Maryna Bezrukova: We are not tame buyers who are ready to drain budget into billions, just by someone’s verbal order
The Supervisory Board of the Defense Procurement Agency has extended the contract with Maryna Bezrukova, and later Defense Minister Rustem Umierov announced that he was dismissing Bezrukova.
This announcement caused shock and confusion, as it is unclear which decision is legally valid and how Zhumadilov can head two agencies.
At 22:00, Censor.NET recorded an interview with Maryna Bezrukova, in which she accuses the Ministry of pressuring her to sign certain contracts. She also voiced accusations that information about the contracts also leaked from the Ministry.
-In fact, this morning you could have been congratulated on the fact that the supervisory board finally signed an additional agreement and extended your contract for a year. But at 6 pm, the minister wrote a post saying that you were fired. Is there any understanding at all of what happened and what is actually legally valid? Was it the decision of the supervisory board or the minister?
-I read Rustem Umerov's post. To be honest, I could not comprehend and understand it, because there is the law "On Management of State-Owned Entities", there is the Charter approved by the Ministry, there is the relevant supervisory board, which was elected and appointed by the Minister of Defence, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers. And I cannot understand how you can rape all of this and do, in fact, what was discussed in the post. I do not understand at all how this can be done without violating all possible laws, memoranda, our promises and common sense.
I mean, it's very strange and emotional in my opinion, so I think that we probably need to have an honest and frank conversation with the minister about this.
-"It is clear that there was a conflict between you and the Minister, a conflict over the charters between the Ministry and the Supervisory Board. We have all seen the happy photos of the Minister's meeting with the supervisory board of SLO, where cooperation was declared. Did you have a similar meeting with the supervisory board of the DPA? What do you know about it? Were you invited to it?
-"I was not invited to the meeting, but the feedback from the Supervisory Board members was not very positive. I can't comment on it because it's the Supervisory Board's business. But there were no photos.
-Did you have any meetings with Umerov during this period, when there was already a conflict with the charters?
-"When we received the charter, which happened exactly one day before the founding meeting of the Supervisory Board, I was again a little surprised, because three days before we came to the Ministry and asked to discuss the new draft charter with the agency's Supervisory Board. Moreover, we sent an official request that we would like to discuss the draft charter so that the Supervisory Board could give its vision and recommendations, but instead we received an approved charter that had not been communicated in any way beforehand.
Later, when the Supervisory Board met, we brought the new charter to them. There was a clear desire not to even start, because this new charter essentially transformed the supervisory board into an advisory body, which completely defeats the purpose of the work, because if the supervisory board has to coordinate everything with the ministry, then why have a supervisory board?
Because the idea of a supervisory board is independence of management, enrichment of experience and direct influence on management, which has no direct influence on the ministry. Of course, the agency is an enterprise of the Ministry of Defence, but since February, or rather since January last year, it was the Ministry of Defence, not the DPA, that came out with a communication about the creation of the Supervisory Board, precisely to show that the agency works independently, and this was communicated to the public and our partners who support us so much, including financially, and now there is a complete breakdown of the system, the reasons for which I do not know.
-OK. When was the last time you sawUmerov?
-On Saturday.
-Where? In the ministry?
-The President's Office.
-It was obvious at the time that there was a conflict, but was it discussed in the Office at all, or were they talking about other things?
-"I don't know, I'm not really in politics, and I don't have time to collect rumours. It was a working meeting about contracting, challenges and problems. The meeting was quite constructive, both ministers and advisers were present, but there were no complaints or comments about the work.
On the contrary, Rustem Umerov supported my initiatives, shared and agreed with the risks I communicated regarding the contracting, because my strategy now is to diversify risks, because we have one goal - to ensure stable supply of the Armed Forces.
I am a patriot, and I understand that Ukrainian production should work, while the first priority for me as a procurer is to supply the Armed Forces. Therefore, if there is a conflict between contracting with a Ukrainian manufacturer, which has very serious risks for various reasons, and supplying the Armed Forces, then my duty is to supply the Armed Forces.
I suggested that we all work together, including Rustem Umerov, to define a strategy, and I am ready to defend my position, and the minister supported me and agreed that it makes sense.
-I understand that the meeting was about contracting with a Ukrainian manufacturer?
-Basically yes. As for the Ukrainian manufacturer, these are urgent tasks that everyone has to solve now. And the agency, among other things, has to act very quickly on contracting, but I had no concerns, no complaints, and we said goodbye very warmly, and then what happened happened.
-That is actually very typical of this minister's management style.
-Yes, but I'm not really in emotion, I'm coming from a legal perspective - when we sign contracts, we follow the approval procedures. And I certainly take into account all regulatory documents - both ministerial and our own - that is, first the regulations, then the work. Therefore, in 2024, I repeatedly raised the initiative to change the regulatory framework, both Resolution 1275 and the simplification of contracting, as well as to change the internal regulatory framework of the Ministry.
Unfortunately, all this was not considered, but in 2025 we will be more persistent, and I am ready to communicate and defend our position to a wider audience, not only the Ministry of Defence, but all other stakeholders, including, for example, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Strategic Industry, the Ministry of Digital Transformation. This is not a problem at all. I mean, if the arguments are broken down, I accept it, because constructive criticism is always very cool.
And when we all communicate together, with one goal in mind - to quickly supply the Armed Forces of Ukraine - this is resolved quickly. That is, the regulatory framework is what we act in accordance with. We are not raiders, we are not chaotic contractors, we are not a reputation whitewash machine, we are not tame buyers who are ready to spend billions on the budget just on someone's verbal order.
-"I'm going to interrupt here and ask you straight out, were there any attempts to put pressure on the agency and push certain suppliers?
-Of course they were.
-Fromwhom?
-From many people.
-Were there any officials from the Ministry of Defence among them?
-Including.
-From what the minister wrote, there is a complaint about the supply of weapons to the frontline. That is, the minister is dissatisfied with the level of supplies from DPA. Can you comment on this?
-It's weird.
See. The Agency has been fully operational since February 2024. Prior to that, most of the procurement was carried out by the Department of Military and Technical Policy.
And DMTP does not disclose information about its contracts. I have repeatedly asked the ministry to open the delivery schedules of DMTP contracts, and received a response that it was impractical. Therefore, I do not have this information confirmed.
The DMTP definitely advanced contracts for 2024 in December and November 2013.
-And the contracts that were signed directly under your watch, if this is not classified information, what were the delivery times in general?
On average, this is a year.
For a certain nomenclature that I contract with Bulgarian plants, it is 2 years, but this has been agreed. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that every contract is approved by the Ministry of Defence before signing and registering it - and this is an integral part of the contract, along with delivery schedules.
Every contract and every delivery schedule is approved by the Ministry of Defence before I sign it. That's about 8-9 departments. Each additional agreement to extend the delivery period is signed only with the permission of the Ministry of Defence.
I can't do it physically otherwise. I have a procedure, and the office will not register it for me until the Ministry approves it, because it is an order and we have to comply with it. So it is very strange for me to hear that the Ministry is not satisfied with the level of supply.
Everything we do is in accordance with the directives and under the full control of the Ministry of Defence.
Again, why are we only talking today about the fact that we are not satisfied with the level of supply? What did you do yesterday? What did you do the day before yesterday?
-In principle, at least, claims regarding the supply could have been voiced in August-October before the Supervisory Board was formed and even a decision could have been made.
-Of course, moreover, the Ministry of Defence can turn these claims on itself.
Because it is not me who is present at the bids, it is not the DPA that communicates this. In order to have a supply here and now, we need to agree on it yesterday or the day before yesterday. And I do not see such competence.
My idea and my strategy is that to have a stable supply, you need to have at least two or even three stable contracts for each critical product line.
And then, when you have a failure for a certain type of tool, you can find it in the warehouses. It's not difficult. I mean, I already have information about all the possibilities, all the warehouses that are available. And there are actually a lot of them.
But when it comes to deliveries, when you need something frantically from the warehouse, it raises the percentage significantly.
-When, for example, was there a significant shortage of mines?
