OPEN LETTER: In Kyiv, the ZBROYA website reveals a war industry that is gaining momentum

A Welcome Streamlining of Administrative Procedures

The Drone Deal mechanism, which allows Ukrainian manufacturers to export a portion of their drone production in exchange for sharing revenue with the government, now benefits from an approval process reduced to approximately thirty days—a significant acceleration compared to the previous bureaucratic delays that sometimes unnecessarily hindered companies in the sector.

This procedural efficiency, detailed in government announcements in early July, is part of a broader reform of Ukraine’s export industry—a reform spearheaded by Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko and Minister Mykhailo Fedorov—as part of a coordinated effort to transform the defense industry into a sustainable source of revenue.

A Risk of Rushing That Should Not Be Ignored

However, this administrative acceleration carries an implicit risk: reducing approval times to thirty days could, in some cases, limit the Ukrainian authorities’ ability to conduct thorough vetting of the end recipients of these exports—a control issue that remains crucial to preventing any diversion to sensitive markets.

This tension between economic speed and rigorous controls poses a challenge that Kyiv will need to manage carefully in the coming months, as the volume of contracts processed under this accelerated framework will likely continue to increase.

Thirty days to approve an arms export is fast—almost risky. But I understand the urgency: Ukraine no longer has the luxury of slow bureaucracy when every contract signed funds its own defense.

An event bringing together the military innovation ecosystem

The Brave1 Advantage event, organized as part of the Ukrainian defense innovation ecosystem Brave1, served as a showcase for technological advancements developed by Ukrainian companies and startups in the military sector—a sector that has experienced remarkable growth since the start of the Russian invasion in 2022.

This event illustrates the maturation of Ukraine’s innovation ecosystem, which has evolved in just a few years from scattered and improvised initiatives to an organized structure capable of presenting its technological advancements to an audience of potential partners, investors, and government representatives.

What This Showcase Means for the Future of Industry

Holding such an event in the midst of an active war demonstrates Ukraine’s determination to project an image of dynamism and industrial competence—a message intended as much for foreign partners as for the Ukrainian population itself, which needs tangible signs that its country continues to innovate despite the hardships of the conflict.

This symbolic dimension, combined with the potential concrete economic benefits for participating companies, makes Brave1 Advantage a prime example of Ukraine’s strategy to transform the necessities of war into a driver of sustainable technological innovation.

Organizing a technology showcase in the midst of a war is a bold move that commands respect. Ukraine refuses to be reduced to a mere story of survival; it also wants to be seen as a country that innovates.

Discussions are underway, with no final confirmation

Discussions regarding Ukraine’s potential acquisition of the Swedish Gripen fighter jet, manufactured by Saab, are underway between Kyiv and Stockholm, according to information available in early July. However, these discussions have not yet resulted in a confirmed final agreement, and I want to make this clear to avoid any confusion about the actual status of this matter.

The Gripen offers several potential advantages for Ukraine, notably its ability to operate from short and damaged runways—a significant tactical asset in a war context where Ukraine’s aviation infrastructure remains a regular target of Russian strikes aimed at limiting the operational capacity of Kyiv’s air force.

What the acquisition of such an aircraft would change

If these discussions were to result in a concrete agreement, the integration of the Gripen into Ukraine’s arsenal would complement the F-16s already delivered by several Western allies, further diversifying Ukraine’s combat air fleet and reducing dependence on a single type of aircraft for air operations against Russian forces.

This diversification, if it materializes, would also strengthen the logistical resilience of the Ukrainian Air Force, as a fleet composed of multiple aircraft types is generally more difficult to neutralize entirely than a homogeneous fleet dependent on a single supplier and a single maintenance chain.

I remain cautious about the Gripen: talking about discussions is not the same as signing a contract. But if Stockholm confirms this agreement, it would be a further sign that Russia’s diplomatic isolation continues to grow.

A Deliberate Diversification of Supply Sources

All of these developments—from the accelerated Drone Deal to the Brave1 Advantage event, including discussions on the Gripen—outline a coherent Ukrainian strategy to diversify its military supply sources, reducing dependence on a limited number of suppliers or donor countries.

This strategic diversification, evidenced by the increase in contracts on ZBROYA, reflects a hard-learned lesson over four years of war: relying exclusively on a few major Western donors exposes Kyiv to the internal political vagaries of those countries—a risk that contractual diversification helps to partially mitigate.

A Focus on the Long Term Rather Than the Short Term

This approach also reflects a shift in strategic posture: after the first years of the war, which were marked by a response largely dictated by urgency, Ukraine now appears to be building more sustainable institutional mechanisms designed to support its defense efforts over several years rather than simply responding to immediate crises.

This institutional maturation, if it proves sustainable over time, could be one of the most significant developments in this phase of the war, gradually transforming Ukraine’s approach from one of constant crisis management to medium-term strategic planning.

What I see in these three issues taken together is a Ukraine that is moving beyond simply surviving day to day and is beginning to plan its defense over several years. This may be the most important change in this war as of 2026.

