The common denominator connecting these five questions is the ultimate one about how Russia’s top brass really assesses the conflict’s overall military-strategic dynamics.
The Russians are clearly struggling with the mentality of Sahelian officers.
These countries are colonial constructs with no history whatsoever, nor even the slightest hint of national coherence. The borders were drawn precisely to create state entities as crippled as possible by ethnic, religious, and tribal rivalries — so that colonial administrators, and later French (imperialist) representatives, could play off these rivalries to maintain control.
The result is a total absence of any notion of nation, public interest, or even homeland.
The consequence is that the role of an officer has nothing to do with defending the homeland or preserving a glorious tradition. It is merely a tool for social advancement. Above all, it is about seeking anything that brings wealth. And that comes at a very high cost. Because there, anyone who enriches himself without sharing it with his (very large) family and his (even larger) clientele is considered a nobody.
The position of a senior officer provides access to every possible racket, and above all, the jackpot of corruption. There are, of course, some honest individuals, but they are not the majority — far from it.
So a certain number must have been bought off by Westerners (as in Syria). Moreover, it's easy to imagine that amidst this cynicism and widespread corruption, enlisted soldiers and non-commissioned officers feel little desire for sacrifice. As a result, these truly magnificent warriors form armies whose combat effectiveness is near zero.
The Russians clearly haven't understood this.
The French, on the other hand, have been practicing it for over 150 years.
"The consequence is that the role of an officer has nothing to do with defending the homeland or preserving a glorious tradition. It is merely a tool for social advancement. Above all, it is about seeking anything that brings wealth. And that comes at a very high cost. Because there, anyone who enriches himself without sharing it with his (very large) family and his (even larger) clientele is considered a nobody." -- absolutely!
Also, as I review Operations Serval and Barkhane in hindsight, I'm beginning to look at them through a somewhat different light, especially the first one. You're right, the French have been practicing this for so long and thus intimately understand the regional dynamics, yet even they sometimes fail to achieve their goals, so Russia's prospects were a lot dimmer in retrospect than I and many enthusiasts thought. I soberly acknowledge that now.
One thing that I'll never forget hearing during my undergrad years at The Ohio State University, I forgot from whom but the words never left me, was that the USSR was masterful at orchestrating insurgencies and coups across the world but totally unable to effectively help its allies wage counterinsurgencies once the West gave them a dose of their own medicine (e.g. 1980s Reagan Doctrine "rollback" across the "Third World").
That seems to still be a problem to this day despite Wagner's and now the Africa Corps' "Democratic Security" missions in some of these same regions. The crucial flaw, in hindsight, is the lack of coordination with the MFA, which isn't their fault but due to Russia being unable to adequately replenish its expert pool after the USSR's collapse. Thus, what it presently has isn't enough nor arguably as effective as they should be.
"Democratic Security" -- defending a country's "national model of democracy" from Hybrid War threats, including those that are exacerbated and/or support from abroad -- cannot succeed with a solely military approach. It requires a comprehensive perspective that involves improving socio-economic problems, addressing poor governance/corruption, and diplomatic proposals for resolving actual civil wars.
What regrettably happened, and I plan to elaborate a bit on this in tomorrow's installment of my ongoing Malian War series, is that Russia was manipulated by Mali into becoming a direct participant in its civil war (Turaeg vs the state) after Mali thought it could get Russia to crush the Tuareg cause for them once and for all. This in turn created space for JNIM to grow and facilitated foreign meddling too.
My error in recent years was assuming some coordination between the Defense and Foreign Ministries as regards Russia's various "Democratic Security" operations abroad, but that turns out not to have been the case, both due to the MFA lacking enough experts but also, I suspect, due to institutional rivalries to an extent too.
Realizing now what's really happening as I sincerely understand it to be, I believe that there must be a freeze in all "Democratic Security" operations abroad and an urgent rethinking of Russia's approach since the US is now actively implementing an updated Reagan Doctrine against Russia (to be elaborated on tomorrow too).
Is it possible to partition the country and give the Tuaregs a state where they are majority to end this bloodshed? I was brought up in Nigeria where my family ran multiple businesses once and I spoke Yoruba when I was in school. I believe that Nigeria must be partitioned three way between the Muslim North the Igbo states and Yoruba states. Too much blood has been shed. Clearly these kind of borders are a Roman-masonic ploy to keep blood flowing and the world undeveloped and destabilised by the notorious and cruel "strategy of tension".
Partition is hypothetically possible, but the AU is dead-set against it except in the South Sudanese case since they believe that all colonial-era borders must remain respected.
They even apply a double standard in this regard with respect to Somaliland, which received independence and recognition thereof several days before Somalia proper, each having previously been different countries' colonies.
A much more politically realistic solution might be the Bosnification of Mali, Nigeria, and wherever else into de facto independent ethno-national sub-state polities with extremely broad autonomy.
The problem, however, is that this could lead to the accelerated Balkanization of many African countries and consequently spark major humanitarian crises if it's not peacefully managed, which is a lot easier said than done, of course.
There'd also be a renewed "Scramble for Africa" as foreign powers vie for influence in these de facto independent ethno-national sub-state polities, but if African countries themselves accept this, then it's their choice to make.
Identity-driven federalization of the sort that I touched upon can also obviously be weaponized by foreign forces and that's why it's extremely unpopular among national governments across Africa.
An orderly partition can only be done by China. The method should be to give concrete development doles to both lines - Metros, rail lines, dams, internal productisation of minerals by Chinese companies on 51:49 basis with agreements made with both sides pre war in iron clad guarantees and orderly partition under Russian and Chinese forces on two sides to prevent revenge killings as well as continuing training in administrative management and state building for both sides in China. China can certainly do this especially as the Mali isnt too large but it would have to bite the bullet on its current foreign policy. Any western power involved will indulge in malicious bad faith actions.
The simple logic would call for redrawing states along national, ethnic, or tribal lines. Unfortunately, history cannot be reshaped by decree. Direct colonial intrusion into this region occurred at the end of the 19th century and disrupted societies that were still organized along chiefly political structures—comparable to the Germanic tribes in Caesar’s time.
We arbitrarily drew administrative boundaries that later became borders, without any real maturation of political processes.
