36 Comments

Excellent analysis Andrew and all on target. The battle for Africa will continue as long as the ex-colonial powers resist the inevitable multipolar world of the BRICS+ steamroller. Africa has woken up after a hundred years of exploitation and poverty and many states will join the BRICS+.

https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/african-resource-grab-beacon-of-democracy?r=hhrlz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Expand full comment

"...French hegemony..."

According to my built-in MacOS dictionary:

"hegemony | hɪˈɡɛməni, hɪˈdʒɛməni |

noun [mass noun]

leadership or dominance, especially by one state or social group over others: Germany was united under Prussian hegemony after 1871."

and

"noun

Germany was united under Prussian hegemony after 1871. leadership, dominance, dominion, supremacy, ascendancy, predominance, primacy, authority, mastery, control, power, sway, rule, sovereignty; rare predomination, paramountcy, prepotence, prepotency, prepollency. ANTONYMS self-government."

it's not quite the right word. It's close enough that I can't think of a better one, but I don't like its lack of the sense of exceptionalism. It fails to convey the sense of being above the rule of law, or being the most important part of the law being made and changed. It's all about leadership and control without enough of the idea that the antonym ('self-government') conveys.

It's not about France being in a position to make or change the law. It's clearly not (in the place of the US). There's something more hierarchically religious about it; it's about accepting a lower place and bowing down to a higher one. That works here, as it usually does, because it's about others bowing down to France, but it misses the bigger point, which is about all members of the same religion earning the exceptionalism which gives them the right to make other bow down (to them).

I'm going to start thinking about what word other than 'hegemony', which includes some sense of (justified and/or god-given) exceptionalism, might replace it, where we've grown so accustomed to 'hegemony' recently.

Expand full comment

Hedgemonic entitlement

Expand full comment

That's the idea, yes. What's the ONE word for it?

'Hegemony' probably is the best one. Everyone seems to be getting more familiar and comfortable with it, which is good, but I'm afraid it's lacking something of the nuance of an idea about what came to make religion be seen as revolting; it's missing the 'revulsion' aspect, somehow. But maybe that's just me.

Expand full comment

Perhaps imperialism.

Expand full comment

Here's the Google AI ('AI Overview') take:

"The word 'hegemony' comes from the Greek word hēgemonía, which means 'authority, rule, political supremacy'. Hēgemonía is derived from the noun hēgemṓn, meaning 'leader', and the verb hēgéomai, meaning 'to precede, lead the way, guide'. 

"The word 'hegemony' was borrowed into the English language in the mid-16th century. It was originally used to describe the control that ancient Greek states had over one another. For example, Sparta was the hēgemṓn of the Greek resistance against the Persians. 

"In the 19th century, the meaning of 'hegemony' expanded to include the social or cultural influence that a dominant entity has over others. Today, 'hegemony' refers to the political, economic, and military control that one state has over another.

"The word 'hypocrisy' comes from the Greek word hypokrisis, which is a combination of the prefix hypo- meaning "under" and the verb krinein meaning 'to sift or decide'. The original meaning of hypokrisis implied a deficiency in the ability to sift or decide, which is related to one's beliefs and feelings. 

"The word 'hypocrite' comes from the Greek word hypokrites, which means 'an actor' or 'a stage player'. In ancient Greek theatre, actors wore large masks to indicate their character, and would interpret the story from underneath their masks. The word hypokrites took on a broader meaning to refer to anyone who was pretending to be someone or something they were not. 

"The word 'hypocrite' was first recorded in English in 1225. It has evolved to mean someone who falsely claims to be virtuously or religiously inclined, or someone who pretends to have feelings or beliefs that are higher than their real ones."

"Imperial has multiple meanings in history, including: 

"Relating to an empire

Imperial can refer to something that is associated with an empire, emperor, or empress. For example, you might describe a palace as imperial if it belongs to an emperor or empress."
"Relating to the British Empire 
Imperial can also refer to something that is related to the British Empire or the United Kingdom. For example, the imperial gallon was a unit of measurement used throughout the British Empire. "

"Imperialism

Imperialism refers to the penetration of the West into Asia and Africa, as well as Russia's eastward expansion. The Pan-African movement was a response to the ideas of imperialism, which split African nations apart."

Hypocrisy, as it has evolved to be understood now (see 'post 1225' above), I feel, carries the most sentinent aspect of the idea's meaning. Hegemony, I feel, says too much about "the political, economic, and military control that one state has over another" (above). I suspect its 19th century expansion to include social and cultural aspects of the dominant power's (God-given) authority, was flattering to the imperialists (mainly British, using English) of the time and an element of that remains.

In summary, it remains not only flattering to the hegemon, it fails to reflect a fairly recently evolved social awareness of how religion can be, and often was as part and parcel of imperialism, used to manipulate and repress its subjects.

By the way, I disagree with Google AI's sneaky way of equating Russia's expansion to the East with (the) West(ern) Europe's expansion overseas; I think they're fundamentally different: the West's was about finding others far away from home to define as others, Russia's was about taking the others into the self at home.

Expand full comment

So, yeah, I think you're right about 'imperialism'.

Expand full comment

From the perspective of the governing elites of France, Russia IS the largest threat to France. My reasoning is based on electricity and nuclear fuel. France obtained raw nuclear material from Africa at low price and probably own a lot of mines there. Using financial power and sometimes controlling these countries through currency, France obtained these raw nuclear materials on the cheap. Without cheap enough electricity, social unrest would be real and fast. And the intensity could be higher than raising tax on gasoline

Expand full comment

For some background on French nuclear energy interests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orano

Expand full comment

"Russia’s African policy, which readers can learn more about here, seeks to accelerate multipolar processes there"

Multipolar world=a world without democracy.

https://africacenter.org/spotlight/russia-interference-undermine-democracy-africa/

Expand full comment

So a world without a hegemon is a world without democracy?

That makes zero sense.

Expand full comment

Propaganda doesn't have to make sense, it only has to be believable, and only barely so at that, given how few people will actually question their sources.

Expand full comment

"The Africa Center is an academic institution within the U.S. Department of Defense established and funded by Congress for the study of security issues relating to Africa and serving as a forum for bilateral and multilateral research, communication, training, and exchange of ideas involving military and civilian participants."

You don't think they might have an interest in spinning the story in a particular direction would you?

First things I look for when someone posts an article:

1. who they are - their founders, directors, supporters, etc.

2. who pays the bills.

3. who writes for them and who are their editors.

Expand full comment

And then I'd like to understand how Russia is a different colonizer than France.

Expand full comment

I'm not interested in arguing, only in clarifying my views. You can ask me a targeted question about Russian policy and I'll consider answering it if I have the time and interested, but right now it seems like you're just parroting talking points.

You know very well that my analysis comprehensively explains what Russia is trying to do, whether you agree with it or not, and could have thus asked a targeted question but still declined doing so in order to make some political point.

Please don't waste my time like this again and kindly respect that I'm sharing some of it -- and my time is very limited nowadays between work, research, family, and of course recreational activities -- with you out of goodwill to clarify my views if you'd like.

Expand full comment
User was indefinitely suspended for this comment. Show
Expand full comment

Of course no one is forcing me to answer, but I do it as a courtesy to my audience whenever I have the time and interest.

I also believe in responding to sarcastic comments and people who exploit my posts' visibility to parrot cheap talking points.

I want to cultivate a community of people who respect one another despite disagreements, the latter of which I ask them to respectfully express.

I also want them to feel comfortable explaining why they disagree, whether with me or other community members, so that we can learn from each other.

Expand full comment

Again, I have not disrespected you.

I have just pointed out how something you wrote was clearly wrong, nothing else.

Than you decided to turn all defensive and not answer my comment. That's alright, but don't put it on me.

Expand full comment

You didn't point anything out though, you just generalized that the entire thing is wrong without specifying what, thus amounting to a cheap talking point and not an honest attempt to have a conversation or seek clarity about my views.

There's no way that you read the over two dozen analyses that I hyperlinked to in that piece for reference within the period between which my latest analysis was published and you posted your comment.

I'm not "defensive", you're just not used to someone with enough self-respect, time, and interest to call out unconstructive commentators who post on their pages. Most of my peers ignore trolls but I don't tolerate them here.

If you did it on X, I might have trolled you back (I tend to troll back at least one troll once a day sometimes for up to an hour at a time for amusement [it's my favorite hobby and I don't care if you judge me]), but here I'm being polite.

I don't want people hijacking the comments section and infecting it with a negative attitude that my decade-long experience in this field has proven will inevitably ruin everything for everyone if it's not addressed right away.

Expand full comment

Had Russia looted African natural resource ? What does Russia buy from Africa and at reasonable price (use whatever definition you like)? Does Russia circulate a currency only for African countries but printing is controlled by Russia?

Russia is definitely not a textbook democracy. But, having two chambers and periodic elections do not make it a textbook democracy either. The fundamental issues here are: (1) who defines democracy? (2) how you define is or is-not? the answer should not be a binary choice. (3) People tend to support their leaders when they are better off than four years ago; and people tend to complain about their leaders alot when they are worse than four years ago. A large number of Americans have been arguing about Joe Biden was not democratically elected on the basis of fraud. Is USA a democrracy?

Expand full comment

Dear Sir, Excellent analysis. Would you agree to let us translate it in our magazine with a presentation of your work ?

L. Schang, magazine Eléments (lepolemarque@gmail.com)

Expand full comment

Tl;DR Macron is terrified at the prospect of the War On Iran taking precedence over the War On Russia and France losing in American priorities as a result.

Expand full comment

The greatest threat to France are Emmanuel Macron, Sébastien le Cornu (the cuckolded one, etymologically speaking), Gabriel Attal and all the Atlanticist elites.

Expand full comment

After the CULLING success of OPERATION COVIDIUS...

(just a very small example)

https://voza0db.substack.com/p/morons-just-dont-get-it-c2e

... something else is needed to keep on going.

Despite that success the expected number of culled modern moron slaves in Europe and the USofT still remained below the level that the SRF & Billionaires want to achieve.

OPERATION COVIDIUS was very effective on the older MMS but failed to clean the younger ones.

So... The ONLY tool available for THEM to CULL young MMS without them noticing is by using the "WAR" tool.

It'll be a little bit harder to convince the young "smart"slaves to engage in such event... Contrary to the easiness that was convincing them to lock inside, wear a face diaper and take the m[iracle]RNA toxic spew jabs.

Expand full comment

They're all part of the same globalist club, aren't they?

https://slavlandchronicles.substack.com/p/putin-and-his-government-are-anti

Expand full comment

Are they? What you've got there is a leading question. It plants the thought in the reader's mind without actually providing an answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question

So, 'consider the source' being our first criterion, there's not much on that site about who this guy is, so let's look at what he writes, starting with this:

"Putin Has Already Drafted a Plan to Replace Russians With Africans"

Read the article, and then tell me in what way are Palestinians "Africans?"

The only reference to Africans in the article is this:

"By the way, about Africa - in 2023 at the “ Valdai Club ” there was a proposal to attract as many refugees from Africa as possible to Russia. This was proposed by Dmitry Poletaev, an employee of the Institute of National Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He even spoke about the fact that specifically for the future import of refugees from Africa, it is necessary to change the legislation of Russia.

Not exactly an official position, but let's look at how the legislation has actually changed.

1. easing of visa requirements for western people who adhere to Russian cultural values.

2. increased immigration and work visa restrictions for Central Asians.

What direction does that suggest immigration policy is moving in?

The article then raises the alarm about North Koreans and Vietnamese being invited, I supposed to replace Central Asians in low skill jobs that Russians don't want to do themselves. So rhetorically I ask, if a Vietnamese or North Korean is deported for bad behaviour, what sort of consequences does he face upon return compared to say UZ or TJ? I think we can intuit the answer with regard to NK. Displease Dear Leader and guess what happens? I imagine Vietnam would be similarly displeased with misbehaving Vietnamese scotching their chance at better relations. Just a guess of course.

I think it's important to differentiate between guest workers and students, the later of which there are already substantial numbers in Russia. Does it make sense to train Africans in Russian universities who can then assume leadership roles upon their return home? How about guest workers? As long as they behave, does it make sense to fill low level jobs that Russians don't want, given that remittances from those workers go to support their families back home? You could view this as a form of foreign aide, with the bonus that you also get some work done in Russia in exchange, which direct aide payments don't achieve, and which are likely subject to the skim from the government agents receiving them.

Being charitable, your source can best be described as a 'screed.' The guy has an obvious axe to grind and focuses on instances to make his case, rather than a broad analysis of trends. Of course you should take those into account as well, but to make a general case out of instances is one of those things you're not supposed to do as a serious analyst.

Expand full comment

That's clearly not true. I specificly asked you about how Russia is a differenti colonizer than France.

I also pointed out one specific phrase which was wrong, as I told you. No political point.

You not answering and changing the subject tells me all I need to know.

Expand full comment

Your question assumes that Russia’s treatment of Africa is colonial, but you’ve given no reason to believe the assumption. Exiling former colonizers and buying resources isn’t colonial behavior.

Expand full comment

That's what I asked. In what way is it different?

When you are supporting military coup and dictatorship, exstracting resources for profit, exploiting the local envoirnment instead of giving to the population, using paramilitary to protect your interests (see Wagner Group, or Africa Corps activities in CAF, Mali Sudan, ecc.). Well yea, you are a colonizer. Just like, or maybe worse than, France

Expand full comment

They are not supporting dictatorship, they’re supporting the decolonization of these countries, which requires neutralizing the colonist’s agents embedded in the system, which Western propagandists self-servingly portray as “dictatorship” when their enemies do it and part of a long-term “transition to democracy” when they do it.

All countries extract resources for profit. That’s not inherently colonial. It depends on the terms of trade which you don’t specify.

Using paramilitaries to protect interests has nothing to do with colonialism either - especially because France and the US threaten infrastructure and commerce in areas of the world that loosen their colonial grasp. If there’s no defense of projects & operations, they’ll be sabotaged by the real colonizers.

Expand full comment

I mean just an example: don't you think the Wagner Group exploiting the gold mining industry in Sudan, making billions of dollars a year while supporting a genocidal paramilitary group (RSF) which fomented the civil war and also recruiting mercenaries to send to Ukraine, is a colonizer thing?

I mean, that's just crazy if you think otherwise.

https://www.dw.com/en/pmc-russias-wagner-group-in-sudan-gold-military-junta/a-65439746

Expand full comment

That's just an illusion.

They are supportino dictatorship, and really it buffles me how the same you said in that comment can also be said about France or USA.

Yet you think that is colonization, while Russia isn't.

Have you read the source I shared?

https://africacenter.org/spotlight/russia-interference-undermine-democracy-africa/.

Do you think it is wrong to say that?

Expand full comment

So: (1) zero response on the substance of my comment, (2) repetition of the points I addressed, and (3) your source is literally an offshoot of the US Department of Defense, I.e. the US military. Have a good day, troll.

Expand full comment

Wait, so you are denying that Russia is supporting the coup in Africa and the conseguent dictarship?

How can you say that?

There you go: another source, maybe not us government?

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-russias-influence-on-africa/a-66310017

Btw: you can't just say "oh yea that source is the us departiment so it is just wrong" tell me why.

Again: if you are denying that Russia is supporting mikitary dictatorship in Africa, I don't know what to say. Russia is sending weapons and Africa Corps in the Sahel regions, just after all these coups. That's just obvious and common knowledge.

Expand full comment

A lot rides on the meaning of the terms "colonizer" and "colonizing," as another commenter alluded to above. To me, as a -westerner, the term has many negative connotations, including:

- Uses of power (military, economic, financial, intellectual, cultural) to unjustly benefit the colonizer at the expense of colonists ability to evolve and increase prosperity through access to open, global markets.

- Colonizer opposition and frustration of legitimate political desires to end colonization status through the use of perfidy, deceit, and brutality;

- The willful intention of the colonizer to exploit the colonized for its sole benefit, based to a large extent on the colonizes belief in its own superiority and sense of entitlement.

Colonizing must be distinguished from what might otherwise be called "close economic relationships" through identification of a constellation of markers, not by simply pointing to the dominant partner and castigating them a "colonizer."

It seems to me that BRICS is an attempt to reset the entirity of global economic relationships by shucking one very significant source of hegemonic power, the $US. I think the practicality of competition and the fact of bad actors will likely lead to something that smells colonialist over time, but my hope would be for a world in which the richer nations compete for access to resources by how much they contribute to improving lives of the poorer countries.

For sure, accomplishing this admittedly idealistic vision is not something of which the French or the Americans are remotely capable. We shall see with the Russians and the Chinese.

Expand full comment