Category: Blog

Pricing issues in the logistics industry are extremely relevant today. A particularly significant aspect is that an emphasis on “cheap at the start” typically results in a much higher cost of error later. This can manifest as breaches of agreed deadlines, downtime, fines, or loss of clients. That is why Ukraine needs a reliability rating for logistics companies, rather than a price ranking.

What the Market Watches vs. What it Overlooks

One of the key problems facing the modern logistics services market is that the focus is centered on the rate, while a whole range of other factors remains overlooked, namely:

• Risk profile;

• Service discipline;

• Readiness for force majeure;

• Transparency.

Therefore, a selective focus on the price factor becomes the fundamental error in selection, leading to partnerships that ultimately disappoint.

Current Insights into the Logistics Sector

To address this, let’s highlight three key metrics that are most significant for assessing a logistics partner’s reliability:

1. Speed and quality of response to force majeure;

2. Transparency and process control;

3. Company experience and longevity, which serves as evidence of reliability.

In my opinion, it is equally vital to consider scenarios where a low freight rate hides the exclusion of THC (Terminal Handling Charges), local port fees, storage, or free time. Furthermore, vehicle downtime often occurs, fuel surcharges appear, and there are re-issuances of bills of lading or additional certificates that were supposedly agreed upon in advance.

For example: A client saves money at the start but loses both time and money later. Consider a customs clearance case where a competitor offered a 30% cheaper rate for filing a Customs Declaration. However, the “cheapest” broker submitted an incorrect commodity code, forcing the importer to pay an additional 1.5% in duties—amounting to approximately $10,000.

It is also crucial to watch for “red flags” that indicate reliability is unlikely. This includes “guarantees” of transit time and cargo safety. While these factors can be managed with care, they cannot be legally guaranteed.

5 Significant Criteria to Consider When Choosing a Logistics Provider

When asked about selection criteria, I believe you should focus on the following:

• KPIs for maintaining ETD conditions: % of shipments without disruptions (no rollovers, no route changes due to the forwarder’s fault, no critical delays);

• KPIs for maintaining quoted costs: % of shipments without additional unplanned expenses;

• Volume metrics: Not the primary factor, but important to show how the company performs under load;

• Annual volume: (TEU / MT / trucks / charters);

• Client retention rate: (Year-over-year).

Additionally, a global agent network should be added to this list.

Additional Criteria for a Reliable Carrier

Beyond the aforementioned points, you should also consider:

• The carrier’s experience in their specific niche;

• Transit times;

• Availability of their own fleet;

• Recommendations from B2B clients;

• Pricing transparency and a clear breakdown of all services included in the tariff;

• Level of customer service, including 24/7 support, convenient communication channels, and cargo status reporting;

• Ability to offer alternative routes in case of force majeure;

• Capability to provide necessary shipping conditions for specialized cargo (e.g., hazardous materials, etc.).

If you take all these factors into account when choosing a freight forwarder, it will significantly increase the chances of a successful partnership.

In the challenging conditions of wartime, Ukrainian logistics continues to face a wide range of risks and challenges. These are constantly evolving, as the field is highly dynamic and influenced by both domestic processes and international factors.

CEO Pavlo Lynnyk and Commercial Director Volodymyr Huz discuss the current context for logistics companies.

What logistics solutions do you consider most effective for mitigating risks in 2026?

Volodymyr Huz: In 2026, the key factor for resilience is diversification and supply chain controllability, rather than relying on a single “ideal” route. When distributing flows, one must consider local risks perceived by importers. Insurance and tariffs are also vital issues. It is particularly worth noting that insurance services have surged in price and continue to get more expensive—rising from 1% to 3.5%.

Poland remains a key hub. We can assume that in March, this traffic will continue to be oversaturated. However, it remains effective as it allows for work with various transport modes—container ships, trucks, and rail. By the way, rail can reach the final destination directly (which is cheaper but not very fast) or, for example, go to the Mostyska border crossing, from where the cargo can be picked up by truck.

One should not forget other European alternatives. Constanța hasn’t gone anywhere and has become more active as of today. It is a sort of European “Plan B.” Similarly, Rijeka remains a solid hub for rail service via Budapest, which is a good option for certain importers.

If we are talking about connections with Northern and Central Europe, the USA, Canada, and South America, then Germany and the Benelux countries can be considered alternatives to Poland. This is relevant for high-margin goods where one wants to avoid the risks in Poland, such as the port closures seen in early January.

Pavlo Lynnyk: From our experience, the most effective solutions are: multimodal routes with the ability to quickly switch between ports, countries, and transport modes; the regionalization of logistics and use of dry ports, border hubs, and temporary storage warehouses closer to the client; and combining shipping lines with alternative services to avoid dependence on a single global player.

Effectively, in 2026, the winner is not the one who is cheaper, but the one who is more stable and adapts faster.

What changes in carrier behavior are you already recording at the beginning of 2026, and what do you expect in the next 6–12 months? Are you seeing a return of the fleet to traditional routes, or is the priority still on alternative paths?

Volodymyr Huz: Regarding road carriers, we are currently observing an increase in tariffs. This applies to truck and container transport both within Ukraine and in international logistics. However, it is important to understand the market context: prices are simply rising to market levels and moving away from the dumping that characterized last year. Therefore, current price levels are market-optimal rather than inflated.

An identical trend is observed in the break-bulk fleet. Small dry-cargo vessels (3,000–5,000 tons) have nearly doubled their freight costs in the Black Sea. For example, six months ago, import tariffs to Ukraine were $20–$25 per ton; now they are around $40 per ton.

Conversely, container prices to Ukraine continue to decrease. Precise pricing depends on the factor of traffic returning to the Suez Canal. As of now, CMA has announced they are not returning, while MAERSK has returned with two services.

Pavlo Lynnyk: Overall, carriers are becoming more pragmatic. they are conducting fewer experiments and focusing more on profitable and predictable routes. Transport prices are also rising. The winner is the one who provided work early on, but no one intends to hold back tariffs or prices while demand exists.

Thus, alternative routes (via Poland, the Baltics, Southern Europe, and multimodal corridors) remain a priority, especially for Eastern Europe and Ukraine. At the same time, carriers are reducing their risk tolerance. They are reviewing terms more frequently, introducing surcharges, and shortening free time.

What do you think will be the main challenges in your industry throughout 2026?

Volodymyr Huz: It is important to mention the underloaded export format in Ukraine regarding containers. Imports heavily prevail over exports. There are currently no signs that Ukrainian exports will begin to be accounted for in full-scale volumes. Therefore, I predict this trend will persist for the near future, and possibly for all of 2026.

Pavlo Lynnyk: Major trends will also include the unpredictability of geopolitics and regulatory decisions, which can instantly change routes, rates, and infrastructure availability; a deficit of quality infrastructure on alternative corridors, as warehouses, terminals, and rail hubs do not always keep up with demand; and pressure on margins, as clients expect “peacetime” service levels despite increased costs and risks.

Additionally, a human resources challenge is emerging. There is a growing need not just for logisticians, but for specialists who think in terms of scenarios, risks, and finance.

Adapting to all these challenges is a necessity for a modern logistics company. You either adjust to them or leave the market—these are today’s realities.

Since February 24, 2022, Ukrainian airspace has been closed to civil aviation; however, this does not mean that air logistics has disappeared. It has simply moved geographically beyond the country’s borders. Let’s take a closer look at how this process unfolds.

Situation Assessment 2022–2025: Is there air cargo in Ukraine?

Let’s briefly review the chronology.

2022: The day civil aviation stopped

With the start of the full-scale Russian invasion, flights ceased. The closure of airspace for civil aviation and cargo became a breaking point. Adaptation to new, complex conditions and the search for alternatives began.

2023: The market restructured with the involvement of neighbors

In 2023, air logistics adapted to the specifics of martial law. Now, cargo and passengers reach hubs in Poland, Slovakia, etc., by road or rail—and fly or ship as air cargo from there. This created a kind of “new normal,” where the phrase “air from Ukraine” became firmly associated with “air via neighbors.” Naturally, this term implies additional costs, time, and the risks of the inland leg.

2024: The return of the reopening theme—but in the language of risk

Up to a certain point, when it seemed to society that the war might end sooner, one could hear the question: “When will the sky open?” The discourse of 2024–2025 has changed.

Public signals about partial restoration scenarios appear periodically. For example, this could involve a single airport, limited routes, and additional security protocols. However, the key issue hinges on the risks of strikes, air defense operations, insurance, and liability.

2025: Insurance as the market’s “on/off switch”

Previously, there were even statements about a potential launch of flights in early 2025, but even then, it was presented as an “if we’re lucky” scenario contingent on insurance solutions. As of today, it is finally clear: airlines will not enter without a proper insurance solution.

For instance, Crispin Ellison, a senior partner at the insurance company Marsh McLennan, stated during the Kyiv International Economic Forum in 2024 that flights could resume by the end of January 2025 at one of Ukraine’s airports, specifically “Lviv” or “Boryspil.”

We now see how much unfounded optimism was present in such interpretations of possible future events.

Infrastructure: Airports must be restored even before the first flight

A separate layer of the 2022–2025 reality is airport infrastructure. It has been officially stated that a significant portion of civil airports sustained damage. This means that “opening” does not equate to “flying tomorrow.” To resume flights in Ukraine, inspections, restoration of systems, personnel, procedures, and certifications are required.

In terms of figures, as early as 2024, Prime Minister of Ukraine Denys Shmyhal stated that 15 civil airports had been damaged since the Russian invasion. Even then, the official noted that the military situation and security issues were key to the decision to open airports.

That is why airports in Ukraine must be restored even before the first flight. This is what a sober assessment looks like, devoid of unreasonable optimism in futuristic forecasts. The reality of the previous years has shown that wishful thinking leads to disappointment when desires clash with reality; dreams of returning to a pre-war state cannot be built solely on nostalgic expectations but must have a solid foundation.

For whom the aviation sector is critical even in 2022–2025

Despite the difficult situation in air logistics, this sphere remains critically significant for a number of Ukrainian business sectors, including:

• International E-commerce and Retail: For businesses specializing in sales via Amazon and Etsy, delivery through airports in Poland, Budapest, Vienna, Prague, and Frankfurt provides the speed necessary to remain competitive globally.

• Electronics Manufacturing: Specifically regarding the export of microchips, sensors, and other components. Logistics delays can lead to the shutdown of entire production lines.

• Defense Industrial Complex: Air delivery is vital for supplying spare parts for Western equipment, as well as transporting ammunition and drone systems.

• Pharmaceuticals and Medicine: This involves specific medications and vaccines supplied from abroad.

  These examples do not cover the entire spectrum of industries dependent on air communication, but for them, this format of logistics is especially significant.

Adaptation to changes in air logistics: A specific example

Currently, the actual share of air cargo in GOL’s portfolio is small, accounting for about one percent; however, some significant trends are worth noting:

• The growth rate was highest during the 2024–2025 period.

• For 2026, a similar recovery pace is expected for this direction (at least 2x–3x).

  The most frequent requests include EXW China – Budapest – Kyiv, as well as repackaging services in China or Budapest.

  Despite the lack of direct communication, the air market in Ukraine is undergoing rapid development driven by the demands of the e-commerce sector. Although statistics on air transport are unavailable, it is suggested that Ukraine has not lagged far behind neighbors like Hungary and Poland, which saw 35–40% growth respectively in 2024–2025.

