Ukraine’s History of Corruption a Growing Concern as US Military Aid Surges

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, February 24, 2022, the United States provided Kyiv military, economic, and humanitarian aid.

Official sources claim that the U.S. has contributed $113 billion to the Ukrainian war effort, far more than contributions from Kyiv’s other allies.

However, as the bills continue to mount there has been a call for greater oversight of how those funds have been spent. There are concerns that American taxpayer dollars could be being wasted due to recent corruption scandals in Kyiv.

What’s more, dissident voices are pointing out that the war shows little–if any–sign of ending soon, despite the West’s seemingly boundless support for Ukraine.

How to Break It Down

The Epoch Times’ questions were answered by the Washington-based Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, (CRFB). The CRFB confirmed that the $113 million figure was correct. “still accurate.”

It explained this number. “includes only the funding packages Congress approved through December 2022, and Congress has not approved any further packages in 2023 thus far.”

According to CRFB data, approximately three-fifths ($67 billion) of the $113 billion have been allocated. “defense needs,” While the remaining two-fifths of $46 billion have been earmarked for “non-defense concerns.”

Sometimes, more precise breakdowns can seem confusing, due to official and semiofficial sources (state agencies or think tanks, media outlets, etc.). Sometimes, they appear to contradict one other.

“The confusion tends to be in how money is appropriated and spent by the government,” The CRFB is a nonpartisan group whose stated goal is to “educating the public on issues with significant fiscal policy impact.”

The group explained that Congress is. “has constitutional authority to decide how much federal spending there should be–the “The power of the purse”–while the Executive Branch (the president and other agencies) are charged with spending that money.”

“Depending on when you account for that spending will get you different amounts,” The CRFB also was added. “because it takes the Executive time to actually spend the money Congress appropriates.”

Complex Channels

It is common for disbursements to be made through complex bureaucratic channels that often involve multiple agencies.

In the case of military aid, for instance, these channels include–but aren’t limited to–Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), and Foreign Military Financing (FMF).

According to the CRFB, the PDA lets the president send U.S. weapons straight to Ukraine, while the USAI lets the government–in tandem with the private sector–provide equipment and training to Ukraine’s military.

The FMF allows the government to replenish NATO allies’ stockpiles that have provided their military hardware to Ukraine.

Non-military forms of assistance–including economic, humanitarian, and government aid–are funneled to Ukraine through similarly complex channels.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has provided $13 billion to Kyiv since the conflict started. “direct budget support.”

A USAID report on the one-year anniversary Russian invasion claims that these funds were meant to assist Kyiv in paying for its needs. “basic public services,” Such as education and healthcare.

They are also intended to aid Ukraine in maintaining its sovereignty “a well-functioning state with strong institutions free of corruption” And “a vibrant, inclusive economy, a free press, and robust civil society.”

Mounting Concerns

Although these noble goals appear to be well-intentioned and legitimate, recent corruption scandals in Kyiv raises questions about whether U.S. funds are being spent as intended.

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability wrote a strong letter to USAID, State Department and Defense Department heads two days before USAID published their report.

James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, addressed the February 22 letter to the committee and asked the heads of three federal agencies to make sure that Ukraine funds are being used. “for their intended purposes” So as to prevent “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

This letter refers to a Jan. 25, statement by John Kirby (NSC spokesperson), in which Kirby claimed that the NSC had lied. “not seen any signs” The U.S. had provided budgetary support to Kyiv “fallen prey to any kind of corruption.”

Kirby’s statement, as the letter continues to note, was made one day after high-ranking Ukrainian officials were dismissed amid corruption allegations.

According to the letter Kirby’s comment suggested that the NSC was “unaware” The corruption scandal in Kyiv is thus “heightening concerns that U.S. agencies are not conducting oversight of taxpayer assistance to Ukraine.”

The three agencies were handed over until Mar. 8 to give a wide variety of “documents and information” How they were made “conducting oversight of these funds.”

Comer was notified by the Bureau of Legislative Affairs of State Department two days prior to the deadline. It emphasized the commitment of all three agencies to complying with the deadline. “working closely” His committee ensured that the funds were being used. “effectively, efficiently, and for its intended purpose.”

The agencies suggested in the letter that an agent hold an “interagency briefing” Members of the Oversight Committee “to address your questions and to provide requested information.”

