August 13, 2026. Amidst an ongoing war and the necessity to mobilize all resources for defense, the Ukrainian diplomatic corps has faced a serious crisis of trust. People's Deputy Dmytro Kysilevskyi, in his exclusive column for RBK-Ukraine, raised a sharp issue: many Ukrainian ambassadors abroad, instead of promoting goods from domestic manufacturers, are actively helping foreign companies enter the internal market of Ukraine, ignoring the interests of their own enterprises.
The Paradox of the Diplomatic Mission: Who is Helping Whom?
According to the data provided, a number of incidents have been recorded over the last six months demonstrating a blurring of priorities in the work of diplomats. In one case, the Ukrainian ambassador to one of the European countries told a representative of a local producers' association: "It is a pity that goods from my country of residence were not bought in Ukraine. I represent companies from my country of residence." This statement causes bewilderment, considering the presence of competitive manufacturers of similar products in Ukraine. Instead of lobbying the interests of Ukrainian exports, the diplomat effectively acts as an agent for attracting imports.
A similar situation occurred with the ambassador to one of the Asian countries, who at a conference asked Ukrainian government members where companies from his country of residence should apply for supplies to Ukraine. Meanwhile, this product is also produced in Ukraine. The diplomat effectively engaged in finding a sales market for foreign partners within the country, instead of opening doors for Ukrainian companies abroad.
Budget Holes and Ignoring Domestic Production
Particularly alarming is the practice of procurement by state bodies. The Deputy Minister of one of the departments (YYY) directly told ambassadors: "We need such-and-such goods. The money is there, find it." Meanwhile, as early as April of this year, a list of Ukrainian manufacturers capable of meeting this need was submitted to the ministry. Instead of concluding contracts with domestic factories, the department, in essence, dragged it out until the last moment to spend budget funds on purchasing goods abroad. This not only damages local business but also reduces tax revenues necessary for financing defense.
Contradictory Data
There is an obvious contradiction between the stated goals of the diplomatic service and the actual actions of some employees. On the one hand, the official task of diplomats is to seek help and promote the Ukrainian brand. On the other hand, as Dmytro Kysilevskyi claims, we are dealing with a "fundamental misunderstanding of Ukrainian economic interests." While foreign ambassadors in Ukraine clearly know the trade structure and their own interests, Ukrainian diplomats, it seems, do not have a clear strategy for protecting the domestic market. Kysilevskyi notes that some ambassadors even oppose the introduction of anti-dumping measures against goods from their countries of residence, which could lead to the closure of Ukrainian enterprises and rising unemployment.
A Test of Loyalty and Economic Literacy
To solve this problem, the deputy proposes introducing strict KPIs for embassies and conducting a kind of "test" for current diplomats. Questions concern personal acquaintance with exporters, participation in exhibitions, and export dynamics. Critically important is the question of how the diplomat reacts to credits provided by the country of residence: if the credit is spent on foreign goods instead of Ukrainian ones, this is considered a failure of the mission. Kysilevskyi proposes that diplomats who do not pass this test take an educational leave and visit industrial centers of Ukraine — Nikopol, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, and other cities — to personally communicate with manufacturers and understand the real economic situation.
