Multipolarity or Dependency? Russia's Bid for African Allegiance
When Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and current deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, addressed the Liberation Movements Summit in South Africa on July 27, his message was as predictable as it was provocative: Russia stands with Africa in the fight against neocolonialism and envisions a multipolar world. Coming from a Kremlin official, this claim may appear noble at first glance—until one examines the underlying logic, the historical baggage, and the realpolitik shaping Moscow's African charm offensive.
The summit brought together ruling parties with anti-colonial roots—South Africa's ANC, Zimbabwe's ZANU-PF, Mozambique's FRELIMO, Namibia's SWAPO, and Tanzania's CCM. These are parties with storied pasts, forged in the fires of liberation wars, many of which were backed by Soviet arms and ideology during the Cold War. Medvedev's remarks framed these parties as guardians of sovereignty and developmental progress, touting their legitimacy not only in history but in the future of global pluralism.
ADVERTISEMENT
But historical memory and contemporary alliances often diverge.
There is no denying that Russia's growing footprint in Africa taps into a deep well of postcolonial disillusionment. For many African nations, political independence did not translate into economic sovereignty. Decades after European withdrawal, Western corporations still dominate resource extraction, and the Bretton Woods institutions often seem more like gatekeepers than partners. The result has been a lingering sense that colonialism never truly ended—it just evolved.
Russia, keen to reassert itself globally in the face of Western sanctions and isolation following its invasion of Ukraine, has cleverly tapped into this sentiment. Medvedev's appeal was laced with references to 'ideologues of neocolonialism' and 'equal partnerships.' Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has echoed similar lines, accusing the West of economic exploitation. Such rhetoric has struck a chord with leaders disenchanted with the asymmetries of the Western-led order.
And yet, to accept Russia as a liberating force in Africa demands a suspension of disbelief.
If neocolonialism is defined as the economic dominion of sovereign nations under the guise of cooperation, then Russia's actions warrant scrutiny as much as those of the West. Moscow's military ties in Africa are expanding rapidly—Wagner mercenaries in the Central African Republic and Mali, arms deals across the continent, and intelligence-sharing agreements with autocratic regimes. These arrangements often lack transparency and accountability. Russian partnerships, while devoid of the moral posturing typical of Western democracies, are far from altruistic.
ADVERTISEMENT
See also
Trump's 50-Day Ultimatum: Ukraine Ceasefire or a New Trap?
The idea of a multipolar world (an appealing concept to postcolonial states) is increasingly used as a diplomatic euphemism for alignment with non-Western power centers. Yet the benefits of such partnerships remain uneven. In Mali and Burkina Faso, Russian support has coincided with growing repression and shrinking civic space. While the Kremlin promises 'respect for sovereignty,' it often gravitates toward regimes that muzzle opposition and rely on coercion, not consent.
This isn't to say that African countries are mere pawns in a great power game. Quite the contrary—they are navigating a world of constrained choices, reshaping their foreign policy around a strategic mix of Chinese investment, Russian arms, Gulf State capital, and Western aid. The shift is less ideological than pragmatic. Leaders want roads, power plants, and trade—regardless of whether it comes with liberal sermons or Kremlin silence.
Still, there is an undeniable symbolism to the Liberation Movements Summit. It reflects a continent increasingly confident in its agency, willing to rewrite the rules of engagement with former colonial powers and emerging ones alike. Gwen Ramokgopa of South Africa's ANC put it succinctly: political liberation is not enough. Economic emancipation is now the goal.
But how does one achieve that without repeating the mistakes of the past? Aligning with Russia may help loosen Western conditionalities, but it won't solve Africa's structural problems: underdeveloped infrastructure, poor education systems, and endemic corruption. Russian trade and military cooperation are not substitutes for institutional reform or industrial diversification.
History offers sobering lessons. The Cold War-era alliances between the USSR and African liberation movements were driven more by ideological rivalry than genuine development. While Soviet aid helped win independence, it rarely built enduring economic capacity. The collapse of the USSR left many of its African allies adrift, exposing the fragility of partnerships built more on geopolitics than on shared prosperity.
See also
XI BRICS no show: Strategic shift or silent warning?
Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union, but its motivations are just as strategic. Facing economic sanctions, international isolation, and battlefield challenges in Ukraine, Moscow needs Africa—not only for diplomatic support at the United Nations, but also for alternative markets, arms deals, and mineral access. In that light, Medvedev's speech reads less like an ode to African empowerment and more like a realpolitik maneuver to secure influence in a shifting global landscape.
Even so, the West would be foolish to dismiss Russia's overtures. The language of anti-imperialism carries weight in postcolonial societies. Decades of moralistic diplomacy—often undermined by military interventions, unfair trade terms, and migration hypocrisy—have tarnished the West's image in Africa. When Western leaders preach human rights while ignoring the economic realities imposed by their own corporations, they create a credibility vacuum that rivals are eager to fill.
The challenge for the West is not merely to counter Russia's narrative, but to offer a better one. That means shifting from extractive economic relations to genuine partnerships—investing in African value chains, supporting debt restructuring, and engaging African civil societies rather than just their rulers.
For Africa, the future lies not in choosing between East and West, but in mastering the art of strategic non-alignment—leveraging multiple partnerships to advance domestic development goals. Multipolarity, if truly rooted in mutual respect and economic inclusion, can serve that purpose. But if it becomes a euphemism for siding with authoritarian benefactors against liberal hypocrites, it will fail the very people it claims to empower.
Medvedev's address reflects a broader geopolitical recalibration. Russia is using history and ideology to position itself as a partner of choice for a continent still scarred by colonialism. But rhetoric alone is not redemption. Africa's liberation movements, now ruling parties, must decide whether Russia offers merely a new suitor—or a new path. The answer will determine whether multipolarity becomes a means of empowerment, or just another version of dependency cloaked in new colors.
Also published on Medium.
Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Israel's meltdown over western recognition of Palestinian statehood reveals its deepest fears
Now that France and Britain, both members of the United Nations Security Council and the G7, have indicated they are prepared to recognise the State of Palestine, the dam has burst. On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney indicated his government also intends to recognise Palestine during the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly in New York, and an increasing number of western states are adopting or preparing similar positions. It is far from certain whether any of these governments will actually follow through on their statements of intent. By attaching various conditions to their plans, they have already given themselves an escape clause should they need to use it. Given that a two-state settlement has been the official position of these western governments for decades, the question arises as to why they have waited so long to recognise the state without which their proclaimed strategic objective is impossible, particularly since a majority of countries recognised Palestine long ago. One reason lies in their domestic politics and the profound transformation of western public opinion. The shift has been building over many years, and is the harvest of continuous, persistent efforts by countless individuals and organisations to bring about changes in official policy. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters In large part, thanks to their campaigns, the impact of the Gaza genocide on public opinion manifested itself much more rapidly and broadly than would otherwise have been the case. It is safe to conclude this change is now irreversible, similar to that experienced by South Africa after the 1960 Sharpeville massacre. Public pressure Faced with a deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza and mounting public pressure, western governments were compelled to act. Most have chosen the symbolic and comparatively cost-free approach of recognition. They have done so in large part to avoid adopting concrete measures, such as an arms embargo, trade sanctions, or diplomatic isolation. Yet their response has also demonstrated that the pressures generated by protracted public campaigns can and do produce results, and can indeed force governments to change course. Western governments are now acting on recognition because Israel's own words and actions have backed them into a corner and left them with no other choice The continuation and intensification of these campaigns is therefore more justified and necessary than ever. They must now focus on compelling these governments to take active measures to end their complicity in Israeli crimes, bring these crimes to a halt, and replace the shield of impunity that governments continue to provide to Israel with policies that impose actual accountability. A second reason western governments are now acting on recognition is that Israel's own words and actions have backed them into a corner and left them with no other choice. For decades, these states have treated "two-state settlement" and "Palestinian state" not as policies requiring concrete actions in order to bring them about, but rather as political slogans, under the cover of which Israel was permitted to turbocharge its efforts to annex Palestinian territory and dispossess its inhabitants with the express purpose of making a two-state settlement impossible. As long as Israel was willing to pretend it sought peace with the Palestinians and make occasional statements that it, too, supported a two-state settlement, western states could deflect pressure to confront its annexationist activities on the pretext that doing so would undermine Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and thus the consummation of a two-state settlement. The peace process had to be kept alive at all costs. In this Kafkaesque world, "two-state settlement" served as a fig leaf for its elimination. Cornered by Israel As Israel shifted ever further to the extreme right, the pretence of negotiations became increasingly untenable. With the Gaza genocide, it has become simply impossible to sustain. Israeli leaders - all of them - now openly speak of their intention to collectively expel the Palestinians they have not killed from the Gaza Strip, to annex the West Bank, and to ensure a Palestinian state is never established. It is official Israeli government policy. In explaining Canada's new position, Carney explicitly referenced Israel's actions, not only in the Gaza Strip but particularly in the West Bank, as justifications. These include "accelerated settlement building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem", the "E1 Settlement Plan", and this month's vote by the Knesset calling for the annexation of the West Bank, as well as soaring settler terrorism. Like its predecessors, Canada recognised that its continued embrace of a two-state settlement and Palestinian statehood, while supporting these only with empty slogans, had become at best nonsensical and politically costly. Israeli extremism left Ottawa and other western capitals with exactly two options: recognise Palestine or endorse formal Israeli annexation. In addition to other factors, last year's International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion that Israeli rule in the occupied territories is illegal and must end as rapidly as possible would have complicated a move to legitimise Israeli annexation. Failed alternative A third reason for the recognition of Palestinian statehood is the failure of the alternative formulated by the first Trump administration: Arab-Israeli normalisation as a substitute for Palestinian self-determination. Rather than promote normalisation as the icing on the cake of a two-state settlement, the grandiloquently titled Abraham Accords were designed to weaken, isolate and ultimately marginalise the Palestinians. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of Israel's war on Gaza They essentially aimed to remove the Question of Palestine from the regional as well as international agenda with official Arab support. They enabled Israel to unilaterally resolve the Question of Palestine as it saw fit. Israel was given all the time and space it required to discard the Palestinians into the dustbin of history while the world looked the other way. These efforts, however, ended in resounding failure on 7 October 2023. While claims that Hamas specifically acted that day to thwart a purportedly impending Saudi-Israeli normalisation agreement were never convincing, by 2025, any such deal that excludes provisions for Palestinian statehood is no longer a tenable proposition. Nearly two years on, Palestine continues to dominate the headlines. Selective memory Israel and its apologists have responded to these recognition announcements with predictable rage and fury. The eruption of Mt Hasbara is almost without precedent. Among the arguments put forward by Israel and its flunkies are that recognition is a "reward for terrorism", represents "a prize for Hamas", and even that it encourages Hamas to harden its position in negotiations to end the Gaza genocide. It is, of course, true that political crises and armed conflicts typically result in modifications, changes, and even transformations of policy. This has been an observable pattern since the dawn of history. Israeli settler terrorism isn't new. It is foundational to the Zionist project Read More » If reality were any different, Ho Chi Minh City would still be an American brothel named Saigon, Algeria would still be an administrative department of France, and Zimbabwe would still be known as Rhodesia, to give but a few recent examples. In their time, those who brought these changes about were vilified as terrorists, and the achievement of their rights similarly denounced as rewards for terrorism. There is nothing new under the sun here, though the Hasbara Symphony Orchestra is admittedly more shrill than its historical counterparts by orders of magnitude. What the orchestra's musicians omit entirely is how this pattern worked to their own advantage. After Britain successfully crushed the 1936-39 Arab Revolt in Palestine, during which it empowered Zionist militias to serve as auxiliaries in its counterinsurgency campaign, the latter increasingly turned their guns on their British sponsors. Throughout the 1940s, Zionist militias conducted a growing volume of attacks against British forces, and in addition to killing British soldiers, assassinated British officials in Palestine and abroad. In 1946, they blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the headquarters of the British Mandatory government in Palestine, killing nearly 100. Two future Israeli prime ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, were classified as wanted terrorists by the British authorities. The Zionist campaign against the British played an important role in London's decision to terminate the Mandate, which gave way to Israel. But that was "good" terrorism. Political blackmail In the specific case of Palestine, every country now announcing an intention to recognise its statehood has been on record supporting this position for decades. And for roughly half a century, the recognition of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories has formed a key component of the international consensus on Arab-Israeli peace. As for the Palestinian people, their right to national self-determination has been recognised as inalienable since the 1970s. For good measure, the ICJ in 2024 ruled that Israel has no right to exercise authority over even a square millimetre of Palestinian territory. The more pertinent question, therefore, is why it took the Gaza genocide and Israel speeding towards formal annexation of the West Bank for these states to finally begin the process of recognising Palestinian statehood. Why have they spent the past several decades appeasing Israel at every turn rather than confronting its crimes and illegal activities? And why have their announcements regarding recognition not been accompanied by specific, concrete and meaningful measures that promote it in practice? Palestinian UN representative Riyad Mansour attends the General Assembly's 46th plenary meeting on the Question of Palestine at UN headquarters in New York, 3 December 2024 (Kena Betancur/AFP) The indisputable reality is that it is Israel that has, year after year, been rewarded for its illegal occupation and criminal policies, and has been endlessly appeased. That it took a genocide, and two years after its onset, for western governments to reconsider this state of affairs is the true scandal. As for Hamas's negotiating position, it is unclear how a symbolic political act that may or may not be carried out in several weeks is going to harden or in any way change its calculations in ongoing negotiations about an end to Israel's genocidal military campaign, which has now also produced a famine in the Gaza Strip. Rather, we are dealing with either pure hysteria, a desperate effort at political blackmail, or a talking point designed to provide Israel's government with yet another pretext to sabotage ceasefire negotiations. It also bears mentioning that those announcing an intention to recognise Palestinian statehood have typically conditioned this on a removal of Hamas from governance in the Gaza Strip, and in a number of cases, such as that of Canada, even the exclusion of Hamas from new Palestinian Authority elections. Israel's real fear When it comes to negotiations, Israel has never acted in good faith to bring the occupation that commenced in 1967 to a definitive end. In each round of negotiations, Israel invariably insisted upon, among other things, retaining occupied territory in a manner that ensured most illegal settlements and settlers would remain in place. The territory Israel sought to annex would not only fragment a Palestinian state but, together with other demands, also leave Israel in effective control of its external borders - as though Jordan and Egypt were poised to invade Tel Aviv. As the two-state paradigm becomes a thing of the past, and recognition of Israeli annexation remains off the table, a deeper crisis awaits the genocidal apartheid regime What Israel was offering the Palestinians was a state in name only: for all intents and purposes, an Israeli protectorate lacking meaningful sovereignty. It is what former Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad perceptively called a "Mickey Mouse State". Today Israel is not only rejecting any negotiations with Palestinians on an end to the occupation as a matter of principle, but these talks have also been made superfluous by the ICJ ruling. The ruling declared the occupation illegal in its entirety and requires Israel to withdraw to the 1967 boundaries as a matter of legal obligation, without Palestinian territorial concessions save mutually agreed, reciprocal, and minor border adjustments. Given this context, it is noteworthy that the final document of the recent High-Level International Conference on Palestine, organised by France and Saudi Arabia, co-chaired by 19 states, and convened at UN headquarters in New York, repeatedly speaks of implementing a two-state settlement without once referencing that tired old saw, "negotiations". Ultimately, Israel's meltdown over western recognition of Palestinian statehood is not about recognition as such. Rather, it reflects its fear - an entirely justified one - that the dam has burst. Slowly but surely, these governments are beginning to respond to the campaigns and demands of their citizens for an entirely different approach to Palestine. It won't end with symbolic political gestures, and Israel understands this better than anybody. As the two-state paradigm becomes a thing of the past, and recognition of Israeli annexation remains off the table, a more fundamental crisis awaits the genocidal apartheid regime. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Dubai Eye
2 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Two-year-old among 28 dead in Thursday's Russian attack on Kyiv
A two-year-old child was found dead in the rubble after Thursday's sweeping Russian drone and missile attack on Kyiv, Ukraine's prime minister said on Friday, taking the death toll to 28, with over 150 wounded. The toddler was the third child to have died in the attack, in which Russia launched more than 300 drones and eight missiles in the early hours of Thursday morning. The other two underage victims were six and 17 years old, the head of Ukrainian presidential office Andriy Yermak said. The rescue service said 16 of the injured were children, the largest number of children hurt in a single attack on Ukraine's capital since Russia started its full-scale invasion almost 3-1/2 years ago. City authorities declared Friday a day of mourning as rescue operations continued. "This morning, the body of a 2-year-old child was pulled from the rubble, bringing the total dead to 28, of which 3 are children," Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said on X, adding that over 150 people had been wounded. "The world possesses every instrument required to ensure Russia is brought to justice. What is lacking is not power — but will," Svyrydenko said. US President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, sharply criticised Russia's "disgusting" behaviour against Ukraine but said he was not sure whether sanctions would deter Russia. He has given Russian President Vladimir Putin until August 8 to make a deal or else he will respond with economic pressure.
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Pressure mounts on South Africa to sever ties with Israel, expel diplomats
South African authorities are facing mounting pressure to sever ties with Israel and expel Israeli diplomats, amid growing outrage over its genocide by starvation campaign in the besieged Gaza Strip. Several activists told Middle East Eye that they had intensified their campaign to end what they called South Africa's complicity in Israel's war on Gaza, where more than 200,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded and the entire population is facing famine. Zukiswa Wanner, a writer and activist, said that many South Africans had thought Pretoria's decision to take Israel to the International Court of Justice in late 2023 would result in a swift end to the 22-month conflict, but Israel, with full Western backing, continued its war on Gaza. "Almost two years later, Israel has not relented and we continue seeing the horror visited on the Palestinians," Wanner told MEE. "As individuals, we are all quite powerless on pushing the stop of the genocide - but as citizens - we can demand of our government that they finalise this small thing: South Africa can't be having normal relations with an abnormal, genocidal government. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Since Israel went to war on Gaza, only Bolivia and Belize have severed diplomatic relations with Israel. At various points, the Muslim majority countries of Bahrain, Chad, Jordan and Turkey have withdrawn their ambassadors, but all still maintain diplomatic ties with Israel. For its part, South Africa hasn't had an ambassador in Israel since 2018. But activists say the country needs to take stronger action against Israel. 'South Africa can't be having normal relations with an abnormal, genocidal government' - Zukiswa Wanner Many South Africans told MEE that they were extremely disappointed with Cyril Ramaphosa's government's decision to ignore parliament's decision to sever ties with Israel in November 2023. "Other countries have disengaged with Israel without the fanfare we brought to the table," Wanner added. This week, a petition created by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), urging the government to shutter the Israeli embassy had secured several thousand signatures. "You have rightly brought a case of genocide against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), so you have determined Israel is committing genocide. How then can we continue to have diplomatic and economic relations with that genocidal state?" the petition said. 'Block the Boat' Across South Africa, frustration over Israel's war on Gaza and brutal occupation of the West Bank have triggered several small scale protest actions at traffic lights, and outside embassies and ports. This week, activists in the port city of Durban mobilised over reports that a ship travelling via South Africa to Israel was carrying cargo that may be used in the war on Gaza. Local activists were alerted by the South African BDS coalition that the vessel, originating from Chennai, India, was carrying "dangerous goods". With India having previously sent combat drones, as well as batches of explosives and components to Israel, the activists said they were compelled to act to prevent Durban from becoming a conduit for murdering Palestinians. Hundreds of South Africans mobilised online, reached out to local and national representatives and the police, calling for the ship to be inspected and for Pretoria to uphold its obligations in international law. Israel's war on Gaza has exposed 'deep divide' within Brics, experts say Read More » As a founding member of The Hague Group, South Africa has pledged its intention to prevent the supply of arms to Israel. It has also committed to preventing the docking of vessels which may be used to transport fuel and arms to Israel. On Thursday, activists reported that following an inspection by police, the vessel was found to have not been in possession of any material that may be used to violate human rights, but lauded both the community and authorities for complying with their requests to have the vessel checked. "We will continue to carry through with this 'Block the Boat - Durban' campaign, because we know that our port could be used for transporting of goods destined for Israel," Lubna Nadvi with the KwaZulu-Natal Palestine Solidarity Forum (PSF), told MEE. Nadvi said the group was also monitoring the tranporstation of coal from Richards Bay Port - the other major port in KwaZulu-Natal - and would be picketing outside the port terminal in the coming days. "There are multiple campaigns that we are undertaking. The fact that this tip-off came through means that there is a very vigilant international network keeping an eye out. And the fact that nothing was found is good, and we need to be vigilant that no such items will be traveling through any one of our ports," Nadvi added. The South African Police Services did not immediately respond to MEE's request for comment.
