ПОЗИЦІЇ ДЕРЖАВ ЛАТИНСЬКОЇ АМЕРИКИ ТА КАРИБСЬКОГО БАСЕЙНУ ЩОДО АНЕКСІЇ РОСІЙСЬКОЮ ФЕДЕРАЦІЄЮ КРИМУ В 2014 РОЦІ

Abstract

The aim of this article is to study the positions of the leading states of the Latin American region and the Caribbean on the issue of Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the context of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014. The research methodology is based on the principle of historicism and problem-chronological and integrated approaches, comparative and analytical methods, which helped to trace the positions of the states of the region on this issue when voting for the UN General Assembly resolution on the territorial integrity of Ukraine of March 27, 2014 and to determine internal and external factors that might affect them. The scientific novelty of the study is based on the fact that for the first time in the Ukrainian historical science the author conducted a comprehensive analysis of the positions of the LAC states on this issue. Obtained results will help our Ministry of Foreign Affairs in shaping Ukraine’s strategy in this region, including in the context of the implementation of the «Crimean Platform». Conclusions: In their attitude to the territorial integrity of Ukraine, the LAC countries were divided into several regional groups. Mainly the countries of the Pacific Alliance and some states of Central America and the Caribbean supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation was supported by the main members of the Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA) – Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. The members of the regional association MERCOSUR and part of the English–speaking states of the Caribbean have shown «restrained» positions. The «Crimean precedent» has become not only a «challenge» for regional security, but also a «challenge» at the global level. This showed that the LAC countries, which for the past several decades in a multipolar world have tried to position themselves in the international arena as states that do not recognize the division into «spheres of influence» during the Cold War and build their relations on the basis of equal partnership, in fact have demonstrated not just solidarity with the Russian Federation, but the recognition of its sphere of geopolitical influence in Ukraine and, more broadly, in the post–Soviet space and in Eastern Europe. And this, in turn, could potentially lead to attempts to restore «spheres of influence» in other parts of the world, including the Western Hemisphere itself.