Dishonest Schemes Undermine Support for Ukraine: The Weatherford Case

Today, Ukraine is heroically fighting against Russian aggression, defending its land and its people. Every day, lives are lost on the front lines, while those who remain behind strive to keep the economy afloat despite the destruction of industry, losses in infrastructure, and mass mobilisation.

But this is not their only battle – there is also a hidden fight against internal enemies who undermine the country’s economic independence at a time when stability and recovery are most needed. Although the Ukrainian government claims to be implementing fundamental reforms and has proclaimed transparency, the reality is far from ideal, especially in the area of public procurement. This issue has increasingly been highlighted in Ukrainian media.

Some details: back in 2021, Ukraine adopted a Localisation Law, which was meant to be a tool for economic revival. It required that goods purchased with public funds contain at least 20% Ukrainian components. The idea was sound: to support domestic manufacturers, create new jobs, and help the Ukrainian economy grow.

However, the term “pseudo-localisation” soon emerged – some businessmen simply assembled imported equipment at Ukrainian facilities, thereby complying with the law only on paper.

But this approach did not create additional value for the Ukrainian economy, did not promote the development of local production capacities, and most importantly, did not help Ukraine build economic resilience during the war.

It resembles a game with the rules, where the winners are not Ukrainian companies, but foreign corporations. Moreover, this scheme drains funds from state enterprises. Their so-called localisation is merely a facade, behind which lie multimillion-dollar contracts, often signed with companies that continue to operate actively in Russia, despite sanctions.

EU Today

Ukrainian journalists cite an example – LLC “Weatherford Ukraine.”

This company continues to win state tenders in Ukraine while maintaining clear connections to Moscow through its parent company, Weatherford, which still actively operates in Russia.

This calls into question the effectiveness of sanctions and political ethics, as this company signs agreements with state enterprises such as “Ukrgasvydobuvannya.”

The director of “Weatherford Ukraine,” Oleksandr Tertychenko, has reportedly been spotted lobbying for the interests of Belarusian companies. His involvement in promoting them in the Ukrainian market during the war raises serious questions. How can individuals with such connections continue to run companies that win state tenders?

Oleksandr Tertychenko

It is difficult for Europeans to understand how individuals who once ran private companies, like Natalia Rudevych from “Weatherford Ukraine,” later reportedly attain key positions in state companies to lobby for the interests of their previous employers.

Dmytro Solnyshkin, a Russian citizen (according to Ukrainian media), who worked at Weatherford before moving to Schlumberger and Burisma – both companies continue to operate in Russia during the war.

Today, Solnyshkin oversees all operations of a Ukrainian company at a time when Russia continues to kill Ukrainians.

How is it possible to allow Russian businesses to participate in critical sectors of a country’s economy while it defends itself from aggression?

The international community, Europe, and especially the EU must pay more attention to these processes. This is not only about supporting Ukrainians in the war against Russia – it is also about supporting Ukraine’s economic stability.

Pseudo-localisation is not just a violation of regulations; it is a crime against Ukraine’s future. If the Ukrainian authorities do not take action now, this internal enemy will become as dangerous as the external one.

European countries must demand complete transparency in public procurement, independent audits, and the implementation of strict sanctions against companies playing these dangerous games.

We must remember that helping Ukraine is not only about weapons and sanctions but also about honest economic support.

If we allow these schemes to flourish, we risk losing what we have worked so hard to build together.