Date of publication: 14 May 2026
Olena Omelchenko, Partner, Head of International Trade Practice
Source: European Pravda
The world is entering a new era of trade wars, in which the principles of free trade no longer hold the sway they did a decade ago. Instead, trade defense instruments (TDIs) have become a mechanism that allows states not only to protect the domestic market but also to secure political and economic concessions.
Anti-dumping duties, countervailing measures, safeguard measures, and anti-circumvention investigations – everything that was once considered an exceptional market protection tool – have today become a key element of global economic policy.
Trade defense has become more than just a tool of industrial policy; it is now an element of economic security and a part of geopolitical confrontation. In fact, the world is shifting from a free trade model to a model of “managed trade through trade defense.”
Ukraine has already found itself at the heart of this process, which requires the state to possess the ability to utilize all trade defense instruments with maximum efficiency.
“The Greatest Crisis of Global Trade Rules”
According to official data from the European Commission, in 2024 alone, the EU initiated 33 new trade defense investigations – the highest figure since 2006.
As of the end of 2024, there were 199 trade defense measures in force in the European Union against unfair imports, including 169 anti-dumping measures, 29 countervailing measures against subsidized imports, and a safeguard regime regarding steel products.
In 2025, the European Commission effectively moved to a new model of trade defense. From now on, the fight against “global overcapacity,” primarily Chinese, has officially become part of the EU’s economic security policy.
Paradoxically, the current surge in trade defense is occurring simultaneously with the crisis of the World Trade Organization (WTO) system. The WTO Appellate Body has been effectively paralyzed since 2019 due to the United States blocking the appointment of new judges. Consequently, states are applying trade defense measures more aggressively, and the dispute settlement system has ceased to be an effective deterrent.
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the World Trade Organization, has already explicitly stated that we are facing “the greatest crisis of global trade rules in 80 years.” According to the organization’s estimates, the volume of world imports affected by trade restrictions and new duties has already exceeded $2.6 trillion.
Protection Against China
Analyzing global statistics on anti-dumping measures makes it obvious that the modern trade defense system is largely built around restraining Chinese exports. China is the primary target of anti-dumping investigations. Furthermore, it has become the central factor in the global discussion on overcapacity.
According to the European Commission, almost half of all current investigations in the European Union concern Chinese goods – particularly steel, aluminum, chemical products, ceramics, automobiles, and “green” energy goods.
One of the most indicative cases in recent years was the European Union’s investigation into Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). The European Commission concluded that Chinese EV manufacturers receive massive state support that distorts competition in the European market. As a result, additional countervailing duties were imposed on BYD (17%), Geely (18.8%), and SAIC (35.3%). This became one of the largest countervailing investigations in EU history and one of the most extensive trade defense cases in the “green” industry sector.
The issue here is not just about cars. The European Union is sending a clear signal: the protection of strategic industries is becoming a priority, even at the cost of restricting free trade.
The EU Retreats from Principles
Metallurgy has become the main indicator of the global trade system’s transformation. After the US imposed duties on steel and aluminum for national security reasons in 2018, the global steel market effectively shifted into a mode of permanent trade defense.
The European Union was forced to introduce safeguard measures on steel imports, which today cover 26 categories of steel products, based on a system of tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) and providing for a 25% duty on imports exceeding the established quotas.
However, the events of 2025-2026 demonstrate that the EU no longer views these restrictions as temporary. On the contrary, the European Commission proposed a new, significantly stricter steel market protection system:
- reduction of duty-free quotas by nearly 47%;
- increasing the out-of-quota duty from 25% to 50%;
- introducing the “melted and poured” principle, i.e., controlling the country of actual steel smelting to combat duty circumvention.
This is about building a system of strategic protection for the EU steel market. Most importantly, the European Union has effectively acknowledged the possible non-compliance of the new system with its tariff obligations under the WTO. Therefore, the European Commission initiated negotiations in Geneva under Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) regarding the renegotiation of its steel tariff concessions.
