As of mid-October 2026, the Ukrainian economy is demonstrating a dangerous structural divergence: consumption, fueled by imports and international aid, continues to grow, while industrial production remains in a phase of contraction. In an exclusive column for RBC-Ukraine, former NBU Council Head Bogdan Danylyshyn analyzes which fiscal and investment policy scenario can preserve the country's production base and lay the foundation for post-war recovery. According to his assessment, without the urgent unification of budgetary resources, banking capital, and international support, Ukraine risks losing the very layer of economy that provides long-term foreign exchange earnings and employment.
Production vs. Consumption: Numbers That Don't Add Up
A macroeconomic review based on Ministry of Economy data records a 0.3% decline in gross fixed capital formation in the first half of 2026. At the same time, retail trade and consumer demand generate value added and support employment, but they do not replace investments in production capacities. When domestic supply is limited, part of the additional demand is met by imports. Operational customs data for the nine months confirm this dynamic: merchandise imports increased by 26.9%, exports decreased by 0.1%, and the trade deficit reached $46.3 billion. Danylyshyn emphasizes that not all of this import is consumer-driven—equipment, energy resources, and defense components support the country's survival, but the problem lies in the insufficient ability to earn foreign currency through domestic production.
The Price of Lost Time: 78.9% of Pre-War Level
Accumulated losses make slow growth particularly dangerous. If we consistently apply the annual GDP changes for 2022–2025, the aggregate volume of the economy is approximately 78.9% of the 2021 level. At a constant growth rate of 2% annually, returning to the pre-war base would take about twelve years, and at 4%, about six. The author of the column stipulates that this is a conditional calculation without taking into account new destructions and is not a forecast, but it clearly shows the price of lost time. Moreover, returning to the pre-war volume would not yet mean overcoming the lag behind European neighbors, making the task of recovery more large-scale than simply returning to 2021.
Energy Priority: Every Hryvnia Means Operating Hours
Russian aggression remains the root cause of economic exhaustion, and no interest rate will compensate for a destroyed power plant, loss of personnel, or a blow to logistics. However, economic policy determines whether an enterprise can survive these losses and recover. According to the joint assessment of the Ukrainian government, the World Bank, the European Commission, and the UN (RDNA5), recovery needs at the end of 2025 amounted to nearly $588 billion for ten years, of which about $91 billion was for energy alone. Danylyshyn reminds that these figures characterize the scale of needs rather than already allocated financing, and do not cover the destructions of 2026; taking recent months into account, needs may triple. Under such conditions, the main investment criterion becomes the question: how many hours of uninterrupted operation of enterprises, hospitals, and utilities does every spent hryvnia provide? Recovery must combine large energy facilities with distributed generation, storage, cogeneration, backup grids, and energy efficiency measures, with specific solutions matching local load, fuel availability, and maintenance capabilities.
Banking Capital Already in Play: UAH 68.7 Billion for Energy
Reconstruction of the energy system does not need to start from scratch. According to the NBU, as of the end of September 2026, banks had already begun financing energy projects for businesses and households totaling UAH 68.7 billion. At the same time, the author specifies that this amount is not identical to the cost of already commissioned capacities. That is why government and local administrations need to ensure proven grid connection timelines, fuel sources, responsible operators, and repair financing. Restoring energy supply, according to Danylyshyn, also has an anti-inflationary effect as it reduces enterprise costs and limits the growth of prices for final products.
A UAH 50 Billion Package: Energy Resilience, Guarantees, and Personnel
As a concrete proposal, Danylyshyn formulates a UAH 50 billion package aimed at three areas: increasing the energy resilience of enterprises, expanding war risk guarantees, and training personnel for industry. In parallel, it is necessary to expand 'long money' mechanisms—credit support with the participation of international donors and war risk insurance. Without such an instrument, industrial recovery remains dependent on short-term financing, which does not cover the payback horizon of large production projects. The combination of budget resources, banking capital, and international support, according to the author's design, should turn the current divergence between consumption and production into a controlled transition to sustainable growth rather than chronic import dependency.
