Niger says the move is in solidarity with Mali, which has accused Kiev of backing rebels involved in deadly attacks
Niger has severed diplomatic relations with Ukraine in response to Kiev’s alleged support for militants who killed dozens of Malian soldiers and Russian Wagner Group contractors in an attack last month.
The West African state’s decision on Tuesday came just two days after Mali took the same step, accusing Kiev of supporting international terrorism. Ukrainian officials had earlier indicated that Kiev had assisted Tuareg rebels who staged an attack in the village of Tinzaouaten.
In an interview following the incident, Ukraine’s spy agency spokesman, Andrey Yusov, indicated on national TV that the insurgents had received intelligence to conduct a “successful military operation against Russian war criminals.” He warned that “there will be more to come.” Ukraine’s embassy in Senegal posted the video – now deleted – on its Facebook page along with a comment from Ambassador Yury Pivovarov, who said “there will certainly be other results.”
Niamey’s military government spokesman, Amadou Abdramane, called the remarks “indecent” and “unacceptable” in an address on state TV late on Tuesday, claiming that they characterize “acts of aggression.”
“Niger, in total solidarity with the government and people of Mali, has decided in all sovereignty […] to sever diplomatic relations between the Republic of Niger and Ukraine with immediate effect,” Abdramane said.
Since 2012, Mali has been embroiled in a jihadist insurgency that has claimed thousands of lives. A decade-long French military mission failed to quell the violence, which has spilled over to neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger. All three former French colonies, led by their militaries, have severed defense ties with Paris and formed the Alliance of Sahel States to combat terrorism.
Russia, which Bamako, Niamey, and Ouagadougou regard as a strategic security ally, has agreed to assist the troubled Sahel states in combating long-standing terrorist threats.
More coverage: “Ukraine spreading ‘terrorism’ around the world – Moscow” https://www.rt.com/russia/602260-ukrainian-terrorism-zakharova-kursk/ (archive link)
Kiev is doing the bidding of the deep states of Western nations, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has claimed
“Things will get worse in terms of Ukrainian terrorism spreading across the planet. It’s not a joke,” Zakharova warned.
People in power in Kiev have turned their country into a “terrorist gang” doing the dirty work for Western nations and their “deep state structures,” the diplomat claimed. She also asked what it would take to convince the American people that by bankrolling Ukraine, their government was sponsoring terrorism.
This does track with reporting that shows the CIA has been heavily investing in and training Ukrainian intelligence, far more than needed for a color revolution. They’ve reportedly turned them into one of the best hit squads on the planet and it’s likely any peace they seek with Russia will include in not so many words the independence and freedom for Ukraine’s intelligence agencies and Nazi battalions to be used globally to attack Russian, Chinese, and anti-imperialist, anti-NATO forces in terror attacks, targeted assassinations, spurring insurgencies, toppling governments, etc.
One can only hope one of Russia’s conditions is the complete dismantling of the Ukrainian security/intelligence state and turning over the war criminals in there responsible collectively for many attacks on civilians and crimes against humanity to a tribunal but I have my doubts that Putin won’t settle for allowing the export of these issues to places farther afield (though it will doubtless come back to bite him as sooner or later it’ll be used in Eastern Europe to begin anew the pressure campaign on Russia).
These are in fact the tools of GLADIO made manifest and turned into a mobile, global tool-set. I have a feeling even if Russia’s victory is complete (hard to see whether that will be the case) that the west will evacuate these important assets to the west before it’s final fall and begin utilizing them both in Europe (and perhaps the US who knows) as well as importantly globally in Africa, Asia, Latin America to suppress and even reverse the growing anti-imperialist, pro-global south movement.
As we see with Bangladesh it’s not hard at all in many places even without a squad of expert killers supported by the US global surveillance network and medium and heavy armor to overthrow a country. It’s depressingly easy which is why I say there’s still a difficult and possibly long, multi-decade fight ahead of us against the empire as it clings to life and claws back gains here and there, creating enough of a buffer that it can hang on for many years to come.
edit: and here’s another RT piece, more analysis/opinion: " Terror lovers: Here’s how Ukraine is deceiving the Global South" https://www.rt.com/news/602274-ukraine-mali-terrorists-global-south/
(Bold emphasis mine)
I’d argue this is overstating it a bit. We don’t know how much went into Bangladesh leading up to it, how long may have been spent working to create the conditions that would lead to instability. We do know that the western empire uses sanctions as one means of putting the screws on a country to create unbearable conditions for its people, so that they’ll be more open to turning against their government. But an approach like this is not “easy” to do - it primarily exists on the back of the empire’s economic power and the military enforcement behind that power. And the tiding is turning on that with the strengthening of BRICS, even if not instantaneously. As well as the dependency-positioning that can result in sanctioning of some countries and manufacturing to backfire.
Military might and the forces of production behind them are what keeps the empire in power above all else, aye? And if we look at the maintenance issues and screwiness of accounting that goes on with the US military budget, for example - as well as its performance in actual combat - it seems to me that a lot of the remaining force of the empire is inertia. That’s not to say it isn’t a threat, but that - to put it one way - it’s more focused on cashing in than sustaining itself? Like it has a certain degree of organization and functioning still, clearly, but how much of it is actually going toward anything that can last, as opposed to power brokers wanting to take what they can and run, or try to consolidate it on a smaller scale like warlords.
When I look at what the US, for example, is actually building, what stands out to me is stuff like Cop City. In contrast with failing infrastructure, like that bridge collapse. I don’t see the mindset of people in power who believe there’s a long haul to be in it for, in the same model as it has been. I see the mindset of people who see the cracks showing, don’t see a way to repair them without losing money, and are preparing to turn to pure violence if the facade of decorum can’t hold together.
Disagree. You think they don’t have plans, designs, things in the works for most nations of the world that are anywhere anywhere near important including trading partners of BRICS, trade routes, etc?
You think the NSA/GCHQ/eye stuff spying on everyone all the time is just because there’s a pervert at NSA who gets off on having all the data? You think they listen in on the phone calls of the Prime Minister of Germany, a vassal and public ally because they’re just that curious about what they ate for lunch?
And that’s just the surface level stuff. As is their training of foreign militaries to get loyal dogs, to get people they can blackmail, that are ideologically with them that can be called upon, to get troops trained to look on the US with awe and listen to it when it speaks.
The reason it’s easy for them is because they’re prepared. They don’t decide to do this 3 months ago and then do it. They have the basic groundwork laid years ahead of time, just ready to begin implementation at which point it’s probably a matter of months and the important thing is neither we nor these countries generally see the ramp-up happening until it’s too late and the machine is running.
So yes it’s easy and it’s hard to counter without something like the great firewall and extensive laws controlling foreign NGOs, and even an extensive, well-funded, ideologically loyal intelligence apparatus to root out traitors and foreign agents. Most countries are too weak for the last one which is a real problem. The US has levers it can pull to instigate economic chaos in an area or globally to add steam to the power-plant of their regime change machine.
Eh. It’s not practical to war with the entire world and too unpopular domestically. They keep their hegemony and power using economic coercion and various historical and material inertia around those (colonialism and taking over from Europe after rescuing them from communist take-over at the end of WW2 being a primary one). Their sanctions regime for instance is a cause of great fear. If military might were all it took they would have overrun Cuba. They could do it. Just bomb it until there’s nothing left. Not a problem. But it’s been under embargo instead because they prefer economic weapons, spy weapons, coups, color revolutions, insurgencies, destabilization via terrorist and separatist groups are preferable. Even their wars in recent years in the middle east can be seen as part of strategic destabilization of a region, preventing consolidation of power around Iran, sewing hostility among nations, etc.
Soft power, control of the superstructure is another important tool that goes hand in hand with the above for control along with shady neo-colonialist (world) banking deals. Look how the European populaces at first were quite happy to go along with economic suicide to fight for “liberal values”. That’s not military might. That’s part of 70 years of propaganda and PR.
The US has had ups and downs before. They’re preparing for a dip yes, things are getting worse, but that doesn’t mean they’re on the verge of revolution or a fall from power. You assume a trend must continue when history is replete with reversals of just this kind for just this nation.
This is frankly a short-sighted way of looking at things that I think shows you’re probably on the younger side as many of us are. The 1930s were awful and they pulled through. without a revolution There were real winds of change after WW2 that the US successfully defeated. The 1970s and 80s had an awful economic crisis and how did Reagan respond? By doing an earlier version of cop city stuff, more police, more violence, more crackdowns that gradually let up a bit in the late 90s (and even that may not be fair characterization as perhaps it really paused until the Patriot act) after the win against communism in the USSR. They shared the plunder and the plan is to share it again once they win this round. They do have plans. Jake Sullivan talks about them somewhat openly, their intentions are clear. They’ve said decoupling they mean it. You can read between the lines and see what they want to do, it’s more of what they did that won them the war in the 20th century.
