Unfortunately, corruption isn't a debunked or not issue; it's a forever struggle.

For this article, it's whether or not there's anything actionable at least for the politician as they make their case for aid packages. If they did find corruption, then there needs to be an immediate plan to address it, tweaking the package if needed.

Well, think of it this way. This isn't some academic fact-finding mission. There's intent behind it, especially since this is a Washington official.

>“Up until this point, we don’t have any evidence that U.S. assistance is being misused or misspent but, again, the key is not resting on anybody’s good will or virtue,” Power said in response to a question posed about Ukraine’s history of corruption. “It’s checks and balances, the rule of law, the integrity of officials.”

>Ukraine has struggled with corruption throughout much of its time as an independent country since separating from the Soviet Union in 1991, but Ukrainian officials have taken steps in recent years to institute reforms to limit corruption, most recently under the administration of President Volodymyr Zelensky.

>The USAID leader said Ukraine has seen a strengthening of its institutions fighting corruption since 2014, when then-President Viktor Yanukovych was forced out of office amid widespread protests over his close ties to Russia.

>She also explained that the U.S. Government Accountability Office launched a new initiative to help Ukraine expand its auditing institution, which she said will be needed for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

>...Zelensky removed some officials in his government last month as part of a push against corruption. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov also shuffled some of his top staff earlier this month over corruption allegations in his department.

This isn't some new article. It's the same parent article.

So to counter "we don’t have any evidence that U.S. assistance is being misused or misspent" with a "doesn't matter if there's no evidence, it's happening!" and an article about a thing that's already addressed in the parent article like it's something new, that's the gotcha.

To grab at points without evidence, that's not "just having a question."

At the end of the day, we're just random posters on a content aggregator site. So get as fired as you want until the next coffee break. lmao

>Nobody said pull funding.

You can get to it from the article.

>Some Republicans who have raised doubts about the continued U.S. support for Ukraine have questioned how the money being sent there is being used.

And if you want to talk about reality, then it's the reality of how such inquiries are being used. No politician is just posing an innocent question.

And it's silly to push a GOP talking point until there's any evidence of that sort of thing happening and pulling funding because of it.

>It has always amazed me that the anti-tax Republicans are seemingly so happy to pay for the US's outsized military budget.

That's the thing though. Everything is already been paid for. It's just handing it out instead of leaving it in a warehouse. So the answer to "why should you be forced to pay for this?" is "Well, you already did!".

Should be more "the front lines really aren't a place if the goal is to avoid dying."

It’s also hard to get information out of the region. Internet/communication has been shut off and journalists get arrested. It’s like a blackout.

It’s also seen as an internal issue. Like what’s going on Myanmar now.