Politics should be kept of posts as far as possible.
That the Ukrainian government currently cannot fund this project is self-evident. We don't need a discussion about how corrupt the Ukrainian government may or may not be. It's sufficient to say that the Gayduk programme was ambitious and found to be unaffordable and the builder collapsed financially.
This is a prime example of how imperfectly the "no politics" policy works and the challenges of policing it.
That's why I will preface this post by making the observation that stating undeniable facts about political and historic events is not the equivalent of displaying or trying to justify or propagate personal political preferences per se, as in "being political". I'm aware though, that a favorite tactic of trolls (and more professional disinformation peddlers for sure) is to dispute (unflattering, disadvantageous to them) facts anyway as that, aside from muddying the issue, may succeed in moderators reacting to the posts by removing them in bulk, as if any issue or statement - veracity be damned - could thus be rendered "political". This intentionally weaponized irrationality, of course is to the grave detriment of intelligible and actionable communication, not to mention completely antithetical to the "no politics" policy itself.
To return to the case in point: The original posts (preceding this exchange in 2021) of this thread are from 2010 and 2014, roughly from an era when Viktor Yanukovych was president of Ukraine. He was/is in many ways beholden to Russia's president Vladimir Putin. Yanukovych's history of corruption is thoroughly documented and was intrinsical in why he was such a staunch ally of Putin and how that relationship was managed through oligarchs, crony Russian natural gas transit deals and such. (An interesting detail is that his campaign manager, longtime international U.S. political consultant Paul Manafort, later reprised his role in an uncannily similar vein in Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. Furthermore Ukraine and Ukrainians were put in a variety of absurd and precarious positions in the 2020 U.S. election by the then presidential administration either relying on their corruptibility or portraying them as corrupt; this unnecessary confusion and wavering of international support for Ukraine on, to them, completely external to their own interests, irrational and fabulistic grounds of course also played into Putin's hands.) Yanukovych fled Ukraine for Russia in 2014 as he had reneged at the last minute on an Ukraine/EU trade deal in favor of Putin basically offering him a substantial cash reward. Massive popular demonstrations supporting the Ukraine/EU deal ensued and basically Yanukovych lost his standing as an effective Putin regime proxy.
So what was the basic premise (and indeed requirement) of that Ukraine/EU trade deal that was so unpalatable to Yanukovych/Putin? Reducing corruption and better adherence to international standards of trade - and Ukrainians made their preference for this clear in no uncertain terms. The reward for Ukraine itself for standing up to Yanukovich's and Putin's corruption on a grass root level? A Russian invasion, continuing to this day, into Crimea, Luhansk and Donbass, in contravention of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances of 1994 (where Russia, the U.S etc. agreed to respecting and ensuring the territorial integrity of Ukraine as they relinquished control of their legacy Soviet nuclear weapons), not to mention a plethora of other international accords and laws. That's 14.000 Ukrainians (plus the various nationalities on the downed Malaysian flight) dead and counting.
I do not know whether Gayduk class frigates, if entered into service, in themselves could've changed the political and military calculus or the events substantially. Perhaps the project was indeed designed to be futile from the beginning. What is certain though is that they are a glaring example of how corruption can very much be used as an offensive weapon in conflict (degrading capabilities, readiness, purpose and morale), as can such sweeping generalizations about "Ukrainian corruption" as demonstrated in this conversation here that are, unbeknownst to the casual reader, effectively highly detrimental, very purposefully directed falsehoods. While perhaps appearing snappy or anodyne, these comments are most certainly "political" and in bad faith to boot. (We can discuss Russian general staff theory on perpetual sliding scale conflict elsewhere.) It is notable though that, after a few critical moments, Ukraine has managed thus far to withstand the brutal onslaught and has during an ongoing conflict managed to upgrade its defensive capability substantially, reflecting a wider societal disengagement from previous corrupt and imposed dependencies such that they became true existential threats.
At the very least it can be said that generalizing from the likes of Yanukovych can be a grave misreading of society and its latent morality and norms at large, leading to truly hubristic, inhumane, tragic and costly miscalculations.
I'm not in the habit of reporting posts (not least because I view the "no politics" policy - due to no specific or idiosyncratic fault of the owners and moderators of this site - so problematic) to get them removed. Indeed, if they can be factually challenged, I'd rather that the purposefully offhand comments stand in the record as reference than to vanish into oblivion - at least thus there can be a measure of sustained accountability. Such active rather than reactive "depoliticization" is no easy endeavor but mere deletions can be and, as evidenced, are used against themselves. I believe some sweeping generalizations about "Ukrainian fascists" have already been removed from this conversation; it's worth pointing out that while virtually every country has their far right actors Ukraine doesn't stand out in this regard - in the last elections no far right candidates were elected into the "Rada", the Ukrainian parliament. Not for nothing, the current president is of Jewish descent and from a minority Russian (not Ukrainian) speaking family. In this conjunction it is also pertinent to note that Putin's regime has been quite active in supporting far right movements around the world; whether this represents an opportunistic degradation (and corruption) of perceived competitors, cultivation of potential autocratic allies or a more consistent preference in up for interpretation - the existence of the policy itself is not.
Another complication is of course that providing context involves not insignificant costs in time and effort as compared to various forms of disinformation. How many will manage to read such a long, meandering post? How many will even cursorily check the facts themselves? Will this post be deleted summarily if reported? How much damage can be undone, or have those ships sailed as much as the Gayduk frigates have not? Make of this what you will, at least I've made a backup of it.