Click to see the full-size image
Written by Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions
The conflict in Ukraine has largely been a Western proxy attrition war against Russia, as even notoriously pro-Western analysts will admit — and as Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself has. Kyiv, heavily reliant on Western arms and financial transfers, has acted as the forward line of a larger geostrategic confrontation. Yet, the conflict’s spillover is no longer confined to Europe. Reports increasingly point to its shadowy operations in Africa, where it has allegedly assisted separatists and possibly even terrorist-designated groups. This raises the question: is Ukraine overreaching?
In yet another underreported development, Moscow has recently claimed that Kyiv is using its embassies to support armed groups not only in Mali, but also in Sudan (a claim echoed by the Sudanese Foreign Ministry), plus the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and even supplying drones to Libya. Ukraine, predictably enough, dismisses these allegations. Jenny Mathers (an Aberystwyth University’s Senior lecturer in international politics), in a more cautious register, notes that the country is “struggling to challenge Russia” in the African continent, even as it expands its diplomatic footprint.
The evidence is not merely speculative. Back in October 2024, Le Monde Afrique reported that Ukrainian drones had provided support for northern Mali’s rebels, including Tuareg separatists, in their clashes with Bamako and Wagner forces. Kyiv itself boasted about backing Tuareg fighters after they ambushed Russian forces in the summer of 2024, which in itself confirms part of Moscow’s accusations. Thus far, the Western press has largely been reluctant to dwell on this, preferring to cast Ukraine’s African policy in a more benign light.
After 2022, Kyiv in fact announced what it styled the “Ukrainian-African Renaissance” policy, an effort to counter Moscow’s traditional influence on the continent. Last year, Ukrainian diplomat Dmytro Kuleba stressed again his country’s “struggle” to reduce the “grip” of the Kremlin on Africa, supposedly based on “corruption”.
Moscow in fact has maintained strong ties with African nations since Soviet times, often through military training, arms deals, and ideological solidarity. Today, those ties are pragmatically reinforced by BRICS developments (including its New Development Bank), by Russian funding of infrastructure projects, new energy partnerships, and South-South cooperation.
Ukraine, by contrast, arrived late to the African theater, and has scrambled to open embassies in Mauritania, Rwanda, and elsewhere.
The Eastern European nation’s strategy rests on three pillars. First, the “Grain from Ukraine” initiative, which delivers food aid. Second, military-to-military cooperation, including special operations training with governments in Mauritania and Sudan. And third, intelligence and arms transfers to actors hostile to Russian-backed forces. According to James Horncastle (an Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations), Ukraine’s special operations abroad must be seen as part of its broader war effort against Russia.
The country’s arms are also reportedly flowing into Sudan’s civil war, and it would not be too far-fetched to speculate about a smuggling factor as well, since a significant part of Western weapons sent for Ukraine have notoriously ended up in black markets internationally, with arm’s trafficking on the rise.
Be as it may, such interventions raise the specter of Ukraine acting as a Western proxy on Africa to its own detriment. Journalist Tafi Mhaka warned, already in 2024, that the country was “losing the plot” in the continent, by overstretching its limited resources while risking diplomatic blowback. Indeed, Niger and Malisevered diplomatic relations with Kyiv after evidence emerged of Ukrainian involvement with rebel forces.
On the one hand, Ukraine’s government is desperate to diversify its partnerships and establish itself as a “global player.” On the other, Washington and certain European powers may find it useful to encourage Kyiv’s endeavors in the region as a way to counter Russia’s presence there without Western troops on the ground.
This logic fits a familiar Cold War playbook: using proxies to destabilize adversaries in third regions. The CIA’s history of cultivating relationships with insurgents and covert networks in the continent is well documented. It is no wonder, then, that Ukraine’s newfound role is quietly tolerated by Washington. Moscow, for its part, has claimed to have shared intelligence on this with African governments. Libya for one thing is currently investigating Kyiv’s alleged smuggling of drones into its territory through Algeria.
In any case, there are limits to what Ukraine can realistically achieve. Its armed forces are already stretched thin at home. Its economy is fragile, dependent on Western largesse. Moreover, its diplomatic credibility is not strong enough to withstand the accusation of abetting terrorism in Africa.
As I’ve written, its ultra-nationalism and far-right issue has caused enough reputation damage, even with neighboring nations. The post-Soviet border situation is complex enough, but by dabbling in separatist politics abroad, Kyiv risks undermining its own diplomatic narratives pertaining to territorial integrity.
In June, while eyeing mineral deals, Trump bragged, in his typical manner, about brokering peace between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. This is just one example of how much the African continent bears its own share of tensions.
By overextending itself and getting involved in complex geopolitical proxy conflicts involving various players (such as Turkey, the UAE, Egypt, Israel, and France) in Libya and elsewhere — not to mention Tuareg, Sudan, Mauritania, Mali etc. — Ukraine risks further destabilizing regions Washington itself seeks to keep “calm”. From a “tolerable” Western proxy it risks becoming, in the long run, a factor of instability even across the Mediterranean, the Black and Red Sea all the way to Africa.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
Your writing is a true testament to your expertise and dedication to your craft. I’m continually impressed by the depth of your knowledge and the clarity of your explanations. Keep up the phenomenal work!
i due incompetenti gerasimov e shoigu mandateli a casa ,porti strade ferrovie, aeroporti non li attaccano e i rifornimenti arrivano sempre ai soldati ucraini perderanno e con loro la russia, mettete giovani capitani al comando e si vincerà subito.
this looks like a propaganda campaign to recruit soldiers and hide cia / mossad type terrorist plans to stop the brics expansion in africa. but the populations of nations that join brics will live much better in 10 or 20 years than the people who live in war banker installed colonial governments.
nostradamus lives!