Nothing galvanizes the military sector—from soldier training to weapons manufacturing and procurement—like the looming specter of war. This assertion is no longer theoretical; it’s been vividly illustrated by the events unfolding on Europe’s eastern frontier. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, European states and Kyiv’s allies scrambled to initiate emergency arms procurement programs. These were aimed both at supporting Ukraine’s battlefield needs and replenishing their own surprisingly depleted arsenals.
Urgency Breeds Opportunity—and Exploitation
The urgency, scarcity, and political pressure created a market where success didn’t hinge on robust production lines—there weren’t enough of those anyway—but on intermediaries who could “arrange” deliveries fast. The result? Hundreds of millions of euros vanished into murky corporate chains, deliveries were botched, and criminal investigations ensued.
Ukraine, unsurprisingly, became the most visible case study in questionable procurement practices. A Financial Times investigation revealed that between 2022 and 2024, Kyiv paid roughly $770 million in advance to foreign intermediaries for ammunition and equipment—some of which was never delivered or deemed unusable. Among the firms implicated were U.S.-registered OTL Imports and Regulus Global, now embroiled in legal disputes and mutual accusations. The extreme haste and absence of standard tender procedures made these deals ripe for abuse—hard to justify, even under wartime duress.
🇨🇿 The Czech Initiative: Speed vs. Scrutiny
In early 2024, the Czech Republic, backed by Denmark and the Netherlands, launched the €1.6 billion “Czech Initiative” to supply Ukraine with large-caliber ammunition, especially 155mm shells. The goal was to fill the gap left by stalled U.S. aid and limited European capacity. Five Czech private firms coordinated deliveries, including from countries not typically aligned with Kyiv.
But investigative journalists from Journalismfund Europe uncovered troubling details:
- Margins reached up to 13%—four times the industry average.
- Key procurement officials had ties to participating companies, raising red flags about lobbying and opaque contract allocation.
According to RFE/RL’s Schemes project, in February 2024, Excalibur Army (a subsidiary of Czechoslovak Group) offered M107 shells at €3,200 apiece, while a Turkish supplier priced similar rounds at €2,500. That’s a markup of roughly 22%. Experts estimate intermediaries in the Czech Initiative paid 10–20% more than Ukraine could have negotiated directly.
The rot isn’t confined to national efforts. In May 2025, Belgian and Dutch prosecutors, alongside Eurojust, launched an investigation into current and former staff at NATO’s Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA). Allegations include:
- Leaking confidential information during defense contract negotiations.
- Laundering illicit funds through consulting firms.
NATO confirmed arrests in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Luxembourg, underscoring that even multinational institutions with high secrecy and massive budgets aren’t immune to corruption.
These aren’t isolated incidents. The patterns are disturbingly familiar:
- 💳 Advance payments made under pressure, often without due diligence.
- 🧩 Long subcontracting chains, with final suppliers being obscure firms with opaque ownership.
- 🏝️ Offshore consultants and shell companies funneling commissions through legally murky channels.
Transparency International has documented hundreds of such cases, noting that defense cooperation between 2023–2025 outpaced anti-corruption reforms.
In the political realm, urgency often trumps transparency. But the real winners are easy to spot:
- Brokers and middlemen pocketing hefty commissions.
- Procurement insiders with privileged access.
- Fly-by-night firms that vanish after cashing in.
The losers? States and armies that pay twice—once for overpriced goods, and again for the privilege of inspecting subpar deliveries. And then there’s the intangible cost: the erosion of trust among allies and donors, which is far harder to restore than any budget line.
Now in its fourth year, the war has reshaped Europe’s defense spending landscape. The market is liquid, fast-moving, and dangerously underregulated. It’s a golden hour for those who know how to turn urgency into profit. Until European institutions and national agencies plug the legal and procedural gaps, intermediaries will remain central—if not always lawful—players in the defense economy. And the bill won’t just be paid in euros, but in reliability, readiness, and trust when it matters most.