P.S. great analysis, Zineb. When I was first in West Africa, the locals rolled their eyes about the Russians, who provided sub-par goods and services trying to take advantage of the then newly independent African states. We Americans have nothing to brag about with respect to our diplomatic skills, but the Russians are every bit as clumsy and far more self-serving.
This is an excellent, spot on analysis, perhaps only underestimating the impact of foreign funding of jihadist groups that destabilized the southern Sahara/northern Sahel and that continue to do so to this day from Senegal to Chad.
More than anything, it’s so sad. Mali, despite being an amalgam of many tribal groups, was working pretty well as a country. It’s a beautiful land, wonderful people, fabulous musical traditions. It breaks my heart to see what has become of this fine country, once the center of African civilization.
You should write a post analyzing whether the neverending crises in Africa and the Middle East can be resolved without erasing the absolutely bonkers post-colonial borders and drawing new sensible ones that account for the tribal/ethnic/religious divisions so everyone is not at each other’s throats all the time.
That sounds good, but it would result in a mosaic of inconsequential nation states à la Montenegro. This will further hamper African development. Mali was working just fine until Hillary decided to bomb Qaddafi after he relinquished his nuclear weapons. Islamic extremism added fuel to the fire. Micro-nations cannot deal with this.
Gordon, when you try to draw maps based on tribes and ethnic groups in Africa, you would end up with hundreds of micro nations. Mali alone would have roughly a dozen.
You’re arguing against something I didn’t propose and something you probably don’t know about beyond cursory googling.
Besides, what’s even your point? So what if there are hundreds of small states? Africa would just go back to pre-colonial polities, and the evidence the world over has shown that small, homogenous countries (Israel, Singapore, South Korea) fare much better than large, non-homogenous ones, especially when the latter are artificial creations. And it’s not like Africans have proved capable of governing large countries, the larger the land mass the worse the governance.
No, you're an idiot without an argument as to why small, homogenous states are bad. Even your Montenegro example is stupid: splitting the artificial state of Yugoslavia into its constituent states stopped the bloodshed. Ditto East Timor from from Indonesia.
Finally, no one asked you to butt in, I was asking Zineb to do a hypothetical.
Mali is Russia’s next Afghanistan and I am still looking for the tallies in the kush. Russia has/had a few hundred/thousands troops in the Sahel. The USSR deployed + or - 115 000 in Afghanistan. This elementary fact, per se, is sufficient to invalidate the rather absurd comparision.
From what I understand, it’s not just migration flows. If they actually were to consolidate a micro state, they may be able to engage in significant drone warfare against the Europeans. Not to mention disrupting transit on the West Coast of Africa.
The tension and interplay between nomadic and sedentary civilization—what a beautifully framed analysis. You truly are a compatriot of Ibn Khaldun.
Excellent analysis !
Sounds like they should have just stuck with the French… but instead they downgraded to second rate Russian troops.
P.S. great analysis, Zineb. When I was first in West Africa, the locals rolled their eyes about the Russians, who provided sub-par goods and services trying to take advantage of the then newly independent African states. We Americans have nothing to brag about with respect to our diplomatic skills, but the Russians are every bit as clumsy and far more self-serving.
This is an excellent, spot on analysis, perhaps only underestimating the impact of foreign funding of jihadist groups that destabilized the southern Sahara/northern Sahel and that continue to do so to this day from Senegal to Chad.
More than anything, it’s so sad. Mali, despite being an amalgam of many tribal groups, was working pretty well as a country. It’s a beautiful land, wonderful people, fabulous musical traditions. It breaks my heart to see what has become of this fine country, once the center of African civilization.
You should write a post analyzing whether the neverending crises in Africa and the Middle East can be resolved without erasing the absolutely bonkers post-colonial borders and drawing new sensible ones that account for the tribal/ethnic/religious divisions so everyone is not at each other’s throats all the time.
That sounds good, but it would result in a mosaic of inconsequential nation states à la Montenegro. This will further hamper African development. Mali was working just fine until Hillary decided to bomb Qaddafi after he relinquished his nuclear weapons. Islamic extremism added fuel to the fire. Micro-nations cannot deal with this.
Who the hell is suggesting micronations? You’re putting up a straw man and arguing with it.
Gordon, when you try to draw maps based on tribes and ethnic groups in Africa, you would end up with hundreds of micro nations. Mali alone would have roughly a dozen.
You’re arguing against something I didn’t propose and something you probably don’t know about beyond cursory googling.
Besides, what’s even your point? So what if there are hundreds of small states? Africa would just go back to pre-colonial polities, and the evidence the world over has shown that small, homogenous countries (Israel, Singapore, South Korea) fare much better than large, non-homogenous ones, especially when the latter are artificial creations. And it’s not like Africans have proved capable of governing large countries, the larger the land mass the worse the governance.
Your comments defy description. You obviously haven’t been to these places, including Mali. You’re wasting everyone’s time.
No, you're an idiot without an argument as to why small, homogenous states are bad. Even your Montenegro example is stupid: splitting the artificial state of Yugoslavia into its constituent states stopped the bloodshed. Ditto East Timor from from Indonesia.
Finally, no one asked you to butt in, I was asking Zineb to do a hypothetical.
Aljezeera had a great three part documentary on the Tuareg people and their fight with the Mali/France governance.
Good article .
Mali is Russia’s next Afghanistan and I am still looking for the tallies in the kush. Russia has/had a few hundred/thousands troops in the Sahel. The USSR deployed + or - 115 000 in Afghanistan. This elementary fact, per se, is sufficient to invalidate the rather absurd comparision.
What we've got to do,
is get france and the british kicked out of Africa.
So that they can have their gold and diamonds back.
And Russia can be a FAIR PARTNER,
to help SELF-empower the entire continent.
What does Europe do for a living?
Where do they get money to pay for jewish wars around the world?
👏👏👏👏👏
Bonjour
Zineb comment vas tu
Pourquoi les soldats russes sont mieux payés que les soldats malienne
Pouvez vous m'expliquer cette différence
From what I understand, it’s not just migration flows. If they actually were to consolidate a micro state, they may be able to engage in significant drone warfare against the Europeans. Not to mention disrupting transit on the West Coast of Africa.
Interesting…
Excellent explication of the implications in the Sahel, a significance non existent or irrelevant to ever distracted western mindsets...until it isnt!
This is a very interesting and important article. Thank you very much.