Ukraine registered 1,344 money laundering (Article 209) cases in 2025—up from 283 in 2019, almost a 5-fold increase. The estimated value of laundered assets reached UAH 12.35 billion, while only UAH 590 million was frozen. Meanwhile, 609 cases reached court, compared with just 88 six years ago. (⁠Opendatabot) At first glance, this looks like an explosion in financial crime. It isn’t that simple. The surge is driven by three structural changes: • Legislative reform (2020): Article 209 can now be added to corruption, tax and other economic crime cases without first obtaining a conviction for the predicate offence. • Stronger enforcement: While the National Police opened 61% of AML proceedings, BEB and NABU uncovered 81% of the total value of identified laundered assets—UAH 5.42 billion and UAH 4.56 billion, respectively. Their cases are fewer but significantly larger and more complex. (⁠Opendatabot) • International pressure: EU accession, IMF commitments and FATF standards continue to raise expectations for financial transparency and AML enforcement. For investors, the takeaway is clear: An Article 209 case is no longer a sufficient risk indicator by itself. It must be assessed in context—its procedural stage, the company’s role, and the underlying allegations. That’s where business intelligence adds value. Good due diligence doesn’t just find criminal proceedings. It explains whether they actually matter.

Ukraine remains one of Europe’s most promising investment destinations. Reconstruction, industrial relocation, defence technologies, energy, agriculture and logistics continue to attract international interest despite the ongoing war. However, the risk landscape has evolved significantly since 2022. Traditional financial and legal due diligence alone is no longer sufficient. Investors increasingly need a broader understanding of operational, regulatory and reputational risks before committing capital or selecting local partners. Below are five areas that deserve particular attention. 1. Ownership structures and sanctions exposure Ownership verification now extends far beyond identifying the ultimate beneficial owner. Companies may have indirect links to sanctioned individuals, Russian or Belarusian counterparties, politically exposed persons, or entities operating through intermediary jurisdictions. These relationships are often hidden behind several layers of ownership or nominee structures. A robust assessment should verify: ultimate beneficial ownership; historical ownership changes; sanctions exposure across management, shareholders and affiliates; relationships with sanctioned counterparties. 2. Mobilisation and operational resilience Human capital has become a strategic risk. Mobilisation, workforce shortages and regional security conditions can significantly affect a company’s ability to fulfil contracts, maintain production or deliver services. Investors should understand: dependence on key personnel; contingency planning; geographic concentration of operations; business continuity measures. 3. Reputation beyond public records In wartime, reputational risks may not appear in official databases. Relationships with occupation authorities, controversial wartime activities, corruption allegations, conflicts with local communities or problematic business practices may only become visible through local source enquiries and stakeholder interviews. Understanding how a company is perceived by customers, competitors, suppliers and regulators often provides insights unavailable from public records alone. 4. Government exposure and regulatory dependencies Many Ukrainian businesses interact closely with public authorities through procurement, licensing, infrastructure, customs or regulated sectors. Investors should evaluate: dependence on government contracts; regulatory approvals; relationships with state-owned enterprises; exposure to future policy or legislative changes. Identifying these dependencies early helps assess long-term business stability. 5. Cybersecurity and supply-chain resilience Cyber threats remain a persistent feature of Ukraine’s operating environment. At the same time, supply chains continue to evolve due to changing logistics routes, infrastructure constraints and security considerations. Due diligence should therefore include: cybersecurity governance; incident response capabilities; resilience of critical suppliers; logistics alternatives and business continuity planning. Looking beyond traditional due diligence Today’s investment decisions require more than reviewing corporate registries and financial statements. Combining corporate intelligence, source-based enquiries, sanctions analysis, reputational assessment and operational risk evaluation provides a more complete picture of a potential partner or acquisition target. As Ukraine continues to attract international investment, organisations that adopt a broader, intelligence-led due diligence approach will be better positioned to identify opportunities while managing the unique risks of a wartime economy. For LinkedIn, I’d keep it concise and focused on the change in investor expectations rather than promoting services. Due diligence in Ukraine has changed. Has your investment process? Entering the Ukrainian market in 2026 requires more than checking financial statements and corporate registries. Investors should also assess: • Hidden ownership and sanctions exposure• Workforce and mobilisation risks• Wartime reputation and stakeholder perception• Dependence on government decisions and public procurement• Cyber resilience and supply-chain stability Many of these risks cannot be identified through open sources alone. They require local insight and a broader intelligence-led approach. As investment in Ukraine accelerates, thorough due diligence will become a competitive advantage—not simply a compliance exercise.

