In January–June 2026, Ukraine recorded a merchandise trade deficit with 37 of its 50 largest trading partners, according to calculations by the Experts Club information and analytical center based on foreign trade data.
Total trade turnover with the TOP 50 countries amounted to $66.97 billion. Imports reached $47.35 billion, exports totaled $19.62 billion, and the overall trade deficit stood at $27.73 billion.
The combined deficit in trade with the 37 countries from which imports exceeded exports amounted to $30.72 billion. A surplus of $2.99 billion with the remaining 13 partners partially offset this gap.
For comparison, according to official data from the State Customs Service, Ukraine’s total trade turnover in the first half of the year amounted to $70.3 billion, including $49.3 billion in imports and $21 billion in exports. Thus, the TOP 50 partners accounted for more than 95% of Ukraine’s foreign trade in goods.
The ten largest deficit-generating trade routes accounted for $41.78 billion in trade turnover. Ukraine imported $32.95 billion worth of goods from these countries while exporting only $8.83 billion. The deficit amounted to $24.12 billion, or approximately 87% of the net trade deficit with the TOP 50 partners.
The import coverage ratio by exports in this group was 26.8%. In other words, every dollar of Ukrainian exports corresponded to approximately $3.73 in imports.
The top five countries—China, Poland, Germany, the United States, and Türkiye—generated a deficit of $20.59 billion. This represented 74.3% of the net trade deficit with the TOP 50 partners.
China ranked first by a wide margin. Imports of Chinese products amounted to $13.9 billion, while exports of Ukrainian goods totaled only $778.4 million. The deficit reached $13.12 billion, or 47.3% of the total trade deficit with the TOP 50.
Exports covered only 5.6% of imports. Thus, the volume of Chinese supplies to Ukraine was almost 18 times greater than the flow of goods in the opposite direction.
According to the State Customs Service’s publicly available commodity breakdown, the leading categories of Chinese imports were electric batteries at $1.62 billion, transmission, television, and video equipment at $1.11 billion, fiber-optic products at $770.5 million, transformers and chokes at $720.8 million, and unmanned aerial vehicles at $684.4 million.
Significant volumes also included telephone and telecommunications equipment at $620.8 million, electric motors and generators at $589.8 million, computer equipment at $363.7 million, and semiconductor devices at $347.8 million.
Thus, the deficit with China is generated not by a single category but by a broad range of technological, energy, electronic, and consumer products.
Poland ranked second in terms of the trade deficit, at $2.29 billion. At the same time, trade with Poland was considerably more balanced than trade with China: Ukrainian exports covered 51% of imports, while Poland remained the largest individual market for Ukrainian products.
The largest disclosed category of imports of Polish origin was oil and petroleum products, totaling $904.6 million. These were followed by petroleum gases at $205.6 million, aircraft parts at $192 million, unmanned aerial vehicles at $133.9 million, compound fertilizers at $121.6 million, electricity at $114.4 million, and coke and semi-coke at $111 million.
The structure of these supplies indicates that Poland serves Ukraine not only as a trading partner but also as an important energy, industrial, and logistics hub.
Germany generated the third-largest deficit, at $1.94 billion. Ukrainian exports covered 39.5% of imports.
The main disclosed categories of German products were passenger cars at $347.6 million, medicines at $220.2 million, petroleum products at $151.9 million, crop-harvesting machinery at $115.3 million, soil cultivation equipment at $97.1 million, plant protection products at $93.5 million, and tractors at $84.3 million.
The trade deficit with the United States amounted to $1.9 billion, while exports covered only 23.6% of imports. The largest publicly available categories of US supplies were petroleum products at $436.6 million, passenger cars at $417.9 million, coal at $182.2 million, and telecommunications equipment at $155.3 million.
Imports from the United States also included tractors, ethylene polymers, petroleum gases, medicines, frozen fish, and electronic equipment. Production, transport, and energy goods accounted for a significant share of both US and German imports.
Türkiye ranked fifth, with a deficit of $1.34 billion. At the same time, the import coverage ratio by exports stood at 57.1%, the highest figure among the top five countries.
Radar and radio navigation instruments and remote-control apparatus, totaling $332.8 million, stood out in the publicly available commodity structure. Significant supplies also included rolled steel products, petroleum products at $110.1 million, citrus fruits at $83.3 million, electric generator sets at $73.1 million, sunflower seeds at $59.2 million, automotive components, vegetables, and other food products. Trade with Türkiye combines industrial products, technological equipment, metals, and foodstuffs, while the country remains one of the largest markets for Ukrainian exports.
The trade deficit with Greece amounted to $861.5 million. Oil and petroleum products accounted for almost $809 million in the publicly available commodity breakdown. Other categories included petroleum coke and bitumen at $38.1 million, petroleum gases at $36.4 million, and fertilizers at $35.1 million. The structure of the deficit with Lithuania, which reached $607.7 million, was similar. Petroleum products accounted for $576.1 million of disclosed imports, while petroleum gases accounted for $46.4 million. Ukraine also imported passenger cars, freight vehicles, petroleum coke, fertilizers, polymers, and animal feed.
Unlike China, where the deficit is distributed among numerous technological categories, the imbalance with Greece and Lithuania is largely associated with energy purchases.
The trade deficit with the Czech Republic amounted to $752.4 million. The main import categories included aircraft parts at $101.8 million, passenger cars at $101 million, electric generator sets at $96.6 million, batteries at $44.5 million, telecommunications equipment at $34.3 million, and coal at $32.3 million.
The trade deficit with Hungary reached $658.1 million. The publicly available structure of supplies was dominated by electricity at $349.9 million, petroleum gases at $157.4 million, passenger cars at $113.2 million, and cable products at $87.8 million.
The deficit with France amounted to $648.9 million. The largest categories were plant protection products at $120 million, medicines at $76.1 million, passenger cars at $72.5 million, trucks at $47.7 million, tractors at $39.9 million, and automotive components at $35.3 million. Supplies of sunflower and corn seeds, as well as cosmetic products, were also significant.
Immediately outside the top ten was Sweden, with a deficit of $606.9 million. Exports covered only 8.3% of imports. The main publicly available categories included petroleum products, passenger cars, medicines, and agricultural machinery.
The deficit with Taiwan amounted to $563.8 million, with Vietnam to $544.2 million, and with Japan to $496.9 million. The import coverage ratio by exports in trade with these countries ranged from only 3.8% to 5.8%. Supplies from Taiwan included unmanned aerial vehicles at $205.3 million, radar and navigation equipment at $58.4 million, integrated electronic circuits at $55 million, and navigation instruments at $47.6 million.
Imports from Vietnam included unmanned aerial vehicles at $132.7 million, telecommunications equipment at $108.7 million, computer equipment, rolled steel products, footwear, coffee, and fish products. Japanese imports were dominated by passenger cars at $302.5 million, as well as motorcycles, automotive components, printing, medical, and construction equipment.
The overall structure of purchases explains a significant part of the trade gap. According to the State Customs Service, machinery, equipment, and transport accounted for $21.3 billion of imports in the first half of 2026, fuel and energy products for $7.4 billion, and chemical industry products for $6.9 billion. Together, these three categories accounted for 72% of imported goods.
Thus, the deficit is not associated solely with the consumption of finished foreign products. A significant part of it is generated by purchases of energy resources, passenger cars, production equipment, electronics, batteries, generators, pharmaceutical products, agricultural machinery, and components.
“The trade deficit cannot be assessed exclusively as a negative indicator. Amid the war and large-scale reconstruction, a significant share of imports serves a critical or investment purpose. Ukraine purchases energy resources, generators, batteries, transport, industrial equipment, electronics, medicines, and components without which it would be impossible to maintain the functioning of the economy, energy sector, and infrastructure,” emphasized Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club information and analytical center.
At the same time, according to him, the concentration of the deficit creates risks of dependence on individual suppliers, increases demand for foreign currency, and demonstrates the insufficient presence of Ukrainian producers in key foreign markets.
“The problem arises when imports of finished products grow systematically while Ukrainian exports and domestic production fail to develop at a corresponding pace. Trade with China is particularly indicative, as Ukrainian exports cover less than 6% of imports. Such a disparity increases dependence on a single supplier and creates constant additional demand for foreign currency,” the economist stressed.
According to Urakin, the most realistic response lies not in mechanically restricting imports but in localizing the production of goods for which Ukraine has the necessary technological and resource prerequisites, developing industrial cooperation, expanding exports of processed goods, and encouraging foreign suppliers to establish production capacity within the country.
The production of energy equipment, battery systems, electrical equipment, automotive components, construction materials, agricultural machinery, highly processed food products, and certain types of chemical products holds particular potential.
