According to Experts Club, Ukrainians’ attitudes toward the United Kingdom, the Scandinavian countries, and the Baltic states remain predominantly positive: in August 2026, the share of positive assessments for the countries included in the study ranged from 66.9% to 72.6%. At the same time, the balance between positive and negative attitudes toward all countries in this group has declined slightly compared to the previous survey wave in March 2026. This is evidenced by the results of a study conducted by Active Group and the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center, reports the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center.
The United Kingdom received the highest share of positive assessments in the group—72.6%. 18.6% of respondents had a neutral attitude toward it, 7% had a negative attitude, and another 1.8% were undecided. The balance of positive and negative assessments stands at 65.6 percentage points, compared to 68.8 percentage points in March 2026 and 70.3 percentage points in August 2025.
Seventy-two percent of Ukrainians view Norway positively, while only 2.7% view it negatively, resulting in a balance of 69.3 percentage points. In March, this balance stood at 70.8 percentage points, and in August of last year, at 76.4 percentage points. Sweden has 71.4% positive and only 0.8% negative assessments—its balance stands at 70.6 percentage points and is the highest among the countries presented on the slide. Overall, the study records approximately 67–73% positive ratings for the countries of Northwestern Europe and the Baltic states.
71.2% of respondents view Finland positively, 25.4% neutrally, and 2% negatively. The balance stands at 69.2 percentage points, down from 75.1 percentage points in March. Lithuania is viewed positively by 69.9% of respondents and negatively by 3.9%; the balance fell from 71.8 percentage points in March to 66 percentage points in August.
A positive attitude toward Latvia was expressed by 68.3% of respondents, a neutral one by 26.6%, and a negative one by 3.9%. Its balance stands at 64.4 percentage points, compared to 69 percentage points in March. For Denmark, the corresponding figures are 66.9% positive, 28.8% neutral, and 1.8% negative assessments, with a balance of 65.1 percentage points, compared to 68.7 percentage points in the previous survey wave.
Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center, deputy director of the Interfax-Ukraine news agency, and candidate of economic sciences, emphasized the importance of constant communication between foreign partners and Ukrainian society.
“The first recommendation is to regularly showcase concrete achievements and concrete actions. Second, be open to questions and inquiries from the media and the public,” Urakin noted. According to him, the results of sociological surveys can be used to strengthen bilateral relations, particularly trade relations.
Alexander Pozniy, director of the research company Active Group, also drew attention to the need to combine public perceptions of countries with the development of practical economic cooperation.
“We should do more than just raise general awareness. We need to expand cooperation with countries where we can maintain a positive balance,” Pozniy noted. He also emphasized the role of business associations and government agencies in developing bilateral economic ties.
Overall, the results show that Northern and Northwestern Europe, along with the Baltic states, continue to enjoy a high level of positive perception among Ukrainians. At the same time, the decline in the balance compared to March 2026 indicates that even regarding countries with traditionally high ratings, public opinion is not static. In the overall ranking, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Lithuania, and the United Kingdom were among the top ten countries with the highest net sentiment.
The survey was conducted in August 2026 using self-administered online questionnaires via the SunFlowerSociology panel. It included 800 Ukrainian citizens aged 18 and older. The sample is representative by age, gender, and region; the stated maximum theoretical margin of error is ±3.5 percentage points. This is the third wave of the study, following surveys conducted in August 2025 and March 2026.
ACTIVE GROUP, DENMARK, EXPERTS CLUB, FINLAND, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, NORWAY, SOCIOLOGY, SWEDEN, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM
According to Experts Club, China ranked last among Ukraine’s 50 largest trading partners in terms of the balance of positive and negative attitudes among Ukrainians—in August 2026, the figure stood at minus 25.4 percentage points. The next lowest results were recorded for India and Hungary—minus 14.3 and minus 12.7 percentage points, respectively. This is evidenced by the results of the third wave of the study “Ukrainians’ Attitudes Toward Countries Around the World,” conducted by Active Group in collaboration with Experts Club, reports the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center.
The balance was defined as the difference between the shares of positive and negative assessments. Regarding China, 18.2% of respondents expressed a positive attitude, 43.6% a negative one, and another 33.9% a neutral one. Thus, China received the lowest score among all countries surveyed, despite the fact that in the first half of 2026, China was Ukraine’s largest trading partner with a trade volume of approximately $14.68 billion.
The top ten countries with the lowest scores also included Lebanon—minus 9.2 percentage points—and Poland—minus 2.3 percentage points. Serbia, Algeria, Libya, Vietnam, and Tunisia remained in the positive range, however, their scores were among the lowest among the countries surveyed: Serbia at plus 2.3 percentage points, Algeria at plus 2.2, Libya at plus 1.0, Vietnam at plus 9.4, and Tunisia at plus 11.0 percentage points.
The shift in attitudes toward Poland was particularly noticeable. In March 2026, the balance of positive and negative assessments stood at +41.7 percentage points, whereas in August it fell to –2.3 percentage points. A positive attitude toward Poland was expressed by 34.6% of respondents, a negative one by 37%, and a neutral one by 25.4%. At the same time, Poland remains one of Ukraine’s largest trading partners and the largest market for Ukrainian goods exports among individual countries in the first half of 2026.
Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center, deputy director of the Interfax-Ukraine news agency, and candidate of economic sciences, noted that the results of the sociological survey should be analyzed in conjunction with actual trade figures.
“Second, we must be open to questions and inquiries from the media and the public. We also need to make use of our sociological research,” Urakin noted. In his view, systematic communication and the demonstration of concrete results of cooperation can help governments better explain the nature of bilateral relations to Ukrainian society.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of the research company Active Group, highlighted the need to combine public awareness with the practical development of economic ties.
“We need to do more than just raise general awareness. We must expand cooperation with countries where we can achieve a positive trade balance,” Pozniy noted. He emphasized the role of business associations, economic institutions, and diplomatic missions in developing bilateral ties, especially with markets where Ukraine can increase its exports.
Overall, the survey results show that the scale of trade and economic ties does not always correspond to public attitudes toward the respective country. China stands out as the most striking example: it has the highest trade volume among individual partners, yet is simultaneously associated with the lowest ratings among Ukrainians.
The survey was conducted in August 2026 using self-administered online questionnaires in the SunFlowerSociology panel among 800 Ukrainian citizens aged 18 and older. The sample is representative by age, gender, and region; the maximum theoretical margin of error for indicators at the 50% confidence level is ±3.5 percentage points. This is the third wave of the study, following surveys conducted in August 2025 and March 2026.
ACTIVE GROUP, CHINA, EXPERTS CLUB, FOREIGN TRADE, HUNGARY, INDIA, international relations, POLAND, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE
Canada ranked first among countries with the highest net positive sentiment among Ukrainians—in August 2026, this figure stood at 73.8 percentage points. The top ten also included mainly countries from Northern and Western Europe, according to the results of the third wave of the study “Ukrainians’ Attitudes Toward Countries Around the World,” conducted by Active Group in collaboration with Experts Club, reports the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center.
Sweden took second place in terms of the balance of trust and distrust with a score of 70.6 percentage points, while the Netherlands came in third with 69.7 percentage points. Finland and Norway each scored 69.3 points, France scored 69.1 points, Italy scored 67.1 points, and Lithuania scored 65.9 points. Rounding out the top ten are Switzerland and the United Kingdom, which both scored 65.6 percentage points.
The sentiment score is calculated as the difference between the proportion of positive and negative ratings. Specifically, 76.3% of respondents view Canada positively, 2.5% negatively, and 19.2% neutrally. Thus, Canada’s high score is due not only to a significant proportion of favorable ratings but also to a minimal level of negative sentiment.
The survey results show that the top ten countries with the most favorable balance of attitudes consist almost entirely of countries in Northern and Western Europe, along with Canada. At the same time, the level of public favor does not always directly correspond to the scale of Ukraine’s trade and economic ties with a specific country. For example, China was Ukraine’s largest trading partner in the first half of 2026, yet it received the lowest balance of positive and negative assessments—minus 25.4 percentage points.
Maksym Urakin, founder of Experts Club, deputy director of the Interfax-Ukraine news agency, and candidate of economic sciences, emphasized that studies of public perception should be considered alongside actual foreign trade indicators.
“That is why it is very important for us to analyze our main partners. We must be open to questions and inquiries from the media and the public,” Urakin noted. According to him, the results of sociological surveys can be used to assess international relations and their further development.
Alexander Pozniy, Director of Active Group, drew attention to the need to combine the creation of a positive image of countries with the practical development of bilateral economic ties.
“We should focus on developing more than just general awareness. We need to expand cooperation with countries where we can achieve a positive balance,” Pozniy noted. According to him, both government agencies and business associations should be involved in this process.
The survey was conducted in August 2026 using self-administered online questionnaires via the SunFlowerSociology panel. A total of 800 Ukrainian citizens aged 18 and older were surveyed. According to the organizers, the sample is representative in terms of age, gender, and region; the maximum theoretical statistical margin of error at a 95% confidence level is 3.5%. This is the third wave of the survey, following surveys conducted in August 2025 and March 2026.
ACTIVE GROUP, CANADA, EXPERTS CLUB, FINLAND, international relations, NORWAY, SOCIOLOGY, SWEDEN, THE NETHERLANDS, UKRAINE, URAKIN
European Union countries and the United Kingdom remain the top foreign economic priority for Ukrainians: in August 2026, 69.9% of respondents noted the need to prioritize the development of trade and economic relations with these countries. This is evidenced by the results of the third wave of the study “Ukrainians’ Attitudes Toward Countries Around the World,” conducted by Active Group in collaboration with the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center, according to the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center.
At the same time, support for the European direction has declined compared to previous waves of the study. In August 2025, 82.8% of respondents cited EU countries and the United Kingdom; in March 2026, 81.1%; and in August, 69.9%. Thus, over the course of a year, the figure decreased by 12.9 percentage points.
The trend regarding the United States is even more pronounced. In August 2025, 58.8% of respondents supported prioritizing the development of trade and economic relations with the United States; in March 2026, this figure was 59.2%, while in August it stood at 11.9%.
In August 2026, 8.4% of respondents named China as a priority, compared to 35.4% in March and 26.7% in August of the previous year. At the same time, China remains one of Ukraine’s most important trading partners, highlighting the discrepancy between the actual structure of foreign trade and public perceptions of the desired directions for its development.
Another 5.5% of those surveyed in August advocated for prioritizing the deepening of economic relations with countries in Southeast Asia—Japan, South Korea, and other nations in the region. In March, this figure stood at 49%, and a year earlier—at 21%. Countries in the Arab and Muslim world were cited by 3.5% of respondents, compared to 29.8% in March, while African and South American countries were cited by 0.8%, compared to 19.6%.
Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club information and analytical center, emphasized the need for more active communication between international partners and Ukrainian society.
“We need to regularly showcase concrete achievements and specific actions. Openness toward the media and the public helps strengthen relations, particularly trade relations,” Urakin noted.
According to him, sociological surveys can serve as a practical tool for government agencies, diplomatic missions, and the business community in determining the direction of bilateral relations.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of the research firm Active Group, also highlighted the need to strengthen the economic component of international cooperation.
“We need to do more than just raise general awareness. Businesses and government agencies need to work more actively on developing bilateral relations,” Pozniy noted.
The survey was conducted in August 2026 using self-administered online questionnaires via the SunFlowerSociology panel. A total of 800 Ukrainian citizens aged 18 and older were surveyed. The sample is representative by age, gender, and region; the stated maximum theoretical margin of error is ±3.5 percentage points. Previous waves of the survey were conducted in August 2025 and March 2026.
ACTIVE GROUP, CHINA, EUROPEAN UNION, EXPERTS CLUB, FOREIGN TRADE, international relations, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES
European Union countries remain in first place in terms of the share of responses from Ukrainians to the question of who contributes most to achieving peace in Ukraine. In August 2026, 44.6% of respondents named EU countries, 25.2% named the U.S., and 23.3% named the United Kingdom. This is evidenced by the results of the third wave of a survey on Ukrainians’ attitudes toward countries around the world, conducted by Active Group in collaboration with Experts Club, according to the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center.
Compared to March 2026, the ratings have changed significantly. In the spring, 63.4% of respondents named EU countries in this context, 53.8% named the United Kingdom, and 29.6% named the United States. In August, the figures for the EU and the United Kingdom fell by 18.8 and 30.5 percentage points, respectively, while the figure for the United States changed much less—by 4.4 percentage points.
At the same time, compared to August 2025, the share of respondents who named EU countries increased slightly—from 42% to 44.6%. The figure for the U.S. was 25.8% at that time, and for the UK, 12.8%. Thus, the trend in assessments of the UK remains the most dramatic: 12.8% in August 2025, 53.8% in March 2026, and 23.3% in August of this year.
Perceptions of the role of other major powers remain significantly lower. In August 2026, 4.1% of respondents cited China, compared to 3.5% in March and 1.3% a year earlier. The figure for India was 1.8%, and for Brazil, 1%.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of the research firm Active Group, emphasized that public perceptions of countries should be considered alongside the level of awareness and the actual development of bilateral relations.
“We need to do more than just raise general awareness. First and foremost, business associations, the Ministry of Economy, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must work to develop bilateral relations and improve the balance. Given that Ukraine already lacks funding and we are essentially living off foreign loans, we need to expand cooperation with countries where we can achieve a positive balance,” Pozniy noted.
The survey was conducted in August 2026 using self-administered online questionnaires on the SunFlowerSociology panel. It involved 800 Ukrainian citizens aged 18 and older. According to the organizers, the sample is representative in terms of age, gender, and region, and the stated maximum theoretical statistical margin of error is ±3.5 percentage points. This is the third wave of the study, following surveys conducted in August 2025 and March 2026.
ACTIVE GROUP, EUROPEAN UNION, EXPERTS CLUB, international relations, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES, WORLD
Ukraine’s foreign trade in goods in January–August 2026 was characterized by imports significantly exceeding exports and the concentration of the negative trade balance in relations with several of its largest partners. According to calculations based on the table “Ukraine’s Foreign Trade with Selected Countries” as of August 31, total trade turnover amounted to $92.95 billion, imports to $66.25 billion, and exports to $26.70 billion. The negative balance reached $39.55 billion, while imports exceeded exports by a factor of 2.48.
Exports covered only 40.3% of the value of imported goods. China was the largest individual trading partner and supplier, Poland was the main market for Ukrainian products, and the European Union as a whole accounted for 59.1% of Ukraine’s merchandise exports. Meanwhile, the largest positive trade balances were recorded in trade with Moldova, Spain, and Egypt.
“For every hundred dollars of merchandise imports, there were approximately forty dollars of merchandise exports. This ratio demonstrates the limited ability of the export sector to balance the economy’s demand for foreign products. Some imports support production and reconstruction, so they must be assessed with regard to the purpose of the goods. To improve the balance in the long term, the equipment purchased must help increase the output of competitive products in Ukraine,” said Maksym Urakin, PhD in Economics and founder of the Experts Club information and analytical center.
Ukraine recorded its largest trade turnover with China at $20.56 billion, or 22.1% of the total. Poland ranked second with $9.54 billion, followed by Germany with $6.10 billion. Ukraine had almost the same volume of trade with Turkey, at $6.08 billion, with the difference compared with Germany amounting to just $20.9 million. The United States completed the top five partners with $3.91 billion.
These five countries accounted for 49.7% of trade turnover, while the ten largest partners accounted for 63.4%. Thus, trade results with a relatively small group of countries largely determined Ukraine’s overall foreign trade balance.
Ukraine’s Ten Largest Trading Partners by Trade Turnover in January–August 2026, USD Billion
| Country | Imports | Exports | Balance | Trade Turnover |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 19.639 | 0.924 | −18.715 | 20.563 |
| Poland | 6.277 | 3.261 | −3.016 | 9.538 |
| Germany | 4.377 | 1.726 | −2.651 | 6.104 |
| Turkey | 3.991 | 2.092 | −1.899 | 6.083 |
| United States | 3.210 | 0.700 | −2.510 | 3.910 |
| Italy | 1.834 | 1.519 | −0.315 | 3.353 |
| Netherlands | 1.151 | 1.311 | +0.160 | 2.462 |
| Hungary | 1.549 | 0.846 | −0.703 | 2.394 |
| Czech Republic | 1.670 | 0.705 | −0.965 | 2.375 |
| Slovakia | 1.343 | 0.792 | −0.551 | 2.135 |
Source: State Customs Service of Ukraine
The next largest partners included Romania, with trade turnover of $2.05 billion, Spain with $1.98 billion, Lithuania with $1.80 billion, France with $1.77 billion, and Greece with $1.52 billion. Total trade turnover with the 27 EU member states amounted to $43.60 billion, or 46.9% of the overall figure. Ukrainian exports to the EU totaled $15.78 billion, imports reached $27.81 billion, and the deficit amounted to $12.03 billion.
The EU’s high share of exports means that access to the European market is of decisive importance for Ukrainian producers. At the same time, substantial purchases from EU countries constitute a separate source of the trade deficit. The situation within this trade relationship is uneven: the largest gaps are recorded with Poland and Germany, while Ukraine has positive trade balances with Spain and the Netherlands.
China supplied $19.64 billion worth of imports, or 29.6% of total merchandise imports. Supplies from Poland amounted to $6.28 billion, or 9.5%, while those from Germany reached $4.38 billion, or 6.6%. Together, these three countries accounted for 45.7% of Ukraine’s merchandise imports.
The five largest suppliers also included Turkey with $3.99 billion and the United States with $3.21 billion. The combined share of the top five reached 56.6%, while the ten largest suppliers accounted for 68.3%. Other major sources of imports included Italy with $1.83 billion, the Czech Republic with $1.67 billion, Hungary with $1.55 billion, and Slovakia and Lithuania with approximately $1.34 billion each.
The State Customs Service provides a breakdown of the overall commodity structure for the same period. In January–August 2026, Ukraine imported machinery, equipment, and transport vehicles worth more than $29.9 billion, fuel and energy products worth more than $9.5 billion, and chemical industry products worth more than $9 billion. These categories accounted for more than 73% of imports; machinery, equipment, and transport represented approximately 45%.
This ratio indicates the significant role of industrial and energy products in imports. However, the broad category of machinery and transport includes goods intended for different purposes. Its entire value cannot be interpreted as investment in production: doing so would require separate analysis of industrial equipment, components, vehicles, and final consumer goods.
“The concentration of almost one-third of imports with a single supplier makes Ukrainian businesses sensitive to supply conditions from China. Logistics disruptions or changes in component prices may affect many enterprises simultaneously. At the same time, reducing purchases without affordable alternatives could constrain Ukrainian production itself. The practical task is to diversify suppliers and develop domestic production of goods for which Ukraine has the economic and technological prerequisites,” Urakin commented.
Poland remained the largest export market, receiving goods worth $3.26 billion, or 12.2% of Ukraine’s total exports. Turkey ranked second with $2.09 billion and a share of 7.8%, followed by Germany with $1.73 billion and 6.5%. Italy followed with $1.52 billion, the Netherlands with $1.31 billion, and Spain with $1.29 billion.
Exports to China amounted to $924.2 million, Romania to $878.0 million, Hungary to $845.6 million, and Slovakia to $792.4 million. Egypt and Moldova purchased Ukrainian goods worth $751.0 million and $750.5 million, respectively. Supplies to the Czech Republic amounted to $705.2 million, while exports to the United States reached $700.0 million.
Exports were less concentrated among individual countries than imports: the three largest markets accounted for 26.5% of shipments, the top five for 37.1%, and the top ten for 54.8%. At the same time, the EU’s dominance as a combined market means that the diversity of destination countries only partially reduces dependence on the economic and regulatory conditions they share.
According to the State Customs Service, food exports exceeded $15.4 billion over the eight months, exports of metals and metal products approached $2.7 billion, and exports of machinery, equipment, and transport approached $2.4 billion. The approximate shares of these groups in total exports were 58%, 10%, and 9%, respectively. Food products remained the main source of merchandise export revenue. [2]
“The geography of exports allows Ukraine to operate in different markets, but the commodity structure remains heavily dependent on food products. For such shipments, harvest volumes, global prices, and transportation costs are particularly important. The development of processing can increase revenue per unit of raw material, although it requires investment and a stable energy supply. At the same time, industrial exports must be expanded so that the performance of several agricultural commodity groups has less influence on the overall picture,” Maksym Urakin noted.
The largest bilateral deficit was recorded in trade with China at $18.71 billion. This was equivalent to 47.3% of Ukraine’s net merchandise trade deficit. Exports to China covered only 4.7% of imports from that country, while Chinese goods accounted for 95.5% of bilateral trade turnover.
The second-largest deficit was recorded with Poland at $3.02 billion. Germany followed with $2.65 billion, the United States with $2.51 billion, and Turkey with $1.90 billion. Together, the negative trade balance with these five countries amounted to $28.79 billion.
Significant deficits were also recorded in trade with Greece at $1.07 billion, the Czech Republic at $964.7 million, Lithuania at $864.6 million, France at $864.5 million, and Taiwan at $844.5 million. Thus, the imbalance extended far beyond relations with the single largest supplier.
The sum of negative trade balances across all deficit-producing trade relationships reached $43.90 billion. Positive balances totaling $4.35 billion in other rows of the table reduced this amount to an overall deficit of $39.55 billion. Accordingly, China accounted for 42.6% of the sum of bilateral deficits, while the five largest deficit-producing trade relationships accounted for 65.6%. This provides a more accurate picture of their concentration than comparing them solely with the net result after surpluses are taken into account.
“The deficit with China exceeds the combined negative trade balance with all EU countries. This illustrates how unevenly Ukraine’s dependence on imports is distributed. At the same time, a bilateral deficit in itself does not determine whether trade with a particular country is economically beneficial. It is necessary to assess how imported goods are used domestically and what contribution they make to employment, production, and future exports,” Urakin emphasized.
Ukraine recorded its largest positive trade balance with Moldova at $640.6 million. With exports of $750.5 million, imports from that country amounted to $109.9 million, meaning that Ukrainian supplies exceeded imports by almost 6.8 times. Spain ranked second in terms of the surplus, at $613.0 million: exports to Spain reached $1.29 billion, while imports amounted to $681.8 million.
The third-largest surplus was recorded with Egypt at $493.5 million. Algeria followed with $361.0 million, Lebanon with $258.7 million, and Libya with $219.8 million. The positive balance with Iraq amounted to $169.1 million, the Netherlands to $160.1 million, Tunisia to $157.0 million, and Yemen to $134.0 million.
The five largest surpluses – with Moldova, Spain, Egypt, Algeria, and Lebanon – totaled $2.37 billion, or 54.4% of all positive balances. However, surplus-generating trade relationships offset only 9.9% of the sum of bilateral deficits overall. Even successful export markets had not yet generated sufficient revenue to balance purchases from the largest suppliers.
“Moldova, Spain, and Egypt demonstrate that Ukraine has markets where its own supplies significantly exceed imports. These should be considered a basis for expanding product ranges and strengthening long-term relationships with buyers. However, a large surplus in an individual trade relationship does not necessarily mean it can be increased rapidly without demand constraints. To have a tangible impact on the overall balance, exports must increase simultaneously across many markets,” Maksym Urakin believes.
A detailed breakdown by commodity helps explain differences between trade relationships. Below, figures for January–August 2026 are supplemented with reference data for 2025 and other explicitly specified periods. Historical shares describe their respective periods and cannot automatically be applied to the first eight months of 2026.
According to GMK Center calculations based on State Customs Service data, Ukraine supplied 7 million tonnes of iron ore to China in January–August 2026, 38% less than a year earlier. This represented approximately 44% of Ukraine’s total iron ore exports by physical volume during the period, which amounted to 15.8 million tonnes. The Chinese market thus remained extremely important for the mining industry, although Ukraine’s total exports to China were much smaller than imports.
For its part, the National Institute for Strategic Studies noted in its review of 2025 that machinery, equipment, and transport accounted for 69.8% of Ukrainian imports from China. Comparing these data from different periods highlights the differences in the commodity profiles of bilateral trade: the major role of manufactured products in Chinese supplies is combined with the importance of raw materials in Ukrainian exports. The precise structure of this exchange during the first eight months of 2026 can only be determined through a complete breakdown of commodity categories.
In January–August 2026, Ukraine shipped 2.1 million tonnes of iron ore to Poland. For comparison, Slovakia received 2.9 million tonnes over the same period. These figures illustrate the role of both markets in sales of products from Ukraine’s mining industry.
A broader Polish commodity profile is contained in the Polish Ministry of Development and Technology’s response to parliamentary inquiry No. 17426, reproduced in the Politoskop database. According to the GUS data for 2025 cited there, major supplies from Ukraine to Poland included soybean oil worth €399.7 million, iron ores and concentrates worth €342.3 million, and rolled ferrous metal products worth €315.5 million. In the opposite direction, substantial volumes consisted of petroleum products worth €1.76 billion, unmanned aerial vehicles worth €759.6 million, and passenger cars worth €555.8 million. These figures come from Polish statistics for the full year 2025 and therefore serve as a separate description of the commodity composition of trade.
According to preliminary German official agricultural statistics for 2025, industrial goods accounted for approximately 94% of German supplies to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Germany imported agricultural and food products from Ukraine worth approximately €1.3 billion and industrial sector goods worth €1.8 billion. Agricultural supplies notably included oilseeds, primarily rapeseed, as well as vegetable oils worth €172 million and processed fruit products and preserved fruit worth €101 million. This structure indicates that Ukrainian exports to Germany also include a substantial industrial component.
According to the analysis by the National Institute for Strategic Studies, corn was an important item in Ukrainian exports to Turkey in 2025, with shipments worth approximately $1.2 billion. Among imports from Turkey, petroleum products accounted for $639 million, while the aggregated category of “other goods” amounted to $2.1 billion. Without further detail, it would be incorrect to associate the latter with any specific industry. Data for January–August 2026 also confirm the presence of metallurgical trade: according to GMK Center calculations, Ukraine exported 83,200 tonnes of pig iron to Turkey.
In January–August 2026, the United States purchased 900,600 tonnes of Ukrainian pig iron, while total exports of this product amounted to approximately 1.03 million tonnes. Thus, the US market accounted for approximately 87% of shipments by physical volume. Italy received 26,500 tonnes during the same period. Sales of an individual commodity may be much more concentrated in one market than Ukraine’s total exports across countries.
Data from the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Agrarian and Land Policy, citing the State Customs Service, demonstrate the importance of the Spanish, Italian, and Indian markets for the vegetable oil industry. In the first half of 2025, Spain purchased Ukrainian sunflower oil worth $356.9 million, Italy purchased $337.5 million, and India purchased $326.1 million. Their shares in the value of exports of this product were 12.88%, 12.18%, and 11.77%, respectively. This is an example of the specialization of individual markets in sales of Ukrainian processed agricultural products, not an estimate of their shares for January–August 2026.
The geographic and commodity data indicate a combination of high demand for imported industrial products with exports dominated by food products, while ore and metallurgical products play a substantial role in certain trade relationships. Given this structure, opportunities to improve the balance depend on production capacity, energy supply, accessible logistics, and conditions for entering foreign markets.
At the same time, the merchandise trade deficit is not equivalent to a deficit in the overall balance of payments or an automatic reduction in foreign exchange reserves by the same amount. External financing is also influenced by trade in services, income, transfers, and financial transactions. Therefore, the figure of $39.55 billion specifically characterizes the gap between merchandise exports and imports within the statistics presented.
“Improving the trade balance requires expanding the capacity of Ukrainian enterprises to produce goods and sell them abroad. Equipment purchases can contribute to this if they are accompanied by investment in production, access to energy, and clear operating conditions. Stable transportation and the ability to fulfill contracts without forced interruptions are equally important for exporters. It is the growth of competitive domestic production that can gradually narrow the gap between imports and exports,” Maksym Urakin concluded.
ECONOMY, EXPERTS CLUB, EXPORTS, FOREIGN TRADE, IMPORTS, TRADE DEFICIT, UKRAINE
