Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xy | Hacker News Reader

The source is a European NGO on the ground, who claims 30-40% arrives to the front, and reported by US media. [1]

The US had absolutely zero tracking for weapons they were sending. It's just a free-for-all for corrupt officials, of which Ukraine has many (2nd most corrupt in Europe [2] [3] [4]).

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-military-aid-weapons-fr...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20181107104015/https://fraudsurv...

[3] https://www.newsweek.com/corruption-stalling-ukraine-optimis...

[4] http://www.kyivpost.com/news/nation/detail/91317/

View on HN

> Editor's note: This article has been updated to reflect changes since the CBS Reports documentary "Arming Ukraine" was filmed, and the documentary is also being updated. Jonas Ohman says the delivery has significantly improved since filming with CBS in late April. The government of Ukraine notes that U.S. defense attaché Brigadier General Garrick M. Harmon arrived in Kyiv in August 2022 for arms control and monitoring.

Ah. So we have an attaché there now. Surely this BG and his staff will be able to keep track of it all. I find it amusing (troubling?) that CBS felt like they had to add this note. Do they not stand by the reporting, or is there a problem with the implications of that reporting?

Your first link only says that at the beginning it was only 30%, which isn't a too big surprise considering the chaos at this time and it is talking about non lethal weapons only anyway.

"Jonas Ohman is founder and CEO of Blue-Yellow, a Lithuania-based organization that has been meeting with and supplying frontline units with non-lethal military aid in Ukraine since the start of the conflict with Russia-backed separatists in 2014. Back in April, he estimated that just "30-40%" of the supplies coming across the border reached its final destination. But he says the situation has significantly improved since then and a much larger quantity now gets where it's supposed to go."

That statement doesn't say he's referring to non-lethal weapons, nor does the article say that. Additionally, the bulk of the weapons were sent prior to the "improvements".

So, where's the $16,000,000,000 in weapons that vanished? Do you even know how many weapons that is? Operation Fast and Furious was only 2,000 firearms. This is a far bigger deal.

The US' Brigadier General arrived in August for auditing - this month! So everything was just getting stolen before now?

Pentagon officials have no faith that the US is keeping tabs on the weapons, from another US source. [1]

It's a bit laughable anyone could defend Ukraine politicians, given all the graft. Most recently, the wife of a former politician tried to flee with $28m in cash in suitcases. Totally legit I'm sure. [2]

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/02/congress-pentagon-u...

[2] https://nationalpost.com/news/world/wife-of-former-ukrainian...

Just to add to this, Interpol’s Secretary General, Jürgen Stock, warned of this early on in the war [1]:

“We can expect an influx of weapons in Europe and beyond. We should be alarmed and we have to expect these weapons to be trafficked not only to neighbouring countries but to other continents.”

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/02/ukraine-weapon...

It seems like they aren't worried about it now more after the war.

> Jürgen Stock says once the conflict ends, a wave of guns and heavy arms will flood the international market and he urged Interpol’s member states, especially those supplying weapons, to cooperate on arms tracing.

Seems a bit disingenuous to suggest that the NATO secretary general thinks weapons are being trafficked now when thats not at all what they said.

The organisation has put out a statement due to how CBS decided to frame their comments. In effect its not at all what it sounds like.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BlueYellowUKR/status/155598750045...

You should realize that Ukraine is an upcoming democracy, but it isn't one ( yet) due to corruption, but this could change relatively fast considering the actions Zelensky took ( if they are not for corruption ofc).

The split with USSR is very recent ( 1991). But they are earning their place in NATO with blood.

The only problem is if we get another Poland/Hungary/Turkeye that tries to control it's democracy ( for in EU)

> earning their place in NATO

And what exactly of strategic value does Ukraine have to offer NATO?

Look at what's happening now.

This right there.

NATO, in its original context, was largely obsolete after 1991. The threat that it was engineered to defend against was gone.

The day the tricolour went up over Moscow, we should have started drafting a post-NATO organization which explicitly included Russia (and the more stable/functional/too-armed-too-ignore post-Soviet states) as equal partners. This would have been important both geopolitically and psychologically. The message should have been clear: we are now on the same team. If someone joins our bloc, we both win. Let's focus on the threats we face (i. e. perpetual Middle East instability, or retiring the Soviet weapons that ended up in unstable hands) together.

Then you don't have 30 years of every NATO and EU expansion being easily interpreted as a dismantling of the historic Russian/Soviet sphere of influence.

NATO doesn't allow members quickly. There were joint NATOmissions with Russia, but Putin didn't like that US intervened in Iraq ( in it's sphere of influence).

Since then the relation degraded.

There's an extensive report of military interventions the last 30 years of Russia.

You should read it ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com