Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

7.9% — and this is "improvement." Why inflation in Ukraine accelerated again after eight months of decline

March price growth has interrupted a prolonged disinflation trend. The NBU has already warned: next come utilities tariffs and new excise taxes on fuel.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 9, 2026 · 2 min read

7.9% — and this is "improvement." Why inflation in Ukraine accelerated again after eight months of decline
Фото: depositphotos.com

In autumn 2025, it seemed the worst was behind: inflation had been slowing for eight consecutive months, falling from a peak of 15.9% in May to 8% in December. But in January the movement stopped, in February it reversed, and March showed 7.9% on an annual basis and +1.7% in just one month.

What became more expensive and why this is no coincidence

The State Statistics Service identifies three leaders in March's price increases: fuel, clothing and footwear, and transportation. Each of these items has a structural explanation. Fuel responds to the annual increase in excise tax burden — this is planned, not situational growth. Clothing and footwear traditionally become more expensive with the start of the new season. Transportation is a derivative of fuel costs and tariff decisions by local authorities.

Core inflation — an indicator that filters out seasonal and administrative spikes — also accelerated: 7.1% year-on-year and 1.5% per month. This means that price pressure is not explained solely by the calendar or official decisions — it is built into the structure of business costs.

"The acceleration of inflation was largely due to residual effects of poorer harvests last year and further increases in prices of excise products... as well as sustained consumer demand".

NBU comment on inflation in March 2025

The NBU knew — and warned in advance

In its January 2026 Inflation Report, the National Bank of Ukraine directly incorporated into its forecast a technical assumption about electricity price increases for household consumers and gradual correction of housing and communal services tariffs, which are currently under a moratorium. An additional pro-inflationary factor is the planned annual increase in fuel excise taxes, which through production costs will put pressure on commodity and transportation service prices.

The NBU's key policy rate remains at 15%. The regulator signaled: a reduction is possible only if inflation slows to close to the forecast trajectory and there are no significant negative changes in the distribution of risks. So far, neither condition is being met.

Numbers that provide context

  • 15.9% — peak annual inflation, May 2025
  • 8.0% — December 2025, the lowest point after the peak
  • 7.6% → 7.9% — February–March 2026: two consecutive months of acceleration
  • 6.6% — NBU's minimum forecast for inflation in 2026 (updated forecast, revised upward from the previous 5%)

Notably, the NBU has already abandoned its target of returning to the goal of 5% in 2026 — the new lower bound of the forecast is 6.6%. This is not a technical adjustment: it is an acknowledgment that structural factors — energy, excise taxes, labor costs — will not disappear with the end of hostilities.

If the moratorium on raising housing and communal services tariffs is lifted in 2026 and fuel excise taxes increase as planned — will the NBU be able to keep inflation below 10% without a new increase in the key policy rate?

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026