How were werewolves in robes of the Shevchenkivskyi court covering up defense cartels with law enforcement. How many billions did Konotopskyi and Pashynskyi skim from the AOA or how much weaponry never reached the front

While at the front soldiers wait for functioning weapons, the AOA pays hundreds of millions of hryvnias for rocket launchers that the soldiers themselves refuse. It gets even more interesting: companies tied to Oleksandr Konotopskyi and Serhiy Pashynskyi continue to receive multi-billion defense contracts, and when questions arise about these contracts, law enforcement sees no grounds for investigation, while judges of the Shevchenkivskyi court block even the start of one. So who is really covering the defense cartels — and how many budget billions could already have been siphoned off from defense channels instead of turning into weapons for the front? Detailed coverage of each case follows.

How the AOA gave "Ukrainian Bronetechnika" 637 million UAH for rocket launchers that the military rejected

LLC "Ukrainian Bronetechnika" has for years received billion-hryvnia contracts for defense procurement, but this time questions arise directly for the Defense Procurement Agency under Arsen Zhumadilov. In February 2026 the AOA signed a contract with the company for 637 million UAH for 6 thousand RPG-75M, even though before signing the Logistics Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reported low effectiveness of this weapon and recommended considering other analogs. Despite this, the AOA approved the contract and paid 318,5 million UAH in advance.

In May the first 3024 rocket launchers arrived at a military unit, but the soldiers refused to accept them into service. According to the criminal case materials, new labels concealed old factory markings in Czech, and some components were manufactured as far back as 1986–1988. Possible re-labeling of products and use of documents with false information are also being investigated. In other words, the AOA paid hundreds of millions of hryvnias in advance for products that, after delivery, raised questions not only about quality but also about origin and labeling.

And this no longer looks like an accidental mistake in a single contract. "Ukrainian Bronetechnika" was previously linked to deliveries of defective 120-mm mines, missed deadlines and state claims of over 70 million UAH, yet it continues to receive large defense orders. It is particularly telling that after investigative actions the company claimed alleged illegal searches, and Serhiy Pashynskyi publicly defended it. So who at the AOA checks suppliers before handing them hundreds of millions of hryvnias in advance?

Formally the company is run by Vladyslav Belbas, but for years its actual control has been linked to Pashynskyi. In 2024 it was "Ukrainian Bronetechnika" that posted over 62,5 million UAH in bail for Pashynskyi, and the company continues to receive contracts from the Ministry of Defense. The paradox is: the AOA under Zhumadilov approves hundreds of millions for weapons whose effectiveness the military questioned, pays 318,5 million UAH in advance, and after delivery the military refuse to accept them.

We filed a complaint with the SBU and other controllers, but instead of verifying the facts they continue to shield law-enforcement defense cartels and "see no" grounds to open criminal proceedings. Meanwhile Zhumadilov and Fedorov, through "Ukrainian Bronetechnika," were running further schemes — budget millions were directed to poor-quality weapons that the military refused to accept.

Unfortunately, representatives of the judiciary, ignoring the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, are effectively blocking the start of pre-trial investigation. Thus, by decision of investigative judge O.S. Chaika of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv in case No. 761/32898 it was refused to oblige the Investigative Unit of the Main Department of the National Police in Kyiv to begin a pre-trial investigation.

Shevchenkivskyi District Court judge Olena Chaika 25 April 2023 placed Roman Chervinsky under arrest for two months without the option of bail in a case about an attempted hijacking of a Russian plane which, according to the investigation, led to a strike on the "Kanatove" airfield. Prosecutors cited risks of flight, interference with witnesses and destruction of evidence, and the court also denied release of Chervinsky on personal sureties.

It is revealing that this is the same Olena Chaika who in 2021 ordered prosecutors to close a criminal case against Deputy Head of the Presidential Office Oleg Tatarov due to expiration of investigative terms. The decision was made on 14 December 2021, and information about it became public in January 2022. Chaika arrests Chervinsky without bail, but obliges closure of the Tatarov case — these are concrete decisions by one judge that require explanation.

Konotopskyi gets billions in defense contracts, and his products keep ending up in Russia

Oleksandr Konotopskyi — owner of Ajax Systems and the SkyFall drone manufacturer — gained access to multi-billion defense orders during Mykhailo Fedorov's tenure. Just LLC "Strym Techno," linked to the Vampire production, reported over 15 billion UAH in revenue in 2025, and its share of state UAV procurements reached about 38%. Contracts were channeled through the state enterprise "Ukroboronservice" under closed procedures, while total funding for drone purchases exceeded 40 billion UAH.

Then something that’s hard to call a coincidence happens. In the autumn of 2025 Yevhen Hvozdar became head of "Ukroboronservice"; before that he had headed "Strym Techno." In other words, the person who ran a private drone manufacturer moved to run the state enterprise that buys such products. Hvozdar did not list leadership of "Strym Techno" in his declaration, and after his appointment some company information disappeared from state registries.

But it gets even more interesting with Ajax Systems. In 2022 Konotopskyi announced the company's exit from the Russian market, yet in 2026 Ajax products continued to be sold in the Russian Federation. The supply chain, according to the data cited, runs through the UAE and Kazakhstan: from September 2025 to March 2026 Kazakh companies received nearly 60 thousand units of Ajax, after which the products appear on the Russian market. In other words, they supposedly left the Russian market, but their products keep ending up there.

While some money flows into Konotopskyi’s business through Ukrainian defense procurement, other flows keep moving through foreign jurisdictions. "Strym Techno" received nearly 499 million UAH in fines from the State Special Communications Service for failing to fulfill state contracts. Konotopskyi is also named as one of the financial backers of information support for Fedorov, together with figures from big business and the media environment. The construction is notable: billions from the budget to a private manufacturer, his former manager into a state enterprise, and another business's products again on the Russian market.

Despite the facts we established about continued supplies of Ajax Systems products to the Russian market, the SBU still sees no grounds to open a criminal case against Oleksandr Konotopskyi. Meanwhile Konotopskyi continues to fund PR campaigns supporting Fedorov, who after resignation is trying to return to power and, in our assessment, is aiming for the presidency. The result is a telling picture: a Russian link in the business is not grounds for a criminal case, while the businessman’s money continues working to politically bring back the person under whose tenure his companies received billion-hryvnia defense orders.

By decision of investigative judge T.V. Ovsepyan of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv in case No. 761/27608/26 it was refused to oblige the SBU to start a pre-trial investigation into these facts.

In January 2014 Judge Tetyana Ovsepyan of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv deprived Oleksandr Kovalsky of his driver's license for alleged failure to comply with a traffic police officer's order to stop during a motor rally to Mezhyhirya. Witnesses at the trial said that at the time of that "stop" they were together with Kovalsky elsewhere, and the traffic police officer whose testimony the prosecution relied on did not appear in court. The High Council of Justice later agreed that Ovsepyan's decision contained violations, but could not punish the judge because the statute of limitations for accountability had expired.

And today the same Ovsepyan continues to serve as a judge. She was the one who refused the prosecution’s request to continue the investigation into the "Vovk tapes," which caused the investigation to lose the opportunity to conduct expertise of recordings from the OASK chairman's office and to question some witnesses. In other words, the judge who once avoided accountability due to expired terms has now herself put the investigation at risk because of those same time limits.

The AOA pays hundreds of millions for weapons that the military refuse to accept, while Konotopskyi and Pashynskyi remain in the orbit of multi-billion defense orders for years. When questions arise about these flows, the SBU and the Investigative Unit of the Main Department of the National Police in Kyiv see no grounds for criminal proceedings, and judges of the Shevchenkivskyi court block even the start. That is how defense cartels receive not only budget billions but also judicial and law-enforcement cover. The main question now is: how many billions have Konotopskyi and Pashynskyi already cycled through the AOA and how much weaponry paid for by the state never reached Ukrainian soldiers?