Africa Between Fronts – TruthAfrica Monitor
From Ukraine and Mali to minerals and social media, global rivalries and local conflicts intersect with African interests, narratives and choices.
When partnerships overlap and interests diverge across sectors, the language of camps and alignments quickly becomes too simplistic. Partnerships can be selective, interests sector-specific, and external rivalries deeply entangled with local political and economic priorities. In Africa, these dynamics unfold across several fronts at once, producing political relationships that rarely fit neatly into conventional geopolitical lines.
Ghana–Russia: cooperation without a geopolitical choice
The August visit of Ghana’s foreign minister to Moscow showed a deepening of relations with Russia, but not necessarily a political shift towards it. The two countries signed a visa-waiver agreement for holders of diplomatic and service passports, and discussed cooperation in energy, agriculture, defence and raw materials. Accra also welcomed Russian support for an African-led approach to security in the Sahel. The same visit, however, also showed the limits of this cooperation. Ghana raised the issue of the recruitment of its citizens into the Russia-Ukraine war: according to the minister, 62 Ghanaians had been killed and 15 remained missing. For Europe, the key question is therefore not whether Ghana is “moving closer to Russia”, but which elements of this cooperation will actually be implemented. In this case, security in the Sahel, energy, raw materials and industrialisation are of particular importance.
If these declarations translate into permanent cooperation mechanisms, training programmes, projects or contracts, Russia may gain lasting access to specific institutions and decision-making circles, regardless of Ghana’s good relations with the EU. At the same time, Ghana’s concerns over the recruitment of its citizens into the war show that Accra does not treat cooperation with Moscow as unconditional.
Africa Corps: security for the state, a threat to civilians?
Russia presents Africa Corps as a partner helping Mali regain control of its territory and combat armed groups. This image, however, contrasts with reports of civilian casualties. HRW described an airstrike on Kyrnia in which eight civilians were killed and, in August, reported on another operation during which, according to the organisation, Africa Corps forces killed nine civilians, including four children. Russian messaging responds by framing Africa Corps operations differently: it focuses on the fight against terrorists and their alleged foreign partners. Sputnik Africa quoted an alleged Africa Corps member who claimed that French and Ukrainian drone operators were fighting in Mali, while TASS portrayed Russian strikes as operations targeting Ukrainian FPV operators cooperating with terrorists.
The significance of these cases is greater than it was during the Wagner period. Africa Corps operates under the direct control of the Russian Ministry of Defence, limiting the Russian state’s ability to distance itself from the actions of its personnel. At the same time, Reuters notes that offensives by JNIM and separatists are undermining Russia’s image as an effective security guarantor. For Europe, it is particularly important that the Russian security model is supported by a narrative portraying local conflicts as part of a broader confrontation with the West.
Linking Africa Corps’ opponents to Ukraine and France allows the Russian presence to be presented as protection not only against terrorism but also against foreign interference. Within this framework, criticism over civilian casualties can more easily be portrayed as a political attack on Russia rather than an assessment of the specific actions of its forces. For European partners, this means that the debate over the effectiveness and accountability of Africa Corps may become increasingly difficult to separate from the broader debate over who is interfering in Africa and who claims to be defending its sovereignty.