Our conversation with Ivan Petrenko took place in the very heart of Silicon Valley—Palo Alto, a city that draws hundreds of thousands of startup founders and IT professionals from around the world. Among them are many Ukrainians determined to prove themselves—and their country—on global markets. Hopes are born and die here, and only the most focused and resilient survive.
Very soon a new cohort of Ukrainian entrepreneurs will arrive at Stanford to join the one of a kind Stanford Ignite Ukraine program—a joint initiative of the Ideas Center UCU (formerly CfE Accelerator UCU – Ed.), Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy. The goal is to give solid business education to those already building—or about to build—breakthrough projects capable of moving Ukraine and its economy forward. Forty two owners of small and medium sized businesses will gain deep knowledge of business model design, marketing, finance, and design thinking, and—most importantly—feel the unique energy of Silicon Valley, sharing their experience with fellow entrepreneurs and potential investors.
Ukrainian companies keep operating, create jobs, and look for new paths—from exporting food products to developing tech ideas that can interest the world. Right now startups and innovative firms able to bring something special to the global community are crucial.
Ivan Petrenko, who directly heads Stanford Ignite Ukraine, is also Managing Partner of the venture fund Angel One and Executive Director of the Ideas Center UCU at the Ukrainian Catholic University. He helps startups seek funding and grow, inspiring entrepreneurs to think big and work for global markets while preserving Ukrainian identity and resilience.
This candid interview explores the realities of Ukraine’s business community and startups, the advantages of studying at Stanford, and the challenges entrepreneurs face when stepping onto the international stage.
Lukian Selskyi (LS): Ivan, on one hand the war greatly harms Ukrainian business, yet on the other it opens new directions. I’d like your assessment of Ukraine’s economic situation and the current investment climate.
Ivan Petrenko (IP): Obviously the war does far more harm. Business owners struggle to find workers—especially qualified ones. Some people are fighting at the front, some have gone abroad, and others simply hide and refuse to work because they fear mobilization. As a result, the shortage of skilled personnel is felt in virtually every sector in Ukraine.
As for the overall economy: the market has shrunk dramatically. Before the war Ukraine had far more territory, the economy was growing steadily, and people were wealthier. There was foreign investment, and household purchasing power remained high. Now we have de facto lost part of our territory, many people have scattered around the world, and those who stayed spend less. Under such conditions production is sometimes harder. Yet Ukrainian entrepreneurs have become more adaptive: many have entered foreign markets—and that’s a big plus. It turned out our products are competitive abroad.
LS: Indeed, many say the war helped open Ukraine to the world. I see more and more Ukrainian entrepreneurs trying to enter foreign markets, including the U.S.
IP: I agree—though it’s still not enough. Most entrepreneurs still think the old way: more than 90 percent focused mainly on the local market, while foreign markets seemed closed and unclear. Now, because of the war, business is forced to look elsewhere, and we’re seeing a lot of success stories. For example, Ruslana Rymarska (producer of Smakuli food snacks – Ed.) created an entire food cluster, uniting Ukrainian manufacturers who are securing shelf space abroad—in the States and in Germany.
LS: Typically Ukrainian companies go global emphasizing that they are from Ukraine, believing it an advantage. Does “Ukrainianness” hurt or help?
IP: Personally, I don’t see major advantages in it. The world has been global for a long time, but we still live in our bubble. When entrepreneurs declare a product’s Ukrainian origin they must realize that, in itself, it gives no extra benefit. The most important thing is product quality. If there’s a good story behind it, that’s worth “selling” too—yet Ukrainian businesses rarely have a developed storytelling component.
LS: I notice this even in naming. Many companies choose names pleasant to a Ukrainian ear but puzzling or awkward for foreigners—proof they mainly targeted the domestic market.
IP: I remember a Stanford lecturer (within Stanford Ignite Ukraine)analyzing the case of a Ukrainian jewelry company. He asked a participant from the first cohort what exactly she sells. She answered, “Jewelry.” The lecturer replied: “No, no, no! There’s plenty of jewelry. What philosophy does your brand have—what story does it tell?” That revelation showed that selling just “quality jewelry” isn’t enough. The client wants emotional engagement—and that sells well now.
Another vital point: when entering a new market you must consider all local cultural specifics.
LS: You’ve mentioned Stanford Ignite Ukraine, but that’s only one area you oversee. Another is Angel One, a fund supporting startups and innovative projects in Ukraine. Both connect to your wish to help Ukrainian business develop. Are all the people you work with ready to talk to the wider world?
IP: Definitely not. Many had never thought of speaking to the world or raising external investment. The biggest challenge for some participants in the first Stanford Ignite Ukraine cohort was the American approach of fast scaling—“raise capital and grow.”
LS: So most joined Stanford Ignite because they wanted rapid scale up?
IP: Not necessarily; some were attracted by the Stanford brand itself. For many, joining a Stanford program is a dream. Ukrainian entrepreneurs traditionally operate on reinvestment: “earn—reinvest.” They grow either through partnerships or bank loans. Venture capital still feels unknown and is usually linked to startups. Classic businesses rarely adopt that model, so not everyone has global ambitions. Our course became both a challenge and a unique global opportunity for scaling.
LS: Soon the next Stanford Ignite cohort will arrive in Silicon Valley. How will it differ from the previous one?
IP: We selected participants even more carefully. We want founders with a global mindset and big ambitions, so in addition to manufacturing or product based businesses we sought tech company founders and startup owners eager for global markets.
LS: Am I right that everyone now wants fast growth and profits?
IP: Everyone craves quick solutions. In unstable political and economic times long term planning is tough. Because of the war it’s hard to plan ahead—you never know what will happen. So we’re not very practiced at 10 or 20 year horizons.
LS: Are you afraid that having many Stanford Ignite Ukraine alumni could dilute the Stanford brand among Ukrainian entrepreneurs?
IP: We enroll only 42 participants per year. That’s small, and we actually want to expand because interest is huge. Many plan to apply but first improve their English (one of the key criteria) and must meet all program requirements, including motivation and business vision.
LS: As someone outside IT I’m curious how the war and related circumstances have affected startups and their level.
IP: The war was a severe test: Ukraine’s domestic startup market almost disappeared. That’s why we tell founders to aim for global markets right away: “Don’t build a product only for Ukraine”—investors aren’t interested. That filtered out companies unwilling or unable to go global. Those that shifted to the U.S. or Western Europe gained good chances.
LS: Any examples?
IP: Plenty. Take our portfolio companies. Zeely, a platform generating social media content for SMEs, targeted the U.S. and South American markets from the start. Or Rozmova: its founders began in Ukraine, quickly realized the home market was too small, rebranded to Clearly because “Rozmova” means nothing to foreigners, and entered the U.S. and Spain.
LS: Is a Ukrainian investor (even one living abroad) different from a foreign investor?
IP: Yes. First, our investors have less capital and are more risk averse. Ukrainians usually think in terms of quick returns and aren’t ready to invest for 7 10 years.
LS: “Quick” meaning one to three years?
IP: Exactly—they want either to recoup their money or see real dividends within that period. Long term investment requires a different mindset. Ukrainian funds are less willing to risk and have fewer resources. Most of their managers or founders come from tech, know product well but don’t think in scaling terms. Foreign investors, by contrast, focus on the founder’s vision—how they see themselves and the product in 8 10 years.
LS: Once Nataliya Anon— Ukrainian-American investor from Silicon Valley—told me she needs to believe in the person behind a project—and their passion—before making a final decision.
IP: Nataliya sits on Angel One Fund’s supervisory board. Our founders usually start by describing the product—it’s their “baby.” But Nataliya, like most American investors, wants to hear what the company as a whole aims to achieve—what investment opportunity exists. Products and models may change; people matter most—whether they can pivot and build something successful if the first idea fails.
LS: Adaptability is normal, right?