At the time of writing, however a date has not been set. “interagency meeting” Nevertheless, it has not been made public.

Scandal in Kyiv

The western press was not afraid to report on the corruption that plagued the Kyiv government before Russia invaded. The Guardian in Britain famously described Ukraine in 2015 as “a country of corruption.” “the most corrupt nation in Europe.”

However, after Russia’s troops entered Ukraine in the early part of last year, media suddenly changed their tune and rarely portray Kyiv as anything but glowing.

According to the mainstream narrative, Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, were defending the West and its democratic ideals–almost single-handedly–from the depredations of “Russian autocracy.”

Zelenskyy, a comedian and actor on television, won the presidency in 2019 because he pledged to fight endemic corruption.

Time magazine celebrated Zelenskyy–and the amorphous “Spirit of Ukraine”–as its “person of the year” For 2022. All criticisms of Kyiv and its TV-friendly wartime President were branded Russian by mainstream media pundits “disinformation.”

This aura of infallibility, however, took a major hit on Jan. 24, when a raft of top Ukrainian officials abruptly resigned–or were sacked–amid corruption allegations.

Following allegations that he had procured rations at inexpensive prices for troops, the deputy defense ministry resigned. A deputy infrastructure minister was also arrested for receiving kickbacks for high-priced generators.

Similar allegations led to the removal of several other high-ranking officials from their positions, including regional governors as well as an assistant attorney general.

“Internal problems that interfere with the state are being cleaned up,” Zelenskyy spoke at the time. “It is necessary for our protection and helps our rapprochement with European institutions.”

‘Black Hole’

The NSC responded to the dismissals with praises for Zelenskyy’s performance “quick action … to ensure effective monitoring and accountability of public procurement and to hold those in positions of public trust to account.”

CNN, whose pro -Kyiv bona fides cannot be doubted, cited an anonymous intelligence source who claimed that U.S. weapons fell last April “into a big black hole” After crossing the Ukrainian border.

CBS News aired an August documentary entitled “The Secret Life of the American Dream”. “Arming Ukraine,” This included interviews with Jonas Ohman from a pro -Kyiv organization “NGO” This allows the flow of western weapons and equipment to Ukraine.

Ohman claims that only 30% of these arms and other equipment are actually used in the documentary “reaches its final destination.” Later, he attributed the alleged shortfalls to interference by local authorities “powerlords, oligarchs, and political players.”

Ohman also claims that his group has been bringing weapons into Ukraine in the 23-minute documentary “since the summer of 2014.”

Despite the documentary’s overtly pro-Ukraine stance, it was swiftly retracted by CBS–two days after it aired–following an outcry by Kyiv.

Dmytro Kuleba was accused by the Ukrainian Foreign Minister of having inflicted harm on the broadcaster “misled a huge audience by sharing unsubstantiated claims and damaging trust in supplies of vital military aid to a nation resisting aggression and genocide.”

Kuleba spoke via Twitter to address the demand “an internal investigation into who enabled this [documentary] and why.”

‘Long History’ of Corruption

Despite Kyiv’s protestations however, such claims have been made before.

The Kremlin has warned repeatedly that western arms bound to Ukraine could end up in the hands criminal gangs, terrorist groups and terrorist organizations. Jurgen Stock, Interpol’s secretary-general, issued a similar warning last June.

At the February 28 House Armed Services Committee hearing, Robert Storch, the Pentagon inspector-general was asked by lawmakers to answer questions about fears that U.S. weaponry could be in the wrong hands.

Storch said that although there was no evidence, his office found it. However, he added that the investigation is still in its early stages.

He said that his office would be available for any inquiries. “continue to make independent oversight of assistance to Ukraine a matter of the highest priority.”

“And we will continue to keep the Congress and the public informed about our work,” He concluded.

Storch, however, conceded to Congressman Matt Gaetz (R. Fla.), who was a vocal critic for unfettered Kyiv aid. “There’s a long history of issues with corruption in Ukraine.”

Not only are there concerns regarding possible diversions of western arms or equipment bound for Ukraine, but so have the United States.

In July 2022 the Ottawa Citizen, citing “multiple defense sources,” Canada was reported as being “has no idea about the whereabouts of the equipment it has provided to Ukraine as it does not actively monitor the distribution of gear.”

