The Arms Industry Council has called for certain provisions of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 875 (of 1 July 2026), which sets out new rules for exporting defence products, to be revised. The organisation wrote about this on Facebook.
The Arms Industry Council says the provisions that need revision include the fee for an export permit, the requirement to pay it in advance even before a contract is fulfilled, as well as conditions that create barriers to test shipments. According to the organisation, the permit fee could amount to 20–30%.
In particular, the Council proposes:
- setting the permit fee rate at zero;
- not charging the fee in advance until the contract has actually been fulfilled;
- providing for refunds if a contract does not go ahead;
- simplifying the conditions for test, demonstration and pilot shipments;
- making application review procedures transparent and predictable.
Separately, the Arms Industry Council stresses the need to regulate the Build with Ukraine mechanism. According to the organisation, international partners report more than 200 initiatives and cooperation applications that still remain without a decision or feedback.
The Council believes that, against the backdrop of tighter localisation requirements for defence production in Europe, the Build with Ukraine mechanism could be an important tool for bringing Ukrainian technologies to the European market, attracting defence financing, creating joint ventures and scaling up production.
Anastasiya Mishkina, Executive Director of the Technological Forces of Ukraine, an association of private defence technology manufacturers, also emphasised in an interview with LB.ua. that the rate for Ukrainian arms exporters is too high.
“20–30% of the value of an export contract is too much and, in our view, economically unjustified. By an overwhelming majority, the TFU has stated that the rate should be zero. The decision on the so-called fast track was meant to make exports administratively easier, but these rates make them economically unprofitable. Because the price on the global market is set not by the manufacturer but by the market and competition. And this additional fee eats up all the earnings, and the contract is highly likely to go to another manufacturer. In other words, through our own regulations we are giving competitors abroad a price advantage,” she said.
She added that the association proposes setting a zero rate at the outset, and before introducing any other rate, first calculating possible scenarios.
As a reminder, on 1 July the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a resolution intended to launch an accelerated procedure for exporting weapons. However, as of today, the process has still not been launched. Arms manufacturers are still waiting for the Ministry of Defence to provide a list of critical items that cannot be sold abroad, and manufacturers still do not understand how the Drone Deal procedure is supposed to work — the mechanism that was meant to set the framework for which countries weapons can be sold to.
On 15 September, the Verkhovna Rada did not support draft law No. 15400 on directing this fee to the Ministry of Defence. Under the document, 50% of the funds were to go towards the purchase, modernisation and repair of weapons and military equipment, and the other 50% towards pay for servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.