Costa Rica entered a tense new chapter in mid-2022 when headlines confirmed Nicaragua’s decision to permit Russian military contingents on its soil. The news came only months after Moscow launched its invasion of Ukraine, set against a backdrop of rising global militarization. In this regional sandbox, the close security cooperation between Moscow and the Ortega regime stirred deep unease for its neighbor to the north, a country that has repeatedly asserted its commitment to international norms and sanctions against Moscow.
There were clear reasons for concern. Costa Rica, one of the few Latin American states to swiftly endorse international sanctions against Russia, began feeling the pressure soon after its own presidential election. The cyberfront amplified that pressure. The Conti hacker group, loyal to Russia, launched a wave of cyberattacks affecting several public institutions, including the treasury, science and technology, and labor and social security ministries. The disruptions threatened pensions, medical appointments, and other essential state functions, underscoring how digital campaigns can destabilize governance just as physical threats loom on the horizon.
In response to the escalating threats, Costa Rican authorities sought international assistance from the United States, Spain, Israel, and Microsoft to stabilize systems and recover operations. President Rodrigo Chaves declared a national alert, labeling the cyber assaults as acts of terrorism and signaling a firm stand against what was perceived as a coordinated attempt to destabilize the country from abroad.
Since those early episodes, Costa Rica has remained in a region-wide spotlight. In April 2023, Moscow issued an arrest warrant for a local judge involved with the International Criminal Court ruling against the Russian president for alleged crimes against children, highlighting how legal actions can intersect with political confrontations. At the same time, pro-Kremlin factions in Nicaragua intensified campaigns against refugees who fled repression in the Ortega regime, adding another layer of tension for a country already managing regional spillovers and humanitarian pressures.
Experts arguing from the field of regional security have linked these pressures to a broader strategic motive. Douglas Farah, president of IBI Consultants, contends that Moscow’s moves in Central America are not accidental but purposeful. He notes that Costa Rica’s alignment with Western policies created a political rift with Russia, which he describes as a meaningful political signal in a region where many states had adopted neutrality or balanced approaches in the past.
Asked to assess the regional impact, Farah emphasizes that Russia’s activity in Central America now carries more weight than it did during the Cold War. He points to a triad of support arrangements: a loyal Nicaraguan government, a commercial partner in El Salvador, and strong access to the government of Honduras. Russia’s lack of counterweights in the region and the absence of a hard, informal pact that once helped manage escalations during the Cold War allow Moscow to push forward more freely. The historical lesson suggests a shift in how regional stability is negotiated, with Moscow actively courting politicians and leaders whose governance styles tilt autocratic and where sanctions evasion and financial maneuvering appear to be part of a broader strategy.
Within this framework, Moscow’s engagement has extended beyond bilateral diplomacy. The Kremlin has demonstrated an appetite for cultivating influence across both ends of the political spectrum in Europe while seeking allies and partners in the Western Hemisphere. Relations with leaders perceived as leaning left or right have shown a pragmatic flexibility, indicating an intention to blur traditional ideological lines in pursuit of strategic advantages. In Central America, this means courting regimes and political actors who can facilitate influence, access, and potential economic opportunities, even as democratic institutions in the region face scrutiny from other external powers and domestic critics.
The broader narrative thus centers on a complex mix of security, economics, and geopolitics. While the public focus often highlights dramatic headlines, the underlying pattern involves the careful stitching of alliances, the use of cyber tools to test resilience, and the persistent effort to shape political outcomes in neighboring states. For observers, the takeaway is clear: Moscow’s regional agenda is not simply about provocations in isolated incidents but about establishing a durable presence that can influence policy directions, commercial collaborations, and governance choices across Central America and beyond.
In reflecting on these developments, analysts stress the importance of vigilance and resilience. The region’s security architecture—comprising international partners, robust civil institutions, and forward-looking governance—must adapt to a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape. It is a reminder that national sovereignty in an interconnected world requires not only strong defense capabilities but also robust cyber defenses, transparent governance, and inclusive regional dialogue that can dampen tensions before they escalate into broader confrontations.
As the situation continues to evolve, commentators urge careful monitoring of how external powers engage with Central American governments, the responses from regional blocs, and the real-world consequences for civilians caught in the crossfire of great-power competition. The story remains a work in progress, with the potential to shape security paradigms across the Americas in the years ahead.