0

In this tweet with an attached video, it is claimed that the chairman of Ukraine's Committee on National Security and Defense Council, Serhiy Pashynskyi said,

“Bayraktar has more PR and corruption than combat use. He has no combat effectiveness. All of them shot down the Russians almost immediately. They are very vulnerable.”

Bayraktar are combat drones of Turkish fabrication used by Ukraine Armed Forces in their ongoing fight against the Russian invasion.

Is this an authentic video and were these claims made?

6
  • 1
    It might be good to include that these are Russian claims being made about military Equipment being used by Ukraine or at least that is what I am gathering.
    – Joe W
    Nov 10 at 0:14
  • 1
    They're not Russian claims. Serhiy Pashynskyi is Ukranian. And I think it's a given he is commenting on equipment they're using against Russia. Nov 10 at 0:15
  • Could you put that in the question then? From what I was looking at I was seeing him as Russian and I am sure I won't be the only one confused. It would be good to have proper clarity about who is talking about what without having to do a lot of research first.
    – Joe W
    Nov 10 at 0:18
  • 1
    @JoeW yeah, I immediately updated the question when you commented chairman of Ukraine's Committee on National Security and Defense Council, Serhiy Pashynskyi said, Nov 10 at 0:49
  • 2
    That video has about 600 views and the tweet has 20 likes, so I'm not sure if it's really that notable. Also, there's doesn't seem to be an English translation of the video so could you provide more context? Who is 'Bayraktar', and what does it mean that he "has no combat effectiveness"? Who is the 'them' that "shot down the Russians"?
    – Giter
    Nov 10 at 3:43

1 Answer 1

11

The full text of the tweet:

Review of Ukrainian politician Sergei Pashinsky on Turkish UAVs supplied to Zelensky's regime. “Bayraktar has more PR and corruption than combat use. He has no combat effectiveness. All of them shot down the Russians almost immediately. They are very vulnerable.”

I think it is safe to assume that the author meant "shot down by the Russians".

I cannot confirm that the man in the video really is Serhiy Pashynskyi, but the speech in the video has a different point than the tweet. Translation:

Bayraktar has more PR and corruption than combat use. It's... It's first and foremost a PR-project. I personally was against it, as they are vulnerable against air defence, strong one, and first week of the war, you have to understand, we had a lot of Bayraktars, and they were all shot down in a week. Yes? But America gave us, uh, missiles, anti-, er, anti-radar ones. I mean, Bayraktar as an element... Bayraktar is not a self-sufficient weapon. It can't work on its own. Bayraktar is not a wonder-weapon, against strong air defense systems it is shot down just like that and has no combat effectiveness. Without American HARMs and HIMARS there would be no Bayraktars anymore.

("Bayraktar" refers to Baykar Bayraktar TB2, a Turkey-made strike UAV operated by Ukraine)

To sum up: the speaker doesn't seem to think Bayraktars are completely useless, but rather points out that they need to be used in conjunction with other weapon systems to be effective - which is true for any weapons system, really. He does say all the words the summary has, but the context is different.

Viewing the full video (from the description, the video is a transcript of a prank caller posing as Michael McFaul calling Pashynskyi) - the linked fragment is not complete. For example, there also were mentions of effective use of Bayraktars (not in strike role, but for recon) that were edited out of the excrept that was linked in the tweet.

Thus, the summary in the tweet is incomplete at best, and an intentional misinterpretation at worst.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .