Ivan Sascha Sheehan is the interim dean of the College of Public Affairs at the University of Baltimore where he is a professor of public and international affairs. The views expressed are the author’s own.

The war in Ukraine offers many lessons, but perhaps the most consequential is the transformation of modern warfare through the extensive use of drones. Over nearly four years of full-scale war, Ukraine has fostered a dynamic domestic drone industry — one that has now attracted the attention of NATO governments seeking to procure the very systems that have reshaped the battlefield. Yet, while the effectiveness of Ukrainian drones is widely recognized, far less has been said about the extraordinary effort required for Ukrainian manufacturers to build and sustain production under wartime conditions. Today, that effort risks being undermined not by Russian aggression but by domestic agencies that, rather than treating drone producers as vital contributors to national security, subject them to bewildering and counterproductive scrutiny.

To manufacture drones domestically, Ukrainian producers were forced to rely on global supply chains to obtain critical components. In the early months of the war, the urgency was such that imports often occurred through improvised, gray-market channels, long before formal procurement structures could be established. My sources tell me that payments for essential parts were allegedly made by individuals across the country using corporate cards and clandestine means, as conventional payment mechanisms had been suspended. A new challenge soon emerged when Polish farmers blockaded the Polish-Ukrainian border, threatening to sever a vital logistical artery. Drone production could not be allowed to stall, and what followed resembled a special operation to ensure that critical components continued to reach Ukrainian factories despite the blockade.

As the war progressed, several leading Ukrainian drone manufacturers became well-established. Yet their path did not become any easier. In early 2025, China halted sales of key components essential to Ukrainian drone production — even as it continued supplying Russia. This created a new and formidable obstacle for Ukrainian producers striving to maintain deliveries to the frontline. Companies were forced to redesign their supply chains with great caution, relying on European partners to procure components from China and then transfer them to Ukraine. These vulnerabilities carried significant operational and financial risk. At the same time, Russia intensified its campaign to target Ukrainian drone facilities. In September 2025, a prominent Russian-language military intelligence Telegram channel reported a major attack by Russian forces on a Ukrainian defense complex that resulted in significant damage to the “Dnepropress” plant, a producer of the Kazhan drone.

This new system for acquiring critical components eventually became standard practice across the industry and was broadly supported by Ukraine’s military community. By then, Ukrainian drones had become indispensable on the battlefield. Reactive Drone’s Kazhan — a heavy-bomber quadcopter with exceptional night-fighting capability — proved particularly formidable. Its devastating nocturnal strikes made it so feared by Russian forces that it became mythologized under the name “Baba Yaga.” The Ukrainian Mission to NATO has chosen the Kazhan drone as a “strong example of how Ukrainian technology enhances national security” due to its ability to perform multiple munition drops, making the drone a flexible tactical asset.

Yet despite these heroic efforts, Ukraine now finds itself confronting a new and troubling scandal: domestic law enforcement bodies have begun what many in the industry view as an assault on the drone sector itself. The very companies that risked their safety to sustain the frontline — and that endured relentless Russian attacks — now face the prospect of being crippled from within. The Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (ESBU), with involvement from the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), has launched sweeping investigations into dozens of Ukrainian drone manufacturers. Strikingly, these inquiries focus not on corruption, but on the very supply chains — routed through European countries such as the Czech Republic — that enabled producers to obtain critical components after China imposed heavy restrictions. By targeting companies that have sustained the nation’s defense capacity, the ESBU has effectively shut down the very supply lines that keep the army armed.

Importantly, while Ukraine’s military community fully understands why manufacturers were forced to construct unconventional supply chains, the economic agencies now conducting investigations lack the technical knowledge and industry expertise required to assess these practices fairly. At a moment when uninterrupted drone production is vital to national security, these actions raise an uncomfortable question: who truly stands to benefit from such scrutiny? With discussions underway about Ukraine’s potential entry into the defense export market, it would not be surprising if certain actors saw an opportunity to consolidate control over a rapidly expanding and strategically important industry. Ukraine has long struggled with the influence of shadow beneficiaries and the politicization of law enforcement bodies. But during wartime, such a modus operandi runs directly counter to the national interest. It cannot — and should not — be dismissed as business as usual.

Ukraine’s drone manufacturers have demonstrated extraordinary ingenuity and courage, building the technological backbone of the country’s defense under relentless wartime pressure. They improvised supply chains when borders closed, rebuilt facilities after Russian strikes, and delivered systems that have saved lives and reshaped the battlefield. Their work has earned admiration from NATO partners and fear from Russian forces — a testament to their indispensable role in Ukraine’s survival.

This makes the actions of domestic law enforcement agencies all the more alarming. By targeting drone producers over the very supply routes that kept production alive, the ESBU and SBI risk undermining national security at a critical moment. Ukraine cannot afford bureaucratic overreach or vested interests seeking to consolidate control over a booming industry. The government must halt these disruptive investigations, empower independent defense experts to oversee the sector, and protect the supply chains that have proved vital to the war effort. Weakening one of Ukraine’s greatest strategic assets during wartime is not merely misguided — it is dangerous.