Pretoria, South Africa – As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held talks with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in Pretoria, the pro-Russia opposition condemned the visit while protesters gathered outside government buildings with a banner reading, “Shame on you, Ramaphosa and Zelenskyy.”

Zelenskyy cut short his first state visit to South Africa on Thursday, saying he would “return to Ukraine immediately” after overnight Russian attacks killed at least 12 people in Kyiv.

Since February 2022, Ukraine has been fending off a military onslaught by Moscow, aided by arms and support from allies in Europe and the United States.

Pretoria has remained neutral, calling for dialogue between both sides.

According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, an estimated 12,910 civilians have been killed in Ukraine since the war started.

But South Africa’s main opposition political party, the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party of former President Jacob Zuma, has taken aim squarely at Ukraine, blaming it for the current crisis.

“The MK Party strongly condemns Mr Ramaphosa’s misguided decision to extend an invitation to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a figure widely discredited among progressive and nonaligned nations,” Floyd Shivambu, the secretary-general of the MK said earlier this month when the visit was announced.

Zelenskyy, Shivambu said, was the “puppet” president of NATO and the West and someone who “sought to destabilise Eastern Europe and the entire world”.

“We think [Zelenskyy] is the cause of the war between Russia and Ukraine. He provoked Putin,” Magazela Mzobe, a senior aide to Zuma, told Al Jazeera this week, urging protests.

“We regard Russia and President Putin as our friends.”

Zuma previously claimed that NATO countries instigated the “crisis” in Ukraine in a bid to counteract the BRICS alliance – a group of large developing world economies that includes Russia and South Africa.

South Africa, a historical ally of Russia mainly due to the support the former Soviet Union provided antiapartheid and decolonial movements in Africa, has not condemned Russia or Putin, has abstained from a United Nations resolution doing so and has maintained good ties with Moscow.

Put ‘strong pressure on Russia’

Days before meeting with Zelenskyy, Ramaphosa had a telephone call with Putin in which, he said, the two “committed to working together towards a peaceful resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict”.

Hours before meeting Zelenskyy on Thursday, Ramaphosa said he had also spoken with US President Donald Trump and the two agreed that the war in Ukraine needed to stop.

Ukraine faces ongoing pressure to accept stringent US conditions for a peace deal.

On Wednesday, Trump had chastised Zelenskyy for rejecting a Trump administration proposal that would see him cede Crimea to Russia.

After Thursday’s talks with Ramaphosa, in which the leaders discussed improving trade as well as ending the war, Zelenskyy said that while Ukraine is open to an unconditional ceasefire, pressure needed to be put on Moscow because it was up to Russia to halt attacks.

“We do not see signs of the US putting strong pressure on Russia as part of its peace push,” he told journalists in Pretoria. Zelenskyy said a new set of proposals was on Trump’s desk after talks on Wednesday in London.

When pushed about what he would be willing to compromise on during peace talks, Zelenskyy said he was ready to abide by what was proposed but could not go against the Ukrainian Constitution.

“It is already a big compromise on Ukraine’s part to agree to sit down with Russia once a ceasefire is in place,” he said.

If an unconditional ceasefire is enforced, the question remains who would be a guarantor of it. Zelenskyy said it should be a NATO country that is strong enough to withstand Russia. Ramaphosa said South Africa and other African countries stood ready to be a guarantor to ensure peace.

Against the backdrop of Zelenskyy’s visit, some questioned why South Africa would want to help broker peace – and what role it could play.

Does South Africa have influence?

South African Foreign Affairs Minister Ronald Lamola says his country is well placed to mediate between Russia and Ukraine because of its history successfully negotiating an end to apartheid, as well as its role in mediating conflicts across Africa.

“We don’t believe funding wars resolves conflict. We believe talks end wars. We can’t out-gun our way out of conflict,” his spokesperson Chrispin Phiri told Al Jazeera.

However, political analysts watching developments are not all convinced Pretoria has a role to play or whether its efforts could even help yield the desired peace outcomes.

“The Americans and Russians are discussing. And this discussion is very resistant to the allies of the Americans, the Europeans. They have not been involved. They have been fighting to get around the table,” said political analyst Kingsley Makhubela from the University of Pretoria.

“I don’t understand what value South Africa will have if the Europeans who have a direct interest in the resolution of the conflict have no influence around this.”

Makhubela said he was concerned about South Africa possibly being pulled between the interests of the US and the European Union in resolving the Ukraine war.

“We must not play into the hands of either party.”

Makhubela told Al Jazeera he did not believe Pretoria could persuade either the Russians or Ukrainians to commit to peace talks.

“I don’t know what South Africa’s strengths are to influence this process,” he said.

Regarding the opposition’s calls to protest Zelenskyy’s visit, Makhubela said they were not extraordinary.

“Internally, you will find groups from the far left and the far right will pronounce why they are against this visit,” he said.

The opposition MK Party, which protested Zelenskyy’s visit, also argued South Africa is ill-equipped to effectively negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia.

However the MK itself – a breakaway faction from the African National Congress (ANC), the majority party in South Africa’s coalition government – has faced accusations of receiving Russian money.

Last year, John Steenhuisen – the leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), the second-largest party in the governing coalition – accused the MK Party of being financially backed due to its links to Putin although he admitted there was no definitive proof. “I’m certain that money has flown into their accounts from Russia,” he remarked to the Financial Mail newspaper.

The MK denied the allegations of financial connections but has acknowledged the longstanding relationship between Zuma and Putin.

“President Zuma and President Putin have enjoyed a relationship that goes back 40 years. They’re friends. But that’s not the same as the Russian government supporting the MK Party,” party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndlela said last year.

The MK Party’s affinity for Putin is no secret; it even markets regalia adorned with images of both Zuma and Putin. Zuma has also repeatedly sought medical treatment in Russia during and after his presidency. Additionally, he has faced allegations of corruptly securing a now-defunct nuclear deal with Russia during his time in office.

Nonetheless, the MK Party insisted its protest against Zelenskyy’s visit is unrelated to its leader’s close ties with Putin.

Ukraine ‘a democracy’ like South Africa

Despite the pushback to Zelenskyy from some quarters, the Ukrainian Association of South Africa (UAZA), represented by Dzvinka Kachur, was unfazed by the protests and opposition to his visit.

“South Africa, like Ukraine, is a democracy. In Russia, you cannot protest. If you go to the street, you will be arrested or you will disappear,” Kachur said.

The UAZA, representing about 1,000 Ukrainians residing in South Africa, advocates for improved communication between the two nations.

It has previously expressed criticism about the South African government’s failure to openly condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, notably by abstaining from a UN vote.

The South African government has maintained its stance of nonalignment and is seeking to facilitate mediation in the conflict with Russia.

Speaking at a joint news conference with Zelenskyy on Thursday, Ramaphosa called upon both Russia and Ukraine to ensure there is a comprehensive ceasefire so negotiations can start.

He said South Africa believed the only path to peace is through diplomacy, inclusive dialogue and a commitment to the principles of the UN Charter.

He also expressed deep concern about the continuing conflict in Ukraine, the loss of civilian lives, damage to critical infrastructure and the deteriorating humanitarian situation.

Kachur told Al Jazeera that any attempt by Ramaphosa to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine would be contingent upon significant actions by Russia.

“A peaceful solution is only possible if Russia’s colonial system reforms,” she asserted, meaning Russia should stop taking Ukrainian territory. “If there is no change inside Russia, there can’t be peace.”

In Ramaphosa’s phone conversation with Putin before Zelenskyy’s visit, the Russian leader articulated his country’s position on the necessity of addressing the “root causes” of the conflict and ensuring Russia’s security interests, according to the Kremlin.

“South Africa will continue engaging all interested and affected parties, including the government of Ukraine, in finding a path to peace,” the South African Presidency said after the call.

But as pressure from the Trump administration mounts for an end to the war, the dichotomy between South African government neutrality, the main opposition’s staunch support for Russia and the host of international actors wanting a seat at the table leaves uncertainty as to the real role Pretoria could play.

The armed group says it seizes control of Wargaadhi town and its military base, but the Somali army denies the claim.

Al-Shabab fighters have battled Somali troops and allied forces for control of a strategic army base in southern Somalia, according to the government and a military official.

Capturing the base in Wargaadhi town in the Middle Shabelle region, which houses soldiers, special forces and clan fighters, would enable the al Qaeda-linked group to sever a crucial road between the capital, Mogadishu, 200km (124 miles) to the southwest, and the central Galmudug State as it tries to extend recent gains made in the region.

Al-Shabab has been fighting the Somali government for more than 16 years and frequently targets government officials and military personnel. It said in a statement that its fighters had captured the base and Wargaadhi town – a claim the government denied.

The Ministry of Information said in a statement that government forces had killed more than 40 people after they tried to attack the base on Thursday morning.

However, army officer Hussein Ali told the news agency Reuters that the armed group had taken the town of Wargaadhi after “fierce fighting”.

“Our forces lost 12 men, mostly [clan fighters]. Around 20 al-Shabab fighters were also killed,” Ali said. “But finally al-Shabab got more reinforcements and managed to capture the town.”

He added that Somalia’s military was struggling to send reinforcements because it would need to use routes passing through al-Shabab-held areas.

Two soldiers quoted by Reuters said government forces, backed by air strikes, had managed to recapture part of the town by midmorning.

It was not possible to independently verify the claims made by either side.

Ongoing offensive

Last week, al-Shabab claimed to have seized control of nearby Adan Yabal, a town and logistical hub for government forces about 220km (130 miles) north of Mogadishu.

However, Captain Hussein Olow, a military officer in Adan Yabaal, denied the report, telling Reuters government troops had pushed the group back.

Both attacks are part of an offensive launched by al-Shabab last month. The group briefly captured villages within 50km (30 miles) of Mogadishu, raising fears among the capital’s residents that the city could be targeted.

While Somali forces have since recaptured those villages, al-Shabab has continued to advance in the countryside as the future of international security support to Somalia appears increasingly precarious.

A new African Union peacekeeping mission, the AU Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia, replaced a larger force in February, but its funding is uncertain as the United States remains opposed to transitioning to a United Nations financing model.

On Monday, Harvard University sued US President Donald Trump’s administration to halt the freezing of $2.3bn in federal funding for the institution. The funding freeze came amid US government efforts to crack down on student protesters and pressure universities into dropping diversity, equity and inclusion programmes.

On March 10, the US Department of Education announced it had sent letters to 60 higher education institutions, warning them of “enforcement actions” if they did not protect Jewish students on campus as stipulated in the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The letters also quoted Secretary of Education Linda McMahon saying, “US colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by US taxpayers. That support is a privilege and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal anti-discrimination laws.”

Shortly after, the Trump administration began freezing federal funding for some of the country’s top institutions, threatening research that universities say is critical for medical and scientific advancement.

In particular, the Trump administration is targeting institutions where students participated in pro-Palestine protests last year, alleging that the student protesters spread anti-Semitic sentiment on campus.

A day after Harvard filed its lawsuit, leaders and representatives of more than 200 American universities issued a joint statement accusing the Trump administration of political interference. The statement was signed by presidents and directors of some of the top-tier institutes in the country, including Princeton, Brown, Harvard, Columbia, Northwestern University and Pomona College.

So, what is going on in terms of federal funding on US campuses, and can universities survive these cuts?

Why is Harvard suing the US government over funding?

On April 11, the US Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and the General Services Administration co-signed a letter to Harvard claiming that “Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment.”

The letter made a series of demands of the university, including that the institution end all affirmative action in faculty hiring and student admissions, and that it change its admissions criteria to exclude international students “hostile to the American values”, including “students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism”. This was a follow-up to a separate letter the government had sent Harvard on April 3, demanding that the university reform any academic departments deemed to be fuelling “antisemitic harassment”. These departments, the letter said, “must be reviewed and necessary changes made to address bias, improve viewpoint diversity, and end ideological capture”.

In response, Harvard rejected the demands, saying that while some demands were aimed at targeting anti-Semitism, “the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”

Hours after Harvard rejected the demands, an Education Department task force to tackle anti-Semitism released a statement announcing that  $2.3bn in federal funding to the university had been frozen.

Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, and fellows of Harvard College have now filed a lawsuit (PDF) in the US District Court in Massachusetts against leaders of the US Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, General Services Administration, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, National Science Foundation and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

In a statement issued on Monday, Garber wrote: “We filed a lawsuit to halt the funding freeze because it is unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”

The suit says that “the federal Government has launched a broad attack on the critical funding partnerships” which make it possible for Harvard and other American universities to carry out “invaluable research” in the fields of medicine, engineering and artificial intelligence (AI) which is crucial for finding solutions for space travel and for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and cancer, among other things.

The lawsuit also alleges that the funding freeze is unlawful because it infringes on First Amendment rights, which guarantee the freedom of speech.

“This case involves the Government’s efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard,” the lawsuit states.

The Tuesday joint statement co-signed by hundreds of American university leaders states: “We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.”

How much money could Harvard and other universities lose?

The frozen federal funds to Harvard include $2.2bn in grants and $60m in contracts. However, more money is at stake. In March, the Trump administration announced that it would review $9bn of funding to Harvard.

The administration has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax exempt status and its ability to enrol foreign students. In the Monday statement, Garber also wrote that the Trump administration has considered taking steps to freeze an additional $1bn in grants.

In February, the Trump administration froze $400m of funding to Columbia University, which emerged as the epicentre of pro-Palestine campus protests in 2024. The government cited what it called the institution’s “failure to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment”.