- Yes, that's right.
And if I didn't have one hundred per cent of the documents confirming how it was all acquired, i.e. my letters to the ministry with my reservations, my letters to the services asking them to conduct additional checks or give their reservations, if any, I am sure that there would have been an attempt to blame it on the agency. And no one would have mentioned the enormous pressure that was put on the agency to control this particular supplier and this particular quantity.
-"Was there any pressure?
-Yes.
-And again, from the side of the Ministry of Defence?
-Yes. I do not absolve myself of responsibility, but I know for sure that I have done my best to diversify the risks in contracting.
By the way, I communicated this to Rustem Umerov on Saturday, and unfortunately, we cannot rely on this manufacturer now. At least not to the extent required by the Ministry of Strategic Industries. I communicated this very clearly in the presence of other ministers.
And I said that we have a very bad work history. There was a failure on the frontline in terms of supplying mines and shells. And my position is this.
That is, perhaps this was the reason for the minister's dissatisfaction.
"I understand that in addition to the delivery of defective mines, there is a significant percentage of non-delivery under contracts by the same plant.
-Yes.
-And, judging by another part of Umerov 's post, I understand that the minister is unhappy that this was leaked to the media.
-Possibly.
-That is, the minister does not even understand how this story leaked to the media. And that the first reason for the scandal was that the military began to complain en masse at the front about poor-quality mines. And that a significant part of the blame lies with the Ministry, because it appears to have improperly tested the shells.
-"You know, I was not the initiator of this scandal. In fact, this scandal hurt me, because when all this information about the mines emerged, I knew it before, and it was not my job to spill everything to the public. I just started looking for an alternative very quickly.
And when this scandal happened, prices went up. And I found myself in a very uncomfortable situation when the buyer, or rather the seller, knows that you have an urgent need, and they take advantage of it.
-By the way. At the briefing, Herman Smetanin assured that the state had lost nothing from the story of the defective mines.
Therefore, I would like to hear your version of the damage, if you can estimate it.
-"I don't know what to say to that. You are sitting in a trench, you have no mine, you have nothing to shoot with.
-Let's tell the truth, let's say that you are dying because you, as infantry, are not protected by a mortar team...
-And the state lost nothing?
-Herman Smetanin was obviously referring to additional funds for contracting.
-"No, well, look. Of course, when we re-contracted the mines, we lost money. But we are not talking about money and repairs here.
Let's count in lives, if we are so cynical as to talk about money, well, let's calculate how much a person's life is worth in terms of money. What is the impact on GDP? Future efficiency from a citizen.
It's about money, let's put it this way.
-Let's go back to the world of contracting. After the famous statement by the Ministry of Defence about the 100 billion that you did not spend, I think that many people got the impression that you did not contract it at all. So, perhaps, now we need to discuss, at least in terms of percentage, how much of the money allocated was contracted, and, in fact, where the Ministry got this amount of 100 billion from. Because the financiers were very amused by the MoD's statement at the time.
-"Yes, the financiers laughed. Because there was no 100 billion. Our budget was 306.2. Or 306.5.
We received a third of them in early October. It was the last day of September or the beginning of October. According to the plan, the bulk of the money was to be spent in October.
It was according to the plan. We communicated these plans to the Ministry of Defence. The Treasury knew about it.
There is such a thing as allocations. We have a budget. For example, for this year it is 298 billion.
But in January, I have allocations for 19 billion. I cannot spend more than that. And, accordingly, the allocations were opened for December in a very large part.
When we received the fourth instalment in early October, we signed the contract very quickly, conducted inspections, and waited for the licence. In other words, we were actually waiting for the licence at that time.
The contracts were ready for 50 billion. The list of these contracts was communicated to the Ministry of Defence.
We knew that by the end of November, the first week of December, the companies would receive their licences and we would be able to pay the advances. And then the Cabinet of Ministers issued a decree that the Ministry of Defence had given money to the State Border Guard Service.
That is, I had contracts for 50 plus billion and advances of 23-25 billion were planned. And all the rest of the money was blocked for payments for the delivered goods. That is, it was not even 23 billion, but actually less, about 21.8.
It was all our free money. But it was not free, it was contracted. We just hadn't made any commitments for it yet, we hadn't blocked it in the treasury because we didn't have a license.
This is a very complicated mechanics. In fact, it's hard for someone who doesn't understand budget legislation to comprehend it. I mean, there are allocations for December - 50 billion.
First, you make budgetary commitments. That is, you block this money in the treasury under a contract and only then pay. So, I do not risk money and do not block funds in the treasury until I have all the documents - inspections, licences and an unconditional contract.
At the end of November, we still had 21.8 billion. Another piece was from the reserve fund, but the Ministry does not distinguish between the reserve fund and the main fund. That's why we were waiting for the licence from day to day.
But somehow, as I was told earlier at the meeting, there was a very strong manipulation, because it was communicated that we did not use 100 billion in our accounts. This is a cynical lie. And the person who manipulated the decision of the Council must have done so deliberately.
As a result, they took our money. It was all the free money that was supposed to cover these advances. And we had to save the situation by withdrawing money from live, active contracts.
-I think it's a stupid practice because it always carries a corruption risk, because the question immediately arises, why did you withdraw from this contract and not from another?
-"We withdrew from those contracts that we could reach an agreement with the counterparty, because none of the counterparties were at all willing to fulfil their budgetary obligations. Everyone understands what it is. And it was definitely not corrupt, because we asked, we forced.
-That is, it was an agreed decision, not your own, but communicated with the counterparty?
-I cannot remove budgetary obligations by my own decision. It is always an additional agreement between me and the counterparty. Otherwise, the treasury will not accept it.
My signature, the counterparty's signature. Can you imagine how they fought against this?
-Ifwe are talking about 23 billion, everyone knows that it went to the Polish company Leсhmar. I don't know if it's allowed to disclose this, but did this company make an offer to you? If they did, can you tell us the reasons why they were rejected or whether they considered the offer?
-In fact, it is one of the most specific companies, as I understand it. Before me, the Agency had a contract with Lechmar back in '23. It was not signed by me, but by my predecessor. But it did not come to delivery and advance payment.
Because Lechmar decided to change the technical specifications of the products. And when the technical specifications of products change or are not confirmed, we immediately communicate with the Armed Forces to find out whether the product is suitable for these characteristics. Because it is not up to the DPA to decide what characteristics should be supplied to the military.
We work strictly on the orders of the military. That is, my main task is to provide for the military. This is the only thing I need to do.
The military did not confirm this. Lechmar said 'OK' and sold it to someone else. Namely, as far as I know, to the border guards.
But this is not a fact, because the DPA does not have access to the contracts concluded by the Border Guard Service.
-Did the State Border Guard Service contact you directly about this proposal?
-The Border Guard Service made a very strange request. Give us all the information on your contracts.
I don't really remember what we said. But I know for sure that the border guard service has a lot of information about the DPA.
-Because of information leaks?
-"Yes, leaks are a problem. I want to really communicate this. Leakage is a problem.
And I can somehow block this from the DPA side.
-And from the Ministry?
-But not from the Ministry. Because there are a lot of people there.
I cannot put a control unit on the departments of the Ministry of Defence. I can handle my own. Cybersecurity, polygraph....
But the leak is not only from the DPA. That's for sure.
Have you ever fired people for leaking information?
-Yes.
-How many?
- Not just one.
-Let's go back to the story of the contract signing. I understand that thesupervisoryboard went its own way. They didn't fire you or reassign you. They extended your contract. In order not to run afoul of the charter.
-Exactly. And even with the amended charter or the old charter, it was exclusively the supervisory authority, where no one would have asked the Ministry, in principle. This is a very clear legal position that fully complies with both the law and the charter. And, in fact, this is the only possible way out to keep the process going.
The supervisory board had only one option - to extend my term of office. Initially, it was proposed to do this for two years, but I said that two years was not necessary - one year is enough to conduct an audit, hold a competition, and this will be legal, normal, in accordance with the rules, and this will allow us not to stop the continuity. In other words, the supervisory board took the only possible path based on the law and common sense.
