3 ms·
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, wh
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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.