The other day, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky signed an important decree on the creation of Unmanned Systems Forces as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The importance of the development of unmanned aircraft, as one of the most effective means of defeating the enemy, has been repeatedly noted in statements by our military-political leadership and in the expert community. The idea of creating a “drone army”, producing a million drones by 2024 by a Ukrainian manufacturer, is supported by both the authorities and the people. And this is a completely sensible idea, because it is UAVs that demonstrate ultra-high efficiency on the battlefield and help maintain the front near Avdievka and in other hot areas
Back in December, the Ministry of Strategic Industry optimistically noted that Ukraine should take key positions in the global drone manufacturing market in 2024. It is planned to achieve this through the widespread involvement of small and medium-sized businesses in their production. However, already at the first stage of implementation of this program, numerous difficulties arose. And they are connected not only with the bureaucratization of the process on the part of customers, but also with the incomprehensible activity of law enforcement officers, in particular the State Bureau of Investigation, which significantly complicates the work of UAV manufacturers.
We were approached by representatives of a company that produces unmanned systems, which is trying to meet the needs of the front, and has recently been experiencing incomprehensible pressure from the State Intelligence Bureau. This pressure could eventually lead to a halt in production and leave individual units on the contact line without reconnaissance and attack drones at a critical moment.
Let us immediately note that the purpose of this article is to identify the problem, in our opinion, of unlawful actions of individual officials of the State Bureau of Investigation in relation to representatives of the most important branch of military production today. We do not seek in any way to discredit the State Bureau of Investigation as a state body that performs the functions of establishing justice in society through timely prevention, detection, suppression, rapid detection and objective investigation of crimes. The SBI employs many qualified operatives and investigators who, in their work, adhere to the principles of legality, fairness, impartiality, independence and the rule of law. And this is not irony, we really think so.
At the same time, the actions of some law enforcement officers in this structure raise, at the very least, surprise and doubts about their competence, and, at most, suggest thoughts of deliberate obstruction of the activities of domestic drone manufacturers. Let's take a closer look at the situation.
A letter from the Territorial Directorate of the SBI in Kiev, signed by the deputy head of the first investigative department of this department, Vitaly Drozd, demanded that the drone manufacturer provide a significant amount of technical documentation, allegedly for inclusion in the case in criminal proceedings under Part 3 of Article 212 and Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code . These articles deal respectively with tax evasion and abuse of power.
In the list of documents that the SBI investigator requires, the most strange is, in particular, the requirement for a list of persons with special titles in the field of unmanned aerial vehicles. For Mr. Drozd’s information, a special rank is a term that relates exclusively to positions of individual government and law enforcement agencies. Employees of a private company cannot legally have any special titles, since this is not provided for by law. It seems someone at the academy was skipping government classes.
If the author of the letter meant the positions of engineers, operators and designers on the company’s staff, then, excuse me, what difference does it make what position is held by the person who assembles drones for the front during the war? Let's then stop production and bring staffing schedules into line with the requirements of the State Bureau of Investigation or some other officials. Will the business then have time to produce a million drones in 2024? Very doubtful.
Further, the amazingness of the requirements of the Kyiv State Bureau of Investigation only increases. The manufacturer is required to provide the results of technical and qualification tests carried out in accordance with the requirements of DSTU and GOST standards of the 1990s, 1980s and 1970s (!). The last two GOSTs from the times of the USSR in Ukraine were canceled back in 2021 by order of the Ukrainian Research and Training Center for Standardization, Certification and Quality Problems dated December 15, 2021 No. 501. So, for example, instead of the old Soviet GOST 15.301-80 “System for the development and installation of production of military equipment. Starting production of products. Basic provisions”, the Ukrainian DSTU V-P 15.301:2021 “System for the development and launching of production of weapons and military equipment” has been introduced. Launching the production of weapons and military equipment. Rules for carrying out work”, which in 2023 was updated to DSTU B 15.301:2023 “Life cycle management system for weapons and military equipment. Launching the production of weapons and military equipment. Rules for carrying out work.” However, investigators from the State Bureau of Investigation demand that the manufacturer of modern drones adhere to Soviet GOST standards. Supporters of “old school” and soviet style?
Soviet GOST, which for some reason the SBI insists on compliance with, regulates the conduct of “NIR”, or in Ukrainian – NIR, that is, research work on the development of weapons. This is a rather lengthy and painstaking process, consisting of many stages of testing, approvals and bureaucratic procedures. For example, the development of the Stugna-P anti-tank missile system, which was carried out in Ukraine precisely according to this old GOST, took almost 6 years (from 2005 to 2011) at the stage from drawings to the start of mass production.
The latest Ukrainian DSTU was developed during a full-scale war and is much more adapted to modern realities. At the same time, this document is adapted mainly for large state-owned enterprises and it is extremely difficult for small and medium-sized manufacturers to adhere to it when providing UAV troops. Forcing small industries to adhere to this standard is tantamount to shutting down those industries and, consequently, the collapse of the entire mass public UAV program. Why does the SBI demand exactly this and doesn’t it look like deliberate sabotage?
In addition to the above, investigator Vitaly Drozd requested many more different certificates, confirmations and conclusions, including the conclusions of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and documents on the right to use technical conditions, and the grounds for concluding contracts with customers, and the like. Collecting this entire pile of papers requires a small company of several dozen employees to create a separate legal department, and retrain all engineers as lawyers and clerks. In the meantime, who will assemble drones for the guys from scratch? Perhaps employees of the investigative department of the Kyiv TU SBI will help?
And finally. Mr. Drozd suggested sending this whole bunch of papers to him by email, for some reason not to the state secure server @kv.dbr.gov.ua, but to the mailbox @gmail.com. Is it possible to receive information on a public server and store it there that acquires the status of a secret of the pre-trial investigation? Well, at least such regulations as “Instructions for organizing the recording, movement and storage of materials of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings, which is carried out by investigators of the State Bureau of Investigation” and “Instructions for office work of the State Bureau of Investigation” prohibit this.
So, this whole situation, first of all, demonstrates the low level of professional competence of employees of individual territorial bodies of the SBI, who, instead of fulfilling the mission entrusted to them by the state and society, for some reason, are engaged in direct pressure on entrepreneurs in the strategically important branch of military production, which is only surprising and bewilderment. Will any conclusions be drawn after our material? Not yet known.