When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, international assistance to Ukraine focused heavily on immediate stabilization. Governments and international institutions rushed to prevent economic collapse, support public finances, maintain essential services, and provide humanitarian relief. Four years later, the structure of that support looks markedly different. According to the latest Ukraine Support Tracker published by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, military assistance remains robust while an increasing share of resources is directed toward drone-related capabilities and defence production. The findings illustrate a broader transformation in how Ukraine’s partners view the country’s needs—and its role in European security. The Early Priority: Keeping the State Functioning In 2022 and 2023, much of Western assistance focused on ensuring that Ukraine could continue operating as a state under wartime conditions. Financial support helped fund public sector salaries, pensions, healthcare, education, and critical infrastructure. The priority was straightforward: maintaining economic and institutional stability while the country resisted military aggression. This support proved essential. Without it, Ukraine would have faced not only military challenges but also severe fiscal and social disruption. The Shift Toward Security and Defence As the war evolved into a prolonged conflict, international priorities began to change. Military aid increasingly became the dominant component of support packages. Air defence systems, artillery, ammunition, armored vehicles, training programmes, and intelligence cooperation moved to the centre of assistance efforts. The latest data from the Kiel Institute indicate that European military support remains at historically high levels, even as financial and humanitarian allocations have slowed compared to earlier phases of the war. This does not necessarily signal declining commitment. Rather, it reflects a growing consensus among Ukraine’s partners that long-term security is becoming the key prerequisite for recovery and reconstruction. The Emergence of the Drone Economy Perhaps the most striking development is the rapid rise of drone-focused assistance. According to the Ukraine Support Tracker, European allocations dedicated specifically to drones have increased dramatically, reaching approximately €1.6 billion during the first four months of 2026 alone. Roughly 12% of European military aid now targets drone production and related capabilities. This trend mirrors developments on the battlefield. Ukraine has become one of the world’s leading laboratories for the development and deployment of unmanned systems. Drones are now used for reconnaissance, targeting, logistics, force protection, electronic warfare, and long-range strike operations. What began as an emergency wartime adaptation has evolved into a sophisticated ecosystem of manufacturers, software developers, component suppliers, and military users. For many international partners, supporting Ukraine increasingly means supporting the technologies shaping the future of warfare. From Recipient to Contributor An equally important shift is taking place beneath the surface. In the early stages of the war, Ukraine was primarily viewed as a recipient of assistance. Today, it is increasingly seen as a source of operational knowledge, innovation, and practical experience. European governments and defence companies are paying close attention to lessons emerging from Ukraine’s battlefield environment. Cooperation is becoming less about transferring existing capabilities and more about jointly developing new ones. This transition is particularly visible in the drone sector, where Ukrainian companies are increasingly becoming partners rather than merely beneficiaries. What It Means for Business The evolution of international support offers valuable insight into where future opportunities may emerge. For investors, defence manufacturers, technology firms, and industrial partners, the direction of funding often signals the direction of future markets. The progression from budget support to military assistance—and now toward drone-centred capabilities and defence-industrial cooperation—suggests that Ukraine’s role within Europe’s security architecture is becoming deeper and more structural. While reconstruction remains an important long-term theme, defence innovation and security-related technologies are increasingly attracting attention, investment, and strategic partnerships. Looking Ahead The latest Ukraine Support Tracker tells a story that goes beyond aid statistics. It shows how international support has evolved alongside the war itself: from emergency financial assistance designed to keep the state functioning, to military aid intended to strengthen defence, and increasingly toward investment in technologies that may define future conflicts. For businesses and investors monitoring Ukraine, understanding this shift is essential. The most important question is no longer how much support is being provided, but where it is being directed—and what that reveals about the future priorities of Ukraine and its international partners. Entrypoint helps international businesses, investors, and advisory firms understand Ukraine’s rapidly evolving landscape through intelligence-led market research, due diligence, stakeholder mapping, and strategic advisory services.

What began as an emergency wartime response is increasingly becoming a long-term corporate transformation. Since 2022, thousands of Ukrainian businesses have expanded operations into Poland and other EU markets — not only to preserve continuity, but also to access new customers, supply chains, and investment opportunities. According to Polish economic data, Ukrainians registered more than 77,000 new sole proprietorships in Poland between 2022 and mid-2024. In some periods, Ukrainians accounted for nearly 10% of all newly created businesses in the country. Ukrainian logistics operators, manufacturers, restaurant chains, industrial exporters, and defence-tech firms are increasingly building cross-border business structures integrated with European markets. One of the most visible examples is Nova Poshta , which transformed wartime logistics capabilities into an international delivery network spanning Poland, Germany, Czech Republic, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy, and other European markets. Ajax Systems accelerated international expansion during the war, significantly strengthening its European distribution network while expanding production capacity abroad. Kormotech became another notable example of wartime internationalization. Despite the war, the company expanded exports from 19 to 39 countries and continued investing in manufacturing expansion within the EU. Ukrainian consumer and hospitality brands also expanded aggressively: * Lviv Croissants entered Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and other European markets. * !FEST expanded its “Drunken Cherry” concept into Germany, Switzerland, France, Hungary, Lithuania, and the UK. * Chornomorka continued opening locations abroad during the war. * Aroma Kava also expanded into Central European markets. For many Ukrainian companies, internationalization is no longer simply about wartime survival. It is becoming part of a broader strategic shift toward: * integration into EU supply chains, * diversified operational structures, * access to European financing, * cross-border talent pools, * and long-term regional expansion. The result is the emergence of a more internationally connected, export-oriented, and operationally flexible generation of Ukrainian companies — shaped by crisis, but increasingly competing on a regional European level. Entrypoint supports investors, corporates, and advisory firms in understanding Ukraine’s evolving business landscape through locally sourced business intelligence, operational risk analysis, and strategic due diligence across Ukraine and the broader CEE/FSU region.

For more than three years, discussion around Ukraine’s economy has largely focused on visible wartime damage: destroyed infrastructure, disrupted exports, and direct military risks. Yet for many companies operating in Ukraine, the most significant impact of the war is less visible. The real cost often lies in the accumulation of operational friction affecting nearly every aspect of business activity — from workforce planning and logistics to energy resilience, financing, insurance, and management decision-making. Despite this pressure, many Ukrainian corporates continue operating, adapting, investing, and in some cases expanding internationally. Understanding these hidden costs is increasingly important for investors, lenders, insurers, and international partners evaluating Ukraine-related opportunities. Workforce Pressure and Talent Availability One of the most significant long-term corporate challenges has been labor availability. Large-scale migration, mobilization, and demographic pressures have affected staffing across multiple sectors, including manufacturing, logistics, construction, agriculture, and technology. For many companies, the challenge is no longer simply growth — but maintaining operational continuity: * replacing experienced personnel, * retaining key technical staff, * adapting management structures, * and maintaining productivity under prolonged uncertainty. In some sectors, wage inflation and recruitment competition have become structural rather than temporary issues. Energy Resilience as a Corporate Function Russian strikes against