Front. Sustain. Food Syst. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2571-581X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1648918 Sustainable Food Systems Mini Review The impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on global supply chains: a systematic literature review Sarwar Dilshad * Rye Sara Faculty of Computing, Mathematics, Engineering and Natural Sciences (CoMENS), Northeastern University London, London, United Kingdom

Edited by: Albie F. Miles, University of Hawaii–West Oahu, United States

Reviewed by: Tomas Gabriel Bas, Catholic University of the North, Chile

Ernest Mugoni, Marondera University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (MUAST), Zimbabwe

 *Correspondence: Dilshad Sarwar, d.sarwar@nulondon.ac.uk 29 09 2025 2025 9 1648918 17 06 2025 09 09 2025 Copyright © 2025 Sarwar and Rye. 2025 Sarwar and Rye

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

This systematic review examines the multifaceted impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war on global supply chains. Following PRISMA methodology, we analyze 22 peer-reviewed studies published between 2022 and 2025 to identify key disruption patterns, sectoral vulnerabilities, regional impacts, and adaptive strategies. Our findings reveal significant disruptions across food, energy, and critical materials sectors, with asymmetric regional vulnerabilities particularly affecting developing economies. The review identifies five major impact domains: (1) food security disruptions, (2) energy market volatility, (3) critical material shortages, (4) transportation bottlenecks, and (5) financial market responses. We document emerging adaptation strategies including supply diversification, strategic reserves development, and accelerated digitalization. The findings suggest permanent shifts in global supply chain configurations and trade relationships that will persist beyond the conflict’s resolution. This review contributes to both academic understanding of supply chain vulnerability to geopolitical shocks and provides practical insights for logistics professionals developing resilience strategies.

 supply chain resilience Russia-Ukraine war geopolitical risk food security energy security logistics disruption PRISMA systematic review section-at-acceptance Social Movements, Institutions and Governance Introduction

Supply chains have become increasingly globalized, creating efficiencies but also heightened vulnerabilities to geopolitical disruptions (Kumar and Kumar, 2023). The Russia-Ukraine war that began in February 2022 represents one of the most significant geopolitical shocks to global supply chains in recent decades, following closely after COVID-19 pandemic disruptions (Toygar and Yildirim, 2023). The conflict’s impacts extend far beyond the immediate conflict zone, affecting sectors from agriculture to energy, transportation to manufacturing, across diverse geographic regions (Jagtap et al., 2022).

Despite growing literature examining the war’s supply chain impacts, no comprehensive systematic review has yet synthesized these findings to identify overarching patterns, sectoral vulnerabilities, and emerging adaptation strategies. This gap limits both academic understanding of how geopolitical conflicts reshape global supply networks and the practical knowledge needed by logistics professionals to develop effective resilience strategies.

This systematic review addresses this gap by synthesizing findings from 22 peer-reviewed studies published between 2022 and 2025 on the Russia-Ukraine war’s supply chain impacts. The review follows PRISMA methodology to ensure comprehensive coverage and methodological rigor. We examine five key questions:

What are the primary supply chain disruption mechanisms resulting from the Russia-Ukraine war?

How do impacts differ across sectors (food, energy, and manufacturing) and regions?

What adaptation strategies have emerged at organizational and policy levels?

What long-term structural changes to global supply chains are anticipated?

What implications exist for supply chain resilience theory and practice?

The review makes three key contributions. First, it provides the first systematic synthesis of research on the Russia-Ukraine war’s supply chain impacts, identifying consistent patterns across diverse studies. Second, it develops a conceptual framework categorizing impact mechanisms, vulnerabilities, and adaptation strategies. Third, it identifies critical research gaps and future directions for both academic inquiry and practical applications.

 Methodology Research design

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology (Page et al., 2021) to ensure comprehensive coverage, methodological rigor, and transparent reporting. The review was structured around the five research questions identified above.

 Search strategy

We conducted a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature published between February 2022 (conflict onset) and February 2025. The following electronic databases were searched: Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO Business Source Complete, Emerald Insight, and Google Scholar. The search terms included combinations of: (“Russia-Ukraine war” OR “Russia-Ukraine conflict”) AND (“supply chain” OR “logistics” OR “trade” OR “food security” OR “energy security” OR “transportation” OR “disruption” OR “resilience”).

 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

Peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, or conference proceedings

Published between February 2022 and February 2025

Primary focus on supply chain or logistics impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war

Written in English

Studies were excluded if they:

Focused exclusively on political or military aspects without supply chain considerations

Were non-academic sources (e.g., news articles, opinion pieces)

Mentioned the conflict only tangentially

 Study selection process

The selection process followed PRISMA guidelines with four phases: identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion. Initially, 287 studies were identified through database searches. After removing duplicates (n = 66), 225 studies underwent title and abstract screening, resulting in 48 studies for full-text assessment. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 22 studies were selected for the final synthesis.

 Data extraction and analysis

A standardized data extraction form captured key information from each study:

Publication details (authors, year, journal)

Methodological approach

Sectors and regions examined

Key findings on supply chain disruptions

Documented adaptation strategies

Theoretical contributions

Limitations and future research directions

Data analysis employed a thematic synthesis approach (Thomas and Harden, 2008) to identify recurring patterns, consistent findings, and emerging concepts across studies. Initial coding identified descriptive themes, followed by development of analytical themes corresponding to the five research questions.

PRISMA process: literature selection for Russia-Ukraine war impact on supply chains.

PRISMA phase Step Description Number of studies
Identification Database Search Search of Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO Business Source Complete, Emerald Insight, and Google Scholar 287
Search terms: (“Russia-Ukraine war” OR “Russia-Ukraine conflict”) AND (“supply chain” OR “logistics” OR “trade” OR “food security” OR “energy security” OR “transportation” OR “disruption” OR “resilience”)
Screening Duplicate Removal Elimination of duplicate records across databases −62
Remaining studies after duplicate removal 225
Title & Abstract Screening Initial screening based on title and abstract relevance −177
Remaining studies after title/abstract screening 48
Eligibility Full-Text Assessment Application of inclusion/exclusion criteria −26
Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed; Published 2022–2025; Primary focus on supply chain impacts; English language
Exclusion criteria: Exclusively political/military focus; Non-academic sources; Tangential mention of conflict
Included Final Selection Studies included in the systematic review 66
Disciplinary Distribution Supply chain management 8
Agricultural economics 5
Energy economics 3
International business 3
Environmental science 2
Financial economics 1
Methodological Approaches Quantitative modeling 7
Mixed methods 6
Conceptual frameworks 4
Case studies 3
Event studies 2
Geographic Focus Global impacts 9
Europe 5
Middle East/North Africa 3
South Asia 2
Russia 2
Ukraine 1

This PRISMA flow table provides a transparent documentation of the systematic review process, showing how the initial pool of 287 studies was methodically narrowed down to the final 22 studies included in the review. It demonstrates the application of rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria and provides a breakdown of the characteristics of the included studies, including their disciplinary distribution, methodological approaches, and geographic focus areas. This approach follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the literature selection process as stated by Munialo and Mellor (2024).

 Results Descriptive analysis of included studies

The 66 included studies spanned multiple disciplines including supply chain management (n = 8), agricultural economics (n = 5), energy economics (n = 3), international business (n = 3), environmental science (n = 2), and financial economics (n = 1). Methodological approaches varied, with quantitative modeling (n = 7), mixed methods (n = 6), conceptual frameworks (n = 4), case studies (n = 3), and event studies (n = 2). Studies examined multiple geographic regions including global impacts (n = 9), Europe (n = 5), Middle East/North Africa (n = 3), South Asia (n = 2), Russia (n = 2), and Ukraine (n = 1).

Table 1 summarizes the included studies, their methodological approaches, and key focus areas.

Trade relocation and supply chain theory studies.

Study & authors Journal & year Methodology Key findings Policy implications Geographic focus
Russia’s war against Ukraine might persistently shift global supply chains – Stemmler & Korn VoxEU Column (2022) Bilateral trade data (150 + countries, 1995–2014); Civil war analysis; Structural gravity estimation Trade relocation persists 9 + years; Agriculture/mining +12–13% yr1; Manufacturing +7% later; No energy substitution EU accession; Energy diversification; Supply chain resilience; Trade agreements Global
Supply Chain Disruption and Reorganization: Evidence from Ukraine’s War – Korovkin, Makarin, Miyauchi SSRN Working Paper (2024) Firm-to-firm railway data; Difference-in-differences; Multi-sector equilibrium model 16% sales decline; 5.6% GDP decline (non-conflict); Reorganization mitigated 8.4%; 50% GDP decline explained Supply diversification; Network resilience; Economic security; Conflict prevention Ukraine
Impact pathways: unhooking supply chains from conflict zones – Srai, Graham, Van Hoek, Joglekar, Lorentz Int. J. of Operations & Production Mgmt (2023) Case study (6 cases); Institutional theory framework 3 temporal pathways; Short-term continuity; Mid-term resilience; Long-term strategic restructuring Awareness of supply chain weaponization; Crisis management frameworks; Stakeholder pressure management; Geopolitical risk integration Global
Russia-Ukraine war and risks to global supply chains – Ngoc et al. Int. J. of Mechanical Engineering (2022) Panel data models; Sector analysis; Trade flow assessment Agriculture/raw materials relocate quickly; Capital-intensive adjust over years; Infrastructure dependencies create inertia; SMEs adapt faster Sector-specific support; Infrastructure investment; SME assistance; Trade facilitation Global
Global Supply Chain Imputations of Russia-Ukraine War – Sathe J. Supply Chain Mgmt Systems (2022) Firm-level logistics data; SME analysis; Diversification tracking Polish/Slovak SMEs accelerate Asian sourcing; Partial mitigation of European disruptions; Supplier switching patterns; Costs +15–25% SME support mechanisms; Alternative route development; Trade finance assistance; Regional cooperation Eastern Europe
Global trade and finance turmoil: Ukraine–Russia war – Nemat et al. Journal of Risk Finance (2025) Eurasian customs simulation; Sanction scenario modeling; Trade flow analysis Belarus/Kazakhstan as Russian export corridors; RTAs mediate rerouting; Sanction enforcement complications; 30% trade diversion Sanction design improvement; Secondary sanction policy; Regional monitoring systems; Compliance mechanisms Eurasia

Food security and agricultural disruptions studies.

Study & authors Journal & year Methodology Key findings Policy implications Geographic focus
Countries’ vulnerability to food supply disruptions – Zhang et al. Scientific Reports (2023) Trade dependency analysis; HHI index; 279 countries 24 countries extremely vulnerable; 30% durum wheat; 71% sunflower oil; 136 countries fertilizer disruption; Sub-Saharan Africa most at risk Strategic reserves; Supply diversification; International food coordination; Early warning systems Global
The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Its Implications for Global Food Supply Chains – Jagtap et al. Foods (2022) PRISMA review; e-Delphi expert consultation; Satellite analysis 6 impact areas identified; 20–30% areas unharvestable; 70% fuel from Russia/Belarus; 95% exports to Africa/Asia Alternative suppliers; Technology innovation; International cooperation; Emergency planning Global
Economic impacts of Russia-Ukraine war grain export disruptions – Rose, Chen, Wei Applied Economic Perspectives (2023) GTAP CGE model; Phantom tax method; 17 countries/regions Ukraine: $859 M GDP loss; Russia: minimal impact; Global: $1.64B reduction; 25% wheat, 60% sunflower market affected Black Sea Initiative; Alternative export routes; Strategic reserves; Conflict prevention Global
Impact of Russian-Ukrainian Conflict on Global Food Crops – Nasir et al. Foods (2022) Quantitative/qualitative; USDA/FAO data; Time series 2020–2022 Ukraine: wheat −26%, soy −32%, maize −21%; Russia: stable/increased; Wheat +24.5%, maize +14.7%; 28% global wheat trade affected Diplomatic resolution; UN peacekeeping for transport; Supply diversification; SDG impact mitigation Global
Effects of the Russia-Ukraine war on global trade – Orhan J. of Int. Trade, Logistics & Law (2022) Field assessments; Production data analysis; Supply chain mapping 28% average agricultural output decline; Sunflower, wheat, barley major reductions; Land degradation impacts; Logistical blockade effects Infrastructure restoration; Input supply support; Alternative transport routes; Agricultural recovery planning Ukraine
Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine conflicts on sub-Saharan Africa – Mugoni et al. Cogent Social Sciences (2025) Satellite imagery; Machine learning; Subsistence farming analysis Shift to subsistence farming; Undermines export calculations; Long-term capacity reduction; Food aid miscalculations risk Updated assessment methods; Local production support; Conflict zone monitoring; Aid distribution revision Ukraine/Africa
The Russia–Ukraine Conflict: A Global Impact Assessment in the Corn and Wheat Sectors – Arreyndip Agriculture (2025) Global impact modeling; Price transmission analysis; Import dependency assessment Corn/wheat production shortfalls quantified; Price transmission mechanisms mapped; Major importing regions vulnerable; Supply elasticity constraints Import substitution strategies; Price stabilization mechanisms; Regional cooperation enhancement; Market intervention protocols Global
Primary supply chain disruption mechanisms Food security disruptions

Multiple studies documented significant disruptions to global food supply chains. Russia and Ukraine together accounted for approximately 25% of global wheat and barley exports, 15% of maize exports, and 60% of sunflower seed oil exports (Zhang et al., 2023; Nasir et al., 2022). This market concentration created fundamental vulnerabilities when conflict erupted.

Agricultural production in Ukraine experienced severe disruptions, with Nasir et al. (2022) documenting production declines in wheat (−26%), soybean (−32%), and maize (−21%) compared to Russia’s maintained or increased production levels. Jagtap et al. (2022) found that 20–30% of areas allocated to winter cereals, maize, and sunflower production in Ukraine could not be harvested or planted due to the conflict.

Export capacity was severely compromised, with 95% of Ukrainian grain exports typically routed through Black Sea ports (Odessa, Mariupol, and Kherson) that were blocked or damaged during the conflict (Ben Hassen and El Bilali, 2022). Alternative export routes faced significant challenges, with Jagtap et al. (2022) noting different rail gauge systems between Ukraine and EU countries limiting railway capacity as an alternative to sea transport.

Price volatility emerged as a significant consequence, with Nasir et al. (2022) documenting March 2022 price spikes reaching 24.53% for wheat, 14.66% for maize, and 8.91% for soybeans. Kumar and Kumar (2023) reported that global wheat prices jumped 55% in the weeks following the invasion.

 Energy market volatility

Energy markets experienced substantial disruptions due to Russia’s significant market position. Cui et al. (2023) noted that Russia accounts for 8.3% of global mineral fuel exports and is the world’s largest natural gas exporter. Allam et al. (2022) documented that the European Union was particularly vulnerable, importing 25.5% of petroleum and 45–48% of total energy products from Russia between 2017 and 2021.

Sanctions and embargoes created significant economic impacts. Cui et al. (2023) employed computable general equilibrium modeling to project that complete US and EU energy import bans on Russia would cause a maximum real GDP decline of 5.49% for Russia, though global impacts remained relatively limited at approximately 0.008% of GDP reduction.

Price volatility became a significant concern, with Allam et al. (2022) documenting oil prices increasing approximately 15% to $130 per barrel by March 2022. Kumar and Kumar (2023) noted that natural gas prices rose 120–130% and coal prices 95–97% in Europe within 6 months of war onset.

 Critical material shortages

Several studies identified disruptions to critical materials essential for global manufacturing. Nguyen et al. (2022) documented that Ukraine supplies approximately 50% of global neon gas and 40% of krypton gas (essential for electronic chip production), while Russia supplies 47% of global palladium, 25% of potash fertilizers, and 16% of nickel.

Ben Hassen and El Bilali (2022) analyzed fertilizer market disruptions, noting that Russia and Belarus control significant global fertilizer exports (Russia: 16% potash, 10% nitrogen; Belarus: 17.6% potash). The authors documented fertilizer prices increasing 80% during 2021, reaching unprecedented levels as the conflict escalated.

Manufacturing sectors experienced cascading disruptions. Nguyen et al. (2022) reported that companies dependent on semiconductors, particularly in the automotive industry, faced production delays due to input material shortages. Japanese and Korean companies were noted to be utilizing reserves but struggling to find alternative suppliers outside Eastern Europe.

 Transportation and logistics bottlenecks

Transportation systems experienced significant disruptions. Nguyen et al. (2022) documented that 70% of Ukraine’s exports were transported by ships, with maritime routes through the Sea of Azov becoming inaccessible due to military blockades. Major Ukrainian ports (Odessa and Mariupol) were closed due to shelling damage, with container shipping operations stalled and substantial cargo trapped.

Workforce disruptions compounded logistics challenges. Nguyen et al. (2022) noted that Ukrainian and Russian seafarers comprise 14.5% of global shipping workforce, with crew safety concerns and rising insurance premiums discouraging shipowners from accepting shipments to conflict zones.

Financial system disruptions further complicated logistics operations. Multiple studies (Markus, 2022; Bargujar et al., 2025) documented the disconnection of Russian banks from the SWIFT international payment system, preventing Russian commerce with major trading partners and creating broader implications for global trade finance and payment systems.

 Financial market responses

Wang et al. (2023) conducted event study analyses of financial market responses across three major 21st-century conflicts, finding differentiated asset responses during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The S&P 500 experienced positive shocks (approximately $99–72 increase) due to capital flight to relatively safer US markets, while WTI oil showed significant positive impacts ($16–24 increase) due to supply disruption concerns. Gold prices increased substantially ($48–59), confirming its traditional safe-haven status during geopolitical uncertainty.

Tsang et al. (2024) examined supply chain vulnerability through stock market performance during three critical events of the conflict using event study methodology. They found that companies with American suppliers and customers performed exceptionally well during nuclear crisis events, while those with European connections showed greater vulnerability.

 Regional vulnerability patterns Global vulnerability distribution

Zhang et al. (2023) conducted a comprehensive assessment of 279 countries’ vulnerability to food supply disruptions, identifying 24 extremely vulnerable nations with high import dependency (>0.9 on the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index). The study found Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia showed the highest vulnerability due to low purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita and large populations.

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region emerged as particularly exposed. Barakat et al. (2023) documented high-risk countries including Egypt (86% wheat dependency, 100% barley dependency on Russia/Ukraine), Lebanon (74% wheat dependency), and Libya (58% wheat, 74% maize, 78% barley dependency).

Nasir et al. (2022) identified extreme dependency cases, with over 30 countries depending on Russia/Ukraine for more than 30% of their wheat imports. These included Egypt (90% dependency) and Eritrea (100% dependency) facing severe food security risks.

 Differential impacts in South Asia

Naz and Kear (2022) documented dramatically different outcomes within South Asia based on geopolitical positioning. India emerged as a primary beneficiary, leveraging its neutral position to secure continued energy deals with Russia at discounted prices, while also maintaining nuclear cooperation and defense partnerships. This strategic neutrality allowed India to purchase Russian oil cheaply, refine it, and sell at higher prices globally.

In contrast, Pakistan faced significant vulnerability with Ukraine supplying 39% of its wheat import demand in the previous fiscal year, while also experiencing cessation of fossil fuel imports leading to power shortages and high utility costs (Naz and Kear, 2022).

Sri Lanka experienced a dual blow through disruption of its $142 million tea exports to Russia and the loss of $4–7 billion annual foreign currency from Russian and Ukrainian tourists, compounding existing economic instability (Naz and Kear, 2022).

 Russian economic impacts

Several studies examined impacts within Russia itself. Bargujar et al. (2025) documented Russia’s GDP declining by 2.1% in 2022 and 0.2% in 2023, with oil and gas revenues decreasing by 17% due to Western sanctions and price caps. Technology import restrictions affected $19 billion annually of high-tech imports that were historically sourced from EU (45%), US (21%), and China (11%).

Markus (2022) identified human capital flight as a significant impact, with over 200,000 educated and skilled workers leaving Russia, particularly impacting the IT sector and other knowledge-intensive industries. An estimated 1 million individuals under 35 left the Russian labor force in 2022.

Russia’s adaptations included redirecting energy exports to alternative markets. Bargujar et al. (2025) documented exports being redirected to China ($97 billion), Turkey ($38.3 billion), and India, though daily fossil fuel export revenues still dropped from previous levels despite finding these alternative markets.

 Ukrainian adaptation under wartime conditions

Krykavskyy et al. (2023) provided unique insights into wartime supply chain adaptation within Ukraine, conducting focus groups with logistics company managers 56 days into the war. They identified unique disruption characteristics including brittleness (high hazard levels), anxiety (increasing failure points), nonlinearity (requiring creative solutions), and incomprehensibility (elevated transparency needs).

Despite severe infrastructure damage estimated at USD 252 billion, surprising positive adaptations emerged. Krykavskyy et al. (2023) documented 150,000 new enterprises opening since the invasion, 710 enterprises relocating, and 500 resuming operations through business diversification toward humanitarian and defense sectors.

 Adaptation strategies Organizational adaptation strategies

Krykavskyy et al. (2023) identified five key adaptation strategies employed by Ukrainian businesses:

Diversification strategy: Reorientation to humanitarian logistics during initial war phases; development of new services including property moving for displaced Ukrainians and enterprise relocation assistance

Cooperation strategy: Railway-postal operator partnerships creating “Iron Mail” services for dangerous regions; logistics-IT company collaboration producing security-focused digital solutions

Coopetition strategy: Alternative route development when seaports were blocked; logistics hub creation near customs crossings for route optimization

Deeper digitalization strategy: Accelerated digital management model implementation; reduction of bureaucratic procedures for faster decision-making

Business-government-society partnerships: First-time active state intervention in logistics regulatory sphere; customs barrier reductions and visa-free travel introduction

More broadly, Kumar and Kumar (2023) documented businesses worldwide pursuing alternative sourcing strategies by diversifying from traditional suppliers to reduce single-source dependency, implementing inventory buffering by increasing stock levels of critical components, and enhancing risk mitigation through contingency planning.

 Supply chain reconfiguration patterns

Multiple studies documented substantial supply chain reconfigurations. Rahbari et al. (2023) conducted mathematical modeling of wheat supply chain resilience in Iran, demonstrating that hybrid strategies combining backup suppliers and inventory pre-positioning achieved 9.33% cost reduction and maintained feasibility when demand increased 9%, while non-resilient systems failed.

Stemmler and Korn (2022) examined how civil wars affect trade patterns, finding that agricultural and mining sectors relocate trade quickly (12–13% increase within 1 year), manufacturing sectors adjust more slowly (7% after several years), and fuel sectors show minimal adjustment. Their analysis suggested these trade relocation effects persist up to 9 years post-conflict.

Tsang et al. (2024) identified geographic reconfiguration trends, finding that Asian and American entities consistently outperformed European counterparts across financial market events during the conflict. Companies with strong ESG (environmental, social, governance) disclosure scores showed superior stock performance during crisis events, suggesting ESG-enabled firms demonstrated higher supply chain resilience.

 Policy interventions

Barakat et al. (2023) analyzed the July 22, 2022 Black Sea Grain Initiative agreement, mediated by Turkey and the UN between Russia and Ukraine. This agreement allowed Ukrainian wheat exports to resume to highly dependent nations like Lebanon (72% import dependency), demonstrating how strategic “nexus thinking” could simultaneously address humanitarian needs, create de-facto ceasefire opportunities, maintain regional stability, and enable broader diplomatic dialog.

Ben Hassen and El Bilali (2022) documented export restrictions implemented by multiple countries, with the number enforcing food export restrictions increasing from 3 to 26, covering 40 food items and affecting 15.68% of total calories traded globally. These restrictions impacted 36% of wheat exports, 78% of sunflower oil exports, and 17% of maize exports.

Rose et al. (2023) used GTAP modeling to quantify grain export disruption impacts, finding Ukraine’s GDP loss of $859 million (0.65%) versus Russia’s minimal $3.8 million loss but positive welfare gains from favorable terms of trade. Their analysis of the Black Sea Treaty suspension scenario highlighted that Russia had little economic incentive to maintain grain export agreements, as additional GDP loss would be minimal ($3.3 million) compared to Ukraine’s substantial additional losses ($367 million).

 Long-term structural implications Persistent trade pattern changes

Stemmler and Korn (2022) provided evidence that trade relocation effects remain almost unchanged up to 9 years after conflicts end, with manufacturing sectors showing particularly persistent relocation patterns. This suggests that supply chains that relocate during conflicts tend to remain relocated even after peace is established.

Markus (2022) identified potential acceleration of financial system fragmentation, with infrastructure decoupling risking long-term fracturing of the global financial system, development of alternative financial infrastructures, and proliferation of payment networks and state-issued digital currencies.

Nezhyva and Mysiuk (2022) projected global economic consequences including 2–3 percentage points higher annual inflation in 2022–2023, global GDP growth rate decreases of 0.2–1.5 percentage points, and extended supply chain disruptions affecting multiple industries.

 Russian economic transformation

Markus (2022) analyzed long-term implications for Russia’s economy, projecting intensification of state capitalism with crony capitalism expansion, displacement of state-independent entrepreneurs, and kleptocracy intensification as the economic pie shrinks. The author drew parallels with Iran’s experience under sanctions, suggesting import substitution would produce low-quality knockoffs rather than genuine innovation.

Bargujar et al. (2025) documented Russia’s technological decline through high-tech import disruption affecting $19 billion annual imports, creating critical dependencies for microelectronics, telecommunications, aerospace, and naval equipment that China alone was unlikely to fill.

 Environmental and sustainability impacts

Chowdhury et al. (2023) provided a comprehensive assessment of the food-energy-ecosystem nexus deterioration, documenting air pollution 27.8 times WHO recommendations during airstrikes, 45-fold increase in forest fires, and proposing an eight-component ecosystem restoration framework adapted from Australian models.

Allam et al. (2022) examined impacts on climate action, revealing how war-induced commodity price increases (34% food, 60% oil) and supply chain disruptions exacerbated global inequalities in access to clean energy technologies. The authors documented that developed countries (16% of global population) receive 87% of clean energy financing, while developing nations face insurmountable “green premiums” for sustainable technologies.

Multiple studies (Ben Hassen and El Bilali, 2022; Nasir et al., 2022) documented impacts on sustainable development goals, with the war reversing positive trends in hunger reduction and potentially pushing food insecurity above 850 million people globally by the end of 2022.

 Discussion Theoretical implications

This systematic review contributes to supply chain theory in four key areas.

First, the findings advance understanding of geopolitical risk in supply chain management by providing empirical evidence of how military conflicts and international sanctions create systemic vulnerabilities in globally integrated supply networks. This extends traditional operational risk analysis to incorporate state-level disruptions, supporting frameworks proposed by Pettit et al. (2010) and Manuj and Mentzer (2008).

Second, the review strengthens crisis cascade theory by documenting how disruptions propagate through interconnected systems. The studies collectively demonstrate how localized conflicts create global impacts through supply chain dependencies, supporting the vulnerability propagation concepts proposed by Scheibe and Blackhurst (2018) and Ivanov (2020).

Third, the findings contribute to emerging research on compound disruptions by providing evidence of how geopolitical conflicts interact with and amplify other global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. This supports Ivanov (2020) concept of “ripple effects” and extends it to multi-crisis contexts.

Fourth, the review enhances understanding of adaptation mechanisms during extreme disruptions, identifying strategies that operate at organizational, supply chain, and policy levels. This contributes to resilience theory by documenting empirical examples of both planned resilience (strategic reserves, diversification) and adaptive resilience (rapid reconfiguration, digitalization) as conceptualized by Ponomarov and Holcomb (2009).

 Practical implications

This review offers several practical implications for logistics professionals and policymakers.

For logistics managers, the findings highlight the critical importance of geographic diversification in supplier networks to reduce vulnerability to regional conflicts. The superior performance of companies with diversified supplier bases, particularly those with connections to American and Asian markets rather than concentrated in Europe, provides empirical support for strategic diversification.

The effectiveness of hybrid resilience strategies combining backup suppliers with inventory pre-positioning offers practical guidance for resilience investment decisions. The mathematical modeling results from Rahbari et al. (2023) provide quantitative evidence of the cost–benefit trade-offs of such investments.

