Poland investigates how air defence systems destined for Ukraine were left unattended
Source: Polish news portal RMF24, reported by European Pravda
Details: The Przemyśl Prosecutor's Office is conducting an investigation into the mishandling of weapons and ammunition by an unnamed private company.
According to RMF24, the company had been tasked with transporting air defence systems to Ukraine, which were being supplied commercially by a private entity, not the Polish government.
For unspecified reasons, the transportation did not take place and the equipment was stored in warehouses near the Ukrainian border. Although initially guarded, the warehouses were later reportedly left "largely unattended".
The Polish Ministry of Defence stated: "The containers of ammunition and weapons found in Laszki, Subcarpathian Voivodeship [province – ed.], are not the property of the Polish armed forces. The relevant services are securing the site and equipment."
Jacek Dobrzyński, spokesperson for the minister responsible for coordinating Poland's special services, confirmed that the weapons had been stored by a licensed private arms trading company, and that they were air defence systems "similar to those that former police chief Jarosław Szymczyk brought from Ukraine".
In 2022, Jarosław Szymczyk mishandled a functional Ukrainian grenade launcher in his office, causing minor injuries. The weapon had been gifted to him during a visit to Ukraine. In 2024, he was charged with illegal importation and endangerment related to the incident.
Dobrzyński clarified that the equipment had been intended for Ukraine.
"The warehouse was unattended, and this is a scandal. Such weapons must be properly stored and protected," he added.
Background: Poland scrambled fighter jets and heightened its air defence readiness in response to a large-scale Russian missile attack on Ukraine on the night of 24-25 May.
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Trump Hits India With 50% Tariff -- Modi Strikes Back by Rebuilding Ties With China
India is inching closer to Beijing. After US President Donald Trump doubled down with a 50% tariff on Indian goodspunishing New Delhi over discounted Russian oil purchasesPrime Minister Narendra Modi is quietly reopening the China playbook. Direct flights between the two neighbors, suspended since 2020, could resume as early as next month. According to people familiar with the matter, the announcement may coincide with Modi's first China visit in seven years for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit. Beijing, also under pressure from Trump's trade war, just eased urea export curbs to Indiathe world's biggest buyer of the fertilizerhinting it's open to a broader reset. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 3 Warning Signs with CAH. Meanwhile, signs of a thaw are showing up across sectors. India has resumed tourist visas for Chinese nationals after years of curbs, and the urea trade reopening marks a rare economic gesture from Beijing. These developments suggest a cautious but notable warming of ties. This isn't about alignmentit's about options. With U.S. pressure rising, Modi may be recalibrating India's external relationships in real time. If Washington closes one door, New Delhi seems ready to open two elsewhere. Trump's trade blitz may have done what years of diplomacy couldn'tpush India deeper into the BRICS fold. Modi has invited Putin to visit, expanded Mercosur trade talks with Brazil, and directly challenged Trump's claims of brokering peace with Pakistan. For investors, the implications could be far-reaching. The tariff fight might accelerate closer ChinaIndia coordination on green tech, supply chain resilience, and emerging market trade. As the world's two most populous nations recalibrate, capital may follow the thaw. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump must not give anything away in Alaska
Many commentators have likened President Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to the 1938 Munich meeting between Adolf Hitler, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Eduard Daladier over the fate of Czechoslovakia. There certainly are similarities. The Munich meeting took place without the presence of Czech President Edvard Benes, and the Alaska summit will not include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. And there is widespread fear, especially in Europe, that Trump will yield to Putin's demands for Ukrainian territory — both that which his armed forces have already seized in Crimea and the oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk, and those still held by Ukraine there and in the oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. As the Institute for the Study of War points out, should Putin successfully obtain control of all four oblasts — and especially all of Donetsk, which contains what the Institute terms Ukraine's 'fortress belt' — he would control several potential vectors of attack on the remainder of Ukraine. This would enable Russian forces to seize the country, just as Hitler ultimately took all of Czechoslovakia. Yet there are significant differences as well. Hitler was determined to seize the Sudetenland, and ultimately all of Czechoslovakia, without firing a shot. He had already effectively incorporated Austria that way in the 1936 Anschluss. And he succeeded in doing so. While Putin also wants to be handed over territories that his forces have not yet occupied without having to fight for them — in this regard following Hitler's precedent — he faces a very different set of circumstances. Russian forces have been fighting a determined Ukrainian military since February 2022. Moreover, despite ceaseless and heavy bombardment of Ukrainian formations and military infrastructure, coupled with terror attacks on cities and civilian institutions, Russia has gained remarkably little territory over the past three years of intense combat. Furthermore, just as Putin mistakenly