To suggest confusion reigns in Pretoria is an understatement. Donald Trump’s whirlwind start to his second presidency has hit few countries as hard as South Africa – with the shock illustrated by SA’s unprecedented UN vote this week FOR Ukraine in a resolution introduced by the US supporting Russia. In this fascinating discussion with BizNews founder Alec Hogg, Russian-born and educated Prof Irina Filatova offers practical advice for a nation suddenly “in a very bad place” after being cut loose by long-time ally Russia and abandoned by BRIC partners after its vocal attacks against the USA.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.
If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.
Watch here
Listen here
Edited transcript of the interview ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Alec Hogg (00:08.519):
One of the most popular pieces we’ve published on BizNews Premium in a while is Professor Irina Filatova’s analysis of Donald Trump’s hijacking of the ANC’s long-standing relationship with Vladimir Putin. We’re going to discuss more about that and the latest developments in Trump’s world, specifically how he’s managed to strike a deal with Ukraine. Perhaps the piece will break out. Irina will give us some insights.
Alec Hogg (00:39.968):
Irina, it’s a confusing world for us, especially when it comes to that part of the world where you come from, Russia. The ANC, until fairly recently, had a very close relationship with Vladimir Putin—and probably still does. Maybe the way you unpacked this for us in the BizNews Premium article we published this week gives some perspective. Maybe we should share this more broadly so people can understand why the ANC, to start with, loves Putin so much. But why do they seem to be losing his affection to Donald Trump?
Irina Filatova (01:22.178):
The ANC is not losing their affection for Donald Trump—there was no affection for Donald Trump from anybody, sorry! There was affection for Putin, but I think everyone is confused. You are absolutely right—it’s not just the ANC that is confused, but the whole world is looking at what’s going on with horror. There are some parties in Europe that are pleased, and many Americans are very pleased. There are people rejoicing even in the developing world, because in their view, the United States has finally shown its real face, and it’s not a pleasant one.
Irina Filatova (01:50.024):
As for the ANC, yes, it’s a strange situation. For the first time ever, I think, in the General Assembly, the ANC voted against a resolution introduced by the American administration—this is something they usually abstain from or vote against. The resolution was supported by Russia, but the ANC voted against it in favour of Ukraine. That’s a very interesting turn, and we’ll have to watch this space. I’m not sure how it will turn out, but perhaps the ANC has realised that Russia is not what they thought it was—it’s not really at the forefront of fighting imperialism. On the other hand, maybe they don’t know what else to do now that they are aligned with what seems like the main imperialist country.
Irina Filatova (03:53.092):
Nobody understands how to look at the world anymore.
Alec Hogg (03:57.137):
I suppose we should always look to history to understand where we are today. We know the ANC’s history with Russia is very strong, dating back to the anti-apartheid era, but maybe we should focus on recent history—particularly the situation in Ukraine. Can you help us unpack what has been going on there, because it’s a very complex situation? Jeffrey Sachs, a well-known academic in America, who was incidentally born in Bloemfontein and has a South African connection, has been popular on social media, saying that there are two sides to this story. He argues that Putin was completely within his rights because the Americans have been lying for so long.
Read more: A very dark side to bureaucrat bashing, especially in SA which cannot afford DOGE – Schwella
Alec Hogg (04:35.266):
I’m not sure how much of that is fact and how much is speculation, but I know you can help clarify the facts. Can you unpack this for us, please?
Irina Filatova (05:02.402):
Well, I can’t present just the “facts” because, as a historian, facts are often subject to interpretation, depending on one’s views. We try to be objective and look at both sides, but the interpretation of what happened between Russia and Ukraine, or rather between the United States and Russia, is key. From the beginning, Ukraine was just a pawn in this war. Russia started the war with an ultimatum to the United States and NATO. The ultimatum was simple: get out of Eastern Europe, or we will do it ourselves. Neither the United States nor NATO complied, and that’s how the war started.
Irina Filatova (06:45.076):
Of course, there’s a widely shared view that the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe is the cause of the war. Yes, NATO expanded after the collapse of the USSR, but for me, the collapse marked the beginning of a new world, where the independence of surrounding countries and former republics was recognised by everyone, including Russia. By the way, the territorial integrity and security of Ukraine was guaranteed when it gave up its nuclear weapons and agreed to become a non-nuclear state. That guarantee was provided by the United States, Great Britain, and Russia.
Irina Filatova (07:20.849):
We have two options here: either we recognise this new reality or we stay in the pre-collapse world, where countries were divided into spheres of influence. The United States also had its sphere of influence. Whether it’s through military force or soft power—economic influence—it’s the same. Russia, too, could have maintained its influence in Ukraine without starting a war. It didn’t need to kill people. Russia was powerful enough to rely on soft power and economic influence. There was no question about NATO conquering Russia—NATO is a defensive alliance. Countries that didn’t want to join NATO weren’t forced to, and the countries that joined expressed their will to do so.
