Latvia continues to enjoy a high level of positive perception among Ukrainians: in August 2026, 68.3% of respondents viewed the country positively, while only 3.9% viewed it negatively. Compared to March, the share of positive assessments has decreased slightly; however, the country continues to rank among the nations with the highest levels of public favor, according to the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center.
According to the results of the August survey, 39.7% of Ukrainians view Latvia entirely positively, and 28.6% view it mostly positively. 26.6% of respondents hold a neutral position. 2.5% view the country mostly negatively, 1.4% view it entirely negatively, and another 1.2% were undecided.
The balance of positive and negative assessments stands at plus 64.4 percentage points. Thus, positive attitudes toward Latvia outnumber negative ones by more than 17 times. Overall, the countries of Northern Europe and the Baltic states maintained some of the highest levels of positive attitudes among Ukrainians in the August wave of the survey.
In March 2026, 71.6% of respondents had a positive attitude toward Latvia: 42.4% viewed it entirely positively and 29.1% viewed it mostly positively. A neutral stance was held by 24.5% of respondents, negative assessments accounted for about 2.6%, and another 1.4% were undecided.
Thus, over five months, the share of positive assessments decreased by 3.3 percentage points—from 71.6% to 68.3%. The negative segment increased by approximately 1.3 percentage points, while the neutral segment rose by 2.1 percentage points. The balance between positive and negative attitudes decreased from approximately plus 69 to plus 64.4 percentage points.
At the same time, the most significant change occurred among respondents with the most strongly positive views: the share of entirely positive assessments decreased from 42.4% to 39.7%, while the share of mostly positive assessments remained close to previous levels—29.1% in March and 28.6% in August.
On an annual basis, the overall picture also remains stable. In August 2025, 72.7% of Ukrainians viewed Latvia positively, while 5.3% viewed it negatively. In other words, the current share of positive responses is slightly lower than a year ago, but the negative segment also remains smaller.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of the research firm Active Group, commenting on the results of the previous survey wave regarding Latvia, attributed the high level of public support to the country’s consistent engagement with Ukraine.
“Ukrainians, in general, are very good at distinguishing between countries that demonstrate consistent support for Ukraine. At the same time, the level of positive attitude is shaped not only by political statements but also by concrete actions that people can experience firsthand. That is precisely why even small countries can have a very strong positive image,” Pozniy noted.
The latest wave of the survey shows a slight decline in positive assessments of Latvia, but no fundamental shift in public perception. More than two-thirds of Ukrainians continue to view the country positively, while the share of negative responses remains below 4%.
The survey was conducted in August 2026 using an online self-administered questionnaire via the SunFlowerSociology panel among 800 Ukrainian citizens aged 18 and older. The maximum theoretical margin of error for indicators at the 50% confidence level is ±3.5 percentage points.
ACTIVE GROUP, BALTIC STATES, EUROPEAN UNION, EXPERTS CLUB, international relations, LATVIA, Pozniy, PUBLIC OPINION, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE
Norway continues to enjoy one of the highest levels of positive perception among Ukrainians: in August 2026, 72% of respondents viewed the country positively, while only 2.7% viewed it negatively. Compared to March, the positive rating has declined slightly, but the overall pattern of assessments remains stable, according to the Experts Club Information and Analytical Center.
According to the results of the August survey, 35.8% of Ukrainians view Norway entirely positively, and 36.2% view it mostly positively. A neutral stance is held by 24.1% of respondents. 2.3% view the country mostly negatively, 0.4% view it entirely negatively, and another 1.2% were undecided.
The balance of positive and negative assessments stands at plus 69.3 percentage points. Thus, positive attitudes toward Norway outweigh negative ones by more than 26 times. According to the overall survey results, the country remains among the leaders in terms of public sentiment, alongside Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Finland.
In March 2026, 72.7% of respondents had a positive attitude toward Norway. At that time, 37.1% of those surveyed described their attitude as entirely positive, and 35.7% as mostly positive. A neutral stance was held by 24.2%, a negative one by 1.9%, and another 1.2% were undecided.
Thus, over the course of five months, the overall share of positive assessments decreased by only 0.7 percentage points—from 72.7% to 72%. The neutral segment remained virtually unchanged—24.2% in March versus 24.1% in August. At the same time, the share of negative responses increased by 0.8 percentage points—to 2.7%.
The balance between positive and negative attitudes decreased from approximately plus 70.8 to plus 69.3 percentage points. The changes remain insignificant and do not indicate a fundamental shift in attitudes toward the country: nearly three-quarters of Ukrainians continue to view Norway positively.
Oleksandr Pozniy, director of the research firm Active Group, commenting on the results of the previous wave, emphasized the stability of the established image of Norway.
“Ukrainians quite clearly differentiate between countries based on levels of trust and actual support. In the case of Norway, we see a consistently high level of positive sentiment, which is not shaped by current events but is based on a long-term perception of the country as a reliable partner. Even a slight decline in the figures does not change the overall picture—Norway remains one of the most positively viewed countries among all those surveyed,” Pozniy noted.
The results of the August wave effectively confirm this assessment. Despite a slight increase in the negative segment, it remains minimal, and the share of neutral responses has remained virtually unchanged. This distinguishes Norway from countries where public assessments have fluctuated significantly over the course of the year.
The previous survey wave was conducted in March 2026 among 800 Ukrainian citizens aged 18 and older using self-administered online questionnaires on the SunFlowerSociology panel. The sample was representative by age, gender, and region; the maximum theoretical margin of error for indicators at the 50% confidence level was ±3.5 percentage points.
ACTIVE GROUP, EXPERTS CLUB, international relations, NORTHERN EUROPE, NORWAY, Pozniy, PUBLIC OPINION, SOCIOLOGY, UKRAINE
As of October 2026, there are 478 individuals in Ukraine, each of whom is registered as the owner or beneficial owner of at least 50 companies. The maximum number of companies linked to a single individual reaches 5,889, according to data from the Unified State Register published by the analytical service “OpenDataBot” on October 26.
According to the study, Vitaliy Ilnitsky of Kyiv remains the individual with the largest number of registered companies, listed as the owner of 5,889 enterprises.
Second place goes to Ruslan Merzlyakov from Donetsk, who is linked to 2,221 companies. Thus, the number of companies registered to the leader of the ranking is more than double that of his closest competitor.
In third place is Vladislav Melekhin from Kyiv, who is listed as the owner or beneficiary of 858 companies.
Fourth place goes to Andriy Puya from Zenkiv in the Poltava region with 799 companies, and fifth place goes to Kateryna Doroshenko from Kyiv with 674 companies.
The top ten also includes Valeriy Ilienko (637 companies), Yuriy Pukhir (571), Andriy Sosonny (525), Tetyana Svyrydyuk (455), and Valeriy Malakhov (408).
Thus, even in tenth place on the ranking, the number of legal entities linked to a single person exceeds 400.
In the study, “mass owners” are defined as individuals who appear in government registries as owners or beneficiaries of at least 50 registered companies. However, the existence of such a record does not mean that the individual single-handedly manages all of the relevant companies.
As Miroslav Laba, a tax and regulatory policy specialist at the Economic Expert Platform, noted, a large number of companies owned or controlled by a single individual does not in itself constitute a violation of the law.
At the same time, the expert believes that the registration of hundreds or thousands of companies under a single individual may indicate the use of nominal directors or owners.
According to him, it is important for tax authorities to identify the actual officers who carry out business operations and are responsible for fulfilling tax obligations.
The use of nominal owners, in the expert’s assessment, is considered a tax risk factor, as it may be accompanied by an opaque management structure and potential tax evasion schemes.
At the same time, the mere fact that a person appears in the registry of a large number of companies does not constitute evidence of fictitious business operations, legal violations, or tax evasion.
The “OpenDataBot” study is based on registration data regarding company owners and ultimate beneficial owners. It does not draw conclusions about the actual financial condition, business activity, or tax compliance of the companies included in the list.
Source: “OpenDataBot,” study “478 Mass Owners of Companies in Ukraine,” October 26, 2026.
AFINA Group LLC, owned by Ruslan Shostak and Valery Kiptik—co-owners of the EVA and Varus retail chains—has made its first shipment of products to Latvia, the company’s press office reported.
“Entering the Latvian market is another important step in the development of AFINA Group’s exports. It is fundamental for us that we are entering the European market with products of Ukrainian origin and are gradually expanding the geographic reach of our own brands. The first shipment to Latvia is already a full-scale commercial shipment, and our next task is to develop distribution and brand presence in local retail,” said Yevhen Svitailo, head of the export department at AFINA Group, as quoted by the press service.
Latvia has become the seventh country where AFINA Group has an export presence, following Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Estonia. Three of the company’s brands—SARMIX, Polar Shine, and Bubble Bunny (the European version of the Vukhashtik brand)—have entered the Latvian market simultaneously. The first shipment includes SARMIX and Bubble Bunny laundry detergents, as well as Polar Shine products.
OZZ has become AFINA Group’s partner in Latvia and will work on expanding the distribution of Ukrainian products in the local market. A presence in the DEPO retail chain is being considered as one of the most promising sales channels.
In addition, it is reported that AFINA Group is continuing negotiations with international partners and working to expand its sales geography so that “Made in Ukraine” products become increasingly visible on the shelves of foreign retailers.
