Alexander Varvarenko, VARAMAR, SHIPNEXT: Smooth Words, Hard Refusal to Pay — “Letter of Repentance” No. 2 from the Varvarenko Family

How another promise to pay turned into bargaining for silence

Another promise. Another invoice. Another assurance that the payment had already been submitted for processing. And once again, when all that remained was to honour the obligation, new conditions appeared.

The earned brokerage commission was once again presented not as payment for work already performed, but as a reward for acceptable public behaviour.

This time, the negotiations were conducted by Hanna Varvarenko — Alexander Varvarenko’s wife and a person who, according to her own professional profile, specialises in marketing, public relations and the branding of projects including Varamar and SHIPNEXT.

She spoke calmly, politely and instructively. The words were soft. The underlying condition was not: first, I was expected to delete publications, circulate a statement acceptable to Varamar and publicly express regret. Only after that might I receive payment.

This was “letter of repentance” number two.

The packaging was more polished. The substance had not changed.

Who Is Hanna Varvarenko?

In her public professional profile, Hanna Varvarenko presents herself as a partner at Bluemont Investment Company, a marketing consultant and a PR and brand specialist. Her location is listed as Antwerp, Flanders, Belgium. Her profile has approximately two thousand followers and more than five hundred professional connections.

In other words, this was not a random participant in a private family conversation. It was someone who publicly offers the market consultancy services in communications, marketing and brand development.

In describing her professional experience, Hanna states that she develops, implements and oversees external and internal communication plans intended to increase the visibility of companies, their products and services. She identifies the most effective platforms for reaching target audiences, crafts impactful messages and manages the production of communication materials — from writing and editing to proofreading.

The stated purpose of this work is to ensure that content is of high quality, reflects the corporate brand and supports the company’s purpose and vision.

Hanna also highlights employee engagement and creative storytelling across multiple platforms. Among the services she offers are brand development, marketing and PR consulting, content strategies, social media marketing, research and advertising.

“My role in every project is to discover mental triggers, messages, and psychological buttons to engage your market effectively and make your brand highly attractive to clients and customers.”

From Hanna Varvarenko’s public professional profile.

This professional self-presentation is important for understanding the latest negotiations.

In my opinion, Hanna entered the conflict not merely as Alexander Varvarenko’s wife and not as a neutral intermediary. She acted precisely within the field that she describes as her professional speciality: selecting the required message, choosing the platforms and sequence of publication, managing the perception of the brand and seeking a formula capable of changing the market’s attitude.

That is why the proposal to circulate a new message, delete previous publications and publicly express regret before waiting for payment does not look like a random collection of requests.

It closely resembles the professional method described in her own profile: identify the audience, formulate an impactful message, press the appropriate psychological buttons and protect the corporate image.

The only difference was that, in this case, the principal instrument of influence was money already earned by someone else.

Another Unfulfilled Obligation

The work connected with M/V BOHWA AMOY was completed. Varamar received the commercial result. The brokerage commission remains unpaid.

Instead of an ordinary payment, another round of family-directed theatre began.

Earlier, Alexander Varvarenko personally appeared in WhatsApp and announced a penalty equal to 100 percent of my commission. I was then asked to produce a statement in which responsibility for the delay would miraculously move from the debtor to the broker.

Hanna Varvarenko then entered the matter again.

The tone was different. The result was the same.

Initially, Hanna offered approximately half of the invoiced amount. In return, I was expected to stop the publications and participate in a joint announcement that the dispute had been resolved.

My answer was entirely clear: a neutral statement was possible; bargaining over an earned brokerage commission was not.

“The text is OK. The amount is not OK.”

First Half, Then Slightly More

After I rejected the initial offer, the proposed amount was increased. It still remained substantially below the invoiced amount.

The difference was explained by reference to Varamar’s expenditure on a professional assessment of my publications — approximately USD 3,600 when converted at the indicative exchange rate applicable at the time of the negotiations.

“We have already incurred expenses for a professional assessment of the publications. Let us simply take those expenses into account.”

The substance of Hanna Varvarenko’s proposal, without disclosing the commercial amounts.

