Profile picture of Nico Woods
Nico Woods
Defense Industry Advisor - Ukraine | CEO | Stanford MBA | Former Nuclear Submarine Officer
Follow me
Generated by linktime
September 8, 2025
As Ukraine scales wartime procurement, two parallel marketplaces for military end users now exist: DOT Chain Defense and Brave1 Market. Understanding the distinctions between these platforms isn’t just a matter of clarity for procurement officers, integrators, and defense contractors; it directly impacts contract execution, speed of delivery, and trust in the supply chain. In my latest article, I break down: 1️⃣ The specific mandate and scope of each marketplace 2️⃣ How end users are expected to engage with them 3️⃣ The implications for industry partners navigating these systems Defense procurement thrives on predictability and transparency. This piece provides a structured view of how these marketplaces differ, and what that means for those working to equip Ukraine’s armed forces.
Stay updated
Subscribe to receive my future LinkedIn posts in your mailbox.

By clicking "Subscribe", you agree to receive emails from linktime.co.
You can unsubscribe at any time.

14 Likes
September 8, 2025
Discussion about this post
Profile picture of Todd Brown
Todd Brown
National Security, Security Cooperation SME, International Relations, Consultant
8 hours ago
Thanks for sharing. Excellent run-down. Your point on institutional competition between Brave1/MDT and DOT/MOD is spot-on. Personal ambitions/egos get in the way of efficiency and practicality. Providing substantial funding directly to units on a monthly basis with limited oversight (Brave1 model) increases risk of corruption. I see the Brave1 model also increasing sustainment complexities across the force as well. It should also be a more tiered system with actually deployed frontline units recieving more funding and priority than those formations in the rear during refit. The other criticism of both models is the unit of purchase which is typically the complete system. How do units purchase spare parts to either repair equipment or bring defective systems up to operational standard? That was an issue when the DOT system initially came on line. Perhaps that has been fixed.
Everyone's wrong about Ukraine's defense industry. While America debates, Europe's locking up tomorrow's capabilities. I just got back from Tech Force in UA's forum in Lviv and what I saw changed everything. Ukrainian startups are building weapons faster than Lockheed Martin, and this is not hyperbole. They push 16 product iterations while traditional, large defense prime contractors deliberate whether the time is suitable to enter Ukraine. Let’s look at the numbers:  ❗ €4 billion projected revenue (218% growth) 🏭 75% of companies didn't exist before 2022 ⏱️ 3 months to operational production (vs. 3-5 years in the West) Here's what floored me: These founders collect battlefield feedback DAILY. Their reality is that the customer dies if the product fails. No procurement officers. No PowerPoints. Just brutal, immediate truth. Teams of twenty-somethings outpacing billion-dollar R&D departments. They've replaced our entire development cycle with WhatsApp messages at the warfront. Meanwhile, Western defense contractors are still arguing about requirement documents. And to make it worse, export restrictions keep 55% of the Ukrainian defense company’s capacity idle. Self-imposed export restrictions are literally preventing innovation that could save allied lives because of bureaucracy. Denmark gets it. The UK gets it. Germany gets it. They all had booths soliciting for partnerships. My prediction: In 5 years, you'll either partner with Ukrainian defense tech or compete against someone who did. The future of defense isn't in Arlington boardrooms. It's in Ukrainian workshops. Agree or disagree? #Defense #Ukraine #Innovation #Technology #Future #TFUA
11 comments
September 4, 2025
The Danish Model: A Transformative Approach for European Support to Ukraine's Defense Industry Leadership in defense cooperation means rethinking how we provide support. Denmark’s approach is setting a new standard that European partners can adopt as they fulfill their pledges for increased defense spending on Ukraine. The Danish Model is a financing mechanism where partner countries pay for weapons production in Ukraine through a reimbursement system—covering costs after they’ve been incurred. Unlike traditional military aid, this model allows Ukraine to prioritize their most needed items while offering the flexibility to the donor country to choose a capability that aligns with their foreign policies. This keeps decision-making in Ukraine's hands, ensuring resources go where they're needed most. What makes this model different? ✅ Efficiency – Funding is allocated based on real operational needs, not donor constraints. ✅ Self-Sufficiency – Strengthens Ukraine’s defense industry rather than just supplying finished weapons. ✅ Transparency – European partner nations conduct oversight to ensure funds are used effectively, with payment only made after the Ukrainian army has formally accepted the items and attested they meet operational and quality assurance standards. But this model isn’t just beneficial for Ukraine—it presents opportunities for the U.S. as well: 🔹 Direct Impact – Investments directly strengthen Ukraine's defense industrial capacity while addressing immediate needs. 🔹 Value Alignment – A proven framework for European partners to demonstrate their commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty. 🔹 Long-term Investment – Building Ukraine's defense industrial base creates a more resilient security partner integrated with European standards. This isn’t just a funding model—it’s a strategic shift toward sustainable defense partnerships. Stay tuned as I break down other models and explore what’s next in defense cooperation. #DefenseLeadership #SecurityStrategy #InternationalCooperation #DefenseInnovation
9 comments
March 20, 2025