-How many people, as far as you know, from the supervisory board voted in favour of extending the contract? Because the minister said that I was withdrawing two state members of the supervisory board because they did not listen to the ministry.
-"Let's be honest. Everyone voted unanimously to extend my contract.
There are official protocols about this, and it was recorded on video. After that, a very serious pressure on the supervisory board began. That is, from what I know, the minister personally threatened the members of the supervisory board with dismissal if they did not do what he said.
They cannot like this, and as a result, when they voted for the contract authorisation, the votes were divided, but the overwhelming majority, according to the charter, was in favour. So the decision was made, it is legitimate.
-"I understand that the supervisory board members were divided in their opinions on the extension period - some suggested only 3 months.
-"The ministry actually offered to cut me down. And I understand that all this time I would have been under attack.
-"To be honest, I was not expecting this post of minister, but rather a suspicion from law enforcement agencies.
Anything is possible. I've already been told that they've already gone to you with suspicion. I said: let them come. I've been through this before, and it's not so scary when people with machine guns knock at 6am.
There is nothing wrong with that, as long as there is no trouble. I work with the services, and I am absolutely open to cooperation. If you need something, just in my apartment, in my computer, in my phone, good afternoon, look.
I had a conversation with an investigator when they showed me a video of me. I said: "You have been watching me closely for two years. You know for sure that I am not a corrupt official. If I had even taken a chocolate bar, I wouldn't be talking to you anymore." And then he turned red. He never called me again.
-Back to the beginning of the conflict, when the story about the creation of the 3rd drone procurement agency first appeare.
Don't remind me, what drone agency? It's an institution, it has to live on something. I live on 0.4%. This is my salary, business trips, petrol, pens, pencils, paper. That's it. What will this drone agency live on?
.. Then there was the story of the merger with SLO. At that time, some parts of the audit surfaced , which contained claims against you. That you still have a lot of contracts with special importers, and that you have bought expensive carsfor yourself, and that you often go on business trips. Is this true?
-"It's horrible. And you know that when we contract with special importers, I can show you the text messages, but the Ministry constantly calls the special importers and me to joint meetings. And they say the following: contract everything, urgently.
I then asked, "Excuse me, but why should we contract special importers, because we are there, we are pushing in the market. No, we have to contract everyone.
There were even meetings every week between special importers and the Agency. I asked the Deputy Minister why special importers were being supported. I began to push them very consistently and gently, without harsh hands, because these are large companies, they have assets, they have people, they have connections.
And this should not be done abruptly, because those who pay taxes will suffer. So my message to the special importers was that you have to work for production. Take your resources...
-Or they may end up buying it from countries that we cannot contract directly.
-I will comment on this now. As I told the special importers: take your connections, take your resources, and make production in Ukraine. "Ukrainian Armour has chosen this path and I respect it. Although they are definitely still inclined to simply make money by buying ammunition.
STEs have also gone this way, although STE capabilities are exploration capabilities, and they can indeed bring back goods from the Moon. But these opportunities are not exclusive. And the more stable contracts I have, direct, long ones for critical nomenclature, the less I need STE.
And we are moving towards this. All the others are small. If they offer something situationally, good, cheap, desirable, without overpaying, investing it in their own resources, then we will buy it from them.
But other opportunities have grown many times over this year. So I don't really need special importers now. That's why the Ministry of Defence's accusation is strange.
-In the context of the topic of special importers, I cannot help but ask this question because I see how very actively they are trying to link you to PashynskyandUkrainian Armour, and this is being broadcast, including from the Ministry. At the same time, it is very strange to see the heads of Armour and the Ministry simultaneously liking Halyna Yanchenko's posts about the need to lift fines. But the question now is not about fines, but about how much the volume of contracts for Ukrainian Armour has increased during your leadership.
To be honest, I can't say exactly how much it has increased. We need to see. But I do know one thing.
"Every day, 'Bronetekhnika' threatens me and shouts that I am destroying the Ukrainian manufacturer. I don't really know what the Ukrainian manufacturer has to do with it. Where Armoury acts and invests in Ukrainian production, I will be the first to support it.
Where they just offer overpriced shells, it's not really necessary.
I know that they speak negatively about me wherever they can. They send me threats directly. It was wildly funny to me when I was accused of working for the UA at one of the meetings.
It really got me going.
-I know that all Ukrainian specialty importers are not happy with you. I even quoted all their complaints in an article in December...
- Of course, they are not happy despite the words of some MPs.
-In this context, I wonder if we can talk about an increase in force majeure claims, for example, in recent months?
-Yes. Sure.
I get force majeure with a smile. Especially after the first decision was made to cancel the fines, and then it was returned. One of the special importers brought me force majeure with a smirk and said: "Well, what can you do for me now?"
When these amendments were made, I felt nothing but despair: are we really thinking about saving special importers, are we really thinking that we should take care of producers who do not fulfil their obligations? Doesn't anyone realise that the cancellation of fines is a direct invitation to submit delivery schedules that are deliberately false? What happens? A company submits a proposal. It knows that if it doesn't deliver on time, it will not be penalised.
In order to win the contract, she deliberately submits false deadlines. I set these schedules. The soldiers at the front are counting on them. And then they get nothing.
And they die. Instead, I get papers in the form of force majeure. I am categorically against reducing fines.
I communicated this. I am in favour of changing the essential circumstances. But this is also a borderline decision.
Penalties for late delivery should be very serious. No one forces a supplier to sign a contract at gunpoint. If you don't want to, you don't have to.
-I have also heard often that there is a problem with contracting and supplying drones - from mavic to drummers.
-We contract according to the list and we are ready to contract more if it is listed. There is always a risk of contract failure, and no one, be it me or a Google buyer, can ever guarantee 100% delivery. There is always a risk. The question is the price of this risk.
We cannot now fulfil these contracts for mavicas that we have in full. Because again, there is a risk of failure. But every day I keep delivery schedules for all drones and all Mavic, and deliveries are taking place. The question of increasing it is a matter of budget.
-A different nomenclature? FPV?
-"Look, there are a lot of FPVs that are already codified by the Ministry of Defence. We contract them all. We process all requests for supply and contracting of FPV guns quite quickly.
When we received a request for 120,000, we signed the contract in three days.
-There's another criticism that you take care of second-level needs rather than first-level ones. How true is this?
-Preference always goes to the first number. Always.
-Butas for this story about anti-tank mines in 1941, I understand that these anti-tank mines, among other things, were in the second priority.
-"We contracted them as a reserve. We did not pay for them. That's why any manufacturer who offers this mine cheaper and confirms their ownership of the product will be contracted.
-To conclude the interview, let's talk about our international prospects, because we all talk a lot about the so-called Danish model when European states finance our arms purchases.
-To what extent can this situation with the DPA undermine official funding in general?
-"I'll put it this way. My phone is ringing off the hook with inquiries from embassies, military attaches, political advisers. My phone is ringing off the hook with inquiries from international media. Today, I had a meeting with five embassies, I think, who very clearly articulated their support for the DPA and were very concerned about the situation.
All this happened before I became Minister of Defence. The communication was clear on what exactly needs to be done to support Ukraine's institutional capacity, I definitely communicated that everything was fine, that we were working and that there was a certain escalation that occurred situationally and we were ready to communicate every decision and every action.
But after becoming Minister of Defence, it's hard for me to make up my mind now, because the reality is that our partners are ready to withdraw funds. We have been working every day for eight months to build trust. We explained every step we took, we explained our process, and we are now at the stage where we are actually trusted, not just in words.
In real time, I am now receiving text messages from the countries that have the most resources to support Ukraine. I have already announced it to them and they are asking what is really going on. It is still difficult for me to communicate this, because, let's be honest, I do not understand the position of the Minister of Defence.
I don't understand how this can happen legally, how it can happen in accordance with our memoranda and guarantees. I don't want to harm the support of international partners, so the situation is complicated. It has to be resolved at the level of the top officials of the state.
Immediately.
Tatiana Nikolayenko, Censor.net
