The intervention by Russian African Corps forces to protect Niger’s military council from an internal mutiny in late August has raised questions about the nature of Moscow’s growing role in the Sahel and the possibility that it is shifting from a security partnership to direct protection for ruling military regimes.
The intervention came after hundreds of mutinous soldiers stormed the capital, Niamey, before Russian forces helped units loyal to the council regain control. Nigerian writer Taiwo Hassan described the incident, in an article published by Foreign Policy magazine, as the African Corps’ first intervention to protect an African regime from an internal mutiny.
Russia’s role expands after Sahel coups
He said the precedent makes the Russian force resemble a “mercenary imperial guard”, warning that it could push Niger into growing dependence on Moscow, potentially limiting the independence of its political and security decisions. Russia’s presence in the Sahel expanded as French and US influence waned between 2020 and 2023, following coups in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.
The military councils in the three countries ended defence agreements with Western states and moved to strengthen ties with Moscow. They also established the Alliance of Sahel States as an alternative to the Economic Community of West African States. However, Hassan said the alliance provided no practical support to Niger during the mutiny, which he viewed as evidence of the fragility of a grouping whose members depend heavily on Russia.
African Corps expands towards the Gulf of Guinea
Moscow’s expansion has not been limited to the alliance’s members. Togo received about 300 African Corps personnel after signing a security agreement with Russia, as Moscow seeks to expand its influence in the Gulf of Guinea states. The writer believes Niger’s experience could become a model attracting other African governments seeking rapid security protection, despite the potentially high long-term political and economic costs.
According to his analysis, Moscow benefits from some African military leaders’ preference for co-operation with Russia because of the colonial legacy weighing on the region’s relations with Western states, as well as Russia’s failure to tie its security co-operation to stated conditions concerning democracy and human rights. However, the article says this co-operation comes with concessions linked to mineral resources.
Mineral resources and the limits of counter-insurgency
Hassan highlighted the importance of uranium, gold and lithium to the United States, amid Washington’s efforts to secure supply chains for the technology sector and reduce reliance on China. Despite the African Corps’ success in helping Niger’s military council and supporting Mali in confronting attacks by extremist groups, Hassan believes the Russian model has clear shortcomings in combating insurgent movements.
He cited the withdrawal of Russian forces from Kidal in northern Mali after an attack by armed groups and Tuareg fighters. The writer also noted that violent military campaigns had resulted in abuses against civilians, saying this could fuel recruitment by armed groups.
Civilian abuses threaten the legitimacy of the military councils and Moscow’s military intervention in Niger has raised fears of growing security dependence
He added that the military councils’ failure to fulfil their pledges to end the violence threatens their legitimacy and prompts them to tighten restrictions on freedoms and arrest opponents. According to Hassan, saving Niger’s military council gave Moscow additional influence, but this gain could become a burden if residents view Russian forces as an imposed foreign military presence.
He said: “No one, particularly in post-colonial West Africa, likes an occupying army.” He also warned that Niamey’s use of Russian forces to suppress the mutiny could deepen divisions within the army and increase the authorities’ reliance on external support.
By contrast, Hassan said Russia’s limited economic investment gives the United States an opportunity to restore some of its influence through trade, investment and aid, in addition to supporting counter-terrorism efforts with weapons, intelligence and training.
The writer concluded that achieving lasting stability requires stable governments deriving their legitimacy from their people, rather than military regimes relying on foreign forces, whether Russian or Western. He linked the future of Russian influence in the Sahel to Moscow’s ability to provide tangible security without turning its local allies into regimes dependent on permanent external protection.