IP: Yes, but many Ukrainian entrepreneurs are stubborn and unwilling to change or drop their product: “You don’t get it, but I’ll sell it anyway.” Practice shows that approach often fails. So we teach startupers to start by explaining the benefit for the investor—and only then the tech and other details. That’s exactly the American lesson.
LS: Can you roughly estimate the share of Ukrainian versus foreign investors? Does a foreigner even care that a product is from Ukraine?
IP: Investors generally don’t care where a product comes from. We keep telling founders: “Don’t treat ‘Ukrainianness’ as a trump card.”
Yet I hear many say: “We’re Ukrainians—that’s cool; we must tell everyone.”
Politically, yes, we should state our origin. We’re resilient and can do “more with less”—that is indeed our advantage. But it cannot be the main argument for an investor.
LS: How are the values and priorities of those Ukrainian IT specialists and innovators now in Silicon Valley changing?
IP: First, they feel crushing competition—this is the world’s biggest innovation hub. In Ukraine there’s almost no competition between startups. Paradoxically, funds there sometimes have more money than they can deploy because they simply can’t find founders they want to back.
LS: Because the product is weak?
IP: More because the founders are weak. There are plenty of ideas, but everything hinges on execution and the ability to sell a vision. Another problem is inflated valuations: a startup may earn only US $100 k in a year yet value itself at US $10 m—an instant red flag. Better to lower valuation and secure investment.
Discipline is also an issue. In the U.S. founders might hold hundreds of investor meetings and hear countless “no’s”—a long, hard grind. Some Ukrainian startupers think walking into a fund is enough to get cash. At Angel One Fund we have a vetting process: a founder must fill in specific metrics; we examine whether it interests us, whether to present it to the investment committee, etc. Sometimes we say, “Sorry, you’re not ready; let’s watch you for 3–6 months and then talk.” At that stage 80 percent of startups disappear, unwilling to update data. In the U.S. that’s hard to imagine.
Some claim Ukraine has thousands of startups. I think fewer than a thousand—perhaps a few hundred nationwide. The U.S. has hundreds of thousands, so the odds of funding are higher, but competition is fiercer. In Ukraine, funds effectively compete for startups.
LS: Listening to your analysis I want to ask about your personal story: why do you do this?
IP: I’m not a technical founder. I’m fascinated by what startup founders build. I once had a restaurant business, then construction, later joined the Ukrainian Catholic University, and eventually the fund, which has a clear revenue model for investors. At the same time it develops the whole industry.
We work a lot with students in IdeasLab, and Stanford Ignite Ukraine helps entrepreneurs advance. I’m at a life stage where giving back matters, so the Ideas Center UCU is more about impact than income.
The fund, by contrast, is a business story that lets the fund, UCU, and private investors earn. But our focus is on Ukrainian founders.
LS: Have you thought of launching your own startup?
IP: For now I lack the time and resources. Stanford Ignite Ukraine and Angel One Fund require a lot. Plus we launched the IdeasLab accelerator for students across Ukraine. I believe it’s the country’s best student startup program. For the sixth (Fall 2024) cohort we received a record 152 team applications from 61 universities. The seventh (Spring 2025) cohort was the most international: 143 applications from universities in Ukraine, Europe, and North America, including Estonia, Poland, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Austria, Canada, and the USA.
LS: How do you gauge your personal success?
IP: Primarily by the amount of capital raised. That’s the key indicator of whether I’ve met my managerial goals. For instance, this year we secured a partnership with Grammarly—probably the largest company with Ukrainian roots—which strongly supports various good initiatives. We also agreed on cooperation with the University of Notre Dame in the U.S. for IdeasLab students.
LS: What helps you avoid burnout amid war and such a heavy workload?
IP: The success stories of those I work with inspire me. My family in Lviv supports me greatly, and occasional business trips abroad let me recharge. And, of course, the achievements of our programs give strength—the wins of Stanford Ignite Ukraine participants, student startups from IdeasLab, and Angel One Fund portfolio companies.
When they achieve results and say “thank you,” it’s incredibly motivating.
About Author:
