In July 2026, Ukrainian citizens purchased 145 residential properties in Turkey and ranked third among foreign homebuyers in the country, according to data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) published on August 13.
Russian citizens purchased the most residential properties among foreign buyers in July—394 properties. Iranian citizens ranked second with 189 transactions, while Ukrainians ranked third with 145 properties.
Thus, Ukrainian citizens accounted for approximately 6.8% of all residential property sales to foreigners in Turkey that month.
However, compared to June, activity among Ukrainian buyers declined slightly. In June, Ukrainians purchased 170 properties and tied for second place with Iranian citizens. In July, the number of transactions by Ukrainians decreased by approximately 15%, but Ukraine remained among the top three foreign buyers of Turkish real estate.
In total, 2,120 residential properties were sold to foreigners in Turkey in July, which is 1.9% more than in July of last year. Foreigners accounted for 1.7% of total residential property sales.
At the same time, the overall situation in the Turkish real estate market was significantly worse: in July, 123,603 thousand houses and apartments were sold in the country—17% fewer than a year earlier. Sales of new housing fell by 8.6% to 42,529 thousand units, while sales of resale housing dropped by 20.8% to 81,074 thousand
Thus, demand from foreign buyers in July appeared more stable than in the domestic market. However, over a longer period, foreign demand remains lower than last year’s levels. From January through July 2026, foreigners purchased 11,203 thousand residential properties in Turkey, which is 7.3% less than during the same period in 2025.
Ukrainians have maintained a strong presence in the Turkish real estate market for several years now. In 2025, Ukrainian citizens also ranked third among foreign buyers, purchasing 1,541 thousand residential properties. Ahead of them were Russians, with 3,649 thousand transactions, and Iranian citizens, with 1,878 thousand.
For comparison: in 2024, Ukrainians were also among the top three foreign buyers, purchasing 1,631 thousand properties.
Thus, despite a slight decline in July compared to June, Ukraine remains one of the three largest foreign markets for Turkish residential real estate, alongside Russia and Iran.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has raised its forecast for U.S. corn exports in the 2026/27 season amid ongoing supply constraints from Ukraine.
In the August World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report, released on August 12, the forecast for U.S. corn exports was raised by 75 million bushels to 3.3 billion bushels, or approximately 83.8 million metric tons. Compared to the July estimate, the increase amounts to about 1.9 million metric tons, or 2.3%.
The USDA explicitly attributes the increase in the U.S. export forecast to rising global demand and limited export capacity from Ukraine.
At the same time, the agency lowered its forecast for Ukrainian corn exports in the 2026/27 marketing year by 1 million metric tons—from 23 million to 22 million metric tons. Meanwhile, the estimate for Ukraine’s corn harvest itself, on the contrary, was increased by 1.8 million metric tons—from 30 million to 31.8 million metric tons.
Thus, Ukraine may harvest more corn than the USDA expected just a month ago, but a smaller portion of the harvest will be able to reach foreign markets.
As a result, the forecast for Ukraine’s ending corn stocks has been increased from 2.06 million to 4.86 million metric tons—more than 2.3 times the previous figure. At the same time, the USDA left its forecast for domestic consumption virtually unchanged.
The situation on the global market is different. The USDA raised its forecast for global corn trade in the 2026/27 season by 0.6 million metric tons—from 209.88 million to 210.48 million metric tons.
The United States is the main source of this additional supply. At the same time, the USDA lowered its export forecast not only for Ukraine but also for the European Union.
The U.S. agency also raised its forecast for EU corn imports, while estimates for purchases by China and Turkey were lowered.
The growth in U.S. exports is occurring against the backdrop of a virtually unchanged forecast for U.S. corn production. The harvest is expected to reach about 16 billion bushels and could be the second-largest in the country’s history. However, the increase in export demand will lead to a reduction in U.S. ending stocks by 137 million bushels—to 1.7 billion bushels.
The USDA also raised its forecast for the average corn price for U.S. farmers by $0.10 to $4.50 per bushel.
Consequently, difficulties with Ukrainian corn exports are already beginning to shift the global market in favor of competing suppliers. The U.S. stands to increase shipments by nearly 2 million metric tons compared to the previous forecast, while Ukraine risks accumulating significant additional domestic stockpiles.
According to “Serbian Economist”, owners from Ukraine own 21 yachts registered under the Montenegrin flag, placing Ukraine fifth among all countries in terms of the number of vessels in the Montenegrin registry and fourth among foreign owners.
As of August 12, 2026, the Montenegrin Yacht Registry contained a total of 576 vessels, according to an updated list from the country’s Maritime Safety Authority. Only 79 yachts are registered to individuals or legal entities from Montenegro itself, while owners from other countries own 497 yachts, or 86.3% of the total fleet.
Serbia remains the clear leader. Individuals and legal entities from Serbia own 193 yachts, or 33.5% of the total registry. Russia ranks second with 112 yachts and a 19.4% share. Together, owners from these two countries own 305 vessels—nearly 53% of all yachts flying the Montenegrin flag.
The ranking of the largest owner countries is as follows:
Rank Owner Country Yachts Share of the Register
1 Serbia 193 33.5%
2 Russia 112 19.4%
3 Montenegro 79 13.7%
4 United States 27 4.7%
5 Ukraine 213.6%
6 Bosnia and Herzegovina 18 3.1%
7 Israel 11 1.9%
8 Germany 10 1.7%
9–10 Switzerland 9 1.6%
9–10 Estonia 9 1.6%
11 United Kingdom 8 1.4%
The number of Ukrainian-owned yachts in the Montenegrin registry has increased significantly in just the last three months.
As of May 12, 2026, the registry listed 536 yachts, 17 of which were owned by Ukrainians. At that time, Ukraine ranked behind Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose owners held 18 yachts.
By August 12, the number of yachts owned by Ukrainians had risen from 17 to 21, as a result of which Ukraine overtook Bosnia and climbed to fifth place in the overall ranking.
Overall, since the end of 2025, the Montenegrin registry has grown by 51 yachts, and by 40 since May alone. At the same time, the current composition of the registry indicates that this growth is driven primarily by foreign owners.
In May, the owners of registered yachts represented 49 countries. Among them, in addition to the largest groups from Serbia, Russia, the United States, Ukraine, and other European countries, were owners from Canada, Turkey, Norway, as well as jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands, the Seychelles, Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands, and Belize.
At the same time, owners from EU countries account for a relatively small portion of the registry. In May, they accounted for only about 7.8% of the yachts. The most prominent EU countries were Germany and Estonia.
According to the Experts Club analytical center, citing data from the A-95 Consulting Group, Ukraine imported about 196,000 tonnes of gasoline in July 2026, the highest figure since August 2025.
At the same time, data from an infographic published by the A-95 Consulting Group show that the volume of supplies increased by approximately 51% compared with June. In June, the main supply routes accounted for about 130,000 tonnes of gasoline, whereas in July the figure reached around 196,000 tonnes.
The sharp increase in imports occurred despite the Ukrainian market’s transition to the E10 standard on July 1, which requires the mandatory addition of bioethanol to gasoline. The new requirement temporarily narrowed the range of available foreign suppliers.
In particular, the Greek Hellenic Petroleum refinery does not produce gasoline of the required standard. Its products had previously been used by Ukrainian traders during periods of increased demand.
At the same time, the beginning of July coincided with rising petroleum product prices on the global market and increased domestic demand.
A-95 noted that the situation was most strained during the first half of the month. However, the increase in supplies made it possible to stabilize the market in the second half of July. Importers also contracted the necessary volumes for August in advance.
Poland and Lithuania became the main sources of additional supply. Imports from Lithuania increased from 40,500 tonnes in June to 56,100 tonnes in July, while imports from Poland rose from 30,700 tonnes to 51,700 tonnes.
Supplies from Germany also increased noticeably, from 16,900 tonnes to 20,900 tonnes. Around 34,000 tonnes arrived from Romania, compared with 31,200 tonnes one month earlier.
At the same time, imports from Moldova decreased from 9,600 tonnes to 5,800 tonnes.
Thus, July became a test of the Ukrainian market’s ability to rapidly restructure external supplies following changes to gasoline quality requirements. Despite the initial contraction of the available supply base, importers managed to increase supplies by approximately one and a half times within a single month.
According to Experts.news, the European Commission is preparing proposals to reform the EU enlargement process, which are set to form the basis for a strategic discussion among EU leaders in October 2026. One of the key areas of discussion is the introduction of additional safeguards that would allow for the restriction of certain rights of new member states in the event they violate their obligations to the EU.
The European Commission has confirmed that it is preparing the reform. As early as July 6, an EC representative told Euronews that Brussels was working on its own proposals ahead of the October summit, as member states themselves are increasingly engaged in discussions regarding the new rules.
The European Council has officially confirmed that at its meeting on October 15–16, 2026, EU leaders will hold a strategic discussion on the Union’s enlargement and internal reforms. However, there is as yet no official confirmation that the European Commission will present the final package on October 15 specifically.
One of the most discussed options is a temporary restriction on certain voting rights of new member states.
Back in June, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg proposed discussing the possibility of a transition period during which new EU members would be unable to block decisions in the most sensitive areas, where unanimity among all countries is currently required.
This primarily concerns foreign policy, the EU budget, and the Union’s further expansion.
In addition, the five countries propose including special safeguard mechanisms in future accession treaties. These would allow measures to be taken against a new member state in the event of a serious deviation from the principles of democracy, the rule of law, or media freedom.
These proposals are largely linked to Hungary’s experience under Viktor Orbán, when Budapest repeatedly used the unanimity requirement to block important EU decisions.
However, for now, the discussion centers on reform options rather than newly agreed-upon rules.
This discussion is of the greatest significance for Montenegro, which is currently the most advanced candidate for accession.
According to the European Commission, the country has opened all 33 negotiation chapters, 16 of which have already been provisionally closed. Podgorica intends to conclude negotiations and become the 28th member of the European Union in 2028.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated in June that Montenegro’s accession by 2028 is “achievable.” The EU has already begun drafting the future accession treaty.
Therefore, Montenegro’s accession treaty could potentially become the first document of a new generation, providing additional guarantees for the EU following the country’s admission.
However, the European Commission is concerned about a scenario in which new conditions would be developed exclusively for Montenegro. That is why Brussels wants to establish a universal approach that can also be applied to future candidate countries.
The reform will be of direct importance to both Ukraine and Moldova.
Negotiations with both countries accelerated significantly in the summer of 2026. In June, the EU opened the first negotiation cluster with Ukraine and Moldova, focusing on fundamental issues—the rule of law, democratic institutions, and public administration. In July, negotiations also made progress on foreign policy issues.
That said, Ukraine and Moldova are much further from concluding negotiations than Montenegro.
For Kyiv, the future model is particularly important: if the EU does indeed introduce transitional restrictions on the right of veto, Ukraine could potentially gain full membership but would initially have limited ability to block decisions in certain areas.
At the same time, such a system could facilitate political consensus on Ukraine’s membership within the current EU, as some member states fear that expanding from 27 to more than 30 members would significantly complicate decision-making.
The assertion that France, Germany, and the Netherlands are generally opposed to rapid EU enlargement requires clarification. These countries support further enlargement but belong to a group of states that demand prior strengthening of institutional safeguards and stricter oversight of future members’ compliance with the rule of law. Together with Belgium and Luxembourg, they have proposed developing a new template for accession treaties.
France, in particular, takes a cautious stance regarding Ukraine’s accelerated accession. Officials in Paris are concerned about the budgetary implications, the impact of Ukraine’s large agricultural sector on the single market, and the potential for the decision-making process to become more complicated in an expanded EU.
Germany, on the other hand, actively supports enlargement but at the same time insists on reforming the European Union itself and is considering options for the gradual integration of new member states.
Essentially, the debate boils down to an attempt to resolve the tension between two objectives.
On the one hand, the geopolitical situation is prompting the EU to accelerate the accession of Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, and Moldova. Brussels views enlargement as a tool for strengthening European security and limiting the influence of Russia and China in the Western Balkans and Eastern Europe.
On the other hand, existing member states are reluctant to admit new members who, once admitted, could use their veto power to exert pressure on other EU countries.
Therefore, the future model may be based on the following principle: full membership is granted more quickly, but some of the new member state’s political tools remain limited during a transition period, and compliance with obligations continues to be monitored even after accession.
The final parameters of such a system have not yet been agreed upon. The main political discussion is set to take place at the European Council on October 15–16, 2026, after which it will become clearer which of the proposed mechanisms may be included in the future accession treaties for Montenegro, Ukraine, Moldova, and other candidates.
Verifying a foreign investor helps Ukrainian businesses establish the origin of capital, the ownership structure and the partner’s ability to fulfil its obligations.
When raising foreign financing, the main attention is usually paid to verifying the Ukrainian company. A potential investor analyses financial statements, corporate documents, taxes, litigation, assets and the business model.
However, Ukrainian owners should also verify the party offering the capital. The name of a well-known fund in a presentation or claimed access to significant financial resources does not yet confirm that the negotiations are being conducted by an authorised person or that the money actually belongs to the declared investor.
Before signing an agreement, it is worth verifying the legal entity, the date of its establishment, its executives, owners, corporate group, previous investments and possible sanctions or reputational risks.
Particular caution is required if the investor demands payment of an upfront fee, uses unofficial email addresses, avoids providing corporate documents or proposes making payments through a company that is not a party to the agreement.
D&B third-party verification solutions make it possible to identify a company, analyse its corporate relationships, establish its owners and conduct checks against sanctions lists and other risk sources. D&B Investigate is also used to visualise business relationships and support enhanced due diligence.
“When raising capital, it is not only the Ukrainian company that undergoes verification. Business owners also need to understand who is offering the financing, where this capital comes from and whether the potential investor is capable of fulfilling its obligations,” emphasised Maksym Urakin, Director of Development and Marketing at Interfax-Ukraine, Head of the D&B-Interfax-Ukraine Business Unit and PhD in Economics.
According to him, verification is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses that do not have their own large legal or compliance department and may perceive the very fact of a foreign investor’s interest as confirmation of its reliability.
The verification result does not replace legal and financial due diligence, but it helps determine whether it is worth proceeding to the costly stage of negotiations, disclosing confidential data and providing access to internal documentation.
Before signing an agreement, it is also necessary to make sure that the representative is authorised to act on behalf of the investor and that the bank account used for the transaction belongs to a party to the agreement or to a duly authorised entity.
Dun & Bradstreet is an international business data and analytics company founded in 1841. Its solutions are used for company verification, corporate ownership analysis, compliance, credit risk assessment and business decision support.
In Ukraine, Dun & Bradstreet is represented by the Interfax-Ukraine News Agency. The D&B-Interfax-Ukraine unit helps Ukrainian enterprises verify potential investors, partners, buyers and suppliers. The agency has operated in the political and economic information market since 1992.
Enquiries can be submitted via D&B’s specialised resource — dnb.ua, by email at Urakin@interfax.kyiv.ua or by telephone at +38 (044) 270-65-74.
