Business news from Ukraine

Business news from Ukraine

Ukraine has updated a number of business rules since January 2026 – Experts Club review

On January 1, 2026, a number of changes came into force in Ukraine that affect companies’ expenses, tax burdens, and foreign trade operations—from new state budget parameters and individual tax innovations to updates to energy tariffs and export licensing rules, according to the Experts Club information and analytical center.

The 2026 state budget has set new social standards that directly affect the wage fund, social security contributions, and the calculation of fines and mandatory payments linked to the minimum wage and subsistence minimum.

In terms of taxation, businesses should take into account the updated indicators for the simplified system and military tax. The tax service’s explanations for 2026 separately note the amounts of payments for individual entrepreneurs in groups 1-2, as well as the introduction/application of the military levy for single tax payers (in particular, a fixed payment for groups 1-2 and a percentage of income for group 3), plus a number of related administrative changes.

A separate section is devoted to labor regulation. Starting in 2026, the requirements for employers regarding the employment of people with disabilities will be updated (a change in the approach to meeting the quota and financial responsibility for non-compliance). This affects personnel policy, budgeting, and internal HR procedures, especially in companies with a large number of employees.

In foreign trade for 2026, the government has maintained zero quotas (a ban through quotas) on exports of natural gas of Ukrainian origin and a number of other items, while canceling quotas on exports of table salt and coking coal, and maintaining the licensing regime for certain agricultural items for export to a number of EU countries.
In the energy sector, the NEURC set the tariff for Ukrenergo’s electricity transmission services for 2026: for January-March – UAH 713.68/MWh (excluding VAT) for most system users and UAH 373.93/MWh (excluding VAT) for green electrometallurgy enterprises; for April-December – UAH 742.91/MWh and UAH 378.49/MWh, respectively (excluding VAT).

Changes in excise and financial matters are also important for certain industries. In particular, the schedule for increasing excise duty on motor fuel, previously introduced by amendments to the Tax Code, continues to apply, and an increased income tax rate has been set for banks for 2026.

, , ,

How Ukraine is losing scientists. Will we lose science?

As we know, personnel are everything. This is not just an empty phrase, because in science, where training sometimes takes decades, the future of a country is determined by the availability of qualified researchers.

After the collapse of the USSR, where scientists occupied an honorable place in the hierarchy of professions, Ukraine acquired one of the largest research systems in Europe. The scientific school of the Ukrainian SSR era was known for its advanced technologies and groundbreaking ideas. Subsequently, in the early years of independence, changes in the structure of the economy began. While in 1991-1995 the share of industry in GDP exceeded 40%, by 2024 it had fallen to 19.0%, and the service sector had taken the lead, growing from 40% to over 70%.

The country’s economic problems and economic transformation also led to a reduction in funding for science. The dynamics of this reduction are shown below:

Table 1. Dynamics of expenditure on research and development in 2010-2023.

 

Years

Research and development expenses – total, million UAH Share of research and development expenditure in GDP, %
2010 8107,1 0,75
2011 8513,4 0,65
2012 9419,9 0,67
2013 10248,5 0,70
2014 9487,5 0,60
2015 11003,6 0,55
2016 11530,7 0,48
2017 13379,3 0,45
2018 16773,7 0,47
2019 17254,6 0,43
2020 17022,4 0,41
2021 20973,8 0,38
2022 17117,8 0,33
2023 21348,1 0,33

The share of science spending in gross domestic product (GDP) has been steadily declining since 2010 and has fallen to 0.33% in recent years. Back in 2017, the World Bank noted that “…the current innovation policy and corresponding state funding do not meet the critical needs of the Ukrainian national innovation system.” A significant reduction in funding has led to the disappearance of a number of scientific institutions (SIs) and a decline in the prestige of scientific work. Young people are not going into science because of low salaries and the low status of scientists. It cannot be otherwise, given that the salary of a senior researcher at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine is 13,034 hryvnia.

All this has led to increased migration, a decrease in the number of scientists, and a loss of opportunities to reproduce human resources. The number of personnel in the field of research and development (R&D) has decreased sevenfold: from more than 400,000 people in 1991 to 63,800 in 2024. Below you can see the dynamics of the number of personnel engaged in R&D.

Fig. 1. Dynamics of the number of personnel employed in R&D in Ukraine

2.png

Table 2. Dynamics of the number of personnel employed in R&D in Ukraine

Years Number of employees involved in scientific research and development – total, persons Including
researchers technicians support employees
person / as a percentage of the total number of employees involved in scientific research and development person / as a percentage of the total number of employees involved in scientific research and development person / as a percentage of the total number of employees involved in scientific research and development
2010 182484 133744 / 73.3 20113 / 11.0 28627 / 15.7
2011 175330 130403 / 74.4 17260 / 9.8 27667 / 15.8
2012 164340 122106 / 74.3 15509 / 9.4 26725 / 16.3
2013 155386 115806 / 74.5 14209 / 9.2 25371 / 16.3
2014* 136123 101440 / 74.5 12299 / 9.0 22384 / 16.5
2015 122504 90249 / 73.7 11178 / 9.1 21077 / 17.2
2016 97912 63694 / 65.1 10000 / 10.2 24218 / 24.7
2017 94274 59392 / 63.0 9144 / 9.7 25738 / 27.3
2018 88128 57630 / 65.4 8553 / 9.7 21945 / 24.9
2019 79262 51121 / 64.5 7470 / 9.4 20671 / 26.1
2020 78860 51427 / 65.2 7117 / 9.0 20316 / 25.8
2021 68808 44321 / 64.7 5879 / 8.6 18288 / 26.7
2022* 53221 36084 / 67.8 5020 / 9.4 12117 / 22.8
2023 58567 38845 / 66.3 4542 / 7.8 15180 / 25.9
2024 63847 42670 / 66.8 5148 / 8.1 16029 / 25.1

The period of sharp decline in the number of R&D personnel (1991-1999) was characterized by a drop in funding. Subsequently, in 2000-2008, the number of research personnel stabilized at 200,000. The financial crisis accelerated negative trends in the dynamics of R&D personnel. This was followed by the annexation of Crimea and parts of the eastern regions, and the war. In 2024, the UNESCO report “Analysis of war damage to the Ukrainian science sector and its consequences” noted that as a result of the Russian Federation’s aggression, 12% of scientists were forced to emigrate or move within the country. Of these, 6.3% were forced to emigrate to other countries, and 5.5% became internally displaced persons. About 30% of all scientists began to work remotely. In other words, there was a “brain drain” from science. According to some data, more than 20,000 R&D workers were temporarily displaced or left Ukraine in 2022. Thus, losses associated with the war were added to the traditional outflow of scientific personnel. Changes in the structure of science have also led to the disappearance of the previously massive category of designers and technologists. Ukraine’s recovery will take place through investment projects that will require a huge amount of design and technological documentation, which no one is left to prepare.

Table 3 shows that, in addition to the decline in the number of scientists, there is also an aging of science. The most numerous age group in science is scientists over 65 years of age. Scientists aged 55 and older make up about 40% of scientists.

Table 3 Number of researchers involved in R&D by age:

up to and including 25 years of age 25-29 years 30-34 years 35-39 years 40-44 years 45-49 years 50-54 years 55-59 years 60-64 years 65 years old and older
2016 1876 6418 7863 7488 6216 4936 5816 6593 6328 10160
2020 949 3165 5418 6239 5714 4927 4123 4957 5191 10744
2016 2.9% 10.1% 12.3% 11.8% 9.8% 7.7% 9.1% 10.4% 9.9% 16.0%
2020 1.8% 6.2% 10.5% 12.1% 11.1% 9.6% 8.0% 9.6% 10.1% 20.9%

The situation with personnel in science is such that it can be described in the words of Ernest Hemingway: “Ask not for whom the bell tolls, for it tolls for thee.” And without personnel, there will be no science.

In the structure of science funding, the largest share is concentrated in the business sector – 59.9%, in the public sector it is 33.4%, and in the higher education sector – about 6.7% of expenditures. In terms of personnel, the public sector accounts for 49%, the business sector for 34.6%, and higher education for 16.4%. Scientific institutions and universities are predominantly state-owned. Research in universities is not a key activity and is largely separate from teaching.

The main channels of public funding are the Ministry of Education and Science, sectoral academies, and the National Research Fund of Ukraine. Another source is the foreign sector. In the pre-war period, foreign sources accounted for 20-25% of R&D funding in Ukraine. In the context of the war, foreign partners have stepped up grant funding.

For many years, Ukrainian science has been unsuccessfully trying to establish links with business due to the lack of a comprehensive policy aimed at supporting such cooperation. However, these efforts are often fragmented, short-term, and insufficiently integrated into national innovation and industrial strategies. The lack of coordination between universities, business, and government agencies hinders the development of an innovation system.

Another feature of Ukrainian science is the almost complete absence of funding from regional sources, which is incomprehensible given the decentralization and significant increase in community budgets, which are not being used for regional science. It appears that local authorities know nothing about science and do not want to use it.

The negative changes in the state of Ukraine’s scientific human resources urgently require state intervention to stabilize and further reduce these influences. The state body responsible for the development of science, the Ministry of Education and Science, is monitoring these trends and attempting to change the situation.

Recently, the Ministry of Education and Science prepared the Concept for the Support and Development of Human Resources in the Field of Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activities, “National System of Researchers of Ukraine” (NSR), which was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The concept “aims to identify, recognize, support, and promote the best Ukrainian scientific and scientific-pedagogical workers who have achieved outstanding results in scientific and scientific-technical activities and made a significant contribution to the development of science in the country, as well as to provide them with further individual financial support.” Support will be provided to scientists on the basis of questionnaires, regardless of their current ability to conduct research.

The proposed NSD is based on a rating assessment of scientists’ achievements, with additional funding for the best researchers. However, distributing money based on questionnaires among a limited number of scientists, as is essentially proposed, is not rational.

The set of indicators for determining the best mainly duplicates the indicators used in state certification of institutions. It is unclear how the summarization will be carried out and how the characteristics of different scientific disciplines will be taken into account. And how, for example, can a representative of fundamental science be compared with someone from an industry or a theoretical physicist with a lawyer? Furthermore, scientists perform different functions in scientific teams: some generate ideas, some conduct experiments, etc.

Furthermore, with the support of individual scientists, the place and role of creative teams and infrastructure and information support are completely negated. Scientists do not work alone, but as part of teams with their own functions.

The use of mechanistic approaches to ratings will primarily support scientists with many years of experience in science and managers (they have better publication indicators, in particular thanks to the opportunities for co-authorship and the “duration” of scientific work). It is impossible to apply the same requirements to everyone. Therefore, the general ranking of Ukrainian scientists is an artificial measure. In developed countries, such rankings are not conducted. The idea of distributing funds among scientists based on rankings is not new. In Ukraine, there was an attempt to create something similar in the Lviv region. There are no mentions of its results.

Another example of support for scientists at the national level is Mexico, where the NSD has been operating since the mid-1980s as a response to the mass emigration of scientists to the United States. It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of this system because, in addition to it, the government has applied other incentives, in particular various grant programs. However, the level of emigration of scientists from Mexico remains high, and the results of the impact of the creation of the NSD are unclear to its initiators. Other Latin American countries with similar problems have not introduced it.

Ukraine needs solutions that are not copies of foreign models, but responses to its own challenges. To overcome Ukraine’s personnel problems in science, it is necessary to:

1. Strictly comply with the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Science and Scientific Activity” with a level of funding for science at 1.7% of GDP.

2. Make scientific work prestigious by significantly increasing scientists’ salaries, which will ensure the competitiveness of Ukrainian science.

3. Ensure acceptable basic funding for universities and substantial funding on a competitive basis, as well as partial funding for regional science and education institutions from local budgets.

4. Create and implement mechanisms for financing regional science aimed at solving regional problems from community budgets.

5. Introduce a number of specialized competitions at various levels (national, regional, departmental, etc.), including in cooperation with foreign partners, where the customers would be national government bodies, regions, and private companies seeking to solve priority problems. This will lead to the financing of scientific teams for work on relevant projects, rather than individual scientists receiving rent for questionnaires.

6. Allow only organizations from the “Register of Scientific Institutions” to participate in competitions for research using budget funds.

Today, Ukrainian science is on the brink of survival. Without systematic action on the part of the state and society, we risk losing the intellectual capital necessary for the restoration and modernization of the country.

Author: Volodymyr Khaustov, scientific secretary of the State Institution “Institute of Economics and Forecasting of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine”, Honored Economist of Ukraine, Candidate of Technical Sciences.

Source: Experts Club Information and Analytical Center.

, , ,

Copper prices hit new record high on Tuesday

Copper prices hit a new record high on Tuesday amid signs of limited supply and growing demand linked to electrification and investment in data centers.

The price of copper futures for delivery in three months on the London Metal Exchange (LME) rose 3.1% during trading to $13,387.5 per ton. Since the beginning of 2026, the price of copper has risen 6.6%, exceeding $13,000 per tonne for the first time on Monday.

“The rise in copper prices above $13,000 per ton is due to the growing imbalance between structural supply constraints and accelerated demand growth amid electrification and investment in data centers,” notes ING analyst Eva Manti. “Years of underinvestment and prolonged problems at mines have left the market with virtually no room for maneuver.”

The strike at Capstone Copper’s Mantoverde gold-copper mine in northern Chile, which began last week, has heightened concerns about a shortage of copper supply in the global market this year.

Copper is widely used in electrical engineering, pipe manufacturing, alloy production, medicine, and other industries.

Earlier, the Experts Club information and analytical center released a video dedicated to global copper production and leading producing countries – https://youtube.com/shorts/_h8iU50z8C0?si=a-XkgGEfeUxseQNa

,

Experts Club: Bulgaria has switched to the euro, but the expansion of the eurozone is slowing down

On January 1, 2026, Bulgaria officially switched to the euro and became the 21st country in the eurozone. For the Bulgarian economy, this step is largely institutional in nature: for many years, the lev was tightly pegged to the euro through the currency board, so the market did not expect a sharp change in the monetary regime. At the same time, the country will get a seat on the ECB’s governing bodies and deeper integration into the eurozone’s financial system, according to the Experts Club information and analytical center.

Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club analytical center, believes that the effect of the transition will be determined by how quickly the authorities “knock down” inflation expectations among the population and businesses: “The euro itself does not make the economy richer overnight, but it reduces transaction costs and increases investor confidence. The key test in the first few months will be controlling price speculation and communicating clearly with consumers.”

The main domestic risk around which public debate in Bulgaria is centered is inflationary expectations and fears of price “rounding” in retail and services. Such fears traditionally accompany currency changes, even if the actual effect is usually limited in time and concentrated in the sector of daily household expenses.

After Bulgaria’s entry into the eurozone, six countries remain in the EU that do not use the euro: Sweden, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Denmark, and Romania.

According to Experts Club estimates, the expansion of the eurozone will be slow in the coming years, as each of these countries has its own “stop factors” — from political constraints to failure to meet convergence criteria and budget deficit problems.

In Poland, for example, the government has publicly stated that the country is “not yet ready” for the euro and considers the zloty to be an instrument of macroeconomic flexibility that has helped it weather past shocks.

In the Czech Republic, President Petr Pavel has called for more active movement towards the euro as a factor in trade and decision-making, but there is no political consensus on the timing in the Czech Republic.

In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, on the contrary, has stated several times that the country should not adopt the euro.

Sweden formally relies on the results of the 2003 referendum, when 55.9% of voters opposed the introduction of the euro.

Denmark, unlike the others, has a legally enshrined right not to introduce the euro (opt-out), confirmed by a referendum in 2000.

Experts Club notes that Romania is considered the next country after Bulgaria that is most likely to apply for the introduction of the euro. However, the actual timeline depends on inflation and the budget trajectory: the European Commission indicated in its convergence materials that Romania does not meet the conditions for adopting the euro, including the parameters of public finance sustainability and legal compatibility. The public guidelines in the Romanian discussion mention a target date of around 2029, but the timing may shift depending on economic indicators and fiscal adjustments.

, , , ,

Gold and silver prices rise amid events in Venezuela

Gold and other precious metals rose on Monday amid events in Venezuela, which contributed to increased demand for safe-haven assets.

As reported, on January 3, US special forces conducted a special operation in Venezuela, capturing the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife. Maduro will appear before a federal court in Manhattan, New York, on Monday, ABC News reported. He is expected to face drug trafficking charges that could result in multiple life sentences. US President Donald Trump said on Saturday that his country would temporarily take control of Venezuela.

The spot price of gold rose 2.1% during trading to $4,422 per ounce. Gold for February delivery on Comex rose 2.4% to $4,433.3 per ounce.

“Events in Venezuela have spurred demand for defensive assets as investors seek to protect themselves from geopolitical risks,” said KCM Trade analyst Tim Waterer. “Gold and silver were among the main beneficiaries.”

In 2025, gold rose 64%—the most since 1979—amid geopolitical tensions, lower interest rates, and high demand from global central banks. On December 26, the price of the precious metal rose to a record $4,549.71 per ounce.

The price of silver on the spot market rose 3.8% on Monday to $75.33 per ounce. At the end of last year, silver rose 2.5 times in price, which was its best annual performance. The price of the precious metal reached a record high of $83.62 per ounce on December 29.

The spot price of platinum rose 3.7% during trading to $2,220.3 per ounce, and palladium rose 2% to $1,671.7 per ounce.

Earlier, the Experts Club analytical center presented an analysis of the world’s leading gold-producing countries in its video on YouTube channel — https://youtube.com/shorts/DWbzJ1e2tJc?si=BywddHO-JFWFqUFA

, , ,

In 2025, the hryvnia maintained exchange rate stability amid growing external risks — analysis by Experts Club

According to the results of 2025, Ukraine’s national currency, the hryvnia, remained relatively stable overall, despite pressure from the war, high budget expenditures, and volatility in foreign markets, according to the Experts Club information and analytical center.

Throughout the year, the official hryvnia-to-dollar exchange rate showed moderate fluctuations within the established corridor, remaining under the control of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU). The cash and interbank markets saw short-term surges in demand for foreign currency, mainly during periods of peak budget payments and increased import activity, but these were quickly smoothed out by the regulator’s currency interventions.

According to market participants, the key factors supporting the hryvnia in 2025 were regular inflows of international financial assistance, the preservation of administrative measures of currency regulation, and the NBU’s policy of supporting the attractiveness of hryvnia instruments. International reserves also played a significant role, remaining at a level sufficient to cover short-term external obligations throughout the year.

At the same time, the hryvnia exchange rate continued to be pressured by the structural external trade deficit, high military and social spending, and uncertainty related to the duration of hostilities and the volume of future external support.

4.png

Quotations on the interbank currency market of Ukraine (UAH per USD, period from 01.01.2025 to 31.12.2025)

Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club analytical center, notes that 2025 was a period of “managed stability” for the hryvnia.

“The hryvnia is ending the year without any sharp devaluation shocks, which, in the context of full-scale war and high budget dependence on external financing, can be considered a cautiously positive result. The key stabilizing factor remained the coordination of monetary and fiscal policy with the support of international partners,” he said.

According to him, maintaining control over the currency market has helped to avoid panic among the population and businesses, but in the medium term, the risks for the hryvnia remain high.

“The further dynamics of the exchange rate will directly depend on the volume of foreign aid, the situation on the front lines, and the pace of economic recovery,” Urakin stressed.

Inflationary processes in 2025 also remained one of the sensitive factors for the currency market. Rising consumer prices increased demand for currency from the population, but this effect was partially offset by monetary policy measures and the maintenance of capital movement restrictions.

The NBU has repeatedly emphasized that its exchange rate policy remains flexible and adaptive, and that the regulator’s priority is financial stability and inflation control, rather than achieving formal exchange rate targets.

Experts note that in 2026, the hryvnia’s dynamics will largely depend on the pace of economic recovery, the volume of international aid, and decisions on further currency liberalization.

, , , ,