Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Stolen goods from Mariupol ended up in UN supply chains — Slidstvo.Info investigation

Journalists have uncovered a link between wheat exports from occupied Mariupol and a Turkish company that supplies products for UN programs. Why this matters for the security and reputation of humanitarian supply chains — briefly and to the point.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 25, 2026 · 2 min read

Stolen goods from Mariupol ended up in UN supply chains — Slidstvo.Info investigation
Судно Alfa M (Фото: ГУР)

What journalists found

In a new investigation Slidstvo.Info showed that after the occupation of Mariupol Russian companies were removing wheat from there and selling it to Turkey and Egypt. Some of these shipments likely originated from production sites in Mariupol itself.

According to the investigation, the family of entrepreneurs associated with drone production — Roman and Lyudmyla Gurovy — run two companies: «Roboavia» (UAV production) and «Nika» (grain trading). Kyiv has already imposed sanctions on «Roboavia» over the manufacture of the «Sarych» UAV.

Supply chain and a specific shipment

Journalists cite a source in the Russian customs service: in 2023 «Nika» exported about 15,500 t of wheat (≈ $3.7 million); in 2024 volumes rose to 59,500 t (≈ $12.9 million).

One of the consignments in April 2024 — 7,857 t of wheat — was delivered by the vessel Alfa M (sanctioned by Ukraine) to the company Erisler Gida Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. The cargo declaration lists Mariupol as the place of origin, registered as a Russian city.

"Almost all of the agricultural products that 'Nika' sells abroad are exported from occupied Mariupol."

— Slidstvo.Info, investigation

Why this affects humanitarian chains

The Eris Flour Mills website states that the firm is an official supplier of products for the World Food Programme and other UN agencies.

"Official supplier of products to the World Food Programme and the UN agency for assistance to Palestinian refugees"

— Eris Flour Mills website

Slidstvo.Info also found that the quality of the mentioned consignment was tested in an Odesa laboratory: a sample sent from Turkey to the lab indicated the grain's origin as the Russian Federation — the tonnage and date match the 7,857 t shipment.

Context and consequences

This is not an isolated case. Analysts and investigators record the systematic removal of grain from temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories. For Russia and affiliated business networks this is a source of foreign-currency revenue and a means of concealing the product's origin.

There are several consequences for Ukraine and international partners: financial gain for the aggressor, the risk of undermining trust in humanitarian supply chains, and the need to strengthen checks on the origin of products.

What to do next

Two concrete responses are needed: first, international partners and humanitarian agencies must promptly audit suppliers; second, Ukrainian and international law enforcement agencies must trace the delivery chains and hold those who organized the export of stolen grain to account.

Now it's up to the partners: will declarations of support be turned into concrete tools to control supply chains?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026