OPINION | SA's peace initiative undermined by Russia's assault on Kyiv, Trump's reckless interventions

As Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy made his much-anticipated maiden visit to SA, a diplomatic milestone with the potential to recalibrate Pretoria’s role in global peace efforts, events in Kyiv would cruelly overshadow this hopeful moment.

A sustained and deadly Russian missile and drone barrage on Ukraine’s capital – coinciding almost precisely with Zelenskyy’s arrival – resulted in scores of deaths and served as a stark reminder of the brutal war's intractability. It also brutally underscored the complex diplomatic terrain SA must navigate as a self-appointed interlocutor in a war far removed geographically, but dangerously proximate in geopolitical consequence.

This latest assault by Moscow, the most devastating on Kyiv since July last year, was not merely a tragic happenstance. Coming on the heels of a phone conversation between President Cyril Ramaphosa and Russian president Vladimir Putin, and timed with Zelenskyy's presence in Pretoria, the timing of the attack was symbolically provocative.

It risks being interpreted as a deliberate humiliation not only of Ukraine but of Ramaphosa himself – SA’s president who has consistently advocated for dialogue and peaceful resolution through diplomatic channels.

At the heart of SA’s engagement lies a belief – rooted in its own hard-won democratic transition – that peace is attainable through mediation and dialogue. Ramaphosa’s African Peace Initiative, while treated with polite scepticism by both Kyiv and Moscow, is a genuine attempt to assert Africa’s agency in global conflict resolution. However, the effectiveness of SA’s role is increasingly undercut by the disruptive presence of extraneous actors, none more so than the ever-erratic influence of US president Donald Trump.

In recent days, Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric reached new depths, accusing Zelenskyy of prolonging a "killing field" by refusing to concede the Russia-occupied Crimea Peninsula as a precondition for peace. This is not just ahistorical – it is dangerously misaligned with international law and the principle of territorial integrity. His remarks, made as peace negotiations teetered and ahead of Zelenskyy's diplomatic tour, further destabilised already fragile efforts at resolution.

Trump’s narrative not only emboldens the Kremlin’s aggression but also undermines those striving for a principled peace. His statements have the double effect of isolating Ukraine diplomatically and constraining the moral authority of mediators like Ramaphosa.

When the leader of a major global power trivialises annexation and occupier impunity, it recalibrates the expectations of belligerents like Russia, potentially hardening positions just when compromise is most needed.

Furthermore, Trump's transactional worldview – wherein peace is a commodity to be negotiated with little regard for justice or accountability – runs counter to SA’s constitutional ethos and its foreign policy ideals. Pretoria’s global standing is built not on military might but on moral persuasion, rooted in the legacies of Nelson Mandela and the ANC's diplomatic solidarity networks during the Struggle against apartheid. To align with Trump's framing of the conflict, even tacitly, would be to betray this heritage.

Zelenskyy, in his joint briefing with Ramaphosa, underscored Ukraine’s openness to dialogue, provided it is undergirded by a credible ceasefire guaranteed by a Nato power. His caveat is not a stumbling block, but a reasonable safeguard in an environment where trust is in desperately short supply.

That Putin continues to pursue military escalation during diplomatic overtures reflects not only contempt for Zelenskyy’s position, but also a deep cynicism towards any mediation that seeks a just and sustainable peace.

This places SA in a precarious position. On the one hand, it must continue to engage Russia, given the historical bonds and Pretoria’s commitment to non-alignment. On the other, it must not lose sight of the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and human rights – values enshrined in the very framework of SA’s post-apartheid democratic order.

Ramaphosa’s effort is not without merit, but its future viability hinges on recalibrating SA’s messaging and positioning. This requires a clearer denunciation of all forms of aggression, regardless of historical affiliations or geopolitical expediency. It also calls for a rejection of external interference – whether by Trump or any other actor – that trivialises the suffering of Ukrainians and mocks the arduous task of peace-making.

If Pretoria is to be taken seriously as a global peace broker, it must reassert its moral independence and strategic clarity. This means engaging both Kyiv and Moscow with equal vigour, advocating for international law, and actively countering narratives that seek to legitimise land grabs or militarised coercion.

As the bombs rained down on Kyiv and Zelenskyy was forced to truncate his visit to SA, it became clear that peace remains an elusive goal. But SA must not retreat from the diplomatic fray. Rather, it must refine its strategy, decouple from destabilising influences, and recommit to the long, patient work of principled diplomacy.

The path to peace is long and fraught. But if SA is to be a credible voice for justice and dialogue, it must ensure its efforts are not rendered hollow by the reckless interventions of those who thrive on discord.

• Khaas is chairperson of Public Interest SA