This produces a remarkably convenient calculation.

Varamar does not pay the broker. It then spends money responding to publications concerning that non-payment. It subsequently proposes deducting the cost of that response from the debt owed to the same broker.

The expense was created by the non-payment, but I was expected to bear the cost.

An even more elaborate structure then appeared: part of the amount would be paid by the company, while Hanna would allegedly pay another part personally through several transfers.

Even under that arrangement, the invoice would not have been settled in full.

Only later was the central point finally stated: Varamar was prepared to pay the full invoice.

We Almost Reached an Agreement

I proposed a short and honest statement: the commission had been paid in full, the previous statements were withdrawn and there were no further claims relating to the dispute.

No theatre. No humiliation. No retroactive rewriting of events.

Statement Agreed Before the Invoice Was Submitted

“By this statement, I withdraw my previous statements and allegations concerning SHIPNEXT, Varamar Group and Alexander Varvarenko.

The issue concerning payment of my brokerage commission has been resolved. The commission has been paid in full.

In view of the resolution of this matter, I confirm that I have no further claims against Varamar in connection with this dispute.

I consider this matter fully closed.”

Hanna replied: “Let us stop at this.”

She then stated that the full amount would be paid and that payment was planned for that day or the following day.

It appeared that the parties had reached an agreement.

Only one thing remained: payment.

The Invoice Was Already “Submitted for Payment”

Hanna asked me to replace Varamar Shipping DMCC with VARAMAR SHIPPING FZCO, use the current date and include the full amount.

She repeated several times that the entire amount would be paid and that the transfer would be processed that same day.

“We will pay the full amount immediately. Put the full amount in the invoice.”

“Thank you. Excellent. I have already submitted it. I will send you the payment confirmation.”

The amount was agreed. The statement was agreed. The company details were corrected. The invoice was received. The payment was allegedly submitted for processing.

Not one word had been said about repentance.

Yet in the history of dealings with the Varvarenkos, the words “we will pay” apparently do not mean that payment will actually be made.

They mean that the next round of negotiations is about to begin.

Then the Real Bill Appeared

Approximately two hours after the invoice had allegedly been submitted for payment, the conditions changed.

The real bill was not the invoice.

The real price was a demand that I pay with my own reputation.

I was expected to circulate a new message first, publish it on social media and delete the previous materials. Only after that would Varamar supposedly make the payment.

“Today you send one circular to the same recipients, make the publication and delete the previous materials. On our side, we also confirm that the matter is closed and immediately process the payment today.”

Under the new wording, I was expected to acknowledge that my public communication had been premature, state that the dispute should have been handled differently and express regret for possible reputational damage to Varamar.

In other words, payment for completed work was once again turned into leverage:

If you want to receive what you have earned, first tell the market what is convenient for us.

Statement Proposed After the Invoice Was Submitted

“By this statement, I formally withdraw my previous statements and allegations concerning Varamar Shipping DMCC and Varamar Group.

After further consideration of the situation, I acknowledge that my public communication was premature. Commercial disagreements of this nature should first be resolved directly between the parties in accordance with the standards of professional and business ethics accepted in the shipping industry.

I regret that my publications may have caused reputational harm to Varamar or created a misleading impression among clients, partners and other market participants regarding the company and its business practices.

The issue concerning my brokerage commission has been resolved. I therefore withdraw my previous allegations and confirm that I have no further claims against Varamar in connection with this dispute.

I consider this matter fully closed and will refrain from further public comments or publications concerning this situation.”

Full text of the statement sent by Hanna Varvarenko.

Hanna may describe this as a mutual resolution of the conflict.

I describe it more simply: another attempt to use payment as leverage.

First, the required confession.

Then the money.

Perhaps.

Repent First, Then Possibly Receive the Money

I confirmed that after receiving full payment I would publish the agreed neutral statement and inform the market that the matter had been resolved.

Hanna insisted on the reverse order.

First, I was expected to perform every public action required of me. Only afterwards would Varamar perform its part.

“Since the public part of this situation started from your side, we ask only one thing: that you be the first to end it on your side. After that, we will unconditionally perform everything we agreed.”

Message from Hanna Varvarenko on the following day.

Hanna’s personal guarantee, an independent lawyer and an escrow arrangement were then introduced into the discussion.

The scenery changed. The door remained locked.

Access to payment would be opened only after the materials had been deleted and the required statement had been published.

All of this was delivered in the same polished, instructive tone: we are reasonable, we are constructive, we are proposing a fair solution.

A fair commercial solution normally looks much simpler.

The work is completed. The commission is paid.

No examination of loyalty. No lesson in proper manners delivered by the debtor.

Yes, We Owe Money — But Others Owe Us Even More

At one point, the conversation turned into a highly emotional discussion.

The issue was no longer limited to my commission. I raised the subject of numerous outstanding debts and unfulfilled obligations that, according to information provided to me, may exist not only in relation to external creditors but also in relation to former and current Varamar employees.

I do not present every such claim as a debt established by a court. These are allegations and reports discussed during the conversation which, in my view, require a clear response.

Hanna’s answer was brief:

“We owe money, but others owe us as well.”

The entire philosophy of the discussion was contained in that single response.

The company’s own obligations were not completely denied. They were merely made dependent on the debts, mistakes and conduct of others.

But the debt owed to a broker does not disappear because someone else allegedly owes money to Varamar.

A salary or final settlement with an employee should not have to wait until the company collects money from its own counterparties.

An obligation remains an obligation even when the debtor has debtors of its own.

The position of the family PR operation can therefore be reduced to a broader formula. This is not a verbatim quotation but, in my view, an accurate summary of the correspondence:

YES, WE OWE MONEY — BUT OTHERS OWE US EVEN MORE!

Hanna repeatedly wrote that Varamar was prepared to pay, that the payment had been prepared and that the company had allegedly never refused payment.

Alexander Varvarenko had previously stated publicly that there was no obligation to pay the broker. In WhatsApp, he announced a penalty equal to the entire commission.

How can these versions coexist within the same family and corporate story?

Only if the obligation can be switched on and off depending on the current PR objective.

“If it is essential for you to receive payment first, of course we will pay. We never said that we would not pay.”

Hanna later claimed that, under the contract, the commission should allegedly have been substantially lower.

Yet before making that claim, she had personally requested an updated invoice without any reduction and stated that it had been submitted for payment.

First, the full amount was correct.

Then it was incorrect.

Then it became possible again — provided that I repented correctly.

Very flexible accounting.

Antwerp: Where PR Met the Market

At almost the same time, Varamar published a celebratory LinkedIn report about its participation in the seventh Grand Dinner of the Antwerp Chartering Club.

The company wrote about five hundred shipping professionals gathered under one roof, meetings with friends, partners and colleagues, and the larger conversations shaping the future of the industry.

“Antwerp, shipping and 500 people under one roof.

Last week, Varamar had the pleasure of joining the 7th Grand Dinner of the Antwerp Chartering Club, bringing together around 500 professionals from the shipping community at the beautiful Handelsbeurs in Antwerp.

It was an evening not only about meeting friends, partners and colleagues, but also about the bigger conversations shaping our industry today.

Thank you to the Antwerp Chartering Club and Chairman Pierre Durot for bringing the community together for such a memorable evening.”

Source: Varamar’s official LinkedIn page.

However, according to information provided to me by colleagues, Varamar representatives repeatedly heard a different question during the event:

Why has Varamar not paid the Ukrainian broker his earned commission?

I was not personally present during those conversations and cannot independently verify every remark. I therefore present this information specifically as reports from market participants, not as a fact established by a court.

Hanna Varvarenko’s approach with a new proposal to end the story coincided in time with the event and Varamar’s subsequent LinkedIn publication.

The coincidence does not, by itself, prove a causal connection.

It is nevertheless striking.

Five hundred shipping professionals gathered under one roof in Antwerp, while Varamar’s celebratory corporate narrative reportedly encountered a question that could not be resolved through a polished LinkedIn post.

The PR efforts of Hanna Varvarenko and Bluemont are colliding with the objective reality of the market.

Shipping professionals find it difficult to understand a model in which a WhatsApp penalty replaces payment of an earned brokerage commission, followed by a proposed “letter of repentance.”

The market has similarly discussed Varamar’s numerous nominations and awards, its ambitious public statements and what critics describe as a phantom fleet — a fleet present in headlines but still lacking clear public identification.

For further discussion of these contradictions, see: “Alexander Varvarenko, Varamar Shipping, SHIPNEXT: Tsar, Baron Munchausen and the King of Liars”.

Husband and Wife — Two of a Kind

There is a sharp Russian saying: “A husband and wife are one Satan.”

I use it here not as a comment on the Varvarenkos’ private family life, but as a figurative assessment of their coordinated conduct in this specific commercial and public dispute.

In a LinkedIn post, Alexander Varvarenko publicly shed tears and made great noise about his family becoming involved in the conflict.

Yet everything he described has a completely different context.

In my assessment, the conflict over the unpaid brokerage commission was initiated by Alexander Varvarenko himself.

Hanna entered it not as a family member accidentally drawn in, but as a PR professional, a participant in the negotiations and the author of the terms for a public “ending” of the story.

Alexander Varvarenko intervened when it was time to pay, announced a WhatsApp penalty and demanded the first repentance.

Hanna Varvarenko, associated with the PR and branding of the family’s projects, returned with a softer tone and a second repentance.

One creates the problem.

The other explains in what tone the injured party should speak about it.

Despite the documented sequence of events, Hanna Varvarenko continues to follow the same convenient legend: the one at fault is not the person who personally intervened in the payment and announced a WhatsApp “penalty” not provided for by any agreement, but the broker himself — the same broker who was not paid for brilliantly performed work.

In my view, it was Alexander Varvarenko who personally initiated this conflict without presenting any contractual grounds.

The work performed was not disputed. Varamar received the commercial result. No grounds were presented for turning the entire commission into a “penalty”.

The logic is almost flawless — if viewed through the eyes of family PR.

The broker helps save the voyage, does his work and delivers a commercial result. Then he is left unpaid.

But he is still the one declared guilty: he spoke too early, demanded his earnings too loudly and did not treat the debtor’s reputation with enough care.

The cause of the conflict disappears from the frame.

The blame is placed on the one who refused to accept non-payment in silence.

Smooth words, hard refusal to pay.

Behind the words about mutual respect, a professional ending and protecting reputation lies a simple fact: a person did the work, and his money was not paid.

People in this scheme are of interest exactly as long as they bring a commercial result or help maintain a pretty picture.

Varamar, SHIPNEXT and Bluemont are presented as separate projects. But at the moment of a reputational crisis they form a single family circuit.

Alexander is the owner and the public face.

Hanna is the voice of marketing, PR and branding.

One obligation. Many explanations. No payment.

Why I Said No Again

I did not refuse to close the conflict.

I proposed a clear and verifiable order: first Varamar fulfils its obligation, then I inform the market of full payment and the absence of further claims.

I refused to call the defence of my interests premature.

In my position, at the time of the first publication about five weeks had passed since Varamar received the funds, with a payment term of 24 hours.

Before the international mailing I waited about six weeks and contacted Alexander Varvarenko twice.

If a debtor can withhold earned money until the creditor publicly praises him, this is no longer a settlement.

It is buying a convenient version of events with someone else’s money.

The final legal assessment must be given by a competent court or arbitration.

My assessment as a participant in the events is simple: the second letter of repentance was a second attempt to make payment conditional.

Pay First

The work was done. Varamar received the result.

Hanna Varvarenko requested a new invoice for the full amount and stated that it had been submitted for payment.

After that, the payment was again tied to a text meant to whitewash the debtor and put the blame on the person who demanded his money.

I am ready to inform the market of a settlement immediately after an actual settlement.

Pay — and I will honestly write that the commission has been paid.

But I will not call the truth premature or apologise for the publicity in exchange for access to my own earnings.

The brokerage commission for M/V BOHWA AMOY remains unpaid.

The promise once again proved cheaper than the payment.

Letter of Repentance No. 2 is not accepted.

Language versions: Українська версія · Русская версия