3 ms·

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

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.
  - 0xy 4y ago
    Again, and I've made this point repeatedly now, my only claim was that 70% of the material was not making it prior to auditing and that a substantial amount of that was embezzled. You continue to repeat the strawman that I claim 70% of the material is continuing to be stolen, when I literally never made such a claim. My original comment specifically states a timeframe. Why do you continue to ignore it? The CBS article DID NOT retract the 70% figure, they corrected it to say it had improved since. Your claim that the entire figure is debunked is absolutely absurd, not even the source retracted it in entirety. If 70% of the material prior to auditing was lost, stolen or embezzled and it completely stopped since, that's a gigantic scandal and a massive scam. Unfortunately, you continue to strawman my claim by removing the timeframe context I specifically included.
    - qqqwerty 4y ago
      I literally pointed you to the source of the 30%/70% quote. And that person literally said that his quote was taken out of context (by Amnesty International, who later turned out to be very biased in the pro-Russian direction). The person literally said that his estimate was in regards to how difficult it was to get equipment to the front lines, and had nothing to do with embezzlement or theft. And here you are, doubling down on your mistake. Lead a horse to water and all that...

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.
- 0xy 4y ago
  Again, and I've made this point repeatedly now, my only claim was that 70% of the material was not making it prior to auditing and that a substantial amount of that was embezzled. You continue to repeat the strawman that I claim 70% of the material is continuing to be stolen, when I literally never made such a claim. My original comment specifically states a timeframe. Why do you continue to ignore it? The CBS article DID NOT retract the 70% figure, they corrected it to say it had improved since. Your claim that the entire figure is debunked is absolutely absurd, not even the source retracted it in entirety. If 70% of the material prior to auditing was lost, stolen or embezzled and it completely stopped since, that's a gigantic scandal and a massive scam. Unfortunately, you continue to strawman my claim by removing the timeframe context I specifically included.
  - qqqwerty 4y ago
    I literally pointed you to the source of the 30%/70% quote. And that person literally said that his quote was taken out of context (by Amnesty International, who later turned out to be very biased in the pro-Russian direction). The person literally said that his estimate was in regards to how difficult it was to get equipment to the front lines, and had nothing to do with embezzlement or theft. And here you are, doubling down on your mistake. Lead a horse to water and all that...