The Nigerien Coup Prompted A Long-Overdue Discussion About Sovereignty In West Africa
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 27, 2023
It was earlier assessed that “The AU-ECOWAS Rift Over Niger Was Predictable” due to their differing approaches towards the continent’s latest regime change. The AU believes that its ousted leader should be returned to power via peaceful means while ECOWAS’ active members are in favor of forcefully reimposing his rule. Neither of them support the interim authorities’ three-year transitional plan, however, with ECOWAS rejecting it outright and the AU suspending Niger right afterwards.
The AU also “called upon all Member States of the AU and the international community including bilateral and multilateral partners, at large to reject this unconstitutional change of government and to refrain from any action likely to grant legitimacy to the illegal regime in Niger.” This came shortly after reports began circulating that neighboring Burkina Faso and Mali, which are also run by interim military-led governments, stationed warplanes in Niger to deter a French-backed Nigerian-led ECOWAS invasion.
Late last week, those three countries’ Foreign Ministers met in Niamey, where they issued a joint statement that importantly declared the following:
“The three countries have agreed to grant each other facilities for mutual assistance in matters of defense and security in the event of aggression or terrorist attacks. They have decided to set up a consultation framework that allows them to coordinate their actions in order to deal with the multiple situations and challenges to which they are exposed. This consultation framework remains open to countries wishing to participate in this dynamic in order to respond to the concerns and needs of their populations in terms of peace, security and economic and monetary development. To this end, they agreed to set up a Joint Secretariat.”
Simply put, they’ve established a regional mutual defense alliance (“Sahelian Alliance”) that’ll also aim to accelerate political and economic-financial integration between them.
Before delving into a discussion about which of the three organizations involved in the West African Crisis – the AU, ECOWAS, and the Sahelian Alliance – truly represent the Nigerien people’s sovereign will, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s detailed reaction to that country’s regime change is worth mentioning. It can be read in full here, but he basically concluded that the region’s interim military-led governments sought to rebalance their prior leaderships’ relations with the West for the betterment of their people.
That observation segues into the subject of this analysis since it lends credence to the views shared by Burkinabe leader Ibrahim Traore during late July’s Second Russia-Africa Summit in St. Petersburg. While speaking among those of his fellow African leaders who were brave enough to resist Western pressure to attend, he still lambasted many of them for being imperialist puppets due to their opposition to his interim military-led government after it was suspended from the AU and ECOWAS.
His country’s people and those of similarly military-ruled Guinea, Mali, and now Niger all rallied behind their armed forces after they overthrew their French puppet leaderships, yet each were still punished by those two organizations to different extents, with Niger now facing the threat of invasion. It stands to reason that all of these interim military-led governments genuinely enjoy grassroots support otherwise there’d be Color Revolution attempts and even anti-state rebellions/insurgencies/terrorist campaigns.
To be sure, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger – which have now joined forces to become the Sahelian Alliance – are indeed facing terrorist threats, but they’re derived from a radical ideological virus that predates their respective military coups and aren’t a result of those regime changes. The AU represents the African Establishment, however, whose members fear being overthrown by their own armed forces. For that reason, it always opposes coups even if they’re popular among the people.
The same can be said about ECOWAS’ stance since it’s pretty much just a regionally focused version of the AU that represents the West African Establishment more so than the West African people. Since the Nigerien coup is the fourth one to take place in the ambit of its influence, the non-suspended members of the group are more worried than the distant AU is about the possibility of a so-called “domino effect”, ergo why they’re threatening the use of force to reverse the situation while the AU remains against it.
Both organizations prioritize the interests of their elite members, the African Establishment as a whole in the AU’s case and the West African one in ECOWAS’, over those of the people that they claim to represent. This explains why they’re not only against the Nigerien coup, but why the AU told others not to legitimize it while ECOWAS is threatening an invasion. Although Russia is formally opposed to it and any anti-constitutional regime change too, Moscow’s stance is much more pragmatic than theirs.
Post-coup Mali became one of Russia’s closest military partners on the continent behind the Central African Republic, while Burkina Faso is considering following in its neighbor’s footsteps after Interim President Traore declared earlier this spring that he considers Russia his country’s strategic ally. These two Sahelian security relationships are flourishing in spite of Moscow having opposed their anti-constitutional regime changes since it believes in cooperating with them during their transitions.
By contrast, the AU and ECOWAS are against third parties legitimizing the post-coup leaderships of those countries who they’ve suspended even though the aforesaid could advance everyone’s objective interests like in the Russian example of helping Mali and Burkina Faso fight transnational terrorists. Once again, it’s important to remind the reader that neither those two, Guinea, or Niger experienced any Color Revolution attempts or serious anti-state violence, thus confirming popular support for their rulers.
All factors considered, the AU and ECOWAS are arguably against the sovereign will of the Nigerien people whereas that country’s interim military-led authorities, the newly formed Sahelian Alliance, and Russia all embody it on the national, regional, and international levels. The first of those three carried out their coup for patriotic reasons aimed at realizing their people’s desire for true sovereignty after languishing under France’s neo-colonial occupation for decades as de facto slaves.
The second’s allies experienced their own patriotic military coups for the same reason and then sought to pool their forces to deter imperialist puppets like ECOWAS’ remaining members. As for Russia’s interests, it pragmatically decided to help these post-coup countries’ leaderships fight transnational terrorism since it’s in their own people’s, the region’s, and all of Africa’s interests. These three – Niger’s new authorities, the Sahelian Alliance, and Russia – are the true vanguards of sovereignty in West Africa.
Why’s US Media Talking About Nigerien General Moussa Barmou All Of A Sudden?
From Bazoum To Barmou
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 15, 2023
American media’s narrative about last month’s regime change in Niger has conspicuously shifted since Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s trip to Niamey last week. Prior to then, most information products aggressively supported Nigerian-led ECOWAS’ threatened invasion aimed at reinstalled ousted leader Mohamed Bazoum. Ever since she revealed that the US is “pushing for a negotiated solution”, however, attention has turned towards General Moussa Barmou.
NBC News’ Report
The Wall Street Journal began the trend two days after her visit in a paywalled article here, but it wasn’t until NBC News’ piece on Monday headlined “Blindsided: Hours before the coup in Niger, U.S. diplomats said the country was stable” that the public at large was introduced to him. Its subtitle about how “An American-trained general whom U.S. military officials considered a close ally backed the overthrow of the country’s democratically elected president” was a reference to Barmou. Here’s what they reported:
“U.S. military officials believed that the head of the Nigerien Special Forces, Gen. Moussa Salaou Barmou, their close ally, was going along with the other military leaders to keep the peace. They noted that in a video showing the coup leaders on the first day, Barmou was in the back of the group with his head down and his face mostly hidden.
Less than two weeks later, Barmou met with a U.S. delegation in Niamey, led by acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, and expressed support for the coup and delivered a sobering message: If any outside military force tried to interfere in Niger, the coup leaders would kill President Bazoum. ‘That was crushing,’ said a U.S. military official who has worked with Barmou in recent years. ‘We were holding out hope with him.’
Not only had Barmou worked with top U.S. military leaders for years, but he was also trained by the U.S. military and attended the prestigious National Defense University in Washington, D.C. Last week, sitting across from U.S. officials who had come to trust him, Barmou refused to release Bazoum, calling him illegitimate and insisting that the coup leaders had the popular support of the Nigerien people. Nuland later said the conversations were ‘quite difficult.’”
The unnamed US military source who said that “We were holding out hope with him” spilled the beans about the way in which their country intended to control Niger by proxy. The Pentagon thought that cultivating the chief of that country’s special forces would be sufficient for preventing a coup, but Barmou decided to go along with it because he knew better than they did how genuinely popular it was. His “defection” from American proxy to patriot ensured this surprise regime change’s success.
Politico’s Report
The next US media report of relevance was published the day later by Politico and was about how “The U.S. spent years training Nigerien soldiers. Then they overthrew their government.” It builds upon Barmou’s biography that was introduced by NBC News and can therefore be conceptualized as the second step of an ongoing information campaign intended to inform Americans more about him. Here’s what they had to say about this top Nigerien military official:
“Brig. Gen Moussa Barmou, the American-trained commander of the Nigerien special operations forces, beamed as he embraced a senior U.S. general visiting the country’s $100 million, Washington-funded drone base in June. Six weeks later, Barmou helped oust Niger’s democratically elected president.
…
Retired Maj. Gen. J. Marcus Hicks, who served as the commander of U.S. Special Operations Forces Africa from 2017 to 2019, says he was instantly impressed by Barmou. The Nigerien general speaks perfect English, and attended multiple English language and military training courses at bases in the United States over nearly two decades, including at Fort Benning, Georgia, and the National Defense University.
Hicks and Barmou developed a friendship. They had many long conversations over dinner about the influx of extremists into Niger, and how difficult it was for Barmou to see his country deteriorate in recent years, said Hicks. ‘He’s the kind of guy that gives you hope for the future of the country, so that makes this doubly disappointing,’ said Hicks. It was ‘disheartening and disturbing’ to learn that Barmou was involved in the coup.
As its neighbors fell like dominos to military coups over the last two years, Niger — and Barmou himself — remained the last bastion of hope for the U.S. military partnership in the region. He ‘was a good partner, a trusted partner,’ said a U.S. official familiar with the U.S.-Niger military relationship. ‘But local dynamics, local politics, just trump whatever the international community may or may not want.’
It’s not clear whether Barmou was initially involved in plotting the coup, which is believed to have been spearheaded by Gen. Abdourahamane Tchiani, the head of Bazoum’s presidential guard. Tchiani and his men reportedly took the president captive because Tchiani believed he was going to be pushed out of his job. But soon after, Nigerien military leaders including Barmou endorsed the putsch.”
Politico’s piece serves to raise maximum awareness of just how much the Pentagon trusted Barmou, which humanizes him in the eyes of their targeted audience, who likely hitherto thought that he was either a greedy wannabe despot or a pro-Russian anti-Western ideologue. Upon learning that he was America’s closest ally in Niger, they’ll be more inclined to support Nuland’s diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis via some sort of compromise than back the use of force at the risk of sparking a regional war.
Le Figaro’s Report
NBC News and Politico’s back-to-back pieces about Barmou were published a week after Nuland returned from Niger, which gave the US’ permanent policymaking bureaucracies enough time to decide their next move. During that time, an unnamed diplomatic source told Le Figaro in an article published on Sunday the day before NBC News’ that they feared the US might backstab France. According to them, the US could tacitly recognize the interim military-led government if they get to retain their bases.
The next day on Monday, which coincided with the release of NBC News’ report about Barmou that was conceptualized in this analysis as the first step of an ongoing information campaign intended to inform Americans more about him, the US publicly balked at the ECOWAS invasion scenario. State Department principal deputy spokesman Vedant Patel said that “military intervention should be a last resort”, thus extending credence to Le Figaro’s report after its diplomatic source correctly foresaw the US’ new stance.
From “Francafrique” To “Amerafrique”
This sequence of events suggests that the US might offer Niger’s interim military-led government a deal whereby they’d tacitly recognize these new authorities and order ECOWAS to call off its invasion in exchange for that country retaining its bases and declining to embrace Russia/Wagner as explained here. In this scenario, the US’ backtracking on its prior demands to reinstall Bazoum could be attributed to its trust of Barmou’s assessment that the coup truly channeled the will of the Nigerien people.
NBC News and Politico’s pieces also included information about Niger’s importance for the US’ African strategy, which preconditions the public to expect that the White House could resort to the national security exception for not cutting off military aid to that post-coup state per its domestic legal obligation. In that event, the US would seamlessly replace France’s traditional security role there while preventing the emergence of a void that could have otherwise been filled by Russia/Wagner.
If post-coup Niger successfully transitions from France’s “sphere of influence” in Africa (“Francafrique”) to America’s (“Amerafrique”), then the US might weaponize the model that it opportunistically improvised after the latest surprising turn of events to export it to other former French colonies. Those that experience a grassroots surge of anti-French sentiment might also undergo coups by former US-trained military leaders, who’d then negotiate similar deals as the previously mentioned one.
The US could offer to replace France’s scandalous security role in their countries together with preventing an ECOWAS invasion in exchange for their new interim military-led governments offering it a share of the previously French-dominated market and declining to embrace Russia/Wagner. In this way, the US could manage revolutionary trends in the region and actually benefit from them if it replicates the model that it’s presently experimenting with in Niger via Barmou’s envisaged bridge role.
This insight answers the question of why US media is talking about him all of a sudden in the week after Nuland’s trip to Niamey. They’re warming average Americans up to the scenario of Barmou functioning as a bridge between their countries after the coup. Since he chose to go along with the regime change instead of stop it, the US’ new hope is that he’ll convince his superiors to accept the deal that was described, which could then form the basis for a model that might later be exported across the region.
The Latin American Precedent
The US would prefer for France to manage Africa on the West’s behalf per the “Lead From Behind” stratagem of “burden-sharing” in the New Cold War, but if its military-strategic withdrawal is inevitable due to rising anti-imperialist trends, then it’s better for America to replace its role than Russia/Wagner. To that end, it might soon support anti-French coups by US-trained military leaders in order to corral populist sentiment in a geostrategically safe direction that avoids creating space for its rivals.
This is similar to what it’s recently begun doing in Latin America after the Democrats started supporting leftist-liberal movements like those in Brazil, Chile, and Colombia, which led to Lula’s PT becoming the posterchild of this so-called “compatible left” project, in order to not lose control of regional processes. It’s precisely this precedent that’s arguably influencing the formulation of America’s new “bait-and-switch” approach towards seemingly inevitable socio-political changes in “Franceafrique” as well.
Concluding Thoughts
Circling back to the lede, Americans are suddenly learning more about Barmou because the US is likely exploring the possibility of employing this trusted pre-coup partner as a bridge with Niger in the hope that he convinces his superiors to agree to a “negotiated solution”. If the Latin American model for corralling populist sentiment is replicated by the US in Niger, albeit accounting for “Francafrique’s” coup-prone conditions, then this modified method might eventually be weaponized across the entire region.
ECOWAS’ Sanctions Starve Average Nigeriens But The US Only Cares About Bazoum’s Health
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 14, 2023
Spokesman of the military-led interim Nigerien Government Colonel Major Amadou Abdramane said on Sunday that his compatriots “have been hard hit by the illegal, inhumane and humiliating sanctions imposed by ECOWAS”, adding that “people are being deprived of medicines, food and electricity.” Amidst Niger’s humanitarian crisis, Secretary of State Antony Blinken “expressed grave concern” at what he described as the “deteriorating conditions of President Bazoum and his family.”
The US’ top diplomat didn’t spare a single word for the approximately 25 million Nigerien people who are tremendously suffering right now, instead focusing solely on the health of America’s detained ally. The Mainstream Media has followed suit by obsessing over recent reports that Bazoum has been “forced to eat dry rice and pasta” while ignoring the plight of the people in whose name he previously served. This approach is arguably driven by ulterior motives that’ll be explained throughout this analysis.
The collective punishment that the West ordered its ECOWAS proxies to inflict on average Nigeriens is intended to provoke them into rebelling against their new military-led interim government out of desperation for sanctions relief in order to stave off impending starvation. Simply put, 25 million people are being held hostage for purely political purposes, but this wouldn’t have happened had regional heavyweight Nigeria not gone along with it.
“None Of Nigeria’s Objective National Interests Are Served By Invading Niger”, nor are any served by sanctioning it either. In fact, Nigeria has recklessly endangered its own objective national interests by cutting off trade and financial ties with its northern neighbor. In one fell swoop, it destroyed decades’ worth of goodwill, which risks turning this country’s friendly people into an enemy. Regardless of however this crisis is resolved, bilateral relations will likely never be the same again.
Furthermore, these sanctions could also breed resentment within Nigeria among those northern border communities that have family and friends in Niger who are now suffering. Just like the sanctions are meant to provoke Nigeriens into rebelling out of desperation, so too might they backfire by provoking Nigerians into violating them by smuggling medicine and food to their loved ones. If the military resorts to forcible and possibly even lethal means to stop them, then it could provoke unrest or worse.
Nigeria has been broadly divided between the majority-Muslim North and majority-Christian South since the merging of two hitherto separate British colonies in the decades before independence. These differences resulted in the forging of very distinct regional identities that have occasionally posed threats to the country’s unity. In the present context, the actual or perceived oppression of northern cross-border communities by the military during anti-smuggling operations could rekindle these tensions.
Likewise, if the humanitarian situation continues deteriorating in Niger, the resultant influx of refugees into Northern Nigeria could also lead to similar problems if these people aren’t allowed to cross into that country or if the federal government doesn’t properly provide for those who do. The first sub-scenario could provoke unrest among those Nigerians who want to host their family and friends from Niger, while the second could provoke unrest if some desperate refugees resort to crime and/or take locals’ jobs.
Nigeria is already struggling to ensure security in the Northeast against Boko Haram and in the Southeast against Southern separatists like the “Indigenous People of Biafra” (IPOB) that Abuja considers to be terrorists. If the Nigerien borderland slips into crisis per any of the scenarios that were described, then it could further divide the armed forces and prove disastrous for national unity. It’s therefore in Nigeria’s objective national interests for the situation in Niger to stabilize as soon as possible.
Awareness of this imperative accounts for why the Northern Senators Caucus was so strongly against Nigeria leading a NATO-backed and possibly French-supported ECOWAS invasion of Niger when they were asked to vote on this earlier in the month. Their spokesman Senator Suleiman Kawu warned that “We also take exception to use of military force until other avenues as mentioned above are exhausted as the consequences will be casualties among the innocent citizens who go about their daily business.”
He added that “about seven northern states who shared border with Niger Republic namely Sokoto, Kebbi, Katsina, Zamfara, Jigawa, Yobe and Borno will be negatively affected.” Building upon this second observation, it’s just as relevant in the event that the sanctions persist as it is if Nigeria invades Niger. If they remain in place and the humanitarian situation in Niger continues deteriorating, then it’s inevitable that Northern Nigeria “will be negatively affected” exactly as the Caucus’ spokesman predicted.