As previously reported, in June 2026, AFINA Group resumed operations of the tower-type production line for laundry detergents at the facilities of PJSC “Vinnitsapobutkhim.” The planned capacity of the tower-type production line is 95 metric tons of dry laundry detergent per production shift.
In August 2025, AFINA Group won an online auction for the privatization of the nationalized PJSC “Vinnitsapobutkhim” with a bid of 608.136 million UAH against a starting price of 301.406 million UAH.
AFINA Group has been operating in the Ukrainian market for over 20 years. It is one of the leading operators in the fields of distribution, logistics, and private label development. The ultimate beneficiaries are Ruslan Shostak (47.5%), Valerii Kiptik (37.5%), Serhii Pototskyi (10%), and Serhii Zaikov (5%).
The company manufactures products under the “Vukhastik,” “SARMIX,” and “iFresh” brands. It serves key national and local retail chains through its own extensive network of branches and distribution logistics centers.
According to data from the YouControl analytical system, in the first quarter of 2026, AFINA Group LLC increased its revenue by 0.65%—to 1 billion 527 million 185 thousand UAH, while net profit amounted to 90.4 million UAH, compared to 156,087,000 UAH in the first half of 2025.
The victory of the opposition “Student List” in Serbia’s snap parliamentary elections on October 25, 2026, opens up the prospect of a change of government after 14 years of dominance by the political force of Aleksandar Vučić. However, as analyzed by the Serbian business publication Parametar, a fundamental change in Belgrade’s position on the Russia-Ukraine war may not occur in the near future: the student movement supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity but has simultaneously declared its intention to maintain Serbia’s refusal to impose sanctions against Russia.
According to preliminary data from the research organizations Ipsos and CeSID, the “Students Are Winning” list received approximately 52% of the vote and can expect to secure 138 of the 250 parliamentary seats. The political bloc “Aleksandar Vučić — United Serbia” won 39.3% of the vote, corresponding to approximately 104 seats.
On the evening of October 25, Aleksandar Vučić acknowledged the defeat of his bloc, stating that the student movement would receive between 135 and 140 seats in parliament, while his political force would obtain around 105.
A total of 126 parliamentary seats is required to independently form a parliamentary majority. Thus, if the preliminary results are confirmed, the student movement will be able to form a new government without the participation of the previous ruling coalition.
The final election results must be approved by Serbia’s Republic Electoral Commission.
As previously analyzed by the Serbian business portal Parametar, the main distinguishing feature of the 2026 elections was the transformation of the student protest movement into an independent political force capable of competing with the Serbian Progressive Party. In an article published on October 6, the outlet noted that the struggle for power had effectively become concentrated between the two largest blocs, while the traditional opposition had been pushed into the background.
At the same time, the key issues facing the future government will include not only the fight against corruption and the reform of state institutions but also relations with the European Union, Russia, China, and neighboring Balkan countries.
Despite its opposition to Vučić, the student movement does not advocate an immediate severing of Serbia’s political and economic relations with Russia.
On September 30, 2026, representatives of the “Students in Blockade” movement published a statement on foreign policy and sanctions, confirming their intention to maintain Serbia’s refusal to introduce restrictive measures against the Russian Federation.
The movement explained its position by citing its negative attitude toward sanctions as an instrument for resolving international conflicts, referring, among other things, to Serbia’s own historical experience and the consequences of sanctions policies for the population. Thus, on one of the most sensitive issues for Ukraine, the position of the future parliamentary force practically coincides with the policy of the previous Serbian authorities.
At the same time, the political program of the “Student List” provides for respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
As reported on October 24 by the European publication The New Union Post, citing the movement’s program, the students support maintaining the policy of not joining sanctions against Russia while simultaneously recognizing Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
This means that the movement does not propose revising Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders but also does not intend to automatically join the European Union’s sanctions policy.
At the same time, the students’ political platform brings together people with different views, including supporters of European integration and more conservative groups.
According to an assessment published on October 21 by the Polish Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW), the student movement has focused primarily on domestic reforms, the fight against corruption, and restoring the independence of state institutions, while avoiding a detailed definition of its foreign policy course.
Therefore, the new government’s eventual policy toward Ukraine and Russia will depend on its personnel composition, the distribution of powers, and decisions made after the formation of the cabinet.
For Ukraine, the movement’s victory creates opportunities to renew bilateral political dialogue, but in itself does not guarantee a change in Serbia’s position on sanctions against Russia.
Under Aleksandar Vučić, Belgrade pursued a policy of balancing between Moscow, Brussels, and Kyiv.
Serbia officially supported Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, provided humanitarian assistance, participated in certain international initiatives, and maintained diplomatic contacts with the Ukrainian leadership. At the same time, the country refused to join most Western sanctions against Russia, continuing to maintain economic and energy ties with Moscow.
