5 ms·

It's the same for any form of aid. For example, an NGO source on the ground in Ukraine said that before US auditors showed up (6 months later), only 30% of the

by 0xy 4y ago

It's the same for any form of aid. For example, an NGO source on the ground in Ukraine said that before US auditors showed up (6 months later), only 30% of the US hardware made it to the frontlines. [1] That means tens of billions of dollars of aid, equipment and weapons was effectively stolen by corrupt officials. Where is it now? Probably in the hands of European crime gangs & cartels, who will use it to tear Europe up. Similarly, the Red Cross (a supposedly trustworthy organization) pilfered 25% of aid bound for Haiti and squandered the rest building effectively zero infrastructure/housing. [2] [3] Charities and aid should be assumed a massive scam until proven otherwise. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-military-aid-weapons-front-lines/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-military-aid-weapons-fr... [2] https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds-fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin... [3] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...

_kbh_ 4y ago
> It's the same for any form of aid. For example, an NGO source on the ground in Ukraine said that before US auditors showed up (6 months later), only 30% of the US hardware made it to the frontlines. [1] This is simply not true and requires a lot more nuance to even discuss. There’s a reason that CBS retracted nearly everything to do with it, it’s because they were misrepresenting the words of the people they spoke to.
- 0xy 4y ago
  No, they retracted it because it goes against prevailing narrative. The source said 70% of the hardware wasn't making it AT THE TIME, that's irrefutable. Whether it's improved since then is irrelevant, because I clarified my original comment with "before US auditors arrived". Guess what: TENS OF BILLIONS in weapons were delivered prior to US auditors arriving. So I guess we just gave billions of dollars of military hardware to Euro crime gangs through corrupt embezzling but it's fine because it doesn't happen anymore? They DID NOT retract his original comments in the context of the time they were made.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Remember the three phases of denial: 1) It's not true 2) It's true, but it's not important 3) It's true, and it's important, but we already knew it and then we can add #4: 4) It's true, and it's important, and we didn't know it, but we're not doing it anymore
    - chillbill 4y ago
      Or the 4 stages of a government responding to whatever.
  - qqqwerty 4y ago
    You clearly don't know how war works. If you send your newly acquired equipment straight to the front lines, with troops who have not trained on that equipment and an army that does not have the logistics to support the equipment, then you will quickly find all that shiny new equipment being used as target practice by your enemy. Here is a pretty good article debunking your mis-info: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/8/8/2115258/-Author-of-discredited-Amnesty-Int-l-report-featured-in-discredited-CBS-documentary-Arming-Ukraine https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/8/8/2115258/-Author-of... And here is the money quote: "Ohman’s nonprofit collects and distributes non-lethal aid such as night vision goggles, body armor, helmets, and commercial drones through unofficial networks developed by his organization. His quote was based on his own experience at the time: His organization was dealing with damaged roads, collapsed bridges, Russian drones and artillery strikes, and other obstacles. Most importantly, Ohman wasn’t in a position to know about official channels used to deliver military aid to Ukrainian troops at the front lines, and we have seen plenty of evidence that HIMARS and other long-range artillery are being utilized quite effectively." So yes, at one point (8 weeks) into the war, only 30% of material for one particular nonprofit was making its way to the "frontlines". That particular nonprofit was an independent organization and had no knowledge about official US military aid. And no, their equipment wasn't getting stolen and sold off to crime gangs. It was sitting in warehouses waiting to be deployed.
    - 0xy 4y ago
      Your source does no such thing. It basically says 'well the equipment that does make it is being used effectively, therefore it's wrong'. How is that debunking? Your article then goes on to mention that AFTER AUDITORS ARRIVED, the situation improved. Look at my original comment - I specifically stated this was the case before auditors arrived. Not only did you miss the full context of my claim, you "disproved" it by citing a source that says it improved in a timeframe that was not a part of my claim at all. Importantly, CBS did not retract the statement in the context of the timeframe it was used. >And no, their equipment wasn't getting stolen and sold off to crime gangs. It was sitting in warehouses waiting to be deployed. U.S. officials disagree with your unsourced opinion, specifically they have said embezzlement is a certainty. [1] They warned about it after auditors arrived, which really makes me think. What a coincidence :) A National Security Council spokesman warned against the "risk of illicit diversion". What do you think 'illicit diversion' means? Who do you think would buy stolen weapons? Gangs, cartels, rogue nation states. Further, the article reveals the terrible state of oversight prior to auditing: "Once U.S. equipment is handed to the Ukrainian government, U.S. officials said, they have little direct knowledge of where that material goes". A Special Inspector General said this: "Even if it’s a noble cause, there’s going to be theft. There’s going to be misconduct. There’s going to be nepotism" [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-billions-going-to-ukraine-officials-warn-of-potential-for-fraud-waste-11655121601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-billions-going-to-ukraine-...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
twelve40 4y ago
microfinancing (aka payday loans) in some countries is considered the most aggressive for-profit ripoff business you could run. How is that related to charity and aid?
- unmole 4y ago
  > microfinancing (aka payday loans) Microcredit is extended to poor entrepreneurs who invest it in income generating activities. That is very different from payday loans for consumption.
  - richbell 4y ago
    It can be equivalent, in practice. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-microfinance-banks-profit-off-developing-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-microfinance-banks-p...
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    You're right that they're not the same. However, watch the video or read the book. Reality is not the same as the concept.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > How is that related to charity and aid? "considered" by whom? It's been featured on 60 Minutes. Muhammad Yunus won a Nobel for it: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2006/yunus/biographical/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2006/yunus/biographi... And it's eligible for IRS charity treatment in the US. You are seriously misinformed. microfinancing is NOT also known as payday loans.

