Due to reduced availability of liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the European market, Belgium switched entirely to importing this fuel from Russia in July, a move driven by supply disruptions and high gas prices, according to Bloomberg.
Total LNG shipments to Belgium in July fell by more than 40% compared to the same period last year. At the same time, the country purchased about 0.4 million metric tons of this fuel from Russia, although the volume of Russian imports was lower than in early 2026.
One reason for the increased role of Russian LNG was disruptions in fuel supplies from the Middle East due to shipping problems in the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, most European buyers were postponing LNG purchases for winter stockpiles due to high gas prices.
“Europe received 16% more Russian LNG in the first half of 2026 compared to the same period the previous year, paying a total of 5.96 billion euros ($6.9 billion). The largest buyers were France, Belgium, and Spain,” the publication reports, citing data from the German nongovernmental organization Urgewald.
Low gas storage levels ahead of the winter season posed an additional challenge for Europe—they are the lowest for this period since records began in 2009.
According to Bloomberg, the last time Russia was the sole supplier of LNG to Belgium was in early 2021—before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and after European economies had begun to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.
In January–June 2026, Ukraine recorded a merchandise trade deficit with 37 of its 50 largest trading partners, according to calculations by the Experts Club information and analytical center based on foreign trade data.
Total trade turnover with the TOP 50 countries amounted to $66.97 billion. Imports reached $47.35 billion, exports totaled $19.62 billion, and the overall trade deficit stood at $27.73 billion.
The combined deficit in trade with the 37 countries from which imports exceeded exports amounted to $30.72 billion. A surplus of $2.99 billion with the remaining 13 partners partially offset this gap.
For comparison, according to official data from the State Customs Service, Ukraine’s total trade turnover in the first half of the year amounted to $70.3 billion, including $49.3 billion in imports and $21 billion in exports. Thus, the TOP 50 partners accounted for more than 95% of Ukraine’s foreign trade in goods.
The ten largest deficit-generating trade routes accounted for $41.78 billion in trade turnover. Ukraine imported $32.95 billion worth of goods from these countries while exporting only $8.83 billion. The deficit amounted to $24.12 billion, or approximately 87% of the net trade deficit with the TOP 50 partners.
The import coverage ratio by exports in this group was 26.8%. In other words, every dollar of Ukrainian exports corresponded to approximately $3.73 in imports.
The top five countries—China, Poland, Germany, the United States, and Türkiye—generated a deficit of $20.59 billion. This represented 74.3% of the net trade deficit with the TOP 50 partners.
China ranked first by a wide margin. Imports of Chinese products amounted to $13.9 billion, while exports of Ukrainian goods totaled only $778.4 million. The deficit reached $13.12 billion, or 47.3% of the total trade deficit with the TOP 50.
Exports covered only 5.6% of imports. Thus, the volume of Chinese supplies to Ukraine was almost 18 times greater than the flow of goods in the opposite direction.
According to the State Customs Service’s publicly available commodity breakdown, the leading categories of Chinese imports were electric batteries at $1.62 billion, transmission, television, and video equipment at $1.11 billion, fiber-optic products at $770.5 million, transformers and chokes at $720.8 million, and unmanned aerial vehicles at $684.4 million.
Significant volumes also included telephone and telecommunications equipment at $620.8 million, electric motors and generators at $589.8 million, computer equipment at $363.7 million, and semiconductor devices at $347.8 million.
Thus, the deficit with China is generated not by a single category but by a broad range of technological, energy, electronic, and consumer products.
Poland ranked second in terms of the trade deficit, at $2.29 billion. At the same time, trade with Poland was considerably more balanced than trade with China: Ukrainian exports covered 51% of imports, while Poland remained the largest individual market for Ukrainian products.
The largest disclosed category of imports of Polish origin was oil and petroleum products, totaling $904.6 million. These were followed by petroleum gases at $205.6 million, aircraft parts at $192 million, unmanned aerial vehicles at $133.9 million, compound fertilizers at $121.6 million, electricity at $114.4 million, and coke and semi-coke at $111 million.
The structure of these supplies indicates that Poland serves Ukraine not only as a trading partner but also as an important energy, industrial, and logistics hub.
Germany generated the third-largest deficit, at $1.94 billion. Ukrainian exports covered 39.5% of imports.
The main disclosed categories of German products were passenger cars at $347.6 million, medicines at $220.2 million, petroleum products at $151.9 million, crop-harvesting machinery at $115.3 million, soil cultivation equipment at $97.1 million, plant protection products at $93.5 million, and tractors at $84.3 million.
The trade deficit with the United States amounted to $1.9 billion, while exports covered only 23.6% of imports. The largest publicly available categories of US supplies were petroleum products at $436.6 million, passenger cars at $417.9 million, coal at $182.2 million, and telecommunications equipment at $155.3 million.
Imports from the United States also included tractors, ethylene polymers, petroleum gases, medicines, frozen fish, and electronic equipment. Production, transport, and energy goods accounted for a significant share of both US and German imports.
Türkiye ranked fifth, with a deficit of $1.34 billion. At the same time, the import coverage ratio by exports stood at 57.1%, the highest figure among the top five countries.
Radar and radio navigation instruments and remote-control apparatus, totaling $332.8 million, stood out in the publicly available commodity structure. Significant supplies also included rolled steel products, petroleum products at $110.1 million, citrus fruits at $83.3 million, electric generator sets at $73.1 million, sunflower seeds at $59.2 million, automotive components, vegetables, and other food products. Trade with Türkiye combines industrial products, technological equipment, metals, and foodstuffs, while the country remains one of the largest markets for Ukrainian exports.
The trade deficit with Greece amounted to $861.5 million. Oil and petroleum products accounted for almost $809 million in the publicly available commodity breakdown. Other categories included petroleum coke and bitumen at $38.1 million, petroleum gases at $36.4 million, and fertilizers at $35.1 million. The structure of the deficit with Lithuania, which reached $607.7 million, was similar. Petroleum products accounted for $576.1 million of disclosed imports, while petroleum gases accounted for $46.4 million. Ukraine also imported passenger cars, freight vehicles, petroleum coke, fertilizers, polymers, and animal feed.
Unlike China, where the deficit is distributed among numerous technological categories, the imbalance with Greece and Lithuania is largely associated with energy purchases.
The trade deficit with the Czech Republic amounted to $752.4 million. The main import categories included aircraft parts at $101.8 million, passenger cars at $101 million, electric generator sets at $96.6 million, batteries at $44.5 million, telecommunications equipment at $34.3 million, and coal at $32.3 million.
The trade deficit with Hungary reached $658.1 million. The publicly available structure of supplies was dominated by electricity at $349.9 million, petroleum gases at $157.4 million, passenger cars at $113.2 million, and cable products at $87.8 million.
The deficit with France amounted to $648.9 million. The largest categories were plant protection products at $120 million, medicines at $76.1 million, passenger cars at $72.5 million, trucks at $47.7 million, tractors at $39.9 million, and automotive components at $35.3 million. Supplies of sunflower and corn seeds, as well as cosmetic products, were also significant.
Immediately outside the top ten was Sweden, with a deficit of $606.9 million. Exports covered only 8.3% of imports. The main publicly available categories included petroleum products, passenger cars, medicines, and agricultural machinery.
The deficit with Taiwan amounted to $563.8 million, with Vietnam to $544.2 million, and with Japan to $496.9 million. The import coverage ratio by exports in trade with these countries ranged from only 3.8% to 5.8%. Supplies from Taiwan included unmanned aerial vehicles at $205.3 million, radar and navigation equipment at $58.4 million, integrated electronic circuits at $55 million, and navigation instruments at $47.6 million.
Imports from Vietnam included unmanned aerial vehicles at $132.7 million, telecommunications equipment at $108.7 million, computer equipment, rolled steel products, footwear, coffee, and fish products. Japanese imports were dominated by passenger cars at $302.5 million, as well as motorcycles, automotive components, printing, medical, and construction equipment.
The overall structure of purchases explains a significant part of the trade gap. According to the State Customs Service, machinery, equipment, and transport accounted for $21.3 billion of imports in the first half of 2026, fuel and energy products for $7.4 billion, and chemical industry products for $6.9 billion. Together, these three categories accounted for 72% of imported goods.
Thus, the deficit is not associated solely with the consumption of finished foreign products. A significant part of it is generated by purchases of energy resources, passenger cars, production equipment, electronics, batteries, generators, pharmaceutical products, agricultural machinery, and components.
“The trade deficit cannot be assessed exclusively as a negative indicator. Amid the war and large-scale reconstruction, a significant share of imports serves a critical or investment purpose. Ukraine purchases energy resources, generators, batteries, transport, industrial equipment, electronics, medicines, and components without which it would be impossible to maintain the functioning of the economy, energy sector, and infrastructure,” emphasized Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club information and analytical center.
At the same time, according to him, the concentration of the deficit creates risks of dependence on individual suppliers, increases demand for foreign currency, and demonstrates the insufficient presence of Ukrainian producers in key foreign markets.
“The problem arises when imports of finished products grow systematically while Ukrainian exports and domestic production fail to develop at a corresponding pace. Trade with China is particularly indicative, as Ukrainian exports cover less than 6% of imports. Such a disparity increases dependence on a single supplier and creates constant additional demand for foreign currency,” the economist stressed.
According to Urakin, the most realistic response lies not in mechanically restricting imports but in localizing the production of goods for which Ukraine has the necessary technological and resource prerequisites, developing industrial cooperation, expanding exports of processed goods, and encouraging foreign suppliers to establish production capacity within the country.
The production of energy equipment, battery systems, electrical equipment, automotive components, construction materials, agricultural machinery, highly processed food products, and certain types of chemical products holds particular potential.
The State Customs Service of Ukraine transferred UAH 420.1 billion in customs payments to the state budget in the first half of 2026, which is 31.9% more than in the same period last year, the Experts Club information and analytical center reports.
In January–June 2025, revenues amounted to UAH 318.5 billion. Thus, over the year, the budget received an additional approximately UAH 101.6 billion. The official data were published by the State Customs Service on July 13, 2026.
The Experts Club Analytical Center compared the State Customs Service’s data with the Ministry of Finance’s operational report on the execution of the state budget for January–June 2026.
Ranking of Customs Revenues by Main Categories
Value-added tax on goods imported into the customs territory of Ukraine remains the main source of customs revenues.
It accounted for approximately 75.7% of all payments transferred by the State Customs Service in the first half of the year. In other words, approximately three out of every four hryvnias of customs revenues were generated by import VAT.
The high share of VAT is explained by the fact that the tax is charged on virtually all taxable imports, including equipment, raw materials, fuel, cars, consumer goods and products intended for industrial use.
After deducting import VAT and customs duties from the total amount, approximately UAH 70.9 billion, or 16.9% of revenues, remains.
The main part of this amount should consist of excise duty on imported excisable goods, primarily petroleum products, cars, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products.
However, in its operational report, the Ministry of Finance indicated only the total excise tax revenues from domestically produced and imported goods — UAH 152.4 billion. The separate amount of import excise duty was not disclosed in the report. Therefore, the figure of UAH 70.9 billion is an estimate and may also include small amounts of other payments administered by customs authorities.
Revenues from import and export duties in the first half of the year amounted to UAH 31 billion, or approximately 7.4% of the total volume of customs payments.
The share of customs duties is significantly lower than that of import VAT because zero or reduced rates apply to many goods under Ukraine’s free trade agreements. In addition, certain categories of equipment, energy products and defense-related goods benefit from tax and customs exemptions.
Structure of Ukraine’s Customs Revenues
Thus, the approximate structure of the UAH 420.1 billion is as follows:
VAT on imported goods — UAH 318.2 billion, or 75.7%.
Import excise duty and other payments — approximately UAH 70.9 billion, or 16.9%.
Import and export duties — UAH 31 billion, or 7.4%.
The Experts Club calculation shows that Ukrainian customs primarily performs the function of administering import VAT. Customs duties themselves account for less than one-tenth of the total volume of revenues.
Cars Accounted for More Than 7% of All Payments
Imports of passenger cars brought UAH 32.1 billion to the state budget in the first half of the year. This corresponds to approximately 7.6% of all revenues transferred by the State Customs Service.
At the same time, petrol-powered cars alone generated UAH 14.6 billion, or approximately 3.5% of all Ukraine’s customs revenues for the six-month period.
Thus, payments from passenger car imports exceeded the total revenues from import and export duties across all product categories.
Large Importers Accounted for 85% of Revenues
In the first half of the year, customs payments were made by 28,300 foreign economic activity participants. Their number increased by 2.5% compared with January–June 2025.
At the same time, only 2,350 companies, or approximately 8% of all payers, accounted for 85% of revenues. Their combined contribution can be estimated at approximately UAH 357 billion.
Another 10,600 enterprises, each of which transferred between UAH 1 million and UAH 20 million, generated UAH 53.5 billion.
Approximately 15,300 representatives of small and medium-sized businesses paid up to UAH 1 million each. Their combined contribution amounted to almost UAH 4.8 billion.
This indicates a high concentration of customs revenues: the majority of revenues depend on a relatively small group of large importers of fuel, cars, machinery, raw materials, pharmaceuticals and consumer products.
Customs Accounted for More Than One-Fifth of General Fund Revenues
In January–June 2026, UAH 1.898 trillion was received by the general fund of Ukraine’s state budget. Customs payments amounting to UAH 420.1 billion were equivalent to approximately 22.1% of this amount.
Including the general and special funds, state budget revenues for the first half of the year amounted to UAH 2.52 trillion.
The 31.9% growth in customs revenues significantly outpaced the increase in the number of payers, which amounted to only 2.5%. This indicates that the main growth factors were an increase in the value of taxable imports, changes in the exchange rate, an increased tax burden on certain categories and higher payments from the largest companies.
The most comprehensive official source of detailed information by budget classification codes is the state Open Budget portal. The State Customs Service publishes the total volume of payments and the structure of payers, while the Ministry of Finance publishes the main tax categories. At the time this material was prepared, a separate comprehensive table from the State Customs Service showing the distribution of the UAH 420.1 billion across all types of payments in a single document had not been published.
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.
The largest suppliers of beer to China in the first half of 2026 were Germany ($53.2 million), the Netherlands ($45.8 million), and Spain ($41.5 million), according to data from the General Administration of Customs (GAC) of the People’s Republic of China.
From January through June, China imported beer from 54 countries, while exporting its own beer to more than 100 countries worldwide.
The volume of tractor imports to Ukraine in January–June 2026 totaled $434.7 million, up 3.2% from the same period in 2025 ($421 million), according to statistics from the State Customs Service.
According to the published statistics, tractor imports in June rose by 14.4% compared to June of last year and by 11% compared to May of this year, reaching $72.7 million.
From January through June 2026, tractors were imported primarily from Germany (19.4%, or $84.3 million), China (19.16%, or $83.3 million), and the United States (nearly 18.4%, or $79.9 million), whereas last year the United States was the leader ($79.71 million), China was second ($73.8 million), and Germany ranked third ($73.1 million).
According to statistics from the State Customs Service, tractor exports totaled $4.93 million in the first half of the year, mostly to Belgium (25.3%), while last year’s exports amounted to $2.93 million, with the majority of shipments going to Romania (38%).
As previously reported, tractor imports into Ukraine in 2025 totaled $845.7 million, a 7.9% increase over the 2024 figure; the main suppliers were the United States ($179.7 million), Germany ($145 million), and China ($142.8 million).
Exports totaled $6.6 million, compared to $5.4 million in 2024, with the majority going to Romania, Belgium, and Germany.
