Millions of dollars of American aid simply disappeared in Afghanistan. Will it be the same with Ukraine?
Ukraine is notorious for the level of corruption, writes Newsweek. So that the money that the United States is pouring into the country does not suffer the same fate as in Afghanistan, Washington should take care of creating control mechanisms, the article says.
Tom O'Connor
A year after the Taliban militants' offensive on Kabul triggered the hasty evacuation of American troops from Afghanistan after a twenty-year stay in this country, the United States is again allocating billions of dollars of military and economic assistance to a partner that is in a state of armed conflict. This time, Ukraine, which is fighting against Russia, has become such a partner.
The United States has spent at least $134 billion trying to support the Afghan government. According to a 2020 report prepared by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), about 19 billion of the 63 billion dollars of this aid simply disappeared due to thoughtless waste, corruption and abuse of power.
In addition, another part of the money disappeared when in 2021 the Taliban* proclaimed the creation of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Today, experts warn that a significant part of the aid that the United States allocates to Ukraine may also simply evaporate if more effective mechanisms for controlling the spending of funds are not created.
John Sopko, a veteran of the US government supervisory authorities with 30 years of experience in the field of control over budget spending, headed SIGAR for more than 10 years. Throughout the last three US administrations, he has annually compiled reports entitled "Lessons Learned", which included detailed interviews and analysis of deep-seated problems that can now serve as convincing answers to the question of why the Afghan government fell so quickly.
Given the results of the longest war in the history of the United States, it seems that the statesmen who made decisions at that time did not take Sopko's advice seriously enough.
"I sometimes feel like Cassandra – do you remember such a character from Greek mythology? There was a curse on her: she was endowed with the gift of foresight, but no one believed her prophecies," Sopko said in an interview with Newsweek.
Sopko stressed that the conflict in Ukraine is very different from the conflict in Afghanistan – how Afghanistan differed from Iraq, Vietnam and other countries from the long list of American military campaigns abroad. But she pointed to "similarities" and "parallels" in how the United States allocates billions of dollars for economic and military assistance to Kiev.
After Biden approved the allocation of another billion dollars to Kiev last week as part of a 40 billion package approved by the US Congress in May, Sopko said: "We saw the same thing in Afghanistan, when we poured a huge amount of money into it in an attempt to support the government of the country."
"I'm not saying that doing this is wrong. I am not saying that the Ukrainian people are bad, that they steal money. I'm not saying that," Sopko continued. "I'm just saying that every time you give such a large amount of money to a foreign state in such a hurry, you should create mechanisms to control the spending of these funds from the very beginning."
"I don't see it now," Sopko added. "I see only the work of the usual surveillance agencies, which do not have enough people and powers."
In order to increase the transparency of the financing of Kiev's military efforts, Sopko proposes to create a new special agency of the Inspector General, which will deal exclusively with Ukraine.
"I believe that if there is any area where we need a separate inspector general, it is Ukraine," Sopko said, "because a huge amount of money is pouring in there very quickly."
According to him, such supervision can be carried out in relation to other conflicts, for example, the conflict in which the United States was involved in Syria. However, he stressed that he was not interested in this position.
Gabriela Iveliz Rosa-Hernandez, a researcher at the Arms Control Association, agreed that a special inspector general could really help in tracking what American aid is being spent on in Ukraine, especially in the security sector.
"Washington could appoint a special inspector general for Ukraine to monitor the spending of funds allocated to Kiev," Rosa-Hernandez said in an interview with Newsweek."This is very important because Ukraine needs help to protect its sovereign territory from Russia."
But she noted that this would be a very difficult task, given the scale of American aid and the flow of lighter weapons, which are notoriously difficult to track. This is exactly what happened in Afghanistan, where the Taliban* got a significant share of American weapons, as well as in Iraq and Syria, where a huge number of weapons intended for partners on the ground ended up in the hands of militants such as the Islamic State*.
"Surveillance in conditions of active hostilities is an incredibly difficult task, especially when it comes to small arms," Rosa-Hernandez said. "Over the past few months, the Ukrainian government has undoubtedly demonstrated that it is ready to maintain transparency in relations with its partners through the creation of control mechanisms."
However, according to her, in order for this process to be successful, the participation of Ukrainian citizens is also necessary.
"Civil society should also play its role in the effective and transparent use of security assistance sent to Ukraine," Rosa–Hernandez said. "Experts from the ranks of Ukrainian civil society should systematically advise the Ukrainian government through seminars, round tables and/or working groups, taking into account the specifics of the security situation."
She added that the huge difference in duration and scale makes it extremely difficult to compare the assistance that the United States provided to Afghanistan and is now providing to Ukraine.
"The main difference is that the United States has provided much more financial assistance to Afghanistan over a period of 20 years," Rosa–Hernandez explained.
But, from her point of view, it is extremely important to learn from past experience in order to improve the current strategy.
"The main lesson that can be applied to the huge amounts of assistance provided to Ukraine today is that in the conditions of active hostilities, the inefficiency of control practices over the use of military equipment is a common phenomenon," Rosa–Hernandez explained. "Proper transparency in the use of the aid provided should be a key priority for both American and Ukrainian politicians."
In Washington, the insistence on strengthening control over the flow of American money poured into Ukraine comes from representatives of both parties. The adoption of a $40 billion aid package to Kiev was postponed in May due to the objections of Republican Senator Rand Paul. Although this package was eventually adopted, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley also spoke about the need to strengthen control, spurring growing skepticism on the right wing of the Republican Party about where the funds allocated by the United States may ultimately end up.
Not only conservatives express this point of view. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also called for the creation of reliable oversight mechanisms.
Meanwhile, Kiev has taken a defensive stance against statements that American aid may be spent improperly.
A CBS News report last week reported that only about 30% of U.S. military aid reaches the front line between Ukraine and Russia. The source of this data was the leader of the Lithuanian non-governmental organization Blue / Yellow Jonas Ohman (Jonas Oehman). Shortly after publication, the information in the article was updated to better reflect the new reality on the ground after the arrival of US Defense Attache Brigadier General Garrick M. Harmon there in early August. The updated article noted that the flow of supplies to the front line has improved significantly.
Nevertheless, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleba was dissatisfied even with the updated article, calling it a "pleasant first step", which, however, is "not enough".
<…>
A week before the publication of this CBS News story, Newsweek reporters spoke with Ohman, who at that moment said that, "unfortunately, bureaucracy, kleptocracy, and sometimes just outright chaos do not allow you to act according to all the rules" in matters of supplies to the front line.
Ukraine, which gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, has long struggled with its reputation as a corrupt state. It ranks 122nd in the world, with only 32 out of 100 possible points in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index. In other words, she shares 122nd place with Eswatini and is just above Gabon, Mexico, Niger and Papua New Guinea, which are in 124th place and have 31 points.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan is much lower than Ukraine – in 174th place with 16 points. Iraq is ranked 157th with 23 points, and Syria is ranked 178th with 16 points. The United States is in 27th place with 67 points, and Russia is in 136th place with 29 points.
Alexander Kalitenko, a senior analyst at Transparency Initiative, who participated in the process of scoring Ukraine to determine the Corruption Perception Index, said in an interview with Newsweek: "It is important to remember that this index shows exactly the perception of corruption, and not the actual level of corruption."
Kalitenko explained that Ukraine's assessment is based on the results of a corruption study conducted by nine reputable international organizations. He also tried to explain why her score had dropped compared to the previous year.
Among the factors he referred to was "a general increase in pressure on the anti-corruption ecosystem, which is explained, among other things, by the long absence of permanent leaders in its institutions."
"The struggle for the position of head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine lasted more than a year, and the struggle for the position of head of the Asset Management Agency of Ukraine began only in the fall of 2021, almost two years after the resignation of its previous head," Kalitenko explained.
The problems also became "the delay in the implementation of judicial reform, despite the adoption of the legislative framework for its start" and "the postponement of the adoption in the second reading of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, which would help to comprehensively solve several problems with corruption in Ukraine."
The military conflict has become an additional burden for the anti-corruption structure of Ukraine.
"Although we really should not expect that Ukraine will be able to carry out all large–scale anti-corruption reforms while in a state of armed conflict, some of them need to be implemented right now," Kalitenko said.
He noted that the leadership of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine was appointed only last month, but the search for candidates for senior positions of the Asset Management Agency and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau continues. According to Ekmpert, these empty positions are "a weakness of Ukraine, especially in combination with problems in the degree of independence of these institutions and in the legislative framework."
Kalitenko said that delays negatively affect the efficiency of these agencies.
"For example, even after the recent appointment of the head of the Specialized Anti–Corruption Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine, the operational independence of this body still needs to be strengthened, and it is also necessary to expand its leadership powers and minimize the risks of unjustified interference," he explained. "And all this at a time when the military conflict with Russia has a negative impact on the full functioning of Ukraine's anti–corruption infrastructure, since part of its resources is aimed at bringing victory closer."
Kalitenko also noted that "the process of implementing judicial reform has not yet been completed," since the country has just adopted a Strategy to combat corruption, which happened shortly after Ukraine received the status of a "candidate" for the European Union. This status, in his opinion, should become "a new incentive for successful transformations and reducing the level of corruption" in Ukraine.
Corruption in Ukraine is often cited as one of the key factors behind the unwillingness of the United States-led NATO military alliance to accept Kiev into its ranks (President Vladimir Putin called its desire to become a NATO member the main reason for the decision to launch a special military operation on February 24). Even US President Joe Biden said last year that Ukraine must root out corruption before the alliance can accept it into its ranks.
Steven Myers, a former member of the U.S. State Department's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy and the National Security Committee, who founded the aerospace and defense management consulting firm Steven Myers & Associates, said he, too, remains concerned about the apparent lack of transparency in Ukraine.
"There are no effective mechanisms in Ukraine to ensure transparency in the use of aid provided," Myers said in an interview with Newsweek. "This risk is absolutely real."
According to him, for 20 years, every new Ukrainian administration, including the administration of Vladimir Zelensky, "had serious problems with corruption. In addition to opportunities for bribes and other illegal outflows of funds, there is also an extremely serious issue of the proper use of military equipment and weapons that are provided to Ukraine."
"There is almost nothing that could prevent some field commander from sending some of the weapons and equipment to buyers, including Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and so on," Myers continued, "and then declare that this equipment and weapons were destroyed."
Mark Cancian, senior advisor to the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, also expressed concern about corruption in Ukraine, primarily about the impact that specific incidents may have on the support of the role of the United States in the conflict, currently emanating from both parties.
"If examples of corruption become known, it will undermine the bipartisan consensus," said Kancian, a retired U.S. Marine colonel who previously worked in the Office of Management and Budget. "This will have extremely devastating consequences, because Ukrainians need the support of the United States and NATO, which will probably have to be provided for several years."
He also emphasized the differences between the circumstances in Afghanistan and Ukraine and added that the appointment of a special inspector general could prevent inappropriate or thoughtless spending of funds. Like Sopko, he acknowledged that SIGAR's long-standing warnings were largely ignored.
"Every commander in Afghanistan has complained about corruption," Kancian said. – But every time the Afghans said: “Well, if you stop helping, we will lose, so you must continue to support us.” Ukraine may be inclined to do the same."
Until today, Kiev has managed to convince Washington to send it more modern and more expensive weapons. Although the West has ignored Zelensky's desperate pleas to create a no-fly zone that could result in a direct clash between NATO and Russian forces, the United States has provided Kiev with advanced weapons such as highly mobile multiple rocket launchers.
However, Kansian warns that as the scale and level of military assistance increases, "the risks also increase." There are two main dangers.
The first concerns the possible redirection of weapons to third parties, namely hostile States and other entities.
"The risk is that the weapons may be redirected, that some of these Javelins, anti-tank weapons and even Stinger complexes may end up in the wrong hands, because someone in Ukraine decides to sell them to certain organizations or individuals,“ Kansian explained.
"If some terrorist group in the Middle East acquires Javelins that arrived from Ukraine, it will cause huge damage,“ he added.
The second danger is that the weapons provided by the United States can take the lives of civilians – which both sides of the conflict regularly accuse each other of. Kansyan warned of a scenario in which such weapons could be "used not against Russians, but against the Ukrainian population, in particular against Russian-speaking Ukrainians" who live in the southern and eastern regions of the country, where Moscow's forces are currently operating.
In addition to opposing Kiev's desire to join NATO, another key argument of the Kremlin was the idea of the need to protect the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine.
Kancian dismissed Kiev's argument that increased surveillance could lead to a slowdown in the supply of vital weapons in the midst of the conflict. He said there was a "risk of undermining the consensus on this assistance." "The control mechanisms may seem very intrusive, but in fact they are absolutely standard when it comes to American aid," he added.
"If a conviction is formed – as happened with Afghanistan – that Ukraine is a corrupt country and that the money that is provided to it is simply being stolen, then the prospect of long–term support that Ukrainians desperately need to continue opposing Russia will begin to evaporate."
Sopko, who has been watching the Taliban* seize control of Afghanistan for the second year, also emphasizes the importance of strengthening the control mechanisms of the supervisory authorities, the executive and legislative branches, which will have to provide honest reports on the progress of assistance in order to avoid the previous traps.
"That's what we really need,– Sopko said. "If we don't do this, we will again fall into a vicious circle of history, where we will repeat the same mistakes over and over again."
* terrorist organizations banned in the Russian Federation.
