Round Table "Quo vadis, Iberoamerica? The Ibero-American World in the Context of Global Transformation and Transition to Multipolarity" brings together representatives from 17 Universities of Ibero-America and Russia
Representatives from 11 countries and 17 universities across Ibero-America and Russia participated in the Round Table discussion.
The discussion was opened by Zbigniew Ivanovsky (Russia, Institute of Latin America of the Russian Academy of Sciences – ILA RAS) with a report on the current political situation in Latin America. He emphasized the cyclical and often artificial nature of electoral processes in the region, pointing to a trend of divided governments, low public support, and weak state institutions. Ivanovsky detailed a picture of high electoral instability in Latin America, characterized by the fragmentation of party systems and very narrow election margins. According to him, the region is witnessing a "turn to the right" in several countries (Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Honduras, and Chile), interpreted as a vote against progressive governments that failed to deliver on their promises due to both objective and subjective constraints. Among the causes, he cited social disillusionment, state bureaucratization, rising corruption, criminalization and drug trafficking, democratic fatigue, authoritarian tendencies, and conservative rejection of liberal reforms. He also commented on regional integration, noting current crises and rifts within its mechanisms (ALBA, Mercosur, the Pacific Alliance, CELAC) and the difficulty of forging a common position on global conflicts. He concluded on a pessimistic note, stating that Latin America and the Caribbean have not yet solidified their position as an independent pole in a multipolar world, though he expressed confidence that in the long term, the region could overcome its problems and enhance its global influence.
The discussion continued with Ivan Popov (Russia, MGIMO University; Institute of Europe RAS), who addressed the political crisis in the Iberian Peninsula. He analyzed the situations in Spain and Portugal, noting a political crisis driven by resource shortages and party diversification. He pointed out that while both countries face similar problems, Portugal's historical experience allows it to manage these tensions better. Popov criticized the fact that major parties in both nations prioritize supranational European agendas over defending national interests. Furthermore, he stated that Spain, despite its historical influence, is relinquishing the defense of its national interests in Latin America, subordinating them to the interests of the European Union, leading to the powerlessness of European foreign policy in the region. In a multipolar world, Latin America will seek closer ties with the United States, China, and, to some extent, Russia, whose role may grow after the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis.
Beatriz Bissio (Brazil, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro) analyzed Latin America's strategic autonomy in the context of a multipolar world, linking it to the new national security strategy of the Trump administration, which emphasizes the Monroe Doctrine and prioritizes the Western Hemisphere as a space not to be conceded to other powers. Within this strategy, Venezuela and Brazil emerge as two key countries. Venezuela appears as a central obsession of Trump's foreign policy in the region, which has recently suffered from his accusations. Brazil, in turn, presents a challenge for the US as a member of BRICS. Overall, she emphasized that the Trump administration uses military and economic power to curb the autonomy of these two countries. She concluded that the strategic autonomy of Latin America, especially South America, currently depends on these countries' ability to preserve sovereign choices in the face of US pressure.
Alexander Orlov (Russia, MGIMO University) highlighted Spain's potential role as a mediator but warned of its profound internal crisis, characterized by the prosecution of politicians and the rise of nationalist movements. Orlov expressed pessimism about the near future due to contradictory socio-political processes that could alter the political landscape. He argued that Spanish society is deeply divided between right and left, comparable to the period before the Civil War. Corruption is used as a pretext for political confrontation, turning judges and prosecutors into key players, which threatens the party system. The Spanish left, including PSOE and radical parties, is in deep crisis with uncertainty following elections. The Sánchez government depends on Catalan and Basque nationalists, forcing it to make concessions that exacerbate the situation. The right, strengthened in upcoming elections, could intensify the nationalist conflict, provoking new crises in Catalonia and the Basque Country. Many processes in Spain are repeating in Latin American countries, highlighting similarities in polarization, the political use of institutions, and nationalism.
Victor Arbaizar (Spain, HSE University) supported the views of Zbigniew Ivanovsky and Alexander Orlov that the Spanish government is detached from its citizens. In his opinion, the country needs a stronger government capable of upholding national interests on the world stage. Within the context of political problems, he highlighted socio-political transformations and corruption. Furthermore, Arbaizar analyzed Spanish politics, arguing that new major right- and left-wing parties tried to occupy the entire center, converging in their positions, especially on economic issues. This convergence and the absence of important topics on the agenda, replaced by corruption cases and minor disputes, played into the hands of parties like Vox in the center-right space. He emphasized that Spain is currently not acting as a mediator between Latin America and Europe, despite its perceived economic strength within the EU, based on favorable tourism revenues and European aid.
