When Our Weapons Go Missing
Washington is doing a poor job of monitoring whether the weapons it sends to Ukraine are ending up in the right hands.

Fears of loose weapons in Ukraine have become reality: Once American weapons arrive, Ukrainian criminals steal them. If U.S. arms transfer policies are not changed, Washington will inevitably accidentally arm groups that actively want to harm the United States.
In June, two separate Department of Defense inspector general reports revealed poor monitoring when U.S. weapons are transferred to Ukraine. Challenges in Ukraine's war zone have made it nearly impossible to track the weapons.
The first report found that the personnel responsible for ensuring accountability were given no "training or guidance." It concluded that the Pentagon does "not have accountability controls sufficient enough to provide reasonable assurance that its inventory of defense items transferred to [Ukraine] via the air hub in Jasionka was accurate or complete."
The second report discovered that the Office of Defense Cooperation–Kyiv was unable to monitor how American military equipment was put to use. Indeed, monitors could not "visit areas where equipment provided to Ukraine was being used or stored."
Such problems are not unique to Ukraine, but the Biden administration has been open to accepting the possibility of weapons dispersion when it comes to Ukraine's war. Yet discounting these perils comes with four long-term security risks.
First, larger weapons systems have a high value on the black arms market. In Afghanistan, for example, the Taliban has been able to continue funding itself through its already existing smuggling networks by selling U.S. weapons left behind in the withdrawal. These weapons are now used in attacks in Pakistan, Kashmir, and the Gaza Strip.
Even before the war, Ukraine had one of the largest illegally trafficked arms markets in Europe, according to the 2021 Global Organized Crime Index. This has only intensified since the Russian invasion. For example, in August 2022 a criminal organization in Ukraine stole and intended to sell 60 rifles and 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
Second, weapons can empower groups that intend to harm Americans. This has already happened in the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates lost and sold U.S. weapons to al-Qaeda–linked groups. CNN has reported that in Ukraine this year, Russia sent captured NATO weapons to Iran.
Furthermore, Washington has indiscriminately provided arms to groups fighting for Ukraine. Among the groups who have received U.S. weapons is the Azov Brigade—a militia with neo-Nazi roots that is currently fighting against Russia but has previously attacked civilians in Ukraine. The Brigade was identified as a human rights violator in the State Department's 2016 and 2017 Report on Human Rights Practices and serves as a key cog in the global far-right network.
Third, loose weapons create risks of hostile actors attaining confidential, high-value U.S. technology. In October 2022 the State Department created a plan to train Ukrainian soldiers in tracking highly portable, lethal, and advanced proprietary U.S. weapons. Nonetheless, as the plan notes, this training will take years before the plan has any substantial impact.
Fourth, weapons dispersion can escalate American entanglement in a war with another nuclear power. While loose weapons have not yet been used against Russia, Ukrainian military units have previously ignored U.S. suggestions to not attack the Nord Stream pipeline and used U.S. armored vehicles in attacks over the Russian border.
If U.S. weapons are used against Russian citizens inside Russia's borders, it all but guarantees escalation and increases the risk of a nuclear exchange. While the chances of the latter may be low, the Biden administration should be trying to eliminate the risk entirely.
The reality is that any time such a large number of weapons is transferred—especially to an active conflict zone—dispersion will occur. But the consequences of this dispersion are still up in the air. If the Biden administration is open to accepting these risks, Congress should speak up for Americans who aren't.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Not yet reported by Reason is the increasing number of "drone" attacks on Moscow probably originating in Ukraine. So far Russian defenses have jammed incoming drones leading to them striking civilian instead of presumably military intended targets; or shot them down, raising questions about how good our own technology is at evading defenses.
We've all read about the drone attacks on Moscow. Where did you see that the drones are U.S.-made?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,500 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Start now earning cash every month online from home. Getting paid more than ****k by doing an easy job online. I have made **** in last 4 weeks from this job. Easy to join and earning from this are just awesome. Join this right now by follow instructions
.
.
here,═══☛☛ elizabethashley8.blogspot.com/
What a shock.
But only in Ukraine, not like anything left in Afghanistan after bolting from that country overnight was mishandled at all.
You stole my comment! 😉
White Mike Liarson will defend Biden on Afghanistan to the death. Which would be a good result.
*ctrl-f rand 0/0*
You know what crazypants Putin-puppet mask-denying legislator wanted an audit of all the stuff we were sending to Ukraine?
careful you may get all those weekend reason boardposters names fired up at you again.
JFree bit.
Maybe you should stop crawling up his ass to munch on his haggis. He’s got the same proclivities as his father. More interested in symbolic gestures and purity rings than in accomplishing anything. Here are some of the roll calls on that legislation.
Roll call 201 was his proposed amendment which didn’t even get many R’s (20-78). Roll call 200 was a similar looking amendment but more partisan/establishment (by Wicker) which did ‘pass’ but didn’t get 60 votes so ‘failed’ and was voted against by Rand as well (51-48). And the final bill which passes the Senate (86-11) and is the 2024 defense budget – which he votes against (4R, 6D, 1I).
Had he proposed some honest non-partisan pragmatic amendment to having the OIG audit, and worked his crayons outside the partisan lines, he could have gotten that passed with the 60 votes. But passing that would have proven to your ilk that he’s a sellout and to the R establishment that he's unreliable. So hey - accomplish nothing at all and have a long career on the taxpayer teat.
Among the groups who have received U.S. weapons is the Azov Brigade—a militia with neo-Nazi roots that is currently fighting against Russia but has previously attacked civilians in Ukraine.
Wait, wait, when did Reason start publishing Putinist Propaganda?!
Because I'm told that acknowledging the above makes one a Putin Stooge.
They should understand that democracy comes first. I'm sure the Ukranian Nazis are the right kind of Nazis because they are on the side that protects democracy. I bet they even wear masks to the supermarket.
American Neo-Nazis also have a right to keep and bear arms. What they do with them is what makes them either criminals or well-regulated militia. Reason writers would do well to keep this distinction in mind. As long as they fight the Russian invaders then the weapons would have been put to good use. If they use them to commit crimes (like the Fast and Furious beneficiaries) then you still can't blame wayward weapons. In other contexts I'm sure that Reason writers would agree: it's the perp, not the weapon!
Very true, although my hope is that both Azov and Wagner Nazis kill each other off totally and that in the future, Liberty-loving Ukrainians gird and arm and train themselves so much that they never have to depend on low-lifes for their defense.
If U.S. weapons are used against Russian citizens inside Russia's borders, it all but guarantees escalation and increases the risk of a nuclear exchange. While the chances of the latter may be low, the Biden administration should be trying to eliminate the risk entirely.
Agree but.
Those reports indicate that the main accountabiity problem resides in the US. We can't even identify what assets we have actually sent to Ukraine. This is certainly not an accident. Failure to have accountable process has not been an accident since at least Iran-Contra and prob long before. Making this story about Ukraine serves a clickbait function but it only serves to divert attention from fixing an actual problem. We seem to be incapable of actually holding ourselves accountable for anything. And I'll blame you folks at Cato for this. One fucking sentence in this article that you just blow by? Fuck you you tools.
One of the other reports indicates which other countries are in a roughly similar 'bucket' as Ukraine when it comes to diversion - Turkey, India, Colombia, Saudi, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, Philippines, Israel, and Indonesia are ones we supply a lot of weapons to. Or do we supply those weapons instead to the places/conflicts where we will experience future blowback as a reaction to say a 9/11 terrorist incident? Not because those weapons are diverted directly to hostiles - but because they are sent into conflicts where those weapons CREATE hostility towards Americans. THAT is where blowback originates.
You mention a couple of them in this article - but they are merely the really fucking obvious ones. And because you are so focused on Ukraine, there is no mention of the one of the biggest risks. Which is combining our own internal lack of controls/accountability - and our willingness to supply 'allies' who have no controls of their own or who have their own self-interest that may not coincide with ours. It is in times of 'peace' that those diversions are most likely to occur. And that provides a way for taxpayers to fund wars selected and chosen by private players with all the blowback reverting to American civilians.
