The lack of results of the French army Barkhane, in the fight against terrorism, and in addition, the serious suspicions of complicity with terrorists in Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso, lead these countries to throw France out. In Mali as in the Central African Republic, France has been suspected of obstructing and blocking orders for weapons intended to fight terrorists.
These countries have turned their backs on the former colonizer to strengthen their military cooperation with the Russia of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
This rejection affects not only the field of military cooperation (departure of Barkhane requested in these countries), but also diplomacy with the expulsion of the French ambassador to Mali, Joel Meyer, at the end of January 2022; the fire at the French Embassy in Burkina Faso, October 1, 2022.
The policy of double standards of the French authorities, inclined to admit soldiers to power in Chad, when it is Mahamat Idriss Déby, whose death of the father is shrouded in mystery, but not in Guinea, when the putschist is called Mamadi Doumbouya, or in Mali, when it's Assimi Goïta, has finished convincing that the democracy supported by France is of variable geometry.
In addition, these French authorities include a third term, when it comes to Alassane Dramane Ouattara or Alpha Condé.
Will the French authorities ask themselves the right questions and learn from the gradual loss of French influence in Africa, a continent that is increasingly turning away from France to strengthen its cooperation with other partners, in particular the Russia?
To wonder about the causes of this decline, and especially the reasons for the African volteface would be a good start. To refuse to ask these good questions would be tantamount to a denial of reality.
Continuing to surf on the effects of the French debacle in Africa, and deliberately forgetting the root causes, as President Emmanuel Macron does exactly, is to put oneself in an ivory tower and never agree to leave it.
It is the policy of the Ostrich, leading to persisting in vain attempts, without convincing, to take the effect (the Russian influence in Africa) for the cause (the paternalistic policy of France in Africa) , and to accuse his Russian counterpart.
The choice of the type of cooperation and partners is an act of sovereignty, which no State can deny to another, which can only be imposed on the basis of negotiation around interests beneficial to all.
Apparently, some seem to deny this maturity to African states, in whose place we must choose, and which should above all not cooperate with Russia.
This posture reveals the persistence of power relations between dominant and dominated allowing the first to draw the chestnut from the fire in Africa. He could do everything to block the way to any other offer that could help change this relationship of domination imposed and exercised on the African peoples through their own corrupt leaders and valets.
This is how Vladimir Putin's Russia is presented as the plague from which we must stay away. Moreover, no process would be too much to defeat the Japanese TICAD initiative.
Revolt for new independence
This paternalistic and infantilizing policy of France in Africa has become counterproductive, and has opened up an avenue for China, India, Russia and Japan.
This means that the African continent, in particular the States of the Sahel, finds itself in a new dynamic, which seems to be irreversible, and which is assimilated to a desire to conquer new independence and above all to reject French interventionism.
It is a revolution of the States, in line with the new popular revolutions, with this particularity that these are not necessarily against the military.