According to the results of a joint study by Active Group and Experts Club, Ukrainians view Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Lithuania most favorably, while China and Hungary receive significantly lower ratings, despite their importance in Ukraine’s foreign trade.
“The modern international economy is not just about foreign trade figures, but also about reputation, trust, political proximity, humanitarian presence, and a sense of partnership at the societal level. It is precisely within this framework that both Ukraine’s trade ties and the work of foreign embassies in Ukraine’s information and public spheres should be evaluated,” noted Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club information and analytical center, at a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine agency on Thursday.
Urakin also cited Ukraine’s overall foreign trade figures for 2025. According to his data, total trade turnover exceeded $125 billion, of which nearly $85 billion was accounted for by imports and about $40 billion by exports, while the trade deficit in goods amounted to approximately $44.5 billion. He noted that this indicates the continued high openness of the Ukrainian economy even amid the war, but at the same time highlights its significant dependence on foreign supplies.
As noted during the presentation, China remains Ukraine’s largest trading partner in terms of trade turnover. At the same time, it is trade with China that creates the largest trade imbalance for Ukraine, as out of $20 billion in total trade, about $19 billion is accounted for by imports, while Ukrainian exports amount to only about $1.8 billion.
“In essence, nearly 39–40% of Ukraine’s entire annual trade deficit is attributable to China. This is a classic example of asymmetric trade: Ukraine sells resources and buys goods with high added value,” Urakin emphasized.
According to him, Ukraine has a different type of relationship with Poland. Poland remains a key neighbor, a logistics hub, an important political ally, and at the same time the largest market for Ukrainian exports. Total trade with Poland exceeds $13 billion, but here too, Ukraine’s trade balance remains negative—at nearly minus $3 billion. At the same time, as noted by participants at the press conference, Poland is not merely a sales market but a bridge connecting Ukrainian producers with the European Union market.
A similar situation is observed in trade with Germany, Turkey, and the United States. According to data presented at the press conference, trade turnover with Germany amounts to about $9 billion, with Turkey—nearly $9 billion, and with the United States—nearly $6 billion, with Ukraine having a negative balance in all three cases. Urakin emphasized that the U.S. market is particularly important, as the significance of the United States for Ukraine is determined not only by trade volumes but also by the role of the United States as a security, financial, technological, and political partner.
At the same time, as noted during the presentation, the most advantageous markets for Ukraine in terms of a positive trade balance are Egypt, Moldova, the Netherlands, Spain, Lebanon, Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Kazakhstan, and the United Arab Emirates.
“Ukraine achieves the best results where it has a strong position in the agricultural sector and where the Ukrainian export offering is well-suited to the respective market. Future improvements in the trade balance lie in the transition to products with higher added value in those markets where Ukraine already has a presence and is proving itself to be a stable partner,” he said.
The sociological part of the study, presented at the press conference, showed that Ukrainians demonstrate the highest levels of positive attitude toward Germany—77.4%, Lithuania—75%, France—74%, the United Kingdom – 74%, Sweden – 72.5%, Japan – 71.8%, Italy – 70%, and the Czech Republic – 67%. Ratings for Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, and Turkey also remain high. At the same time, 56% of respondents view Poland positively, compared to 14.7% negative ratings, and 55% view Turkey positively, compared to 5.6% negative ratings.
China, however, presents a different picture: 23% of respondents expressed a positive attitude toward it, while 42% expressed a negative one. Assessments of Hungary were even more critical: only 18.6% held a positive view, compared to 52% who held a negative one. 44.1% of respondents view the United States positively, while 24.7% view it negatively.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of the research company Active Group, emphasized that this is the second study in the series, allowing for tracking the dynamics of public perceptions. According to him, this is not only about the emotional perception of other countries but also about a factor increasingly linked to foreign economic relations, security, and the image of a partner country within Ukrainian society.
“The ratings of some countries have deteriorated slightly compared to the previous survey. In the case of the United States, this could have been influenced by changes in American policy following the arrival of the new president and the corresponding media coverage,” Pozniy noted.