This is an extremely important precedent – the European Union is thus demonstrating its readiness to ignore basic trade agreements for the sake of protecting strategic industries and economic security.
The Main Front of the Trade War
Simultaneously, the fight against the circumvention of duties has become the most dynamic area of modern trade defense.
In the European Union, the fight against this practice has already become a separate branch of trade policy. As of 2024, the EU applied dozens of decisions regarding the extension of anti-dumping and countervailing measures due to circumvention via third countries. These mechanisms are particularly active in metallurgy, chemical products, and “green” economy sectors.
In the US, the fight against duty circumvention has become one of the key focus areas for the Customs Service and the Department of Commerce. A striking example is the large-scale American investigation into solar panels from Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Thailand, where US authorities effectively declared the circumvention of Chinese duties by moving individual production operations to Southeast Asian countries.
This is a new global trend. States are increasingly reacting not only to direct dumping but also to the redirection of supply chains aimed at circumventing existing trade restrictions.
Turkey deserves special attention. Today, the Turkish trade defense system is not inferior to the European one in terms of the scale of measures applied, and in certain sectors, it even exceeds it. As of 2025, Turkey applied about 246 active anti-dumping and countervailing measures and 10 safeguard measures. In fact, Turkey currently applies almost ten times more trade defense measures than Ukraine.
At the same time, Turkey, while actively protecting its own market, traditionally reacts sensitively to Ukraine’s attempts to apply similar mechanisms against Turkish imports.
The Challenge for Ukraine
For Ukraine, the issue of trade defense has long ceased to be a purely legal topic. Under current conditions, it is a matter of the state’s industrial survival.
Ukrainian industry operates under conditions of war, loss of production capacity, expensive financing, complex logistics, and a sharp increase in the import of cheap products. Meanwhile, most of Ukraine’s trade partners have long shifted to a model of a strategically protected market. Under such conditions, Ukraine cannot remain an open economy.
Recent years have been a turning point for Ukrainian trade defense practice. Ukrainian producers have increasingly begun not only to react to aggressive imports but also to systematically use trade defense mechanisms to preserve the domestic market. It was during this period that some of the most high-profile anti-dumping measures of recent years were extended and applied in the cement industry, metallurgy, radiators, fittings, and hardware products.
For the first time in its history, Ukraine also began using mechanisms to combat the circumvention of anti-dumping measures via third countries. Specifically, in 2025, three investigations were opened simultaneously regarding the possible circumvention of anti-dumping duties via Malaysia in the metallurgical sector.
In effect, a new practice of industrial self-defense is forming in Ukraine, where trade defense becomes a real tool for protecting production, investment, and jobs, rather than just a formal procedure.
It is worth noting separately that despite significant external and political pressure, the Ukrainian authorities have demonstrated a much more consistent approach to protecting national producers in recent years. First and foremost, this concerns the team of the Ministry of Economy, the State Customs Service, and the Trade Representative of Ukraine, Taras Kachka, who systematically supports the need to use trade defense instruments as an element of the state’s economic security.
However, the Ukrainian trade defense system remains significantly slower than those in the EU, the US, or Turkey. In practice, businesses often face delays in investigation timelines, overburdened government agencies, and a shortage of trade defense specialists. In current conditions, this is no longer just an administrative problem, but a factor in the competitiveness of Ukrainian industry.
That is why Ukraine needs to accelerate investigation procedures, as well as more actively use mechanisms to combat duty circumvention and adapt its practice to the modern approaches of the European Union. This is what constitutes the real adaptation of Ukraine to European trade rules today.
* * * * *
World trade has already changed. Even Europe chooses not so much a model of an absolutely open market, but rather a strategically protected market. And for Ukraine, the question is not whether to use trade defense instruments or not. The question is how quickly Ukraine will learn to use them as systematically and professionally as the EU, the US, or Turkey already do.
