Yeah, the whole promise of free grain ain't going to help Russia here.
As Elki mentioned, there is no getting around the global market price for grain. So impacted nations aren't going to be pleased by grain ports in Ukraine being destroyed by Russia, along with stockpiles of grain because that means they'll see their food costs go up directly. I'd argue it's actually worse than sanctions because I'm pretty sure the sanctions didn't restrict people from importing Russian grain. Then there was the whole thing where the grain would have likely been smuggled if if sanctions did touch it, which would minimize how much the supply is cut. Russia's shit here is not only taking shit off the market, but depending on the damage, could be doing it long term.
Russia also has the whole issue where they've already failed to deliver promises. Hell, it looks like they might have actually ripped the Iranians off. So it's not just empty promises, it's Russia acting like the impacted nations have no ability to realize that Russia has already failed to deliver on it's promises. It's actually pretty insulting; especially, when your the run doing shit that is driving the prices up.
Of course, I'm not sure how much leverage these countries have to punish Russia. Though I do wonder when they might start asking either the Chinese, the Europeans or the US to whack the roving bands of Wanger that are looting their nations and killing their people. It doesn't appear they are getting any benefit from having Wanger their, given that Wanger is charging those nations for the privilege to be robbed by them and doing shit that is going to add to the instability. Massacring civilians on the government dole, is going to have the opposite outcome that these nations want and just make it easier for insurgent groups to find both recruits and material support.
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
It would be a pretty hilarious outcome (for a certain definition of hilarious) if Russian efforts to put pressure on African nations by blowing up Ukranian grain storage results in them asking the US or someone to kill all of the Russian mercenaries in their countries.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
It would be a pretty hilarious outcome (for a certain definition of hilarious) if Russian efforts to put pressure on African nations by blowing up Ukranian grain storage results in them asking the US or someone to kill all of the Russian mercenaries in their countries.
You mean if every sub-saharan African blog put the blame solely on Putin for the suffering they're about to go through? That would be a hell of a thing
In short. Niger is a landlocked country in the middle of nowhere, and countries like it, Mali and Burkina Faso only matter in the West because they are former French colonies and the French very much care about those. Issue is, countries with low population density and right next to the Sahara means a lot of coups, which is why now they are 3 out of 3 in French-friendly countries getting coup'ed and replaced by hostile ones, with paid Wagner support.
So, France has two options:
1) Go all in and smash the new governments on Niger, and likely on Mali and Burkina Faso too. They can do it, even if it means also fighting Wagner, but it would be pretty much on their own, and it requires a political mandate that, well, from the outside it seems that is unlikelt that Macron has.
2) Admit that France is no longer a global power, but a regional one, and pretty much divest entirely and fully focus on Europe. Which has a war going on. Which means a lot more enthusiastic support for the Ukranians.
Either of those is bad for Russia, so that's interesting.
That commitment, with no details, follows Putin’s promise to start shipping 25,000 to 50,000 tons of grain for free to each of six African nations in the next three to four months — an amount dwarfed by the 725,000 tons shipped by the U.N. World Food Program to several hungry countries, African and otherwise, under the grain deal. Russia plans to send the free grain to Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, Eritrea and Central African Republic.
...
“We would like the Black Sea initiative to be implemented and that the Black Sea should be open,” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said. “We are not here to plead for donations for the African continent.”
African leaders also called clearly for peace.
“This war must end and it can only end on the basis of justice and reason,” said the head of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat. “The disturbances that it causes in the supply of energy and grain must cease immediately” for the benefit of all, especially Africans.
Putin said Russia would analyze African leaders’ peace proposal for Ukraine, whose details have not been publicly shared. But the Russian leader asked: “Why do you ask us to pause fire? We can’t pause fire while we’re being attacked.”
With results like these I see the next summit being even more sparsely attended. Russia doesn't seem to have taken the importance of the grain deal to heart.
That commitment, with no details, follows Putin’s promise to start shipping 25,000 to 50,000 tons of grain for free to each of six African nations in the next three to four months — an amount dwarfed by the 725,000 tons shipped by the U.N. World Food Program to several hungry countries, African and otherwise, under the grain deal. Russia plans to send the free grain to Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, Eritrea and Central African Republic.
...
“We would like the Black Sea initiative to be implemented and that the Black Sea should be open,” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said. “We are not here to plead for donations for the African continent.”
African leaders also called clearly for peace.
“This war must end and it can only end on the basis of justice and reason,” said the head of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat. “The disturbances that it causes in the supply of energy and grain must cease immediately” for the benefit of all, especially Africans.
Putin said Russia would analyze African leaders’ peace proposal for Ukraine, whose details have not been publicly shared. But the Russian leader asked: “Why do you ask us to pause fire? We can’t pause fire while we’re being attacked.”
With results like these I see the next summit being even more sparsely attended. Russia doesn't seem to have taken the importance of the grain deal to heart.
This reads to me like a mob boss (Putin) getting pushback from a lieutenant on some contemplated crime that impacts the lieutenant directly and willfully or ignorantly misunderstanding, e.g., “please don’t burn down that block for the insurance money, my whole family lives there” as “I want a cut of the action”, and so offering a slim percentage of the insurance payout, then being legitimately confused and affronted when that offer is rebuffed.
Just galaxy brain shit. “What do you mean, ‘what will my people eat’? Why is that my problem, I offered you enough grain to make a tidy profit for yourself!”
_
Your Ad Here! Reasonable Rates!
+7
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
With immediate effect, the Republic of Niger under the leadership of General Abdourahamane Tchiani, and supported by the people of the Republic, announced the suspension of the export of uranium and gold to France on Sunday.
With immediate effect, the Republic of Niger under the leadership of General Abdourahamane Tchiani, and supported by the people of the Republic, announced the suspension of the export of uranium and gold to France on Sunday.
In Niger, anti-French protests were frequently banned by Mr Bazoum's administration.
Several civil society groups began escalating anti-French protests in mid-2022, when Mr Bazoum's administration approved the redeployment of France's Barkhane forces to Niger after they had been ordered to leave Mali.
Key among them is the M62 movement, formed in August 2022 by a coalition of activists, civil society movements and trade unions. They led calls against the rising cost of living, poor governance and the presence of the French forces.
Various planned protests by the group were banned or violently put down by Niger's authorities with its leader Abdoulaye Seydou jailed for nine months in April 2023 for "disrupting public order".
The M62 appears revitalised in the wake of President Bazoum's removal.
In an unusual move, its members were quoted by state TV mobilising mass protests in support of the junta, as well as denouncing sanctions by West African leaders over the coup.
So, it seems that the coup may have widespread popular support. It's not surprising if so, the previous decade+ of French/US backed governments and French (and to a lesser extent US) military presence has only served to set these countries aflame.
We have ECOWAS and the Burkina Faso/Mali/Guinea/Niger bloc each threatening collective warfare on the other, the underlying regional war with al-Qaeda and IS, overlaid with the broader struggle between US/NATO and Russia. This region has gradually descended into chaos and warfare since the destruction of the state of Libya by the US in 2011 - which France was the main cheerleader for. In a lot of ways this feels like the last twelve years of history coming to a climactic point.
"Cheerleader"? The whole thing was Sarkozy's idea, and the French were front and center of the whole thing. Full 35% of the airstrikes on the Libya war were from the French Air Force, highest from the entire coalition.
Considering how that ended, and how everybody is kinda busy right now, wouldn't surprise me that Macron gets told that if he wants to bring France's former colonial holdings back to the fold, he's on his own. He doesn't seem to have the political mandate for that, but that has not stopped him on internal policy.
"Cheerleader"? The whole thing was Sarkozy's idea, and the French were front and center of the whole thing. Full 35% of the airstrikes on the Libya war were from the French Air Force, highest from the entire coalition.
Considering how that ended, and how everybody is kinda busy right now, wouldn't surprise me that Macron gets told that if he wants to bring France's former colonial holdings back to the fold, he's on his own. He doesn't seem to have the political mandate for that, but that has not stopped him on internal policy.
Source for that figure? All the reporting at the time went on endlessly about how the US had to do the vast majority of the bombing campaign itself because of European impotence. I could see France having bombed Libya the second most. But I don't think they were capable of bombing the country nearly as much as the US did.
Regardless, the war on Libya, the 21st century's Original Sin for this region, being led by the French and US was my main point.
I agree that the US and other NATO states are unlikely to have the will or capability to invade Niger/fight the anti-French bloc right now. Maybe some bombing in support of an ECOWAS invasion if that happens (which I hope it doesn't).
edit - wiki supports your claim, I'll look around a bit more to confirm, but maybe I remembered incorrectly
@Elki . Some years ago you linked me an excellent research paper on Burkina Faso and how the US/French "war on terror" policies resulted in inflaming underlying conflicts and needlessly turning the country into a war zone over the course of years. I can't find it though, would you happen to have a link handy? I think its relevant as historical context for what is happening now.
the discrepancy is due to how the US and NATO categorized their war. In the initial "protect rebels in Benghazi" phase in March, it appears that France did fly the most sorties. However this does not include the remaining six months of the bombing of Libya (the regime change phase), which accounted for the majority of the air campaign and in which US bombing far outweighed the contributions of France or the rest of NATO.
With immediate effect, the Republic of Niger under the leadership of General Abdourahamane Tchiani, and supported by the people of the Republic, announced the suspension of the export of uranium and gold to France on Sunday.
Well that's gonna piss off some people.
Conversely my Uranium index fund holdings were up 3% today. Now I am the war profiteer.
Elki . Some years ago you linked me an excellent research paper on Burkina Faso and how the US/French "war on terror" policies resulted in inflaming underlying conflicts and needlessly turning the country into a war zone over the course of years. I can't find it though, would you happen to have a link handy? I think its relevant as historical context for what is happening now.
Putin said Russia would analyze African leaders’ peace proposal for Ukraine, whose details have not been publicly shared. But the Russian leader asked: “Why do you ask us to pause fire? We can’t pause fire while we’re being attacked.”
Fuck alllllll the way off Putin
And then fuck off twice as far past that for good measure
Elki . Some years ago you linked me an excellent research paper on Burkina Faso and how the US/French "war on terror" policies resulted in inflaming underlying conflicts and needlessly turning the country into a war zone over the course of years. I can't find it though, would you happen to have a link handy? I think its relevant as historical context for what is happening now.
I highly encourage people to read this in order to understand why these countries are expelling the French military. The western media will describe the rise of salafi-jihadism as something that happened despite the military alliance with France/USA. It is more accurate to view the escalating regional war as a result of what French and US forces are doing. They intervene in local political conflicts without understanding them. A massive power imbalance throws the prior relations of tribes, ethnic groups, and other political/social factions into chaos. One side gets armed to the teeth (whichever ingratiate themselves to the foreign power) and the others get subjugated or slaughtered. We've seen similar phenomena in Afghanistan repeatedly, where tribes have learned to manipulate foreign occupiers to settle local conflicts in their favor.
Meanwhile, 12 years of drone strikes and raids on suspected 'terrorists' houses creates innumerable individuals, families, and tribes whose overwhelming political priority is "death to France."
These countries were burning to the ground under the French-backed regional governments. Overthrowing these governments and expelling the French troops was at this point realistically the only way out for these countries. It is a matter of survival, I don't know what other choice they have. It is unfortunate that the political institutions of these states are such that military coups appear to be the only way for the nation to express its politics, but over a century or two of colonisation and exploitation has that sort of effect. I only hope it's not too late for the region to change course. Otherwise we may end up with a new Caliphate.
Finally, while the media is portraying this as an overthrow of a 'democracy,' it is questionable how applicable this term is to the prior government. If protesting against the presence of a foreign military in your country - your country's former colonial oppressor, even - gets you shot or imprisoned, how democratic is the country in question? Blinken calls Niger a "model of democracy," and the above is exactly why he says so.
So the English language media is doing a truly atrocious job reporting on this. It's like 90% propaganda and 10% legitimate information.
One canard I keep seeing in articles from various outlets is "US law prevents the US from arming a country where a military coup has taken place."
This is not true. It is obviously not true, and these writers must know it, unless they are somehow unaware of the existence of Egypt (to choose one example). What the "law" actually says is that if the US government declares a coup to have taken place in a country, then it can not arm that country. Whether or not to make such a declaration is entirely up to the executive branch of the US government. Thus, whether or not to arm a country where a coup has taken place is just a matter of whether or not the US government wants to - the 'law' changes literally nothing, it is just meant as something for NYT and WaPo to quote for credulous Americans who don't pay attention.
Most articles, rather than sincerely attempt to investigate and explain what led to the coup, instead distract by repeating rumors about palace politics in Niamey. Within the last 5 years or so, four countries, each a host for French and/or US "counterterrorism" warfare, each slowly falling into ruin, overthrow their pro-French governments in military coups and realign geopolitically. Why? Well, this general in Niamey didn't like this other general. Come on now. Personal politics plays a role and such rivalries may indeed have been a causative factor here, but it's pretty clear that there is a wider phenomenon at work, and pointing to personal feuding as the primary cause is intentionally misleading. (edit- actually I don't think Guinea is necessarily a ruinous battleground for French forces and salafi-jihadists; but that applies to the other three)
WSJ approvingly quoted the US as arguing that Nigeriens have been tricked by Russian disinformation on social media. The disinformation? That their country has become less secure during the French/US tenure. In reality, that is an easily verifiable, demonstrably true fact. Would take a second of googling. I do not think Nigeriens need the Russians to inform them of this, and in any case it is not "misinformation." To be frank, this reeked of an age old European justification/explanation for their wars of conquest in Africa: "those dumb Africans do not understand that our Civilizing Mission is to their benefit."