Ukraine-at-war provides enough of the interest to create an article that might help highlight the problems. Which obviously includes Ukraine as its own risks. But without actually illuminating anything, this shit is just clickbait.
Those reports indicate that the main accountabiity problem resides in the US. We can’t even identify what assets we have actually sent to Ukraine.
Untrue. The Biden administration knew to the penny how we overcounted aid to Ukraine and therefore made up the gap.
We can’t even identify what assets we have actually sent to Ukraine.
I don't about anyone else, but that makes me feel so much better.
From the article.
the Pentagon does 'not have accountability controls sufficient enough to provide reasonable assurance that its inventory of defense items transferred to [Ukraine] via the air hub in Jasionka was accurate or complete'.
From the link - it's worse than that.
For the record, al-Qaeda, ISIS and Taliban never used any of our weapons against the United States anywhere in the world where we had any legitimate reason to be! We should never have had troops in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria or the Balkans for any reason in the first place. For that matter we should not have embassies in any of those places to be targets for terrorists either. Americans traveling abroad should be on their own and responsible for their own defense and safety.
For the record, our troops in Saudi remaining there after the Gulf War and using those bases to kill Iraqis and control the air over Iraq are the main reason binladen issued his ‘declaration of war’ against Americans in both 1996 and 1998.
That is why most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. It is why the FIRST thing the US did after conquering Iraq was to close the Saudi bases and transfer them to Qatar – two days before the ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech.
That is called blowback.
For that matter we should not have embassies in any of those places to be targets for terrorists either. Americans traveling abroad should be on their own and responsible for their own defense and safety.
And that is simply the most moronic form of isolationism. The blowback occurred inside the US – armed with boxcutters.
We should never have had troops in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria or the Balkans for any reason in the first place.
Should is a rather emphatic denial of reality in that sentence.
If you mean by “isolationism” minding our own damned business and avoiding entangling alliances, then I agree. Also, if isolationism means disavowing “making the world safe for democracy;” and “the domino effect;” and “American exceptionalism;” and “gunboat diplomacy;” and “leaders of the free world;” and "the Global War on Terror and Drugs;" and “the Monroe Doctrine” etc. etc. etc.
Not having embassies is isolationism by every possible measure. Not viewing citizens as worth a shit with respect to the way they are treated by the world is isolationism by every possible measure.
Not to be a Neo-Con or an Internationalist or a "Realist" (my foreign policy is Start-No-Fights-But-Be-Ready-To-Finish-Them-ism) but I have some problems with the concept of "blowback."
How far can "blowback" go back? And if someone argues that the rise of the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Iran Hostage Crisis is the "blowback" for the U.S. supporting the Shah, why couldn't one argue back that the supporting the Shah was "blowback" against Mossadegh wanting to nationalize U.S. and Western oil companies, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum on back to the first human tribal wars?
"Feelz before Realz" and how a hostile power reacts to something should have no bearing on legitimate defense of U.S. Life, Liberty, and Property, which is and should be the primary Libertarian foreign policy consideration, with other beneficiaries being icing on the cake.
How far can “blowback” go back?
Forever if it is directly cited/known as a cause. Not one nanosecond if there are other more significant reasons that explain the action.
if someone argues that the rise of the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Iran Hostage Crisis is the “blowback” for the U.S. supporting the Shah
The taking of the embassy was a direct consequence of the US accepting the Shah into the US for medical treatment the week before. Against the advice of the State Dept which understood the problem. Iranians didn’t trust what was happening at all – and they wanted the Shah to be extradited to Iran. I don’t consider that blowback because the target was intended and relevant to the source of the anger. Blowback is where the target doesn’t even know why someone is pissed at them
Rise of the ayatollahs had little to do with US support of the Shah. The religious objection to the Shah was that he was westernizing. Specifically the White Revolution. Which involved both land reform (which undermined rural mullahs) and giving women the vote (which really pissed off Khomeini and made him the center of opposition – from then on in exile). I lived there as a kid a few years later – when there were miniskirts in north Tehran and chadors in south Tehran. That’s a culture war in progress.
There were other things – but Mossadegh wasn’t remotely a real explanation. Blowback just happens to be the term that was invented by the CIA in 1954 in describing that Iran coup. So it got applied post facto, by American commenters who never really wanted to understand the Iranian revolution, to the Iranian revolution in order to link it with another Iran event where the US is responsible.
Zelensky: "We bought those Bidens fair and square and paid a pretty penny. .....Oh, wait, did you say weapons?"
OT: Breaking news, apparently Devon Archer has confirmed that Joe Biden lied about never talking to his son Hunter about Hunter's business dealings. I would be shocked by this disclosure except I'm sure it just slipped Joe's mind. He was, after all, dealing with his wife's death at the hands of a drunk driver, his son Beau's death in
UkraineIraq, his ongoing civil rights protest arrests, beating the shit out of Corn Pop, and his house burning down with his wife inside.And dealing with questions from dog-faced pony soldiers.
🙂
And getting high on hairspray!
Shocking.
“For example, in August 2022 a criminal organization in Ukraine stole and intended to sell 60 rifles and 1,000 rounds of ammunition.”
Yep. The billions of dollars in weapons and materials left in Afghanistan pale in comparison to these 20 rifles & ammo.
"Washington is doing a poor job of monitoring whether the weapons it sends to Ukraine are ending up in the right hands.
With this and the fiasco that was the departure from Afghanistan, have you ever thought that to some in the Biden Administration that this is a feature not a bug?
The more things change the more the stay the same way. During the Chosin Rearovoir offensive by the Chinese, American troops were surprised to see many (some accounts state most) Chinese soldiers armed with Thompson SMG and M1 rifles. They got them thanks to FDR's lend lease Arsenal of Democracy policies that sent billions of dollars of US equipment (sometimes at the cost of even arming American Troops, during the lead up to Operation Torch, M-4 Sherman were diverted to Egypt that were meant for the 1st Armored Division, meaning most of the troops went into combat operating the M-3 Stuart, with it's 37 mm cannon, or the M-3 Lee, which was just a piece of shit to be honest,to tall, not enough armor, and it had to be facing the enemy to fire the 75 mm cannon, oh and it was slow) to 'allies' including Chinese Communist forces (despite the US officially being allied with the nationalist government) and Soviets.
And before the anti-sherman folks pipe up, the M-4 was a near even match to the Mark IV panzer, which were the bulk of the Wermacht's armored forces in Tunisia and France. In some aspects the Sherman actually excelled the Mark IV. The Sherman's turret could transverse faster. It's aiming system was easier to use, and more accurate. The Sherman was faster and more maneuverable. The gun was easier and faster to load. It had better acceleration. The latter Mark IVs did have more penetration power and further range,but the sighting system often rendered the further range moot. In 1942-43 the Sherman actually had a larger gun than most Mark IV. In Tunisia the Wermacht never fielded more than 20 Tiger's with less than ten available at Kassarine (due to mechanical breakdowns of the at least four Tigers available at the time of the battle). Besides comparing the medium Sherman to the heavy Tiger is an apples to oranges comparison. Additionally, the vast majority of Sherman's destroyed between 1942 and 1945 were the result of artillery, anti tank guns, mines or infantry armed with anti-tank rockets. Armor has always been, since it's introduction in 1915, susceptible to infantry with anti-tank arms. The adage he who shoots first, wins applies even to armor. And the Sherman more often than not shot first and more often, accurately, than German tanks. Besides, US military ground doctrine has always been heavily reliant on artillery and after 1918, air. Which was another advantage the Sherman had, every one was equipped with the most quintessential modern piece of military equipment, a radio.
The Sherman was a fine vehicle when it was first produced. It was getting a bit obsolete by the time of the Normandy landings. American production saw that they had a tank that was more than adequate to deal with Panzer IVs in Africa, and were slow to innovate, not looking to upgrade the gun or hull armor except in limited quantities. So the British eventually started putting 17 pounder guns on theirs instead of the 75mm gun. They ended up with more Fireflies, which could match the Panthers and penetrate Tiger forward armor, than the US was able to deploy of their e8 variants (with improved amor and 76mm high velocity guns) because they were so slow to start producing them.
The US armed the Chinese communists (and nationalists) in WW2 because the enemy was Imperial Japan. We have a tendency not to think further into the future to realize that the Chinese communists would be our enemies at some point. Same thing with Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. We poured billions into supplying the Mujahadeen, and look what that got us once the Russians retreated. Taliban and Al Qaeda.
My point exactly. The whole stupidity of the arsenal of democracy nonsense.
Washington is doing a poor job of monitoring whether the weapons it sends to Ukraine are ending up in the right hands.
Saying the monitoring job is poor is making assumptions about what "Washington" wants the outcome to be.
Every stolen piece of equipment is one more unit to add to the backlog for sales.
These numbers are fishy. 1,000 rounds for 60 rifles is less than 17 rounds per rifle. 17 rounds is not even 1 full magazine for a modern military rifle.
If we sold them instead of giving them away, the US taxpayer would not be forced, at gunpoint, to provide for the defense of a country where we have no interest, and, as the owner of the weapons, the buyer would be more responsible in keeping track of them.
Win, win.
Very wise "Tragedy of the Commons" thinking on that subject. Never occurred to me to think of it that way.
Problem is Ukraine has little money, and now that Russia is once again blocking their ability to ship grain overseas for sale, they'll have even less money.
That’s Ukraine’s problem, and not ours. We don’t have to send weapons they can’t pay for.
It's also a retarded, self-evident lie. Russia's contesting well less than 50% of the border but, somehow, it's 100% closed. But not... like every "Trade Federation Blockade" in the Star Wars Universe that allows key dignitaries and all kinds of martial intelligence and even tons and tons of munitions and all the support craft to flow in and out.
The border is locked up tighter than a drum to the point that not even one silo of grain can get in or out, but 150 F-16s, 30 M-1 Abrams, 90 Strykers, Artillery ammunition, drones, all the maintenance and support equipment, pilots and personnel in-and-out for maintenance and (air) combat training? No Problem!
No, like Star Wars, nobody's moving grain in and out because it's not a war about two groups of people on the ground.
.
Well then they should negotiate if they can’t afford to fight.
Look at Mister "resist not evil" here...
If the goal is to destroy America as a world power, would draining the petroleum reserve and giving away (or leaving behind) a whole bunch of arms seem like a good start?
Asking for several friends.
Strange friends. And coming from me, that says a lot.
When Our Weapons Go Missing Washington is doing a poor job of monitoring whether the weapons it sends to Ukraine are ending up in the right hands.
I’ll be the first to agree that–whether given by foreign aid (which they shouldn’t he) or by private cash-and-carry (which they should be)– the only place Ukrainian weapons should be directed is over, under, around, through, upside the head and neck of, and every other preposition vis-a-vis the butcher Vladimir Putin and his Putineer Minions!
Leave not one Revanchist enemy left to seize weapons!
Our nation's weaponry is not monitored and many times goes missing?
That's okay. The tax-payers can just pay for more to be manufactured so that all our enemies can be heavily armed. A few kick-backs to the correct politicians and more funding can be allocated for such a purpose easy peasy. Just ask someone like Lindsey Graham. He will explain to you the importance of doing so.
It would be best to concentrate all the federal agencies' energies on taking firearms from the American people. For an armed citizenry is our nation's biggest threat.
I strongly suggest that light loafered Lindsey visit the eastern front where the Ukies are so victorious over those nasty Russkies.
He should make sure to drive up in one of those Bradleys.
Washington's concerns in Ukraine far exceed the fate of the weapons it sends.