Today, redrawing borders along ethno-religious lines would lead to the same kind of bloodbath as the partition of India in 1947 (five million dead), would trigger internal and external competition for resources, and generate endless grievances—followed by internal power struggles within each new state.
The people living there no longer believe in it and risk their lives by the millions to reach the West in the hope of a better life.
Franco-Anglo rivalry (UK, USA, SA) has been the main source of this terrible mess.
We should have supported these countries over decades, ensured their development, strengthened their institutions, built strong and high-quality university systems, and encouraged federalization.
Driven by the desire for exploitation and fear of Anglo-Saxon maneuvering, we instead fostered the bloody infantilization of iron-fisted dictatorships, fueled corruption, and outright plundered resources.
Or, perhaps, the Americans and the Soviets should not have colluded to destroy the European empires in Africa. Their collusion left fertile land covered in landmines and millions of invalids and dead. Worth noting that, in Angola, quite a few aboriginal Bushmen allied with the Portuguese against the American-backed and Soviet-backed Bantoids who were viewed as invaders and oppressors by said Bushmen.
After destroying Africa, Uncle Sam then dumped its excess Midwestern corn in Africa, thereby bankrupting African farmers. How many Africans depend on Ukrainian and Russian grains to stay alive?
Balkanization along ethnic lines would also create problems, as some African countries have dozens of ethnic groups. Hard to build infrastructure when micro-tribes keep fighting. This applies to Europe, too.
One needs to ask how much the average soldier in the MAFA feels respected and valued through proper remuneration etc and whether the vision of the past and future offered by the present leadership align with their desire to possibly die for. An esprit de Corp is not created overnight and cannot come from a fractured society or one that lacks vision and stability. Training and good weaponry and officers can surely increase the chances of success but the courage to die is still front and centre. Your very unbiased analysis is clinical and accurate obviously but the questions I pose above are not encompassed by your analysis and are pertinent to the effectiveness or not of MAFA. I always reflect on similar in the plethora or conflict on planet earth and the individual desire to fight and possibly die is an intrinsic part of every conflict fought with differing outcomes and conviction. Thanks for the consistent coverage of the geopolitical hotspots of the world Andrew which otherwise mostly go unnoticed or misrepresented by msm or even altmedia.
Thank you, Rakyat, I'm very concerned but what's unfolded over the past week and sincerely hope to help inspire a political solution that could end the bloodshed, sustainably resolve the civil war (Tuareg vs the state), and get those two to team up against regional menace JNIM.
The key to this is Russia, but I'm unsure whether it has the expertise to recognize this due to being unable to adequately replenish its expert ranks after the USSR's dissolution. Some of those who passed training later left for the private sector or abroad for higher pay since academia and even the MFA doesn't pay all that much from what I heard.
It's therefore unsurprising in my opinion why Russia routinely passes up so many seemingly obvious diplomatic opportunities outside its traditional "sphere of influence" but even sometimes within it. The problem is worsened by unviable feedback loops, propaganda recycling therein, and instinctual rejection of unsolicited constructive critiques.
G'day Samuel, I truly feel you have been mislead about Hassan al Banna. First he is not or really never even was a Sufi though he was exposed to some Sufi practices as a child which is typical also in Indonesia in the same period of both Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist adherents today though they consider Sufis to be apostates and not truly Islamic.
He did later go on to create the Muslim Brotherhood which you correctly portrayed but then suggested a salafi satanic cult connection which does not exist. The al Sauds and al Wahhabs do not have any connection to the Muslim Brotherhood and are really enemies actually and fight each other through many organisations or countries leadership. Hence Salafis and Muslim Brotherhood do not have similar theology or form organisations together.
Look at the Gulf state leaders and their affiliation to either the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafism/Wahhabism but never both though they may differ from their populations beliefs which is what I perceived you were inferring, hope this offers another perspective to look at Islam without the propaganda and mishmash of reality that seems widespread.
The "reaching out" is an obvious attempt by the insurgents to drive a wedge between FAMA, and the AES in general, and the Russian Corps. The reasons for this attempt are equally obvious. Under these circumstances, if Russia starts signaling that they might be willing to betray the AES, their political gains in the Sahel will be destroyed along with their reputation; and the Western-backed successors will promptly kick Russian influence out as soon as the betrayed AES has fallen.
What Russia ought to do is do the same to the insurgents; continue talks with an eye to splitting the Tuaregs and the JNIM, and turning them against each other. Turnabout is fair play. The Tuaregs, if they play their cards right, have a lot to gain by turning against the JNIM and making truce with the government; by having tolerable relations with the Malian government, the Russian corps, and Algeria, they will be able to play all these against each other, diplomatically not militarily. Russia, on the other hand, would be able to preserve their standing in the AES while calming things down with Algiers at the same time. So it might be a worthwhile ploy.
I see your points, but I genuinely wouldn't see any Russian pivot or even just minor policy recalibration as a betrayal of the AES since I'm nowadays increasingly of the belief of that AES' leader Mali manipulated Russia into fighting its civil war against the Tuareg.
Fighting radical Islamists is one thing, they're a threat to the international community and more prone to employ traditional terrorist means than pretty much any other group, and fighting an ethno-national minority who's wanted autonomy or independence for decades is an entirely different type of conflict even though this same minority has now partnered with Russia's adversaries for convenience.
Burkina Faso has no similar civil war dynamics while Niger does since it too has been the scene of very intense Tuareg rebellions in the past. As far as I'm aware, however, its Tuareg aren't rebellion again like Mali's are (though the potential is certainly there), so it thus didn't manipulate Russia into fighting its civil war for it like Mali did on anti-terrorist grounds.
The Tuareg also don't just want "tolerable relations" with the Malian government, they want the implementation of the 2015 Algiers Accord for granting them administrative, financial, and local security (police) autonomy with integration of their fighters into FAMA as was agreed to with Bamako before everything fell apart in late 2023-early 2024.
I genuinely don't understand why you seem to be of the belief that denying any sort of autonomy to the Tuareg would not only be acceptable to them, but would sustainably end the civil war dynamics that have beleaguered Mali for decades. I feel like you might sympathize so much with the AES that you're overlooking the actual conflict dynamics and instead giving full, arguably blind (no offensive), support for their maximalist goals.
Comparatively smaller-sized countries have always tried to manipulate larger ones, this is an enduring fact of political history, so it's not exceptional that Mali has done this with Russia. Russia is the senior partner of the AES, not the inverse, and they take their guidance from Russia, again, not the inverse. Being allied with a country doesn't mean that the senior partner can't give the junior ones some hard advice.
Therein lies the problem, however, since Russia doesn't even seem to realize how complicated these regional conflicts are due to its post-Soviet dearth of regional expertise, instead naively taking these countries' representatives' words at face value when they raise a clenched fist in the air and condemn the West and thus unlocking all sorts of practically free benefits "out of solidarity" where Russia ends up shouldering most of the burden for misguided ideological reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I support the AES, but I also realized a few years ago that they and especially their media surrogates are playing a double game to manipulate Russia in order to squeeze more free benefits from it by exploiting Russia's dearth of regional expertise and (if you really know Russia like I do, stereotypical) naivete. It's so obvious to me that it's almost painful to watch it all unfold this whole time. I think maybe now Russia might finally realize the predicament it was tricked into and possibly recalibrate its policies.
As I suggested, reaching an agreement with the FLA that secures (probably in this scenario broad) autonomy could lead to them dumping JNIM, but Russia must ensure implementation of whatever agreement it might mediate. The problem is that there's no trust between the state and the FLA and the state is on the backfoot now so the FLA isn't inclined to negotiate anything less than de facto independence for their region.
If Russian aerial and drone power can keep JNIM at bay while FAMA purges them from the urban centers, then a comprehensive counteroffensive could be planned, after which the FLA might accept whatever deal Russia could get the state to agree to once the FLA is finally the one on the backfoot instead. Till then, Russia must absolutely look at everything clear-minded and without the lens of ideology since it was ideology that got it into this Syrian-like mess.
"you seem to be of the belief that denying any sort of autonomy to the Tuareg. . ."
This is directly opposite to what I said, namely, that the Tuaregs could gain more by diplomacy than by insurgency. Including autonomy.
And I still think that breaking up the alliance between the FLA and the JNIM is the best move for Russia, even if that means Russia would be looked to as a guarantor of any ensuing agreement with the FLA.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. My impression of your views was due to these two parts:
* " if Russia starts signaling that they might be willing to betray the AES,"
* " The Tuaregs, if they play their cards right, have a lot to gain by turning against the JNIM and making truce with the government; by having tolerable relations with the Malian government,"
It was therefore reasonable to arrive at the impression that I did.
Anyhow, now that you've clarified everything, yeah, I feel the same way. But just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding, I myself want to clarify two things:
* Any change in Russia's policy towards Mali other than suddenly withdrawing its troops in full wouldn't be a betrayal of Mali or the AES since Moscow never agreed to assume full or at least senior responsibility for Mali's security
* The Tuaregs want broad autonomy, at the very least the full implementation of the Algiers Accord, and will not settle for "tolerable relations" with the state; any such settling would be tactical, temporary, and the cause of a future war.
I fully support broad autonomy for the Tuareg, subject to two caveats: 1. that it is not leveraged as a foot-in-the-door for US or French influence; and 2. that it is not used to support further insurgency. The price of internal autonomy is external unity.
In any case, I find it very difficult to believe that either would agree to handle all tasks given to them by Mali. They still, at the end of the day, retain some agency. PMCs, regardless of the financier, are historically infamous for not following orders to a tee (e.g. Machiavelli's "The Prince").
Moreover, it's known from open reporting that Wagner entered Mali as trainers, and back then the security situation wasn't anywhere near as bad as it is today. That in itself prompts skepticism of the claim that they agreed to assume full or at least senior responsibility for security.
Another point is that Mali's ruling junta has established legitimacy through pro-sovereigntist rhetoric so agreeing from the get-go, in a contract no less, to basically cede the country's primary security responsibilities to a foreign force would have totally discredited it.
" I'm nowadays increasingly of the belief of that AES' leader Mali manipulated Russia into fighting its civil war against the Tuareg. "
If a regional junta can manipulate the Kremlin into a tactical quagmire, it suggests a profound failure of Russian intelligence. If Moscow is truly this blind to basic local dynamics, their state apparatus is in even worse shape than we thought.
Absolutely, many, many preexisting problems from the pre-SMO era are finally coming to the fore. Ask yourself: how was it that Russia missed "Maidan" and then couldn't do anything about it? Missed that Merkel and Hollande, per Putin's own bashful admission after the SMO, were manipulating him for literally years on end without him knowing?
Whether it's them, the Malian junta, or whichever other Global South force, all they have to do is parrot the same low-IQ talking points ("The West is evil!", "Zelensky is a Nazi!", "Crimea is Russian!") and so many will be eating out of the palm of their hand. As regards Merkel and Hollande, all they did was insist that that they support Minsk.
That was enough despite no action in support of their words for Putin to remain committed to the agreement for years while Ukraine was armed and trained for what the West was already planning. Just remember, the media image of Russia -- ESPECIALLY among "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" (NRPRs) -- is very carefully constructed.
It's presented as "always winning", on the path to "inevitable victory", "omnipresent", and "omnipotent". Regrettably, and it shames me to say this as a true NRPR (unlike the many who are much more aligned with Leftism, Islamism, and/or "Third Worldism"), the global NRPR movement became a post-modern cult living mostly online.
Just replace "Russia" with "the US" or even broadly "the West" and you'll realize it: "The US is always winning, on the path to inevitable victory, omnipresent, omnipotent", and oh, who can forget the appeals to religion! No disrespect intended to believers whatsoever at all, but religion has indeed been exploited by cults before.
Circling back to the early days of the SMO, remember the expectations of Ukrainians greeting Russian troops with bread and salt? Dancing in the streets? Throwing flowers all around? I saw all that being discussed on social media and none of it happened.
Why'd Russia go in with much fewer troops than would be required for militarily taking AND holding broad swaths of the country? The reason, I and many others suspect, is due to faulty intel of the above and the false expectation that Zelensky would flee, pro-Russians would rise up, and this would be over in a jiffy.
The boldest military-strategic move by Russia in decades was predicated on a specific sequence based on ultimately faulty intel that never unfolded and thus we're left with what actually did indeed follow and that's an over four-year-long "SMO". How did we get to this point? And why are we still in it? Well, you answered the question yourself.
Don't forget, and I can't repeat this enough, "Potemkinism" -- the creation of alternative realities for strategic purposes, in many cases about Russian policy itself (i.e. "Putin is an anti-Zionist!") but not only -- dealt a deathblow to Russia's already broken feedback loops once such narratives were recycled into the process.
That lethal trend began in 2023 when top NRPRs began to be paraded around Russia, for the first time being instrumentalized for internal purposes as opposed to external messaging, with them being given access to VIP experts, officials, and even diplomats to whom they parroted their low-IQ and factually false "wishful thinking" claims.
The extrapolated purpose of whoever or whichever forces organizes these events is to reinforce the false notion that "everything is going according to plan", "Russia is inevitably winning", "the West is inevitably declining", "time is on Russia's side", and most importantly, "DON'T CHANGE ANY POLICIES!" As we now know, that undermined -- in my opinion subverted! -- Russia.
What I observed in previous years was other countries ONLY using "friendly foreign forces" for EXTERNAL messaging UNLESS they were credentialed experts, had relevant advisory or expert experience, and/or a track record of impressive analytical successes, in which case they'd then advise policymakers during closed door events (e.g. think tank conferences).
Yes, Russia does do some of that, but the whole process was spoiled by involving top NRPRs, and given Russian hierarchical culture, this pressured experts, policymakers, and officials to go along with the literally STATE-ENCOURAGED narrative being pushed (since the state organized these events with these top NRPRs and took up others' precious time!).
It was by summer 2023 when I realized that this wasn't a soft power experiment but a concerted policy and ONLY for people who parrot low-IQ talking points that I realized that something was very, very wrong here. I knew right then and there that this whole thing was coming off the rails and that major setbacks were likely.
Thankfully, Russia repelled the counteroffensive, which was my main worry at the time, but that was due to military officials and the rank-and-file not being influenced by these literal propagandists, yet so many of the other missteps were, in my honest assessment, connected to this soft power policy, which ultimately backfired in horrible ways.
Latent threats to Russia and its partners were downplayed, with these NRPRs reassuring their VIP interlocutors that "everything is okay", "the West is declining", "it can't threaten Russia", etc., only for us to see what's unfolded over the past year or two. The situation has become so bad that even top expert Trenin, new RIAC President, had to call for corrections:
As I pointed out here, he broke the taboo of publicly critiquing Russian foreign policy and went even further by saying what had hitherto been verboten:
"We need to get to know the countries of the Caucasus, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia much better, and not simply dwell on memories of vacations in Pitsunda or strolls through Registan. We need to take this seriously, because our own ignorance or misunderstanding of our neighbors will create completely unnecessary problems in our immediate vicinity. Ukraine demonstrates how dangerous such an approach can be."
Reread the last line and reflect on what he's conveying: Russia underestimated Ukraine due to "ignorance and misunderstanding", which isn't just a swipe at everyone involved in his country's broken feedback loops, but a slap in the face out of desperation to sober them up from their wishful thinking fantasies into FINALLY realizing what went wrong and how.
If feedback loops were operating properly, not only would we not be in this situation, but a former hardcore pro-Western expert like Trenin (who, to his credit, has since turned the page on his past and proven it over the last four years) wouldn't have to be the one telling folks who friendly foreigners assumed would "know better" to WAKE UP NOW OR ELSE!!!
You can't imagine how frustrating it is living here, seeing all this from the inside out (I know how these processes work through my MGIMO pedigree, Sputnik experience, networking with top think tanks here, and diplomat friends), knowing what the problem is, how to resolve it, but it all being in vain because you cannot tell Russian officials what to do!
Everything is strictly hierarchical here with mostly everyone wanting to please their superiors by telling them what they want to hear to avoid being punished for saying otherwise even if it's the truth. And they absolutely despise unsolicited suggestions, let alone constructive critiques, which these superiors consider to be an "insult to their intelligence".
I don't have the time to elaborate any more than I already have in the past under other posts but what I just shared is enough, I believe, for you and others to understand the extent of the problem. It truly is systemic and infects all parts of Russia's "strategic culture". Far-reaching reforms are urgently required but even they might not help, to be totally honest.
And one final point: many of these top NRPRs are either "former" officials from their respective countries, including their intelligence agencies, or openly boast like Pepe Escobar has done about their foreign intel ties (he's affiliated with at least three: two Asian and one European).
So what's been happening beyond any dispute, the objectively existing and easily verifiable truth, is that "former" or --in Pepe's case -- active foreign intel assets per the dictionary definition are invited by officials here to tell other officials that "everything is going according to plan".
Don't think about it too much or it'll depress you like it does me sometimes. I've since accepted it and moved on, recognizing that I can't be "more pro-Russian than the Russians themselves"; if they want foreign intel assets meeting with Lavrov and others, that's their choice.
The vile evil Freemason Satanic French live by parasitism like all satanists.They will go into recession without Sahels resources and wont be able to support the indolent French peoples welfare state so they use a violent assault by the Al Banna Sufi Satanisms death cult - Salafis. This is the nightmare humanity faces.. But what is the exact situation in Mali -śome say the Mali forces are losing and rebels are about to win.Others say its a stalemate - which is true?
"...due special operation." Russia's hands are more or less tied until SMO is brought to a conclusion. Lost Syria, is perhaps losing Iran and, consequently, Central Asia (soft belly), Venezuela, Cuba, Africa. NATO enlarged, drone chaos in Russia itself. Not exactly fifth dimension chess.
USA goes and looks for wars,loses and has not won a war in the past 75 years with the most expensive military in the world. Russia in contrast looks to make peace whereeverr they go. All the countries in Asia like Russia more then the USA with the exception of ISRAEL
The Tuaregs have benefited from Algerian support for decades. You have to understand the context. The borders placed the nomadic Tuaregs — who for centuries have been a terror to settled Black populations, carrying out constant raids and kidnappings for resale in Arab slave markets, a real calamity — in the same country. When the majority Black populations of the south came to lead the country, they treated the Tuareg with extreme violence and injustice, provoking an understandable rebellion. The Yankees are completely new to this region.
The Russians are clearly struggling with the mentality of Sahelian officers.
These countries are colonial constructs with no history whatsoever, nor even the slightest hint of national coherence. The borders were drawn precisely to create state entities as crippled as possible by ethnic, religious, and tribal rivalries — so that colonial administrators, and later French (imperialist) representatives, could play off these rivalries to maintain control.
The result is a total absence of any notion of nation, public interest, or even homeland.
The consequence is that the role of an officer has nothing to do with defending the homeland or preserving a glorious tradition. It is merely a tool for social advancement. Above all, it is about seeking anything that brings wealth. And that comes at a very high cost. Because there, anyone who enriches himself without sharing it with his (very large) family and his (even larger) clientele is considered a nobody.
The position of a senior officer provides access to every possible racket, and above all, the jackpot of corruption. There are, of course, some honest individuals, but they are not the majority — far from it.
So a certain number must have been bought off by Westerners (as in Syria). Moreover, it's easy to imagine that amidst this cynicism and widespread corruption, enlisted soldiers and non-commissioned officers feel little desire for sacrifice. As a result, these truly magnificent warriors form armies whose combat effectiveness is near zero.
The Russians clearly haven't understood this.
The French, on the other hand, have been practicing it for over 150 years.
"The consequence is that the role of an officer has nothing to do with defending the homeland or preserving a glorious tradition. It is merely a tool for social advancement. Above all, it is about seeking anything that brings wealth. And that comes at a very high cost. Because there, anyone who enriches himself without sharing it with his (very large) family and his (even larger) clientele is considered a nobody." -- absolutely!
Also, as I review Operations Serval and Barkhane in hindsight, I'm beginning to look at them through a somewhat different light, especially the first one. You're right, the French have been practicing this for so long and thus intimately understand the regional dynamics, yet even they sometimes fail to achieve their goals, so Russia's prospects were a lot dimmer in retrospect than I and many enthusiasts thought. I soberly acknowledge that now.
One thing that I'll never forget hearing during my undergrad years at The Ohio State University, I forgot from whom but the words never left me, was that the USSR was masterful at orchestrating insurgencies and coups across the world but totally unable to effectively help its allies wage counterinsurgencies once the West gave them a dose of their own medicine (e.g. 1980s Reagan Doctrine "rollback" across the "Third World").
That seems to still be a problem to this day despite Wagner's and now the Africa Corps' "Democratic Security" missions in some of these same regions. The crucial flaw, in hindsight, is the lack of coordination with the MFA, which isn't their fault but due to Russia being unable to adequately replenish its expert pool after the USSR's collapse. Thus, what it presently has isn't enough nor arguably as effective as they should be.
"Democratic Security" -- defending a country's "national model of democracy" from Hybrid War threats, including those that are exacerbated and/or support from abroad -- cannot succeed with a solely military approach. It requires a comprehensive perspective that involves improving socio-economic problems, addressing poor governance/corruption, and diplomatic proposals for resolving actual civil wars.
What regrettably happened, and I plan to elaborate a bit on this in tomorrow's installment of my ongoing Malian War series, is that Russia was manipulated by Mali into becoming a direct participant in its civil war (Turaeg vs the state) after Mali thought it could get Russia to crush the Tuareg cause for them once and for all. This in turn created space for JNIM to grow and facilitated foreign meddling too.
My error in recent years was assuming some coordination between the Defense and Foreign Ministries as regards Russia's various "Democratic Security" operations abroad, but that turns out not to have been the case, both due to the MFA lacking enough experts but also, I suspect, due to institutional rivalries to an extent too.
Realizing now what's really happening as I sincerely understand it to be, I believe that there must be a freeze in all "Democratic Security" operations abroad and an urgent rethinking of Russia's approach since the US is now actively implementing an updated Reagan Doctrine against Russia (to be elaborated on tomorrow too).
Is it possible to partition the country and give the Tuaregs a state where they are majority to end this bloodshed? I was brought up in Nigeria where my family ran multiple businesses once and I spoke Yoruba when I was in school. I believe that Nigeria must be partitioned three way between the Muslim North the Igbo states and Yoruba states. Too much blood has been shed. Clearly these kind of borders are a Roman-masonic ploy to keep blood flowing and the world undeveloped and destabilised by the notorious and cruel "strategy of tension".
Partition is hypothetically possible, but the AU is dead-set against it except in the South Sudanese case since they believe that all colonial-era borders must remain respected.
They even apply a double standard in this regard with respect to Somaliland, which received independence and recognition thereof several days before Somalia proper, each having previously been different countries' colonies.
A much more politically realistic solution might be the Bosnification of Mali, Nigeria, and wherever else into de facto independent ethno-national sub-state polities with extremely broad autonomy.
The problem, however, is that this could lead to the accelerated Balkanization of many African countries and consequently spark major humanitarian crises if it's not peacefully managed, which is a lot easier said than done, of course.
There'd also be a renewed "Scramble for Africa" as foreign powers vie for influence in these de facto independent ethno-national sub-state polities, but if African countries themselves accept this, then it's their choice to make.
Identity-driven federalization of the sort that I touched upon can also obviously be weaponized by foreign forces and that's why it's extremely unpopular among national governments across Africa.
An orderly partition can only be done by China. The method should be to give concrete development doles to both lines - Metros, rail lines, dams, internal productisation of minerals by Chinese companies on 51:49 basis with agreements made with both sides pre war in iron clad guarantees and orderly partition under Russian and Chinese forces on two sides to prevent revenge killings as well as continuing training in administrative management and state building for both sides in China. China can certainly do this especially as the Mali isnt too large but it would have to bite the bullet on its current foreign policy. Any western power involved will indulge in malicious bad faith actions.
The simple logic would call for redrawing states along national, ethnic, or tribal lines. Unfortunately, history cannot be reshaped by decree. Direct colonial intrusion into this region occurred at the end of the 19th century and disrupted societies that were still organized along chiefly political structures—comparable to the Germanic tribes in Caesar’s time.
We arbitrarily drew administrative boundaries that later became borders, without any real maturation of political processes.
Today, redrawing borders along ethno-religious lines would lead to the same kind of bloodbath as the partition of India in 1947 (five million dead), would trigger internal and external competition for resources, and generate endless grievances—followed by internal power struggles within each new state.
The people living there no longer believe in it and risk their lives by the millions to reach the West in the hope of a better life.
Franco-Anglo rivalry (UK, USA, SA) has been the main source of this terrible mess.
