2 ms·

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.

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
    The WSJ article I cited says embezzlement is a certainty. Since I cited it 3 comments ago, I have to presume you aren't even acting in good faith. There's US government sources saying theft is a certainty, and you with an opinion that it isn't. >and had nothing to do with embezzlement or theft He never said that actually, and US government sources say equipment is lost due to theft, which explains the massive equipment losses.
    - qqqwerty 4y ago
      The WSJ is paywalled, unlike the source I linked to. How convenient. Regardless, based on the headline it most likely a bunch of arm chair generals speculating about fraud, with no actual evidence. Again, I am not saying fraud and theft doesn't exist. It almost certainly does. But there is no way in hell that is anywhere close to 70%. That is absurd. Maybe 5% at most, and that is just pure speculation, and it this point there are certainly audits and controls in place that will make sure those numbers stay low.

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
  The WSJ article I cited says embezzlement is a certainty. Since I cited it 3 comments ago, I have to presume you aren't even acting in good faith. There's US government sources saying theft is a certainty, and you with an opinion that it isn't. >and had nothing to do with embezzlement or theft He never said that actually, and US government sources say equipment is lost due to theft, which explains the massive equipment losses.
  - qqqwerty 4y ago
    The WSJ is paywalled, unlike the source I linked to. How convenient. Regardless, based on the headline it most likely a bunch of arm chair generals speculating about fraud, with no actual evidence. Again, I am not saying fraud and theft doesn't exist. It almost certainly does. But there is no way in hell that is anywhere close to 70%. That is absurd. Maybe 5% at most, and that is just pure speculation, and it this point there are certainly audits and controls in place that will make sure those numbers stay low.