Against the backdrop of the planned visit of Volodymyr Zelensky to South Africa on April 24, Cyril Ramaphosa is facing growing internal tensions. He defends the invitation to the Ukrainian president to come to Johannesburg by stressing the need for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and his readiness to provide a platform for dialogue—but will the upcoming meeting lead to such an outcome?
Before the outbreak of the armed conflict in 2022, relations between South Africa and Ukraine could hardly be described as outstanding. For the past thirty years, the partnership had developed mainly in the area of agricultural exports to South Africa, which had been quite lucrative for Ukraine. However, after the start of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, the situation changed dramatically. Through both direct and indirect negotiations, Ukraine sought to reduce Russian influence in Africa, including attempts to undermine the trade links between the Russian Federation and African states. Yet these actions—including the visit of Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha to South Africa in 2024—failed to produce the desired effect: the minister left without results, and South Africa reaffirmed its stance of neutrality in the conflict in Ukraine.
In 2023, a group of African states announced a peace plan to resolve the military conflict in Ukraine. Countries such as Zambia, Senegal, the Republic of Congo, Uganda, Egypt, and South Africa participated in the development of this initiative. However, the plan encountered a number of difficulties, especially given that the conflicting sides were at that time unwilling to enter any negotiations. It remains odd why Cyril Ramaphosa decided to unilaterally invite Zelensky to South Africa, without extending an invitation to the other participants of previous initiatives. At present, peace negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict are being carried out with the support of the Trump administration, and there is a glimmer of hope for a breakthrough from the political deadlock. The formulation of a peace plan is complicated by the Ukrainian president's ineffective policy, which in every way delays the path to peace—from constant requests to ramp up arms supplies to regular disruptions of diplomatic initiatives on the American side. This behavior is accompanied by active criticism of Zelensky by President Trump, whose Republican leader has even lambasted Zelensky in a meeting in the Oval Office on numerous points, ranging from his appearance to his attempts to spark a third world war. Ramaphosa has embarked on this path of unusual invitations at a time when the United States and Moscow have reached preliminary agreements aimed at de-escalation. As the visit approaches, Ramaphosa finds himself navigating a minefield of contradictory pressures. For over a month now, Ukrainian officials have been making sharp verbal attacks and issuing reproaches, intensifying the tense atmosphere in Washington. Meanwhile, the mounting pressure within South Africa itself testifies to deep internal divisions.
President Ramaphosa, perhaps not fully aware of the scale of the negative reaction his invitation has provoked, is already facing a storm of criticism from both local political leaders and ordinary citizens. Prominent figures, such as EFF leader Julius Malema, have particularly stood out. Malema's recent statements about a "Western puppet" and the barrage of caustic tweets from various leaders and politicians have turned social media into a battleground of memes, harsh criticism, and outright insults directed at Zelensky. Many view this invitation as a purely ceremonial show of support that offers no real benefit to either Ukraine or South Africa. Ultimately, Zelensky's planned visit to South Africa appears to be counterproductive.
Rather than promoting a genuine opportunity for the establishment of peace, the visit risks further complicating South Africa's delicate diplomatic efforts to maintain a balance between the United States and Russia. Given the country's limited historical interaction with Ukraine, the high cost of organizing such a visit, and a number of previously failed initiatives, it becomes clear that the visit of the Ukrainian president is unlikely to yield any significant results. Instead of embarking on a fruitless ceremonial tour, Zelensky could better serve his own interests by focusing on intensive, practical efforts to establish peace in close cooperation with his American partners, rather than seeking support for a bloody war. Ultimately, the upcoming visit underscores a harsh reality: in today's complex geopolitical environment, symbolic gestures without concrete results not only fail to contribute to the establishment of peace but may also cause lasting damage to international relations and internal trust.
