The article studies the response of the Pentagon to destruction of the first F-16 combat aircraft by Ukraine. Particularly, the US has remained neutral in assisting the investigation as Ukraine has not asked for any help. According to Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh, the Pentagon knows of the reports but does not usually provide them with any details including the reason for the crash or confirmation of any electronic equipment on board. Singh also backed away from the issue of how many F-16 planes are in Ukraine today and how many more are planned to be sent, referring to operational security. The article outlines the arguments for and against the approval of the United States – Complements and providers or counsels a hands-off approach towards Ukraine – appreciation of Ukrainian sovereignty as well as giving an expression of support and ensuring security.
Moderator: Allow me to address how you entered this round: Today’s debate centers on the U.S. continuing to defend the Pentagon’s handle of issues regarding the loss of Ukraine’s first F-16. This one is specifically American, both analytically and emotionally. And to illustrate the issue, I’d like to ask Chris and Taylor to speak. Let’s start with you, Chris.
Chris (Pro): Thank you. I somehow support the generals. Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh made it clear what was expected on Ukraine’s side too; nothing. The independence and sovereignty of foreign states must not be violated. Especially the United States, which has done enough damage to the world, should not meddle in such issues, especially when it comes to an incident with such great military significance that may have sensitive or secret information. That is why the Pentagon is also refraining from commenting on some unnecessary details as this will compromise the security and prevent any possible escalation of the conflict.
Taylor (Contra): I appreciate your response, Chris, but I think this time you are wrong because America in this case must act more actively. I understand that Ukraine plays an important role in the fight against Russian aggression so the F-16 loss is a serious loss. There is an interest in the U.S. protecting and accounting these aircraft which have American technology on them, such as these.
Moderator: Interesting perspectives. Chris, do you agree with Taylor’s argument that the U is has self interested in the region and should volunteer assistance?
Chris (Pro): I can understand what Taylor is trying to say but I believe it to be a case of sovereignty of Ukraine. The U.S has actually offered Ukraine significant assistance in the form of provision of necessary equipment, training and even intelligence. If Ukraine feels they have what it takes to tackle this investigation on their own, then we must let them have their way. Exceeding these obviously may cause tensions on the relations and make the Ukrainians feel that their autonomy is being infringed on. Moreover, the issues of operational security are a priority for the Pentagon as well. It is impossible to reveal some information that would be disastrous to operational secrets or the security of the company’s resources.
Taylor (Contra): I understand that, but let us turn our attention to the general aspects as well. But if at a specific conflict especially the usage of advanced fighter jets the U. S behves like it will not act there is hesitation exhibited by other allies. The world which has to be portrayed as doing all it can to support Ukraine, or where more is needed especially following the Russian aggression. Such a posture could assist in guaranteeing that such incidences are properly investigated and where necessary carry out all corrective measures to prevent future embezzlement incidences. It is not about an individual’s right to privacy but it is also about reaching out to your colleague and make sure s/he is safe.
Moderator: You have both made very good arguments; in my opinion both of you have been persuasive. Chris, do you believe it is at all possible to find a kind of compromise where the U. S. could help, but not interfere too much?
Chris (Pro): Oh sure, it is possible that there could be a midway to all these. The situation could be described as an indirect way the U. S. could convey to Iran that it is ready to assist the country should it be in a position that requires such a move but without the need to force a change. Such an approach would signal support at the same time maintaining non-interference in Ukraine’s decisions and course. And its about the right time—when to come in handy without overstepping the marked boundary.
Taylor (Contra): That, I totally concur with you, Chris. A somewhat less obvious approach may therefore be a better way of going about matters. However, the important thing that the U. S. needs to demonstrate to all the parties is its preparedness to help at any time. We can’t even afford to look and to act nonchalantly not to mention that we are handling such sensitive military equipment in here. Even more transparency and willingness to assist would make our partnership more robust and provided guarantee for both Ukraine and other partners.
Moderator: I think that was a good discussion we both had here, thank you. However, there is certain disagreement regarding the U. S. actions, however, the two approaches coincide on the idea of supporting Ukraine and fostering a mutual, civil relationship. I think that’s enough for now on that aspect of it. So