Not the first time the U.S. has done this. Billions in weapons and cash disappeared into Iraq and Afghanistan over the years. But what is wrong with Ukraine taking the fight into Russia proper? Russia started this war, they're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. As long as Ukrainian forces are targeting military forces and installations, who cares?
Because they’ll drag half the world with them into a broader conflict when we only slightly give a fuck?
That's right. Just ignore the fact that Barry Soetoro and his little zionist ho got involved in Ukraine and along with little Vicki's chocolate chip cookies came a few guns and a little help from their friends. Once the current leader of Ukraine who was on friendly terms with Putin, was removed, his replacement decided it was a good idea to begin shelling the Donbass region populated by ethnic Russians. After more than 12,000 ethnic Russians were slaughtered there and the U.N. saying nothing about that holocaust, Putin decided to take action.
Yup....it's all Putin's fault.
No go back to watching CNN.
And on the list of concerns about Ukraine, where does this rank in terms of priorities? Maybe about page 25. Some people want perfection, but that never happens in war.
We need "common sense" weapons control. If your weapons are lost or stolen, you have 72 hours to report it or you go to jail. If criminals get your weapons through your negligence, you go to jail. If a 3rd party says you cannot be trusted to have weapons, then your weapons will be confiscated.
Unless you pay the customary 10% fee in advance.
Nice article, which somehow neglects to mention the planeload of weapons that "crashed" in Greece early on in the war on its way out of Ukraine to buyers unknown, officially from Serbia to Bangladesh.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/cargo-plane-crashes-near-greeces-northern-city-kavala-2022-07-16/
Or were they headed to arms dealers in Jordan?
https://www.euronews.com/2022/07/17/jordan-bound-ukrainian-cargo-plane-carrying-weapons-crashes-in-greece
Serbian Minister of Defence Nebojša Stefanović said at a press conference in Belgrade on Sunday that the cargo plane was carrying 11.5 tonnes of materiel sold to the Bangladeshi military. The aircraft was scheduled to make several "technical stops" in Amman, Riyadh and Ahmedabad, as well as Dacca, according to Stefanović.
No shortage of conspiracy theories:
https://www.dw.com/en/mystery-plane-crash-were-serbian-weapons-headed-for-ukraine/a-62574069
There is also speculation as to whether the weapons were not actually destined for Bangladesh at all but for Ukraine. Both Defense Minister Stefanovic and the manager of the Ukrainian company Meridian, which owned the downed plane, have denied this. But Vuksanovic believes that important questions remain. "The public is owed an answer as to why a Ukrainian plane was transporting Serbian weapons right now, while a major international conflict is raging on Ukrainian territory," he said.
Interesting, thanks.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
"So the 'Sloppy Pullout' Administration is also the 'Sloppy Insertion' Administration? Why's it always gotta be about dicks with you guys?" - SPBP2
Nothing new. The PhD obviously was not in SE Asia from 1962 thru 1975. Nor in Afghanistan in August 2021.
The Biden administration is not interested in the fate of the weapons it sends overseas.
The literally billions in arms and Afghanistan we’re just left there to be picked up b y the Taliban after the botched United States withdrawal.
They could have been destroyed in place and yet nothing was done.
Because it seems like the Biden ministration does everything I can to make America weaker and it’s enemies be stronger
I suspect the Burisma administration could care less what happens to all those weapons, even when they end up in the hands of Mexican cartels, they still don't care.
Joe Burisma being the brain damaged old water rat, is clueless but then the rest of his commissariat could also care less, even when they end up in the hands of the cartels, they don't care. So much the better.
The bitter truth is America has no business getting involved in anywhere but here. Ron Paul is right. America needs to stop being the world's policeman/arms dealer and shut down the 800 or more foreign bases . Washington needs to stop interfering into the political affairs of other nations. It needs to stop these endless wars, excessive military spending, foreign interventionism and military adventurism and shut down the Federal Reserve that makes all this possible.
Ron Paul is right.