Challenges for China's E-Cigarette Export to Russia

Mar.03.2022
Challenges for China's E-Cigarette Export to Russia
Russia is China's third-largest e-cigarette export market, facing challenges due to the ongoing conflict with Ukraine.

Russia is currently China’s third largest export market for electronic cigarettes, according to the “2021 Electronic Cigarette Industry Blue Book” published by the Electronic Cigarette Industry Committee of the China Electronic Commerce Association and Juul Labs. The report reveals that in 2021, China’s electronic cigarette industry is projected to export about 138.3 billion yuan, up 180% from the previous year. The top four countries and regions for electronic cigarette exports are the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Kingdom, accounting for 53%, 15%, 9%, and 7% respectively.

 

With the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, China's export of electronic cigarettes to Russia is facing multiple challenges.

 

The impact of SWIFT sanctions on settlements is limited.

 

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, as well as Russia's relationship with Western powers, is increasingly tense. On February 27th, the United States, European Union, and United Kingdom announced sanctions against the 10 largest financial institutions in Russia through the SWIFT system. The crisis has resulted in an atmosphere of great international tension.

 

Although some Russian banks may be excluded from SWIFT, the impact on the industry is not significant. Several e-cigarette foreign trade practitioners have stated that their company's export settlement has not been affected by SWIFT sanctions. They said that their company's clients usually open accounts in foreign banks in Russia, exchange rubles for dollars within Russia, and use dollars to complete payments. Currently, this business is continuing.

 

Ruble depreciation leads to order cancellations.

 

However, the devaluation of the ruble has had a more serious impact on the trade of electronic cigarettes between China and Russia. According to information obtained by "2FIRSTS", a vast majority of Chinese e-cigarette exporters have reported significant effects. Recently, there has been a great deal of volatility in Russia's financial markets. On February 24th, the Russian RTS index plummeted by over 50%, dropping to 611.95 points, while the MOEX index fell by more than 45%.

 

The Russian ruble experienced a significant depreciation, causing a surge in key energy commodities including oil and natural gas on February 28th. The off-shore exchange rate for the ruble against the US dollar also plummeted nearly 30%.

 

According to 2FIRSTS, Chinese exporters have stated that the devaluation of the ruble has caused immense pressure on Russian e-cigarette importers, with costs skyrocketing overnight. Faced with these huge cost pressures, a large proportion of importers have been forced to cancel their foreign trade orders for Chinese e-cigarettes. Importers are unlikely to engage in bulk order transactions until the ruble exchange rate improves.

 

This change has caught the market off guard. Prior to the recent conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the Chinese e-cigarette industry expected exports to Russia to increase by 50-100% this year. However, the unexpected event has had a significant impact. If the conflict persists, it is estimated that the Russian market will perform worse than last year, and the entire market will stagnate.

 

There could be ongoing disruptions to Grey's logistics.

 

Chinese e-cigarette exporters are facing significant difficulties in exporting to Russia due to challenging customs clearance procedures. Prior to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, e-cigarettes from China would typically be cleared through a grey customs clearance process, meaning they would first arrive in Russian-speaking countries surrounding Russia, go through customs there, and then be transported into Russia. However, in the current geopolitical climate, logistics and border controls are much stricter, making grey customs channels between China and Russia less accessible.

 

Currently, the electronic cigarette market in Russia is not experiencing any shortage pressures, as distributors typically hold a three-month inventory. The impact of logistics disruptions has not yet been felt by consumers, and there have been no reports of significant price increases.

 

The dispute between Russia and Ukraine is unlikely to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction in the short term, and western sanctions against Russia will continue. This will present various inconveniences for the export of Chinese e-cigarettes to the Russian market. While the battlefield may be constantly changing, the fundamentals of supply and demand have not shifted. In the long term, the Chinese e-cigarette industry can still keep an eye on the Russian market and wait for trade to return to normal.

 


Disclaimer

This article is provided solely for professional research, industry discussion, and informational purposes. Any references to brands, companies, products, technologies, or policies are made for factual reporting and analytical purposes only, and do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, promotion, or advertising by 2Firsts.

Nicotine-containing products, including but not limited to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches, carry significant health risks. Readers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions, including age restrictions and access limitations.

The information contained in this article should not be regarded as investment, legal, medical, regulatory, or commercial advice. While 2Firsts strives to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its content, it does not assume liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from errors, omissions, inaccuracies, or reliance on the information contained herein.

This article is not intended for individuals below the legal age for accessing tobacco or nicotine-related information in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright Notice

This article is either original content produced by 2Firsts or content reproduced, translated, summarized, or adapted from third-party sources with attribution where applicable. The intellectual property rights of the original content remain with 2Firsts or the respective original rights holders.

No individual or organization may copy, reproduce, distribute, republish, modify, translate, or otherwise use this content without prior authorization. Any unauthorized use may result in legal action.

For copyright-related inquiries, corrections, or removal requests, please contact: info@2firsts.com.

 

AI-Assisted Translation and Editing Notice

Portions of this article may have been translated, edited, or reviewed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to improve efficiency and readability. Due to the limitations of AI-assisted translation and editing, discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies may exist when compared with the original source.

Where applicable, readers are advised to refer to the original source for the most complete and accurate information. If you identify any errors or believe that any content infringes upon your rights, please contact us at info@2firsts.com, and we will review and address the matter promptly.

Special Report | From New York to Washington: How FDA’s Tobacco Center Is Reworking Product Review
Special Report | From New York to Washington: How FDA’s Tobacco Center Is Reworking Product Review
FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products is reshaping how it approaches tobacco product review. Based on 2Firsts’ on-site reporting in New York and Washington, this report traces CTP’s emerging direction: stronger links between PMTA and tobacco harm reduction, more category-specific review, greater emphasis on decision-relevant science, more predictable timelines and expanded use of sPMTA for product modifications. CTP also acknowledged major constraints, including just nine PMTA review teams, persistent backlogs and limits on hiring capacity.
Regulations
Oct.08
U.S. Judge Stays Helix, NJOY Challenge to FDA PMTA Rule Pending New Rulemaking Court Stays Altria's Helix, NJOY Challenge to PMTA Rule as FDA Prepares New Rulemaking
U.S. Judge Stays Helix, NJOY Challenge to FDA PMTA Rule Pending New Rulemaking Court Stays Altria's Helix, NJOY Challenge to PMTA Rule as FDA Prepares New Rulemaking
A federal judge in Texas on Oct. 8 granted a joint request by the FDA and plaintiffs including Altria subsidiaries Helix Innovations and NJOY to stay litigation challenging the agency's 2021 PMTA rule. The court cited FDA's anticipated rulemaking concerning the regulation at issue. FDA announced on Sept. 28 that it intends to reassess the PMTA framework and could initiate new rulemaking to replace it. The parties must file a joint status report within 45 days and every 45 days thereafter. A motion by three Reynolds American companies to intervene remains pending.
Regulations
Oct.10
Latest UK ONS Data: Vaping Rate Edges Down to 9.9% in 2025, a Year After Overtaking Cigarette Smoking
Latest UK ONS Data: Vaping Rate Edges Down to 9.9% in 2025, a Year After Overtaking Cigarette Smoking
Vaping prevalence in Great Britain edged down to 9.9% in 2025 from 10.0% in 2024, with the number of adult users holding at approximately 5.4 million for a second consecutive year, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). E-cigarette use had risen from 6.4% in 2020 to 10.0% in 2024, when it exceeded cigarette smoking prevalence for the first time. Cigarette smoking continued to decline to 8.7% in 2025, widening the gap to 1.2 percentage points. Daily vaping declined slightly, while usage among adults aged 25–34 increased despite falling rates in other age groups.
DATA
Oct.14
Altria Showcases Ploom, Marlboro Heated Tobacco Sticks and Non-Nicotine Energy Products at NACS Show 2026
Altria Showcases Ploom, Marlboro Heated Tobacco Sticks and Non-Nicotine Energy Products at NACS Show 2026
At the 2026 NACS Show, Altria displayed Ploom devices alongside imagery of Marlboro-branded heated tobacco sticks, while also featuring RIOT Energy and Proper Wild non-nicotine products. The booth showcased on! PLUS nicotine pouches, including 12 mg variants not listed among FDA-authorized products as of October 9, and NJOY e-cigarettes. Altria also presented convenience-store traffic figures highlighting its retail presence. 2Firsts examines the company's expanded product portfolio, non-nicotine business activities and the regulatory status of products displayed at the show.
EXPO
Oct.10
Virginia Tobacco Retail Permit Takes Effect October 1, Covering Vapes as More Than 3,000 Businesses Apply in September
Virginia Tobacco Retail Permit Takes Effect October 1, Covering Vapes as More Than 3,000 Businesses Apply in September
Virginia's new retail tobacco permit system took effect October 1, requiring sellers of vapes, nicotine products and related devices and accessories to obtain a Retail Tobacco Permit for each business location. Virginia ABC said more than 3,000 businesses applied in September alone, creating a processing backlog. Qualifying applicants that filed before October 1 may temporarily operate under a Letter of Authorization. The new store-level permit also sits alongside Virginia's existing vape product directory, where sales of unlisted liquid nicotine or nicotine vapor products can trigger civil penalties starting at $5,000.
Regulations
Oct.03
Cochrane 2026 Update Adds Nine Trials, Keeps High-Certainty Finding That Nicotine E-Cigarettes Improve Quit Rates Over NRT
Cochrane 2026 Update Adds Nine Trials, Keeps High-Certainty Finding That Nicotine E-Cigarettes Improve Quit Rates Over NRT
Cochrane’s 2026 update of its living review on electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation included 80 randomized controlled trials involving 29,861 adult smokers, with nine trials added in this update. The review retained its high-certainty conclusion that nicotine e-cigarettes increase smoking cessation rates compared with nicotine replacement therapy. In absolute terms, about 10 in 100 people using nicotine e-cigarettes may quit smoking for at least six months, compared with about 6 in 100 using NRT. The review found no clear difference in serious adverse event rates between the two groups, while longer-term safety and the relative effectiveness of newer device types remain less certain.
Sep.07