Another accused Nigeriens of "scapegoating" France. Poor France, always scapegoated by those nefarious North/West African countries that they colonized and are currently at war in.
Here's a decent article with some useful data. Also I recommend the source highly, as far as English language reporting on this region of Africa goes, HumAngle is by far the best I've found. There's a visually superior layout of this data in the article, but for context on the how bad things have gotten across such a wide area, relatively quickly, here is confirmed deaths per year per country. Safe to say it's an undercount because this is just individuals confirmed to have died, you all know how it goes.
edit - Nigeria is included in that but follows a different trend, it's not really part of the same conflict/set of conflicts. Although that is changing with ISWAP, and the two insurgency zones could connect if IS and AQ continue to spread.
Well the data for 2023 is just the first six months. So double those figures (not that violence is static throughout the year but for lack of better info) to project the year's total; in Mali's case it would be a decrease of 4.8k to 3k.
As for why the sudden spike from 2021 to 2022, well, at the beginning of 2022 the French military began its withdrawal from Mali, with the last troops leaving in the summer. So, the spike's magnitude doesn't seem that implausible to me.
edit - I saw your edit now, but will leave my response in case it is still helpful.
Anyone seen an article that said the battle of Mogadishu blunted Clinton's foreign policy abilities and enabled the rwandan genocide?
About the Mogadishu Line/"Somalia syndrome?" I'm drawing a blank on specific links but definitely remember running into that concept a lot in the 90s/00s in increasingly-incandescently-frustrated humanitarian contexts.
If there is public support for the coup, well unfortunately the public often engages in short-sighted stupidity. A military coup is hardly going to make the military more accountable or perpetrate fewer war crimes, and switching from Western military advisors to Wagner is hardly going to help. The previous coups in the region have all done even worse at dealing with jihadists than their predecessors. And it seems like the government if Niger was at least attempting to deal with the root causes of the issue and working toward reintegrating fighters into society. The government was successfully reducing civilian deaths from the military and making peace deals with jihadist groups. This coup is essentially a regressive reaction opposing such measures. The best outcome we can hope for it seems is the military backing down to the threats of intervention from ECOWAS because it does seem like an invasion would set off a full on regional war.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
NIAMEY/ABUJA, Aug 2 (Reuters) – Defence chiefs from West Africa’s regional bloc were meeting in Nigeria’s capital Abuja on Wednesday for talks on how to respond to a coup last week in neighbouring Niger that has raised fears of a wider conflict in West Africa’s Sahel region.
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has imposed sanctions on Niger and said it could authorize the use of force if the coup leaders do not reinstate elected President Mohamed Bazoum within a week from last Sunday.
Regional defence chiefs will hold a two-day meeting in Abuja about the situation. An ECOWAS delegation was also expected to arrive in Niger’s capital Niamey on Wednesday to start talks with the junta, which is led by General Abdourahmane Tiani.
Yeah, it seems like that's, uh, not happening. Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking until Sunday, and who knows what France will do after they are done evacuating nationals, so the most likely thing so far is that is going to get ugly.
NIAMEY/ABUJA, Aug 2 (Reuters) - West African regional bloc ECOWAS sent a delegation to Niger on Wednesday to negotiate with the military officers who seized power in a coup last week, hoping to find a diplomatic solution before they have to decide whether or not to intervene.
"The military option is the very last option on the table, the last resort, but we have to prepare for the eventuality," said Abdel-Fatau Musah, ECOWAS Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security.
"There is a need to demonstrate that we cannot only bark but can bite," he told reporters, as regional defence chiefs started a two-day meeting in the Nigerian capital Abuja.
If there is public support for the coup, well unfortunately the public often engages in short-sighted stupidity. A military coup is hardly going to make the military more accountable or perpetrate fewer war crimes, and switching from Western military advisors to Wagner is hardly going to help. The previous coups in the region have all done even worse at dealing with jihadists than their predecessors. And it seems like the government if Niger was at least attempting to deal with the root causes of the issue and working toward reintegrating fighters into society. The government was successfully reducing civilian deaths from the military and making peace deals with jihadist groups. This coup is essentially a regressive reaction opposing such measures. The best outcome we can hope for it seems is the military backing down to the threats of intervention from ECOWAS because it does seem like an invasion would set off a full on regional war.
I really don't think you or I have nearly enough knowledge about the situation in Niger to make such a prognosis with confidence. You may be right that the new military government is unable to improve the situation, I hope you are wrong, so far there's insufficient information to easily predict.
However, the French needed to be expelled from the region, this seems clear based on looking at the timelines of violence for any involved country. France was making things worse, not better. And this is to be expected given the history of the US's Global War on Terror, which is basically a string of catastrophic failure at the cost of literally millions of innocent lives.
Ideally a military coup would not be the only way to accomplish the expulsion of the French. But when your 'democratic' government will shoot or jail you for expressing nonviolent opposition to French troops, what the hell are you supposed to do?
I agree that replacing the French with Wagner is not a solution; in the sense of blowback from foreign soldiers killing people it seems likely to continue the same trend. As that guy quoted by BBC said, "I don't want the Russians here either, because they're still Europeans and will not help us."
So I'm not trying to say "the coup is good and will lead to a better situation." I don't know if it will or not. So far, the coups in Burkina Faso and Mali have not improved the situations there. But I do believe that expelling the French is good, and necessary, and I don't think there was any way to do that short of a government overthrow. Something had to change, because it's been over a decade of worsening violence under the current set up. The status quo was not working, it has brought multiple countries to the brink of destruction. I don't know if this is the answer but I also have no other answers.
edit - US 'counterterrorism assistance' to Niger started twenty years ago. At the time, terrorist attacks were occurring at a rate of a few per year across the whole continent. Now it's hundreds or thousands per year in individual countries. The US and France seem to have mainly just spread the insurgency and deepened it. Not saying that was the intent (I don't think it was), but that was the effect of the policy.
If there is public support for the coup, well unfortunately the public often engages in short-sighted stupidity. A military coup is hardly going to make the military more accountable or perpetrate fewer war crimes, and switching from Western military advisors to Wagner is hardly going to help. The previous coups in the region have all done even worse at dealing with jihadists than their predecessors. And it seems like the government if Niger was at least attempting to deal with the root causes of the issue and working toward reintegrating fighters into society. The government was successfully reducing civilian deaths from the military and making peace deals with jihadist groups. This coup is essentially a regressive reaction opposing such measures. The best outcome we can hope for it seems is the military backing down to the threats of intervention from ECOWAS because it does seem like an invasion would set off a full on regional war.
I really don't think you or I have nearly enough knowledge about the situation in Niger to make such a prognosis with confidence. You may be right that the new military government is unable to improve the situation, I hope you are wrong, so far there's insufficient information to easily predict.
Basically the same thing happening multiple times already in the region seems more than enough to establish an obvious pattern and predictable results.
Ideally a military coup would not be the only way to accomplish the expulsion of the French. But when your 'democratic' government will shoot or jail you for expressing nonviolent opposition to French troops, what the hell are you supposed to do?
Vote. Continuing peaceful democratic transfers of power at least give the possibility of improving things in the future even if any given government's performance is lack luster.
Also I assume the military is probably the one shooting protestors in the first place. Opposition to French presence is almost certainly a cynical ploy to placate the public and a natural result of knowing France will oppose them regardless. Almost certainly the interests of the military junta begins and ends with maintaining and increasing their own power.
But I do believe that expelling the French is good, and necessary, and I don't think there was any way to do that short of a government overthrow.
France wasn't holding a gun to their head forcing the government to get their assistance. They wanted the assistance because they believed it would be beneficial (to their reelection if nothing else). If no serious political parties support ending Western support maybe that indicates that they understand that it is a necessary part of improving their situation?
Something had to change, because it's been over a decade of worsening violence under the current set up. The status quo was not working, it has brought multiple countries to the brink of destruction. I don't know if this is the answer but I also have no other answers.
Something did change. Niger had its first ever democratic transfer of power in 2021 and the new government successly decreased deaths to violence over the last two years. And now that government has been overthrown by a general to avoid getting fired by the civilian government.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
If there is public support for the coup, well unfortunately the public often engages in short-sighted stupidity. A military coup is hardly going to make the military more accountable or perpetrate fewer war crimes, and switching from Western military advisors to Wagner is hardly going to help. The previous coups in the region have all done even worse at dealing with jihadists than their predecessors. And it seems like the government if Niger was at least attempting to deal with the root causes of the issue and working toward reintegrating fighters into society. The government was successfully reducing civilian deaths from the military and making peace deals with jihadist groups. This coup is essentially a regressive reaction opposing such measures. The best outcome we can hope for it seems is the military backing down to the threats of intervention from ECOWAS because it does seem like an invasion would set off a full on regional war.
I really don't think you or I have nearly enough knowledge about the situation in Niger to make such a prognosis with confidence. You may be right that the new military government is unable to improve the situation, I hope you are wrong, so far there's insufficient information to easily predict.
Basically the same thing happening multiple times already in the region seems more than enough to establish an obvious pattern and predictable results.
Ideally a military coup would not be the only way to accomplish the expulsion of the French. But when your 'democratic' government will shoot or jail you for expressing nonviolent opposition to French troops, what the hell are you supposed to do?
Vote. Continuing peaceful democratic transfers of power at least give the possibility of improving things in the future even if any given government's performance is lack luster.
I do not have enough understanding of the power structures in Niger to say whether this would be good advice or not. I don't meant to be insulting, but I doubt you do either. It is possible for a system to be superficially democratic while being in actuality authoritarian. In this case the country in question is a post-colonial state, one of the poorest in the world, with French troops using it as a base for regional operations, while France economically exploits the country. That setup can easily lead to a government totally dependent on foreign powers, and thus more accountable to their external backers than their own citizenry.
Also I assume the military is probably the one shooting protestors in the first place. Opposition to French presence is almost certainly a cynical ploy to placate the public and a natural result of knowing France will oppose them regardless. Almost certainly the interests of the military junta begins and ends with maintaining and increasing their own power.
This is no less likely to be true of the previous government. Realistically in both cases it will be mostly true, though an oversimplification; peoples' ideologies do affect their actions. The fact that the previous guy was labeled "president" and this one labeled "general" does not tell us much about how their ideologies or moral virtues differ.
France wasn't holding a gun to their head forcing the government to get their assistance. They wanted the assistance because they believed it would be beneficial (to their reelection if nothing else). If no serious political parties support ending Western support maybe that indicates that they understand that it is a necessary part of improving their situation?
Yes, the government was fine with France. I have no idea what that means about the Nigerien people. So far literally all of the coverage I've seen suggests that Nigeriens in general loathed the French presence and wanted it gone. I have seen some express opposition to the coup, but I don't think I've witnessed a defence of France or regret over their departure yet. This to me implies that there is a divergence between the state/whatever elite groups it represents vs the majority of the population on the issue of French troops. A similar dynamic can be witnessed historically in France's colonial relationships.
Something did change. Niger had its first ever democratic transfer of power in 2021 and the new government successly decreased deaths to violence over the last two years. And now that government has been overthrown by a general to avoid getting fired by the civilian government.
How much power was transferred? The previous guy picked his successor and then resigned, his successor won. The opposition claimed the election was filled with fraud and that Mazoum's victory was false/illegitimate. Protests and riots spread throughout the cities and were violently quelled. The leader of the opposition party who came in 2nd was imprisoned for supposedly being behind the demonstrations. I have absolutely no idea which side is correct here. Or what an "election" is like in rural Niger. Or how actually democratic vs. elite-dominated the Nigerien political process is at all.
Several civil society groups began escalating anti-French protests in mid-2022, when Mr Bazoum's administration approved the redeployment of France's Barkhane forces to Niger after they had been ordered to leave Mali.
Key among them is the M62 movement, formed in August 2022 by a coalition of activists, civil society movements and trade unions. They led calls against the rising cost of living, poor governance and the presence of the French forces.
Various planned protests by the group were banned or violently put down by Niger's authorities with its leader Abdoulaye Seydou jailed for nine months in April 2023 for "disrupting public order".
I mean that's two imprisoned opposition leaders right there. The guy who came in 2nd and 3rd place in the previous two elections, who was the leader of the most prominent opposition party (I think? One of the larger ones at any rate), had his candidacy rejected on the basis that the government had previously imprisoned him for 'baby trafficking.'
Again, I do not find it implausible that this coup will lead to worse outcomes for Niger, even if the country is not invaded. But you're operating under a priori moral judgments based on fixed, abstract categories rather than concrete knowledge. Your premise seems to be 'Coups are bad, democracy is good,' so it's easy to figure out what's right or wrong here. The second half, "democracy is good", I do agree with; the first half is case-dependent. But I remain skeptical as to what extent pre-coup Niger constituted democratic governance; at the very least, I think you should not assume that the content matches the form without knowing more about the country.
Basically I think your judgments are overconfident given your lack of knowledge on the country (not meant as an insult, I don't know much about Niger either), and contain unjustified assumptions about the nature of Nigerien politics.
Earlier, I said I hoped ECOWAS backs down, you instead said you hope Niger backs down. On this I'm not even going to argue, because both of those options sound so infinitely better than an regional ECOWAS vs. anti-French bloc vs. IS and AQ war that I'll feel relieved in either case.
But when your 'democratic' government will shoot or jail you for expressing nonviolent opposition to French troops, what the hell are you supposed to do?
Vote
So, its subtle, but there's a pretty clear logical problem here
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edit - US 'counterterrorism assistance' to Niger started twenty years ago. At the time, terrorist attacks were occurring at a rate of a few per year across the whole continent. Now it's hundreds or thousands per year in individual countries. The US and France seem to have mainly just spread the insurgency and deepened it. Not saying that was the intent (I don't think it was), but that was the effect of the policy.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc here. I think blaming the increase on terrorism solely on US/French presence isn't the most sound foundational argument.
edit - US 'counterterrorism assistance' to Niger started twenty years ago. At the time, terrorist attacks were occurring at a rate of a few per year across the whole continent. Now it's hundreds or thousands per year in individual countries. The US and France seem to have mainly just spread the insurgency and deepened it. Not saying that was the intent (I don't think it was), but that was the effect of the policy.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc here. I think blaming the increase on terrorism solely on US/French presence isn't the most sound foundational argument.
Find out some way "the West" is even tangentially involved and then work your way back to how they're to blame for literally any situation.
Also, regarding the decline in deaths due to warfare in Niger in 2022. I don't know that this is a result of the success of the president/government policies. The region of Mali that borders Niger saw a massive expansion in violence over the same time period, and Islamic State Greater Sahara took over significant rural territory in that region of northeast Mali. In 2021, ISGS was responsible for at least some portion of the drastic rise in violence in western Niger (I suspect a large portion but haven't found a breakdown of deaths by actor).
Starting at the beginning of 2022, the French began moving their Operation Barkhane military force of a few thousand soldiers from Mali to Niger - i.e. from the region which then experienced a drastic rise in violence, to the region which subsequently experienced a moderate decline in violent deaths. So, military movements in the regional war seem to me a much more likely primary cause than Nigerien government programs. Which isn't to say those programs had no effect or are not a good thing or whatever. But tinwhiskers asked "why the sudden spike in 2022" regarding Mali earlier, given where the fighting was occurring I suspect the answer to both questions are the same.
edit - US 'counterterrorism assistance' to Niger started twenty years ago. At the time, terrorist attacks were occurring at a rate of a few per year across the whole continent. Now it's hundreds or thousands per year in individual countries. The US and France seem to have mainly just spread the insurgency and deepened it. Not saying that was the intent (I don't think it was), but that was the effect of the policy.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc here. I think blaming the increase on terrorism solely on US/French presence isn't the most sound foundational argument.
Find out some way "the West" is even tangentially involved and then work your way back to how they're to blame for literally any situation.
If you think Kaputa is blaming this all on the French and US then you didnt actually read his post, but it does seem to be pretty silly to be this dismissive of the idea that the French have made things worse in Africa.
edit - US 'counterterrorism assistance' to Niger started twenty years ago. At the time, terrorist attacks were occurring at a rate of a few per year across the whole continent. Now it's hundreds or thousands per year in individual countries. The US and France seem to have mainly just spread the insurgency and deepened it. Not saying that was the intent (I don't think it was), but that was the effect of the policy.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc here. I think blaming the increase on terrorism solely on US/French presence isn't the most sound foundational argument.
Find out some way "the West" is even tangentially involved and then work your way back to how they're to blame for literally any situation.
D..do you believe that "the West" is tangentially involved in the last 22 years of war against al-Qaeda and, later, IS? Rather than, say, the originator and main prosecutor of that war? Also, have you watched/read any reporting about Niger and the coup? France is not at all "tangential" to the current political moment in the country, regardless of what you think about the topic.
edit - US 'counterterrorism assistance' to Niger started twenty years ago. At the time, terrorist attacks were occurring at a rate of a few per year across the whole continent. Now it's hundreds or thousands per year in individual countries. The US and France seem to have mainly just spread the insurgency and deepened it. Not saying that was the intent (I don't think it was), but that was the effect of the policy.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc here. I think blaming the increase on terrorism solely on US/French presence isn't the most sound foundational argument.
Solely is too strong, I don't think I claimed that, but I suppose I can see how my previous post could be read that way. But yes, there are other factors. However, I think it is indisputable that the US and French activity in Africa is at least among the major or important factors in the two decades of escalating violence. I would argue that it is in fact the primary factor.
And I have made more than one post in this thread; my belief that the US/French presence is causative for the rise in salafi-jihadist warfare is not based on a post hoc fallacy. I linked a paper - actually, lest this imprecision be somehow used in an attempt to disprove the odiousness of Francafrique, Elki linked it - focusing on Burkina Faso which is not paywalled and which describes the mechanisms by which the US "War on Terror" policies have this effect. Not expecting everyone to want to read a 30 page paper, I did my best to summarize what I thought was pertinent to the argument I am making.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Okay, I obviously misinterpreted what you said. Apologies.
In Niger, anti-French protests were frequently banned by Mr Bazoum's administration.
Several civil society groups began escalating anti-French protests in mid-2022, when Mr Bazoum's administration approved the redeployment of France's Barkhane forces to Niger after they had been ordered to leave Mali.
Key among them is the M62 movement, formed in August 2022 by a coalition of activists, civil society movements and trade unions. They led calls against the rising cost of living, poor governance and the presence of the French forces.
Various planned protests by the group were banned or violently put down by Niger's authorities with its leader Abdoulaye Seydou jailed for nine months in April 2023 for "disrupting public order".
The M62 appears revitalised in the wake of President Bazoum's removal.
In an unusual move, its members were quoted by state TV mobilising mass protests in support of the junta, as well as denouncing sanctions by West African leaders over the coup.
So, it seems that the coup may have widespread popular support. It's not surprising if so, the previous decade+ of French/US backed governments and French (and to a lesser extent US) military presence has only served to set these countries aflame.
We have ECOWAS and the Burkina Faso/Mali/Guinea/Niger bloc each threatening collective warfare on the other, the underlying regional war with al-Qaeda and IS, overlaid with the broader struggle between US/NATO and Russia. This region has gradually descended into chaos and warfare since the destruction of the state of Libya by the US in 2011 - which France was the main cheerleader for. In a lot of ways this feels like the last twelve years of history coming to a climactic point.
I hope ECOWAS backs down.
I'm not sure where you are drawing the idea of widespread popular support from there. I see nothing there about the extent of the support for M62.
They are, however, very pro-military-coup. Which should be immediately concerning.
Also Bazoum seems to have been trying to force the general who led the coup into retirement when this all went down. Which suggests some motives for the coup beyond the stated "government mismanagement" stuff.
Also, regarding the decline in deaths due to warfare in Niger in 2022. I don't know that this is a result of the success of the president/government policies. The region of Mali that borders Niger saw a massive expansion in violence over the same time period, and Islamic State Greater Sahara took over significant rural territory in that region of northeast Mali. In 2021, ISGS was responsible for at least some portion of the drastic rise in violence in western Niger (I suspect a large portion but haven't found a breakdown of deaths by actor).
Starting at the beginning of 2022, the French began moving their Operation Barkhane military force of a few thousand soldiers from Mali to Niger - i.e. from the region which then experienced a drastic rise in violence, to the region which subsequently experienced a moderate decline in violent deaths. So, military movements in the regional war seem to me a much more likely primary cause than Nigerien government programs. Which isn't to say those programs had no effect or are not a good thing or whatever. But tinwhiskers asked "why the sudden spike in 2022" regarding Mali earlier, given where the fighting was occurring I suspect the answer to both questions are the same.
This seems to undercut your argument that the presence of French forces is causing increases in violence.
So the English language media is doing a truly atrocious job reporting on this. It's like 90% propaganda and 10% legitimate information.
One canard I keep seeing in articles from various outlets is "US law prevents the US from arming a country where a military coup has taken place."
This is not true. It is obviously not true, and these writers must know it, unless they are somehow unaware of the existence of Egypt (to choose one example). What the "law" actually says is that if the US government declares a coup to have taken place in a country, then it can not arm that country. Whether or not to make such a declaration is entirely up to the executive branch of the US government. Thus, whether or not to arm a country where a coup has taken place is just a matter of whether or not the US government wants to - the 'law' changes literally nothing, it is just meant as something for NYT and WaPo to quote for credulous Americans who don't pay attention.
Most articles, rather than sincerely attempt to investigate and explain what led to the coup, instead distract by repeating rumors about palace politics in Niamey. Within the last 5 years or so, four countries, each a host for French and/or US "counterterrorism" warfare, each slowly falling into ruin, overthrow their pro-French governments in military coups and realign geopolitically. Why? Well, this general in Niamey didn't like this other general. Come on now. Personal politics plays a role and such rivalries may indeed have been a causative factor here, but it's pretty clear that there is a wider phenomenon at work, and pointing to personal feuding as the primary cause is intentionally misleading. (edit- actually I don't think Guinea is necessarily a ruinous battleground for French forces and salafi-jihadists; but that applies to the other three)
WSJ approvingly quoted the US as arguing that Nigeriens have been tricked by Russian disinformation on social media. The disinformation? That their country has become less secure during the French/US tenure. In reality, that is an easily verifiable, demonstrably true fact. Would take a second of googling. I do not think Nigeriens need the Russians to inform them of this, and in any case it is not "misinformation." To be frank, this reeked of an age old European justification/explanation for their wars of conquest in Africa: "those dumb Africans do not understand that our Civilizing Mission is to their benefit."
Another accused Nigeriens of "scapegoating" France. Poor France, always scapegoated by those nefarious North/West African countries that they colonized and are currently at war in.
Here's a decent article with some useful data. Also I recommend the source highly, as far as English language reporting on this region of Africa goes, HumAngle is by far the best I've found. There's a visually superior layout of this data in the article, but for context on the how bad things have gotten across such a wide area, relatively quickly, here is confirmed deaths per year per country. Safe to say it's an undercount because this is just individuals confirmed to have died, you all know how it goes.
edit - Nigeria is included in that but follows a different trend, it's not really part of the same conflict/set of conflicts. Although that is changing with ISWAP, and the two insurgency zones could connect if IS and AQ continue to spread.
Any of the reporting I've read has been saying things have been getting worse along the Sahel. In Niger and in other countries that have territory in or bordering the region as well. Though numbers from the African Center of Strategic Studies says that fatalities are actually down 50% even though the number of incidents in Niger is up.
Perhaps more importantly to the overall picture here, shit is not going better in places under military rule or where Wagner and the Russians have been gaining influence in place of France.
Posts
As Elki mentioned, there is no getting around the global market price for grain. So impacted nations aren't going to be pleased by grain ports in Ukraine being destroyed by Russia, along with stockpiles of grain because that means they'll see their food costs go up directly. I'd argue it's actually worse than sanctions because I'm pretty sure the sanctions didn't restrict people from importing Russian grain. Then there was the whole thing where the grain would have likely been smuggled if if sanctions did touch it, which would minimize how much the supply is cut. Russia's shit here is not only taking shit off the market, but depending on the damage, could be doing it long term.
Russia also has the whole issue where they've already failed to deliver promises. Hell, it looks like they might have actually ripped the Iranians off. So it's not just empty promises, it's Russia acting like the impacted nations have no ability to realize that Russia has already failed to deliver on it's promises. It's actually pretty insulting; especially, when your the run doing shit that is driving the prices up.
Of course, I'm not sure how much leverage these countries have to punish Russia. Though I do wonder when they might start asking either the Chinese, the Europeans or the US to whack the roving bands of Wanger that are looting their nations and killing their people. It doesn't appear they are getting any benefit from having Wanger their, given that Wanger is charging those nations for the privilege to be robbed by them and doing shit that is going to add to the instability. Massacring civilians on the government dole, is going to have the opposite outcome that these nations want and just make it easier for insurgent groups to find both recruits and material support.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
You mean if every sub-saharan African blog put the blame solely on Putin for the suffering they're about to go through? That would be a hell of a thing
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
In short. Niger is a landlocked country in the middle of nowhere, and countries like it, Mali and Burkina Faso only matter in the West because they are former French colonies and the French very much care about those. Issue is, countries with low population density and right next to the Sahara means a lot of coups, which is why now they are 3 out of 3 in French-friendly countries getting coup'ed and replaced by hostile ones, with paid Wagner support.
So, France has two options:
1) Go all in and smash the new governments on Niger, and likely on Mali and Burkina Faso too. They can do it, even if it means also fighting Wagner, but it would be pretty much on their own, and it requires a political mandate that, well, from the outside it seems that is unlikelt that Macron has.
2) Admit that France is no longer a global power, but a regional one, and pretty much divest entirely and fully focus on Europe. Which has a war going on. Which means a lot more enthusiastic support for the Ukranians.
Either of those is bad for Russia, so that's interesting.
With results like these I see the next summit being even more sparsely attended. Russia doesn't seem to have taken the importance of the grain deal to heart.
This reads to me like a mob boss (Putin) getting pushback from a lieutenant on some contemplated crime that impacts the lieutenant directly and willfully or ignorantly misunderstanding, e.g., “please don’t burn down that block for the insurance money, my whole family lives there” as “I want a cut of the action”, and so offering a slim percentage of the insurance payout, then being legitimately confused and affronted when that offer is rebuffed.
Just galaxy brain shit. “What do you mean, ‘what will my people eat’? Why is that my problem, I offered you enough grain to make a tidy profit for yourself!”
Your Ad Here! Reasonable Rates!
Well that's gonna piss off some people.
Smells like foreign intervention cooking to me.
So, it seems that the coup may have widespread popular support. It's not surprising if so, the previous decade+ of French/US backed governments and French (and to a lesser extent US) military presence has only served to set these countries aflame.
We have ECOWAS and the Burkina Faso/Mali/Guinea/Niger bloc each threatening collective warfare on the other, the underlying regional war with al-Qaeda and IS, overlaid with the broader struggle between US/NATO and Russia. This region has gradually descended into chaos and warfare since the destruction of the state of Libya by the US in 2011 - which France was the main cheerleader for. In a lot of ways this feels like the last twelve years of history coming to a climactic point.
I hope ECOWAS backs down.
Considering how that ended, and how everybody is kinda busy right now, wouldn't surprise me that Macron gets told that if he wants to bring France's former colonial holdings back to the fold, he's on his own. He doesn't seem to have the political mandate for that, but that has not stopped him on internal policy.
Regardless, the war on Libya, the 21st century's Original Sin for this region, being led by the French and US was my main point.
I agree that the US and other NATO states are unlikely to have the will or capability to invade Niger/fight the anti-French bloc right now. Maybe some bombing in support of an ECOWAS invasion if that happens (which I hope it doesn't).
edit - wiki supports your claim, I'll look around a bit more to confirm, but maybe I remembered incorrectly
@Elki . Some years ago you linked me an excellent research paper on Burkina Faso and how the US/French "war on terror" policies resulted in inflaming underlying conflicts and needlessly turning the country into a war zone over the course of years. I can't find it though, would you happen to have a link handy? I think its relevant as historical context for what is happening now.
the discrepancy is due to how the US and NATO categorized their war. In the initial "protect rebels in Benghazi" phase in March, it appears that France did fly the most sorties. However this does not include the remaining six months of the bombing of Libya (the regime change phase), which accounted for the majority of the air campaign and in which US bombing far outweighed the contributions of France or the rest of NATO.
Conversely my Uranium index fund holdings were up 3% today. Now I am the war profiteer.
I think it was this one
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Fuck alllllll the way off Putin
And then fuck off twice as far past that for good measure
I highly encourage people to read this in order to understand why these countries are expelling the French military. The western media will describe the rise of salafi-jihadism as something that happened despite the military alliance with France/USA. It is more accurate to view the escalating regional war as a result of what French and US forces are doing. They intervene in local political conflicts without understanding them. A massive power imbalance throws the prior relations of tribes, ethnic groups, and other political/social factions into chaos. One side gets armed to the teeth (whichever ingratiate themselves to the foreign power) and the others get subjugated or slaughtered. We've seen similar phenomena in Afghanistan repeatedly, where tribes have learned to manipulate foreign occupiers to settle local conflicts in their favor.
Meanwhile, 12 years of drone strikes and raids on suspected 'terrorists' houses creates innumerable individuals, families, and tribes whose overwhelming political priority is "death to France."
These countries were burning to the ground under the French-backed regional governments. Overthrowing these governments and expelling the French troops was at this point realistically the only way out for these countries. It is a matter of survival, I don't know what other choice they have. It is unfortunate that the political institutions of these states are such that military coups appear to be the only way for the nation to express its politics, but over a century or two of colonisation and exploitation has that sort of effect. I only hope it's not too late for the region to change course. Otherwise we may end up with a new Caliphate.
Finally, while the media is portraying this as an overthrow of a 'democracy,' it is questionable how applicable this term is to the prior government. If protesting against the presence of a foreign military in your country - your country's former colonial oppressor, even - gets you shot or imprisoned, how democratic is the country in question? Blinken calls Niger a "model of democracy," and the above is exactly why he says so.
But those problems are being solved by people led by asshats, and encourage opposition asshats
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
One canard I keep seeing in articles from various outlets is "US law prevents the US from arming a country where a military coup has taken place."
This is not true. It is obviously not true, and these writers must know it, unless they are somehow unaware of the existence of Egypt (to choose one example). What the "law" actually says is that if the US government declares a coup to have taken place in a country, then it can not arm that country. Whether or not to make such a declaration is entirely up to the executive branch of the US government. Thus, whether or not to arm a country where a coup has taken place is just a matter of whether or not the US government wants to - the 'law' changes literally nothing, it is just meant as something for NYT and WaPo to quote for credulous Americans who don't pay attention.
Most articles, rather than sincerely attempt to investigate and explain what led to the coup, instead distract by repeating rumors about palace politics in Niamey. Within the last 5 years or so, four countries, each a host for French and/or US "counterterrorism" warfare, each slowly falling into ruin, overthrow their pro-French governments in military coups and realign geopolitically. Why? Well, this general in Niamey didn't like this other general. Come on now. Personal politics plays a role and such rivalries may indeed have been a causative factor here, but it's pretty clear that there is a wider phenomenon at work, and pointing to personal feuding as the primary cause is intentionally misleading. (edit- actually I don't think Guinea is necessarily a ruinous battleground for French forces and salafi-jihadists; but that applies to the other three)
WSJ approvingly quoted the US as arguing that Nigeriens have been tricked by Russian disinformation on social media. The disinformation? That their country has become less secure during the French/US tenure. In reality, that is an easily verifiable, demonstrably true fact. Would take a second of googling. I do not think Nigeriens need the Russians to inform them of this, and in any case it is not "misinformation." To be frank, this reeked of an age old European justification/explanation for their wars of conquest in Africa: "those dumb Africans do not understand that our Civilizing Mission is to their benefit."
Another accused Nigeriens of "scapegoating" France. Poor France, always scapegoated by those nefarious North/West African countries that they colonized and are currently at war in.
Here's a decent article with some useful data. Also I recommend the source highly, as far as English language reporting on this region of Africa goes, HumAngle is by far the best I've found. There's a visually superior layout of this data in the article, but for context on the how bad things have gotten across such a wide area, relatively quickly, here is confirmed deaths per year per country. Safe to say it's an undercount because this is just individuals confirmed to have died, you all know how it goes.
edit - Nigeria is included in that but follows a different trend, it's not really part of the same conflict/set of conflicts. Although that is changing with ISWAP, and the two insurgency zones could connect if IS and AQ continue to spread.
As for why the sudden spike from 2021 to 2022, well, at the beginning of 2022 the French military began its withdrawal from Mali, with the last troops leaving in the summer. So, the spike's magnitude doesn't seem that implausible to me.
edit - I saw your edit now, but will leave my response in case it is still helpful.
About the Mogadishu Line/"Somalia syndrome?" I'm drawing a blank on specific links but definitely remember running into that concept a lot in the 90s/00s in increasingly-incandescently-frustrated humanitarian contexts.
Fuck
Fick
Ruck
Fuck
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Yeah, it seems like that's, uh, not happening. Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking until Sunday, and who knows what France will do after they are done evacuating nationals, so the most likely thing so far is that is going to get ugly.
However, the French needed to be expelled from the region, this seems clear based on looking at the timelines of violence for any involved country. France was making things worse, not better. And this is to be expected given the history of the US's Global War on Terror, which is basically a string of catastrophic failure at the cost of literally millions of innocent lives.
Ideally a military coup would not be the only way to accomplish the expulsion of the French. But when your 'democratic' government will shoot or jail you for expressing nonviolent opposition to French troops, what the hell are you supposed to do?
I agree that replacing the French with Wagner is not a solution; in the sense of blowback from foreign soldiers killing people it seems likely to continue the same trend. As that guy quoted by BBC said, "I don't want the Russians here either, because they're still Europeans and will not help us."
So I'm not trying to say "the coup is good and will lead to a better situation." I don't know if it will or not. So far, the coups in Burkina Faso and Mali have not improved the situations there. But I do believe that expelling the French is good, and necessary, and I don't think there was any way to do that short of a government overthrow. Something had to change, because it's been over a decade of worsening violence under the current set up. The status quo was not working, it has brought multiple countries to the brink of destruction. I don't know if this is the answer but I also have no other answers.
edit - US 'counterterrorism assistance' to Niger started twenty years ago. At the time, terrorist attacks were occurring at a rate of a few per year across the whole continent. Now it's hundreds or thousands per year in individual countries. The US and France seem to have mainly just spread the insurgency and deepened it. Not saying that was the intent (I don't think it was), but that was the effect of the policy.
Basically the same thing happening multiple times already in the region seems more than enough to establish an obvious pattern and predictable results.
Vote. Continuing peaceful democratic transfers of power at least give the possibility of improving things in the future even if any given government's performance is lack luster.
Also I assume the military is probably the one shooting protestors in the first place. Opposition to French presence is almost certainly a cynical ploy to placate the public and a natural result of knowing France will oppose them regardless. Almost certainly the interests of the military junta begins and ends with maintaining and increasing their own power.
France wasn't holding a gun to their head forcing the government to get their assistance. They wanted the assistance because they believed it would be beneficial (to their reelection if nothing else). If no serious political parties support ending Western support maybe that indicates that they understand that it is a necessary part of improving their situation?
Something did change. Niger had its first ever democratic transfer of power in 2021 and the new government successly decreased deaths to violence over the last two years. And now that government has been overthrown by a general to avoid getting fired by the civilian government.
This is no less likely to be true of the previous government. Realistically in both cases it will be mostly true, though an oversimplification; peoples' ideologies do affect their actions. The fact that the previous guy was labeled "president" and this one labeled "general" does not tell us much about how their ideologies or moral virtues differ.
Yes, the government was fine with France. I have no idea what that means about the Nigerien people. So far literally all of the coverage I've seen suggests that Nigeriens in general loathed the French presence and wanted it gone. I have seen some express opposition to the coup, but I don't think I've witnessed a defence of France or regret over their departure yet. This to me implies that there is a divergence between the state/whatever elite groups it represents vs the majority of the population on the issue of French troops. A similar dynamic can be witnessed historically in France's colonial relationships.
How much power was transferred? The previous guy picked his successor and then resigned, his successor won. The opposition claimed the election was filled with fraud and that Mazoum's victory was false/illegitimate. Protests and riots spread throughout the cities and were violently quelled. The leader of the opposition party who came in 2nd was imprisoned for supposedly being behind the demonstrations. I have absolutely no idea which side is correct here. Or what an "election" is like in rural Niger. Or how actually democratic vs. elite-dominated the Nigerien political process is at all.
I mean that's two imprisoned opposition leaders right there. The guy who came in 2nd and 3rd place in the previous two elections, who was the leader of the most prominent opposition party (I think? One of the larger ones at any rate), had his candidacy rejected on the basis that the government had previously imprisoned him for 'baby trafficking.'
Again, I do not find it implausible that this coup will lead to worse outcomes for Niger, even if the country is not invaded. But you're operating under a priori moral judgments based on fixed, abstract categories rather than concrete knowledge. Your premise seems to be 'Coups are bad, democracy is good,' so it's easy to figure out what's right or wrong here. The second half, "democracy is good", I do agree with; the first half is case-dependent. But I remain skeptical as to what extent pre-coup Niger constituted democratic governance; at the very least, I think you should not assume that the content matches the form without knowing more about the country.
Basically I think your judgments are overconfident given your lack of knowledge on the country (not meant as an insult, I don't know much about Niger either), and contain unjustified assumptions about the nature of Nigerien politics.
Earlier, I said I hoped ECOWAS backs down, you instead said you hope Niger backs down. On this I'm not even going to argue, because both of those options sound so infinitely better than an regional ECOWAS vs. anti-French bloc vs. IS and AQ war that I'll feel relieved in either case.
So, its subtle, but there's a pretty clear logical problem here
Post hoc ergo propter hoc here. I think blaming the increase on terrorism solely on US/French presence isn't the most sound foundational argument.
Find out some way "the West" is even tangentially involved and then work your way back to how they're to blame for literally any situation.
Starting at the beginning of 2022, the French began moving their Operation Barkhane military force of a few thousand soldiers from Mali to Niger - i.e. from the region which then experienced a drastic rise in violence, to the region which subsequently experienced a moderate decline in violent deaths. So, military movements in the regional war seem to me a much more likely primary cause than Nigerien government programs. Which isn't to say those programs had no effect or are not a good thing or whatever. But tinwhiskers asked "why the sudden spike in 2022" regarding Mali earlier, given where the fighting was occurring I suspect the answer to both questions are the same.
If you think Kaputa is blaming this all on the French and US then you didnt actually read his post, but it does seem to be pretty silly to be this dismissive of the idea that the French have made things worse in Africa.
Solely is too strong, I don't think I claimed that, but I suppose I can see how my previous post could be read that way. But yes, there are other factors. However, I think it is indisputable that the US and French activity in Africa is at least among the major or important factors in the two decades of escalating violence. I would argue that it is in fact the primary factor.
And I have made more than one post in this thread; my belief that the US/French presence is causative for the rise in salafi-jihadist warfare is not based on a post hoc fallacy. I linked a paper - actually, lest this imprecision be somehow used in an attempt to disprove the odiousness of Francafrique, Elki linked it - focusing on Burkina Faso which is not paywalled and which describes the mechanisms by which the US "War on Terror" policies have this effect. Not expecting everyone to want to read a 30 page paper, I did my best to summarize what I thought was pertinent to the argument I am making.
I'm not sure where you are drawing the idea of widespread popular support from there. I see nothing there about the extent of the support for M62.
They are, however, very pro-military-coup. Which should be immediately concerning.
Also Bazoum seems to have been trying to force the general who led the coup into retirement when this all went down. Which suggests some motives for the coup beyond the stated "government mismanagement" stuff.
This seems to undercut your argument that the presence of French forces is causing increases in violence.
Any of the reporting I've read has been saying things have been getting worse along the Sahel. In Niger and in other countries that have territory in or bordering the region as well. Though numbers from the African Center of Strategic Studies says that fatalities are actually down 50% even though the number of incidents in Niger is up.
Perhaps more importantly to the overall picture here, shit is not going better in places under military rule or where Wagner and the Russians have been gaining influence in place of France.