How has Mr. Pashinsky’s involvement in the arms business impacted Ukraine’s war strategy?
Mr. Pashinsky’s involvement in the arms business has significantly impacted Ukraine’s war strategy. As the biggest private arms supplier in Ukraine, Ukrainian Armored Technology, the company tied to Mr. Pashinsky, has played a crucial role in providing weapons and ammunition to the Ukrainian military. This has allowed Ukraine to strengthen its defense capabilities and effectively fight against the Russian invasion. The arms supplied by Ukrainian Armored Technology have contributed to the improvement of Ukraine’s frontline defenses and have helped counter Russian aggression. Additionally, Mr. Pashinsky’s knowledge of operating in a scrum and his ability to navigate bureaucratic obstacles have enabled him to expedite the delivery of weapons to the front line, ensuring that Ukrainian forces have the necessary equipment to defend their country.
What are the implications of Ukrainian Armored Technology becoming the largest private arms supplier in Ukraine?
The implications of Ukrainian Armored Technology becoming the largest private arms supplier in Ukraine are significant. Firstly, it highlights the reliance of the Ukrainian military on private entities to procure essential weapons and equipment. This raises concerns about the transparency and accountability of the arms procurement process. The increased sales and revenue of Ukrainian Armored Technology indicate a growing demand for weapons in Ukraine, reflecting the intensity of the conflict and the need for continuous military support. Moreover, the company’s dominance in the arms market may lead to a consolidation of power and influence, potentially affecting competition and market dynamics. The scale of Ukrainian Armored Technology’s operations also implies its ability to exert influence over the war economy, which can have broader implications for Ukraine’s post-war recovery and reconstruction.
How does the investigation into Mr. Pashinsky and Ukrainian Armored Technology affect US support for Ukraine and its accountability measures?
The investigation into Mr. Pashinsky and Ukrainian Armored Technology has implications for US support for Ukraine and its accountability measures. The Biden administration has been vocal about its commitment to supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. However, the investigation raises concerns about the transparency and integrity of the arms supply chain and the potential diversion of weapons to unauthorized parties. This may prompt a review of the accountability measures in place to ensure that US military aid is used for its intended purposes and does not contribute to corruption or illicit activities. The investigation also underscores the importance of effective oversight and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the assistance provided by the US is being utilized effectively and responsibly. It may lead to a reassessment of the procedures and protocols in place for vetting and selecting suppliers, as well as the implementation of stricter auditing and reporting requirements to enhance accountability and transparency in the arms procurement process.
The article examines Mr. Pashinsky's involvement in the arms business and the impact on Ukraine's war strategy. It sheds light on the investigations surrounding him and the role of Ukrainian Armored Technology as the largest private arms supplier in Ukraine.
But Mr. Pashinsky had ties to the arms business and, perhaps as important, he knew how to operate in a scrum, undaunted by red tape. In government, that had made him the source of scandal. During wartime, it made him invaluable.
Eighteen months later, a New York Times investigation found, a company tied to Mr. Pashinsky has become the biggest private arms supplier in Ukraine. It buys and sells grenades, artillery shells, and rockets through a trans-European network of middlemen. The company, Ukrainian Armored Technology, reported its best year ever last year, with sales totaling more than $350 million, up from $2.8 million the year before the war.
And Mr. Pashinsky is once again under investigation, with the Ukrainian authorities scrutinizing Ukrainian Armored Technology's pricing and his financial relationships with procurement officials and companies abroad, said two officials familiar with the matter.
This month, investigators with the intelligence service searched the offices of a state-owned company, looking for evidence against Ukrainian Armored Technology, according to government officials with knowledge of the search.
Mr. Pashinsky and the arms network he built highlight a little-discussed aspect of Ukraine's war strategy. In the name of rushing weapons to the front line, leaders have resurrected figures from Ukraine's rough-and-tumble past and undone, at least temporarily, years of anticorruption policies. Government officials stopped blacklisting suppliers who had ripped off the military, and they abandoned many public-disclosure rules intended to reveal self-dealing.
A company linked to former MP Serhiy Pashinsky has become Ukraine's largest private arms supplier. The company's sales totaled over US$350 million last year, compared to US$2.8 million the year before the war. The company is engaged in the resale of weapons. The investigation was published at a time when the Biden administration is requesting additional funding for Ukraine. European and US officials are reluctant to discuss Mr Pashinsky for fear of playing into the Russian narrative. Pashinsky is now under investigation and his companies are being looked into by law enforcement officers. Pashinsky denies having any interest in the arms business.
