Introduction: The Ramifications of the War in Ukraine for Latin America and the Caribbean: Political, Socio-Economic and Cultural Perspectives

Russia-Ukraine tensions escalated from 2021 and on 24 February 2022 Russia launched a military operation to invade Ukraine. More than 2 years after, the war goes on and its consequences thus far are devastating, multifaceted and global. More than 12 million people are estimated to have been displaced by the war. The lack of basic commodities produced by Russia and Ukraine has led to a global energy and food sovereignty crisis, inflation and the consequent cost of living crisis and a deepening of poverty. With efforts to find alternative energy supplies, steps to tackle climate change and the contemporary environmental crisis have been deaccelerated or postponed.

Such global and diverse ramifications of the Russia-Ukraine war raise questions about the subjectivities, affects, cultural products, political responses and socio-economic conditions that emerge in a region like Latin America and the Caribbean to address the war explicitly or implicitly.

This Special Issue brings together 11 articles by scholars from diverse fields to critically examine key questions, with a focus on three central themes. Firstly, to what extent has the war altered the regional foreign policy traditions of Latin American countries? Secondly, it explores the role of regional powers such as Brazil and Mexico, and thirdly, it examines the impact of the war on the supply chain of commodities, including fertilisers and coal.

How have Latin American countries reacted to the war in Ukraine, and how does this reaction align with their past traditions and current political alignments? This question is particularly important because the overall response has been far from unequivocal. For instance, while most Latin American countries have voted in favour of the UN resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine, they have largely abstained from imposing economic sanctions on Russia or directly supporting Ukraine militarily. Rodriguez in the article ‘International Order and Latin American Reticent Support for Ukraine’ suggests that the main reason explaining this foreign policy actions is the enactment of international principle of non-interventions as a key tenet of international order, which constitutes a foreign policy tradition in the region. Furthermore, they add that ‘due to its colonial past and its vicinity with the United States, the region has attempted to limit intrusive behaviours and regulate the instruments of violence that more powerful countries could use against weaker states. If the West wants to win more Latin American support for Ukraine, it is necessary to disentangle supporting Ukraine and defending the international order’.

Did Latin American countries show disengagement with a war fought far away and with little impact on their domestic agendas? According to Quiroga-Villamarín in their article ‘Ghosts of Alignments Past: Understanding Latin American Proposals for ‘Mediation’ in the War against Ukraine’, this has not been the case. While the conflict is indeed perceived as ‘distant’, certain Latin American diplomatic actors have issued calls for mediation to end the Russian war. They argue that, although these proposals have often been dismissed as naïve or cynical, they must be understood in the context of a decades-long Latin American uneasiness with alignment in international relations. The author contends that these attempts to mediate and find a solution are proof of what they term ‘active neutrality’ or ‘non-indifference’, which is fundamentally different from ‘isolationism’ or diplomatic disengagement. Schenoni, Leiva and Carvalho frame Latin American reactions in the broader context of degrees of polarisation vis-à-vis degrees of foreign policy autonomy. In their piece ‘The Ukraine War and the Limits of Latin American Fence-Sitting’, they suggest that in a scenario of low polarisation (the pre-war ideal type), there are incentives for a fence-sitting strategy since the risk of sanctions is low and the range of policies acceptable to both Washington and Moscow are broad, that is, the autonomy range is wide. However, in a scenario of medium polarisation—such as the one created by the war—some states might perceive the risk of sanctions as high, as the tolerance limits narrow, reducing their room for manoeuvre. Finally, they imagine that a high-polarisation scenario, such as a hypothetical war in Taiwan, represents an extreme situation in which Latin American states could be forced to pick sides or face automatic sanctions.

Carrión-Vivar, Jima-González and Alcántara-Lizárraga, in their article ‘Between Tradition and Pragmatism: Challenges for Latin America amid the Russia–Ukraine War’, argue that while the region traditionally champions self-determination and non-intervention, it faces significant challenges in coordinating responses due to ideological divisions. The authors contend that the rise of right-wing leaders has undermined the prospects for a unified response, leading to a shift away from multilateralism towards ad hoc alliances, ‘minilateralism’ or even non-institutionalised intergovernmental coalitions. This increasing prioritisation of domestic politics over coordinated foreign policy, according to the authors, raises concerns about a lost regional identity. Sánchez and Granados, in their piece titled ‘Who Trusts Russia? Members of Parliament (MPs’) Support for Putin's Government and Multilateralism', delve deeper into the sources of such divisions. Using data from the Proyecto Élites Parlamentarias of Universidad de Salamanca (PELA-USAL), they explore what they term ‘ideological self-placement’ to determine approval for Russia and alliance preferences among Latin American Members of Parliament. They argue that the affinity of certain sectors of the Latin American left with Russia is rooted in anti-imperialist values and a belief in multilateralism as a key organising principle of international governance.

