Investment component of the financial capacity of Ukrainian agribusiness

The article aims to deepen theoretical understanding and assess the investment component of Ukrainian agribusiness’s financial capacity under prolonged wartime uncertainty. The research uses structural and dynamic analysis, comparison, grouping, synthesis, and a systems approach. The empirical base combines direct investment data for 2020–2024, the geographical and sectoral structure of investment positions, capital investment by assets and economic activities, and updated annual capital investment data for 2025. The results reveal high volatility in direct investment flows. In agriculture, flows rose sharply in 2021, contracted in 2022–2023 and partially recovered in 2024, whereas food processing followed a different trajectory. At the end of 2024, the geographical structure of direct investment positions in agriculture was highly concentrated: Cyprus accounted for 60.8% of the reported total and the United States for 13.4%. Capital investment in agriculture and food processing concentrated in machinery, equipment, non-residential buildings, and transport, confirming the priority of physical reproduction and technological renewal. Updated official statistics show that capital investment in agriculture, forestry, and fishing reached UAH 107.3 billion in 2025, 33.1% above the revised 2024 level of UAH 80.6 billion and faster than the 20.3% increase in total capital investment in Ukraine. The scientific novelty consists in distinguishing the investment component of financial capacity from investment potential and investment attractiveness. It is interpreted as the realized ability of agribusiness entities to mobilize long-term resources, convert them into productive assets, create future cash flows, and preserve financial resilience without a critical deterioration of liquidity or debt sustainability. This study proposes a four-block assessment framework: resource mobilization, transformation into assets, reproduction and return, and risk resilience. The practical significance lies in using the proposed indicators for investment diagnostics, financial planning and justification of investment priorities. Further research should test a quantitative assessment for different groups of agricultural enterprises and examine links between investment intensity, capital structure, and financial resilience. Keywords: financial capacity, investment, agribusiness, capital investment, foreign direct investment, investment potential, war risks.