Ukraine’s total trade turnover with its 50 largest trading partners in January–June 2026 amounted to approximately $66.97 billion, according to calculations by the Experts Club information and analytical centre based on foreign trade in goods data. Imports from the countries included in the top 50 reached $47.35 billion, while Ukrainian exports amounted to $19.62 billion. The trade deficit stood at $27.73 billion. Thus, imports accounted for approximately 70.7% of trade turnover with Ukraine’s main partners, while exports accounted for only 29.3%. The export-to-import coverage ratio was 41.4%, meaning that for every dollar of Ukrainian goods sold abroad, there were approximately $2.41 worth of imports.
These indicators do not characterise Ukraine’s entire foreign trade, but rather its most concentrated segment—transactions with its 50 leading partners. At the same time, it is precisely this group that determines the main geographical and structural trends in Ukraine’s trade in goods. The ratio between imports and exports indicates that the economy continues to generate significant demand for foreign industrial, technological and consumer products, while the ability of Ukrainian manufacturers to offset these purchases with export revenues remains limited. This model is partly explained by wartime needs, the reconstruction of damaged infrastructure and imports of energy equipment, vehicles, machinery, electronics and components. However, the scale of the gap also points to insufficient export diversification and a high dependence on several traditional commodity groups.
“The concentration of more than half of trade turnover in five countries makes foreign trade sensitive to changes in market conditions, logistics and trade policies in individual markets. Dependence on Chinese imports remains particularly noticeable: China accounts for more than one-fifth of turnover with the TOP 50 partners, but the share of Ukrainian exports in this direction is comparatively small,” emphasised Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club information and analytical centre.
Compared with the results for January–May, cumulative trade turnover with the TOP 50 partners increased by $11.73 billion, or 21.2%. In June alone, imports from this group of countries amounted to approximately $8.51 billion, while exports reached $3.22 billion. Thus, in just one month, the trade deficit increased by a further $5.28 billion. Imports grew somewhat faster than exports in June: after the addition of the monthly data, their cumulative volume increased by 21.9%, while exports rose by 19.7%. This means that the expansion of foreign trade turnover occurred mainly due to purchases of goods abroad rather than a proportional strengthening of the positions of Ukrainian suppliers in foreign markets.
China retained its status as Ukraine’s largest trading partner by a significant margin. In the first half of the year, trade turnover with China reached $14.68 billion, of which $13.9 billion accounted for imports of Chinese goods and only $778.4 million for Ukrainian exports. The deficit amounted to $13.12 billion. China accounted for 21.9% of Ukraine’s total turnover with the TOP 50 partners and 29.4% of imports from this group of countries. At the same time, trade with China generated approximately 47.3% of Ukraine’s total trade deficit with the top 50. This imbalance demonstrates that China is primarily a source of goods, equipment and components for Ukraine, while Ukraine’s export presence in the Chinese market remains comparatively weak.
Poland ranked second with trade turnover of $7.05 billion. Ukraine imported $4.67 billion worth of Polish products and exported $2.38 billion worth, resulting in a deficit of $2.29 billion. Despite the negative balance, trade with Poland is more balanced than trade with China, while Poland has also become the largest individual market for Ukrainian exports. Türkiye ranked third with turnover of $4.9 billion, purchasing $1.78 billion worth of Ukrainian goods and supplying Ukraine with products worth $3.12 billion. Germany ranked fourth with $4.48 billion, while the United States ranked fifth with $3.07 billion. Total trade turnover with these five countries amounted to $34.18 billion, or 51% of turnover with the TOP 50. They accounted for 57.8% of imports but only 34.6% of Ukrainian exports, once again highlighting the concentration of purchases among several major suppliers.
“More than half of Ukraine’s trade turnover with its main partners is accounted for by just five countries, and this concentration is much more pronounced in imports than in exports. Trade with China is the most illustrative example: it accounts for almost one-third of imports from the TOP 50 but less than 4% of Ukrainian exports to this group of countries. This structure creates a long-term need not simply to reduce imports, but to develop domestic production and create new competitive export offerings,” emphasised Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club information and analytical centre.
Italy, which ranked sixth, had one of the most balanced indicators among Ukraine’s leading partners. With trade turnover of $2.65 billion, imports from Italy amounted to $1.37 billion, while Ukrainian exports reached $1.28 billion, meaning that the deficit did not exceed $91.1 million. Hungary followed with turnover of $1.89 billion, the Netherlands with $1.82 billion, the Czech Republic with $1.77 billion and Slovakia with $1.64 billion. Together, the top 10 accounted for $43.95 billion, or 65.6% of trade turnover with the TOP 50. The top 20 partners accounted for $55.81 billion, or 83.3%. Therefore, the remaining 30 countries in the ranking accounted for less than 17% of turnover, indicating a fairly narrow geographical base for Ukraine’s main trade flows.
A significant role of European Union member states remains an important feature of the ranking. The TOP 50 included 20 EU countries, with total trade turnover amounting to approximately $32.61 billion, or 48.7% of the total figure for the top 50. Imports from these countries reached $20.76 billion, while Ukrainian exports amounted to $11.85 billion. Thus, the European Union accounted for almost 44% of Ukraine’s imports and more than 60% of its exports within the TOP 50. This means that the EU remains the main market for Ukrainian goods and, at the same time, a key source of industrial and consumer products. The trade deficit with the EU countries included in the ranking amounted to approximately $8.91 billion, although the imbalance in this area was significantly smaller than in trade with China.
Geographically, trade with Europe performs several functions for Ukraine simultaneously. Poland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain are major sales markets; Central European countries provide transit and production cooperation; while Western European countries remain important suppliers of technology, equipment, vehicles, pharmaceuticals and chemical products. At the same time, the persistence of substantial deficits with Poland, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania and Greece indicates that even within the trade area most closely integrated with Ukraine, import demand is still growing faster than the ability of Ukrainian companies to increase supplies.
Poland became the largest market for Ukrainian exports, with a figure of $2.38 billion. Türkiye ranked second, receiving goods worth $1.78 billion. It was followed by Italy with $1.28 billion, Germany with $1.27 billion, Spain with $1.09 billion and the Netherlands with $1.02 billion. Unlike imports, where China had an almost threefold advantage over Poland, Ukrainian exports were distributed more evenly among the leading markets. This reduces dependence on a single buyer, but at the same time indicates the absence of a large foreign market capable of providing Ukrainian producers with sales volumes comparable to the scale of Chinese supplies to Ukraine.
Ukraine recorded a trade surplus with only 13 of its 50 largest partners, while imports exceeded exports in relations with 37 countries. The largest surplus was generated in trade with Spain, amounting to $578.1 million. High positive figures were also recorded with Egypt at $527.1 million, Moldova at $467.2 million, Algeria at $309.2 million, the Netherlands at $221.5 million and Lebanon at $220.5 million. The surplus in trade with Libya amounted to $181.3 million and with Tunisia to $155.1 million. This geography demonstrates the importance to Ukrainian exports not only of the EU but also of the markets of North Africa, the Middle East and neighbouring Moldova, where Ukrainian goods in a number of cases hold stronger positions than imported products from the respective countries.
At the same time, the list of the largest deficits demonstrates a different model of trade dependence. In addition to China, a significant negative balance was recorded with Poland at $2.29 billion, Germany at $1.94 billion, the United States at $1.9 billion and Türkiye at $1.34 billion. The five largest partners accounted for more than 74% of the total trade deficit with the TOP 50. A notable negative balance was also recorded with Greece, the Czech Republic, Hungary, France, Lithuania, Sweden, Taiwan, Vietnam and Japan. Part of this deficit is associated with purchases of products that are either not manufactured in Ukraine or are produced in insufficient quantities, but its continued accumulation creates additional demand for foreign currency and increases the economy’s dependence on external financing.
A comparison with the results for January–May shows that the composition of the TOP 50 did not change in June: the same countries were included in the ranking, although their positions within the list were noticeably redistributed. Indonesia demonstrated the largest rise, moving from 43rd to 34th place. Its trade turnover increased by almost $145 million in June and reached $320.6 million in the first half of the year. The main factor behind the rise was Ukrainian exports, which increased by approximately $107.7 million in June alone. This made it possible to almost balance bilateral trade: imports amounted to $166.8 million and exports to $153.8 million.
Canada rose from 47th to 40th place, increasing its trade turnover to $220.1 million, while Saudi Arabia moved from 27th to 23rd place with a figure of $649.8 million. Saudi Arabia’s rise was mainly driven by increased supplies to Ukraine: imports from the country rose by approximately $133.2 million in June, while Ukrainian exports increased by $41.5 million. By contrast, Jordan fell from 41st to 47th place, Switzerland from 22nd to 27th, Tunisia from 37th to 41st and Libya from 39th to 42nd. Such movements do not necessarily indicate an absolute decline in trade: in most cases, they reflect the fact that turnover with other countries grew faster.
Serbia retained 33rd place among Ukraine’s trading partners. In the first half of the year, trade turnover between the countries reached $345.9 million, of which $243.2 million accounted for imports of Serbian products and $102.7 million for Ukrainian exports. Bilateral turnover amounted to approximately $55.8 million in June. Ukraine’s negative balance for the six-month period reached $140.5 million, but Serbia’s retention of its position in the middle of the fourth group of ten countries in the ranking indicates that it has already become a notable, although still unbalanced, trading partner of Ukraine in the Balkans.
“The trade deficit cannot be assessed exclusively as a negative indicator, since part of the imports supports the restoration of production, energy facilities and infrastructure. However, a situation in which exports cover only about 41% of imports requires a systematic response. Ukraine needs to increase not only the physical volume of supplies but also the share of high-value-added products, develop processing, mechanical engineering, the food industry and technology exports. Without this, growth in trade turnover will continue to be accompanied by an accelerated accumulation of the deficit,” Maksym Urakin noted.
Overall, the results of the first half of the year indicate that Ukraine’s foreign trade remains geographically concentrated, import-dependent and uneven across individual directions. China dominates as the largest supplier and the main source of the deficit; the European Union remains the primary market for Ukrainian exports; while Türkiye, Egypt, Moldova, the Balkan countries, North Africa and the Middle East form an important additional belt of trade relations. The rise of Indonesia, Canada and Saudi Arabia demonstrates that the structure of Ukraine’s partners can change rapidly even within a single month, particularly in the case of large consignments of raw materials, industrial goods or food products.
Further improvement of the trade balance will depend on Ukraine’s ability to address several tasks simultaneously: maintaining access to traditional European markets, expanding its presence in Asian, African and Middle Eastern countries, restoring production capacity and increasing the share of processed products in exports. Simply reducing imports during reconstruction could hinder economic recovery, so the key objective should not be administrative restrictions on purchases but the accelerated growth of competitive exports. It is the transition from a predominantly raw-material-based model to broader manufacturing specialisation that can gradually reduce the trade deficit and make foreign trade more resilient to price, logistical and geopolitical risks.
EXPERTS CLUB, FOREIGN TRADE, TRADING PARTNERS, UKRAINE, МАКСИМ УРАКІН
In January–June 2026, Ukraine increased its imports of aluminum and aluminum products by 24.5% compared to the same period last year, reaching $316.841 million.
According to customs statistics, aluminum and aluminum product imports totaled $68.864 million in June.
Exports of aluminum and aluminum products in January–June of this year rose by 28% compared to the same period last year, reaching $90.732 million; in June, they totaled $18.339 million.
As previously reported, in 2025, Ukraine increased its imports of aluminum and aluminum products by 15.3% compared to 2024, reaching $514.098 million. Exports of aluminum and aluminum products in 2025 rose by 22.9% to $152.919 million.
Aluminum is widely used as a structural material. The main advantages of aluminum are its light weight, formability, corrosion resistance, high thermal conductivity, and the non-toxic nature of its compounds. In particular, these properties have made aluminum extremely popular in the production of cookware, aluminum foil in the food industry, and for packaging. The first three properties have made aluminum the primary raw material in the aviation and aerospace industries (though it has recently been replaced by composite materials, primarily carbon fiber). After construction and packaging production—aluminum cans and foil—the energy sector is the largest consumer of this metal.
For a more detailed overview of global aluminum production from 1970 to 2024, watch the video on the Experts Club YouTube channel.
In January–June of this year, Ukrainian companies increased their imports of copper and copper products by 14.2% in monetary terms compared to the same period last year, reaching $106.351 million.
According to customs statistics released by the State Customs Service of Ukraine, exports of copper and copper products rose by 11.6% over the six-month period, reaching $51.405 million.
In June, copper imports totaled $21.012 million, while exports amounted to $12.159 million.
As previously reported, in 2025, Ukrainian companies increased imports of copper and copper products by 23.2% in monetary terms compared to 2024—to $173.453 million—while exports of copper and copper products rose by 17.7%—to $103.848 million.
Copper is widely used in electrical engineering, in the production of pipes, for creating alloys, in medicine, and in other industries.
Previously, the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center released a video on global copper production and leading producing countries – https://youtube.com/shorts/_h8iU50z8C0?si=a-XkgGEfeUxseQNa
In January–June of this year, Ukraine increased its exports of processed pig iron by 11.1% in volume terms compared to the same period last year—to 981,461 thousand metric tons from 883,174 thousand metric tons.
According to statistics released by the State Customs Service (SCS), 183,780 thousand metric tons of pig iron were exported in June, 159,378 thousand metric tons in May, in April—181,670 thousand metric tons, in March—168,493 thousand metric tons, in February—194,345 thousand metric tons, and in January—93,795 thousand metric tons.
From January through June 2026, pig iron exports in monetary terms increased by 11.3% to $388,890 million. Exports were primarily directed to the United States (86.25% of shipments in monetary terms), Turkey (9.16%), and Italy (2.33%).
In the first six months of this year, the country imported 15 metric tons of pig iron from Germany worth $35,000, compared to 29 metric tons worth $55,000 during the same period last year.
As previously reported, in 2025 Ukraine increased its pig iron exports by 53.5% in volume terms compared to 2024—to 1,980,620 metric tons—and by 51.9% in revenue, to $759,882 million. Exports were primarily shipped to the United States (68.25% of shipments by value), Italy (20.26%), and Turkey (3.63%).
Last year, the country imported 39 thousand metric tons of pig iron worth $78 thousand from Germany (51.95%) and Brazil (48.05%), while in January–December 2024, 38 metric tons worth $90 thousand were imported.
Starting March 12, 2025, the United States, pursuant to a decision by President Donald Trump, began imposing a 25% tariff on imports of Ukrainian steel products, excluding pig iron.
The Experts Club Information and Analytical Center recently released a video analysis of the top 20 steel-producing countries – https://youtube.com/shorts/j7Yev2HCS4o?si=lfmGJ5jrx8036z1U
China’s exports rose by 27% year-on-year in June to $412.39 billion, while imports increased by 36% to $286.76 billion, according to data from the General Administration of Customs of the People’s Republic of China.
Export growth was the highest since the beginning of the current year, while import growth was the highest since June 2021. In both cases, an all-time record in terms of volume was recorded. Experts Club also notes that the June figures exceeded market expectations: analysts had on average forecast export growth of 18.2% and import growth of 24%.
China’s foreign trade surplus amounted to $125.6 billion in June, compared with $113.9 billion in the same period of 2025.
China’s exports to Japan rose by 6.9% last month, to South Korea by 42.6%, to the United States by 13.9%, to Australia by 29.8%, to ASEAN countries by 34.6%, and to European Union countries by 18.5%.
Imports from Japan increased by 33.9%, from South Korea by 85%, from Australia by 65.8%, from ASEAN by 26.8%, from the EU by 9.2%, and from the United States by 25.9%.
According to Chinese customs statistics, trade turnover between China and Russia increased by 25.6% in the first half of 2026 to $134.175 billion. Chinese exports to Russia rose by 28.4% to $60.597 billion, while imports from Russia increased by 23.3% to $73.578 billion. In June, trade turnover between the two countries amounted to $24.351 billion, including Chinese exports to Russia of $11.432 billion and imports from Russia of $12.919 billion.
The Chinese side publishes trade data broken down by countries and regions in the statistical tables of the General Administration of Customs of the People’s Republic of China, while the information database of China’s Ministry of Commerce indicates that the source of these data is Chinese customs.
Data on Ukraine were not separately highlighted among the largest destinations in the operational Chinese press release. At the same time, according to the State Customs Service of Ukraine, China remains the largest source of Ukrainian imports: in January–June 2026, Ukraine imported goods worth $13.9 billion from China. The largest markets for Ukrainian exports during this period were Poland, Türkiye and Italy.
In the first half of 2026, China’s foreign trade surplus amounted to $575.98 billion, compared with $586 billion a year earlier. Exports rose by 17.6% to $2.12 trillion, while imports increased by 26.6% to $1.55 trillion.
By commodity category, China increased coal imports by 29% and natural gas imports by 3.7% in June, while oil imports fell by 41.3% to their lowest level in almost a decade. China also increased overseas purchases of soybeans by 10.5%, iron ore by 6.4%, and steel by 6.6%.
Reuters attributes the strong performance of China’s foreign trade to high demand for products related to artificial intelligence, semiconductors and computing equipment. At the same time, the agency notes that exports remain an important source of support for the Chinese economy amid weak domestic demand and problems in the real estate sector.
According to Experts.news, Taiwan’s receipt lottery system remains one of the best-known examples of how the government can improve tax compliance not through repression, but by changing the incentives for buyers and sellers.
The idea was introduced in Taiwan in 1951. Instead of trying to inspect every store, café, or kiosk, the authorities turned a sales receipt into a potential lottery ticket. A number appeared on every standardized receipt, and buyers had a personal incentive to request an official receipt even for small purchases.
Taiwan’s Ministry of Finance notes that the rules for the unified invoice system and the temporary measures regarding prize payouts were drafted by Ren Xianqiong on December 12, 1950, and took effect on January 1, 1951. The ministry explains the logic behind the system as follows: the hope of winning a prize encouraged citizens to request receipts, which helped prevent tax evasion and increase budget revenues.
The mechanism was simple: if a seller does not issue a receipt, the sale may go unnoticed by the tax authorities. But if a receipt gives the buyer a chance to win a cash prize, the interests of both parties shift. The seller may be interested in an unreported cash transaction, while the buyer—on the contrary—may want official confirmation of the purchase. In this way, the government effectively turns millions of consumers into voluntary enforcers of cash register compliance.
Today, the system continues to operate. The Taiwan Ministry of Finance’s tax portal publishes winning numbers every two months. Under the current prize structure, the special prize is 10 million New Taiwan dollars, the grand prize is 2 million New Taiwan dollars, and smaller prizes start at 200 New Taiwan dollars.
According to the Experts Club think tank, the key lesson of this model lies not in the lottery itself, but in the proper redistribution of incentives. The government does not increase the number of inspectors indefinitely but creates a situation in which the buyer has a personal stake in ensuring the transaction is properly recorded.
“The Taiwanese example shows that tax compliance often depends not only on the severity of penalties but also on the structure of incentives. If a citizen derives a clear personal benefit from a transparent transaction, the government can achieve a greater effect than through mass audits,” notes Maksim Urakin, founder of the Experts Club analytical center.
Taiwan is not the only example. In Europe, similar tools have been implemented or discussed in Portugal, Greece, Slovakia, Italy, Poland, and Malta.
In Portugal, the fight against VAT evasion was viewed not only as a task for the tax service but also as a public project. Under the electronic invoicing system, companies were required to issue invoices for all transactions and submit the data to tax authorities monthly, while consumers could receive tax credits for invoices in certain service sectors.
In Greece, the tax lottery is primarily linked to electronic payments. Citizens can check the number and serial numbers of lottery tickets generated based on monthly electronic transactions, and the tax authority publishes the results of the drawings.
Slovakia launched the National Receipt Lottery in 2013 amid one of the largest VAT collection gaps in Europe. In just the first two weeks, citizens registered over 7 million receipts. By September 2014, the number of registered receipts had risen to nearly 87 million.
Italy has also introduced a system under which most VAT receipts must include a unique code to participate in a regular state cash prize draw. This step followed similar measures in other European countries.
Another unexpected example is South Korea, where the government incentivized not receipts per se, but electronically tracked payments. In 1999, Korean tax authorities introduced a tax incentive for payments made with credit and debit cards, as well as electronic cash receipts. This policy helped shift the economy toward cashless transactions and sharply increase the share of business revenue flowing into the tax system.
In Brazil, a similar approach was implemented through tax rebate programs and incentives for consumers to provide their information on receipts. The Nota Fiscal Paulista program in the state of São Paulo utilized electronic business reporting and citizen participation to increase the transparency of retail transactions.
These solutions seem unusual because they challenge the traditional philosophy of tax administration. Instead of a “tax authority versus business” model, the government creates a triangle involving the seller, the buyer, and the tax authority. If the buyer is interested in receiving a receipt, it becomes more difficult for the seller to conceal revenue. If the payment is electronic, the tax authority receives more data. If citizens benefit from transparent transactions, oversight becomes cheaper and more widespread.
However, such tools are not a one-size-fits-all solution. They require digital infrastructure, trust in the government, personal data protection, clear rules for businesses, and oversight to ensure the system does not become a mere formality. Slovakia’s experience shows that the initial enthusiasm may wane, and some participants begin to use the system not so much as a form of civic oversight but rather as a regular lottery.
For countries with a high proportion of cash transactions and shadow economy activity, such models remain promising. They make it possible to increase tax collection without directly raising tax rates. It is not the prize draws themselves that are particularly promising, but rather their combination with electronic receipts, online cash registers, digital tax offices, and tax bonuses for citizens.