2026+ Scenarios

To avoid falling into unfounded expectations, forecasts should be built realistically. Thus, two key scenarios are worth mentioning:

1. Opening of one airport and operation on limited routes. This is roughly the scenario mentioned above with reference to Crispin Ellison—with the caveat of a 1+ year time shift, as he gave that forecast for early 2025 back in 2024.

2. Longer airport closure, depending on the dynamics of hostilities. If the sector develops according to this scenario, it will involve the growth of border hubs and an emphasis on multimodality.

   Which of these options will be realized in practice depends directly on the specific military situation.

The Bottom Line…

Thus, answering the key question of this review: yes, air transport exists as part of the chain, but not as domestic flight infrastructure. For real changes, the market will wait not for promises, but for published criteria regarding security, insurance, and readiness. Only this will revitalize the aviation sector and ensure a gradual return of its dynamics.

The Suez Canal, which for decades served as a vital part of the trade route between Asia and Europe, has ceased to be a stable solution. Despite a formal decrease in military activity in the Red Sea, the shipping market has not returned to its pre-crisis operational logic.

In turn, the market is currently experiencing planning uncertainty as carriers enter 2026. USM reports on the challenges facing the industry in 2026 and the advice offered by Ukrainian logistics experts.

Challenges Faced by Carriers Last Year

Last year, the route through the Suez Canal remained problematic for a significant portion of the market. As of May, vessel tonnage in Suez was approximately 70% lower than in 2023. This sustained the practice of bypassing via the Cape of Good Hope for many liner services and part of the tanker segment.

The additional miles quickly translated into a capacity shortage. Vessels are tied up in voyages longer, container turnover is slowing down, and free tonnage in the system vanished without any fleet scrapping. In early July, the market received a reminder that Red Sea risk is measured in more than just miles—insurance costs also spiked. War risk premiums rose from approximately 0.3% to 0.7% of the vessel’s value, with some quotes reaching 1%. For a vessel with an estimated value of $100 million, a 0.7% premium means about $700,000 for a single transit, excluding other surcharges.

This state of affairs lasted until October, when Yemeni militants announced a “truce.” However, the first practical signals of a cautious return of shipping to the region only appeared in December. On December 4, the CEO of Hapag-Lloyd stated that the return would be gradual. He estimated a transition period of 60–90 days to restructure logistics and avoid port congestion caused by a simultaneous pivot of numerous services back to Suez.

By December 18–19, 2025, the container ship Maersk Sebarok passed through the Red Sea and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. The company called this an initial transit and did not announce a full return to Suez for its East-West network. Another shipping giant, CMA CGM, announced plans to return to the Suez Canal starting in January (i.e., this year).

Despite the decline in Houthi activity, another marker of instability in Yemen appeared on December 30. The Saudi coalition launched strikes on the port of Mukalla. The Yemen factor remained unpredictable at the end of 2025; thus, the return to Suez appeared managed and phased.

Carrier Sentiments in 2026

Global carriers entered the new year with the same risks and challenges. Although the Red Sea route has not been attacked since September 29, the Suez Canal remained underutilized by 60% even after 100 days without attacks.

BIMCO reported that in the first week of 2026, transits were approximately 60% lower than in the same week of 2023. Since January 2024, when mass diversions around the Cape of Good Hope began, quarterly transit volumes through the canal have remained 51–64% below 2023 levels. Throughout 2025, transits were 57–64% lower than pre-crisis levels, with the largest drop in the container segment (–86% in Q4 compared to 2023). For other segments in Q4 2025, the data is as follows: bulk carriers –55%, crude oil tankers –32%.

The exception is product tankers. Increased freight premiums accelerated their return, so in Q4 2025, their transit was only 19% lower than in 2023 (compared to –45% in 2024).

World carriers have not shown a unified reaction. Maersk announced the resumption of one of its services via the Suez Canal in January. Specifically, a weekly route connecting the Middle East and India with the U.S. East Coast, known as MECL, starts today. It will be the first in the company’s phased return to the Suez route. Maersk also stated that one of its vessels tested the route as the ceasefire in Gaza provided hope for normal shipping, and one vessel also made a voyage through the Suez Canal in December.

In contrast, CMA CGM is scaling back Suez Canal services again—the company is temporarily withdrawing its FAL 1, FAL 3, and MEX services from the Suez route and redirecting them around the Cape of Good Hope. CMA CGM attributed the decision to a “complex and uncertain international context” but provided no further details.

Thus, despite market analysts’ expectations, the “truce” declared by the Houthis in the fall did not automatically return the market to a pre-war state. It appears the route problem will persist in the industry at least through this year, and full recovery may take several years. Returning services to Suez means synchronizing the fleet, crews, port windows, and inland logistics, which will take significant time even in the absence of unpredictable political factors.

This explains why the market saw divergent decisions from lines at the end of the year. For some companies, returning to Suez was an opportunity to release vessels from long voyages faster and increase turnover; for others, the risk remained too high amid a still-unstable security situation. Consequently, instead of a single scenario, a system has formed where different services operate under different logic, even within the same direction.

In these conditions, the main challenge has shifted from choosing the “right” route to managing uncertainty. The entire logistics chain has begun flexible planning, leaving a window for rapid reaction; therefore, issues of diversification, hub selection, and readiness to switch between scenarios have come to the forefront.

How Ukrainian Carriers Should Account for These Issues

Ukrainian logisticians are, of course, monitoring the situation. As Volodymyr Guz, Commercial Director of Global Ocean Link (GOL), told USM, the key focus is now on flexibility and rapid planning.

“We are currently living in a reality where the conditions and terms of the same route can change literally within a week. Therefore, for clients, the key is not to guess which line is right, but to build a chain that can withstand market pivots,” says Volodymyr Guz.

In the near term, GOL management sees that the market continues to respond with falling rates on the Far East – Europe direction. According to the expert, this is about volatility: schedules and conditions will be reviewed constantly rather than once a season. In the short window, the winner will be the one who can first establish a stable service via Suez—before the market accounts for further tariff reductions.

GOL also believes that Ukrainian companies need to diversify their delivery routes.

“For example, regarding sea freight and subsequent delivery to Ukraine, imports through Poland look significantly stable and predictable. The Polish hub provides more options in terms of lines, infrastructure, and inland delivery—this is critical when the maritime portion of the route is ‘floating’,” notes Volodymyr Guz.

At the same time, GOL’s Commercial Director believes there are several steps cargo owners should consider in 2026:

“First—diversify flows: distribute volumes among the top 3 lines so as not to depend on a single carrier or service. Second—place maximum emphasis on the Polish hub as a primary entry/exit point, where it is easier to switch between options and maintain chain control. Third—secure a sufficient pool of inland carriers from Poland in advance and reserve capacity for peak periods,” noted Volodymyr Guz.

According to him, significant congestion is expected at the junction of the 1st and 2nd quarters, and the availability of confirmed inland resources will be the key to meeting deadlines.

“The earlier cargo owners incorporate this into their planning, the fewer surprises there will be regarding deadlines, and the higher the chance to lock in favorable conditions before the next round of market fluctuations,” the expert concludes.

The events surrounding the Suez Canal in recent years demonstrate that global maritime logistics has entered a phase where planning is constantly challenged. Even with a formal decrease in military activity in the Red Sea, the market does not automatically return to familiar models. Line decisions remain fragmented, and the security factor remains variable, which continues to translate into volatility in rates, schedules, and routes.

Against the backdrop of “floating” security in the Red Sea, logistics increasingly operates not as a fixed route; therefore, the ability to quickly transition between these scenarios will determine who in 2026 can maintain timelines, cost control, and competitive conditions.