Castro Alegría and García Pinzón challenge interpreting Latin American foreign policy through a simple left-right axis. In ‘Peripheral Autonomy in a Multipolar Order: Latin American Reactions to the War in Ukraine’, they identify three frameworks—normative, materialist and alignment-based—to explain the region's reluctance to engage in sanctions or military aid for Ukraine. While normative views explain support for UN resolutions, materialist views highlight ties with global powers like the United States, Russia, China and the EU, predicting alignment with the West. However, the left-right model fails to explain right-wing leaders like Bolsonaro and Bukele, who favour Russian interests. Instead, the authors argue for understanding this as a pursuit of peripheral autonomy, where Latin American countries avoid full alignment with the West, focusing on sovereignty and internal challenges. This is not indifference to Ukraine, as shown by UN votes, but a reflection of Latin America's historical distance from Western interests. The Israel-Palestine conflict further deepens skepticism towards Western selectivity on sovereignty issues.

Jima-González explores a different type of autonomy in ‘Autonomous Responses to the Russia–Ukraine Conflict? Evidence from the Feminist Foreign Policy in Latin America’. The article examines how the Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) adopted by Mexico (2020) and Chile (2023) has influenced their responses to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. FFP, emerging from feminist theory in international relations, seeks to go beyond traditional, binary logic by centering marginalised groups like women and children in foreign policy. This study analyses whether Latin America, particularly Mexico and Chile, has crafted autonomous responses aligned with FFP, especially given the global divide between pro-Russia and pro-Ukraine supporters. Mexico, while supporting the UN resolution condemning the invasion, did not impose sanctions on Russia, showing a nuanced stance. Chile, on the other hand, fully supported Ukraine, signalling an autonomous response that prioritises international ethics over conventional, binary decision-making. The article suggests that, despite the ambitious goals of FFP, Latin American responses to the conflict reflect pragmatic leadership more than a strict application of FFP principles, resulting in diverse and sometimes unexpected actions.

Two articles explore Brazil's stance on the Ukraine conflict. Krause, in ‘Explaining Brazil's Stance on the Ukraine War’, argues that Brazil's position is more than geopolitical hedging; it reflects a strategic alignment with the global South to foster economic development through cooperation. Brazil's foreign policy is shifting away from its traditional non-alignment and pragmatism towards challenging liberal international norms. Contrary to views that Brazil is balancing between the United States and powers like Russia and China, Krause contends that Brazil's focus is on national development, emphasising alliances with non-Western powers, especially China. This marks a shift from the view that Brazil sought global influence through consensus and diversified partnerships. Cardoso, in ‘The Brazilian Migration Policy in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War: A Rights-Based Response to Forced Displacement?’, argues that Brazil has provided a timely, rights-based response to Ukrainian migration. However, this response relies on infralegal instruments that the Federal Government can revoke, leaving Ukrainian migrants in a precarious legal situation despite enjoying rights similar to Brazilian citizens.

The Special Issue features two timely reflections on the conflict's impact on vital commodity supply chains. Susana Carmona, in ‘Contrasting Affective Responses and the Politics of the Energy Transition: Impact of the War in Ukraine on the Colombian Coal Industry’, examines how Petro's presidency, initially seen as a potential obstacle to coal exports, has not hindered Colombia's role as a key coal supplier to Europe. Despite rising social conflicts and environmental activism demanding more drastic measures, Colombia's coal export boom continues. In ‘The Russia-Ukraine War and The Peruvian Agrarian Crisis’, Nacimento highlights how fertiliser shortages have severely impacted Peru's agricultural production, particularly for small farmers. The paper argues that the war's effects on Peru were foreseeable due to historical inequalities and structural issues in the global food system. With Peru importing about 90% of its synthetic fertilisers in 2021, and 53% from Russia, the fertiliser crisis has notably affected the cultivation of rice and white potatoes.

The lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing regional conflicts and the pressures of aggressive capitalism have all intersected with the war in Ukraine, creating a complex and rapidly changing context. We hope this Special Issue deepens the debate not only about Latin America's responses to the war but also about its broader position in the world in the 21st century.