We should have supported these countries over decades, ensured their development, strengthened their institutions, built strong and high-quality university systems, and encouraged federalization.
Driven by the desire for exploitation and fear of Anglo-Saxon maneuvering, we instead fostered the bloody infantilization of iron-fisted dictatorships, fueled corruption, and outright plundered resources.
The solution? I don’t see one.
Or, perhaps, the Americans and the Soviets should not have colluded to destroy the European empires in Africa. Their collusion left fertile land covered in landmines and millions of invalids and dead. Worth noting that, in Angola, quite a few aboriginal Bushmen allied with the Portuguese against the American-backed and Soviet-backed Bantoids who were viewed as invaders and oppressors by said Bushmen.
After destroying Africa, Uncle Sam then dumped its excess Midwestern corn in Africa, thereby bankrupting African farmers. How many Africans depend on Ukrainian and Russian grains to stay alive?
Balkanization along ethnic lines would also create problems, as some African countries have dozens of ethnic groups. Hard to build infrastructure when micro-tribes keep fighting. This applies to Europe, too.
One needs to ask how much the average soldier in the MAFA feels respected and valued through proper remuneration etc and whether the vision of the past and future offered by the present leadership align with their desire to possibly die for. An esprit de Corp is not created overnight and cannot come from a fractured society or one that lacks vision and stability. Training and good weaponry and officers can surely increase the chances of success but the courage to die is still front and centre. Your very unbiased analysis is clinical and accurate obviously but the questions I pose above are not encompassed by your analysis and are pertinent to the effectiveness or not of MAFA. I always reflect on similar in the plethora or conflict on planet earth and the individual desire to fight and possibly die is an intrinsic part of every conflict fought with differing outcomes and conviction. Thanks for the consistent coverage of the geopolitical hotspots of the world Andrew which otherwise mostly go unnoticed or misrepresented by msm or even altmedia.
Thank you, Rakyat, I'm very concerned but what's unfolded over the past week and sincerely hope to help inspire a political solution that could end the bloodshed, sustainably resolve the civil war (Tuareg vs the state), and get those two to team up against regional menace JNIM.
The key to this is Russia, but I'm unsure whether it has the expertise to recognize this due to being unable to adequately replenish its expert ranks after the USSR's dissolution. Some of those who passed training later left for the private sector or abroad for higher pay since academia and even the MFA doesn't pay all that much from what I heard.
It's therefore unsurprising in my opinion why Russia routinely passes up so many seemingly obvious diplomatic opportunities outside its traditional "sphere of influence" but even sometimes within it. The problem is worsened by unviable feedback loops, propaganda recycling therein, and instinctual rejection of unsolicited constructive critiques.
G'day Samuel, I truly feel you have been mislead about Hassan al Banna. First he is not or really never even was a Sufi though he was exposed to some Sufi practices as a child which is typical also in Indonesia in the same period of both Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist adherents today though they consider Sufis to be apostates and not truly Islamic.
He did later go on to create the Muslim Brotherhood which you correctly portrayed but then suggested a salafi satanic cult connection which does not exist. The al Sauds and al Wahhabs do not have any connection to the Muslim Brotherhood and are really enemies actually and fight each other through many organisations or countries leadership. Hence Salafis and Muslim Brotherhood do not have similar theology or form organisations together.
Look at the Gulf state leaders and their affiliation to either the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafism/Wahhabism but never both though they may differ from their populations beliefs which is what I perceived you were inferring, hope this offers another perspective to look at Islam without the propaganda and mishmash of reality that seems widespread.
The "reaching out" is an obvious attempt by the insurgents to drive a wedge between FAMA, and the AES in general, and the Russian Corps. The reasons for this attempt are equally obvious. Under these circumstances, if Russia starts signaling that they might be willing to betray the AES, their political gains in the Sahel will be destroyed along with their reputation; and the Western-backed successors will promptly kick Russian influence out as soon as the betrayed AES has fallen.
What Russia ought to do is do the same to the insurgents; continue talks with an eye to splitting the Tuaregs and the JNIM, and turning them against each other. Turnabout is fair play. The Tuaregs, if they play their cards right, have a lot to gain by turning against the JNIM and making truce with the government; by having tolerable relations with the Malian government, the Russian corps, and Algeria, they will be able to play all these against each other, diplomatically not militarily. Russia, on the other hand, would be able to preserve their standing in the AES while calming things down with Algiers at the same time. So it might be a worthwhile ploy.
I see your points, but I genuinely wouldn't see any Russian pivot or even just minor policy recalibration as a betrayal of the AES since I'm nowadays increasingly of the belief of that AES' leader Mali manipulated Russia into fighting its civil war against the Tuareg.
Fighting radical Islamists is one thing, they're a threat to the international community and more prone to employ traditional terrorist means than pretty much any other group, and fighting an ethno-national minority who's wanted autonomy or independence for decades is an entirely different type of conflict even though this same minority has now partnered with Russia's adversaries for convenience.
Burkina Faso has no similar civil war dynamics while Niger does since it too has been the scene of very intense Tuareg rebellions in the past. As far as I'm aware, however, its Tuareg aren't rebellion again like Mali's are (though the potential is certainly there), so it thus didn't manipulate Russia into fighting its civil war for it like Mali did on anti-terrorist grounds.
The Tuareg also don't just want "tolerable relations" with the Malian government, they want the implementation of the 2015 Algiers Accord for granting them administrative, financial, and local security (police) autonomy with integration of their fighters into FAMA as was agreed to with Bamako before everything fell apart in late 2023-early 2024.
I genuinely don't understand why you seem to be of the belief that denying any sort of autonomy to the Tuareg would not only be acceptable to them, but would sustainably end the civil war dynamics that have beleaguered Mali for decades. I feel like you might sympathize so much with the AES that you're overlooking the actual conflict dynamics and instead giving full, arguably blind (no offensive), support for their maximalist goals.
Comparatively smaller-sized countries have always tried to manipulate larger ones, this is an enduring fact of political history, so it's not exceptional that Mali has done this with Russia. Russia is the senior partner of the AES, not the inverse, and they take their guidance from Russia, again, not the inverse. Being allied with a country doesn't mean that the senior partner can't give the junior ones some hard advice.
Therein lies the problem, however, since Russia doesn't even seem to realize how complicated these regional conflicts are due to its post-Soviet dearth of regional expertise, instead naively taking these countries' representatives' words at face value when they raise a clenched fist in the air and condemn the West and thus unlocking all sorts of practically free benefits "out of solidarity" where Russia ends up shouldering most of the burden for misguided ideological reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I support the AES, but I also realized a few years ago that they and especially their media surrogates are playing a double game to manipulate Russia in order to squeeze more free benefits from it by exploiting Russia's dearth of regional expertise and (if you really know Russia like I do, stereotypical) naivete. It's so obvious to me that it's almost painful to watch it all unfold this whole time. I think maybe now Russia might finally realize the predicament it was tricked into and possibly recalibrate its policies.
As I suggested, reaching an agreement with the FLA that secures (probably in this scenario broad) autonomy could lead to them dumping JNIM, but Russia must ensure implementation of whatever agreement it might mediate. The problem is that there's no trust between the state and the FLA and the state is on the backfoot now so the FLA isn't inclined to negotiate anything less than de facto independence for their region.
If Russian aerial and drone power can keep JNIM at bay while FAMA purges them from the urban centers, then a comprehensive counteroffensive could be planned, after which the FLA might accept whatever deal Russia could get the state to agree to once the FLA is finally the one on the backfoot instead. Till then, Russia must absolutely look at everything clear-minded and without the lens of ideology since it was ideology that got it into this Syrian-like mess.
"you seem to be of the belief that denying any sort of autonomy to the Tuareg. . ."
This is directly opposite to what I said, namely, that the Tuaregs could gain more by diplomacy than by insurgency. Including autonomy.
And I still think that breaking up the alliance between the FLA and the JNIM is the best move for Russia, even if that means Russia would be looked to as a guarantor of any ensuing agreement with the FLA.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. My impression of your views was due to these two parts:
* " if Russia starts signaling that they might be willing to betray the AES,"
* " The Tuaregs, if they play their cards right, have a lot to gain by turning against the JNIM and making truce with the government; by having tolerable relations with the Malian government,"
It was therefore reasonable to arrive at the impression that I did.
Anyhow, now that you've clarified everything, yeah, I feel the same way. But just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding, I myself want to clarify two things:
* Any change in Russia's policy towards Mali other than suddenly withdrawing its troops in full wouldn't be a betrayal of Mali or the AES since Moscow never agreed to assume full or at least senior responsibility for Mali's security
* The Tuaregs want broad autonomy, at the very least the full implementation of the Algiers Accord, and will not settle for "tolerable relations" with the state; any such settling would be tactical, temporary, and the cause of a future war.
I fully support broad autonomy for the Tuareg, subject to two caveats: 1. that it is not leveraged as a foot-in-the-door for US or French influence; and 2. that it is not used to support further insurgency. The price of internal autonomy is external unity.
" Moscow never agreed to assume full or at least senior responsibility for Mali's security"
Arent the Russians there a mercenary force ? Is Mali paying them ?
Wagner was being paid by Mali, while the Africa Corps is reportedly being paid by Moscow:
https://thesentry.org/reports/doubling-down-russia-west-africa/
In any case, I find it very difficult to believe that either would agree to handle all tasks given to them by Mali. They still, at the end of the day, retain some agency. PMCs, regardless of the financier, are historically infamous for not following orders to a tee (e.g. Machiavelli's "The Prince").
Moreover, it's known from open reporting that Wagner entered Mali as trainers, and back then the security situation wasn't anywhere near as bad as it is today. That in itself prompts skepticism of the claim that they agreed to assume full or at least senior responsibility for security.
Another point is that Mali's ruling junta has established legitimacy through pro-sovereigntist rhetoric so agreeing from the get-go, in a contract no less, to basically cede the country's primary security responsibilities to a foreign force would have totally discredited it.
" I'm nowadays increasingly of the belief of that AES' leader Mali manipulated Russia into fighting its civil war against the Tuareg. "
If a regional junta can manipulate the Kremlin into a tactical quagmire, it suggests a profound failure of Russian intelligence. If Moscow is truly this blind to basic local dynamics, their state apparatus is in even worse shape than we thought.
Absolutely, many, many preexisting problems from the pre-SMO era are finally coming to the fore. Ask yourself: how was it that Russia missed "Maidan" and then couldn't do anything about it? Missed that Merkel and Hollande, per Putin's own bashful admission after the SMO, were manipulating him for literally years on end without him knowing?
Whether it's them, the Malian junta, or whichever other Global South force, all they have to do is parrot the same low-IQ talking points ("The West is evil!", "Zelensky is a Nazi!", "Crimea is Russian!") and so many will be eating out of the palm of their hand. As regards Merkel and Hollande, all they did was insist that that they support Minsk.
That was enough despite no action in support of their words for Putin to remain committed to the agreement for years while Ukraine was armed and trained for what the West was already planning. Just remember, the media image of Russia -- ESPECIALLY among "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" (NRPRs) -- is very carefully constructed.
It's presented as "always winning", on the path to "inevitable victory", "omnipresent", and "omnipotent". Regrettably, and it shames me to say this as a true NRPR (unlike the many who are much more aligned with Leftism, Islamism, and/or "Third Worldism"), the global NRPR movement became a post-modern cult living mostly online.
Just replace "Russia" with "the US" or even broadly "the West" and you'll realize it: "The US is always winning, on the path to inevitable victory, omnipresent, omnipotent", and oh, who can forget the appeals to religion! No disrespect intended to believers whatsoever at all, but religion has indeed been exploited by cults before.
Circling back to the early days of the SMO, remember the expectations of Ukrainians greeting Russian troops with bread and salt? Dancing in the streets? Throwing flowers all around? I saw all that being discussed on social media and none of it happened.
Why'd Russia go in with much fewer troops than would be required for militarily taking AND holding broad swaths of the country? The reason, I and many others suspect, is due to faulty intel of the above and the false expectation that Zelensky would flee, pro-Russians would rise up, and this would be over in a jiffy.
The boldest military-strategic move by Russia in decades was predicated on a specific sequence based on ultimately faulty intel that never unfolded and thus we're left with what actually did indeed follow and that's an over four-year-long "SMO". How did we get to this point? And why are we still in it? Well, you answered the question yourself.