The Biden Administration affirms that the U.S. military has measures in place to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in its support of Ukraine and its armed forces against the Russian invasion. Concerns have risen in Congress regarding American support for Ukraine, with Republicans vowing to scrutinize the over $112 billion in aid approved by the Democrat-controlled Congress. Senior Pentagon officials appeared before Congress to address U.S. support for Ukraine and the accountability measures in place to ensure proper use of American weapons. The Ukrainians provide information on their inventories and transfer logs, and the U.S. has provided them with handheld scanners to track the use of American-made weapons.
U.S. military forces have conducted on-site inspections in Ukraine to ensure proper accounting of the arms received. There is no evidence that the Ukrainians are diverting American weapons to the black market. Since Russia's invasion in February 2022, the U.S. has sent various weapons systems to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, kamikaze drones, and anti-armor munitions. Keeping track of the use of these weapons is challenging due to the limited U.S. presence on the ground in Ukraine. Representative Mike Rogers expressed the need for unprecedented oversight by Congress due to the significant military and economic assistance provided to Ukraine and NATO allies. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction drew parallels between U.S. support for Afghanistan and the current military assistance to Ukraine, highlighting the risk of equipment ending up in the wrong hands. The Department of Defense inspector general is conducting investigations and oversight projects related to Ukraine's military assistance and has set up a hotline for reporting fraud and abuse.
On 24th February 2022, Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The conflict involves nuclear threats, nuclear signalling, nuclear coercion, and nuclear deterrence. The nuclear taboo has probably been strengthened by the nuclear rhetoric and threats accompanying the Ukraine conflict. The success or failure of deterrence in the Ukraine war is multifaceted and depends on various factors. There is a misunderstanding about Ukraine 'giving up' nuclear weapons after the fall of the Soviet Union. Conventional wars under the nuclear shadow are possible. The conflict has brought an end to nuclear complacency in European politics. NATO and the West emerged from the war looking stronger and more politically aligned. The conflict raises difficult questions and decisions for European policymakers in terms of nuclear deterrence and defence. The case for the continued possession of nuclear weapons by the US, UK, France, and NATO is uncertain based on the evidence from the war.
Rochester expert on international conflicts explains why Ukraine's fate might be tied to Putin's survival. Hein Goemans, a professor of political science at the University of Rochester, is an expert on international conflicts, territorial disputes, and why countries go to war. Goemans warns that a Russian victory—but also a Russian defeat or stalemate—could have dramatically bad consequences for the West and the whole world. Putin wants to reestablish a Russian empire and prevent a democratic encirclement around Russia. Goemans explains that Putin's goals are twofold: to reestablish a Russian empire and prevent Color Revolutions and democratization. Putin perceives the West as weak and is fighting for his own political survival. Putin wants to prevent Ukraine from becoming westernized and wants puppets whom he can control. Ukraine's westernization and diverse regime pose a threat to Putin's autocratic dictatorial system. Salami tactics involve asking for more, slice by slice until you have all you want. Invasion of Ukraine may be considered a war over territory but Putin wants more than just Ukraine's separatist territories. A Russian victory in Ukraine would represent a blatant transgression of international norms and diplomacy. If Putin loses in Ukraine, he may pursue risky actions to stay in power. This situation is the most dangerous since World War II as both Putin's success and failure present dangerous situations. Putin believes that the borders drawn after World War I and II are illegitimate and should be changed. If the borders change, it could lead to threats against other countries and a reconstitution of the Russian empire.
On 21 February 2022, Vladimir Putin publicly laid out his justification for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine is perceived as a corrupt country. Corruption has been a recurrent focus of the IMF, the World Bank, and the EU. Ukraine is a democratic country with functioning institutions. The Russian invasion has made clear the commitment of Ukrainians to freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Corruption peaked during the time of Viktor Yanukovich. Ukraine has implemented structural reforms and established anti-corruption institutions. A scandal related to the procurement of wartime supplies has been uncovered. President Zelensky fired senior officials and made high-profile arrests in response to the scandal. Corruption poses significant obstacles for sustaining the Ukrainian economy during and after the war. The EU expects anti-corruption reforms to continue in Ukraine. The reconstruction of Ukraine could create new opportunities for corruption. Anti-corruption policies should focus on removing opportunities for corruption, enhancing transparency and monitoring, and involving civil society. Coordination between donors and the Ukrainian government is necessary to limit corruption in the reconstruction process. Procurement procedures and the use of e-procurement platforms can reduce the risk of corruption. Banks and state-owned enterprises need reforms to reduce opportunities for corruption. Educating the population and supporting whistleblowers are important in combating corruption. The EU accession process can provide a road map for reducing corruption. Anti-corruption reforms are crucial for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Funds should be used for the benefit of all citizens of Ukraine. Ongoing anti-corruption reforms need to be supported and further progress is required.