This crackdown, this increasing police-state has been coming for a while, it started with the Patriot act and I don’t think they thought of China as THE problem just yet at that time, they still saw them as a low value producer to discipline domestic labor and increase prices while keeping standards of living high enough to keep much of the population fat and happy so to speak with cheap consumer goods.
Cop city began after BLM was already on the scene, it could be seen as a response to that. Again Reagan passed crime bills, so did Biden in the 90s. There were crackdowns. They didn’t do it because they were afraid of a revolution in 1980s/1990s America, they did it because they wanted to turn the screws on the proletariat and keep them in line. And that’s why they do it now, not because they see a historical defeat coming, not because they have no plans (they have many), but because it’s necessary to keep the underclass in line, to keep the exploitation going and to keep profits higher than ever.
That they have so much inertia is itself an issue. They have levers to pull, oh so many. They’re weak but they have been in the past. I’m sure there were cocky communists in the 1980s who looked at all Reagan was doing and said “any day now, look how afraid they are, look how far they go to crush the black panthers and pass sweeping crime bills”. As there were in the 30s.
The remarkable thing about the US is how many levers, how many tentacles it has infecting EVERYTHING. Even China before Xi’s anti-corruption drive was dangerously infected with compromised people who the CIA could get to move little pieces as part of their plan. And China has ideological strength, size, population, and money to fight them off. It also had the benefits of isolation from the west and a detente as the west tried to exploit its split with the USSR.
As to the claim that powerful people in the US are taking what they can and running. Who?! Who and to where. I don’t see an exodus of billionaires or policy planners at state or natsec ghouls. I don’t see major corporations fleeing, moving offshore, insulating themselves. I don’t see them all moving to their nuclear war or revolution bunkers in NZ this decade barring war with China going nuclear. The military industrial complex has always been a racket, wars have always been a racket.
They’re cashing out Europe, they’re calling in the Marshal plan debt and sucking their industry right out, next they’ll suck out their talent with brain drain.
Failing infrastructure doesn’t matter. So prices go up, so what? So life sucks for your average commuter and a handful die in bridge failures, so what? Is this going to impact their ability to ship weapons and wage war abroad? No. Will it cause a total collapse of their economy in time or just worse conditions for workers, a few extra expenses for some companies here and there and so on? The crumbling state is even useful, they can point at it and say “look what the Chinese, the Russians, the Africans took from you” and that will get Americans who are the most indoctrinated on the planet onboard with war, with imperialism, with a new campaign to get some plunder to fix up the ol neighborhood.
I just don’t see it.
I see hope on the horizon but nothing like certainty. China has a difficult path ahead to navigate still and nothing is guaranteed and the US situation while worse than it has been in a long time is we must remember coming down off the high of total global unipolar hegemony which they enjoyed unchallenged from the 90s through the 2010s. They’ve already defeated Europe’s quest for independence, for integration with Russia and that’s a big plus in their corner. That’s a big sign the empire still has power, sway, and can move whole nations to their tune.
Too early to celebrate, too early to see how this plays out.
Again, this does not make sense as phrasing though. Laying groundwork for years ahead of time is not, by any meaning of the word, “easy”.
The 1930s are not the same conditions as right now. Post WW2 is not the same conditions as right now. But if you want to compare, that period had FDR and the closest thing to that today as a reformer is Bernie Sanders, who the established party elites resoundingly rejected. In place of having a real reformer, they are saying Biden is doing meaningful work when he’s doing tweaks. Meanwhile, we have climate change and its consequences increasingly bearing down on the world, which the US is woefully unprepared for and continues to drag its feet on addressing.
Not what I meant. Economic might is unenforceable without military might behind it. Look at what the Houthis have done, for example.
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/02/1242327964/the-economic-impact-of-the-baltimore-bridge-collapse
This was from April 2, 2024, mind you. The situation may have changed by now, but the point is, it can impact a lot.
Well then you’ve been arguing against someone who isn’t here. I’m arguing about trends here, not something set in stone. Primarily, I’m arguing against this tone I see that comes across to me as something like: “have some hope if you want, but the empire is mega mega mega powerful and it’s going to get you in your sleep if you don’t stay constantly anxious about it 24/7.” Maybe that’s an uncharitable way to put it, but you are putting so much focus on the empire in isolation with little on what anyone else is doing and downplaying the empire’s failings (such as in infrastructure). Don’t eat the onion on believing it to be more powerful than it actually is. Furthermore, you want to push back on the details that’s perfectly valid, but bringing age into it is silly. It is not out of reach to examine the conditions back in the 1930s and living through them doesn’t guarantee anyone being more politically literate about the empire’s power.