by 0xy 4y ago

_kbh_ 4y ago

> It's the same for any form of aid. For example, an NGO source on the ground in Ukraine said that before US auditors showed up (6 months later), only 30% of the US hardware made it to the frontlines. [1] This is simply not true and requires a lot more nuance to even discuss. There’s a reason that CBS retracted nearly everything to do with it, it’s because they were misrepresenting the words of the people they spoke to.

0xy 4y ago
No, they retracted it because it goes against prevailing narrative. The source said 70% of the hardware wasn't making it AT THE TIME, that's irrefutable. Whether it's improved since then is irrelevant, because I clarified my original comment with "before US auditors arrived". Guess what: TENS OF BILLIONS in weapons were delivered prior to US auditors arriving. So I guess we just gave billions of dollars of military hardware to Euro crime gangs through corrupt embezzling but it's fine because it doesn't happen anymore? They DID NOT retract his original comments in the context of the time they were made.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Remember the three phases of denial: 1) It's not true 2) It's true, but it's not important 3) It's true, and it's important, but we already knew it and then we can add #4: 4) It's true, and it's important, and we didn't know it, but we're not doing it anymore
  - chillbill 4y ago
    Or the 4 stages of a government responding to whatever.
- qqqwerty 4y ago
  You clearly don't know how war works. If you send your newly acquired equipment straight to the front lines, with troops who have not trained on that equipment and an army that does not have the logistics to support the equipment, then you will quickly find all that shiny new equipment being used as target practice by your enemy. Here is a pretty good article debunking your mis-info: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/8/8/2115258/-Author-of-discredited-Amnesty-Int-l-report-featured-in-discredited-CBS-documentary-Arming-Ukraine https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/8/8/2115258/-Author-of... And here is the money quote: "Ohman’s nonprofit collects and distributes non-lethal aid such as night vision goggles, body armor, helmets, and commercial drones through unofficial networks developed by his organization. His quote was based on his own experience at the time: His organization was dealing with damaged roads, collapsed bridges, Russian drones and artillery strikes, and other obstacles. Most importantly, Ohman wasn’t in a position to know about official channels used to deliver military aid to Ukrainian troops at the front lines, and we have seen plenty of evidence that HIMARS and other long-range artillery are being utilized quite effectively." So yes, at one point (8 weeks) into the war, only 30% of material for one particular nonprofit was making its way to the "frontlines". That particular nonprofit was an independent organization and had no knowledge about official US military aid. And no, their equipment wasn't getting stolen and sold off to crime gangs. It was sitting in warehouses waiting to be deployed.
  - 0xy 4y ago
    Your source does no such thing. It basically says 'well the equipment that does make it is being used effectively, therefore it's wrong'. How is that debunking? Your article then goes on to mention that AFTER AUDITORS ARRIVED, the situation improved. Look at my original comment - I specifically stated this was the case before auditors arrived. Not only did you miss the full context of my claim, you "disproved" it by citing a source that says it improved in a timeframe that was not a part of my claim at all. Importantly, CBS did not retract the statement in the context of the timeframe it was used. >And no, their equipment wasn't getting stolen and sold off to crime gangs. It was sitting in warehouses waiting to be deployed. U.S. officials disagree with your unsourced opinion, specifically they have said embezzlement is a certainty. [1] They warned about it after auditors arrived, which really makes me think. What a coincidence :) A National Security Council spokesman warned against the "risk of illicit diversion". What do you think 'illicit diversion' means? Who do you think would buy stolen weapons? Gangs, cartels, rogue nation states. Further, the article reveals the terrible state of oversight prior to auditing: "Once U.S. equipment is handed to the Ukrainian government, U.S. officials said, they have little direct knowledge of where that material goes". A Special Inspector General said this: "Even if it’s a noble cause, there’s going to be theft. There’s going to be misconduct. There’s going to be nepotism" [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-billions-going-to-ukraine-officials-warn-of-potential-for-fraud-waste-11655121601 https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-billions-going-to-ukraine-...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

twelve40 4y ago

microfinancing (aka payday loans) in some countries is considered the most aggressive for-profit ripoff business you could run. How is that related to charity and aid?

unmole 4y ago
> microfinancing (aka payday loans) Microcredit is extended to poor entrepreneurs who invest it in income generating activities. That is very different from payday loans for consumption.
- richbell 4y ago
  It can be equivalent, in practice. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-microfinance-banks-profit-off-developing-world/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-microfinance-banks-p...
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  You're right that they're not the same. However, watch the video or read the book. Reality is not the same as the concept.
AlbertCory 4y ago
> How is that related to charity and aid? "considered" by whom? It's been featured on 60 Minutes. Muhammad Yunus won a Nobel for it: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2006/yunus/biographical/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2006/yunus/biographi... And it's eligible for IRS charity treatment in the US. You are seriously misinformed. microfinancing is NOT also known as payday loans.