By sending armaments and aiding autocrats, Moscow is aiming to attach more and more African governments to itself.
The continent of Africa is once again turning becoming a staging ground for various international interests. A “bill to prevent malign Russian actions in Africa” is passed by the US Congress at the same time as operations at the Global Engagement Center, the US headquarters for combating misinformation efforts, are already underway. At the beginning of March, the United Nations General Assembly held a vote on whether or not to condemn Russia for its aggression on Ukraine. Almost half of the delegates from Africa voted against the resolution. Not only is Africa essential for its natural riches, but it is also becoming more important for its sunlight. Additionally, Africa has more than one quarter of all votes in the World Parliament. This information was met with concern in the western capitals.
Russia had been present there before. While President Donald Trump’s administration in the United States disregarded Africa, the Russian government was busy signing military pacts with a growing number of African nations (there are now more than 20). Since then, the leaders of governments that have come under pressure, such as those in Ethiopia and Sudan, can be certain of the availability of Russian arms. Those who believe they are in a hopeless situation, such as the heads of state in Mali or Central Africa, may even hire Russian mercenaries; anybody who wants to influence the outcome of an election can seek assistance from the Russian “Internet Research Agency.” Every African administration receives assistance from Moscow, with one notable exception: the populace is seen primarily as voting livestock that can be controlled.
From a historical perspective, Russia starts out on the wrong foot in Africa. The formerly colonialized countries of Western Europe already enjoy a significant edge when it comes to language. Almost every television on the continent broadcasts American series or English football; students who have the financial means do their schooling in London, New York, or Paris; and people who are headed toward Europe in the hopes of securing a better future are not necessarily looking to settle in Russia but rather in Great Britain or France. The many civil society groups on the continent get practically all of their funding from the Western world, whilst the Eastern world is preoccupied with the economics (China) or the “need for security” of the various ruling elites (Russia).
Both countries have a positive reputation among African heads of state because they do not interfere in what they call the “internal affairs” of their business partners. This is in contrast to the Western world, which prefers to condition its assistance on meeting certain criteria, such as democracy, good governance, and respect for human rights. However, this is not an absolute need as long as the nation in question, such as Equatorial Guinea, has oil. If the nation in question does not possess anything of the type, the leadership there will be required to exert more effort. Or contact Russia.
The southern region of Africa, which was the last area of the continent to win its independence from colonial powers, is where its stronghold is located. Moscow provided training and equipment to liberation forces in Angola and Mozambique, as well as in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, Namibia, and South Africa. This assistance came mostly from Russia. Even when the liberation movements morphed into corrupt ruling parties and the socialist Soviet republics became predatory oligarchies, the communists from Russia and Africa remained in communication with one another. This continued even after the socialist Soviet republics became oligarchies. Even at the present day, they continue to be motivated by the same thing: to profit themselves in the most dishonest and expedient manner possible.
This was never more obvious than in the bond that existed between Vladimir Putin and Jacob Zuma, who was the President of South Africa. The two already felt related due to the fact that they both came from modest backgrounds and had slouched through their careers (Zuma had also been trained by the KGB). The effort to infiltrate all official institutions, including state-owned corporations, was referred to as “state capture.” When he got to power, he sought to transfer the notion of Putin’s crook state nearly exactly 1:1 to South Africa. Zuma came within a whisker’s width of converting the nation that is home to the Cape of Good Hope into a mafia state, much as Putin did in Russia.
He was ultimately unsuccessful as a result of Cyril Ramaphosa, who was serving as his deputy. Under Ramaphosa’s president, a more distant approach toward Moscow was anticipated. Ramaphosa did not get any kind of training to prepare him for his role as a freedom warrior. It came as much more of a shock when South Africa did the same thing and refrained from denouncing Russia’s aggressive war at the United Nations General Assembly. Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor, who was born in Great Britain and raised there, was previously fired in a fit of rage from her position as president for her spur-of-the-moment criticism of Putin.
The possibility that democracies in the Global South would turn their backs on the West as allies is one of the things that gives the German Chancellery the most cause for anxiety. Not just throughout Asia, but also across the continent of Africa. In an effort to forge closer connections with important nations, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) has extended invitations to the G7 conference in Bavaria to a variety of nations, including India, Indonesia, and Senegal, amongst others (June 26-28). Scholz traveled to Africa in the month of May and made a stop in Pretoria during his time there. In addition to that, Cyril Ramaphosa was extended an invitation to attend the summit. But if the Chancellor had expected to be able to persuade the President to agree with him on how to deal with Russia, he was left disappointed: Ramaphosa decided that South Africa would remain neutral in the “conflict” between Russia and Ukraine – repeatedly using the word “war”; or even avoiding the phrase “war of aggression.” The Chancellor was not able to win the President over to a common position on how to deal with Russia. What the furious Chancellor may not have realized is that Ramaphosa’s party, the African National Congress (ANC), is mining the metal manganese in the Kalahari desert via his investment arm, the “Chancellor House,” jointly with the Russian tycoon Viktor Vekselberg. The ruling party, which is not only morally bankrupt but also financially bankrupt, simply cannot afford to denounce Russia in any way, shape, or form:
During his voyage to Africa, Scholz also visited the countries of Niger and Senegal. During his journey to Dakar, Putin also had a meeting with President Macky Sall, where they discussed his upcoming trips to Moscow and Kyiv. According to the information provided by Tagesspiegel, he is tasked with convincing Vladimir Putin, on behalf of the African Union, to take action on the issue of nutrition and to permit grain supplies from Ukraine. At the same time, there is, of course, the possibility that Putin may attempt to bring these nations even farther to the Russian side by luring them with lavish promises of his own grain delivery. This is a risk that cannot be ignored.