Follow us on social

||

Diplomacy Watch: Inquiry finds ‘no evidence’ South Africa armed Russia

The investigation, led by a retired judge, offers a chance for Pretoria and Washington to move past disputes over the Ukraine war.

QiOSK

An independent South African investigation found “no evidence” that Pretoria loaded arms onto a Russian ship when it docked in Simon’s Town late last year, contradicting accusations made by the U.S. ambassador to South Africa in May.

“When all matters are considered, none of the allegations made about the supply of weapons to Russia have been proven to be true,” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said, adding that the accusation “had a most damaging effect on our currency, our economy, and our standing in the world.”

Ramaphosa’s fiery remarks highlighted the extent to which the allegations have soured U.S.-South Africa ties, which were already badly strained following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Pretoria has frustrated Washington by refusing to isolate the Kremlin and continuing to work with the Russian military, while South Africa has grown increasingly indignant at the idea that it must toe the U.S. line on the conflict.

But the results of the inquiry, which was led by an apparently trustworthy former judge, provide a chance to soothe growing tensions between the two countries. The State Department took a step in that direction Tuesday when spokesperson Vedant Patel said the U.S. appreciates “the seriousness with which the panel of inquiry in South Africa undertook to investigate” the incident, though he stopped short of endorsing the findings completely.

For South Africa, the motivation to improve relations with the U.S. is clear. While the country’s ruling party has long insisted on neutrality in great power disputes, Pretoria has a much closer economic relationship with Washington than it does with Moscow.

That relationship relies in no small part on American goodwill since much of the countries’ bilateral trade is underpinned by the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which allows South Africa to export certain goods to the U.S. without tariffs. Congress will have to decide in 2025 whether Pretoria gets to stay in the program.

But a drop in tensions could also have big upsides for the U.S. as it navigates choppy geopolitical waters ahead. Washington’s insistence that other countries toe its line on the war has created a surge of frustration among leaders in the Global South, many of whom evince little interest in choosing a side in great power disputes. This is perhaps one reason that so many states now seek to join BRICS, a geopolitical grouping focused on economic independence from the West and led by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

By papering over issues with South Africa, the United States could build a roadmap for improving relations with the Global South more broadly.

Improved relations with South Africa could also provide a boost to efforts to end the war in Ukraine, which has largely been locked into a bloody stalemate in recent months. As Philani Mthembu of the Institute for Global Dialogue recently argued, Ukraine and Russia have been fighting a second war for hearts and minds in Africa, which “may leave the doors in Kyiv and Moscow open to further dialogue” with African leaders pushing for a peace deal.

“The African peace initiative may thus not be the main negotiation process that resolves questions such as the future of the European security architecture, but it can still play an important role in focussing the world’s attention on dialogue instead of further military escalation,” Mthembu wrote. If the United States chose to quietly endorse this approach, it could help build momentum toward a peace deal, no matter how improbable such a result seems today.

Ramaphosa and President Joe Biden will have a chance to start mending ties this weekend at the G20 summit in New Delhi, India. Though progress on Ukraine is likely to be limited, Biden has reportedly endorsed the African Union’s bid to become a full member of the G20, helping to fulfill a long-time South African goal. The move suggests that, public differences aside, the U.S. may finally be ready to bury the hatchet.

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he expects that the Black Sea Grain Initiative will be revived “in a short time” following meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to CNBC. Putin, who tore up the deal in July, told reporters that he would only rejoin the agreement if provisions related to the export of Russian agricultural products are “fully implemented.”

— On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken took a surprise trip to Kyiv, where he announced a new tranche of aid for Ukraine and batted down accusations that the Ukrainian counteroffensive has failed to make meaningful progress, according to the New York Times. Blinken also sought to tamp down concerns that a series of corruption scandals in Ukraine could affect American support for the country. “We’re engaged in assisting the government of Ukraine on anticorruption efforts and on efforts to ensure accountability and full transparency of all the assistance we’re providing, as well as the security of U.S.-provided defense articles and technologies,” he said.

— Western officials are pushing the United Arab Emirates to stop allowing Russia to avoid sanctions by purchasing dual-use goods, according to the Wall Street Journal. The UAE has reportedly become a prime intermediary for Russian businesses looking to get their hands on Western computer chips and electronics. Notably, Abu Dhabi has not joined sanctions against the Kremlin but has tried to avoid gaining a reputation as a market for illicit goods.

— Robert Fico, the leading candidate in Slovakia’s upcoming elections, is a staunch opponent of aid to Ukraine, raising the prospect that the country could split with fellow NATO allies and European Union members over the conflict, according to the New York Times. Fico’s popularity stems in part from the fact that the Slovakian public remains divided over the conflict, with only 40 percent of the country saying that Russia is solely responsible for the war. Notably, the leftist and former prime minister has said that he would oppose Ukraine joining NATO, preferring instead to end the war by formalizing Kyiv’s status as a buffer between Russia and the West.

U.S. State Department news:

When asked if the U.S. believes a diplomatic resolution of the war is likely, State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel emphasized American support for Ukraine’s peace plan. “The Ukrainians and President [Volodymyr] Zelensky have very clearly laid out a proposal for a just and durable peace and a conclusion to this war,” Patel said. “President Putin and the Russian Federation have continuously not been interested in engaging in these kinds of discussions.”


QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.