Poland remained the largest market for Ukrainian exports and the second-largest supplier of goods to Ukraine during January–July 2026, according to data from the State Customs Service.
Ukraine exported $2.8 billion worth of goods to Poland, while Polish exports to the Ukrainian market totaled $5.5 billion.
Thus, the total trade volume between the two countries over the seven-month period reached approximately $8.3 billion.
Ukraine’s bilateral trade balance in goods was negative by approximately $2.7 billion.
Poland accounted for about 11.6% of Ukraine’s total goods exports and approximately 9.5% of its imports.
Turkey became the second-largest market for Ukrainian goods, with exports totaling $2 billion, while Germany ranked third with $1.5 billion.
In terms of the volume of imports into Ukraine, China took first place by a wide margin, with $16.8 billion. Germany ranked third after Poland, with $3.8 billion.
Overall, Ukraine’s merchandise imports for January–July rose by 26.6% to $58.1 billion, while exports increased by 3.8% to $24.1 billion.
Ukraine ranked 20th among Uzbekistan’s largest trading partners for the period from January through June 2026, according to data from the National Statistics Committee of Uzbekistan.
Foreign trade turnover between Ukraine and Uzbekistan over the six-month period totaled $206.1 million, compared to $151.9 million during the same period in 2025. Thus, bilateral trade increased by 35.7%.
Ukrainian exports to Uzbekistan totaled approximately $171.9 million, while Uzbek exports to Ukraine were estimated at $34.2 million. Ukraine’s trade surplus with Uzbekistan reached approximately $137.7 million.
Ukraine accounted for about 0.5% of Uzbekistan’s total foreign trade turnover.
Overall, Uzbekistan’s foreign trade turnover in January–June 2026 amounted to about $41 billion.
China remained the country’s largest trading partner, accounting for 23.1% of total trade, or about $9.5 billion. Russia ranked second with a share of 17.1%, corresponding to approximately $7 billion.
Uzbekistan’s top five trading partners also included Kazakhstan with a 6.8% share, Turkey with 3.4%, and Afghanistan with 2.6%.
Separately, Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Investment, Industry, and Trade reported that the country’s exports, excluding gold, totaled $14.4 billion in the first half of the year, an increase of 32.2%, or $3.5 billion, compared to the same period last year.
The main market for Uzbek goods and services was Russia, to which $2.4 billion worth of products were shipped. Exports to China totaled $2.18 billion, to Afghanistan – $961 million, to Kazakhstan – $715 million, to France – $707 million, to Turkey – $516 million, and to Kyrgyzstan – $453 million.
The main drivers of growth in Uzbek exports were services ($5.7 billion), light industrial goods ($1.66 billion), metallurgical and mining products ($1.3 billion), fruits and vegetables ($875 million), and construction materials ($714 million).
Uzbekistan’s export geography expanded to include seven additional countries and territories in the first half of the year, bringing the total to 211 countries and territories.
Sources: National Committee on Statistics of Uzbekistan and a press release from the Ministry of Investment, Industry, and Trade of Uzbekistan dated July 29, 2026.
According to “Serbian Economist”, Ukraine ranked 28th among Serbia’s trading partners in the first half of 2026.
Total trade between the two countries amounted to 275.9 million euros, compared to 194.6 million euros a year earlier. Thus, trade volume increased by approximately 41.8%. This is according to data from the Republic of Serbia’s Statistical Office, published on July 31, 2026.
Serbian exports to Ukraine rose by 80.2% to 161.3 million euros. Imports of Ukrainian goods increased by 9% to 114.6 million euros.
As a result, Serbia shifted from a deficit of 15.6 million euros in the first half of 2025 to a surplus of 46.7 million euros in January–June 2026.
Ukraine accounted for 0.9% of Serbia’s total exports and 0.5% of its imports.
Despite rapid growth, the volume of trade remains modest compared to the potential of both countries. Serbia’s trade with Ukraine is nearly 19 times smaller than its trade with Germany and approximately 16 times smaller than its trade with China.
The Ukraine-Philippines Business Forum, attended by more than 65 representatives of companies, government agencies, financial institutions, law firms, and business associations from both countries, took place on July 23 in Makati City, Philippines.
The event opened with video messages from Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiga and a speech by Philippine Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry Seferino Rodolfo.
Participants discussed opportunities for developing bilateral cooperation in the agri-food sector, information technology, digital services, the food industry, creative industries, as well as in the defense sector and the field of dual-use technologies.
During the forum, the business environment in Ukraine and the Philippines was presented, along with financial and legal tools for foreign companies, the results of Ukraine’s digital transformation, and the capabilities of Ukraine’s defense-industrial complex.
Representatives from the Makati Business Club, the Nordic Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry discussed market access, attracting investment, and developing direct contacts between companies with entrepreneurs. These organizations, together with the Ukrainian Embassy, served as partners for the forum.
The event concluded with bilateral B2B matchmaking sessions, during which Ukrainian and Philippine companies were able to discuss specific projects and areas for further cooperation.
The forum was the centerpiece of the Ukrainian business mission to the Philippines, scheduled for July 23 through August 1, 2026. Its goal is to expand the presence of Ukrainian companies in the Philippine market and in Southeast Asia as a whole.
According to “Serbian Economist”, Serbia is gradually becoming one of Ukraine’s most prominent Balkan trading partners. According to data from the Experts Club analytical center, in the first half of 2026, Serbia ranked 33rd among the country’s 50 largest trading partners, with bilateral trade totaling $345.9 million.
Serbian exports to Ukraine totaled $243.2 million, while Ukrainian exports to Serbia amounted to $102.7 million. In June alone, trade between the countries totaled $55.8 million. The balance currently favors Serbia: Ukraine’s bilateral trade deficit reached $140.5 million.
The trend toward Serbia strengthening its position became apparent as early as late 2025 and early this year. In the first quarter of 2026, Serbian exports to Ukraine doubled compared to the same period last year, while Ukrainian shipments to the Serbian market increased by 5%. About 900 Serbian companies are involved in trade between the two countries, of which approximately 670 purchase Ukrainian products.
One of the factors contributing to the development of these ties was the full restoration of Serbia’s diplomatic presence in Kyiv. The embassy, which had suspended operations in 2022, returned to the Ukrainian capital at the end of 2024 and officially resumed operations in new premises in the fall of 2025. The mission is currently headed by Ambassador Andon Sapundži.
The opening of the embassy alone does not determine the volume of trade, but a permanent diplomatic mission facilitates contacts between companies, chambers of commerce, and government agencies. It can also help organize business missions, resolve logistical and consular issues, and prepare new intergovernmental agreements.
The next important step could be the resumption of free trade negotiations and achieving a breakthrough on this issue. For Serbia, Ukraine remains a large market with high demand for food, industrial products, equipment, and reconstruction supplies. For Ukrainian companies, Serbia could become not only a sales market but also a logistics hub for expanding into other countries in the Western Balkans.
Data on all of Ukraine’s major trading partners is available here — https://www.experts.news/posts/analiz-naybilshykh-torhovelnykh-partneriv-ukrayiny-v-pershomu-pivrichchi-2026-roku
According to Experts.news, on July 20, U.S. President Donald Trump signed three executive orders imposing additional 50% tariffs on certain goods from Canada. The new rates are set to take effect on August 19, 2026, and will cover Canadian imports worth approximately $20 billion, or about 5.2% of all goods shipped from Canada to the U.S. in 2025.
Washington justifies this decision by citing discrimination against American automobiles, alcoholic beverages, and dairy products in the Canadian market. However, the U.S. tariffs are not limited to these specific goods. The White House has compiled three broad lists of Canadian products intended to exert economic pressure on various sectors of the country.
Which Products Will Be Affected by the Tariffs
The first group includes virtually all major types of Canadian-produced alcoholic beverages: beer, wine, vermouth, cider, other fermented beverages, ethyl alcohol, whiskey, rum, gin, vodka, liqueurs, and other spirits. The tariff will be levied in addition to standard customs duties.
The alcohol proclamation is a response to the decision by most Canadian provinces to halt the purchase and sale of American alcohol. According to the White House, imports of alcoholic beverages from the U.S. to Canada fell by 81% between March 2025 and February 2026—from $718 million to $137 million.
The second group covers dairy products and ingredients for the food industry. The list includes dry and concentrated milk, cream, whey, lactose, milk proteins, casein, and certain mixtures based on dairy components. These products are used not only in retail but also in the production of confectionery, baby food, sports nutrition, baked goods, and ready-to-eat food mixes.
Washington cites Canada’s tariff quota system for cheese as the reason for this decision. The U.S. argues that the terms of access for American suppliers to the Canadian market are less favorable than those granted to European Union producers under the CETA agreement.
The third and broadest list includes products not directly related to the automotive sector. Among them are cement, seeds and planting material, flowers, honey, certain food ingredients, essential oils, cosmetics, plastic products, packaging, paper products, wood panels, and furniture.
The list also includes clothing, textiles, footwear, leather goods, headwear, wigs, tools, fishing rods, swimming pools, and some sports equipment, including hockey sticks and other hockey gear.
Thus, the U.S. measures could affect both large industrial enterprises and small manufacturers of wine, furniture, clothing, cosmetics, sporting goods, and gardening products.
Which goods will not be subject to the new measures
The White House has excluded Canadian energy products, potash fertilizers, fish, and critical minerals from the new regime. Goods already subject to U.S. Section 232 sector-specific tariffs—including many types of steel, aluminum, copper, wood, cars, trucks, and pharmaceutical products—will not be subject to additional tariffs.
This limits the immediate scope of the decision. The U.S. is not imposing a 50% tariff on all Canadian imports, as a sharp rise in the prices of oil, gas, electricity, fertilizers, and industrial metals would cause serious harm to U.S. companies themselves.
At the same time, the new tariffs even apply to goods that meet the rules of origin under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Previously, such goods could move between the three countries duty-free.
What Will Change for American Consumers
Formally, the tariff is paid by the American company importing the goods. It may require the Canadian supplier to lower the price, partially reduce its own margin, or pass the additional costs on to the buyer.
A 50% tariff does not necessarily mean an automatic 50% increase in the retail price, since the import cost is only part of the final price. However, for goods with a small markup, shipments from Canada may become economically unviable.
The most noticeable price increases may occur in the northern U.S. states, which have close ties to Canadian suppliers. This primarily applies to cement, building materials, furniture, beverages, and certain food products.
Higher tariffs on cement could increase costs for residential and infrastructure construction. Cement is difficult and expensive to transport over long distances, so not all regions will be able to quickly replace Canadian supplies with products from other parts of the world.
In the alcohol sector, some Canadian brands may disappear from U.S. stores and restaurants or move into a higher price category. A similar situation is possible in the hockey equipment market, where Canada is not only a major consumer but also an important manufacturer of specialized products.
What Lies Ahead for Canadian Manufacturers
For Canadian exporters, the U.S. is the primary and closest market. A 50% tariff could lead to a decline in orders, reduced capacity utilization, and pressure on manufacturers’ profits—especially if they are unable to quickly find buyers in other countries.
The most vulnerable will be companies located near the U.S. border and focused primarily on the U.S. market. Small wineries, furniture factories, and manufacturers of clothing and sports equipment will find it more difficult to redirect their products than large international corporations.
Canada will likely try to accelerate the reorientation of its exports toward the European Union, the United Kingdom, Asian countries, and other markets. However, transportation costs, differences in standards, and the need to rebuild distribution networks will limit the speed of this transition.
Who stands to gain from the trade realignment
The market share vacated by Canadian suppliers in the U.S. market could be filled by manufacturers from Mexico, the European Union, Latin America, and Asia.
European, Chilean, Argentine, and Australian companies may gain additional opportunities in the wine market. Manufacturers of clothing, furniture, and consumer goods from Mexico and Asian countries will also be able to increase their shipments to the U.S.
A similar process has already been observed in the Canadian market following restrictions on imports of U.S. alcohol. The White House notes that Canada has increased imports of beverages from the EU, Chile, Japan, Argentina, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia.
However, such a shift does not always lower prices. Replacing a nearby Canadian supplier with a more distant producer increases transportation costs and complicates logistics.
The Risk of a New Round of the Trade War
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney expressed a willingness to continue negotiations but emphasized that the trade conflict is already increasing costs for families, particularly in the U.S. Ontario Premier Doug Ford called for retaliatory tariffs on a comparable volume of goods should the U.S. measures take effect.
If Ottawa introduces new retaliatory measures, they could target U.S. food products, alcohol, automobiles, industrial equipment, and goods from states that are politically significant to the Trump administration.
The conflict would then begin to affect not only specific product categories but also companies’ investment decisions. Businesses would be more cautious about locating new production facilities on both sides of the border, and inventories of components could increase as a safeguard against further restrictions.
Why This Decision Is Important for Global Trade
The legal basis for the tariffs is particularly significant. Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows for the imposition of up to 50% in additional duties against a country that discriminates against U.S. trade. According to Reuters, this is the first known instance of this provision being invoked in nearly a century.
The precedent set allows Washington to use a similar mechanism against other trading partners if their taxes, quotas, licensing requirements, or government procurement practices are deemed discriminatory toward U.S. companies.
This increases uncertainty for global business. Even the existence of a free trade agreement no longer guarantees that goods will be protected from additional U.S. tariffs.
The immediate impact of the new measures on the global economy will be limited, as they cover about $20 billion in imports.
However, the consequences could be significantly greater if Canada responds in kind and the U.S. begins to invoke Section 338 against other countries.
In that case, companies will more actively shift production closer to their main markets, create alternative supply chains, and reduce their dependence on any single country. This could increase trade resilience but, at the same time, raise the cost of goods and fuel inflation.
The new tariffs are not scheduled to take effect until August 19, so Washington and Ottawa have about a month left to negotiate. The ultimate outcome will depend on whether the parties can reach an agreement on automobiles, U.S. alcohol, and access for U.S. dairy producers to the Canadian market.
