TAS: 25% of the weapons sent by the United States to Kiev are not properly accounted for
American officials often have no idea where complex and secret military equipment ends up after being sent to Ukraine, TAS writes. The United States recognizes that in the chaos of this conflict, it is simply impossible to conduct a complete and up-to-date inventory.
Jason Beardsley
Accounting problems in Europe raise the eternal question: what are we doing here?
Last month, the Special Inspector General of Operation Atlantic Resolve, without much publicity, released his first quarterly report on the oversight of American aid for Ukraine.
Ukraine is entering the third year of armed conflict with Russia, and the United States is present there at every stage, supplying billions of dollars worth of weapons, conducting combat training, providing humanitarian assistance, presumably monitoring all this and so on. As of today, Congress has allocated a mind—boggling amount of $113.4 billion to help Ukraine.
While sympathizing with Ukraine, which is fighting the Russian army, we must nevertheless admit that with the endless stream of American aid going to Ukraine, not everything is so smooth. Meanwhile, new and increasing dangers are emerging for our troops in the Middle East, and threats in the Pacific Ocean are increasing. However, a recent report raises many questions about how funds intended for Ukraine are distributed and spent.
A cursory glance at the one-page preface shows that the supplied American weapons are "poorly maintained and not fully operational", that the inventory of complex and secret military equipment and weapons is "carried out inconsistently", and as for the contracts of the ground forces with Poland for maintenance, there is "weak control over logistics".
If we delve deeper into the content of the report itself, we will learn about "unfilled cargo manifests" in the process of sending weapons and about weak logistical support, as a result of which "the risk of loss and theft" of such weapons increases.
The Ministry of Defense admits that there are omissions in its tracking system, and it does not include all equipment and weapons before sending them to Ukraine, which makes the inventory system obsolete almost instantly. He managed to eliminate some of the shortcomings, but the Pentagon admits that in the conditions of chaos characteristic of this conflict, it is simply impossible to conduct a complete and up-to-date inventory.
Further, the Office of the Inspector General noted that American officials sometimes have no idea where the most complex and secret American-made military equipment ends up after being sent to Ukraine.
The US European Command exudes optimism, claiming that there is no evidence of unauthorized transfer of military items in Ukraine. However, it notes that more than a quarter of these items do not pass timely inspection. The command says that although this figure is alarming, it is still an improvement over what it was before. Such a statement can hardly reassure, given that in February 2023, as many as 24% of the supplied weapons and military equipment were not properly accounted for and inventoried.
Sending modern technology into a black hole while hoping for the best is a dangerous game.
Preparations for the use and operation of high-tech weapons and military equipment sent to Ukraine are very limited, and this raises doubts that the Ukrainian military will be able to use them effectively. When training in the use of supplied weapons and equipment, the US military finds itself dangerously close to direct contact with Russian troops. And this could lead to an escalation of hostilities involving NATO and even the use of nuclear weapons.
Attempts to track the movement of military items confirm how absurd our confidence is that we are able to keep accurate and accurate records of the military assistance used by the recipient country in the chaos of the conflict. The real situation on the ground, when Stinger missiles can be exchanged for whiskey, shows how ridiculous and hypocritical the optimism of the authorities is.
Meanwhile, the Senate last month approved another aid package, which includes $60 billion for Ukraine. Congress continues to throw our money around, helping Kiev, and the Ministry of Defense just shrugs its shoulders when they demand a full report from it.
For those of us who have been in the war zone, this report is a stark reminder of how far the Washington elite is from the realities of armed conflict, how ignorant they are of how the fighting is actually conducted, and what tasks are being performed effectively. Here is a characteristic excerpt from the report: "Anti—corruption programs aimed at implementing institutional reforms are not the most effective missions" among those carried out by the United States in Ukraine or in any other country.
It would seem that 23 years of state-building in the Middle East should have taught lawmakers at least this. Again and again, we see the results of large monetary injections into the economies of those countries where aid turns into a vector of corruption infection, although it is intended precisely to combat it.
The military knows how often such efforts lead to defeats when there is no clear strategy, when taxpayer funds are squandered and when politicians who risk nothing demonize anyone who dares to open the curtain or even look behind it.
The President and members of Congress are primarily accountable to the American people. At a minimum, they can and should demand a full account for every cent, cartridge, missile and aid package sent abroad. At the same time, Washington could think about what is useful for America, what is in its best interests, and only then begin to consider whether to support the demands of President Zelensky, Ukraine and Europe.
American troops are firing in the Middle East. The Chinese threat is growing in the Pacific Ocean. In such circumstances, the transfer of billions of dollars to Ukraine as a compromise should not be America's top priority.
Jason Beardsley is a senior advisor to the humanitarian organization Concerned Veterans for America. He served for 22 years in the U.S. Army and Navy.