Nadezhda Kudeyarova (Russia, ILA RAS) spoke about the possible strategic autonomy of Latin America amid a global crisis in international relations. According to her, Latin America is not a unified political space but a contradictory mosaic in which regional organizations lack a common position. Latin American analysts prefer the term “multilateral approach” to “polycentric world,” emphasizing horizontal relations between states and equality to prevent hegemony.
Violetta Tayar (Russia, ILA RAS) continued the discussion with a report dedicated to Spain and the energy transition. She emphasized that Spain aims to become an innovator in renewable energy, which could positively affect relations with Latin America and the EU, opening opportunities for investment and technological cooperation. She also referenced the European Green Deal, launched in 2018, which revealed significant renewable energy potential in Mexico, helping it overcome fuel dependency.
Gabriel Merino (Argentina, National University of La Plata) presented on “Geopolitical Control Strategies,” analyzing the Trump administration’s new strategy to establish control in the region.
Andrei Baranov (Russia, Kuban State University) presented a report on the current situation in Portugal. He noted that the country is experiencing political destabilization: the middle and upper classes support the right, while the popular masses support the left. At the same time, the influence of traditional ideologies is waning. Baranov concluded that the current government depends on a coalition of social democrats and socialists amid an economic crisis, inequality, migration flows, and corruption. Nikolay Shkolyar (Russia, ILA RAS) supplemented the narrative with reflections on trends in Portuguese elections and the associated political instability.
Josep Puigsech Farràs (Spain, Autonomous University of Barcelona) and Carlos Puente Martín (Spain, University of Vienna) concurred on the absence of reformist leaders in the region. Tatiana Sidorenko (Russia, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation) highlighted the case of Mexico, noting that despite its challenges, the country possesses key strategic potential.
Juan Pablo Osorio Jaramillo (Colombia, HSE University), representative of the Embassy of the Republic of Colombia in Russia, delivered a report on Colombia's foreign policy. He analyzed its two fundamental elements: a multilateral approach and actions promoting equality. He mentioned the recent Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Cali, which positioned Colombia as a country strengthening its global role in environmental protection. While the United States remains Colombia’s main trading partner, he concluded that Colombia is seeking new contacts, aligning with Russia’s vision of a multipolar world to protect its economy and national security.
Carlos Quiroga, Counselor of the Embassy of Uruguay in the Russian Federation, focused on Latin America’s relations with China.
Bárbara Polo Martín (Spain, Autonomous University of Madrid) noted that Latin America is a constellation of actors with their own voice, growing capabilities, and diversified global connections. In a region where Brazil is actively engaged in BRICS, Mexico functions as an industrial power linked to North America, and countries like Chile, Colombia, and Argentina pursue autonomous foreign agendas, any paternalistic approach from Spain appears anachronistic. Latin America has accumulated sufficient demographic, economic, and diplomatic weight to act on the global stage as an equal partner—not as an object of tutelage. Therefore, if Spain wishes to strengthen its role as an intermediary between the EU and Latin America in such a fragmented context, it must acknowledge that relations can no longer be hierarchical.
Oscar Morales Villalta (Honduras, National Autonomous University) supported Bárbara Polo’s position, emphasizing that Latin America cannot be viewed as a monolithic voice. “Despite our shared culture with Spain,” he noted, “Spain has failed to leverage its soft diplomacy effectively. We are engaged in an internal struggle against Cold War legacies and the aggressiveness of a global hegemon that seeks to keep us as colonies, while simultaneously striving to integrate into the multipolar world championed by Russia.”
Also participating in the discussion were: Ana Lívia Esteves (Brazil, HSE University), Ekaterina Yurchik (Russia, Lomonosov Moscow State University), Anastasia Sapozhnikova (Russia, HSE University), Lilia Moiseenko (Russia, Moscow State Linguistic University), Ekaterina Grantseva (Russia, Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences), Oleg Aurov (Russia, RANEPA), Concepción Camarero (Spain, Autonomous University of Madrid), Ana Luna (Spain, Autonomous University of Madrid), and Ángel Ignacio Aguilar Cuesta (Spain, National University of Distance Education).
The Round Table was concluded by moderator Olga Volosyuk (Russia, HSE University), who noted that Ibero-America is undergoing a complex transitional period marked by political instability, external economic dependency, and efforts to build strategic autonomy. She emphasized that academic cooperation and sustained dialogue are vital tools for navigating these challenges.