Ukraine arrests two suspects accused of extorting foreign defense supplier
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has arrested two individuals in Kyiv accused of attempting to extort $200,000 from a European defense company, potentially jeopardizing the delivery of electronic warfare (EW) systems to Ukraine's military, the SBU reported on June 14.
The suspects allegedly demanded the payment in exchange for facilitating the successful testing and adoption of five radio electronic warfare systems provided to Ukraine at no cost, according to statements released by the SBU and the Prosecutor General's Office.
The devices, supplied by a private foreign manufacturer, were financed by Ukraine's international partners. The producer had already delivered five systems to Ukraine, with additional contracts possible if the equipment performed well in combat conditions, the SBU said.
According to investigators, the suspects falsely claimed to have influence within Ukraine's Defense Ministry and promised to use their connections to ensure positive evaluations of the equipment.
"Under the guise of having contacts within the ministry, the men demanded $200,000 from the company in exchange for ensuring no obstacles during official trials of the equipment," the Prosecutor General's Office said in a statement.
Both men have been formally charged under Ukraine's Criminal Code for alleged obstruction of the Armed Forces and receiving unlawful benefits through influence peddling. The charges carry a possible sentence of up to eight years in prison and asset confiscation.
The arrests were made as part of a broader investigation led by the SBU and conducted under the procedural oversight of the Specialized Defense Prosecutor's Office. Authorities say the investigation is ongoing to identify all individuals involved.
Ukraine continues to rely heavily on international military assistance as it defends against Russia's full-scale invasion, now in its fourth year. Ukraine uses EW systems during Russian attacks on its cities and on the front line.
Kyiv and its Western partners launched an electronic warfare coalition in April, which consists of 11 countries and comes on top of other eight Western coalitions to support Ukraine. Other similar initiatives include an artillery coalition, a fighter jet coalition, and a demining coalition, organized within the framework of the Ramstein format.
Read also: From buffer zone to new front: Russia pushes deeper into Sumy Oblast
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Beijing official overseeing Hong Kong warns of persisting national security threats
HONG KONG (AP) — A top Beijing official overseeing Hong Kong affairs on Saturday warned of persisting threats in the city as a China-imposed national security law approaches its fifth anniversary, while seeking to allay concerns about the law's impact on the financial hub's openness. Speaking at a forum about the law, attended also by the city leader John Lee and other officials, Xia Baolong, the director of China's Hong Kong and Macao Work Office, said various forms of soft resistance continue to emerge in new forms and external forces have never ceased their intervention in Hong Kong. 'Hong Kong has transformed from chaos to order. But just as a tree desires stillness, the wind continues to blow,' Xia said. The Beijing and Hong Kong governments deemed the law necessary to maintain the city's stability following anti-government protests in 2019. Under the law, many leading pro-democracy activists, including Jimmy Lai, founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily newspaper, were prosecuted. Dozens of civil society groups disbanded. This month, authorities have stepped up their crackdown, including charging young activist Joshua Wong, who was already sentenced last year over a subversion case, under the law for the second time and targeting a mobile game app. Last week, China's national security authorities in Hong Kong and the city's police launched their first publicly known joint operation, raiding the homes of six people on suspicion of colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security. Critics say the political changes indicate that the Western-style civil liberties Beijing promised to keep intact when the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997 are shrinking. But Xia said the law only targeted an extremely small number of people who severely endanger national security. He also sought to allay concerns about Hong Kong's openness and international position. He insisted that normal international exchanges do not violate Hong Kong's national security law but rather are protected by it.
Miami Herald
36 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Europe's growing fear: How Trump might use US tech dominance against it
LONDON -- When President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February against the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for investigating Israel for war crimes, Microsoft was suddenly thrust into the middle of a geopolitical fight. For years, Microsoft had supplied the court -- which is based in The Hague in the Netherlands and investigates and prosecutes human rights breaches, genocides and other crimes of international concern -- with digital services such as email. Trump's order abruptly threw that relationship into disarray by barring U.S. companies from providing services to the prosecutor, Karim Khan. Soon after, Microsoft, which is based in Redmond, Washington, helped turn off Khan's ICC email account, freezing him out of communications with colleagues just a few months after the court had issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for his country's actions in the Gaza Strip. Microsoft's swift compliance with Trump's order, reported earlier by The Associated Press, shocked policymakers across Europe. It was a wake-up call for a problem far bigger than just one email account, stoking fears that the Trump administration would leverage America's tech dominance to penalize opponents, even in allied countries like the Netherlands. 'The ICC showed this can happen,' said Bart Groothuis, a former head of cybersecurity for the Dutch Ministry of Defense who is now a member of the European Parliament. 'It's not just fantasy.' Groothuis once supported U.S. tech firms but has done a '180-degree flip-flop,' he said. 'We have to take steps as Europe to do more for our sovereignty.' Some at the ICC are now using Proton, a Swiss company that provides encrypted email services, three people with knowledge of the communications said. Microsoft said the decision to suspend Khan's email had been made in consultation with the ICC. The company said it had since enacted policy changes that had been in the works before the episode to protect customers in similar geopolitical situations in the future. When the Trump administration sanctioned four additional ICC judges this month, their email accounts were not suspended, the company said. Brad Smith, Microsoft's president, said concerns raised by the ICC episode were a 'symptom' of a larger erosion of trust between the United States and Europe. 'The ICC issue added fuel to a fire that was already burning,' he said. Khan has been on leave from the ICC since last month, pending a sexual misconduct investigation. He has denied the allegations. An ICC spokesperson said it was taking steps to 'mitigate risks which may affect the court's personnel' and 'taking extensive measures to ensure the continuity of all relevant operations and services in the face of sanctions.' The episode has set off alarms across Europe about how dependent European governments, businesses and citizens are on U.S. tech companies like Microsoft for essential digital infrastructure -- and how hard it will be to disentangle themselves. Concerns about how else Trump might leverage technology for political advantage has jump-started efforts across the region to develop alternatives. Casper Klynge, a former Danish and European Union diplomat who worked for Microsoft, said the episode was in many ways the 'smoking gun that many Europeans had been looking for.' 'If the U.S. administration goes after certain organizations, countries or individuals, the fear is American companies are obligated to comply,' said Klynge, who now works for a cybersecurity company. 'It's had a profound impact.' The tech debate adds to an increasingly fractious U.S.-European relationship over trade, tariffs and the war in Ukraine. Trump and Vice President JD Vance have criticized how Europe regulates U.S. tech companies, and U.S. officials have made digital oversight and taxation part of ongoing trade negotiations. European regulators have argued that they need to be able to police the biggest digital platforms in their own countries without worrying that they will face political pressure and punishment from a foreign government. 'If we don't build adequate capacity within Europe, then we won't be able to make political choices anymore,' said Alexandra Geese, a member of the European Parliament. Since Edward Snowden's leak of scores of documents in 2013 detailing widespread U.S. surveillance of digital communications, Europeans have sought to diminish their reliance on U.S. tech. Lawmakers and regulators have targeted Apple, Meta, Google and others for anticompetitive business practices, privacy-invading services, and the spread of disinformation and other divisive content. Yet without viable alternatives, institutions across the region have turned to U.S. digital services. Amazon, Google, Microsoft and other U.S. firms control more than 70% of the cloud computing market in Europe, which is the essential way for storing files, retrieving data and running other programs, according to Synergy Research Group. The ICC has been a longtime customer of Microsoft, which provides the court with services including the Office software suite and software for evidence analysis and file storage, according to an ICC lawyer who declined to be identified discussing internal procedures. Microsoft has also provided cybersecurity software to help the court withstand digital attacks from adversaries like Russia, which is being investigated for war crimes in Ukraine. In February, after Trump issued penalties against Khan, Microsoft met with ICC officials to decide how to respond. They concluded that Microsoft's broader work for the court could continue but that Khan's email should be suspended. He switched his correspondence to another email account, said a person who has communicated with him. Sara Elizabeth Dill, a lawyer who specializes in sanctions compliance, said the Trump administration was increasingly using sanctions and executive orders to target international institutions, universities and other organizations, forcing companies to make hard choices about how to comply. 'This is a quagmire and places these corporations in a very difficult position,' she said. How tech companies with global services respond is especially important, she added, 'as the broad repercussions are what people and organizations are primarily worried about.' Microsoft and other U.S. companies have sought to reassure European customers. On Monday, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella visited the Netherlands and announced new 'sovereign solutions' for European institutions, including legal and data security protections for 'a time of geopolitical volatility.' Amazon and Google have also announced policies aimed at European customers. Still, many institutions are exploring alternatives. In the Netherlands, the 'subject of digital autonomy and sovereignty has the full attention of the central government,' Eddie van Marum, the state secretary of digitalization in the Ministry of Interior Affairs, said in a statement. The country is working with European providers on new solutions, he said. In Denmark, the digital ministry is testing alternatives to Microsoft Office. In Germany, the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein is also taking steps to cut its use of Microsoft. In the European Union, officials have announced plans to spend billions of euros on new artificial intelligence data centers and cloud computing infrastructure that rely less on U.S. companies. Groothuis, the Dutch member of the European Parliament, said lawmakers in Brussels were discussing policy changes that would encourage governments to favor buying tech services from EU-based companies. 'The situation is not tenable, and we see a big push from European governments to become more independent and more resilient,' said Andy Yen, CEO of Proton. European tech companies see an opportunity to win customers from their U.S. rivals. Cloud service providers like Intermax Group, based in the Netherlands, and Exoscale, based in Switzerland, said they had seen a jump in new business. 'A few years ago, everyone was saying, 'They're our trusted partners,'' Ludo Baauw, Intermax's CEO, said of U.S. tech companies. 'There's been a radical change.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Miami Herald
36 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Econometer: Should the US ban drug advertising to consumers?
The U.S. is rare among Western nations because it allows pharmaceutical advertising. But a new effort aims to stop it. A bill was introduced in Congress recently that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, from TV to social media, to promote their products. Prescription drug advertising employs a lot of people, directly and indirectly. Billions are spent on advertising each year, employing advertising workers, and 24.4% of ad minutes were for prescription drugs across evening news programs on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC this year through May, according to data from iSpot analyzed by The Wall Street Journal. Proponents of the bill say advertising drives up the cost of prescription goods. Pharmaceutical trade groups have said advertisements serve public health by increasing disease awareness and educating consumers about treatment options. Question:Should the U.S. ban drug advertising to consumers? Economists Alan Gin, University of San Diego YES: Advertising is supposed to give consumers more information about products, but are consumers really in a position to make an informed decision about pharmaceuticals? Those decisions are best left to physicians, who probably have more knowledge about the effectiveness of medications. Consumers can be swayed by slick and repetitive ads into wanting products that might not be the best for them. The money spent on the ads will add to the already high price of the drugs. James Hamilton, UC San Diego NO: Proponents of a ban argue that ads cause people to request unnecessary drugs. But advertisements helped several of my friends learn about options that they didn't know were available. I'm also concerned any time the government dictates what companies are allowed to talk about. It's appropriate to ensure ads do not make inaccurate claims. And doctors should always say no if patients request a prescription that the doctor does not believe is going to help them. Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy YES: Advertising specific drugs leads to overprescribing, higher drug and insurance prices, and creates bad incentives, like promoting the most profitable drugs. Because insurance limits consumer costs, more prescription drugs are purchased than needed or used. If the goal is to share important information, industry groups can promote a range of treatments for a condition, leaving discussions of individual products to medical professionals. Drugs also carry risks that are not easily captured in 30 seconds. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research NO: Firms do not advertise to raise costs but engage in marketing to inform the public (especially doctors writing prescriptions) of the drug's usefulness. Without marketing, firms would be unable to get information out necessary to make a drug salable in the first place. The drug's value is decided by the marketplace with consumers driving the entire process. Value of advertising is derived from the value consumers place on the drug, not the other way around. Norm Miller, University of San Diego NO: While most physicians try to keep up on the latest drug research, some do not, thus the need for public information about new drugs. What should be mandatory in ads are their efficacy, side effects and potential for addiction, using FDA verified stats. Lies and exaggerations should be illegal. It should also be illegal for drug manufacturers to incentivize or pay doctors for prescribing any drug, and physicians that take such gifts should lose their license. Ray Major, economist YES: Every ad starts with or ends with "ask your doctor if this drug is right for you." Prescription drug advertisement targets consumers hoping they ask their doctor for a specific brand of drug. Consumers are not qualified to self diagnose symptoms and prescribe drugs to themselves based on information from a commercial. Doctors should be prescribing drugs based on a patients' needs and not influenced by patients who have seen an ad for a prescription drug. David Ely, San Diego State University NO: Commercial speech by pharmaceutical companies that is truthful and informative should be protected. A ban on drug advertising goes too far. A better option is enhanced regulation by the FDA and FTC to ensure that the risks and effectiveness of prescription drugs are accurately communicated in advertising to the public. Under a ban, resources would be shifted to increased promotional efforts targeting health care providers so the cost of prescription goods may not decline. Executives Gary London, London Moeder Advisors NO: I am not a big fan of drug advertisements, but unlike cigarette ads, which clearly promoted sickness for generations, at least drugs are lifesaving. The government should not get involved. However, I have never fully understood why pharmaceutical companies promote directly to patients rather than physicians. They complicate medical care. Be that as it may, these advertisements certainly prop up the cable channels, who need the revenue. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates YES: The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. Drug ads often downplay the risks, leading to uninformed decisions. Ads can push consumers toward brand-name drugs, even when cheaper alternatives exist. Also, patients may request unnecessary medications, pressuring doctors to prescribe them. Sure, ads can educate, lead to earlier diagnosis, and boost the economy! But let's limit ads during the first few years of release. Phil Blair, Manpower NO: They are a product like any other. With artificial intelligence, clients and patients can educate themselves on various options just like they do with other products. Of course, they should heed their doctors' advice. Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth YES: Drugmakers spent $10 billion on direct-to-consumer ads last year. These costs are ultimately reflected in the world's highest per-capita health care bill, with relatively poor health outcomes. Slick spots encourage viewers to "ask your doctor" for brands even when cheaper generics accomplish the same goal. Treatment decisions should be based on clinical evidence, not marketing budgets. Pharma could shift a fraction of this outreach to physician education so that patients will still learn about therapies from an informed source. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health YES: Absolutely. The cost of pharmaceuticals has become prohibitive to patients and providers like hospitals, and the huge cost of advertising is wrapped into those costs. While we want informed patients, pharmaceutical education should be handled by patients' physicians, not a jingle on TV. Advertising also can be misleading and increase the cost of drugs to taxpayers - which is why many countries prohibit advertising. Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere NO: While I don't enjoy watching the litany of drug advertisements consistently shown on family programming, I don't support a blanket ban. Instead, drug advertising should follow the model currently allowed to cigarette advertising: prohibit ads on TV and radio but allow other forms of advertising with appropriate limitations and regulations. While raising awareness of available treatments can be beneficial, the current barrage of drug advertising is excessive and likely leads to over prescription and increased health care costs. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
