Why the “fast export” mechanism for MilTech still does not work

Resolution No. 875 introduced a special procedure for the export of defense products with shortened time limits and tacit approval. However, its launch depends on lists that have still not been published, and the procedure’s conditions make “simplified” export costly and unpredictable.

The Cabinet of Ministers adopted the resolution on 1 July 2026. It entered into force on 8 July and applies for the duration of martial law and for six months after its termination. The resolution approved the Procedure for International Transfers of Military and Dual-Use Goods (hereinafter – the Procedure) and amended Resolutions No. 838 and No. 746. The general control procedures (Resolutions No. 1807 and No. 86) apply to the extent they do not conflict with the Procedure.

What does the Procedure apply to?

 The Procedure covers the following exports:

•        military goods adopted into service or codified as supply items;

•        dual-use goods that may be used for the development, production, or use of such goods;

•        goods outside the control lists in the cases provided for in Article 10 of the Law on State Control over International Transfers, if they have been adopted into service or codified;

•        military technologies and technologies included in the Unified List of Dual-Use Goods.

Products that do not have the status of being adopted into service or codified are not covered by the procedure. The minimum transaction amount is UAH 15 million, except for components and parts.

Requirements for the parties to the transaction:

Foreign importers, end users, and intermediaries, as well as their owners, beneficiaries, managers, and controllers, must not be subject to sanctions, associated with terrorism, under the control of the aggressor state, or have owners affiliated with it. Non-compliance of the counterparty is an independent ground for refusal.

For Ukrainian companies, the resolution expanded the exception in Resolution No. 838. Manufacturers and rights holders of technologies who perform state defense contracts or are included in the register of selection participants and state contract performers do not receive authority to export. Registration with the State Export Control Service and authorization for a specific transfer remain mandatory.

TIME LIMITS AND TACIT APPROVAL

 The State Export Control Service makes a decision within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the application and the complete set of documents. In parallel, the application is submitted for approval to the following authorities:

•       the Ministry of Defense – 20 calendar days for goods and 10 for technologies;

•  the Security Service of Ukraine, the Foreign Intelligence Service, and the intelligence body of the Ministry of Defense – 15 calendar days;

•        state customers, upon request of the Ministry of Defense – 15 calendar days.

The silence of an authority means the absence of objections, not automatic approval. The decision is made by the State Export Control Service, and the grounds for refusal continue to apply.

Two lists on which the launch depends:

Clause 5 provides for a list of states to which transfers are possible (approved by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and a list of critical goods whose export may threaten defense capability (approved by the Ministry of Defense). Both are approved by the Interagency Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation and Export Control Policy. The lists are updated quarterly, and the State Export Control Service is obliged to take them into account.

Without the Commission, transfers are made to states covered by the “Drone Deal.” Applications concerning other states, partially embargoed states, critical goods, and applications accompanied by objections from security services are considered with the participation of the Commission. However, the Procedure expressly names inclusion of a good in the critical list as a ground for refusal. The Procedure does not explain whether the Commission may approve the export of a critical good.

In view of this, the time limits are also inconsistent: the lists are approved by the 1st day of the month following the quarter and submitted for the Commission’s approval by the 5th day. Under a literal reading, the first deadline fell at the beginning of October 2026.

According to public information, the lists have not been approved:

•  in August 2026, it was stated that the implementing acts, including the lists, had not been adopted and the Procedure was not fully operational;

•      by the end of September, no permit had been issued under the special procedure;

• in September, the State Export Control Service reported that there were no mechanisms for practical implementation of the procedure.

An unpublished list does not necessarily mean an unapproved one, so its status should be clarified with the State Export Control Service, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or the Ministry of Defense.

At the same time, this does not mean a halt to controlled exports in general, since, according to official NSDC data, more than 18 permits for the export of finished products under the ordinary procedure had been issued since February 2026.

STATE GUARANTEES OF THE IMPORTER

 It should be noted that the Procedure requires state guarantees from the importing country: use of the technology without alienation of intellectual property rights, re-export and further transfers only with the permission of the State Export Control Service, production within the agreed volumes, and transfer to Ukraine of information on upgrades.

The content of the guarantees concerns technologies, but formally the requirement applies to all transfers. The document is part of the mandatory package, and its absence is a ground for refusal. The guarantees are issued by the state, so the timing does not depend on the exporter.

FEE FOR THE PERMIT

 Resolution No. 746, as amended, establishes a fee for the permit: 20% of the value of goods for finished products, 30% for components and parts, 20% of the value for technologies, and 20% of the value of goods for re-export to third countries of products manufactured using transferred technologies.

•        Technologies:

the base is the value of all products that may be manufactured under the license, at public procurement prices or according to an expert assessment, rather than the license price.

•        Goods:

the value is confirmed by a state contract or an expert opinion (clauses 12–13), so it may not match the export price.

•        Advance payment:

proof of payment is attached to the application; the Procedure does not regulate refund in the event of refusal.

•        Third states:

clause 11 separately requires payment of 20% of the value of goods manufactured using transferred technologies. The Procedure does not clarify whether this is the same payment as the fee for a re-export permit.

For finished products worth UAH 15 million, the fee amounts to UAH 3 million. This payment is cited as one of the main obstacles to export.

Grounds for refusal and priority of state procurement:

Clause 19 establishes seven grounds for refusal: false documents, an unsuitable counterparty, sanctions, absence of importer guarantees, a state customer’s intention to purchase the good, inclusion in the critical list, and failure to perform state contracts. An intention to purchase also allows a permit already issued to be suspended for up to 30 days.

The exporter is protected by two mechanisms:

•        written supply guarantees for defense needs remove the intention to purchase as a ground for refusal, but their breach leads to cancellation of the permit; or

•        after a refusal due to an intention to purchase, the customer has 30 days to conclude a contract; if it is not concluded, a repeated application may not be rejected on this ground.

TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGIES

 The Procedure distinguishes three models: 

1. supply of a product (the permit covers only minimal instruction), 
2. granting the right to use the technology without alienation of intellectual property rights, and 
3. alienation of intellectual property rights or sale of the technology, which is considered by the Interagency Commission. 

The model should be determined before negotiations; otherwise, the contract may not comply with the permit and guarantees.

Thus, Resolution No. 875 introduced shortened time limits, tacit approval, and exemption of certain manufacturers from export authorization. However, without the lists, the procedure did not start working. After their approval, the 20–30% fee payable in advance, the UAH 15 million threshold, the priority of state procurement, and the importer’s state guarantees will remain.

Therefore, the question is not only when the lists will appear, but also how much the “simplified” export truly simplifies MilTech’s access to foreign markets. Preparation should begin with a legal review of the export model, not with finding a buyer.

Companies now need to check whether their products fall within the scope of the Procedure, in particular determine their status, category, and compliance with the established threshold. It is also necessary to clarify their own status, including the existence of state contracts, inclusion in the relevant register, and registration with the State Export Control Service. 

Separately, companies must decide whether they are ready to provide supply guarantees, assess alternative options, including the application of general export control procedures, under which the first permits were issued even before the resolution was adopted, or the organization of production abroad.