3 ms·

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. Wheth

by 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-...
  - qqqwerty 4y ago
    You (and the original CBS report) are trying to launder a poorly sourced statistic (the 30% figure) and spin it to insinuate massive amounts of fraud and theft. The article I linked clearly traces that statistic back to the source (an off the cuff quote from Jonas Ohman) and links to sources where Jonas Ohman explains that that statistic was taken out of context, was only in reference to his own organization, and was only in reference to a short period of time during the initial chaos of the war. Additionally, Jonas is also quoted as saying "[I]n no way is it suggested that the support is being 'sold on the black market' or 'stolen.'" I don't doubt that some theft and fraud has taken place. But you are using a poorly sourced, out of context quote to claim that 70% of material is getting stolen or lost. That is simply absurd. Even ignoring the fact that your original source was taken out of context, first principles would suggest that theft on that level would be nearly impossible to hide. We are taking about tanks, HIMARS, anti-aircraft systems, etc.. You can't just hide these things in your basement.

by 0xy 4y ago

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-...
- qqqwerty 4y ago
  You (and the original CBS report) are trying to launder a poorly sourced statistic (the 30% figure) and spin it to insinuate massive amounts of fraud and theft. The article I linked clearly traces that statistic back to the source (an off the cuff quote from Jonas Ohman) and links to sources where Jonas Ohman explains that that statistic was taken out of context, was only in reference to his own organization, and was only in reference to a short period of time during the initial chaos of the war. Additionally, Jonas is also quoted as saying "[I]n no way is it suggested that the support is being 'sold on the black market' or 'stolen.'" I don't doubt that some theft and fraud has taken place. But you are using a poorly sourced, out of context quote to claim that 70% of material is getting stolen or lost. That is simply absurd. Even ignoring the fact that your original source was taken out of context, first principles would suggest that theft on that level would be nearly impossible to hide. We are taking about tanks, HIMARS, anti-aircraft systems, etc.. You can't just hide these things in your basement.