thought that a Spetsnaz (special forces) attack on Kyiv at the start of the war would decapitate the Ukrainian leadership and install a pliant pro-Russian regimen, he also appears to have erroneously thought that Russian-speaking Ukrainians, many of them in the four provinces he seeks to annex, would also take Moscow's side. Yet Russia's attacks have actually united most of Ukraine's population, most notably those selfsame Russian speakers who once held positive attitudes toward Moscow. For its part, Ukraine not only has limited Russian advances in over three years of war, it has inflicted severe damage to Russia's military infrastructure, hit targets deep inside Russia including Moscow and has killed or wounded hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers and North Korean personnel. Still another difference relates to Ukraine's neighbors and partners. Whereas the leading European powers in 1938 hastily acquiesced to Hitler's demands, France, Germany, Britain, the Nordic and Baltic states and the European Union have all made it clear that they stand by Kyiv's determination to preserve its territorial integrity and that Ukraine must have a seat at any table that would determine its future. In addition, NATO has not closed the door on the prospect, however remote, of Ukrainian accession; Putin wants that door shut tight and permanently. That Trump has spoken of concessions in the form of land swaps, while Putin has never indicated anything like an exchange of territory, has deepened European concerns that a deal would legitimate a Russian land grab. It also worries Europeans that Trump is so eager to achieve an agreement, regardless of how its terms affect Ukraine, because he covets the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, whose members are appointed by the Norwegian parliament; since Norwegians generally view Trump unfavorably, it is highly unlikely that the Committee would ever award him the prize. Hitler interpreted Daladier and Chamberlain's willingness to fold at Munich as a signal that he would not encounter British opposition to either his seizure of all of Czechoslovakia or his planned attack on Poland. He viewed both men as 'poor worms,' and Nazi documents released subsequent to World War II reveal that Hitler viewed Chamberlain as so weak that he worried that British prime minister would preemptively give away Poland, thereby robbing Germany of the ability to seize the country by force. Trump needs to demonstrate to Putin when they meet in Alaska that he is no Neville Chamberlain. He must avoid any giveaway to the Russian dictator, which would only whet Putin's clearly insatiable appetite for more conquests, be they remainder of Ukraine, neutral Moldova or one of NATO's Baltic members. As Hitler sought 'lebensraum' — 'living space' for Germans — Putin seeks to restore the Czarist Empire. Whatever the term, the objective was and is the same: territorial expansion. It took a global war to stop Hitler. Hopefully, a strong-willed Trump will obviate the prospect of another devastating conflict. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Los Angeles Times
2 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Secretary's willingness to tamper with past climate reports is dangerous
To the editor: U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright is intending to review and potentially alter the nation's next climate science report ('Energy secretary says Trump administration may alter past National Climate Assessments,' Aug. 7). He's already removed the climate assessments from the government websites. He has accused the previous reviews (even the ones made during the first Trump administration) as being 'politically biased.' Just wondering if Wright has actually looked outdoors recently or at least kept abreast of the weather reports. Has he not seen the spate of unprecedented tornadoes razing towns and communities? Or witnessed the deadly floods throughout the country? Or the wildfires from hell in the West? Or the unbearable heat waves hitting the Northeast? Or the approaching hurricanes that signal widespread death and destruction on the way? It is clear that Wright is on a leash, eager to do the bidding of his master — old 'Drill, Baby, Drill!' His stated intentions, as well as his removal of the climate assessments from years past from governmental websites, make him complicit in the disaster that is to come. Lanore Pearlman, Claremont ... To the editor: I see that Wright, previously the CEO of a company that did fracking, says that the government climate reports have been politically driven and are not accepted by 'a credible economist or scientist.' I am sure he is right that some economists do not wish to contemplate the possibility of climate change, but I would challenge him as to what the majority scientific opinion might be. Hundreds of scientists have studied the issue. Most published articles note that change is occurring. The evidence is everywhere: shrinking glaciers in every part of the globe, shrinking polar and Greenland ice sheets, the melting of the Russian tundra, bleaching coral reefs, longer, hotter summers, disruption of rain patterns, even the opening of the Northwest Passage. The actual debate appears to be whether human activity is causing it. In other words, conservatives do not believe we can stop the process. Erica Hahn, Monrovia ... To the editor: Wright's changes might misinform some, but if our extreme weather-related events continue at their enhanced pace, eventually the public will demand action. Those events are devastating and deadly to the affected population and the economic damage is astounding. I find it disingenuous and devious that the Energy secretary is considering changes to previous scientific-based reports. Going back to scrub past reports won't change the facts that our climate has changed and fossil fuel emissions are exacerbating this change. Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel
