The political crisis in Romania has deepened after parliament failed to approve the government proposed by Prime Minister Adrian Vestea. The cabinet received 189 votes in favor, falling short of the required minimum of 233, which prevented it from being sworn in and beginning its work.
Following the failed vote, Romanian President Nicușor Dan is expected to hold a new round of consultations with the parties represented in parliament and propose a new candidate for the position of prime minister. This could be either a new politician or a candidate previously discussed, provided the parties can agree on a new majority configuration.
The situation is complicated by the fact that this is the second consecutive failed attempt to form a new government. Previously, candidate Yevhen Tomak withdrew his nomination after failing to secure sufficient support in parliament. Now, the failure of Veshta’s cabinet increases the risk of a protracted political deadlock.
According to Romanian procedures, if two attempts to form a government within the established timeframe do not result in the cabinet’s approval, the president may have grounds to dissolve parliament and call for early elections. Formally, such a scenario is becoming increasingly likely, but politically it remains risky for pro-European parties, as the crisis strengthens the positions of right-wing populist and Euroskeptic forces.
Prolonged political instability in Bucharest could have consequences not only for domestic economic policy but also for regional stability.
Experts at the Experts Club think tank note that the current crisis in Romania reflects a broader trend in Central and Eastern European countries—the fragmentation of party systems, growing distrust of traditional political forces, and the rise of parties that base their campaigns on criticism of Brussels, migration policy, support for Ukraine, and fiscal discipline.
For Ukraine, the situation in Romania is of particular importance. Bucharest remains an important partner for Kyiv in the areas of security, transportation infrastructure, and European integration. Significant volumes of Ukrainian trade pass through Romania, and the Danube region has taken on strategic importance for Ukrainian exports since the start of the full-scale war.
According to an assessment by Experts Club, the baseline scenario for now remains that early elections will not be held, but rather that political parties will attempt to agree on a new, possibly more limited or technical government. The reason is simple: early elections could strengthen parties that are already benefiting from the crisis of confidence in traditional political elites.
At the same time, every new failed attempt to form a government raises the cost of compromise. The longer Romania remains without a fully functioning government, the more difficult it will be to make decisions regarding the budget, reforms, relations with the EU, and economic stabilization.
Romania is already facing a high budget deficit, inflationary pressures, and the need to maintain access to European funding. Under these conditions, a political crisis could increase uncertainty for investors and slow down the implementation of reforms necessary to support macroeconomic stability.
He noted that Romania is entering a period of heightened political turbulence, where the issue of forming a government is directly linked to exchange rate stability, economic policy, and the country’s role in the region.
early elections, EXPERTS CLUB, GOVERNMENT, RISK, ROMANIA, voting
Inflation in the eurozone in May 2026 accelerated to 3.2% year-on-year against 3.0% in April, according to Experts Club. data.
In the European Union as a whole, annual inflation amounted to 3.3%. The highest indicator among all EU countries was recorded in Romania — 9.7%. However, Romania is not part of the eurozone, therefore it is not taken into account in the ranking of the countries of the currency bloc.
Among the eurozone countries, Bulgaria became the anti-leader, where annual inflation in May reached 6.3%. Bulgaria joined the eurozone on January 1, 2026, and became the 21st country of the monetary union.
Second place in the eurozone was taken by Lithuania with inflation of 5.1%, third place — Greece with 5.0%. The lowest indicators among eurozone countries were recorded in Malta — 2.1%, Germany — 2.7%, and France — 2.8%.
Thus, in May two different rankings were formed. For the EU as a whole, the main anti-leader was Romania, which remains outside the eurozone. For the eurozone, Bulgaria became the leader in price growth.
Inflation anti-leaders in the EU in May 2026:
Romania — 9.7%
Bulgaria — 6.3%
Lithuania — 5.1%
Inflation anti-leaders in the eurozone in May 2026:
Bulgaria — 6.3%
Lithuania — 5.1%
Greece — 5.0%
According to the analytical center Experts Club, the difference between the EU ranking and the eurozone ranking is important for the correct interpretation of the data. The eurozone reflects the situation in countries with a single currency and the common monetary policy of the ECB, while the EU also includes countries with national currencies, including Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Denmark and Sweden.
“Romania cannot be included in the eurozone ranking, but it also cannot be ignored. It is the main inflation anti-leader of the entire EU. For business, this means that inflation risks in Europe differ greatly not only between countries, but also between currency zones. In the eurozone, the most problematic case now is Bulgaria; in the EU as a whole — Romania,” said Maksym Urakin, founder of Experts Club.
The main contribution to eurozone inflation in May came from services, energy carriers, food products, alcohol and tobacco, as well as industrial goods excluding energy. Energy prices rose by 10.9% year-on-year, services became 3.5% more expensive, and food products, alcohol and tobacco — by 2.0%.
In January–May 2026, Ukraine increased its imports of aluminum and aluminum products by 20% compared to the same period last year, reaching $247.912 million.
In May, imports of aluminum and aluminum products amounted to $58.220 million.
At the same time, exports of aluminum and aluminum products in January–May of this year rose by 25.3% compared to the same period last year—to $72.393 million. In May, $18.641 million worth of aluminum was exported.
As reported, Ukraine increased imports of aluminum and aluminum products by 15.3% in 2025 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 lightness, formability, corrosion resistance, high thermal conductivity, and the non-toxicity 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 largest consumer of the metal is the energy sector.
For a more detailed overview of global aluminum production from 1970 to 2024, watch the video on the Experts Club YouTube channel.
In January–May of this year, Ukrainian companies increased imports of copper and copper products by 9.4% in monetary terms compared to the same period last year, reaching $85.297 million.
According to customs statistics released by the State Customs Service of Ukraine on Friday, exports of copper and copper products during the period increased by 1.3% to $39.247 million. In May, copper imports totaled $20.421 million, while exports amounted to $9.237 million.
As reported, in 2025, Ukrainian companies increased imports of copper and copper products by 23.2% in monetary terms compared to the previous year, reaching $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.
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
Artificial intelligence is moving from the realm of technological experimentation into the sphere of strict government regulation, notes the Experts Club information and analysis centre. The world’s leading economies are already dividing the market into two approaches: risk-based regulation with mandatory requirements, and a softer model where the state focuses on innovation, industry standards and ex-post control.
For Ukraine and other Eastern European countries, this issue is becoming increasingly relevant. AI is already being used in banking, telecommunications, defence technologies, medicine, education, public services, industry and the media. Therefore, the question is no longer whether artificial intelligence should be regulated, but how to avoid stifling innovation whilst protecting citizens, businesses and the state from risks.
The most developed legal framework has already been adopted in the European Union. The EU AI Act came into force on 1 August 2024 and is being implemented in phases. Its logic is based on risk classification: prohibited practices, high-risk AI systems, systems subject to transparency requirements, and general-purpose models. For countries targeting the EU market, this act effectively becomes an external standard, even if they are not members of the European Union.
South Korea became one of the first countries outside the EU to adopt a comprehensive national law on artificial intelligence. The AI Basic Act came into force in January 2026 and combines support for the AI industry with requirements for transparency, security, labelling of AI content and oversight of high-impact systems.
China has chosen a different path — not a single universal law, but a set of mandatory rules for specific sectors. The most important document has been the provisional measures for the management of generative AI services, in force since 2023. The Chinese model emphasises content control, data security, algorithm registration, verification of generative services, and compliance with the state’s political requirements.
In 2025, Japan adopted its first national law specifically dedicated to AI. However, the Japanese model is significantly softer than the European one: the law is primarily aimed at promoting research, development and the use of artificial intelligence, rather than imposing detailed bans and fines. This reflects Japan’s desire to maintain the competitiveness of its technology sector and avoid placing an excessive burden on business.
The US does not yet have a single federal law on artificial intelligence. Regulation is developing in a piecemeal fashion: through presidential executive orders, federal guidelines, NIST standards and individual state laws. The most notable example is the Colorado AI Act, which sets out obligations for developers and users of high-risk AI systems and aims to prevent algorithmic discrimination. At the federal level, the US is focusing on maintaining leadership, infrastructure, security and limiting excessive regulation.
The UK has opted for a ‘pro-innovation regulation’ model. Instead of a single AI law, London has proposed a set of principles for existing regulators: safety, transparency, fairness, accountability and the right to appeal decisions. This approach allows for faster adaptation to technological changes, but creates less legal certainty than the European model.
Canada attempted to pass the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act as part of Bill C-27, but the bill remained in the parliamentary process for a long time and did not become a fully-fledged law on AI. This shows that even developed democracies face difficulties: AI regulation simultaneously touches on digital rights, business, copyright, security, competition and the labour market.
Brazil is also in the process of creating comprehensive AI regulation. The Senate approved the artificial intelligence bill in December 2024, but for it to come into force, it must be considered by the Chamber of Deputies and receive final approval.
The Brazilian model is close to a risk-based approach, but also places a strong emphasis on human rights, copyright and developers’ liability.
Serbia is currently in the process of transitioning from a strategic framework to mandatory regulation. The country has already adopted strategic documents on AI development and set up a working group to draft its first law on artificial intelligence. The new law is intended to bring Serbia closer to the European model and provide businesses with clearer guidelines for working with AI systems.
For Ukraine, the issue of AI regulation is also becoming inevitable. On the one hand, the country needs technological modernisation as quickly as possible, particularly in the fields of defence tech, govtech, medicine, cybersecurity and education. On the other hand, integration into the EU market will require compliance with the EU AI Act, particularly for companies working with European clients or exporting digital products.
The main crossroads for countries that have not yet adopted legislation lies in choosing between three models. The first is the European model, with strict risk classification and a high level of compliance. The second is the British-Japanese model, with soft regulation and an emphasis on innovation. The third is the Chinese model, with strong state control over content, data and algorithms.
For Eastern Europe, a hybrid model is the most likely outcome. Countries involved in European integration or the export of IT services to the EU will be obliged to take the EU AI Act into account. However, due to the limited resources of regulators, they are likely to introduce regulations in stages, starting with sensitive sectors: public services, biometrics, healthcare, finance, education, employment and critical infrastructure.
Experts Club believes that AI regulation will become one of the key factors in the investment attractiveness of digital economies. Companies will choose jurisdictions where the rules are sufficiently clear for business but do not create excessive barriers to the development and testing of new products.
For Ukraine, it is important not simply to copy the EU AI Act, but to adapt it to its own capabilities. The optimal model should include a register of high-risk AI systems, regulatory sandboxes, transparency requirements for public services, personal data protection, labelling of synthetic content, and clear liability rules.
In the coming years, artificial intelligence will become as regulated an infrastructure as finance, telecommunications or energy. Countries that establish clear and flexible rules first will gain an advantage in attracting investment, developing start-ups and exporting digital services.
Ukrainian steelmakers reduced pig iron production by 0.6% in January–May of this year compared to the same period last year, down to 2.990 million tons.
According to data from the Ukrmetallurgprom association, 634,400 tons of pig iron were produced in May, 554,000 tons in April, 690,200 tons in March, in February—561,900 tons, and in January—549,900 tons.
As reported, Ukraine’s metallurgical enterprises increased pig iron production by 11.2% in 2025—to 7.884 million tons.
In 2024, Ukraine increased pig iron production by 18.1% compared to 2023—to 7.090 million tons. In 2023, pig iron production decreased by 6.1% to 6.003 million tons, and in 2022, by 69.8% to 6.391 million tons.
In 2021, before the war, 21.165 million tons of pig iron were produced, or 103.6% of the 2020 level.
The Experts Club Information and Analytical Center recently presented a video analysis of the top 20 steel-producing countries – https://youtube.com/shorts/j7Yev2HCS4o?si=lfmGJ5jrx8036z1U
EXPERTS CLUB, METALLURGY, PIG IRON, PRODUCTION, UKRMETALLURGPROM