With this in mind, one naturally wonders whether the US has ulterior motives in encouraging Nigeria to stay the course in keeping its sanctions against Niger, not to mention potentially invading it. Neither serves the interests of Africa’s most populous country and both actually go against them as was explained in this analysis. For these reasons, it can’t be ruled out that the US is manipulating Nigeria into sowing the seeds of another domestic security crisis in order to more effectively divide-and-rule it.
Blinken’s sole focus on Bazoum’s health as opposed to the health of his 25 million compatriots, whose interests the US could otherwise have been expected to at least pay superficial attention to for soft power’s sake, suggests that these suspicions are sound. Niger was already the world’s third poorest country before the sanctions, which could quickly plunge it all the way to bottom, thus leading to a large-scale outflow into Northern Nigeria that risks catalyzing the security crises that were warned about.
America never misses a chance to exploit the optics of a humanitarian crisis, yet this time it’s conspicuously silent about the latest one that it just created, as is the Mainstream Media. They’re both obsessing over reports about Bazoum’s deteriorating conditions while not saying anything about the much worse ones that his countrymen are facing due to ECOWAS’ sanctions. This approach is inconsistent with precedent, thus extending credence to speculation that they have ulterior motives.
Why military intervention in Niger could be catastrophic for everyone
Coup supporters protest the decision of the ECOWAS countries to sanction Niger, in Niamey, Niger on August 3, 2023 [Balima Boureima/Anadolu Agency]
By Dr Mustafa Fetouri | MEMO | August 10, 2023
Niger rejects rules-based order
BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | AUGUST 8, 2023
The coup in the West African state of Niger on July 26 and the Russia-Africa Summit the next day in St. Petersburg are playing out in the backdrop of multipolarity in the world order. Seemingly independent events, they capture nonetheless the zeitgeist of our transformative era.
First, the big picture — the Africa summit hosted by Russia on July 27-28 poses a big challenge to the West, which instinctively sought to downplay the event after having failed to lobby against sovereign African nations meeting the Russian leadership. 49 African countries sent their delegations to St. Petersburg, with seventeen heads of states traveling in person to Russia to discuss political, humanitarian and economic issues. For the host country, which is in the middle of a war, this was a remarkable diplomatic success.
The summit was quintessentially a political event. Its leitmotif was the juxtaposition of Russia’s long-standing support for Africans resisting imperialism and the predatory nature of western neo-colonialism. This works brilliantly for Russia today, which has no colonial history of exploitation and plunder of Africa.
While every now and then skeletons from the colonial era keep rolling out of the Western closet, dating back to the unlamented African slave trade, Russia taps into the Soviet legacy of being on the ‘right side of history’ — even resurrecting the full name of Patrice Lumumba Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia in Moscow.
Yet, it wasn’t all politics. The summit deliberations on Russia-Africa partnership helping the continent achieve ‘‘food sovereignty,’’ alternatives to the grain deal, new logistics corridors for Russian food and fertilisers; enhancement of trade, economic, cultural, educational, scientific, and security cooperation; Africa potentially joining the International North–South Transport Corridor; Russia’s participation in African infrastructure projects; Russia-Africa Partnership Forum Action Plan to 2026 — these testify to the quantifiable outcome.
Enter Niger. The most recent developments in Niger underscore the leitmotif of the Russia-Africa summit. Russia’s prognosis of the African crisis stands vindicated — the continuing ravages of Western imperialism. This is evident from the reports of Russian flags seen at demonstrations in Niamey, Niger’s capital.
The rebels who seized power lost no time to denounce Niger’s military-technical cooperation agreements with France, which has been followed up with the demand that France withdraw its troops within 30 days. On its part, France has spoken ‘‘firmly and resolutely’’ in favour of foreign military intervention ‘‘to suppress the coup attempt.’’ The French authorities made it clear that they have no plan to withdraw their armed contingent of 1,500 people who are in Niger “at the request of the legitimate authorities of the country on the basis of signed agreements.”
France’s stance comes as no surprise – Paris does not want to lose its position in Sahel region and the cheap source of resources, especially uranium. But France miscalculated that the coup didn’t enjoy the support of the Nigerien military or had a social base, and all that was needed to roll it back would be a limited demonstration of force that would compel the elite presidential guard to begin direct negotiations with France.
France and the US coordinate their actions with the Economic Community of West African States [ECOWAS]. The ECOWAS initially did some sabre-rattling but has piped down. Its deadline for intervention has passed. The ECOWAS simply does not have a mechanism for the rapid gathering of troops and the coordination of hostilities, and its powerhouse Nigeria has its hands full tackling internal security. The Nigerian public opinion feels wary about a blowback — Niger is a large country and has a 1500-kilometre long porous border with Nigeria. An unspoken truth is, Nigeria is hardly interested in increasing the French military presence in Niger or on being on the same side with France, which is extremely unpopular throughout the Sahel.
The mother of all surprises is that the military coup enjoys a groundswell of popular support. Under the circumstances, the strong likelihood is that the French troops may be forced to leave Niger, its former colony. Niger is a victim of neo-colonial exploitation. Under the guise of fighting terrorism, which is, ironically, a spillover from the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 spearheaded by none other than France into the Sahel region, France ruthlessly exploited Niger’s mineral resources.
A noted Nigerian poet and literary critic Prof. Osundare wrote last week, ‘‘Probe the cause, course, and symptoms of the present resurgence of military coups in West Africa. Find a cure for this pandemic. More important, find a cure for the plague of political and socio-economic injustices responsible for the inevitability of its recurrence. Remember the present brutish anarchy in Libya and the countless repercussions of the destabilisation of that once blooming country for the West African region.’’
The only regional state that can afford effective military intervention in Niger is Algeria. But Algeria has neither any experience in conducting such operations on a regional scale nor has any intention to depart from its consistent policy of non-interference in the internal politics of a sovereign country. Algeria has warned against any external military intervention in Niger. ‘‘Flaunting military intervention in Niger is a direct threat to Algeria, and we completely and categorically reject it… Problems should be solved peacefully,” said Algerian president Abdelmadjid Tebboune.
At its core, without doubt, the coup in Niger Republic narrows down to a struggle between Nigeriens and the colonial powers. To be sure, the growing trend of multipolarity in the world order emboldens African nations to shake off neo-colonialism. This is one thing. On the other hand, the big powers are being compelled to negotiate rather than dictate.
Interestingly, Washington has been relatively restrained. President Biden’s espousal of ‘’values’’ fell far short of the diktat on ‘‘rules-based order’’ — although America reportedly has 3 military bases in Niger. In the multipolar setting, African nations are gaining space to negotiate. Russia’s pro activism will spur this process. China also has economic stakes in in Niger.
Notably, the coup leader Abdurahman Tchiani is on record that “the French have no objective reasons to leave Niger,” signalling that a fair and equitable relationship is possible. Russia has been cautious that the key task at the moment is “to prevent further degradation of the situation in the country.” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said, ‘‘We consider it an urgent task to organise a national dialogue to restore civil peace, ensure law and order… we believe that the threat of the use of force against a sovereign state will not contribute to defusing tensions and resolving the situation in the country,” .
Clearly, Niamey will not succumb to pressure from outsiders. “Niger’s armed forces and all our defence and security forces, backed by the unfailing support of our people, are ready to defend the integrity of our territory,” a junta representative said in a statement. A delegation from Niamey went to Mali asking for Russian-affiliated Wagner fighters to join the fight in the event of a Western-backed intervention.
An early resolution of the crisis around Niger is not to be expected. Niger is a key state in the fight against the jihadi network and is linked strategically and structurally to neighbouring Mali. And the situation in the Sahel region is escalating. This has profound implications for the crisis of statehood in West Africa as a whole.
American exceptionalism is not a universal panacea for existing ills. The Pentagon helped train at least one of the coup leaders in Niger — and those in Mali and Burkina Faso, which have promised to come to Niger’s defence. Yet, speaking from Niamey on Monday, the visiting US acting deputy secretary of state Victoria Nuland lamented that the coup leaders refused to allow her to meet with the ousted president Mohamed Bazoum and were unreceptive to US calls to return the country to civilian rule.
Nuland’s mission aimed at dissuading the coup leaders from engaging with the Wagner group but she was unsure of success. Nuland was not granted a meeting with General Tchiani.
African neighbors finalize Niger war plans
RT | August 4, 2023
The militaries of several ECOWAS members have agreed on a plan for military intervention in Niger and are waiting for a final political decision, a senior official of the bloc said on Friday.
The Economic Community of West African States has already sanctioned the junta in Niamey over last week’s military coup and demanded the restoration of ousted president Mohamed Bazoum before Sunday.
Even as Nigeria sent diplomats to its northern neighbor, its capital Abuja was hosting a planning meeting of ECOWAS chiefs of staff. Notably absent were Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Guinea.
“All the elements that will go into any eventual intervention have been worked out here, including the resources needed, the how and when we are going [to] deploy the force,” said Abdel-Fatau Musah, ECOWAS commissioner for political affairs, peace and security.
Musah added that the final decision will be made at the political level, but that ECOWAS will not telegraph when and where it will strike.
“ECOWAS will not be used for coups. Democracy is what we stand for and democracy is what we will sustain,” General Christopher Gwabin Musa, chief of Nigeria’s defense staff, told AP.
On Thursday, Bazoum appealed directly to the US to intervene. Washington has some 1,000 troops in Niger, engaged in counter-terrorism operations against Islamist groups that arose after NATO’s 2011 regime change intervention in Libya. Niger’s former colonial master France has another 1,500 troops on the same mission.
The Nigerien junta repudiated all military treaties with France on Thursday, and sacked the country’s ambassadors to the US, France, Togo and Nigeria. Paris and Washington have said they do not intend to remove their troops from the country, and only recognized Bazoum as the legitimate leader.
Niamey has warned both the West and ECOWAS that any military intervention will be met with deadly force. “All aggression or attempt at aggression against the state of Niger will see an immediate response,” junta spokesman Colonel Amadou Abdramane, said on Friday.
In a joint statement earlier this week, Burkina Faso and Mali said that an ECOWAS incursion into Niger will be taken as a declaration of war against them as well.
Here’s Why Italy Is The Western Voice Of Pragmatism In The Nigerien Crisis
Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs Antonio Tajani. © Sean Gallup/Getty Images
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 4, 2023
Italy’s reaction to the patriotic military coup in Niger late last month has been surprisingly pragmatic. It could have easily jumped on the bandwagon of supporting the planned NATO-backed Nigerian-led ECOWAS invasion aimed at reinstalling ousted President Mohamed Bazoum and going along with his Ambassador to America’s claim that Russia had a hand in the coup. Instead, the Italian Foreign Minister described any Western military initiative as “a new colonization” and denied any Russian role in events.
Italy supports the West’s anti-Russian sanctions and arms Kiev against that country so Rome wasn’t expected to behave so independently towards a comparatively less significant matter than the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine. That’s not to downplay the devastation that could soon ravage West Africa if it descends into a regional war, but just to point out that the precedent set by Italy’s compliance with Western demands vis-a-vis Russia suggested that it would also comply with their Nigerien policy too.
This exception is explained by the fact that Italy is very serious about combating illegal immigration at its roots, which was the official reason behind its decision to deploy a little less than 500 troops to Niger over half a decade ago in late 2017. While it’s difficult to assess whether this stated mission was a success since information about it has remained suspiciously scarce since then, the pretext for its troops’ deployment remains in place as evidenced by the related rhetoric espoused by its latest premier.
Giorgia Meloni rose to power partially because of her promise to drastically curtail illegal immigration to Italy, which would be very difficult to do if a major war breaks out in West Africa and results in an unfathomable number of desperate people fleeing across the Mediterranean to her country as refugees. It would already be bad enough if Nigeria soon leads an invasion of Niger, but this would be even worse if Italy’s French neighbor joined in and thus played a role in catalyzing another humanitarian crisis.
Italy might not be able to stop the US from coercing Nigeria into doing its bidding against Russia’s regional strategic interests by proxy, but its Foreign Minister’s description of potential Western involvement in this operation as “a new colonization” could make France think twice about participating. Bilateral relations were recently damaged due to their differences over migrants/refugees so it’s likely that Meloni’s top diplomat was sending a signal to Paris through his strong words on this issue.
She’d come under intense pressure on the domestic front if France was responsible for another humanitarian crisis that crashed into her country’s shores, plus responding to this would entail considerable costs that would be better spent on socio-economic investments if war could be averted. These calculations explain why her government broke ranks with the West on this issue since her political career could be threatened if this situation spirals out of control.
Her country’s policymakers are also impressively thinking ahead by tempering their rhetoric in order to avoid provoking the junta into pressuring their troops to leave and thus weakening Rome’s ability to at least keep an eye on this migrant/refugee corridor through their deployment in Niger. They still oppose the patriotic military coup, but they’re doing so in a measured way that reduces the risk of blowback while still at least formally paying lip service to the so-called “rules-based order”.
As for the second part of Italy’s pragmatic response to recent events, this builds upon the motivations that were just described above regarding the self-interested need to not provoke the junta. Rome isn’t suggesting that this regime change was legitimate, but it’s also not fueling the information warfare campaign being waged by some like Bazoum’s Ambassador to America, which is intended to precondition the Western public for NATO’s potential involvement in any possible invasion of Niger.
This stance hasn’t had any influence on reshaping Italian-Russian relations since it’s driven purely by Rome’s interests in retaining its military presence in Niger for the purpose of monitoring the migrant/refugee corridor through that country. These domestic political motivations, which also have an inextricable security dimension to them too, are so important to the present Italian government that they resulted in its top diplomat publicly counteracting fake news about Russia’s involvement in events.
What this insight shows is that it’s possible for Western states to behave independently of their peers on certain issues if sensitive domestic interests are threatened, be they Italy’s migrant/refugee ones in the Nigerien Crisis or Poland’s agricultural interests regarding the subject of importing Ukrainian grain. Each of these two examples is also connected to their leaders’ political interests, which cynically suggests that they’ll only act in a sovereign fashion on these aforesaid sensitive issues if their careers are on the line.
Even so, it’s still intriguing to observe them putting their interests above their de facto New Cold War bloc’s, thus proving that it’s not impossible for this to happen. Under the specific conditions that were just described where sensitive domestic interests converge with the political ones of any given Western leader, it can’t be ruled out that they’ll act more independently than their peers. This has already happened twice thus far in just as many weeks, which makes it a documented fact and not speculation.
France Declared That It Won’t Let The Nigerien Junta Kick It Out Of The Country
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 3, 2023
Speculation is swirling about whether Niger’s patriotic military junta will follow its reported ban on uranium and gold exports to France with a demand for that country’s troops to leave the country after the example that was recently set by the de facto Burkinabe-Malian federation. That would be a risky move to make, however, since France just declared that it won’t take orders from them. Here’s what PBS reported about this on Thursday:
“Even if Niger’s military rulers demand the withdrawal of French troops — as happened in neighboring Mali and Burkina Faso — it wouldn’t make a difference, said Anne-Claire Legendre, a spokesperson for the French foreign minister during a press briefing on Wednesday. ‘We don’t answer to the putschists. We recognize one constitutional order and one legitimacy only, that of President Bazoum,’ she said.”
Considering this, the junta would either discredit itself by making a major demand that France confirmed it will defy or risk being ousted from power by its former colonizer in the event that it tries to impose its will, both scenarios of which aren’t in their objective interests. French President Emmanuel Macron warned last week that “The President will not tolerate any attack against France and its interests”, hence the reason to expect it to resolutely respond in the second-mentioned scenario.
Nevertheless, not directly addressing the issue of French troops in Niger will likely prove impossible for the junta since these forces will eventually require supplies once their existing ones at their air base in the capital start running low, which will lead to them breaking the closed border regime unless it’s lifted before then. They already did so on at least one occasion so far as admitted by the junta shortly after they seized power and issued that decree, but repeated violations would prompt a dilemma.
On the one hand, letting them flout this rule would deprive Paris of the pretext that it might be trying to provoke for directly attacking the junta in the unlikely event that the planned NATO-backed Nigerian-led ECOWAS invasion of Niger is called off, but its new military rulers would be discredited. On the other hand, while firing on them would be a strong reaffirmation of Niger’s sovereignty, it would also almost certainly lead to an overwhelming French response that could escalate to a Libyan-like regime change.
Unlike in Syria where the US’ military forces are based in far-flung but still strategically positioned parts of the country, France’s military forces in Niger are located in the capital, which means that they can’t be ignored. The junta also recently accused them of plotting airstrikes on the presidential palace in order to free ousted President Mohamed Bazoum who’s being held there, thus making their continued presence a potentially imminent threat to national security.
France’s preemptive refusal to withdraw from Niger if the junta demands that it do so on the pretext that they’re illegitimate putschists contrasts with its compliance with Mali’s and Burkina Faso’s earlier such demands that were made by their own military-led interim governments. This suggests that France has decided to draw a line in the sand signaling that it’ll fight to preserve its last regional bastion, which bodes ill for the future of the Nigerien junta.
None Of Nigeria’s Objective National Interests Are Served By Invading Niger
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 3, 2023
West African military chiefs met in the Nigerian capital of Abuja on Wednesday to discuss ECOWAS’ potential NATO-backed invasion of Niger, but they stressed that this scenario is supposedly only a “last resort”. Their rhetoric aside, the reality is that “West Africa Is Gearing Up For A Regional War” between NATO-backed ECOWAS and the informally Russian-backed de facto Burkinabe-Malian federation, which recently said that an invasion of Niger would be regarded as an act of war against them both.
None of Nigeria’s objective national interests are served by invading Niger. Rather, only NATO’s subjective interests would be advanced in that scenario, and particularly France’s. This Western European Great Power is struggling to retain its neocolonial influence in the countries that it used to rule. Niger’s patriotic military coup risks leading to France’s expulsion from its last regional bastion after Mali and Burkina Faso kicked its troops out of their countries.
Moreover, France is largely dependent on Nigerien uranium for fueling its nuclear power plants that generate the majority of its electricity. Taken together, this major NATO member has self-interested military, economic, and strategic reasons for tasking Nigeria with leading an ECOWAS invasion of that country aimed at reinstalling its ousted leader on the pretext of defending democracy. In pursuit of that goal, the Mainstream Media (MSM) is spinning the narrative that Nigeria would gain from this as well.
Voice of America, The Economist, and the Associated Press all recently claimed that Niger is now a global epicenter of terrorism, which isn’t true but is intended to mislead the public into thinking that Nigeria’s potentially impending invasion of that country is supposedly in the world’s interests. This information warfare narrative asks those who fall for it to assume that everyone has hitherto ignored this allegedly imminent threat to them all, which isn’t rational to imagine.
Additionally, some of those MSM outlets are also implying that peaceful pro-democracy protesters will suddenly become so radicalized by only a week of military rule that they’ll transform en masse into violent extremists, but this also doesn’t make any sense. Even so, these false claims are being repeated ad nauseum in an attempt to convince average people that there’s some degree of credence to them by dint of so many “experts” and officials warning about these dangers, though it’s all just a psy-op.
The public isn’t being properly informed of the Nigerien junta’s justification for seizing power. They declared that the prior regime was removed due to its failure to improve their country’s economic and security conditions. Additionally, not enough attention is being given to White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre words that “We have not seen indications of Russian or Wagner involvement” nor to National Security Council spokesman John Kirby’s confirmation of her assessment a few days later.
Instead, people are being made to think that some power-hungry military officials overthrew one of the Global South’s democratic icons with Russian support in order to spread terrorism across the world. This artificially manufactured impression misleads folks into thinking that Nigeria’s potentially impending invasion would be a service to the international community, but Al Jazeera and Politico suggested that newly inaugurated President Bola Tinubu has ulterior motives that have nothing to do with terrorism.
Reading between the lines of their skeptical pieces on this subject, it becomes apparent that he might do the West’s geopolitical bidding in his region in a desperate attempt to distract his compatriots from growing economic and political problems at home. As leading American officials have publicly confirmed, there’s no reason to suspect that Russia or Wagner were behind the Nigerien coup, plus its interim military government declared that it wants to ramp up its antiterrorist operations.
Although it’s everyone’s right to think whatever they want about the merits of this latest regime change, there are no plausible grounds for considering it a threat to Nigeria’s objective national interests. To the contrary, the aforesaid would arguably be advanced if the junta succeeds in improving the economic and security situation. That’s regrettably going to be very difficult, however, after Nigeria just cut off electricity to Niger in compliance with ECOWAS’ sanctions against its northern neighbor.
Only one in seven people there had access to this amenity before that happened, but now even fewer will enjoy its benefits since Nigeria used to provide a whopping 70% of Niger’s electricity. Making matters even worse for its people is Benin’s closure of the border. Niger used to depend on imports from the Atlantic port of Cotonou so now it’s basically cut off from most of the world. Reopening its borders with friendly neighbors won’t help much since those trade routes are threatened by terrorists.
Niger is already the world’s third poorest country but its people’s plight is expected to worsen even further due to that bloc’s sanctions, which could soon create a major socio-economic crisis with very serious humanitarian implications for the region. That cynically seems to be the point, however, since Nigeria might exploit large-scale refugee flows as the national security pretext for invading Niger even though ECOWAS’ crippling sanctions that Abuja itself is leading would be entirely responsible for this.
If Nigeria would have given the Nigerien junta a chance to make good on its promise to improve their country’s economic and security conditions, then it wouldn’t have anything to worry about, which reveals that Tinubu’s policies actually threaten his country’s objective national interests. He likely won’t relent on them though since his country’s Western-aligned military-political elite are intoxicated with the praise that the MSM is heaping on their country for doing that bloc’s bidding in Niger and won’t let him.
A self-fulfilling prophecy is therefore in the process of transpiring whereby Niger is indeed becoming a national security threat to Nigeria but solely due to the latter’s Western-dictated policies catalyzing a humanitarian crisis there that threatens to spill over its borders and prompt an invasion on that basis. Other pretexts will include the discredited anti-Russian and terrorist ones alongside the “rules-based order’s” mantra of defending democracy to complement the core humanitarian intervention claim.
The public should thus expect more fearmongering about all of the above ahead of ECOWAS’ ultimatum for installing the ousted Nigerien leader expiring this Sunday. Although the bloc’s military chiefs stressed that armed force will only be a “last resort”, the humanitarian crisis that their group’s policies are creating could soon lead to this being a fait accompli if a lot of people start flooding into Nigeria. The MSM will then likely spin this to claim that they’re “fleeing their Russian-backed and pro-terrorist junta”.
The narrative stage would therefore be set for justifying the NATO-backed Nigerian-led ECOWAS invasion of Niger on multiple pretexts connected with the “rules-based order’s” worldview, thus enabling the aggressors to reverse the roles of victim and villain to misrepresent themselves as “heroes”. This is nothing but a psy-op though since the only threats that could conceivably emanate from Niger are entirely due to foreign meddling in its internal affairs and would disappear if this interference stopped.
French invasion of Niger could turn into all-out Franco-African war
By Drago Bosnic | August 3, 2023
Ever since the Nigerien military under the command of General Abdourahamane Tchiani took power on July 26, there has been an exponential increase in tensions between Niamey and its former colonial masters in Paris. This has gone to the point where France is now seriously considering invading the West African country. The exploitation of “former” French colonies has continued unabated for over half a century even after they were granted a semblance of independence and Paris has been the main beneficiary of this one-sided relationship. Combined with France’s inability to deal with various terrorist insurgencies in the region, this unadulterated neocolonial theft has been the primary reason behind a series of popular uprisings in the Sahel.
Paris is now faced with a strategic dilemma. If it lets Niger continue its path toward actual independence, France will be unable to continue exploiting the country’s natural resources. Namely, several of its former colonies have served as a source of massive wealth extraction and given the recent troubles Paris is facing, these resources might be more important than ever. On the other hand, recent geopolitical changes in the area have left France largely impuissant. After the defeat of its nearly decade-long intervention in Chad last year, Paris has been left with bases in Ivory Coast, Senegal and Gabon. Neither of these can be used effectively as a staging ground for an invasion due to the limited number of troops stationed there.
However, even if France was to somehow find enough soldiers to launch the invasion, none of the three countries border Niger. Gabon is the least logical option, as Cameroon and Nigeria stand between it and Niger, leaving only bases in Senegal and Ivory Coast as viable possibilities. And yet, this is where the issues of basic geography for Paris stop and actual geopolitical ones start. Namely, in order to effectively use its forces from both countries to reach Niger, France needs to go through Mali and Burkina Faso, both of which have already stated that any military action against Niamey will be tantamount to aggression against them. In other words, if France wants to attack Niger, it will also need to attack two more African countries.
A possible alternative for Paris could be the use of its neocolonial influence in the ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States, also known as CEDEAO in French and Portuguese). However, this leaves its members at risk of more anti-Western uprisings, as the belligerent power pole is deeply unpopular in the area. Some members of the ECOWAS, such as Nigeria, might be the best geographical option, but given the fact that Paris has little to no influence in Abuja, this is extremely unlikely. Not to mention the fact that Nigeria has more than enough problems of its own and the last thing it needs is to serve as the staging ground for a neocolonial invasion. Logically, this leaves Chad as the only option, but this too is a very long shot.
To make matters worse for France, Algeria has joined the chorus of Niger’s allies. The French archrival that spearheaded the independence of many of its “former” colonies in the 1960s is effectively an African superpower, heavily armed and highly motivated to never allow Paris or any other Western (neo)colonial power to establish a firm foothold in the region. This still leaves Chad as the only viable option for an invasion, as the country was an instrumental staging ground for virtually all French military operations in the area, including the illegal invasion of Libya. However, reaching Chad at this point is easier said than done and this still leaves most of the geopolitical issues unresolved. Also, all geographical considerations remain.
Namely, the Nigerien capital of Niamey is located in the southwestern corner of the country, close to the border with Burkina Faso. Thus, even in the unlikely case that none of its neighbors intervene, Niger is still left with a comfortable window of opportunity to resist the invasion. This could end in a disaster for France, as yet another military defeat in the area would inevitably lead to a complete collapse of the neocolonial system it left in place in the 1960s. On the other hand, if Paris doesn’t intervene, this will happen anyway, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. Either way, the dilemma inevitably results in a geopolitical catch-22, as leaving things as they are could also encourage others to revolt against Western neocolonialism elsewhere in Africa and possibly beyond.
As for France’s NATO allies, they’ve been largely quiet and non-militant, including the United States (a rather uncommon feature in their usually belligerent foreign policy). Washington DC has a military base in the central part of the country, the Niger Air Base 201, run by US AFRICOM (African Command), but its operational capabilities are mostly limited to drone strikes, with the troops deployed there largely composed of a skeleton crew that provides basic security. Coupled with the recent cooling of US-French relations, this makes it highly unlikely that the Pentagon would give the go-ahead for any sort of American involvement in a possible French invasion, even though it’s in Washington DC’s interest to keep Western neocolonialism in Africa alive for as long as possible.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Featured Video
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel Would Have No Qualms About USS Liberty-Style FALSE FLAG If Iran Campaign Falters – Analysts
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 18.06.2025
Donald Trump is mulling whether or not to join Israel’s aggression against Iran as Tel Aviv faces problems sustaining its defenses against growing counterstrikes, and apparently lacks a realistic game plan for an end to hostilities after failing to achieve its goals. Analysts told Sputnik how the US could be ‘nudged’ into the conflict.
“The US is already assisting Israel with supplies, intel, refueling support, etc. One of the many US posts in the region could be attacked for a casus belli,” former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski explained.
“If Trump doesn’t comply with Israel’s demand” and join its aggression voluntarily, “a false flag may be needed” to drag the US in, Kwiatkowski, retired US Air Force Lt. Col.-turned Iraq War whistleblower, fears.
Netanyahu has a diverse array of options at his disposal, according to the observer, including:
- a false flag against US assets abroad blamed on Iran or one of its Axis of Resistance allies, like the Houthis
- a US domestic attack or assassination blamed on Iran
- Iranian air defenses ‘accidentally’ hitting a civilian jetliner carrying Americans
- use of a dirty bomb or nuclear contamination somewhere in the region blamed on Iran
- even blackmailing by threatening to use nukes against Iran if the US doesn’t join the fight
Kwiatkowski estimates that Israel probably has “enough blackmail power” against President Trump and Congress to avoid the necessity of a false flag operation, but a “USS Liberty-style” attack, targeting the soon-to-be-retired USS Nimitz supercarrier that’s heading to the Middle East, for example, nevertheless cannot be ruled out entirely, she says. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Embarrassing Pivot: U.S. considers dropping Iran oil sanctions amid war
- US has 2 months of rare earths left to replenish weapons amid Iran war: Report
- Strait Of Hormuz closure brings Empire to brink
- Iran controls Strait of Hormuz, dictates terms of war and peace as US excursion backfires
- Outlasting the Superpower: The Reasons Why Iran is Beating uhe US and Israel
- Top PMU commander, over a dozen fighters killed in new US strikes on Iraq
- Is Netanyahu’s war gamble threatening the future of ‘Israel’?: FT
- Smotrich calls for annexation of South Lebanon to Litani River
- Echos of Gallipoli? Hormuz and the Geography of Hubris
- Pakistan PM backs Iran’s right to self-defense amid tensions
- If Americans Knew
- UN’s special rapporteur on human rights says Israel is systematically torturing Palestinians
- Trump White House plagiarized Iran war manifesto from Israel-aligned think tank
- Gaza says 6–10 patients die daily waiting for treatment abroad as Israel blocks medical evacuations
- ‘Substantial evidence’ of double-tap strike in killing of Gaza’s Hind Rajab
- ‘Do Not Want To Die For Israel’: Doubts About Trump’s Iran Strategy Spread Among Troops
- Instead of taking Joe Kent’s claims seriously, the media is disregarding him as an antisemite
- Joe Kent’s Explosive Interviews about his Resignation over the Iran War
- Israel poised to take over southern Lebanon; settlers wreak havoc in West Bank – Not a ceasefire Day 165
- From Sde Teiman, the truth about Israel’s military justice system has been set free
- Child denied life-saving bone marrow transplant by Israel ‘because he is from Gaza’
- No Tricks Zone
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
Aletho News 