Don't forget, and I can't repeat this enough, "Potemkinism" -- the creation of alternative realities for strategic purposes, in many cases about Russian policy itself (i.e. "Putin is an anti-Zionist!") but not only -- dealt a deathblow to Russia's already broken feedback loops once such narratives were recycled into the process.
That lethal trend began in 2023 when top NRPRs began to be paraded around Russia, for the first time being instrumentalized for internal purposes as opposed to external messaging, with them being given access to VIP experts, officials, and even diplomats to whom they parroted their low-IQ and factually false "wishful thinking" claims.
The extrapolated purpose of whoever or whichever forces organizes these events is to reinforce the false notion that "everything is going according to plan", "Russia is inevitably winning", "the West is inevitably declining", "time is on Russia's side", and most importantly, "DON'T CHANGE ANY POLICIES!" As we now know, that undermined -- in my opinion subverted! -- Russia.
What I observed in previous years was other countries ONLY using "friendly foreign forces" for EXTERNAL messaging UNLESS they were credentialed experts, had relevant advisory or expert experience, and/or a track record of impressive analytical successes, in which case they'd then advise policymakers during closed door events (e.g. think tank conferences).
Yes, Russia does do some of that, but the whole process was spoiled by involving top NRPRs, and given Russian hierarchical culture, this pressured experts, policymakers, and officials to go along with the literally STATE-ENCOURAGED narrative being pushed (since the state organized these events with these top NRPRs and took up others' precious time!).
It was by summer 2023 when I realized that this wasn't a soft power experiment but a concerted policy and ONLY for people who parrot low-IQ talking points that I realized that something was very, very wrong here. I knew right then and there that this whole thing was coming off the rails and that major setbacks were likely.
Thankfully, Russia repelled the counteroffensive, which was my main worry at the time, but that was due to military officials and the rank-and-file not being influenced by these literal propagandists, yet so many of the other missteps were, in my honest assessment, connected to this soft power policy, which ultimately backfired in horrible ways.
Latent threats to Russia and its partners were downplayed, with these NRPRs reassuring their VIP interlocutors that "everything is okay", "the West is declining", "it can't threaten Russia", etc., only for us to see what's unfolded over the past year or two. The situation has become so bad that even top expert Trenin, new RIAC President, had to call for corrections:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/a-top-russian-expert-issued-a-clarion
As I pointed out here, he broke the taboo of publicly critiquing Russian foreign policy and went even further by saying what had hitherto been verboten:
"We need to get to know the countries of the Caucasus, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia much better, and not simply dwell on memories of vacations in Pitsunda or strolls through Registan. We need to take this seriously, because our own ignorance or misunderstanding of our neighbors will create completely unnecessary problems in our immediate vicinity. Ukraine demonstrates how dangerous such an approach can be."
Reread the last line and reflect on what he's conveying: Russia underestimated Ukraine due to "ignorance and misunderstanding", which isn't just a swipe at everyone involved in his country's broken feedback loops, but a slap in the face out of desperation to sober them up from their wishful thinking fantasies into FINALLY realizing what went wrong and how.
If feedback loops were operating properly, not only would we not be in this situation, but a former hardcore pro-Western expert like Trenin (who, to his credit, has since turned the page on his past and proven it over the last four years) wouldn't have to be the one telling folks who friendly foreigners assumed would "know better" to WAKE UP NOW OR ELSE!!!
You can't imagine how frustrating it is living here, seeing all this from the inside out (I know how these processes work through my MGIMO pedigree, Sputnik experience, networking with top think tanks here, and diplomat friends), knowing what the problem is, how to resolve it, but it all being in vain because you cannot tell Russian officials what to do!
Everything is strictly hierarchical here with mostly everyone wanting to please their superiors by telling them what they want to hear to avoid being punished for saying otherwise even if it's the truth. And they absolutely despise unsolicited suggestions, let alone constructive critiques, which these superiors consider to be an "insult to their intelligence".
I don't have the time to elaborate any more than I already have in the past under other posts but what I just shared is enough, I believe, for you and others to understand the extent of the problem. It truly is systemic and infects all parts of Russia's "strategic culture". Far-reaching reforms are urgently required but even they might not help, to be totally honest.
And one final point: many of these top NRPRs are either "former" officials from their respective countries, including their intelligence agencies, or openly boast like Pepe Escobar has done about their foreign intel ties (he's affiliated with at least three: two Asian and one European).
So what's been happening beyond any dispute, the objectively existing and easily verifiable truth, is that "former" or --in Pepe's case -- active foreign intel assets per the dictionary definition are invited by officials here to tell other officials that "everything is going according to plan".
Don't think about it too much or it'll depress you like it does me sometimes. I've since accepted it and moved on, recognizing that I can't be "more pro-Russian than the Russians themselves"; if they want foreign intel assets meeting with Lavrov and others, that's their choice.
The vile evil Freemason Satanic French live by parasitism like all satanists.They will go into recession without Sahels resources and wont be able to support the indolent French peoples welfare state so they use a violent assault by the Al Banna Sufi Satanisms death cult - Salafis. This is the nightmare humanity faces.. But what is the exact situation in Mali -śome say the Mali forces are losing and rebels are about to win.Others say its a stalemate - which is true?
" The vile evil Freemason Satanic French live by parasitism like all satanists. "
Now tell us about Israel.
"...due special operation." Russia's hands are more or less tied until SMO is brought to a conclusion. Lost Syria, is perhaps losing Iran and, consequently, Central Asia (soft belly), Venezuela, Cuba, Africa. NATO enlarged, drone chaos in Russia itself. Not exactly fifth dimension chess.
USA goes and looks for wars,loses and has not won a war in the past 75 years with the most expensive military in the world. Russia in contrast looks to make peace whereeverr they go. All the countries in Asia like Russia more then the USA with the exception of ISRAEL
The Tuareg rebels could not exist without American and French support. They're CIA and Israeli proxies, man, therefore this outreach is a trap.
The Tuaregs have benefited from Algerian support for decades. You have to understand the context. The borders placed the nomadic Tuaregs — who for centuries have been a terror to settled Black populations, carrying out constant raids and kidnappings for resale in Arab slave markets, a real calamity — in the same country. When the majority Black populations of the south came to lead the country, they treated the Tuareg with extreme violence and injustice, provoking an understandable rebellion. The Yankees are completely new to this region.