energy infrastructure transformed energy security into a board-level operational priority for Ukrainian businesses. Many companies have invested heavily in: * backup generators, * battery systems, * decentralized energy solutions, * Starlink connectivity, * and redundant telecommunications infrastructure. These investments are often essential for operational continuity but create additional capital expenditure and maintenance costs that are rarely reflected in headline economic statistics. For industrial companies, uninterrupted power supply increasingly represents a strategic risk-management issue rather than a technical utility matter. Logistics and Supply Chain Reconfiguration The war has fundamentally altered logistics across Ukraine and the wider region. Businesses have had to adapt to: * changing export routes, * border congestion, * longer delivery cycles, * higher transportation costs, * shifting warehousing requirements, * and evolving security considerations. Many firms have partially relocated operations toward western Ukraine or expanded regional hubs in Poland, Romania, and other neighboring EU jurisdictions to reduce operational vulnerability and maintain access to European markets. This has accelerated the internationalization of some Ukrainian corporates, while simultaneously increasing operational complexity. Insurance and Financing Constraints War-risk perception continues to affect financing availability, insurance coverage, and investment structures. Even fundamentally viable projects may face: * elevated insurance premiums, * restricted lending conditions, * investor caution, * or delayed implementation timelines. For international investors, understanding operational resilience at the company level has therefore become increasingly important. Traditional financial analysis alone may not fully capture wartime operational exposure. This has increased demand for: * operational due diligence, * stakeholder mapping, * supply-chain assessments, * and locally sourced business intelligence. Management Fatigue and Strategic Planning Challenges One of the least discussed corporate risks is prolonged management fatigue. Executives and owners in Ukraine often operate under conditions involving: * constant uncertainty, * security concerns, * disrupted planning cycles, * employee welfare pressures, * and rapidly changing operating conditions. Shorter strategic horizons can affect: * investment decisions, * expansion planning, * recruitment, * and long-term capital allocation. At the same time, many Ukrainian management teams have developed unusually high adaptability and crisis-management capabilities that increasingly distinguish them in regional markets. From Survival to Adaptation The hidden corporate cost of war in Ukraine is therefore not limited to physical destruction. It is the cumulative burden of operational adaptation required to maintain continuity under prolonged geopolitical stress. Yet despite these pressures, many Ukrainian companies continue to: * export, * integrate into European supply chains, * attract strategic interest, * develop new technologies, * and expand internationally. For investors and international partners, this creates a more nuanced picture of Ukraine’s corporate environment — one defined not only by risk, but also by resilience, adaptability, and structural transformation.

The Verkhovna Rada passed the law that moves Ukraine from just being connected to Europe’s grid toward being integrated into Europe’s electricity market logic.  It provides for: ⚡ Market coupling with the EU in the day-ahead and intraday segments ⚡ A legal path toward joining "SDAC / SIDC" EU platforms ⚡ EU-style REMIT rules against market manipulation and insider abuse ⚡ A framework for cross-border trade, transparency, and investor confidence Ukraine still has to tackle: • price caps • balancing / settlement reform • technical and regulatory alignment But its power market is moving from manual management toward European market discipline. For investors, traders, utilities and infrastructure players, this matters a lot. It is a step toward making Ukraine’s electricity sector more tradable, more bankable, and more transparent.

Entering the fourth year of full-scale war, Ukraine is not only holding the line militarily—it is rapidly redefining the global defense technology landscape. What began as necessity-driven innovation on the battlefield has evolved into one of the fastest-growing and most dynamic tech sectors globally . From Survival to Scale Ukraine’s defense tech (miltech) sector has expanded at an extraordinary pace: ~19x growth over the past three years Now the largest and fastest-growing tech vertical in Ukraine Increasing attention from both local and international investors This growth is not theoretical—it is grounded in real deployment, real feedback loops, and real battlefield validation , creating a uniquely accelerated innovation cycle. Capital Is Scaling Fast Investor confidence is translating into rapidly increasing deal sizes: Average deal size (2025): $2.1M ~5x growth in deal size over recent years Total investment trajectory: 2023: $6.7M 2024: $59M 2025: $129M At the same time, the number of deals has slightly declined ( ~–22% in 2025 ), indicating a shift toward larger, more mature and higher-conviction investments . This is a classic signal of sector maturation . A Profitable War-Time Industry Unlike many emerging tech sectors, Ukraine’s miltech ecosystem is already demonstrating commercial viability : Several companies have reached profitability based solely on domestic defense contracts —a rare case globally. Notable Ukrainian defense tech players include: Ukrspecsystems Skyeton Athlon Avia Airlogix TAF Industries Antonov Shyfall Fire / Systems Point These companies operate at the intersection of UAVs, reconnaissance systems, strike technologies, and battlefield analytics —areas where Ukraine now holds practical, combat-tested expertise . Global Integration: The Next Phase Despite still limited export channels, Ukrainian firms are already: Building early-stage cooperation with NATO structures Engaging with U.S. defense organizations Positioning for future large-scale export expansion As regulatory and political frameworks evolve, Ukraine is expected to transition from a domestically-driven defense tech hub to a key global supplier of modern warfare technologies . Broader Tech Ecosystem Resilience The defense tech boom is unfolding within a wider recovery of Ukraine’s tech sector: $498M raised in 2025 (vs. $462M in 2024, +8%) Growth driven by broad early-stage activity , alongside selective large rounds Continued investor engagement despite wartime risks This underscores a critical point: Ukraine’s innovation ecosystem is not just surviving—it is adapting, specializing, and strengthening under pressure . Entrypoint Insight Ukraine’s defense tech sector represents a new category of investment opportunity : Battlefield-proven technologies Rapid iteration cycles unmatched globally Early-stage valuations with asymmetric upside Strategic relevance for NATO-aligned markets However, the sector remains complex: Regulatory constraints Export limitations Ownership transparency Dual-use risks Independent, source-based intelligence and local insight remain critical for navigating this space effectively.

An investigation by Forbes Ukraine revealed a large-scale fraud operation  centred in Dnipro, where a network of call centres created fake cryptocurrency exchanges and defrauded investors from Europe and beyond of millions of dollars . A Funnel Built on Trust and Pressure The scheme began with targeted outreach—cold calls, social media contact, and online advertising. Victims were offered assistance from “investment specialists” promising high returns in crypto markets. They were then directed to professionally designed platforms—pseudo-exchanges with interfaces resembling well-known trading services. After opening an account, victims typically deposited $200–$1,000  to “test” the system. Within days, their dashboards showed rapid gains—sometimes 20–50% returns —entirely fabricated. Scaling the Investment Once trust was established, call centre agents—working from detailed scripts—pushed clients to increase exposure: additional deposits of $5,000–$20,000 , “exclusive opportunities” requiring fast decisions, reassurances backed by fake “market analytics.” In some reported cases, total losses per victim reached tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars . The Exit Barrier When clients attempted to withdraw funds, the process stalled. Victims were told to pay: “taxes” of 10–15% , withdrawal commissions , or “account verification” fees. Even after payment, withdrawals never occurred. Accounts were frozen or deleted, and communication ceased. Operational Structure The investigation describes a coordinated setup in Dnipro: multiple call centres , employing dozens of operators, IT teams  maintaining several parallel fake platforms, CRM systems  tracking victims and payment status, segmentation of roles  (lead generation, conversion, retention). Operators reportedly worked in shifts, handling both new leads and existing victims to maximise extraction. Geography and Targeting The network primarily targeted foreign investors , including individuals in: EU countries, the UK, and other international markets. This cross-border focus reduced the likelihood of immediate legal consequences and complicated investigations. Financial Infrastructure Funds were channelled through: cryptocurrency wallets, intermediary payment services, layered transactions to obscure trails. This made recovery highly unlikely once transfers were completed. Law Enforcement Response Ukrainian law enforcement reportedly conducted searches in Dnipro , identifying elements of the network and seizing equipment. However, as with similar operations: organisers may remain partially unidentified, infrastructure can be quickly replicated, funds are difficult to trace once moved offshore. Why the Model Works The success of the scheme lies in its hybrid nature: technology creates credibility , human interaction builds trust , gradual escalation maximises losses . Unlike simple scams, this model mimics legitimate brokerage operations—making detection harder, even for experienced investors. Entrypoint Insight This case illustrates the industrialisation of investment fraud , where operations resemble structured businesses rather than ad hoc schemes. For investors and corporates, key lessons include: verify platform ownership and regulatory status, conduct background checks on individuals behind investment offers, treat unsolicited investment advice as a primary risk indicator, recognise that displayed profits are not proof of real trading activity . In an environment where fake infrastructure can be deployed quickly and convincingly, independent intelligence and due diligence are critical safeguards .

Russia’s Shrinking Influence Across the Former Soviet Space For the post-Soviet period, Russia maintained a strong political, security, and economic role across the countries that emerged from the fall of the USSR. Through military alliances, energy dependencies, and entrenched political networks, Moscow positioned itself as the central power broker from Eastern Europe to Central Asia. Recent developments, however, suggest that this influence is gradually eroding. The war against Ukraine, growing economic and political diversification among former republics, and shifting regional alliances are reshaping the geopolitical landscape. The Strategic Cost of the War in Ukraine Russia’s invasion in 2014 and the full-scale war in Ukraine in 2022 significantly altered perceptions of Moscow’s power across the region. Rather than reinforcing Russia’s status as a security guarantor, the war has strained its military resources, weakened economic ties with neighboring states, and encouraged governments in the former Soviet Union to pursue more diversified foreign policies. Countries that traditionally balanced between Russia and other global actors — including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Armenia — are increasingly expanding ties with the European Union, China, Türkiye, and Gulf states. These partnerships provide alternative trade routes, investment flows, and security relationships that reduce reliance on Moscow. Waning Alliance Structures Russia historically relied on institutional frameworks such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) to anchor its influence. In practice, however, these mechanisms are showing signs of decay. Most members have become reluctant to rely on Russia for security guarantees following Moscow’s limited response to regional crises, including conflicts in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Armenia’s recent distancing from Moscow and growing cooperation with Western partners illustrates how traditional alliances are being reconsidered. Pragmatism in Central Asia Central Asian governments have adopted an increasingly pragmatic foreign policy posture. Rather than confronting Russia directly, they are diversifying partnerships while maintaining a careful diplomatic balance. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and other regional actors are expanding economic ties with the European Union and China while strengthening regional cooperation among themselves. Energy exports, transport corridors, and infrastructure development projects are increasingly oriented toward global markets rather than through Russian routes. For Moscow, this trend represents a gradual but meaningful loss of leverage over a region long considered part of its strategic backyard. Limits of Russian Power Projection Recent international developments also underscore the limits of Russia’s geopolitical reach. Analysts increasingly note that Moscow’s ability to support partners or intervene decisively abroad has diminished as resources are wasted on the war with Ukraine and domestic economic inefficiencies. Diplomatic tensions and shifting alliances among states historically aligned with Russia demonstrate a broader recalibration of relationships. While Moscow remains an actor in Eurasia, its partners are now pursuing more autonomous policies and seeking new strategic options. A Multipolar Post-Soviet Space The evolving dynamics point toward a more pluralistic geopolitical environment across the former Soviet region. Instead of a single dominant power, multiple external actors — including the EU, China, Türkiye, and Gulf states — are becoming increasingly influential. For governments in the region, this diversification provides greater room for manoeuvre. For investors and international businesses, it signals a changing landscape where political alignments, economic partnerships, and regulatory environments are becoming more fluid. Russia will remain a regional player, but the assumption that the former Soviet space constitutes an uncontested sphere of its influence is increasingly outdated.

As the defence sector and cybersecurity continue to rise to the top of strategic priorities for governments, investors, and corporates alike, Oleg’s extensive experience and proven professionalism further strengthen Entrypoint’s position in Business Consulting, Risk Advisory, Defence advisory, and Cyber Intelligence solutions . Drawing on his background as a former senior official of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Economy , as well as other important leadership roles in both government and the private sector, Oleg brings unique institutional insight and strategic perspective. His expertise significantly enhances our ability to support clients operating in increasingly complex, sensitive, and high-risk environments. We are delighted to welcome Oleg to the partnership and look forward to building the next phase of Entrypoint’s growth together.