WILLIAM GUMEDE | Putin’s reaction to African peace mission may dent his support in Africa

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s cold response to the seven-member African leader peace mission, led by President Cyril Ramaphosa, is likely to dent his influence in Africa, a key constituency he has assiduously targeted for support as a bulwark against Western sanctions.

With his recent suppression of a mutiny against him, Putin is under increased pressure to show he has domestic and global support — particularly from the Global South, especially Africa.

The 54-members of the AU make up over one-third of the UN membership, and when combined with Afro-Caribbean countries and developing countries with significant numbers of Afro-descendant citizens, they make more than half the membership of global organisations. African countries are therefore a sizeable bloc in international organisations such as the UN, World Trade Organisation and World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which can block or neutralise any Western sanctions against Russia.

The African leaders called for military de-escalation, return of war-affected children from Ukraine to their home country and for both parties to sue for peace. Putin made it clear in St Petersburg, that at this point, he was not prepared to compromise to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. The African peace mission did not expect an immediate breakthrough. The reality is there is no silver bullet to resolve an intractable conflict such as the one between Russia and Ukraine. It took, for example, more than two years of multiple peace missions to resolve the post-WW2 conflict between South Korea and North Korea.

Many other peace delegations to Russia and Ukraine, including those from European powers and China, failed. However, the hope is that every mission will incrementally bring the parties closer to peace.

This African peace mission is unprecedented in the postcolonial period, as it is the first time African countries and leaders have been formally involved in peace negotiations between fighting countries in Europe.

While the African delegation met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Russia astonishingly launched a missile attack on Kyiv. Such was the shock of the African delegation, that Ramaphosa’s spokesperson initially said the attack was “fake news” because it appeared so unexpected, before he was contradicted by Ramaphosa, who confirmed it was, indeed, a real attack. Russia’s missile attack on Kyiv was seen as showing not only disrespect for, but deliberately wanting to undermine, African countries.

African leaders expected that at least during the duration of their visit to Russia and Ukraine there would be a ceasefire to explore the African peace proposals. However, by firing missiles on Kyiv while the African delegation was there, Putin flexed his muscles to show who was boss.

This African peace mission is unprecedented in the postcolonial period, as it is the first time African countries and leaders have been formally involved in peace negotiations between fighting countries in Europe. Usually the opposite is the case: Western peace missions travel to African conflict zones to make peace. The African mission to Russia and Ukraine was therefore widely watched across the African continent. And so even if the outcome of the African mission was not positive, the mere fact that it happened is perceived in many African quarters as a boost for global perceptions of the continent, away from the perception of victims to players in helping to secure global peace.

It is very likely that after this mission, African leaders and countries may become more circumspect of their support for Putin or remain neutral in Russia’s war on Ukraine. They are likely to have more sympathy for Zelensky and Ukraine after this first-hand encounter. Direct observation of the devastation of the war on Ukraine — the lives lost, infrastructure destruction and economic devastation — has also clearly helped to shift the allegiances of many members of the African peace delegation away from Russia to Ukraine. So Putin may have lost substantial support among African countries who have either been neutral or directly supported Russia in its war with Ukraine and Western sanctions against the Russian bear.

Russia had been planning to use the Russia-Africa Summit planned for July 2023 to showcase the support it has from African countries in the face of Western sanctions against it. However, after his cold shoulder in St Petersburg, many African countries may show their disapproval of the Russian bear at the Russia-Africa Summit.

Ramaphosa strategically made this an African, rather than South African, mission. Partly because South Africa has been perceived as supportive of Russia. Furthermore, South Africa has also related with Russia as a fellow member of Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

More critically, Ramaphosa also wanted to make a statement that outside Brics, South Africa is a leader in Africa, which means the country, despite its internal problems, cannot be dismissed in the new multipolar world, where the influence of the traditional Western powers is on the wane and new emerging powers and regional blocs are on the ascendancy. This means that South Africa’s position is pivotal with strong influence among the new rising powers and regional blocs.

Clearly, the lesson for Africa from Putin’s snub is African countries must stop partnering with industrial and emerging powers based on the past, ideology and leaders’ personal connections. Russia’s war against Ukraine has affected the economies, political stability and investment attraction of most African countries.

This underscores that these countries must pursue individual foreign policy that safeguards their own political and strategic interests, ultimately to ensure such support stimulates domestic economic growth, employment and stability. The Russia-Ukraine war is causing food price rises, food shortages, energy increases, soaring living costs and revenue losses for many African countries. Western governments are diverting development funding away from Africa to Eastern Europe, which will have an impact on the critical services provided by many NGOs that have replaced government services in most African countries.

The food shortages, ballooning inflation and diminished development funding, could lead to a new wave of mass popular uprisings, coups and terrorist insurgencies across the continent. Many African governments may fall therefore as a direct result of the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Lastly, African leaders now need to show the same resolve as they did in seeking peace in the Russia-Ukraine war, to tackle local African conflicts, including the Sudan conflict, which is tearing the continent apart.

William Gumede is Associate Professor, School of Governance, University of the Witwatersrand, and author of South Africa in Brics (Tafelberg)