The participants in the press conference paid particular attention to cases where a country’s economic importance does not align with how it is perceived emotionally in Ukraine. Responding to questions from the audience, Pozniy cited China as an example—a country that is viewed quite negatively but remains Ukraine’s largest trading partner. Similarly, he noted, there are cases where a country, such as Iraq, has a positive trade balance with Ukraine, yet attitudes toward it remain reserved or negative.
Olga Bezrukova, Ph.D. in Sociology and head of the Kyiv branch of the Sociological Association of Ukraine, emphasized that public opinion during wartime is particularly sensitive to external factors, and therefore such measurements must be considered within a specific temporal context. “Attitudes toward a country should be viewed as attitudes toward the country as a whole, and they are shaped by Ukrainians’ perception of that country as a strategic partner in achieving peace in Ukraine. The second component is attitudes toward its representatives and citizens, which are based either on personal experience or on the experiences of friends, colleagues, and family members,” she explained.
According to Bezrukova, social media, the political context, cultural stereotypes, and everyday perceptions acquired through socialization play an important role in shaping these assessments. This, in particular, may explain the high proportion of neutral responses regarding certain countries about which Ukrainians have insufficient personal experience or information in the public sphere. She also drew attention to the influence of stereotypes on attitudes toward some countries in the Muslim world, even though, from an economic standpoint, some of them are important partners for Ukraine.
Maksym Urakin noted that foreign missions should communicate with Ukrainian society not in abstract diplomatic language, but in the language of tangible benefits—through jobs, investments, humanitarian projects, educational programs, and logistical opportunities. He also called on diplomatic missions to work more actively not only in Kyiv but also in the regions, and to link their countries’ images not only to political support for Ukraine but also to tangible participation in reconstruction, energy, industry, agricultural processing, healthcare, and education.
“If society sees a massive flow of imports coming into the country but does not see a corresponding flow of investment, technology, or localized production, a sense of imbalance arises. And this directly affects the emotional perception of the partner. That is why countries with a large trade surplus with Ukraine should pay particular attention to the reputational aspect of their presence in the Ukrainian market,” added Urakin
In summary, the participants of the press conference emphasized that the study’s findings could be useful for businesses, government institutions, and Ukraine’s international partners alike. In their view, public opinion can influence economic policy, consumer behavior, and even the perception of goods and services from various countries, and thus becomes a crucial element of today’s foreign economic reality. Oleksandr Pozniy noted that the world is not “black and white” for Ukrainians, and the large proportion of neutral assessments regarding a number of countries indicates caution and a desire for balanced judgment rather than indifference.
The survey was conducted in March 2026; sociologists analyzed Ukrainians’ attitudes toward 50 countries that are among Ukraine’s largest trading partners. The study was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire on an online panel; 800 respondents participated, and the stated margin of error does not exceed 3.5%.
You can view the full presentation of the study by clicking the link.
ACTIVE GROUP, ECONOMICS, EXPERTS CLUB, Pozniy, SOCIOLOGY, URAKIN, БЕЗРУКОВА
The direct and projected losses to Ukraine’s economy from the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation in terms of lost revenue are estimated at $1.7 trillion, and the loss of added value at $0.6 trillion, according to the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) analytical center.
KSE analysts specified that the updated estimate covers the period from February 24, 2022, to December 31, 2025, and takes into account forecasts until the end of 2026.
Compared to previous data for July 2024, the estimate of revenue losses increased by $536 billion (from $1.164 trillion), and value-added losses — by $214.3 billion (from $385.7 billion).
“The increase is due to an update in methodology, the use of new data at the company and sector levels, and an extension of the analysis period, which now covers losses through the end of 2026,” KSE explained.
According to the report, the current loss of added value is already more than three times higher than Ukraine’s pre-war GDP for 2021. The most affected sectors were trade ($696.3 billion), industry, construction, and services ($645.6 billion), and agriculture ($81.9 billion). Losses of key infrastructure in the energy sector reached $75.3 billion, and in transport — $60.2 billion.
The war also caused significant additional costs, particularly in the housing sector ($26.8 billion, mainly rent), demining ($24.6 billion), and dismantling destroyed facilities ($13 billion).
Government spending on social support increased by $7.5 billion.
The report was prepared by the KSE Institute’s analytical team in cooperation with the Ministry of Community and Territorial Development of Ukraine, other relevant authorities, and the National Bank of Ukraine, using World Bank methodology.
The implementation of the project to develop the Dobra lithium deposit in the Kirovohrad region will provide jobs and budget revenues for the Ukrainian economy, but the maximum effect for the economy is possible if processing and final product manufacturing are localized in the country. This was reported by the Experts Club expert and analytical center, citing Vladimir Khaustov, scientific secretary of the Institute of Economics and Forecasting of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.
Khaustov noted that when exporting raw materials or concentrate, the main added value will be generated outside Ukraine, while the production of batteries and other lithium-based products would significantly increase the project’s contribution to economic development.
At the same time, he pointed to the risks of market changes and technological transition to alternative solutions for energy storage devices. According to his estimates, the path from the start of development of the deposit to the release of the final product could take about 15 years, during which time other types of batteries, such as aluminum-ion or sodium batteries, or even other types of energy storage devices, could appear on the market.
As reported, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has selected the winner of the competition for the development of the Dobra lithium deposit under a production sharing agreement (PSA) — Dobra Lithium Holdings JV, LLC, whose shareholders are Techmet and The Rock Holdings. Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said that the project involves attracting at least $179 million in investments, including $12 million for geological exploration and international audit of reserves and $167 million for the organization of extraction and enrichment upon confirmation of industrial reserves.
The PSA competition for the Dobre field was announced in September 2025. According to the State Service of Geology and Subsoil, the 17.07 sq km site is located in the Kirovograd region, and the winner will receive a special permit for a period of 50 years. In addition to lithium, the project covers a number of associated metals.
Sources cite the land ownership structure in the deposit area and environmental procedures, including the need for a new environmental impact assessment and public discussion, as additional challenges for the investor.
The Experts Club Information and Analytical Center analyzed updated data on Ukraine’s foreign trade volumes for the first half of 2025, published by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine. The analysis is based on official customs statistics and covers 49 of Ukraine’s main trading partners from all continents. The study revealed key trends in foreign economic relations that demonstrate the depth of the country’s international integration.
China remains Ukraine’s largest trading partner, with a total trade volume of nearly US$9 billion. This is more than three times higher than the figures for any individual European country. Poland ranks second with a result of over US$6 billion, demonstrating its stable role as the main European hub for Ukrainian exports and imports. Germany ranks third with a volume of US$4.28 billion.
Turkey ($4.25 billion) and the US ($2.86 billion) also made it into the top five, reflecting the broad geography of Ukraine’s trade relations.
European countries traditionally play a leading role in Ukraine’s foreign trade. Among them, in addition to Poland and Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania are worth noting — all of them are among the top 10 partners. High indicators testify not only to the volume of trade, but also to the stability of logistics and production chains in the region.
This also confirms the gradual reformatting of Ukraine’s foreign trade orientation towards EU markets, particularly after the introduction of a duty-free regime, accession to the single customs space, and reorientation from traditional post-Soviet markets.
Among Asian countries, China remains the undisputed leader, retaining its strategic importance as a market for raw materials and a source of industrial imports. Turkey, although part of the Eurasian space, is actively strengthening its position in trade thanks to its flexible policy and developed logistics through the Black Sea.
Among other Asian players, the Republic of Korea, Japan, and India are notable for their presence, gradually increasing trade volumes with Ukraine, especially in the high-tech and pharmaceutical segments.
The United States remains Ukraine’s most important partner in the Western Hemisphere. Despite its geographical distance, the US is among the top five trading partners with a volume of over $2.85 billion. This testifies to deep economic interaction that complements political and defense partnerships.
Brazil and Mexico are also represented in the overall ranking, demonstrating growth in trade volumes, primarily in the agricultural and industrial goods segments.
They are increasingly appearing in Ukraine’s trade balance. In particular, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya show stable demand for Ukrainian grain, metallurgical products, and machine-building products. At the same time, the potential of African markets for Ukrainian exports remains significant and can be realized under conditions of expanded logistics routes and political stability.
Top 10 trading partners of Ukraine in January–June 2025
No. Country Trade volume (USD million)
1 China 8,996
2 Poland 6,043
3 Germany 4,279
4 Turkey 4,249
5 United States 2,859
6 Italy 2,384
7 Czech Republic 1,641
8 Bulgaria 1,539
9 Hungary 1,526
10 Romania 1,499
“The latest foreign trade data demonstrate not only the geographical diversification of Ukraine’s partners, but also a clear focus on integration into the European and global markets. Despite the difficult security situation, Ukrainian business continues to expand into international economic chains, especially in the fields of agricultural products, metallurgy, and machine building. Significant growth in trade with EU countries and the US, as well as strong cooperation with China and Turkey, show that Ukraine has not lost its ability to be an active player in the global market,” says Maxim Urakin, founder of Experts Club and candidate of economic sciences.
Data for the first half of 2025 indicate that Ukraine’s foreign economic relations remain geographically diverse. The EU remains a reliable economic partner, China retains its position as the No. 1 global player, and North American and Asian countries are strengthening their roles. Africa is a promising direction that requires strategic attention.
Analyse, ANALYTICS, ECONOMICS, EXPERTS CLUB, Handel, TRADE, URACIN, URAKIN, WIRTSCHAFT
As temperatures rise and countries back off their decarbonization efforts, we must confront a reality central banks can’t correct
Inflation is, at base, a tax on consumption – and it hits the poor the hardest, since they consume more of their incomes and the rich consume less.
That’s one reason for concern over Donald Trump’s tariffs, which will disproportionately affect the poor. When the 90-day pause on the tariffs expires, it is reasonable to expect prices to rise, and by a lot.
That’s because, first, intermediate goods – rather than finished ones – dominate trade, crossing borders and being tariffed multiple times along the way, which makes them highly inflationary. Second, while the tariffs of the first Trump administration could be more easily absorbed by exchange rates and producers, there is no way tariffs of this magnitude can be absorbed. Producers and consumers must take a hit, and that means rising prices. It looks like the poor, once again, will suffer the most.
But if Trump’s tariffs were to disappear for good, would we return to a world of stable prices? Insights from our forthcoming book, Inflation: A Guide for Users and Losers, suggest that is sadly not the case, for three reasons.
The first is how we think about inflation and how we respond to it. We identified four distinct ways that the public and central banks have talked about the causes and effects of inflation in the past few years. The first story is the textbook idea that “the government spends too much money”. The second focuses on wages pushing up prices – a labor market story. These two stories both see inflation as coming from demand outpacing supply. Consumers demand too much because governments put too much money in their pockets, and workers ask for higher wages despite no significant improvements in productivity. If production can’t keep up with the surge in demand, then the inevitable consequence will be rising prices.
The two other stories we identified see inflation the other way around. It’s the supply side of the economy that generated inflation. There’s the “supply shocks” story, where unexpected events such as Covid or the Ukraine war push up prices and they stay up until the economy adjusts. And finally, there is the story of corporations in concentrated markets using inflation as cover to raise prices.
There is evidence for (and against) all four causal stories. But what policymakers tended to focus on were the first two. As a result, central banks raised interest rates, which can be effective in reducing inflation when it is demand-driven but cannot do much if inflation comes from an exogenous shock, such as Covid or a war.
What is interesting about the 2020s inflation was that the latter two stories – supply shocks and opportunistic corporations – turned out to be just as, if not more, important than the first two.
But is that all there is to future inflation? No, and that brings us to reason number two.
The Trump administration has recently declared a war on climate change research inside the federal government and in the wider US research community, as well as a doubling down on carbon-based business models. But wishing the problem away won’t make it disappear. The real drivers of future inflation are not just tariffs, but the climate crisis and states backing off their decarbonization efforts.
Climate change is already affecting prices. The first driver for this is insurance markets. A combination of massively rising damage costs from droughts, wildfires and floods has seen insurance costs soar in many countries. Some insurers have moved to cut coverage in US states such as California and Florida, with the result that the state there is on the hook for damages it can never cover. Recognizing this, reinsurers – the companies that protect insurance firms – are pulling their coverage from insurance writers, creating a long-term rise in prices. The effects spread well beyond insurance markets. In the US you cannot get a mortgage or build without insurance. Housing is already in critically short supply. Prices can only go up.
The climate crisis is also having long-term effects on what we eat. The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the European Central Bank have produced the first systematic assessments of how much climate change will impact inflation through impacts on food supplies. Assuming temperature increases projected through 2035, which are probably understated, food inflation will increase by 0.92 to 3.23% per year, while headline inflation will rise between 0.32 and 1.18% per year. US wildfires and Europe’s recent and persistent droughts and crop failures are really just the thin end of this inflationary wedge.
Finally, there is the question of how everyone else responds to the US breaking the current global order. The UK’s nationalization of a primary steel company, the move to expand Heathrow airport, and more spending on defense all suggest that our attempts to decarbonize our economies are being put on hold in the name of adjusting to these new realities. The US has effectively given up trying to do anything about it and has decided instead to “drill, baby, drill”.
The EU’s Green Deal was already in trouble electorally, and Trump’s decisions have moved the drive for rearmament to the top of the priorities queue. Meanwhile, China’s decarbonization model depends upon everyone else buying its green tech, which itself is built with enormous coal input. Any long-term financial bonus we might get through the lower costs of more installed renewables and lesser climate damage will be much less than anticipated, even a few years ago, as we backpedal on decarbonization.
In short, viewing tariffs as a source of inflation is probably a good idea. But in doing so we should not miss the underlying forces that no amount of central bank tinkering can accommodate – and that we refuse to fully confront.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/22/tariffs-inflation-climate-crisis
Climate crisis, ECONOMICS, INFLATION, OPINION, Trump tariffs
According to Ukrainians, the countries of the Arab world are neutral in the Russian-Ukrainian war. This was revealed by a joint study by Active Group and the Experts Club think tank, “Attitudes of Ukrainians toward the Middle East and Central Asia,” which was presented at Interfax-Ukraine on Tuesday.
“The analysis includes a predominantly positive attitude of our citizens towards such countries as Israel (72.5%) and Turkey (55%), while the attitude towards other countries in the region is mostly neutral. Ukrainians are extremely negative about Iran (76%) and mostly negative about Afghanistan (52.6%),” said Oleksandr Poznyi, director of the research company Active Group.
In addition, the expert added that Ukrainians are mostly positive about countries with which they have trade or cultural ties. This is natural, as such ties promote mutual respect between societies and countries.
In his turn, Andriy Yeremenko, founder of the research company Active Group, emphasized that the attitude of Ukrainians towards the Middle East and Central Asia varies depending on many factors.
“We can see that the attitude of citizens is really certain only in relation to two countries – Iran and Israel. These are the countries where the percentage of those who find it difficult to answer is less than 20%. The rest of the countries have a much higher percentage of uncertainty, which indicates that Ukrainians are not well informed about these countries,” emphasized Eremenko.
Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club think tank, added that building cooperation with the Middle East and Central Asia is very important for the development of the Ukrainian economy, especially in the agricultural and IT sectors. These industries have great potential for development and can become the basis for a mutually beneficial partnership.
“It is necessary to implement a state strategy to reduce the trade deficit and increase Ukraine’s export potential. This will create a more balanced and sustainable economy that will be less dependent on external factors. Ukraine may be interested in agricultural products, IT clusters, and educational services. We are interested in sales markets, agricultural technologies, metallurgy, and chemistry,” Urakin emphasized.
According to him, trade between Ukraine and the countries under study is currently growing rapidly.
“Turkey is the largest trading partner among the countries of the Middle East and Central Asia, accounting for more than half of all trade with these countries. This shows the importance of Turkey for the Ukrainian economy,” the founder of Experts Club added.
According to Urakin, a balanced foreign economic policy in the region can not only significantly improve Ukraine’s relations with Middle Eastern countries, but also have a positive impact on the overall state of the economy.
The results of the study are available here.
ACTIVE GROUP, ALEXANDER POZNIY, ANDREY EREMENKO, CENTRAL_ASIA, ECONOMICS, EXPERTS CLUB, MAXIM URAKIN, MIDDLE_EAST, POLL, SOCIOLOGY