Facts from the Ground

Since Russia’s invasion in Ukraine last year, the United States have provided Ukraine with an extensive array of offensive equipment including tanks, armored cars, artillery system, and munitions of all sizes.

Despite claims by western media to the contrary, there is little evidence that Ukraine is winning.

Most people hailed last year’s Ukrainian counteroffensives in Kharkov & Kherson as victories.

Since then, however, Russian forces have shored up their positions–especially in the eastern Donbas region, which remains the primary focus of its “special military operation.”

In recent weeks, Russian forces have captured several Donetsk positions, including Bakhmut, a strategic Ukrainian transport hub.

Russia effectively annexed Donetsk & Luhansk (which together make up Donbas) last September. Russia now considers all four regions to be Russian Federation territory.

Last year’s annexations were accompanied by the mobilization 300,000 additional troops. Many of them will likely be part of an anticipated springtime offensive.

While the majority of the media plays down Russian battlefield successes, a few dissenting voices, such as respected military experts have made clear warnings about the future course of the conflict.

Douglas Macgregor, a retired army colonel, advised Donald Trump’s secretary of defense in November 2017. “heavy” Ukrainian casualties “dangerously” The combat capabilities of Kyiv were eroded.

Macgregor stated these words in The American Conservative magazine. “Contrary to the western media’s popular ‘Ukrainian victory’ narrative, which blocks any information that contradicts it, Ukraine is not winning and will not win this war.”

‘As Long as It Takes’

The prospects for a diplomatic resolution seem less likely than ever.

Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, stated that Moscow saw a change on March 10. “no chance for holding talks at the moment.”

Six days later, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken agreed with these sentiments. “I see no evidence that, right now, Russia is interested in a diplomatic resolution … that would end this war,” He said.

The question is: If there is no military or diplomatic solution, how long will the United States continue to send money and arms to Ukraine?

According to most U.S. officials–and their like-minded counterparts in Europe–the answer is obvious: “For as long as it takes.”

“We are committed to standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” At a March 13 press conference, Ned Price, spokesperson for the State Department, reiterated his views. “We are committed to our Ukrainian partners.”

Price replied to The Epoch Times with: “It’s important for the United States to be resolute, along with the dozens of countries around the world who have not only stood with Ukraine but endorsed the UN system, the UN Charter, international law, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.”

Ukraine Fatigue

Others in government, however, aren’t willing or able to wait as the cost to arm and finance Ukraine continues to rise.

On Feb. 10, a handful of Republican lawmakers, led by Florida’s Gaetz, unveiled a bill in Congress calling for an end to U.S. assistance–military and financial–to Kyiv.

The 11 bill’s supporters sought to justify it by citing steadily rising costs to taxpayers, the possibility of escalation against a nuclear-armed Russia and the erosion in U.S. military stockspiles.

The resolution has been referred to as “Ukraine Fatigue” Bill, which calls on all parties in conflict to reach a peaceful solution.

“We must suspend all foreign aid for the war in Ukraine and demand that all combatants in this conflict reach a peace agreement immediately,” Gaetz stated this in a press release.

The United States was in a period when it claimed they were “managed decline,” The fiery congressman warned that Washington would continue to deteriorate. “hemorrhage taxpayer dollars” You prolong the war.

The bill’s text includes a long list U.S. military donations to Ukraine. It asserts that they have “severely depleted U.S. stockpiles, weakening U.S. readiness in the event of conflict.”

‘On the Precipice’

The bill has little chance of being adopted and its sponsors still represent a minority opinion–even among fellow Republicans. However, it seems to reflect public opposition to unending support for Ukraine.

Days after the bill was introduced, a poll conducted by the Associated Press found that public support for U.S. assistance to Kyiv had fallen–from 60 to 48 percent–since the opening months of the conflict.

After Russian warplanes shot down a U.S.-controlled drone in the Russian-controlled Crimean Peninsula on March 14, Gaetz reaffirmed his call for help “end our involvement in this conflict.”

“With today’s loss of a U.S. Air Force MQ-9 Reaper drone in the Black Sea, we are once again reminded of the treacherous reality of our involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war,” He said it on Twitter.

“It is impossible to ignore the dire risk of total war with Russia as we teeter on the precipice of direct conflict.”