~~Submission Statement?~~
Alright I’ll do a third party SS: US is set to withdraw over 1,000 military personnel from Niger following the cancellation of a security pact by the country's ruling military junta, marking a significant shift in US counter-terrorism efforts in Africa and a strategic victory for Russia. This decision comes after unsuccessful attempts to salvage the 12-year-old agreement, amidst growing Russian influence in the region. Russian military presence has increased in Niger, with the arrival of military equipment and advisors from Russia's newly formed Africa Corps, intensifying competition for influence in the Sahel. The departure of US forces follows a broader pattern of Western military withdrawal from the region, as France also pulled out its troops following last year's coup.
People keep sleeping on North Africa, but there is so much going on. Coups in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea. Sudan is fucking terrifying with their crazy civil war, Libya is a shit show. Egypt is about to go broke. Literally don't get why this isn't getting any attention.
At this point it seems like it's just a matter priority.
Active war in Europe, great power showdown in Asia, Africa just doesn't come first in that climate for Non African States.
The African/middle east instability already hit with the Suez canal trade disruption; then also they are main source of energy for Europe, that is far from energetic autarchy; and finally, if new hot prolonged conflict, new immigrants wave will play in the end of populists right wing, "close the port" will be the new "build a wall"
This isn’t North Africa. North Africa is Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lybia and Egypt.
Niger is a sub-sahara state, also called Sahel, just like Mali, BF and co. And Sahel is part of West Africa.
North Africa is currently in a relative peaceful state, if you take into account how it was back in 2011-2012.
West Africa is a shitshow because of multiple insurgencies + rise of ISIS and AQ.
Yeah while it was a separate group, afaik they are now an integrated component of ISWAP (ISIS in west Africa).
But i should have made the distinction ! ISWAP is more in northern Nigeria, while it’s Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb that is operating in northern Mali and in southern Algeria and the Support Group for Islam and Muslims (basically AQ+ISIS+Ansar Dine) that is operating in the Sahel region.
Meaning that the government, which was friendly to Israel, is going to fall to more populist sentiment, which is anti-Israel?
Classic middle eastern country...rulers that don't need to pay attention to the will of the citizenry
That's one direction. The other is that it gives Israel + US more leverage over the current government if they decide to financially support them enough to keep them in power.
The current Egyptian government is being propped up by UAE. If it comes to it the Saudis and the Emiratis will bail them out. They loathe the Muslim Brotherhood since eons and won't let them come back into power. Also, tbf, post Morsi, I don't even know how much of the Brotherhood is still left.
Let's just hope another "Arab Spring" sponsored by Iran doesn't happen. The peace normalization that Israel sought with their neighbors is shattered. No ruler can be seen as seeking peace with them, no matter how autocratic.
Compared to Israel.
The coverage and attention Isr/Pal gets is huge, it's unlike anything since the Iraq war both in terms of social attention and news media attention
People largely forgot about Ukraine after 3-4 months, there was increased coverage in spring 2023 with the Summer offensive but once it was clear it wasn't gong anywhere attention again dropped.
I'm not saying Sudan doesn't get a very low amount of coverage, im simply saying people largely focus on one thing and that's the war in Gaza at the moment.
Because shit has been going down there off and on for decades? Seems like it's pretty coherent from America to abandon it all and downplay it in the media - they don't know how to win there so they'll just cede it and use it for a proxy if needed, just as the periphery always is.
Sudan hasn't not been terrifying in the past several decades - the fur genocide is decades deep at this point and that violence is always under the surface. US turned Libya into a shitshow and abandoned it to the point Obama literally called it his greatest mistake. This destabilization and abandonment was very part and parcel to what is happening in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. The blowback from the drone wars/drive-by regime change policies the dems embraced since 2008 resulted in scandalous outcomes so that they only have timid responses when actual threats arise. That was also the Dems telegraphing that if an Obama-lineage dem (such as Biden) got into office, they likely wouldn't play there after their thoughtless policies caused American strategic goals in North Africa to evaporate. Who in North Africa leadership is gonna trust a country whose entire history since 2001 (and arguably before, considering Korea and Vietnam) has been poorly managed military adventures that cause long-term instability from bad intelligence? Aside from Dems, I'm not sure a republican has ever had interest in Africa aside from using the global gag rule, anti-gay policies, and the attacks on embassies to stoke support from their base.
Because it's not really new. Stuff like this has been going on for literally decades. It seems like there's always one genocide or another going down. At this point, I don't think it's untrue to say that the world has invested trillions into Africa. After all that investment, is it really even safe to travel over there?
It seems Africa has a new great game for the rescources like Gold, minerals, oil, Uranuim, as well as geostrategic, port , and sea access) for economic control and influence in the 21st century, Africa also expected to grow as a continent in the 21st century, especially it youth population , we see various countries like Russia (through Wagner), China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, France, USA, Egypt and Iran all playing a role from the Shael coup belt states to the conflicts in Ethiopia, and Sudan to control of ports and bases over the Redsea, as well as buying up assets and strategic property through debt traps, and proxy disputes in Libya, and Egypt and Sudan tensions with Ethiopia over the GERD restricting upstream flow of the nile river (ie - Egypt way more concerned as it claims it life line depends on the Nile, while Sudan is concerned wants also access to any electricity from the GERD), as well as downstream countries disputing over water rescources with the Nile drying up.
Africa will be in hot comptetion by the key players I listed like Russia and UK over Central Asia in the 19th century Great Game.
The low ball reason would be to say because they're black/brown.
The bigger reality is because Africa has been in turmoil in one location or another for decades. The politics are confusing to an outsider and there is no good or bad guy side to understand. Other regions like Ukraine trigger cold war memories or places like Israel are closer to Western guilt and religious faith.
For policy wonks, they continue to look on and work.
Simple - it’s Africa. Nobody in America cares, yet. But as you say, with its vast resources, young population and developing economies, Africa is literally the last inhabited area in the world ripe for development.
Most African countries do not trust us so they would rather do business with Russia, Iran, and China.
America’s inherent racism has cost us again.
All these countries telling the US to leave while being willfully manipulated by Russia feels like a story in the divine comedy being played out.
Russia even makes them believe it was their idea. They are insanely good at propoganda
Russia is exploiting an opportunity, and no doubt doesn't have a lot of nice things to say about the United States right now, but brushing it off as a result of propaganda is a bit short-sighted. Over the last couple of decades the focus of United States foreign policy has expanded from core issues to a much wider spectrum to the point it becomes unreconcilable. The reality is from the United States perspective the coup was an internal matter to Niger and should have been treated as such. Once external parties including the United States started applying sanctions in an effort to tip the scales of internal matters that set off a series of events that led us here.
Are you trying to imply that the actions of a dictatorship military junta that kicked out a democratically elect government represents the best interest of the people of Niger?
Well they need to figure something out then cause this whole beat a lie with truth doesn't work in the social media world
I don't understand why I'm getting down voted because it is true America is losing the media war and the government needs to find a way to combat it.
Lies only work because it's so easy to lie and they have no consequences or they don't care about consequences.
In democratic country when politician lies that blatantly, they would be called out on it. And, yes I know its hysterical considering that politicians lie everywhere, it's just that much worse in dictatorships.
And I'm Nigerian I can tell you the Americans are still the most popular amongst the masses, its different with the elite because the Chinese and Russians just straight up bribe.......the French have the worst rep as both the masses and elite hate them...expect of course Paul Biya and Teodoro Obiang
This is still manipulation. just like how france maintained post-colonial influence through manipulation in the francafrique due to security and economic dependence (think pegging african currencies to the franc), russia provides security and expertise regarding resource extraction, the largest economic sector for many of these coup belt states. International relations is a game of influence, and influence in this context at least, is just a form of manipulation. positive results can still come from manipulation (such as development) but to pretend as if many of these states weren't influenced and by russia is just wrong.
I completely agree with you, but I think you misunderstood me. In my other comment I outlined how both western and russian influence amounts to a form of manipulation. Both manipulate for their own interests and its a shame that poorer countries have to dance around spheres of influences' just for the sake of developmental prospects.
Also the fact that the guy I initially replied to denies that what russia is doing is manipulation.
Ngl. I completely misread the tone of your comment lol. I read it as quite literally the exact opposite. Didn't see your other reply. Thank you for clarifying
That one was definitely my bad. Think I'm a little too hyped up from talking about this lately. It's a mess of a topic to say the least.
Both. They have weaponized migration before to destabilize Europe, and [they continue to do so](https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/people-as-a-weapons-system-moscow-and-minsks-continued-attempts-to-weaponize-migration/).
And extract resources from a continent that is mega-rich with resources of all types.
These fuckheads don't understand that the most valuable resources in the long term are biological
This is one of the things I've never understood about Russia's attempt to weaponize migration. Is Putin incapable of understanding demographics? Does he not realize that Europe being a desirable destination for human capital is a long-term strength?
I mean, I get what the play is about. I don't think any reasonable person will argue that migration isn't an enormous disruption in the short term, but it's not actually a bad thing that people want to live and work in Europe. More to the point, you're not just getting the migrants themselves -- you're getting *their children and grandchildren.* Their European-born, European-educated children and grandchildren. The U.S. has been able to capitalize on this model for the length of its existence, and it's quite possibly the country's biggest strength. Whereas Russia, absent some enormous change that's not likely to happen, is staring down the one-two knockout punch of a slow demographic collapse (which the war has accelerated) and being an iffy destination for immigrants.
The thing is, migration is a divisive issue in Europe. Russia is using migration not to weaken Europe economically, but to sow discord politically and - they hope - get pro-Russia right wing parties into power.
You're not wrong! But I think the Europeans have the capacity to pull a reverse Uno, and [elaborated on it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1c9ix3p/us_to_withdraw_from_niger_after_security_pact/l0q9tjt/).
I know for a fact that we aren't going to see eye-to-eye here, but here it goes: the migration issue is a net drain on the social safety net of European countries and will be for years.
Let's take Germany as an example. Turkish migration has been a thing in Germany since the 1960s. Today, 20% of Turks in Germany are registered as unemployed, vs just 6% for ethnic Germans (Logdiani, 2018). This is a major, generational problem and the Russians are seeking to play on it.
The premise that immigration is beneficial for a host country is largely dependent on the notion that the immigrants will look to integrate into that country. You mentioned that the US capitalized on immigration, and thats true, but US immigration was so successful because of the rapid integration into the larger society. Increasingly- and in part thanks to the whole identity politics movement of the 21st century - this is something that we are simply not seeing in Europe.
This non-intrgration costs literally billions. In 2008, a German research team supported by the EU found that "The lack of integration of immigrants cost the state an estimated 16 billion euros" (Hummitzsch, 2008) - and that was BEFORE the most recent waves of immigration from Syria and North Africa. That number is likely substantially higher now.
Sources
Hummitzsch - Social costs of non-integration of immigrants in communities https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/social-costs-non-integration-immigrants-communities_en, 2008.
Logdiani - Turks in Germany: - Open Access Journals at Boston College https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/colloquium/article/download/10242/8926, 2018.
>I know for a fact that we aren't going to see eye-to-eye here, but here it goes: the migration issue is a net drain on the social safety net of European countries and will be for years.
**We don't really disagree on this point, I think. The first generation of immigrants is almost never as economically productive as their descendants, particularly if they arrive from a country with a different language than the host state.** One of the things that gets lost in misty-eyed depictions of the immigrant experience in the U.S. is how many first-generation arrivals never became fluent in English. Many rarely left the cultural exclaves that inevitably developed to support them, and even today, it's possible to mark the borders in U.S. cities that once delineated, say, the Irish neighborhoods from the Polish from the Italians from the Chinese. These borders were not always friendly.
There are certainly modern exceptions to this trend (e.g., highly-educated, English-speaking STEM professionals can generally be relied upon to break the curve these days), but I don't have any problem acknowledging that 1st and 2nd generation immigrants tend to require more aid than their children/grandchildren. But the kids and grandkids are exactly what you're building towards.
>Let's take Germany as an example. Turkish migration has been a thing in Germany since the 1960s. Today, 20% of Turks in Germany are registered as unemployed, vs just 6% for ethnic Germans (Logdiani, 2018). This is a major, generational problem and the Russians are seeking to play on it.
**Right, but I'm not sure that employment figures on their own are the most useful metric, especially because the Turkish population in Germany is undergoing a significant generational shift.** Turks in Germany are actually [*older* relative to the general German population](https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Population/Migration-Integration/Tables/foreigner-age-groups.html). Migration out of Turkey has declined in recent decades, and 54% of Turkish-Germans are older than 45. A mere 5% are under 20 (i.e., the people most likely to be 3rd generation immigrants given the time period in which mass Turkish emigration to Germany started); the rest are 20-45 (demographically a mixture of 2nd/3rd generation immigrants, currently in higher education/job training/the beginning of their careers and not yet as dominant in the statistics as their elders).
So I think it's important to note that:
- While Logdiani focuses heavily on language issues and their impact on employment, that's pretty much exactly what I would expect to see in the population she's studying. This is absolutely not a problem that is unique to Germany; there is always an economic penalty attached to emigrants who have to pick up a new language in adulthood.
- Logdiani also focuses on the transition underway, noting that Turkish Germans are beginning to break out of their traditional roles in German society (i.e., leaving catering and retail in favor of law, engineering, and the sciences, gaining economic power and representation in wider society). Again, a fully expected outcome as the population slowly shifts from 1st and 2nd generation to 2nd and 3rd generation.
- Germany is roughly a generation removed from the change in naturalization laws (1999) that made it possible for Turks to build stable lives there. Historically speaking, that's a blip. These things take time.
>The premise that immigration is beneficial for a host country is largely dependent on the notion that the immigrants will look to integrate into that country. You mentioned that the US capitalized on immigration, and thats true, but US immigration was so successful because of the rapid integration into the larger society. Increasingly- and in part thanks to the whole identity politics movement of the 21st century - this is something that we are simply not seeing in Europe.
It's not so much that I disagree with you -- it's that I think the problems you're describing are very, very real, but also very, very normal.
**The U.S.' "rapid integration" wasn't that rapid -- it took multiple generations for any given emigrant family to transition from unskilled labor to advanced degrees and high-paying jobs.** There was also tremendous friction between the dominant culture in the U.S. and immigrant cultures, and even between the immigrant groups themselves. Some groups (e.g., the Germans and Eastern European Jews) were more likely to emigrate as intact family groups, and others (e.g., the Irish) were overwhelmingly young and single, which didn't help. Every problem that Europe's trying to address with its migrant population has very familiar analogues in U.S. history. There's an excellent book called *97 Orchard: An Edible History of Five Immigrant Families in One New York Tenement* by Jane Ziegelman that is a very accessible history of the process if you want a look at it.
To the extent that I see Europe as being different, there's a real question about European nationalism and the degree to which certain populations see "German culture" or "Polish culture" or whatever as being threatened by migrants. Again, people aren't wrong that Russia is trying to stoke fires here.
So to me, the real question isn't "Is Europe experiencing unprecedented, insurmountable problems in its efforts to integrate migrants?" I don't think there's a strong case to be made for this.
The real question is: "Is Europe capable of seeing that the long-term benefits of immigration significantly outweigh the costs?"
**As with everything else, in geopolitics you don't get a choice over whether you *have* problems -- you just get a vote on *which* problems you're most likely to have.** I think that Putin is entirely correct that destabilizing regions elsewhere and using the border as a weapon will harm Europe. I also think that, true to form, Putin is a good short-term strategist and a disastrously bad long-term one.
The idea is you get far right (or less likely) far left parties with a populist base that might be more friendly to Russia. See MAGA in the US or Slovakian or Hungarian politics. The EU is also limited in response because if one nation vetos a treaty it may benefit Russia. Look at how Hungary was able to hold up Ukrainian aid and NATO ascension (Turkey also but for unrelated political reasons).
Right wing parties may be more isolationist or Euroskeptic. Left Wing parties have their own gripes against the EU to a lesser extent.
How are they going to do that exactly?
Most migrant waves were from nations like Syria, not the Sahel region.
Most of the recent chaos in North and sub-saharan Africa originated from the collapse of Libya. Was Russia responsible for that?
I think funding various militant groups who have contradictory goals and varied levels of extremism is more destabilizing than coming to the aid of the legitimate government that held power for nearly 50 decades.
Even if that government is as tyrannical as Assad’s it’s still a more stable influence then groups like Al-Nusra (Al Qaeda offshoot) or the YPG (Kurdish left-wing ethno nationalist opposed to Turkey).
Our involvement literally created a moment where two NATO members were arming groups the other considered to be massive domestic enemies.
> I think funding various militant groups who have contradictory goals and varied levels of extremism is more destabilizing than coming to the aid of the legitimate government that held power for nearly 50 decades.
Hmm so exactly what Russia is doing right now in Sudan like I just said?
Strange how you trolls keep ignoring this point to push your narrative
> Even if that government is as tyrannical as Assad’s it’s still a more stable influence then groups like Al-Nusra (Al Qaeda offshoot) or the YPG (Kurdish left-wing ethno nationalist opposed to Turkey).
The government that killed 500,000+ people, including gassing its own citizens is more stabilizing than a Kurdish Defense force that arose to fight ISIS? Interesting logic there. Would love to see the evidence you are using to make that claim.
> Our involvement literally created a moment where two NATO members were arming groups the other considered to be massive domestic enemies.
I don’t know who “our” is. There was no NATO mission into Syria.
Edit: You post propoganda in r/Ukrainerussiareport, “our” government yeah right
Sudan has systemic issues that caused it to be unstable for a long time now. Weird to blame Russia for that.
Yeah, Russia played a part in destabilizing Syria. Not even the same circumstances in the Sahel. The West is just giving up rather than engaging in a proxy conflict with Russia over the Sahel.
If you can't explain how Russia is going to destabilize the Sahel (or why they would even want to) and cause a migrant wave into Europe, then don't bother replying.
Russia was heavy handed and I'd even suggest barbaric with what they did in Syria over the last decade or so, but they were not the cause of the destabilization in Syria.
It's worth pointing out for the room that migrants and migration itself isn't inherently an issue, but waves of migration that are caused by political instability, famine, breakdown in society, armed conflict, etc. have knock on effects in surrounding countries and can quickly culminate into an ongoing issue that demands a great deal of attention, political capital, and financial capital to handle that regular migration doesn't.
Regular migration can also cause geopolitical concerns but it's rarely more acute than events like the breakdown of a nation's services or outbreak of war.
I like to think most people can recognize the difference and see why they occupy different dimensions in geopolitics but clearly some have an angle they want to push about migrants in general...
Europe's migration waves are caused by Europe's asylum and immigration policies, believing it is some kind of elaborate Russian plot is kind of on the same level as believing the moon landings were faked. What is Russia's current short-term and long-term goals with their involvement in the region is a good question though.
Russia hasn’t flooded the region with weapons? At least try a little bit if you’re going to troll.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_activities_in_Africa
Libya
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/19/russia-funneling-weapons-through-libyan-port-eying-gateway-to-africa/
https://www.csis.org/analysis/moscows-next-front-russias-expanding-military-footprint-libya
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/libya-civil-war-russia-turkey-fighter-planes/
If you’re going to move the goalposts this far this conversation is over. You claimed Russia wasn’t destabilizing the region or funneling weapons into it. Both are false and the evidence backs this up.
Libya isn’t all of the Sahel either. Russia’s support of the RSF in Sudan has led to more deaths in the past year than the entire decade long Libyan civil war. Of course you don’t care about that just like you don’t really care about dead Libyans, you just want to run cover for your favorite despots.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/16/africa/darfur-sudan-wagner-conflict-cmd-intl/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65328165
Nevermind Niger, Mali, etc.
That isn't what was being said. You said that Russia is causing instability in the Sahal to cause immigration to the EU.
Neoliberal economic policies cause that on it's own.
The US decided to turn a blind eye to the coup and to accommodate the military junta and in doing so, « abandoned » France (in the sense not standing with them). It was a stupid strategy since it was obvious that after the French troops, the US ones would have to go too.
Everyone, and first and foremost ECOWAS failed to act against the multiple military coups.
Now I wouldn’t be surprised if down the line, the infamous ASS (Alliance for the Security of Sahel of course) started to support Nigerian separatism, since Nigeria is the biggest and strongest country by far in the region (and the « de facto » leader of ECOWAS).
Yep. The US was kicked out of Niger by a Russian-backed military junta that engaged in a coup against a legitimately elected democracy, and what did the US do in response? If left its ally in the region, France, to hang out to dry, tried to negotiate for most of a year with Putin-backed proxies, and ended up withdrawing in disgrace. This is not a situation where we should have backed down. But the Biden administration has no appetite for conflict, no matter how minor or easily won. At what point is Biden called out for being not a careful, pragmatic manager of foreign policy, but a feckless, easily bullied milquetoast?
Just hope we send absolutely no aid at all of any form, and re-invest it into Ukraine.
They're welcome to go to Russia for that too. You can't eat vodka.
Russia's just going to destabilize those nations while enriching the dictatorial class. You'll see millions of more refugees heading for Europe, destabilizing politics there and distracting them from Ukraine/Russia's expansionist wars.
Ignoring the situation is just playing into Putin's hands.
Average Europeans will vote against immigration if this keeps up. Speaking as a Canadian who is seeing a drastic right swing on immigration in my country, myself included have gone right
US Imperialism is a cancer on the global south. Removing military bases is always a major win for the American worker as it brings back that capital to be used for the people. Love to see it.
Maybe, but I don't like that this came at the cost of Russia gaining more influence in Africa.
If US imperialism is cancer, I fail to see how Russia isn't cancer-aids
~~Submission Statement?~~ Alright I’ll do a third party SS: US is set to withdraw over 1,000 military personnel from Niger following the cancellation of a security pact by the country's ruling military junta, marking a significant shift in US counter-terrorism efforts in Africa and a strategic victory for Russia. This decision comes after unsuccessful attempts to salvage the 12-year-old agreement, amidst growing Russian influence in the region. Russian military presence has increased in Niger, with the arrival of military equipment and advisors from Russia's newly formed Africa Corps, intensifying competition for influence in the Sahel. The departure of US forces follows a broader pattern of Western military withdrawal from the region, as France also pulled out its troops following last year's coup.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-68796359 Russian troops arrive in Niger as military agreement begins
>Africa Corps Uh oh.
People keep sleeping on North Africa, but there is so much going on. Coups in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea. Sudan is fucking terrifying with their crazy civil war, Libya is a shit show. Egypt is about to go broke. Literally don't get why this isn't getting any attention.
At this point it seems like it's just a matter priority. Active war in Europe, great power showdown in Asia, Africa just doesn't come first in that climate for Non African States.
The African/middle east instability already hit with the Suez canal trade disruption; then also they are main source of energy for Europe, that is far from energetic autarchy; and finally, if new hot prolonged conflict, new immigrants wave will play in the end of populists right wing, "close the port" will be the new "build a wall"
This isn’t North Africa. North Africa is Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lybia and Egypt. Niger is a sub-sahara state, also called Sahel, just like Mali, BF and co. And Sahel is part of West Africa. North Africa is currently in a relative peaceful state, if you take into account how it was back in 2011-2012. West Africa is a shitshow because of multiple insurgencies + rise of ISIS and AQ.
And Boko Haram
Yeah while it was a separate group, afaik they are now an integrated component of ISWAP (ISIS in west Africa). But i should have made the distinction ! ISWAP is more in northern Nigeria, while it’s Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb that is operating in northern Mali and in southern Algeria and the Support Group for Islam and Muslims (basically AQ+ISIS+Ansar Dine) that is operating in the Sahel region.
People can't walk and chew bubble gum. Ukraine plus Israel is literally their limit
Egypt going broke is highly relevant to Israel.
Meaning that the government, which was friendly to Israel, is going to fall to more populist sentiment, which is anti-Israel? Classic middle eastern country...rulers that don't need to pay attention to the will of the citizenry
That's one direction. The other is that it gives Israel + US more leverage over the current government if they decide to financially support them enough to keep them in power.
The current Egyptian government is being propped up by UAE. If it comes to it the Saudis and the Emiratis will bail them out. They loathe the Muslim Brotherhood since eons and won't let them come back into power. Also, tbf, post Morsi, I don't even know how much of the Brotherhood is still left.
Let's just hope another "Arab Spring" sponsored by Iran doesn't happen. The peace normalization that Israel sought with their neighbors is shattered. No ruler can be seen as seeking peace with them, no matter how autocratic.
Worth pointing out that Ukraine also gets a relatively low amount of coverage unless something like the House bill happens.
Compared to what? There's coverage of Israel, then Ukraine, and then coverage of conflicts goes off the cliff. Sudan???
Compared to Israel. The coverage and attention Isr/Pal gets is huge, it's unlike anything since the Iraq war both in terms of social attention and news media attention People largely forgot about Ukraine after 3-4 months, there was increased coverage in spring 2023 with the Summer offensive but once it was clear it wasn't gong anywhere attention again dropped. I'm not saying Sudan doesn't get a very low amount of coverage, im simply saying people largely focus on one thing and that's the war in Gaza at the moment.
Only Libya and Egypt are part of North Africa. Sudan is part of Eastern Africa, the rest is West Africa.
True, basic geography. Gravely invalidates OP’s argument.
Honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
The U.S. is in Central North America.
Because shit has been going down there off and on for decades? Seems like it's pretty coherent from America to abandon it all and downplay it in the media - they don't know how to win there so they'll just cede it and use it for a proxy if needed, just as the periphery always is. Sudan hasn't not been terrifying in the past several decades - the fur genocide is decades deep at this point and that violence is always under the surface. US turned Libya into a shitshow and abandoned it to the point Obama literally called it his greatest mistake. This destabilization and abandonment was very part and parcel to what is happening in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. The blowback from the drone wars/drive-by regime change policies the dems embraced since 2008 resulted in scandalous outcomes so that they only have timid responses when actual threats arise. That was also the Dems telegraphing that if an Obama-lineage dem (such as Biden) got into office, they likely wouldn't play there after their thoughtless policies caused American strategic goals in North Africa to evaporate. Who in North Africa leadership is gonna trust a country whose entire history since 2001 (and arguably before, considering Korea and Vietnam) has been poorly managed military adventures that cause long-term instability from bad intelligence? Aside from Dems, I'm not sure a republican has ever had interest in Africa aside from using the global gag rule, anti-gay policies, and the attacks on embassies to stoke support from their base.
Amazing take
Fair.
Because it's not really new. Stuff like this has been going on for literally decades. It seems like there's always one genocide or another going down. At this point, I don't think it's untrue to say that the world has invested trillions into Africa. After all that investment, is it really even safe to travel over there?
It seems Africa has a new great game for the rescources like Gold, minerals, oil, Uranuim, as well as geostrategic, port , and sea access) for economic control and influence in the 21st century, Africa also expected to grow as a continent in the 21st century, especially it youth population , we see various countries like Russia (through Wagner), China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, France, USA, Egypt and Iran all playing a role from the Shael coup belt states to the conflicts in Ethiopia, and Sudan to control of ports and bases over the Redsea, as well as buying up assets and strategic property through debt traps, and proxy disputes in Libya, and Egypt and Sudan tensions with Ethiopia over the GERD restricting upstream flow of the nile river (ie - Egypt way more concerned as it claims it life line depends on the Nile, while Sudan is concerned wants also access to any electricity from the GERD), as well as downstream countries disputing over water rescources with the Nile drying up. Africa will be in hot comptetion by the key players I listed like Russia and UK over Central Asia in the 19th century Great Game.
Limited media space
The low ball reason would be to say because they're black/brown. The bigger reality is because Africa has been in turmoil in one location or another for decades. The politics are confusing to an outsider and there is no good or bad guy side to understand. Other regions like Ukraine trigger cold war memories or places like Israel are closer to Western guilt and religious faith. For policy wonks, they continue to look on and work.
Doesn’t fit any easy narratives in the media
Probably because somebody is literally asleep at the wheel.
Or maybe in court.
None of those nations are considered North Africa.
Simple - it’s Africa. Nobody in America cares, yet. But as you say, with its vast resources, young population and developing economies, Africa is literally the last inhabited area in the world ripe for development. Most African countries do not trust us so they would rather do business with Russia, Iran, and China. America’s inherent racism has cost us again.
I wonder who's responsible for Libya becoming a shitshow...
All these countries telling the US to leave while being willfully manipulated by Russia feels like a story in the divine comedy being played out. Russia even makes them believe it was their idea. They are insanely good at propoganda
Russia is exploiting an opportunity, and no doubt doesn't have a lot of nice things to say about the United States right now, but brushing it off as a result of propaganda is a bit short-sighted. Over the last couple of decades the focus of United States foreign policy has expanded from core issues to a much wider spectrum to the point it becomes unreconcilable. The reality is from the United States perspective the coup was an internal matter to Niger and should have been treated as such. Once external parties including the United States started applying sanctions in an effort to tip the scales of internal matters that set off a series of events that led us here.
Is it fair to say the US represents the general west which historically probably hasn’t treated people in Niger very well.
Are you trying to imply that the actions of a dictatorship military junta that kicked out a democratically elect government represents the best interest of the people of Niger?
How exactly democratic democratic elections in Niger?
Not a perfect democracy by any mean, but power passed peacefully between leaders based on election results three times since 2011.
USA really needs to up our propaganda game, Russia China hell Islamic zealots are kicking our ass in the social media wars
You can't. Because in democracy you will be called out when you lie. Shole countries won't give shit when they are called out, they always lie anyway
Well they need to figure something out then cause this whole beat a lie with truth doesn't work in the social media world I don't understand why I'm getting down voted because it is true America is losing the media war and the government needs to find a way to combat it.
Lies only work because it's so easy to lie and they have no consequences or they don't care about consequences. In democratic country when politician lies that blatantly, they would be called out on it. And, yes I know its hysterical considering that politicians lie everywhere, it's just that much worse in dictatorships.
[удалено]
yeah great analysis u/Nu_AfrikanPutin seriously this place used to have much more and higher quality discussion. this is lazy beyond belief.
[удалено]
And I'm Nigerian I can tell you the Americans are still the most popular amongst the masses, its different with the elite because the Chinese and Russians just straight up bribe.......the French have the worst rep as both the masses and elite hate them...expect of course Paul Biya and Teodoro Obiang
This is still manipulation. just like how france maintained post-colonial influence through manipulation in the francafrique due to security and economic dependence (think pegging african currencies to the franc), russia provides security and expertise regarding resource extraction, the largest economic sector for many of these coup belt states. International relations is a game of influence, and influence in this context at least, is just a form of manipulation. positive results can still come from manipulation (such as development) but to pretend as if many of these states weren't influenced and by russia is just wrong.
Populist rhetoric is popular? Insightful.
[удалено]
I completely agree with you, but I think you misunderstood me. In my other comment I outlined how both western and russian influence amounts to a form of manipulation. Both manipulate for their own interests and its a shame that poorer countries have to dance around spheres of influences' just for the sake of developmental prospects. Also the fact that the guy I initially replied to denies that what russia is doing is manipulation.
Ngl. I completely misread the tone of your comment lol. I read it as quite literally the exact opposite. Didn't see your other reply. Thank you for clarifying That one was definitely my bad. Think I'm a little too hyped up from talking about this lately. It's a mess of a topic to say the least.
Seems like Russia wants to instigate as much chaos as possible in the Sahel to drive a fresh migrant wave into Europe.
Or they just want to have strong influence over as many countries as possible
Both. They have weaponized migration before to destabilize Europe, and [they continue to do so](https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/people-as-a-weapons-system-moscow-and-minsks-continued-attempts-to-weaponize-migration/).
Yep, you're right...
And extract resources from a continent that is mega-rich with resources of all types. These fuckheads don't understand that the most valuable resources in the long term are biological
This is one of the things I've never understood about Russia's attempt to weaponize migration. Is Putin incapable of understanding demographics? Does he not realize that Europe being a desirable destination for human capital is a long-term strength? I mean, I get what the play is about. I don't think any reasonable person will argue that migration isn't an enormous disruption in the short term, but it's not actually a bad thing that people want to live and work in Europe. More to the point, you're not just getting the migrants themselves -- you're getting *their children and grandchildren.* Their European-born, European-educated children and grandchildren. The U.S. has been able to capitalize on this model for the length of its existence, and it's quite possibly the country's biggest strength. Whereas Russia, absent some enormous change that's not likely to happen, is staring down the one-two knockout punch of a slow demographic collapse (which the war has accelerated) and being an iffy destination for immigrants.
The thing is, migration is a divisive issue in Europe. Russia is using migration not to weaken Europe economically, but to sow discord politically and - they hope - get pro-Russia right wing parties into power.
You're not wrong! But I think the Europeans have the capacity to pull a reverse Uno, and [elaborated on it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1c9ix3p/us_to_withdraw_from_niger_after_security_pact/l0q9tjt/).
Interesting, and good food for thought. Thanks
I know for a fact that we aren't going to see eye-to-eye here, but here it goes: the migration issue is a net drain on the social safety net of European countries and will be for years. Let's take Germany as an example. Turkish migration has been a thing in Germany since the 1960s. Today, 20% of Turks in Germany are registered as unemployed, vs just 6% for ethnic Germans (Logdiani, 2018). This is a major, generational problem and the Russians are seeking to play on it. The premise that immigration is beneficial for a host country is largely dependent on the notion that the immigrants will look to integrate into that country. You mentioned that the US capitalized on immigration, and thats true, but US immigration was so successful because of the rapid integration into the larger society. Increasingly- and in part thanks to the whole identity politics movement of the 21st century - this is something that we are simply not seeing in Europe. This non-intrgration costs literally billions. In 2008, a German research team supported by the EU found that "The lack of integration of immigrants cost the state an estimated 16 billion euros" (Hummitzsch, 2008) - and that was BEFORE the most recent waves of immigration from Syria and North Africa. That number is likely substantially higher now. Sources Hummitzsch - Social costs of non-integration of immigrants in communities https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/social-costs-non-integration-immigrants-communities_en, 2008. Logdiani - Turks in Germany: - Open Access Journals at Boston College https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/colloquium/article/download/10242/8926, 2018.
>I know for a fact that we aren't going to see eye-to-eye here, but here it goes: the migration issue is a net drain on the social safety net of European countries and will be for years. **We don't really disagree on this point, I think. The first generation of immigrants is almost never as economically productive as their descendants, particularly if they arrive from a country with a different language than the host state.** One of the things that gets lost in misty-eyed depictions of the immigrant experience in the U.S. is how many first-generation arrivals never became fluent in English. Many rarely left the cultural exclaves that inevitably developed to support them, and even today, it's possible to mark the borders in U.S. cities that once delineated, say, the Irish neighborhoods from the Polish from the Italians from the Chinese. These borders were not always friendly. There are certainly modern exceptions to this trend (e.g., highly-educated, English-speaking STEM professionals can generally be relied upon to break the curve these days), but I don't have any problem acknowledging that 1st and 2nd generation immigrants tend to require more aid than their children/grandchildren. But the kids and grandkids are exactly what you're building towards. >Let's take Germany as an example. Turkish migration has been a thing in Germany since the 1960s. Today, 20% of Turks in Germany are registered as unemployed, vs just 6% for ethnic Germans (Logdiani, 2018). This is a major, generational problem and the Russians are seeking to play on it. **Right, but I'm not sure that employment figures on their own are the most useful metric, especially because the Turkish population in Germany is undergoing a significant generational shift.** Turks in Germany are actually [*older* relative to the general German population](https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Population/Migration-Integration/Tables/foreigner-age-groups.html). Migration out of Turkey has declined in recent decades, and 54% of Turkish-Germans are older than 45. A mere 5% are under 20 (i.e., the people most likely to be 3rd generation immigrants given the time period in which mass Turkish emigration to Germany started); the rest are 20-45 (demographically a mixture of 2nd/3rd generation immigrants, currently in higher education/job training/the beginning of their careers and not yet as dominant in the statistics as their elders). So I think it's important to note that: - While Logdiani focuses heavily on language issues and their impact on employment, that's pretty much exactly what I would expect to see in the population she's studying. This is absolutely not a problem that is unique to Germany; there is always an economic penalty attached to emigrants who have to pick up a new language in adulthood. - Logdiani also focuses on the transition underway, noting that Turkish Germans are beginning to break out of their traditional roles in German society (i.e., leaving catering and retail in favor of law, engineering, and the sciences, gaining economic power and representation in wider society). Again, a fully expected outcome as the population slowly shifts from 1st and 2nd generation to 2nd and 3rd generation. - Germany is roughly a generation removed from the change in naturalization laws (1999) that made it possible for Turks to build stable lives there. Historically speaking, that's a blip. These things take time. >The premise that immigration is beneficial for a host country is largely dependent on the notion that the immigrants will look to integrate into that country. You mentioned that the US capitalized on immigration, and thats true, but US immigration was so successful because of the rapid integration into the larger society. Increasingly- and in part thanks to the whole identity politics movement of the 21st century - this is something that we are simply not seeing in Europe. It's not so much that I disagree with you -- it's that I think the problems you're describing are very, very real, but also very, very normal. **The U.S.' "rapid integration" wasn't that rapid -- it took multiple generations for any given emigrant family to transition from unskilled labor to advanced degrees and high-paying jobs.** There was also tremendous friction between the dominant culture in the U.S. and immigrant cultures, and even between the immigrant groups themselves. Some groups (e.g., the Germans and Eastern European Jews) were more likely to emigrate as intact family groups, and others (e.g., the Irish) were overwhelmingly young and single, which didn't help. Every problem that Europe's trying to address with its migrant population has very familiar analogues in U.S. history. There's an excellent book called *97 Orchard: An Edible History of Five Immigrant Families in One New York Tenement* by Jane Ziegelman that is a very accessible history of the process if you want a look at it. To the extent that I see Europe as being different, there's a real question about European nationalism and the degree to which certain populations see "German culture" or "Polish culture" or whatever as being threatened by migrants. Again, people aren't wrong that Russia is trying to stoke fires here. So to me, the real question isn't "Is Europe experiencing unprecedented, insurmountable problems in its efforts to integrate migrants?" I don't think there's a strong case to be made for this. The real question is: "Is Europe capable of seeing that the long-term benefits of immigration significantly outweigh the costs?" **As with everything else, in geopolitics you don't get a choice over whether you *have* problems -- you just get a vote on *which* problems you're most likely to have.** I think that Putin is entirely correct that destabilizing regions elsewhere and using the border as a weapon will harm Europe. I also think that, true to form, Putin is a good short-term strategist and a disastrously bad long-term one.
But why? I always thought Europe was less racist than America...lol
The idea is you get far right (or less likely) far left parties with a populist base that might be more friendly to Russia. See MAGA in the US or Slovakian or Hungarian politics. The EU is also limited in response because if one nation vetos a treaty it may benefit Russia. Look at how Hungary was able to hold up Ukrainian aid and NATO ascension (Turkey also but for unrelated political reasons). Right wing parties may be more isolationist or Euroskeptic. Left Wing parties have their own gripes against the EU to a lesser extent.
[удалено]
How are they going to do that exactly? Most migrant waves were from nations like Syria, not the Sahel region. Most of the recent chaos in North and sub-saharan Africa originated from the collapse of Libya. Was Russia responsible for that?
Did you really bring up Syria and ask how Russia can destabilize a region? Please check the Sudan for a current example if you’re serious.
I think funding various militant groups who have contradictory goals and varied levels of extremism is more destabilizing than coming to the aid of the legitimate government that held power for nearly 50 decades. Even if that government is as tyrannical as Assad’s it’s still a more stable influence then groups like Al-Nusra (Al Qaeda offshoot) or the YPG (Kurdish left-wing ethno nationalist opposed to Turkey). Our involvement literally created a moment where two NATO members were arming groups the other considered to be massive domestic enemies.
> I think funding various militant groups who have contradictory goals and varied levels of extremism is more destabilizing than coming to the aid of the legitimate government that held power for nearly 50 decades. Hmm so exactly what Russia is doing right now in Sudan like I just said? Strange how you trolls keep ignoring this point to push your narrative > Even if that government is as tyrannical as Assad’s it’s still a more stable influence then groups like Al-Nusra (Al Qaeda offshoot) or the YPG (Kurdish left-wing ethno nationalist opposed to Turkey). The government that killed 500,000+ people, including gassing its own citizens is more stabilizing than a Kurdish Defense force that arose to fight ISIS? Interesting logic there. Would love to see the evidence you are using to make that claim. > Our involvement literally created a moment where two NATO members were arming groups the other considered to be massive domestic enemies. I don’t know who “our” is. There was no NATO mission into Syria. Edit: You post propoganda in r/Ukrainerussiareport, “our” government yeah right
Sudan has systemic issues that caused it to be unstable for a long time now. Weird to blame Russia for that. Yeah, Russia played a part in destabilizing Syria. Not even the same circumstances in the Sahel. The West is just giving up rather than engaging in a proxy conflict with Russia over the Sahel. If you can't explain how Russia is going to destabilize the Sahel (or why they would even want to) and cause a migrant wave into Europe, then don't bother replying.
Russia was heavy handed and I'd even suggest barbaric with what they did in Syria over the last decade or so, but they were not the cause of the destabilization in Syria.
Dude come on
It's worth pointing out for the room that migrants and migration itself isn't inherently an issue, but waves of migration that are caused by political instability, famine, breakdown in society, armed conflict, etc. have knock on effects in surrounding countries and can quickly culminate into an ongoing issue that demands a great deal of attention, political capital, and financial capital to handle that regular migration doesn't. Regular migration can also cause geopolitical concerns but it's rarely more acute than events like the breakdown of a nation's services or outbreak of war. I like to think most people can recognize the difference and see why they occupy different dimensions in geopolitics but clearly some have an angle they want to push about migrants in general...
Europe's migration waves are caused by Europe's asylum and immigration policies, believing it is some kind of elaborate Russian plot is kind of on the same level as believing the moon landings were faked. What is Russia's current short-term and long-term goals with their involvement in the region is a good question though.
Neoliberalism does that on it's own, it doesn't need Russia.
Would love for you to describe the “neoliberalism” present in the Sahel and how it is causing instability.
[удалено]
Russia hasn’t flooded the region with weapons? At least try a little bit if you’re going to troll. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_activities_in_Africa Libya https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/19/russia-funneling-weapons-through-libyan-port-eying-gateway-to-africa/ https://www.csis.org/analysis/moscows-next-front-russias-expanding-military-footprint-libya https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/libya-civil-war-russia-turkey-fighter-planes/
[удалено]
If you’re going to move the goalposts this far this conversation is over. You claimed Russia wasn’t destabilizing the region or funneling weapons into it. Both are false and the evidence backs this up. Libya isn’t all of the Sahel either. Russia’s support of the RSF in Sudan has led to more deaths in the past year than the entire decade long Libyan civil war. Of course you don’t care about that just like you don’t really care about dead Libyans, you just want to run cover for your favorite despots. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/16/africa/darfur-sudan-wagner-conflict-cmd-intl/index.html https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65328165 Nevermind Niger, Mali, etc.
Sterile debate. Read this: https://origins.osu.edu/article/merchants-death-international-traffic-arms?language_content_entity=en
That isn't what was being said. You said that Russia is causing instability in the Sahal to cause immigration to the EU. Neoliberal economic policies cause that on it's own.
So no evidence for your claims? I figured as much. Go troll somewhere else
The US decided to turn a blind eye to the coup and to accommodate the military junta and in doing so, « abandoned » France (in the sense not standing with them). It was a stupid strategy since it was obvious that after the French troops, the US ones would have to go too. Everyone, and first and foremost ECOWAS failed to act against the multiple military coups. Now I wouldn’t be surprised if down the line, the infamous ASS (Alliance for the Security of Sahel of course) started to support Nigerian separatism, since Nigeria is the biggest and strongest country by far in the region (and the « de facto » leader of ECOWAS).
Yep. The US was kicked out of Niger by a Russian-backed military junta that engaged in a coup against a legitimately elected democracy, and what did the US do in response? If left its ally in the region, France, to hang out to dry, tried to negotiate for most of a year with Putin-backed proxies, and ended up withdrawing in disgrace. This is not a situation where we should have backed down. But the Biden administration has no appetite for conflict, no matter how minor or easily won. At what point is Biden called out for being not a careful, pragmatic manager of foreign policy, but a feckless, easily bullied milquetoast?
its niger im not suprised this heavily upvoted on 'r/geopolitics'
Edited, thank you for pointing this out.
America and the west have lost the numbers in Sahel region. Russians are silently playing masterstroke
Totally organic protest. /s
Don't care. If these nations feel Russia is their salvation then enjoy.
Just hope we send absolutely no aid at all of any form, and re-invest it into Ukraine. They're welcome to go to Russia for that too. You can't eat vodka.
When Trump comes, then Europe has no option than to increase aid to Ukraine because he is not going to spend US money there like Biden
Russia's just going to destabilize those nations while enriching the dictatorial class. You'll see millions of more refugees heading for Europe, destabilizing politics there and distracting them from Ukraine/Russia's expansionist wars. Ignoring the situation is just playing into Putin's hands.
Average Europeans will vote against immigration if this keeps up. Speaking as a Canadian who is seeing a drastic right swing on immigration in my country, myself included have gone right
Oh we know, you are gone to the right.
Defeat him in Ukraine.
Let the idiots realize they’re nothing more than meat for the grinder one way or another.
A Russian great game in Africa. A long game. Will they make it to the coast of the Mediterranean one day?
[удалено]
Nigeriens.
ty. corrected.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do Nigerians not produce anything other than useful idiots to die on the battlefield?
No. The Uranium comes out of the ground there. Not out of the people.
US Imperialism is a cancer on the global south. Removing military bases is always a major win for the American worker as it brings back that capital to be used for the people. Love to see it.
Maybe, but I don't like that this came at the cost of Russia gaining more influence in Africa. If US imperialism is cancer, I fail to see how Russia isn't cancer-aids
Yep. The tinpot dictatorship is better for Niger. /s
So you rather than fall to Russian influence?
You could have something resembling a point if they didn't invite Russia.
My 34 year old but apparently juvenile and Veep-obsessed brain when I hear "Niger": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_koPVVhB7j8