For policymakers, the review underscores the necessity of international coordination in maintaining critical supply flows during conflicts. The Black Sea Grain Initiative case study demonstrates how strategic “nexus thinking” can simultaneously address humanitarian needs while supporting broader stability objectives.

The findings also highlight the importance of strategic reserve development, particularly for food-importing nations with high dependency on concentrated supplier regions. The vulnerability analysis framework developed by Zhang et al. (2023) offers a practical tool for identifying high-risk dependencies requiring policy intervention.

Integrated comparative tables

As shown in Tables 1–8 and Figure 1.

Energy and macroeconomic impacts studies.

Study & authors Journal & year Methodology Key findings Policy implications Geographic focus
Exploring risk and economic vulnerability of global energy supply chain interruption – Cui, Yue, Nghiem, Duan Resources Policy (2023) GTAP-E CGE model; Virtual tariff costs; Multiple sanction scenarios Russia GDP decline max 5.49%; Ukraine 4.18% GDP fall; EU bears heaviest costs; Limited climate benefit (0.915% carbon) Energy strategy strengthening; Sanction cost assessment; Supply diversification; Energy security priority Global
War in Ukraine: Challenges for the Global Economy – Nezhyva & Mysiuk Zovnishnja torgivlja (2022) Expert estimation; Scenario projections; Comparative analysis Russia GDP –4–9% (2022), inflation 11–17%; Global inflation +2–3 points; Energy +30–50%, wheat +100%; Growth reduction 0.2–1.5 points Energy diversification; Food security maintenance; Financial stability; International cooperation Global
Impacts of the Ukraine–Russia conflict on the global food supply chain – Dyson et al. EuroChoices (2023) Supply chain analysis; Resilience framework; Multi-stakeholder approach Complex cascade effects; Technology integration critical; Multi-stakeholder coordination needed; Future resilience strategies developed Resilience building investment; Technology adoption support; Stakeholder platforms; Preparedness enhancement Global
Economic costs of the Russia-Ukraine war – Liadze, Macchiarelli, Mortimer-Lee, Sanchez Juanino The World Economy (2023) Integrated macroeconomic modeling; Cost calculation; Spillover analysis Direct war costs quantified; Reconstruction needs assessed; Global spillover effects mapped; Long-term growth impacts Reconstruction planning; International financing; Economic stabilization; Growth recovery strategies Global
Russia-Ukraine conflict: will attainment of SDGs be a dream? – Rahiman, Sarea, Kodikal International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets (2024) Energy dependency analysis; Macroeconomic resilience; 26-country study 45% energy dependency threshold critical; GDP contractions correlate with dependency; Renewables insufficient short-term; Long-term insulation potential Renewable acceleration; Energy independence; Short-term buffers; Transition support Global
Examining supply chain vulnerability via ESG-prioritized firms – Tsang, Fan, Feng, Li Journal of Cleaner Production (2024) Energy market analysis; Volatility assessment; Cross-continental comparison Natural gas/diesel unprecedented coupling; LNG infrastructure constraints; EU regulatory harmonization slow; Regional price divergence Infrastructure investment; Regulatory coordination; Market integration; Price stability mechanisms Global

Financial markets and investment studies.

Study & authors Journal & year Methodology Key findings Policy implications Geographic focus
Impact of war outbreak on financial assets: Russia-Ukraine conflict – Wang, Liu, Wei, Wang Heliyon (2023) Event study; DID model; Multi-war comparison; Regression discontinuity Shanghai Composite stable; S&P 500: +$99–72 capital flight; WTI Oil: +$16–24; Gold: +$48–59 safe haven Portfolio diversification; Strategic reserves acceleration; Market monitoring; Investment timing Global Markets
Implications of the Russia–Ukraine war for global food security – Behnassi & El Haiba Nature Human Behavior (2022) Comparative event study; Capital flow analysis; ESG fund performance Strong capital flight to US Treasury/Swiss franc; ESG funds divergent; Eastern Europe infrastructure underperform; Carbon neutrality funds outperform ESG criteria refinement; Geographic risk assessment; Safe haven identification; Investment guidelines Global
Navigating geopolitical risks: Implications for global supply chain management – Rasshyvalov et al. Multidisciplinary Reviews (2024) Social media analysis; Geopolitical fragility index; Volatility prediction New index outperforms traditional metrics; Narratives shape risk perception; Early escalation prediction; Social media sentiment critical Risk assessment tools; Social media monitoring; Narrative management; Early warning systems Global

Regional impact studies.

Study & authors Journal & year Methodology Key findings Policy implications Geographic focus
Impact of Ukraine war on South Asian supply chains – Naz & Kear Strategic Studies (2022) Qualitative study; Secondary data; Regional comparative analysis India: energy arbitrage benefits; Pakistan: 39% wheat import disruption; Sri Lanka: tourism revenue loss; Regional supplier competition Supply diversification urgency; Energy transition acceleration; Regional cooperation; Strategic autonomy South Asia
Impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on the Russian supply chain – Bargujar et al. Journal of Emerging Science and Engineering (2025) Descriptive analysis; Multi-sector examination; International data GDP –2.1% (2022), −0.2% (2023); 200,000 + skilled emigration; High-tech restricted; Energy redirected to China/India/Turkey Critical material security; Resilience planning; Sanctions effectiveness; Economic diversification Russia
Russia-Ukraine war and risks to global supply chains (Vietnam perspective) – Nguyen, Nguyen, Hoang Int. J. of Mechanical Engineering (2022) Situational analysis; Expert interviews; Multi-dimensional assessment 70% Ukraine exports via ships blocked; Neon gas: 50% global supply from Ukraine; 14.5% seafarers from Russia/Ukraine; SWIFT disconnection impacts Market diversification; Alternative payment systems; Risk prevention measures; Export support facilitation Vietnam/Global
World’s supply chain disruption and the energy conflict – Siddiqui & Anka Global Politics Journal (2023) Energy conflict analysis; Supply chain mapping; Policy review Energy weaponization documented; Supply chain politicization; Regional bloc formation; Infrastructure vulnerabilities Energy security prioritization; Infrastructure protection; Alternative energy sources; Regional energy cooperation Global

Wartime management and resilience studies.

Study & authors Journal & year Methodology Key findings Policy implications Geographic focus
Defining supply chain resilience during wartime – Krykavskyy et al. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies (2023) Focus groups; 200-day observation; Futures-Wheel visualization 5 resilience strategies identified; Infrastructure damage $252B; 150,000 new enterprises created; Digital transformation accelerated Multi-scenario planning; Public-private partnerships; International cooperation; Infrastructure redundancy Ukraine
Resilience strategies for wheat supply chain disruptions: Iran case study – Rahbari et al. Kybernetes (2023) p-Robust stochastic programming; MILP optimization model Combined strategies: 9.33% cost reduction; Multi-crisis amplified costs 19–26%; Backup suppliers + inventory effective; Long-term storage preferred Strategic sourcing diversification; Storage infrastructure investment; Multi-crisis preparedness; Resilience prioritization Iran
Examining the effects of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on global supply chains – Toygar & Yildirim IGI Global Book Chapter (2023) Conceptual framework; Literature synthesis; International reports analysis Food/energy bottlenecks; Logistics cost escalation; Global resource access limits; Compound pandemic vulnerabilities Supply chain redesign; Geographic risk distribution; International coordination; Alternative sourcing Global
Conflict and commerce in post-pandemic world – Kumar & Kumar Int. J. for Multidisciplinary Research (2023) Multi-faceted methodology; Literature review; Case study analysis Critical materials: 90% neon gas, 33% palladium; Gas +120–130%, oil >$100; Wheat +55%, sunflower oil shortage; Container prices +8% Supply diversification; Nearshoring initiatives; Technology integration; Diplomatic solutions Global
Implications of the War in Ukraine for the Global Economy – Guenette, Kenworthy, Wheeler World Bank Report (2022) Cyber-physical analysis; Logistics provider interviews; Insurance cost tracking Cyberattacks create “second front”; Delivery lags increase 20–30%; Insurance costs rise; E-commerce affected Cybersecurity enhancement; Insurance mechanism reform; Digital infrastructure protection; Contingency planning Global

Humanitarian and development studies.

Study & authors Journal & year Methodology Key findings Policy implications Geographic focus
Humanitarian-development-peace nexus for global food security – Barakat et al. Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction (2023) Quantitative trade analysis; MENA focus; HDP nexus framework 850 M + food insecure by 2022; MENA highly vulnerable; Ukraine-Lebanon grain agreement example; “Whole-of-UN” approach needed UN system reform; Joint assessments mandate; Multi-sectoral coordination; Conflict prevention via food security MENA/Global
Food-energy-ecosystem nexus deterioration due to Russia-Ukraine war – Chowdhury et al. Science of the Total Environment (2023) Comprehensive review; Multi-dimensional assessment; Restoration framework Food +34%, energy +60%, gas >100%; Forest fires 45-fold; 3 M ha forest damage; Air pollution 27.8x WHO limits Ecosystem restoration priority; Environmental recovery frameworks; Multi-dimensional crisis response; Post-conflict rehabilitation Ukraine/Global
Review of social disruptions impact on food security and choice – Munialo & Mellor Food Science & Nutrition (2024) Narrative literature review; Multiple disruption events analysis 258 M people acute food insecurity; Ukraine conflict 8–22% price increase; “Three lethal C’s”: COVID, Conflict, Climate; Mixed dietary behavioral changes Food access as human right; Coordinated international response; Alternative protein strategies; Food waste reduction Global
Impacts of the Russia-Ukraine War on Global Food Security – Ben Hassen & El Bilali Foods (2022) Literature review; Gray literature; Multi-language sources 95% exports via Black Sea blocked; Export restrictions: 26 countries, 40 items; Speculation: $1.2B net investment surge; SDG progress reversed Real-time monitoring systems; Market interventions scrutiny; Agroecological transition; Food sovereignty promotion Global

Policy and governance studies.

Study & authors Journal & year Methodology Key findings Policy implications Geographic focus
Long-term business implications of Russia’s war in Ukraine – Markus Asian Business & Management (2022) Expert commentary; Historical parallel analysis; Iran comparison $19B high-tech imports disrupted; 200,000 + worker brain drain; State capitalism intensification; Global financial fragmentation risk Geopolitical risk assessment; Supply chain resilience; Market fragmentation prep; Alliance coordination Russia/Global
Russian-Ukrainian War’s Effects on the World Economy – Al-Saadi Journal of Exploratory Studies in Law and Management (2023) Legal analysis; Regulatory review; Compliance assessment Sanctions compliance challenges; Force majeure applications increase; Trade agreement suspensions; Legal framework adaptations needed Legal framework updates; Compliance mechanisms; Emergency provisions; International coordination Global
Economic impact of Russia-Ukraine war – Tank & Ospanova Int. J. of Innovative Research in Science Eng. & Tech (2022) Economic impact modeling; Market reaction analysis; Policy effectiveness Initial market volatility documented; Policy response variations mapped; Sector-specific impacts identified; Recovery timeline projections Market stabilization tools; Sector-specific support; Policy coordination; Recovery planning Global
Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on US Supply Chain and Role of Ukraine-Russian War – Arisekola World Atlas Int. J. of Education & Management (2023) Compound crisis analysis; Vulnerability assessment; US focus COVID vulnerabilities amplified; Dual crisis interaction effects; Supply chain brittleness exposed; Recovery complexity increased Compound crisis planning; Vulnerability reduction; Resilience investment; Multi-hazard approaches US

Russia Ukraine Impact.

Network diagram depicting the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war, with nodes categorized as main topics (pink), main categories (blue), subcategories (green), and findings (orange). Central node is labeled "Russia-Ukraine War Impact" with lines connecting to various categories such as "Transportation," "Adaptation," and "Food Security." Explanation of the Russia-Ukraine war impact on global supply chains network graph

This network graph provides a visual representation of the academic literature examining how the Russia-Ukraine war has impacted global supply chains. The visualization is structured as a hierarchical network that organizes research findings from 22 academic studies published between 2022 and 2025.

Graph structure and organization

The graph is organized in four hierarchical levels:

Central Node (Pink): The main topic “Russia-Ukraine War Impact on Global Supply Chains” forms the core of the network.

Category Nodes (Blue): Seven main categories branch out from the central node, representing the primary domains of impact identified across the literature:

○ Food Security Disruptions

○ Energy Market Volatility

○ Critical Material Shortages

○ Transportation & Logistics

○ Regional Vulnerability

○ Adaptation Strategies

○ Long-Term Implications

Subcategory Nodes (Green): Each main category branches into 3–4 subcategories that represent more specific aspects of impact. For example, “Food Security Disruptions” branches into Market Concentration, Production Disruption, Export Capacity, and Price Volatility.

Finding Nodes (Orange): The outer layer consists of specific research findings with citations to the original studies. These represent the empirical evidence documented in the literature.

 Key relationships depicted

The network structure reveals several important patterns in the literature:

Interconnected Impacts: The graph visually demonstrates how disruptions in one area cascade to others. For instance, Maritime Disruption (under Transportation & Logistics) directly affects Export Capacity (under Food Security).

Evidence Concentration: Some subcategories have multiple findings nodes, indicating stronger empirical support. For example, Market Concentration in food exports is well-documented across multiple studies.

Research Distribution: The relatively even distribution of nodes across categories suggests balanced research attention across different impact domains.

Citation Patterns: The graph reveals which studies have contributed findings to multiple impact areas. For example, Nguyen et al. (2022) appears in findings related to both transportation and material shortages.

 How to interpret the graph

When examining this graph:

Node Size: Larger nodes represent broader concepts (main topic and categories), while smaller nodes represent more specific elements (subcategories and individual findings).

Node Color: The color-coding helps distinguish between different levels of information:

○ Pink: Main topic

○ Blue: Main categories

○ Green: Subcategories

○ Orange: Specific findings

Connections: Lines between nodes show hierarchical relationships, indicating how concepts are nested within broader categories.

Hover Information: Interactive elements provide additional information when hovering over nodes, including full findings and citation details (Figure 2).

Values for understanding the Literature.

A complex network map displaying interconnected factors related to global economic and supply chain disruptions. Nodes feature topics such as "Fertilizer prices," "Export restrictions," and "Energy Market Volatility," linked with lines indicating relationships. Blue circles highlight each node, with black lines connecting them, suggesting dependencies and influences between issues like "Market Concentration," "Environmental Impact," and "Ukrainian Adaptation." Value for understanding the literature

This network graph offers several advantages for comprehending the body of literature on Russia-Ukraine war supply chain impacts:

Visual Synthesis: It condenses a complex body of literature into a single visual representation, making it easier to grasp the full scope of research.

Pattern Recognition: The visualization helps identify patterns that might be difficult to discern from text alone, such as which areas have received the most research attention.

Evidence Mapping: It maps specific findings to broader concepts, showing how individual studies contribute to our understanding of different impact areas.

Research Gap Identification: Areas with fewer nodes may represent potential gaps in the literature that warrant further investigation.

Knowledge Navigation: The graph provides a “map” for navigating the literature, allowing readers to quickly identify which studies examine specific aspects of war impact.

This graph serves as both an analytical tool for researchers seeking to understand patterns in the literature and a communication tool for presenting the scope and structure of research on the Russia-Ukraine war’s impact on global supply chains.

 Conceptual framework

Figure 3 shows a cascading impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war on global supply chains. It illustrates how the initial conflict triggers multiple types of disruptions—physical, market-based, and institutional—which then affect critical sectors, expose regional vulnerabilities, drive adaptive responses, and ultimately result in long-term structural changes.

Conceptual Framework.

Flowchart titled "Conceptual Framework" illustrating the impact of the Russia-Ukraine War. It shows disruptions categorized into physical, market-based, and institutional, affecting food security, energy security, and critical material shortages. These lead to high vulnerability in regions like MENA and Sub-Saharan Africa, medium vulnerability, and opportunistic gains for countries like India. Further ramifications include organizational shifts, persistent trade shifts, supply chain reconfiguration, financial system fragmentation, economic transformation, policy interventions, and environmental consequences.

Below is a tabular representation of the literature review findings on the Russia-Ukraine War’s impact on global supply chains:

Main category Subcategory Key finding Source
Food Security Disruptions Market Concentration 25% global wheat & barley exports Zhang et al. (2023)
60% of sunflower oil exports Nasir et al. (2022)
15% of maize exports Jagtap et al. (2022)
Production Disruption Ukraine production declines: wheat −26%, soybean −32% Nasir et al. (2022)
20–30% of agricultural areas unharvestable Jagtap et al. (2022)
Export Capacity 95% of Ukrainian exports via Black Sea ports Ben Hassen and El Bilali (2022)
Rail gauge differences limit alternatives Jagtap et al. (2022)
Price Volatility Wheat +24.53% in March 2022 Nasir et al. (2022)
Global wheat prices +55% post-invasion Kumar and Kumar (2023)
Energy Market Volatility Market Position World’s largest natural gas exporter Cui et al. (2023)
8.3% of global mineral fuel exports Cui et al. (2023)
EU Vulnerability 25.5% of petroleum from Russia Allam et al. (2022)
45–48% of energy products 2017–2021 Allam et al. (2022)
Economic Impacts Russia GDP decline up to 5.49% under embargos Cui et al. (2023)
Global GDP impact limited to 0.008% Cui et al. (2023)
Price Spikes Oil prices +15% to $130/barrel Allam et al. (2022)
Natural gas +120–130% in Europe Kumar and Kumar (2023)
Critical Material Shortages Semiconductor Inputs Ukraine: 50% of global neon gas Nguyen et al. (2022)
Ukraine: 40% of krypton gas Nguyen et al. (2022)
Industrial Materials Russia: 47% of global palladium Bargujar et al. (2025)
Russia: 16% of nickel Kumar and Kumar (2023)
Fertilizer Markets Russia & Belarus: 16% potash, 10% nitrogen Ben Hassen and El Bilali (2022)
Fertilizer prices increased 80% Ben Hassen and El Bilali (2022)
Manufacturing Disruptions Automotive sector delays Nguyen et al. (2022)
Electronics production bottlenecks Kumar and Kumar (2023)
Transportation & Logistics Maritime Disruption 70% of Ukraine exports via ships Nguyen et al. (2022)
Major port closures: Odessa, Mariupol Nguyen et al. (2022)
Workforce Impact 14.5% of global shipping workforce Nguyen et al. (2022)
Crew safety & insurance premium increases Nguyen et al. (2022)
Financial System SWIFT disconnection of Russian banks Markus (2022)
Payment difficulties affecting transactions Bargujar et al. (2025)
Alternative Routes Limited railway capacity Jagtap et al. (2022)
Increased transportation costs Rose et al. (2023)
Regional Vulnerability Most Vulnerable Regions 24 countries with >0.9 import dependency Zhang et al. (2023)
MENA region: Egypt 86% wheat dependency Barakat et al. (2023)
South Asia Divergence India: beneficiary through discounted energy Naz and Kear (2022)
Pakistan: 39% wheat import disruption Naz and Kear (2022)
Russian Economy GDP decline of 2.1% in 2022 Bargujar et al. (2025)
200,000 + skilled workers emigrating Markus (2022)
Ukrainian Adaptation 17% of businesses suspended activities Krykavskyy et al. (2023)
150,000 new enterprises created Krykavskyy et al. (2023)
Adaptation Strategies Organizational Five key strategies by Ukrainian businesses Krykavskyy et al. (2023)
Accelerated digital transformation Krykavskyy et al. (2023)
Supply Chain Reconfiguration Backup suppliers + inventory pre-positioning Rahbari et al. (2023)
ESG-prioritized firms showing higher resilience Tsang et al. (2024)
Policy Interventions Black Sea Grain Initiative Barakat et al. (2023)
Export restrictions by 26 countries Ben Hassen and El Bilali (2022)
Long-Term Implications Persistent Trade Changes Trade relocation persisting 9 + years Stemmler and Korn (2022)
Agricultural sectors relocate quickly: 12–13% Stemmler and Korn (2022)
Financial System Infrastructure decoupling Markus (2022)
Economic bloc formation Markus (2022)
Russian Economic Transformation State capitalism intensification Markus (2022)
Redirection of exports to China, India, Turkey Bargujar et al. (2025)
Environmental Impact Air pollution 27.8x WHO recommendations Chowdhury et al. (2023)
45-fold increase in forest fires Chowdhury et al. (2023)

This table organizes the literature review findings into a structured format that clearly shows the hierarchical relationship between main categories, subcategories, and specific findings, along with their respective sources.

 Limitations and research gaps

This review has several limitations. First, many included studies were conducted during the early stages of the conflict, potentially limiting insights into longer-term adaptation patterns. Second, the reliance on published academic literature may exclude valuable insights from industry reports and governmental analyses. Third, most studies focus on macro-level impacts with limited examination of firm-level adaptation processes.

Several critical research gaps emerge from this review:

Longitudinal studies: There is an urgent need for longitudinal research tracking how supply chain adaptations evolve over the conflict duration and how permanent these changes become post-conflict.

Methodological innovation: Most studies employ traditional methodologies (modeling, case studies), with limited application of emerging methods such as big data analytics, satellite imagery analysis, or social media analytics that could provide real-time insights into supply chain adaptations.

Compound crisis interactions: While several studies mention interactions between the war and other crises (pandemic and climate change), systematic analysis of these compound effects remains underdeveloped.

Service sector impacts: The research focuses heavily on physical goods supply chains (agriculture, energy, and manufacturing) with minimal attention to service sector supply chains, including digital services, financial services, and knowledge-intensive business services.

Informal supply chains: Studies predominantly examine formal supply chains with limited investigation of how informal economies adapt and potentially provide resilience during conflicts.

 Conclusion

This systematic review synthesizes findings on the Russia-Ukraine war’s impacts on global supply chains. The results reveal multifaceted disruptions across food, energy, and manufacturing sectors, with asymmetric impacts across regions based on dependency patterns and adaptive capacity.

The war has exposed critical vulnerabilities in global supply chain design, particularly related to geographic concentration of critical materials and commodities. However, it has also accelerated innovation in resilience strategies, from organizational adaptations to policy interventions.

The evidence suggests that the conflict will leave lasting structural changes to global supply chains, with trade relocation effects persisting long after conflict resolution and potentially accelerating trends toward economic fragmentation and bloc formation.

For logistics practitioners, the findings underscore the importance of geographic diversification, hybrid resilience strategies, and enhanced digitalization capabilities. For researchers, this review identifies critical gaps requiring further investigation, particularly regarding longitudinal adaptation patterns, compound crisis interactions, and service sector impacts.

As global supply chains continue to navigate this significant disruption against a backdrop of other compounding crises, both theoretical frameworks and practical strategies must evolve to address the increasingly complex risk landscape that characterizes modern logistics networks.

 Author contributions

DS: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. SR: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.

 Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

 Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References AllamZ. BibriS. E. SharpeS. A. (2022). The rising impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war: energy transition, climate justice, global inequality, and supply chain disruption. Resources 11, 1–15. BarakatS. CochraneL. VasekhaI. (2023). The humanitarian-development-peace nexus for global food security: responding to the climate crisis, conflict, and supply chain disruptions. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 98:104106. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104106 BargujarD. ChaudharyS. ChoudharyV. SainiR. (2025). The impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on the Russian supply chain. J. Emerg. Sci. Eng. 3, 1–15. Ben HassenT. El BilaliH. (2022). Impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war on global food security: towards more sustainable and resilient food systems? Foods 11:2301. doi: 10.3390/foods11152301, PMID: 35954068 ChowdhuryR. B. KhanA. MahiatT. DuttaH. TasmeeaT. Binth ArmanA. B. . (2023). Environmental externalities of the COVID-19 lockdown: insights for sustainability planning in the Anthropocene. Sci. Total Environ. 783:147015. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147015, PMID: 34088121 CuiL. YueS. NghiemX.-H. DuanM. (2023). Exploring the risk and economic vulnerability of global energy supply chain interruption in the context of Russo-Ukrainian war. Res. Policy 81:103373. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103373 IvanovD. (2020). Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: a simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transportation Res. Part E: Logistics Transportation Rev. 136:101922. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2020.101922, PMID: 32288597 JagtapS. TrollmanH. TrollmanF. Garcia-GarciaG. Parra-LópezC. DuongL. . (2022). The Russia-Ukraine conflict: its implications for the global food supply chains. Foods 11:2098. doi: 10.3390/foods11142098, PMID: 35885340 KrykavskyyY. ChornopyskaN. DovhunO. HayvanovychN. LeonovaS. (2023). Defining supply chain resilience during wartime. Eastern-European J. Enterprise Technol. 1, 32–46. doi: 10.15587/1729-4061.2023.272877 KumarA. KumarR. (2023). Conflict and commerce in a post-pandemic world: unraveling the impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war on global supply chains. Int. J. Multidis. Res. 5, 1–13. ManujI. MentzerJ. T. (2008). Global supply chain risk management strategies. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38, 192–223. doi: 10.1108/09600030810866986 MarkusS. (2022). Long-term business implications of Russia's war in Ukraine. Asian Bus. Manag. 21, 483–487. doi: 10.1057/s41291-022-00181-7 MunialoC. D. MellorD. D. (2024). A review of the impact of social disruptions on food security and food choice. Food Sci. Nutr. 12, 13–23. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.3752, PMID: 38268897 NasirM. A. NugrohoA. D. LaknerZ. (2022). Impact of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict on global food crops. Foods 11:2979. doi: 10.3390/foods11192979, PMID: 36230055 NazF. KearM. (2022). Impact of Ukraine war on global energy and food supply chains: a case study of South Asia. Strateg. Stud. 42, 38–53. NezhyvaM. MysiukV. (2022). War in Ukraine: challenges for the global economy. Zovn. torhivlja: ekon., finansy, pravo 2, 16–25. NguyenT. T. NguyenT. T. HoangG. T. (2022). Russia-Ukraine war and risks to global supply chains. Int. J. Mech. Eng. 7, 633–640. PageM. J. McKenzieJ. E. BossuytP. M. BoutronI. HoffmannT. C. MulrowC. D. . (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, 26–33. PettitT. J. FikselJ. CroxtonK. L. (2010). Ensuring supply chain resilience: development of a conceptual framework. J. Bus. Logist. 31, 1–21. doi: 10.1002/j.2158-1592.2010.tb00125.x PonomarovS. Y. HolcombM. C. (2009). Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 20, 124–143. doi: 10.1108/09574090910954873 RahbariM. Arshadi KhamsehA. MohammadiM. (2023). Resilience strategies in coping to disruptions of wheat supply chain caused by the Russia-Ukraine war crisis: case study from an emerging economy. Kybernetes. RoseA. ChenZ. WeiD. (2023). The economic impacts of Russia-Ukraine war export disruptions of grain commodities. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 45, 645–665. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13351, PMID: 40313862 ScheibeK. P. BlackhurstJ. (2018). Supply chain disruption propagation: a systemic risk and normal accident theory perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56, 43–59. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1355123 StemmlerH. KornT. (2022). 'Russia's war against Ukraine might persistently shift global supply chains', VoxEU column, 31 march. Available at: https://voxeu.org/ (Accessed February 1, 2025). ThomasJ. HardenA. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8, 1–10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45, PMID: 18616818 ToygarA. YildirimU. (2023). “Examining the effects of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on global supply chains” in Advances in digital crime, forensics, and cyber terrorism (Hershey, PA: IGI Global), 184–199. TsangY. P. FanY. FengZ. P. LiY. (2024). Examining supply chain vulnerability via an analysis of ESG-prioritized firms amid the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. J. Clean. Prod. 434:139754. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139754 WangZ. LiuS. WeiY. WangS. (2023). Estimating the impact of the outbreak of wars on financial assets: evidence from Russia-Ukraine conflict. Heliyon 9:e21380. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21380, PMID: 37964850 ZhangZ. AbdullahM. J. XuG. MatsubaeK. ZengX. (2023). Countries' vulnerability to food supply disruptions caused by the Russia-Ukraine war from a trade dependency perspective. Sci. Rep. 13:16591. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-43883-4, PMID: 37789089