It's funny how SSU is so concerned about the sovereign borders of Ukraine, but cares nothing for the sovereign borders and sovereignty of Niger...or any other countries sovereignty the US has violated
— Jack Rogozhin
Because the US didn't attack Niger. Or it hasn't annexed parts of Niger. — ssu

The US doesn't have to attack Niger or annex to violate their sovereignty; it's very naive of you to think they do. They have bases and troops there against the people of Niger's wishes, they are trying to meddle in Niger's government throught Blinken and Nuland...Nuland even made implicit threats against Niger if they didn't turn the government back over to the deposed ruler....that is absolutely disregard and violation of sovereignty. The US is doing the same thing in Syria where they have multiple unwanted bases and soldiers where they steal Syria's oil

It asked and was given permission and then building the base in 2016 for Nigerien armed forces too. NIger then was feeling the pressure from islamists from Mali and Boko Haram from Nigeria. — ssu

It asked and was given permission by their puppet ruler. You clearly must think the Donbass just asked for Russias help when they separated from Kiev. Ironic. And the main threats haven't been their neighbors, but the American backed jihadists, many of whom France just freed to continue their colonizing, sovereignty-denying terrorism of Niger

I'm not sure you have much knowledge of everything, you've spouted such naive NATO/American jingoism

It asked and was given permission by their puppet ruler. — Jack Rogozhin

Again the obsession of puppets.

you've spouted such naive NATO/American jingoism — Jack Rogozhin

Like what a failure the war on Terror has been? How bad it has gone?

Right, thta's American jingoism. Likely you don't care to read what I actually say. But seems you see puppets everywhere.

It asked and was given permission by their puppet ruler.
— Jack Rogozhin
Again the obsession of puppets. — ssu

Nope: correct assessment of the situation...again, you're glaringly wrong

Yes, these counties TRY to influence states, yet the actions are limited. They can influence only so much what events happen. Yet when fixated on the colonialists, domestic poltics and internal problems don't matter. — ssu

you've spouted such naive NATO/American jingoism
— Jack Rogozhin
Like what a failure the war on Terror has been? How bad it has gone?

Right, thta's American jingoism. Likely you don't care to read what I actually say. But see puppets everywhere. — ssu

You literally said American only TRIES to influence states and the actions are limited. Tell that to Afghanistan, Syria, Libya...and Niger; their actions there and many other places were hardly "limited". So, i clearly read what you actually said..,you clearly didn't

This has been an interesting and informative thread. Your input has been helpful and informative. But you're disrupting things. Stop impugning motives and intentions and argue the facts. It undermines your arguments.

I don't believe I have been doing that

However, if you can show me where I have been impugning motived and intentions instead of arguing the facts, I would gladly correct that

I have no desire to disrupt things

However, if you can show me where I have been impugning motived and intentions instead of arguing the facts, I would gladly correct that — Jack Rogozhin

This is the worst of the bunch.

This is an outright lie. — Jack Rogozhin

However, if you can show me where I have been impugning motived and intentions instead of arguing the facts, I would gladly correct that
— Jack Rogozhin

This is the worst of the bunch.

This is an outright lie.
— Jack Rogozhin — T Clark

Well, if that is the worst of the bunch, i've been far more courteous than some of my interlocutors who have accused me of being a Putin puppet....which is definitely impugning my motives. You should correct them as well

I will, however, avoid calling people liars unless they clearly lie about me

You literally said American only TRIES to influence states and the actions are limited. Tell that to Afghanistan, Syria, Libya — Jack Rogozhin

1. And Afghanistan is an Islamic Emirate today.
2. Syria is still being lead by Bashar al-Assad with basically the civil war now won by him and neighboring states starting to normalize their relations.
3. Yes, Libya is a mess...and there's a multitude of countries involved. Basically so-called allies of the US are on different sides supporting different groups.

So look yourself at how that influencing has gone. I will remain with my words: the US TRIES TO influence states, it doesn't control them and they aren't the helpless victims as you think they are in the face of your country. Clearly the World doesn't go the way people in Washington DC want it to go.

Nuland even made implicit threats against Niger if they didn't turn the government back over to the deposed ruler....that is absolutely disregard and violation of sovereignty. — Jack Rogozhin

Western countries, just like the ECOWAS, condemn military overthrows. Condemnation and sanctions are one thing. A military intervention or military action is quite different. We haven't yet seen what will happen in Niger, yet in the example of Mali, they just left. Yet there is the threat that this could get out of hand.

The US is doing the same thing in Syria where they have multiple unwanted bases and soldiers where they steal Syria's oil — Jack Rogozhin

Here is a perfect example of your totally ignorant attitude about the reality on the ground. Or then you simply paint with such broad strokes your World that it doesn't make much sense (other than US bad, those who oppose the US are good).

The US isn't doing the "same thing" in the countries of Sahel as it has done with Syria. With Syria Obama tried to start a war against the regime, but didn't get any of it's allies with it and backed down (Obama's famous line in the sand). Then Trump attacked Syrian armed forces (an airbase). And the US had an absolute fiasco of trying to form a "politically correct" opposition fighters to fight the Syrian regime, which basically feared more about the fighters themselves being islamists or that the weapons would go to islamists. And lastly it went to Syria to fight ISIS and has quarelled with Wagner troops there. Syria has been an absolute trainwreck for the US.

The Sahel countries are different.

Yet the US hasn't attacked Nigerien forces. It has trained these forces, and these generals, that now took over. But for you such difference seem not to matter. Because Nigerien leaders have been puppets, not politicians that have faced a huge tasks with their countries. You know the facts and others are just American jingoists.

You literally said American only TRIES to influence states and the actions are limited. Tell that to Afghanistan, Syria, Libya
— Jack Rogozhin
1. And Afghanistan is an Islamic Emirate today. — ssu

1. So what. That's their issue, not ours. You clearly dont' care about national sovereignty or sovereign borders. We/NATO certainly didn't help things by killing thosands of Afghani civilians, backing monstrous Afghan warlords, and stealing 7 billions of their money

2. Syria is still being lead by Bashar al-Assad with basically the civil war now won by him and neighboring states starting to normalize their relations. — ssu

2. Again you show you care nothing about a nation's sovereignty and yet complain about Russia violating Ukraines. Odd. That is Syria's business not ours, and we certainly didn't help things by bombing Syria, killing thousands of Syrians and backing head-chopping Jihadists to kill more Syrians

3. Yes, Libya is a mess...and there's a multitude of countries involved. Basically so-called allies of the US are on different sides supporting different groups. — ssu

3. Libya isn't just a mess; its' destroyed and has slave trades and had been one of the most economically advanced countries in Africa...before we violated their sovereignty and bombed and destroyed it. Again, we had no right to do that. It wasn't our country and we/NATO destroyed it. Lovely

So look yourself at how that influencing has gone. I will remain with my words: the US TRIES TO influence states, it doesn't control them and they aren't the helpless victims as you think they are in the face of your country. Clearly the World doesn't go the way people in Washington DC want it to go. — ssu

And again, bombing and destroying countries--or threatening or sanctioning them--ISN'T JUST TRYING to influence them...it is fascistically imposing our will on sovereign nations through violence, murder, and terror

Nuland even made implicit threats against Niger if they didn't turn the government back over to the deposed ruler....that is absolutely disregard and violation of sovereignty.
— Jack Rogozhin
Western countries, just like the ECOWAS, condemn military overthrows. Condemnation and sanctions are one thing. A military intervention or military action is quite different. We haven't yet seen what will happen in Niger, yet in the example of Mali, they just left. — ssu

This is hilarious. The US has pushed--often very successfully--coups in Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Venezuela, Syria, Ukraine, Australia, and many other countries...just this year in Pakistan. Where do you get your world history from?

The US is doing the same thing in Syria where they have multiple unwanted bases and soldiers where they steal Syria's oil
— Jack Rogozhin
Here is a perfect example of your totally ignorant attitude about the reality on the ground. Or then you simply paint with such broad strokes your World that it doesn't make much sense (other than US bad, those who oppose the US are good). — ssu

No, the ignorance is https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/syria.htmall yours here, and here's proof:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/syria.htm

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-military-still-stealing-oil-syria/5790752

The US isn't doing the "same thing" in the countries of Sahel as it has done with Syria. With Syria Obama tried to start a war against the regime, but didn't get any of it's allies with it and backed down (Obama's famous line in the sand). — ssu

They certainly are as far as keeping unwanted bases and troops in another sovereign country. Do you think it would be OK for Niger to have bases and soldiers in the US? I don't

And the US had an absolute fiasco of trying to form a "politically correct" opposition fighters to fight the Syrian regime, which basically feared more about the fighters themselves being islamists or that the weapons would go to islamists. — ssu

Again, it wasn't their country. They had no right being there. Again, you are showing no care for sovereignty at all. And not wanting to send in murderous jihadists--which they did anyway--isn't just being "politically correct." It is keeping your illegal invasion less murderous than it already is

Yet the US hasn't attacked Nigerien forces. It has trained these forces, and these generals, that now took over. But for you such difference seem not to matter. You know the facts and others are just American jingoists. — ssu

It is certainly insinuating they will attack now, and the forces they trained don't want them anymore. And I am not calling you a jingoist, I am correctly saying what you are SAYING is American jingoism with no respect for national sovereignty at all. Your arguments make it clear you think America has the right to violate that sovereignty as they have done for almost a century

And to say I don't care about differences is erroneously impugning my motives instead of addressing my points

You clearly dont' care about national sovereignty or sovereign borders. — Jack Rogozhin

Lol :lol:

Says the person that has written on nationality sovereignty and sovereign borders this:

And again, Crimea was never part of Ukraine proper but part of it when it was a territory for 40 years, after being part of Russia for hundreds. Even if there is a rule about borders, it wouldn't quite apply here.

And...

Russia rightly doesn't consider Crimea taken land. It had been Russian territory for centuries until Ukrainian Kruschev gave it to Ukraine in a narcissistic, ceremonial move not anticipating the Soviet Union's breakup...Kruschev wasn't a brainiac.

So for you, sovereign borders don't apply ...in some cases. Some aggressors are understood.

Whereas for me the sovereignty of the states, and there borders, is important. Of course there are problems like those who don't have a nation like the Kurds, so borders can be redrawn, hopefully peacefully. At least sticking to territorial integrity is one way to make the World less violent than it is. Hence I was against Operation Iraqi Freedom and think that the reasoning of invading Afghanistan and the reasoning was absolutely crazy. And if now ECOWAS with French or US assistance would go into Niger, I would oppose it. (But I guess you haven't noticed it)

This is hilarious. The US has pushed--often very successfully--coups in Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Venezuela, Syria, Ukraine, Australia, and many other countries...just this year in Pakistan. Where do you get your world history from? — Jack Rogozhin

Obviously you don't seem to read what I write, but simply attack something you intend me being.

(And when was there a US sponsored military coup in Australia? Or are you referring to the Rum Rebellion? I don't think the US was involved, but you have to enlighten me.)

Your arguments make it clear you think America has the right to violate that sovereignty as they have done for almost a century — Jack Rogozhin

Again a strawman as I've never said that. Or thought. I was on the previous Philosophy Forum site arguing with Americans defending President Bush's decision to invade Iraq as a wrongful move.

Well, if that is the worst of the bunch, i've been far more courteous than some of my interlocutors who have accused me of being a Putin puppet... — Jack Rogozhin

Sorry, I shouldn't be lecturing you. I've been known to do that. It's just that I've really been enjoying this discussion and I didn't want it to turn into a mess.

, there was briefly some speculation about Russia in that respect, but nothing further has surfaced (that I know of).

Bit of a contrast in terms of Russia here:

Niger coup (reports from Jul 31, 2023): CNN, Forbes (Russian flags)
Georgian protests (reports from Aug 1, 2023): BBC, Business Insider (simmering Kremlin-hate)

Maybe they should get together? :D

Anyway, while going over all this...stuff, I sure hope Putin hasn't had more warring in mind all along. — Aug 2, 2023

Russian flags, "Vive Putin", etc, in the middle of Africa? (contrasting Georgia) Hmm... :chin: Wagner is present ^{(Jul 6, 2023 ← check photos)}, there are well-known links, but no further material evidence (that I know of). Then Putin himself to the rescue:

Putin stresses need for ‘peaceful resolution’ in Niger coup in call with Mali leader
^{— Jessie Gretener, Uliana Pavlova, Duarte Mendonca, Larry Madowo, Vasco Cotovio · CNN · Aug 15, 2023}

By the way, some earlier get-togethers with African leaders didn't go quite as he may have preferred ^{(Jun 18, 2023; Jul 27, 2023)}.

Lavrov has said similar things:

Question: Could you please comment on the events in Niger?

Sergey Lavrov: The Foreign Ministry of Russia has already commented on the attempted coup (as I understand, everything is still in motion there) in Niger. We believe the coup is an anti-constitutional act. We always occupy a clear position in such cases.

But have to say that it's Prigozhin's Wagner, which is active in Mali and CAR makes it all quite puzzling.

Hope the ideas of military incursion to Niger simply fade away. That's at least avoiding the worst possible catastrophy.

Reading your very helpful suggestions and some of what I can find here, in general there can be many reasons for the string of coups in Africa but none of them is that military rule is better at solving the safety and economic realities of the region or that it has the support of the general population. The same military that was there constitutionally before the coup is still the one there unconstitutionally after the coup, and the presence of international troops only emphasizes their weakness to deal with internal security issues.

My search engine is feeding me US analysis which sees foreign affairs as continued East-West conflict. Perhaps it's fair to accuse this approach of paranoia, nevertheless history has shown the effectiveness of such polarizing presumptions. Russia and China, just like the US at times, has worked hard to take advantage of fragile circumstances in third world or developing nations, whether through friendly economic exchange, loans and technical assistance, or through the supply of arms in exchange for natural resources.

Ukraine is trying to send grain and sunflower oil to Africa, Russia is bombing those export depots. Russia is Africa's main arms supplier. In the Sahel, apparently arms and military support work better.

Then there is this instant military alliance that will defend Niger in war. How did this alliance come about so quickly unless it was prearranged by a foreign power?

, there are reasons for suspicion of involvement. Seems unlikely that the coup-doers would hail far-away Putin and wave Russian flags like so, out of the blue. Hating on the French is more expected; "smaller rebels" loathing "larger powers" is trendy, regardless of what the latter may or may not be doing (even if attempting to democratize), you can always find something. Or come to the aid of the former. That being said, should material evidence come to light that incriminates the Kremlin, I doubt it'll make much difference, they'll make something up or won't care. Most likely by proxies anyway.

There is a country in the Sahel that should be discussed in thread: Sudan.

The latest fighting has been because of a power struggle inside the armed forces, between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) lead by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo and known as Hemedti and Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the commander of the armed forces.

Some might remember the outcry in 2003 about the war in Darfur. The paramilitary Janjaweed responsible of a genocidal attack against the Darfuri people later was formed into the RSF, which was directly responsible to the former president Omar al-Bashir.

Here's a quick 5-minute recap of what has happened in Sudan (from some months ago, but still current:



Sudan has had 15 military coups since it's independence and even regions that have detached from it (South Sudan) haven't had good luck politically. Now it really is on the road to become a bigger failed state than Somalia. It seems that the fighting has again started in Darfur.

(Earlier the officers got on together, here next to each other from the left:)


In Western countries we assume that the armed forces are basically one single entity, but where there is the possibility of a military coup, the leadership fearing a coup usually divides on purpose the armed forces to separate organizations that basically are against each other in order to avoid a coup. Sudan is one example of infighting inside the armed forces, but the actually so is Russia (with the Prigozhin mutiny). Such arrangements many times make things worse.

Now it is estimated that about 1 million have fled the country.

In Niger it's still not over and the bickering between France and Niger has continued:

1. Niger's military junta wants the French ambassador to talk with the foreign minister of the junta.
2. The French ambassador declines this.
3. The junta shows the door to the ambassador and wants him out.
4. The French decline to send back their ambassador.



Meanwhile ECOWAS says that the possibility of a military intervention is still on the table. The idea of an military intervention is widely not liked (which shows sound judgement as the poor countries are in no position to start a war with Niger, or with more countries). But there are the 1500 French troops in the airport of Niamey, which basically is nearly surrounded by neighborhoods of the Capital.

Let's hope there isn't a spark that causes an ugly incident.

Tomorrow the French ambassador should be expelled from Niger. The junta gave yesterday the French ambassador 48 hours to leave.



Let's see what the outcome will be. At least Macron is pretty sure that the French have been important in their own former colonies:

(Vanguard) French President Emmanuel Macroh has boasted that without France’s military operations in the Sahel region, “there would probably no longer be a Mali…Burkina Faso, and I’m not sure there would still be Niger.”

Macron told the French publication Le Point while referring to the former colonial power’s interventions in the mid-2000s, Operations Serval and Barkhane.

The ambassador might go. How about the 1500 French military in the Niamey airport?

* * *

And there has been another military coup in a former French colony in Africa. Gabon isn't in the Sahel, but the circumstances do have similarities with the Sahel countries (Mali, Niger, Chad). It's interesting to see how the commentaries here are hopeful and positive about the coup as usually we think of military taking over the government bad. But at least once even in Niger a military coup did bring elections and democracy and not a military ruler (another example of a coup restoring democracy is the Portuguese coup in the 1970's).

The discussion below opens up the broader question of the role of France in it's former colonies, and how France can be said to be the colonizer that never left:

Partially confirms earlier speculation:

Russia’s African coup strategy
^{— Clint Watts · Microsoft Threat Analysis Center · Sep 1, 2023}

Yes, but notice what there is said:

More widely in Africa, MTAC has identified six basic elements to Russia’s African coup playbook:

Establishing long-term influence campaigns – Russia and its messengers in Africa produce a constant drip of content that is both anti-French and pro-Russian, concentrating on polarizing issues. and driven by colonial-era grievances.

Aligning with the putschists – When a coup occurs, Russia’s messengers quickly declare support for the putschists, often through proxies, including previous instances where the voice was the now-deceased Yevgeny Prigozhin.

Seizing control of the narrative – In the days after a coup, Russian messengers align on prepositioned narratives, capitalizing on the information void. Post-coup messaging typically glorifies military and coup leaders and championing national sovereignty while denigrating France.

Amplifying affiliates – Given their long-term investments in Africa-based, pro-Russian propagandists and IO networks, Russia can call upon a range of figures, both overt and covert, to loudly amplify their messaging, thereby crowding out competing narratives and creating the impression of popular agreement.

Mobilizing supporters – Pro-coup demonstrations featuring Russian flags give the impression of widespread support for both the putsch and partnership with Russia while opposition to the coup is violently repressed, chilling dissent.

Banning dissenting media – In Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, coup leaders have quickly identified Radio France International and France 24 as critical press and then suspended them, silencing the largest French-language sources of credible news from the West.

What I think is happening is Russia quickly responding to a situation, not being behind it. And they have fine intelligence services that can easily do the above. It would go off to the tinfoil-hat territory to think Russia is behind these coups (like saying that the Ukrainian revolution of dignity was a US formed coup like Operation Ajax).

The reasons for having this "Military coup" - festival in the former French colonies are that a) successful ones have been examples for others, b) there being so many coups that France and other African countries cannot single out one country, hence c) the juntas have immediately backers in neighboring countries, the other military juntas. And finally d) anti-French sentiment is high in these countries, hence being in this way "populist", the juntas have gotten immediate support for them.

As both armed forces of Niger and Mali (and Burkina Faso) have gotten extensive support and training from France and the US and have an islamist problem, the aid coming from the West is important for them (and Russia won't come the help there), I think Russia is simply one actor trying to improve it's situation in the area with few actual resources. It's not the Soviet Union and especially now with the war in Ukraine, it hasn't got a lot of ability to take center stage in Africa. It might take the stage as it has done in the Middle East, being one actor in Syria.

In the long run this can indeed have dramatic outcomes for France in Africa. Will France have to finally leave it's colonies? That nothing has happened, the French ambassador seems to be still in the country, shows that the Nigerien junta doesn't want to pick a fight with France. And French hasn't attempted a military response ...yet. Even if the Junta is fearing that France in contemplating an intervention. Yet France has a very weak foot in the Sahel and cannot just pick a fight without allies. Hopefully sound reasoning prevails.

If there starts a media campaign on how vicious the Nigerien junta is (or something similar), then I would start to get worried. Yet there is the possibility still of some unintentional (or intentional) accident happening: French troops are situated in the Niamey airport, which is next to the capital.

Not with a bang, but with a whimper?

Or not even with a whimper, as Ts Elliot put it, France left Niger. Last Friday the last French troops left Niger. France also closed it's embassy indefinately. And no ECOWAS war, additionally. Now Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso try to deal with the muslim extremist together. The Wagner debacle didn't make Russia to look so promising after all.

Niger junta = 1
France = 0



In fact, unlike in the coverage of France24, Al Jazeera notes that how this withdrawal notes a long transition from French colonization, even if some French troops are still in neighboring Chad. Otherwise the Sahel region is empty from French military.

And of course, there's not much enthusiasm for the French troops in Chad either.

(VoaNews, 1st Dec 2023) YAOUNDE, CAMEROON —
Chad's opposition and civil society groups are asking France to immediately withdraw troops who arrived in Chad after being ordered to depart neighboring Niger by that country’s military junta.

Ordjei Abderahim Chaha, president of the opposition party Rally for Justice and Equality, said Thursday that military ruler Mahamat Idriss Deby has failed to heed calls to ask French troops to leave.

Speaking at a news conference in the capital, N’Djamena, Chaha said he believes Deby wants French troops to keep Chad's military junta in power by intimidating or cracking down on civilians who are ready to protest should Deby fail to hand power to civilian rule by November 2024 as agreed.

Opposition and civil society groups have asked Deby to ensure some 1,000 French troops already stationed in Chad — plus those who have arrived from Niger — leave the central African state no later than December 28, Chaha said.

What is worth mentioning is that Niger hasn't severed it's relations with the West totally. US troops are still there and German troops continue their presence. Yet it's understandable that either the US or Germany have no colonial link to Niger or the Sahel.

Yet it's obvious that France hasn't anymore the aspirations to hold on to it's former colonial states as earlier. In that way, it's likely to take similar stance as the UK towards it's past colonies.

(Last French plane out from Niger. Not at least in the middle of the night as US had in Afghanistan.)

Some division. Some of the rhetoric seems familiar.

Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso withdraw from West Africa regional bloc ECOWAS as tensions deepen
^{— Chinedu Asadu · AP · Jan 28, 2024}

Now the political turmoil has hit Senegal where a President doesn't want to end his term even if there are term limits. Senegal has never had a military coup, even if it has had to remind politicians that to uphold the constitution in political crisis earlier. Now lets see what happens, but if there would be military coup there to "restore order" or even to "defend the constitution", then you would have a straight flush in the Sahel states from the Atlantic to the Red Sea with military juntas ruling. The President has uparmed The National Gendarmerie, which is part of the Armed Forces yet a separate branch. Worst possibility would be to have a situation like in Sudan.