A Welcome Sign of Institutional Maturity

This acceleration in contract signing and the relative transparency provided by ZBROYA are being closely watched by Ukraine’s Western allies, for whom they represent an encouraging sign of institutional maturity—a valuable argument in internal political debates regarding the sustainability of financial and military support for Kyiv.

This institutional maturity could strengthen Western partners’ confidence in Ukraine’s management mechanisms, potentially facilitating new industrial cooperation agreements or financial commitments in the months following these announcements.

Interest That Extends Beyond the Military Sphere

This Western interest, moreover, extends beyond the immediate military context: several private Western investors are also closely monitoring the development of Ukraine’s defense industrial ecosystem, seeing in it potential for sustainable economic opportunities that extend beyond the current period of active warfare.

This economic dimension, still in its early stages, could prove decisive for Ukraine’s future reconstruction, as a robust and diversified defense industry could serve as one of the country’s economic pillars in the event of a negotiated resolution to the conflict in the coming years.

Seeing Western investors take an interest in the Ukrainian defense industry beyond mere military necessity strikes me as an encouraging sign for the country’s economic future, well beyond the hoped-for end of this war.

Coordination with Nordic Partners

Discussions with Sweden regarding the Gripen are part of a broader context of growing cooperation between Ukraine and the Nordic countries, several of which have stepped up their military and diplomatic support for Kyiv since the start of the Russian invasion, in line with their own heightened perception of the Russian threat in the Baltic region.

This Nordic coordination, documented by several analysts tracking relations between Ukraine and Northern Europe, reflects a growing strategic convergence among countries that share a border or are in close geographical proximity to Russia, strengthening their solidarity with Kyiv in the face of a threat they perceive as directly linked to their own security.

A Signal Sent to Moscow Through This Diversification

This diversification of Ukraine’s industrial and military partnerships—potentially including Sweden alongside established suppliers—also sends a political signal to Moscow: Russia’s diplomatic and industrial isolation continues to expand, while the international support network for Ukraine is diversifying and consolidating.

This signal, although primarily symbolic at this stage of the Gripen discussions, adds to a series of developments that, taken together, paint a picture of a Ukraine that is increasingly connected to the Western industrial and military network as a whole.

Every new industrial partner Ukraine gains—whether from Sweden or other countries—is also a partner that Russia loses. This diplomatic dynamic matters just as much as the military deliveries themselves.

An Industrial Base Still Vulnerable in the Face of War

Despite these encouraging developments, Ukraine’s defense industry remains structurally fragile, facing persistent challenges such as Russian strikes directly targeting industrial facilities, shortages of skilled labor due to military mobilization, and recurring energy constraints affecting production across the country.

These structural challenges serve as a reminder that the documented acceleration in contracts on ZBROYA, as encouraging as it may be, does not in itself guarantee the complete resilience of Ukraine’s industrial base in the face of a war that continues to impose exceptional constraints on the country’s economy.

Resilience Rooted in Constant Adaptation

The resilience of Ukraine’s defense industry relies heavily on its ability to constantly adapt to these constraints—an operational flexibility developed out of necessity over four years of war, but one that cannot indefinitely compensate for deeper structural deficits without sustained and predictable international support.

This reality calls for tempering the enthusiasm sparked by ZBROYA’s recent announcements with an honest acknowledgment of the persistent vulnerabilities that continue to weigh on Ukraine’s overall war effort, despite undeniable progress on the contractual and institutional fronts.

I refuse to give in to naive optimism. These contractual advances are real and deserve to be commended, but they must never obscure the structural fragility of an industry that operates under bombardment every day.

A Closer Look at Technical Issues

I am writing this letter in the hope that it will encourage you to look beyond the sensational headlines of this war and focus on these more technical—yet equally critical—issues: a contract tracking portal, an expedited approval process, an innovation event, and discussions about a fighter jet. It is in these details that a decisive part of Ukraine’s resilience is played out.

These issues, though less spectacular than drone strikes or statements from diplomatic summits, deserve comparable attention, as they determine Ukraine’s actual ability to sustain its war effort over several years—far beyond the immediate media coverage they generate.

A Call for Informed Vigilance

Through this letter, I invite you to become more discerning readers of this war—capable of distinguishing symbolic announcements from real institutional transformations—and to continue following these technical developments in the coming months to assess whether the promises of July 2026 will indeed translate into concrete results on the ground.

It is this informed vigilance, more than any fleeting enthusiasm, that will allow us to truly gauge whether Ukraine succeeds in transforming its defense industry into a sustainable pillar of its resistance against Russian aggression.

As I conclude this section, I ask you to make a simple effort: follow these technical details with as much attention as you pay to the big, spectacular announcements. It is often there, in the contractual details, that the outcome of this war is truly decided.

An industry that is gradually becoming self-sufficient

The acceleration in contract activity documented by ZBROYA is part of a broader trend toward strengthening the financial self-sufficiency of Ukraine’s war effort, in which revenue generated by industrial contracts—including those related to exports under the Drone Deal—is gradually supplementing the traditional external funding received by Kyiv.

This financial shift, if it is confirmed and intensifies in the coming months, could reduce Ukraine’s vulnerability to political fluctuations in Western support—a particularly sensitive issue at a time when several allied capitals are openly debating the sustainability of their financial commitment to Kyiv.

A Still-Fragile Balance Between Autonomy and Dependence

This balance between growing financial autonomy and persistent dependence on Western aid remains fragile, however, as the scale of Ukraine’s military needs still far exceeds what the domestic industry—as dynamic as it may be—can finance through its current contractual and commercial resources alone.

This reality serves as a reminder that the documented progress on ZBROYA, however significant it may be, does not replace the need for sustained and predictable Western support, without which Ukraine could not maintain its current war effort against a Russia with far greater resources.

I welcome this emerging self-sufficiency, but I refuse to delude myself: Ukraine still needs its Western allies, and this letter never suggests otherwise. Industrial autonomy complements external aid; it does not replace it.

An Unprecedented Growth Opportunity for Defense SMEs

This surge in contracts and increased access to export markets represent an unprecedented growth opportunity for many Ukrainian small and medium-sized enterprises in the defense sector—many of which were founded in the midst of the war’s urgency and now, thanks to mechanisms such as the Drone Deal, have a clear legal framework to expand their operations beyond the immediate needs of the front lines.

This entrepreneurial momentum—evidenced by the growing number of contracts listed on ZBROYA and by active participation in events such as Brave1 Advantage—could bring about a lasting transformation of Ukraine’s economic fabric, creating skilled jobs and technological expertise that will, hopefully, extend beyond the confines of this war.

A Sector That Now Attracts Talent

This growth in the defense sector is also attracting Ukrainian talent who, before the war, would likely have pursued careers in other technology sectors—a reallocation of national expertise toward the military industry that reflects both the necessity imposed by the conflict and the real economic opportunities this sector now offers.

This reallocation of talent, though born of a tragic necessity, could leave a lasting economic legacy for post-war Ukraine, with a defense technology sector capable of competing in international markets well beyond the current period of conflict.

Seeing young Ukrainian talent choose the defense industry rather than emigrate touches me deeply. It is a form of silent economic resistance that deserves to be told just as much as the military exploits on the front lines.

The Need for Ongoing Independent Verification

Before concluding, I would like to reiterate one final, essential methodological caveat: the figures and trends presented in this letter are derived from official Ukrainian sources, and I do not have access to a fully independent verification of each of the contracts listed on ZBROYA.

This caveat does not call into question the overall reality of the documented trend, but it calls for caution regarding the most specific details, particularly concerning the exact amounts and the full identities of the partners involved in some of these agreements.

Why This Caution Strengthens, Rather Than Weakens, My Support

This methodological caution in no way diminishes my sincere support for Ukraine’s war effort: on the contrary, I believe that support grounded in rigorous fact-checking is more sustainable and credible than blind enthusiasm that ignores the legitimate gray areas of this issue.

It is this combination of unequivocal support and factual rigor that I strive to maintain throughout this letter, and that I will continue to apply in my future writings on the Ukrainian defense industry.

I firmly believe that it is possible to support Ukraine sincerely while still demanding factual rigor. These two requirements are never at odds; they reinforce one another, especially in a matter as complex as this one.

What these developments clearly establish

This letter has presented you with three distinct issues, revealed or confirmed in early July 2026 on the ZBROYA portal: the acceleration of the Drone Deal to thirty days, the Brave1 Advantage event, and the ongoing discussions regarding the Swedish Gripen. Together, they confirm a fundamental trend: Ukraine is methodically structuring its defense industry for a war that could last for a long time to come.

This institutional restructuring, documented by the relative transparency of the ZBROYA portal, deserves close attention from all those who are sincerely interested in the future of this conflict—beyond the mere diplomatic statements or daily military updates that typically dominate media coverage.

My Promise as I Close This Letter

I promise to continue tracking these technical developments in the coming months—to verify whether the fast-tracked Drone Deal delivers on its promises without compromising necessary safeguards, whether the technologies showcased at Brave1 Advantage are actually making their way to the front lines, and whether the discussions on the Gripen lead to a concrete agreement with Stockholm.

It is this promise of rigorous follow-up—more than any declaration of fleeting enthusiasm—that, I hope, will justify your trust in this column in the months to come.

I close this letter as I began it: with the conviction that Ukraine is also fighting in its contracting offices and factories, far from the cameras, and that this quiet battle deserves your attention just as much as the front lines themselves.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist

Who I Am and My Self-Acknowledged Biases

I am signing this open letter as a columnist committed to supporting Ukraine, not as a neutral industry analyst. I unreservedly support Kyiv’s efforts to build a sustainable and diversified defense industry in the face of Russian aggression.

What I Cannot Confirm

I do not have the full details of every contract listed on ZBROYA, nor do I have final official confirmation regarding the acquisition of the Swedish Gripen, which, according to information available in early July, remains in the discussion phase. This letter is based on available official announcements and explicitly notes these limitations on verification.