Follow us on social

2022-10-02t135737z_1925561543_rc2ysw92vnde_rtrmadp_3_burkina-security-scaled

Burkina Faso coup: another example of the West's military-first failures

The situation in the Sahel lurches from bad to worse and everyone loses except for the narrow ruling cliques that hold top offices.

Analysis | Africa

On September 30, Captain Ibrahim Traore led a coup in Burkina Faso, overthrowing Colonel Paul-Henri Damiba, who had himself taken power in a coup in January. The latest coup is the fifth in a wave of recent military takeovers in the Sahel. (Mali has also suffered two coups since 2020, and Chad underwent a coup in 2021.)

The second Burkinabe coup highlights the dead end in which both the central Sahel — meaning Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger — and its external “partners” are stuck. The United States is not deeply involved in the Sahel, but the coup is a reminder that Washington has limited influence over Sahelian politics. With embassies understaffed and largely walled off from local populations, the United States also uses little of the influence it does have. Washington is either unwilling or unable to reverse or deter coups, and U.S. counterinsurgency training efforts have yielded no clear successes. In the present context, the United States is best off focusing on sustaining and expanding its delivery of humanitarian relief in order to ameliorate ordinary people’s suffering.

Neither the region’s militaries nor the region’s former colonial power and main external interlocutor, France, have credible ideas for ending the armed conflicts, political turmoil, and humanitarian disaster that afflict the Sahel. Insecurity has worsened under Mali’s junta and also grew under Damiba, despite those coup-makers’ initial promises to return a semblance of stability. Coup-makers find or choose to find most of their energies absorbed by politics, as they alternately coopt and repress civilian politicians while simultaneously engaging in brinksmanship with the regional bloc, the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS.

For its part, France has clung to a counterterrorism-centric approach predicated on the expectation that host governments and populations will cheer on open-ended deployments; when that assumption proves untenable in one country, as it did in Mali, France simply shifts focus to another, currently Niger. Indeed, as new expectations and pressures are piled on Niger, by Paris and also by Washington, Western powers risk inadvertently feeding anti-French sentiment in Niger and, down the line, triggering a coup there.

Russia unofficially welcomed the coup, but it does not appear to have played a role in what was primarily an internal dispute within Burkina Faso’s armed forces. However, Moscow was not able to deliver on what its Sahelian fans see as a tough and efficacious approach. Already in Mali, where the Kremlin-linked Wagner Group has deployed at the behest of that junta, there are signs that the partnership is souring, and Russian mercenaries have failed to make a meaningful dent in jihadists’ presence in much of northern and central Mali.

Russia also makes limited, murky, but attention-grabbing efforts to shape Sahelian politics through propaganda and friendly, possibly astro-turfed civil society groups. As Russia seeks to feed anti-French sentiment, Western governments’ anti-Russia stances distort how they view the Sahel and distract attention away from a reckoning with why the situation in the Sahel got so bad before the recent uptick in Russian influence campaigns.

In short, the situation in the Sahel lurches from bad to worse, external actors jockey for fleeting power, and everyone loses except for the narrow ruling cliques, military or civilian, that hold top offices.

The outlook for the next two years appears bleak. ECOWAS, after the failure of its effort to sanction Mali into compliance, compromised on transition timetables in Mali and Burkina Faso that were essentially dictated by the juntas in power there. Both timetables run through 2024, and Traore has pledged to uphold the timetable that Damiba and ECOWAS accepted. ECOWAS’ celebratory statement over Damiba’s bloodless resignation was, parsed in a certain way, an acquiescence to the latest coup and an acknowledgment that what matters most now is preserving the appearance of having a plan — even though Traore’s coup underscores the messiness of the region’s politics.

There is also, obviously, no guarantee that Mali’s or Burkina Faso’s military rulers will adhere to the promised timetables; to the east, beyond the ECOWAS zone but still in the Sahel, Chad’s military rulers recently granted themselves up to two more years in power. Even when elections come, contests held under the watchful eyes of the region’s soldier-presidents may be problematic, to say the least — or the soldier-presidents might be on the ballot themselves. Nor should the possibility of a third coup in Mali — actually, it would be the sixth, if one counts from independence in 1960 — be ruled out.

Given how bad the situation is — endemic violence, blockaded towns, millions displaced, thousands of children out of school, widespread hunger, severe annual flooding, and more — Western powers’ disengagement would be criminal. Yet the hope that a combination of “good governance” and “counterinsurgency” will reverse the region’s problems has been proven naïve by the cycle of coups. Sahelian states are skeletal, representing prizes for domestic actors to fight over but not, with their present capacities, serious vehicles for ending deep-rooted violent conflicts. France’s talk of counterterrorism paving the way for the “return of the state,” and U.S. theories of “population-centric counterinsurgency” enabling “political progress,” are essentially delusional.

Washington, already a major humanitarian actor in the region, has a chance now to further disassociate itself from its own “War on Terror,” from France’s failed policies, from the Sahel’s overly politicized militaries, and from the losing strategy of trying to lecture Africans into hating Russia. Washington should keep giving food, clean water, and medicine to those victimized by the cross-cutting machinations of colonels, captains, presidents, foreign capitals, and jihadists.

Other than that, Washington should keep quietly encouraging coup-makers to step down quickly and make transitions robust and fair. The coup in Burkina Faso confirms and adds to the tragedy in the Sahel, a tragedy in which the U.S. role now should not be to glorify counterterrorism and promise Sahelian militaries that more target practice will help them defeat jihadists, but rather to concentrate on helping civilians.


Burkina Faso's self-declared new leader Ibrahim Traore is welcomed by supporters holding Russian's flags as he arrives at the national television standing in an armoured vehicle in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso October 2, 2022. REUTERS/Vincent Bado TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Analysis | Africa
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.