The Russia–Ukraine war, now in its third year, has emerged as one of the most consequential geopolitical events of the 21st century. While its epicentre remains in Eastern Europe, its repercussions have spread far beyond the borders of the warring states, striking hardest in the developing world. As the post-Cold War unipolar moment fades and a multipolar global order begins to take shape, developing countries find themselves at a pivotal crossroads, caught between competing power centres and facing cascading challenges. From disrupted food and energy supplies to rising inflation, debt distress, and strategic realignments, the war has exposed the vulnerabilities and tested the resilience of nations across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. However, it has also provided opportunities for recalibration, agency, and redefinition of foreign policy in an increasingly fragmented international system. This editorial explores the complex consequences of the war for the Global South in the context of a shifting world order.
Although the war is confined to the geographical theatre of Ukraine, it has unleashed widespread geopolitical, economic, and institutional disruptions. At its core, the war represents not merely a clash of armies but of ideologies and power blocs. Russia, seeking to resist Western encroachment, has framed its actions as defensive against NATO expansionism. The West, particularly the United States and the European Union, views Russia’s invasion as an affront to international law and liberal democratic values. Yet, in the Global South, the perception is far more nuanced. Many developing countries have neither taken unequivocal sides nor allowed the West to dictate their diplomatic postures. The reason is simple: the war's consequences, particularly in economic and security terms, hit these countries the hardest. At a time when the world order is increasingly fragmented, and influence is no longer the monopoly of the West, developing countries are both shaping and being shaped by the evolving international landscape.
1. The Food and Energy Crisis: Global South Pays the Price
Perhaps the most immediate and tangible impact of the war for developing countries has been the disruption of global food and energy markets. Ukraine, often termed the “breadbasket of Europe,” and Russia collectively account for nearly a third of global wheat exports. When conflict disrupted shipments, prices soared. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the global food price index hit a record high in 2022. Similarly in East Africa, where over 80% of wheat was imported from Russia and Ukraine, food insecurity surged. Countries like Somalia and Ethiopia witnessed worsening famine conditions, exacerbated by supply chain interruptions. Meanwhile, nations such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Lebanon faced sharp increases in bread prices, igniting domestic unrest.
On the energy front, Western sanctions on Russian oil and gas reshaped global energy flows. Europe turned to alternative suppliers, driving up global demand and costs. For fuel-importing developing countries, the result was painful. Pakistan, for instance, faced one of its worst balance-of-payment crises, partly due to soaring energy import bills. Inflation surged across South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, regions already reeling from the economic scars of COVID-19. This scenario has laid bare the vulnerabilities of over-dependence on global markets. It has also prompted a reconsideration of energy security strategies, food sovereignty, and supply chain diversification across the developing world.
2. Non-Alignment Reimagined: Strategic Hedging in a Multipolar World
The Russia–Ukraine war has also prompted developing countries to revisit the concept of non-alignment. During the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) allowed many postcolonial states to resist entanglement in the bipolar rivalry. Today, non-alignment has morphed into “strategic hedging”, a more pragmatic, interests-driven approach in a multipolar context. For instance, India is emblematic of this trend. While being a member of the Quad, a security dialogue involving the US, Japan, and Australia, it has abstained from condemning Russia at the UN and continued to import discounted Russian oil. Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa have adopted similarly cautious stances, often prioritising national interest over ideological alignment.
This redefinition of neutrality signals a broader truth: in a world no longer dominated by a single superpower, developing countries can exploit multipolarity to diversify alliances, access alternative financing, and enhance diplomatic leverage. However, such balancing acts are not without risk. As major powers become more polarised, room for manoeuvre narrows, and smaller nations may eventually be forced to take sides.
3. Debt Distress and Economic Fallout: A Crisis Within a Crisis
The economic implications of the war have been particularly harsh for developing economies already burdened by high external debt and limited fiscal space. The combination of global inflation, rising interest rates, and reduced capital inflows has pushed many countries towards the brink of default. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), more than 60% of low-income countries are either in or at high risk of debt distress. Sri Lanka’s economic collapse in 2022, marked by fuel shortages, mass protests, and political upheaval, was a stark example. Countries like Ghana, Zambia, and Tunisia also approached the IMF for emergency bailouts.
