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.

Entrypoint and Deproil announce the launch of a joint subsurface intelligence capability designed to support investment decision-making in natural resources, including oil & gas, minerals, and energy-transition assets. The partnership brings together Entrypoint’s business intelligence and risk-advisory expertise with Deproil’s advanced geological modelling and reserve-estimation capabilities. The combined offering delivers independent, investment-grade subsurface analysis tailored specifically to the needs of investors, lenders, and advisory firms involved in due diligence, valuation, arbitration, and strategic capital allocation. Subsurface Risk as an Investment Issue In many natural-resource transactions, subsurface uncertainty is frequently mispriced or embedded within commercial assumptions. In-place resources are often conflated with recoverable reserves, while optimistic production forecasts may be insufficiently grounded in geological reality. Structural complexity, compartmentalisation, and development constraints are commonly underestimated, exposing investors to material downside risk. The Entrypoint–Deproil capability addresses this gap by reframing subsurface analysis as an investment-critical intelligence function, rather than a purely technical exercise. Independent Geological Modelling for Decision-Grade Outputs The joint approach integrates multiple data types — including gravity, seismic, well-log, petrophysical, and magnetic data — to construct geologically meaningful inhomogeneous density models from surface to deep subsurface levels. These models are translated into clear, transparent outputs relevant to investment decisions, including: • Independent estimates of recoverable reserves • Defined assumptions and uncertainty ranges • Prediction of initial production (IP) rates • Identification of geological sweet spots and downside risks • Early detection of underperforming development concepts The analysis is designed to complement legal, commercial, ESG, and political due diligence, strengthening valuation discipline and negotiation positioning. Designed for Investors, Advisors, and Disputes The capability is structured to fit typical due-diligence timelines and advisory workflows. It can be deployed at multiple stages of the investment lifecycle — from early screening and pre-LOI assessments to transaction support, refinancing, and arbitration or dispute contexts — providing an independent technical perspective where operator-supplied data may be biased or incomplete. About the Partners Entrypoint  is a business intelligence and risk-advisory firm supporting international investors, financial institutions, and professional advisors across emerging and complex markets. The firm combines political, market, ESG, and asset-level intelligence to support informed decision-making in high-risk environments. The International Trade Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce lists Entrypoint as a Business Service Provider for Ukraine. For further information, please refer to: www.entrypointgroup.com . Deproil   DEPROIL is a geoscience consultancy with more than two decades of experience in subsurface analysis, geological modelling, geologically meaningful joint inverse problem solution for gravity and all geo-data without regularization, reserve estimation, and production forecasting. The firm applies advanced analytical methods to translate complex geological data into practical, decision-oriented insights. For further information, please refer to: www.deproil.com .

U.S. oil giant Chevron and U.S.-linked private equity firm Quantum Capital Group are reportedly collaborating on a $22 billion bid for the international assets of Lukoil, one of Russia’s largest oil companies Chevron is interested in Lukoil’s 5% stake in Kazakhstan’s Tengiz oilfield, which Chevron partially owns and operates, as well as in refining facilities and over 2,000 filling stations across Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Quantum was founded by Texan oil tycoon Wil VanLoh and has already engaged with officials in the Trump administration, arguing that its proposal would consolidate American control over strategically essential energy assets. Other bidders include The Carlyle Group , ExxonMobil , Saudi Arabia’s Midad Holding  Energy, and other suitors that have expressed interest. But any final agreement would require US regulatory approval, effectively giving President Donald Trump a veto over the transaction. Western sanctions tied to the Russian invasion of Ukraine have forced Lukoil into divestment, compelling Russia into a fire sale of prized global assets. Kremlin’s calculus just got harder: sanctions bite, assets are leveraged, and peace doesn’t come cheap — it might be priced in billions. For Vladimir Putin, forced divestments may be the cost of a face-saving way out of the war against Ukraine — and, metaphorically, the price of an Alaska red-carpet welcome. This deal isn’t just corporate M&A — it’s a potential turning point in the economic pressure applied to Moscow and a signal that Western markets are reclaiming influence over energy routes once dominated by Russian state-linked firms. Energy policy isn’t just economics anymore — it’s diplomacy, strategy, and perhaps the real cost of ending a long war. The open question remains: what additional costs would Ukraine be expected to bear to bring the war to an end within this broader geopolitical bargaining framework?