-range precision, anti-tank and assault weapons that can hit targets up to 4,500 meters away.
155mm Howitzers
A towed field artillery piece that can hit targets up to 30 km, or 18 miles away. The U.S. has sent 126 of these howitzers, along with 806,000 155mm artillery rounds and 126 tactical vehicles to tow the howitzers.
105mm Howitzers
The U.S. committed to sending 16 105mm howitzers and 108,000 105mm artillery rounds to go with the howitzers. The United Kingdom has already provided the L119 model, which is a light weight howitzer that can provide direct fire support at armored vehicles or buildings or indirect fire to support combat arms in ranges over 10 km, or 6 miles.
120mm mortar systems
The U.S. Army uses three versions of the 120mm mortar systems, but they are designed to provide close-range, quick-response indirect fire during tactical combat. The U.S. has sent 20 of these systems, as well as 85,000 rounds of 120mm mortar ammunition.
National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS);
The National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, also known as the Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, are advanced air-defense systems that can hit targets up to 100 miles away. The U.S. has committed to sending eight NSAMS, along with munitions for the systems.
Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems
The U.S. has committed approximately 700 Phoenix ‘Ghost’ drones to Ukraine between April and July. The systems, made by AEVEX Aerospace, are designed to attack targets.
Switchblade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems
The U.S. has sent over 700 Switchblade drones to Ukraine since March. There are two types of Switchblade drones and the U.S. has sent both, those its unclear how many of each type Washington has sent.
The Switchblade 300 weighs about five pounds and can fly roughly 6 miles, and is intended to target personnel and light vehicles. However, the Switchblade 600 can fly more than 24 miles and can stay in the air for 40 minutes.
Puma unmanned aerial systems
The Pentagon awarded AeroVironment $19.7 million in April to produce the Puma AE RQ-20 system for Ukraine. Designed for reconnaissance and surveillance, it has a range of 20 km, or about 12 miles, and has over three hours of flight endurance.
Mi-17 helicopters
The U.S. has provided 20 of the Soviet-era transport helicopters that can also be used as a helicopter gunship. Can carry as many as 30 passengers or 9,000 pounds of cargo
Harpoon coastal defense systems
The U.S. announced in June that it would provide two vehicle-mounted Harpoon systems, which are intended for coastal defense. The U.S. said in June that it would provide the launchers, while allies and partners would provide the missiles.
Scan Eagle Unmanned Aerial Systems
The U.S. sent 15 Scan Eagle systems as part of its Aug. 19 package to Ukraine for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition. These systems are just under four feet in length, and have an altitude of 16,000 feet above ground level. The Aug. 24 weapons package included support equipment for these systems.
VAMPIRE Counter-unmanned aerial systems
The U.S. first committed to providing the VAMPIRE system in its $2.98 billion weapons package announced Aug. 24. Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy official, said the VAMPIRE uses small missiles to shoot drones out of the sky.
Stinger anti-aircraft systems
The U.S. has provided over 1,400 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. The Stinger has a range of 5 miles and can attack targets up to 15,000 feet.
Javelin anti-armor systems
The U.S. has provided over 8,500 Javelin surface-to-air missiles. Javelin is a portable anti-tank system that can hit targets from 65 meters to 4,000 meters away in most operational circumstances.
High Speed, Anti- Radiation Missiles
The Aug. 19 weapons package included an undisclosed amount of High-speed Anti-radiation (HARM) missiles. The Pentagon first disclosed in early August that it has sent these missiles, but didn’t specified which kind or how many. However, CNN reported that the U.S. has sent the AGM-88 HARM, an air-to-surface tactical missile that has a range of at least 30 miles, and is designed to find and destroy radar-equipped air defense systems.
Over 27,000 other anti-armor systems

Other equipment and small arms

Radars

50 counter-artillery radars
Four counter-mortar radars
Four air surveillance radars
Counter-battery radar systems

Vehicles/Boats

Four Command Post vehicles
Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels
Hundreds of Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles
50 armored medical treatment vehicles
200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers
18 coastal and riverine patrol boats
40 MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles with mine rollers

Explosives, Small Arms, Ammunition, Munitions

M18A1 Claymore anti-personnel munitions (command-detonated fixed-direction fragmentation weapon for use against personnel)
C-4 explosives, demolition munitions, and demolition equipment
Over 10,000 Grenade launchers and small arms
Over 59,000, 000 Small arms ammunition

Equipment

75,000 sets of body armor and helmets
22 Tactical Vehicles to recover equipment
Laser-guided rocket systems
Tactical secure communications systems
Night vision devices, thermal imagery systems, optics, and laser rangefinders
Commercial satellite imagery services
Explosive ordnance disposal protective gear
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment
Medical supplies
Electronic jamming equipment
Field equipment and spare parts
Funding for training, maintenance, and sustainment
Mine clearing equipment and systems

Look equivalent to you?

As I said, we have duty to hold our governments to account. If you want to just lay down and let them do whatever they like because you're so powerless, that's your bag, don't expect everyone else to be so weakly compliant.

Likewise, you can usefully talk of the US foreign policy on TPF, if the 'use' you aim for is information exchange and/or debate with other TPFers. — Olivier5

Did you think I thought Biden might be reading?

it won't affect the US foreign policy at all. — Olivier5

Nothing does it seems, for you. We're all just helpless pawns who might as well bend over and submit to the will of our masters. I'm sorry but I don't hold to such a miserable world view.

More tales of Russian incompetence. How the Kharkiv front was collapsed… — apokrisis

@jorndoe ^^

We might have a more profitable discussion if people were to actually address the arguments raised rather than treat the thread as a pro-Ukrainian news aggregator. — Isaac