Western aid was reoriented towards Ukraine and European defence priorities, leaving many developing countries without timely support. Consequently, many turned to China for infrastructure financing and to regional development banks for assistance. But this shift raises new challenges: Chinese loans often come with less transparency, and restructuring efforts can be complicated by the competing interests of creditors. The Global South now faces a dual imperative, securing short-term financial relief while pushing for a more inclusive and responsive global financial architecture.
4. Fragmentation of Multilateralism and Institutional Legitimacy
The war has dealt a blow to the credibility of traditional multilateral institutions. The United Nations has appeared paralysed, unable to either prevent the war or mediate effectively. The Security Council’s dysfunction, with Russia wielding veto power, has underscored its structural limitations. Meanwhile, the IMF and World Bank are criticised for prioritising Western economic and political interests. This disillusionment has accelerated the shift towards alternative institutions. BRICS, for example, announced plans in 2023 to expand its membership and explore a common currency to reduce dependence on the dollar. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank (NDB) are also gaining relevance.
These moves indicate a clear desire among developing countries to create a parallel financial and diplomatic ecosystem that better reflects their priorities. However, success depends on the effectiveness and unity of these emerging blocs, attributes not yet guaranteed.
5. Arms Race and New Military Dependencies
Another significant yet underexplored impact of the war is the reshaping of global defence partnerships. Russia, long a major supplier of arms to developing countries such as India, Egypt, and Algeria, has shifted focus to replenishing its own arsenal. This has created gaps that Western defence companies, as well as China and Turkey, are eager to fill. Turkey’s Bayraktar drones, used effectively in Ukraine, are now exported to various African and Asian countries. China, too, has stepped up its arms exports, offering cheaper alternatives to Western systems. While this diversification gives developing nations more choice, it also risks fuelling regional arms races and internal repression, particularly where governance is weak.
Moreover, the nature of warfare is changing. Ukraine has demonstrated the potency of cyber warfare, drones, and information operations. This forces developing countries to rethink their security doctrines and invest in non-conventional capabilities, an expensive and technologically complex transition.
6. New Geopolitical Relevance: Between Leverage and Exposure
The war has unintentionally made several developing regions more geopolitically significant. Central Asia, once considered peripheral, is now seen as a strategic transit corridor between East and West. Africa, rich in natural resources, is being courted by multiple powers eager to secure energy and mineral supplies. This enhanced relevance allows developing countries to extract concessions, secure investment, and play a more active diplomatic role. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, for example, have positioned themselves as mediators in the Ukraine conflict while simultaneously strengthening ties with China and Russia. However, geopolitical centrality is a double-edged sword. It brings attention but also the risk of interference, competition, and internal instability. To benefit sustainably, developing countries must invest in institutional capacity, regional cooperation, and strategic vision.
The Russia–Ukraine war has reinforced a stark reality: in an interdependent world, no country remains untouched by conflict. For the Global South, the war has deepened existing economic and security vulnerabilities. But it has also offered lessons in resilience, self-reliance, and diplomatic dexterity. Multipolarity does not automatically translate to equity. Power continues to be concentrated in capitals with economic might and military muscle. Yet, the fragmentation of the old order creates openings that developing nations can, and must, exploit. Strategic autonomy, diversified partnerships, and stronger regional integration are the keys to navigating this uncertain terrain.
The Russia–Ukraine war is more than a European tragedy; it is a global inflection point. For developing countries, it has underscored both their vulnerability and their agency. The multipolar world is not just a redistribution of power, it is a reconfiguration of opportunity. To thrive, the Global South must act with clarity, coherence, and confidence. This means resisting binary choices, reforming global institutions, and prioritising inclusive development at home. In the coming years, the true legacy of this conflict may not be decided on the battlefields of Ukraine but in the capitals of the developing world, where choices made today will shape the geopolitics of tomorrow.