In August 2026, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Belgrade, where he held talks with the Serbian leadership. Following the meetings, the parties reaffirmed mutual respect for territorial integrity and their interest in developing economic cooperation.
Ukraine’s position on Kosovo remains an important factor. Kyiv does not recognize its independence, which creates a certain basis for mutual understanding between the two countries on issues of international law and the inviolability of borders.
This position may also be preserved under the new government, since the student movement likewise opposes recognizing Kosovo’s independence.
At the same time, the lack of an intention to impose sanctions against Russia limits the possibilities for a rapid convergence of Kyiv’s and Belgrade’s foreign policy positions.
One possible change could be more active cooperation on European integration, democratic reforms, and the restoration of state institutions.
Representatives of the student movement have repeatedly emphasized the need to strengthen the rule of law, judicial independence, and the fight against corruption.
If the future cabinet intensifies negotiations on Serbia’s accession to the EU, Belgrade will inevitably face the question of more fully aligning its foreign policy with that of Europe, including its approach to sanctions against Russia.
However, to date, the student movement has not declared its readiness to change its position on this issue.
From an economic perspective, a change of government in Serbia could open up additional opportunities for cooperation with Ukraine in industry, construction, energy, agriculture, and information technology.
One potential area remains the participation of Serbian companies in the reconstruction of Ukrainian infrastructure after the war.
Serbia has construction, mechanical engineering, metallurgical, and electrical engineering enterprises whose products could be used in the reconstruction of Ukraine’s energy facilities, transport infrastructure, and industrial enterprises.
Ukrainian businesses, in turn, may be interested in expanding their presence in the Serbian market, developing joint production facilities, and using Serbia as a logistics and investment destination in the Western Balkans.
Additional prospects are associated with the agro-industrial sector, food processing, pharmaceuticals, and technology services.
At the same time, the implementation of such projects will depend on the economic policy of the new government and the willingness of both countries to create practical mechanisms to support bilateral business activities.
As Parametar noted in an analytical article dated September 28, 2026, one of the main problems of the Serbian economy remains its dependence on foreign investment and large state infrastructure programs.
According to data cited by the publication with reference to the National Bank of Serbia, the inflow of foreign direct investment in 2025 decreased by 33.5%, from a record €5.23 billion to €3.48 billion.
Against this background, one of the new government’s primary challenges will be restoring investor confidence and ensuring the predictability of state economic policy.
If institutional reforms are successfully implemented, Serbia could become a more attractive partner for Ukrainian companies interested in operating in the markets of Southeastern Europe.
Thus, the victory of the student movement could contribute to the development of Ukrainian-Serbian relations primarily through economic cooperation, European integration, and institutional reforms.
However, there are currently no grounds to expect Belgrade to automatically shift toward a tougher policy on Russia. The movement’s official position combines recognition of Ukraine’s territorial integrity with a refusal to impose sanctions against Moscow.
The decisive factors will be the new government’s first foreign policy decisions, its personnel composition, and its willingness to develop practical cooperation with Kyiv.
The “Student List” emerged from mass protests that began after the collapse of the railway station canopy in Novi Sad on November 1, 2024, which killed 16 people. The movement’s main demands were an investigation into the tragedy, the fight against corruption, the independence of state institutions, and the holding of early parliamentary elections.
Source: Parametar
The Ukrainian national team took first place in the overall standings at the international competition for veteran strength athletes in Semmering, Austria—and Vadym Goncharenko, a veteran and student at the KNUBA Institute for Veterans, won in three disciplines.
The Ukrainian national team took first place overall at the Strong Spirit’s Games, an international competition held on September 25–26 in Semmering, Austria. Among the 242 medals won by the team were three gold medals by Vadym Goncharenko, a veteran and student at KNUBA’s “Architecture of Resilience” Veterans Institute.
For the third consecutive year, the Strong Spirit’s Games have brought together veterans from around the world. This year, representatives from five countries participated in the competition: Ukraine, the United States, Ireland, Estonia, and Bahrain. A total of 159 veterans and military personnel competed for a spot on the national team, and the top 72 traveled to Austria.
The athletes competed in the bench press, rowing on rowing machines, kettlebell snatch, and air bike. Vadym Goncharenko won in all three disciplines:
The Ukrainian national team took first place overall and won most of the team events:
For the veteran community, competitions like these mean more than just medals. They represent a path to recovery, a return to an active life, support from fellow veterans, and the desire to set new, ambitious goals.
Vadym, congratulations on your triple gold! Congratulations to the entire Ukrainian national team on this triumph! Thank you for your inspiring strength!
https://veterano.info/veteran-vadym-honcharenko-try-zolota-strong-spirits-games-2026