Irina Filatova (08:55.164):
If we accept that countries have the right to form alliances and seek security guarantees, we can’t dismiss it when smaller countries do the same. Now, in Professor Sachs’s view, and others like him, smaller countries don’t have such a right—they must obey the bigger powers. This view suggests a world where might makes right—a world where bigger powers dictate terms, and smaller countries must comply. This is exactly how the United States behaves now, and Russia had already declared its intention to create such a world before the war. The war with Ukraine was meant to demonstrate Russia’s power and reshape the world order that existed post-World War II and after the collapse of the USSR.
Alec Hogg (10:59.065):
That’s really eye-opening. Right now, though, we’re seeing the negotiations between Donald Trump and Ukraine, where Ukraine has agreed to give up some of its mineral rights to the United States. You mentioned that this is reminiscent of what used to happen when countries were invaded, and the victor took the spoils of war. It seems like the United States will be repaid for the money it gave to Ukraine, and presumably, peace will follow. Is this too simplistic?
Irina Filatova (11:50.492):
Alec, we know too little about this agreement. I read an article in the FT that described it as a framework agreement, the details of which will be discussed when Zelensky visits the United States. At that time, two teams will finalise the specifics. Zelensky hasn’t signed anything yet, and the terms outlined so far are better than initially expected. Around $500 billion in proceeds will be paid to the United States.
Irina Filatova (12:33.847):
A fund will be created, with 50% owned by the United States. The proceeds from this portion will go to the U.S., but of course, there are many uncertainties. The rare earth minerals exist only beneath the ground, and a lot of work is required to determine their quality and to begin mining. The details are still unclear. What’s more interesting to me is the way this deal has been imposed on Ukraine, particularly since Ukraine gets nothing in return. There’s no mention of security guarantees or defence commitments from Europe or anyone else.
Irina Filatova (14:15.56):
Let’s say American firms start exploring and mining. Would the United States care about Ukraine’s security? Would it care whether Zelensky stays in power or whether democratic elections take place? If the focus is only on these mineral deposits, it may not matter who is in charge in Ukraine. Even if Putin occupies Ukraine, it may not matter, because Russia and the United States have a friendly relationship now. This deal looks very similar to what Russia does in parts of Africa, especially West Africa, where mining deposits are controlled by governments that are friendly to Russia. We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out.
Alec Hogg (16:12.444):
And it’s not a good time for Zelensky right now, either, given that Trump has said some awful things about him.
Irina Filatova (16:16.277):
No. It’s not just what he’s said—who cares about that? The real issue is that Ukraine is in a tough spot. Zelensky’s people are tired of the war. If the elections were tomorrow, he might lose. Whether the next candidate would be pro-Russian or pro-Western isn’t clear. The Ukrainian population hasn’t turned pro-Russian, but after three years of war, they’re exhausted. They might not understand this deal either, and it could hurt Zelensky personally. The situation is unclear, but Ukraine as a whole is in a very bad position. I feel very sorry for Zelensky and the Ukrainian people—they fought hard, but where it ends is uncertain.
Alec Hogg (17:47.979):
Bringing it back to South Africa, as you pointed out earlier, South Africa voted with Ukraine rather than with Russia, which has been their usual position up until now. What does this mean for us? What is this new world likely to look like for South Africa? Will it be a case of having to kowtow to the great powers, or is the price of independence worth it?
Read more: André Pienaar: Why SA must urgently rebuild its relationship with Israel
Irina Filatova (18:17.758):
South Africa is also in a difficult position. It has enjoyed many benefits from its relations with Western countries, especially the United States. If those relations are withdrawn, the South African economy will suffer. It’s a bad spot, not just for South Africa, but for the entire African continent. The United States has already withdrawn some assistance, particularly in the medical sphere, and there are talks of halting initiatives like the Global Fund. This will lead to more unemployment and economic struggles.
Irina Filatova (19:25.210):
The United States is South Africa’s second-largest trade partner, and that’s an important factor. But I don’t think Russia or China can easily replace what South Africa stands to lose from its ties to the United States. What’s even more important is that South Africa, in this new multipolar world, will have to watch its words and actions. In this world, no one is going to give you anything just because you’re struggling or have economic problems.
Irina Filatova (20:11.156):
South Africa needs to be careful, as it cannot rely on any one power to save it. The era of playing multiple sides for leverage, like during the Cold War, is over.
Alec Hogg (20:39.019):
What’s the best-case scenario? I love asking this question because it gives us some hope for optimism. Is there a best-case scenario?
Irina Filatova (20:45.384):
It’s grim.
Irina Filatova (20:51.807):
The best-case scenario for whom? For Ukraine? For South Africa?
Alec Hogg (20:54.714):
For South Africa. For us.
Irina Filatova (20:58.69):
For South Africa, the best scenario is focusing on economic development, avoiding populist measures, and staying away from the rhetoric that has led South Africa into needing assistance. South Africa could benefit from a more sophisticated, non-partisan foreign policy—something that would help develop its economy and protect its interests without relying on external powers. It could remain neutral and focus on its development.
Alec Hogg
Professor Irina Filatova, political scientist, and I’m Alec Hogg from BizNews.com.
Read also:
