Follow us on social

African juntas' defense pact makes mockery of US policy

African juntas' defense pact makes mockery of US policy

Lectures from Washington about democracy and Russia fell on deaf ears in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso

Analysis | Africa

On July 6, the three junta-led countries of the western Sahel — Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso — signed a treaty to establish a security alliance between them. This announcement came during the first summit of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), a trilateral body formed by the three governments in September 2023, encompassing a total population of 72 million people.

This is in accordance with the announcement the three governments made in March that they would jointly create a task force with the goal of better integrating security operations in response to possible threats.

The military rulers created AES to formalize their alliance in a new intergovernmental body that they intend to serve as an alternative to the Economic Organization of West African States (ECOWAS), the much larger regional group focused on advancing economic integration and facilitating diplomacy among its member states.

The July 6 treaty forms a deeply interconnected confederation between the three countries that looks to facilitate dialogue on matters related to security as well as deepen their economic ties.

In a clear indication of his perspective on the role foreign governments and multilateral bodies have played in Nigerien affairs, Niger’s military leader, Abdourahamane Tiani, said in an interview during the trilateral summit that “our people have irrevocably turned their backs on ECOWAS. … It is up to us today to make the AES Confederation an alternative to any artificial regional group by building ... a community free from the control of foreign powers."

The three governments have a history of calling out foreign countries, particularly France, and external bodies for interfering in their domestic affairs and imposing strict conditions on their governance in return for good relations and aid. Part of this anger has been directed towards ECOWAS, which has sanctioned member countries that fail to maintain democratic governance.

Following last year’s coup in Niger, ECOWAS threatened to intervene with military force if democratic rule was not restored. The Nigerien junta called ECOWAS’s bluff, and the regional body ultimately backed down.

The three military-ruled governments jointly announced their withdrawal from ECOWAS in January 2024, bringing to the forefront questions about ECOWAS’s future and its ability to resolve regional disputes. In an unsuccessful attempt to dissuade the governments from leaving, ECOWAS announced in February that it would lift sanctions on Niger that had been imposed after the coup.

But beyond dissatisfaction with ECOWAS, the three juntas have also expressed frustration with foreign powers. On Monday, July 8, the United States announced that it had completed its withdrawal of 1,000 American troops that were stationed at a military base near Niger’s capital, Niamey, and that it will continue to remove its personnel from a second military installation in the country. This comes in response to the ruling Nigerien junta ordering the United States to end its military presence in the country. From the junta’s perspective, the United States had failed to reduce insecurity and has been unable to improve the economic health of Nigeriens . Despite millions spent on the country — the United States spent $223 million in aid to Niger in 2023 alone — insurgent groups remain present in Niger while the economic health of the country remains dire.

Prior to last summer’s coup, Washington had worked with the civilian-led Nigerien government on security issues, including sharing security intelligence, conducting military training programs, and building and using multiple military bases in the country. Since seizing power, however, the junta has severed the once-strong alliance with the United States, expressing dissatisfaction with the way American officials have reportedly lectured them on the importance of democracy — something clearly not of interest to a ruling junta that acquired power through a coup. The United States has also argued that the geopolitical risks of forming new security partnerships with Russia pose a danger to human rights, another issue that likely fails to resonate with a military government whose top priority is maintaining power, rather than helping the United States compete against Russia or promote the U.S.-invented rules-based order.

Ultimately, the creation of this new alliance and the recent news of the creation of a confederacy is yet a further sign of how far these three countries have drifted from the West.

Gone are the days when the United States and France maintained close ties with these countries on the grounds that they were working to advance mutual security interests in a regional fight against terrorism. Now, they’re openly antagonistic to Western powers while gladly working with Russian forces whose security support helps them meet their self-interest.


Heads of state of Mali's Assimi Goita, Niger's General Abdourahamane Tiani and Burkina Faso's Captain Ibrahim Traore attend the opening of for the first ordinary summit of heads of state and governments of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in Niamey, Niger July 6, 2024. REUTERS/ Mahamadou Hamidou

Analysis | Africa
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

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.