• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    We didn’t give it directly to Ukraine, which is why this is happening.

    A bunch of countries were donating equipment through the same few routes thru the same countries.

    Even if it was cataloged and documented properly, it takes time to go all thru the chain all the way to the end and hear back. Especially since all the countries are probably asking.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I mean it’s 1 billion dollars of military equipment. Probably don’t want that falling into the wrong hands.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Pretty sure Russia only comes in second on that list (after China), but you’re right about the rest of it.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, totally not a problem to have fascist groups armed with military gear running around in Europe. It was so much fun when that happened in the 80s.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Hmmmm… where have I heard this before? 🤔

    Oh! Right!

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

    "The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.

    . . .

    In the year after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 nearly 281 million notes, weighing 363 tonnes, were sent from New York to Baghdad for disbursement to Iraqi ministries and US contractors. Using C-130 planes, the deliveries took place once or twice a month with the biggest of $2,401,600,000 on June 22 2004, six days before the handover."

    It’s almost like the people in charge of this kind of thing REALLY should not be in charge of this kind of thing…

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON (AP) — Shortfalls in required monitoring by American officials mean the U.S. cannot track more than $1 billion in weapons and military equipment provided to Ukraine to fight invading Russian forces, according to a Pentagon audit released Thursday.

    Citing what he said was Russian disinformation to the contrary, Ryder added, “The fact is, we observed the Ukrainians employing these capabilities on the battlefield.

    House Republican opposition for months has stalled Biden’s request to Congress for $105 billion more for Ukraine, Israel and other national security objectives.

    National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Thursday that there was no funding left for additional military aid packages to Ukraine.

    The U.S. has provided tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, including big systems such as air defense.

    Kirby said administration officials “has for many months now been interested in improving accountability over the end use of material that is provided to Ukraine.”


    The original article contains 531 words, the summary contains 154 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • TigrisMorte@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Meaning they didn’t count each and every weapon fired and record exactly which Russian it hit.

  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I’m sure sloppily executed arms proliferation has never come back to bite the US in it’s ass, no biggie. At least we we’re sending them to the reasonable side this time.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      This isn’t arms proliferation, this is providing support for a country defending itself from invasion.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        If it’s not accounted for it’s exactly proliferation, it just ended up somewhere less horrible than usual, maybe anyway, we don’t know.