Ukrainian expert debunks reports on rise in arms exports to Russia

The author points out that one of the famous Ukrainian publications has recently presented a relevant material, supported by data from the SIPRI report, and even by a screenshot from its website. The coverage was quickly shared and generated notorious feedback.

At the same time, explanations and refutations of the information released by Ukraine's State Export Control Service and Ukroboronprom Concern remained virtually unnoticed.

Melnyk points out that the authors working with SIPRI data should take into account the methodology of the Institute in order to avoid incorrect interpretations and comparisons. Thus, the Stockholm Institute uses a specially designed unit for estimating the volume of arms transfers (trend-indicator value TIV). Its calculation is based on available prices of samples of arms and describes arms transfers, rather than the financial value of arms shipments. In practice, this means that amounts estimated at millions of dollars have little to do with contracted values.

Read alsoUkraine's Phantom hits Top 5 of IDEX's most interesting military vehiclesThe author emphasizes that since TIVs do not reflect the prices of arms supplies, they cannot be compared to the financial value of arms export. They serve as baseline data for assessing trends in international arms supplies, as well as counting the proportion of suppliers and customers in the total volume of deliveries and the percentage volume of deliveries to certain countries.

"The aforementioned screenshot has a corresponding warning about the TIV, but the authors of the material for some reason have not paid attention to it. The statement that 'Ukraine exported military products worth US$169 million to Russia last year' without specifying that it was '$169 million in TIV' is quite an incorrect interpretation of the source data," the article said.

Read alsoUkraine company debuts tank-busting unmanned ground vehicle – DefenseNewsMelnyk also draws attention to the fact that when SIPRI indicates the year of delivery, it is the date of arms transfers to the armed forces rather than the date of the fulfillment of contractual obligations by a supplier. This corresponds to the main purpose of the analysis, i.e. to record the fact that a country has gained additional military capabilities.

"For example, Ukraine had supplied its engines for the Russian Yak-130 combat trainer aircraft or for the Russian [Talwar-class] frigates, which is Project 11356, before it introduced a relevant ban. Thus, if a Yak-130 plane was assembled at a Russian plant and transferred to the Armed Forces in 2016, SIPRI indicated 2016 as the "year of delivery," as this is when the country gained additional military capabilities. The same situation is with ship engines (gas-turbine units) supplied by Zorya-Mashproekt from Mykolaiv (Ukraine). Prior to the crisis, Russia had managed to get three out of the six sets of engines due to be supplied," the author said.

Melnyk also mentioned the situation with Antonov aircraft assembled by Russia under a Ukrainian license. In this case, the analysts record the payments to the Ukrainian license owner as "sale," thus, all such planes assembled in Russia will have a Ukrainian component (license fees) in the TIV as long as a relevant contract is in effect.

Read alsoPoroshenko: Ukraine to spend over $333 mln on new weapons in 2017"Considering media reports titled 'Ukraine Boosts Sales of Military Products to Russia – International Research,' it can be concluded that the authors of the material are misleading the readers. It is difficult to say what the real reasons and intentions were – whether they very freely interpreted SIPRI materials, without taking the methodology into consideration, or deliberately resorted to manipulation," the expert summed up.

SIPRI reported earlier that Russia had supplied armored vehicles, as well as anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to the so-called "DPR" and "LPR" (the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics).