It’s no secret that the real purpose of former President Jacob Zuma’s statement on the Russo-Ukrainian war was to portray himself as better than Cyril Ramaphosa. To his credit, however, the statement helped clarify the fact that South Africa under him is said to have voted against the anti-Russia resolution at the UN General Assembly last week. ALSO READ: South Africa: A Mickey Mouse member of Brics Brics was clearly Zuma’s strong point. Despite SA being the last to join the bloc, she was more active in Brics at the time than under Ramaphosa. Zuma strongly advocated for…
It’s no secret that the real purpose of former President Jacob Zuma’s statement on the Russo-Ukrainian war was to portray himself as better than Cyril Ramaphosa.
To his credit, however, the statement helped clarify the fact that South Africa under him is said to have voted against the anti-Russia resolution at the UN General Assembly last week.
ALSO READ: South Africa: A Mickey Mouse Member of Brics
Brics was apparently Zuma’s strong point. Despite SA being the last to join the bloc, she was more active in Brics at the time than under Ramaphosa. Zuma strongly advocated the Brics case and it was during his time that our relations with other Brics member states quickly strengthened.
We saw that they founded the Brics Bank, as it is known, multiplied trade with China and Russian President Vladimir Putin became more of a personal friend of Zuma. South Africa and Russia were close to signing a nuclear deal when Zuma’s time was up at the Union Buildings.
So his dream “nuclear power” was postponed. Whether it was a real deal or a personal project to benefit himself and his business friends the Gupta way is a topic for another day. But one thing is certain.
Zuma’s statement, as usual, was intended to undermine Ramaphosa’s stance on the Russian issue and encourage dialogue between the warring parties. With or without Zuma in the picture, the UN vote revealed that Brics isn’t the unified force we always thought it was.
The countries went their separate ways, with at least one backing the Western position of blaming Russia and demanding it pull out of Ukraine. Russia, of course, vetoed the resolution, while SA, China and India abstained.
But in a shock move, Brazil voted against Russia, a guy Brics member, a movement that said Brics is developing countries trying a boys’ club. Brics has proved during the current Russo-Ukrainian war that, unlike the European Union, it is not about guarding the strategic interests of its members, but is merely a brotherly bloc operating along the lines of the African Union perfected “old boys club” .
The strength of the members’ solidarity is questionable. This is in contrast to the European Union, which swiftly imposed sanctions on Russia in support of a call by the United States to punish Moscow for what Washington saw as an invasion.
ALSO READ: Russia-Ukraine War: Brics Bank Stops Doing Business With Russia
The EU’s action was a clear sign that the body was founded on the basis of solidarity between the Member States that are part of the North Atlantic Alliance.
Russia alone is a strong country militarily and the US knows that. But Moscow’s supposed loose allies, China and North Korea, could not be trusted to take up arms should Russia be attacked by America. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine, military solidarity with Russia has weakened.
Neither China nor North Korea have an alliance with Moscow tying them to join a war. But if the unlikely scenario developed where Russia fought and was defeated by NATO allies, Beijing and Pyongyang would be vulnerable to Western attacks at a later stage, so it would be in their best interest to help Russia in the event of war .