On March 19, Trump froze more than $175m in federal funding to his alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, citing the allowance of transgender women to play women’s sports.

How else is university funding being targeted?

Some universities have reported receiving “stop work” orders, which are instructions to suspend all work on specific research projects supported by public funding.

“American universities receive two main funding sources from the federal government. The first is financial aid for students, which flows to thousands of colleges. The second is research funding, which is heavily concentrated at about 200 universities,” Robert Kelchen, a professor and department head at the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, told Al Jazeera.

“The American government has relied on universities to conduct research to benefit the country since World War II, and universities have built an infrastructure around that. The magnitude of American research funding has been unmatched around the world during this period,” said Kelchen.

Cornell University said it had received more than 75 “stop work” orders from the US Department of Defense, according to a statement released by Cornell President Michael I Kotlikoff and other university leaders on April 8.

The orders sent to Cornell relate to “research into new materials for jet engines, propulsion systems, large-scale information networks, robotics, superconductors, and space and satellite communications, as well as cancer research”, the university said.

The statement did not specify the amount of federal funding the projects subject to stop work orders were receiving. It also did not say why the government had issued these orders.

Northwestern University has also received stop work orders relating to roughly 100 federal grants, the university’s President Michael Schill and Chair of Board of Trustees Peter Barris wrote in a statement on Northwestern University’s website on April 17.

Earlier in April, US media outlets reported that the Trump administration had separately frozen more than $1bn in federal funding to Cornell University and $790m in funding to Northwestern University. The New York Times and CNN both claimed that an unnamed White House official had confirmed these funding freezes. “The money was frozen in connection with several ongoing, credible, and concerning Title VI investigations,” the official was quoted by CNN as saying.

However, both Cornell and Northwestern say they have not received notification of these funding freezes.

How much money of their own do universities have?

Many universities have sizeable endowment funds from which they can draw income each year to support research projects, scholarships and other expenses. An endowment is a series of funds or assets donated to a university to ensure that the institution is financially sustained in the future. Charitable donations from alumni, other donors and companies make up a huge part of endowments.

Harvard’s endowment was worth approximately $53.2bn in the 2024 fiscal year – the largest of any university. More than one-third of the research at Harvard is funded directly by the university, according to Harvard’s website.

Columbia’s endowment was $14.8bn for the fiscal year ending in June 2024. Cornell’s endowment was about $10.7bn in the fiscal year ending in June 2024. Northwestern University’s endowment amounted to approximately $14.3bn in 2024. University of Pennsylvania’s endowment was $22.3bn as of June 2024.

Some universities will be able to fall back on these endowments if federal funding freezes remain in place. “Universities typically spend about 5 percent per year out of their endowment, which provides funding for the Harvards of the world to make up for a loss of federal funding,” said Kelchen.

Endowments are subject to restrictions, however. “Endowment funds are heavily concentrated at a few dozen universities, and roughly three-fourths of all endowment funds are restricted for particular purposes,” Kelchen said, explaining that such purposes include student scholarships in very specific fields.

At Harvard, donors decide which programmes, departments and purposes 70 percent of the annual endowment distribution is spent on. Columbia’s website also states that the annual spending of the endowment is according to the wishes of the donors.

Universities have also seen a fall in the value of endowments. In 2024, Harvard’s donations dropped by $151m after some donors pulled funding from the university over the pro-Palestine protests and the university’s response to concerns about anti-Semitism on campus, according to an October 2024 report by the student-run newspaper, the Harvard Crimson.

How will universities respond to threats to government funding?

Kelchen said that a few research universities may be able to make it through a period of several years without federal funding.

In its April 17 statement, for example, Northwestern University’s leadership wrote that for now, the university will continue to fund the research projects that are subject to stop work orders from the government. “This support is intended to keep these projects going until we have a better understanding of the funding landscape.”

Most universities will not be able to afford to this. Some, therefore, are acceding to government demands.

After receiving its own list of demands from the government on March 13, Columbia, for example, accepted these demands on March 18 and introduced new policies on campus. These new policies require protesting students to present their university identification if asked to do so. They also prohibit face masks intended to conceal a person’s identity. However, face coverings are still allowed for religious or medical reasons. Columbia also hired 36 security officers who have special powers to arrest students, and the university continues to rely on New York police for additional security assistance.

Some universities will try to seek other sources of funding, experts say.

“Universities have been trying to diversify funding sources for years. The two most likely sources are increasing enrolment [to get more tuition dollars] and trying to generate more donations,” said Kelchen.

“Some universities have the physical capacity to increase enrolment, while others do not. And universities are hoping for a rush of donations to help them get through a difficult time,” said Kelchen.