Why the question of “Russian influence” has become central
In a few years, Russia has become an unavoidable actor in debates on security in West Africa and the Sahel. The break with France in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, the arrival of Russian personnel (ex-Wagner, now integrated into the “Africa Corps” set-up), defence agreements, media campaigns and diplomatic rapprochements all feed the idea of a major strategic shift.
The central question is less whether Russia is present – that is a fact – than whether this presence really changes the security, political and geopolitical balance, or whether it is mainly part of dynamics already under way.
The nature of Russian influence: what are we talking about?
“Russian influence” covers several dimensions that differ in both intensity and effect:
- Security dimension: deployment of instructors, special forces or personnel from private military companies (PMCs), supply of weapons, intelligence and drone support.
- Political dimension: diplomatic support for regimes breaking with their Western partners, closer cooperation with military juntas, alignment on certain votes at the UN.
- Information dimension: digital campaigns, local media relays, promotion of anti-Western and sovereignty narratives, emphasis on “South-South” solidarity.
- Economic dimension: mining agreements, energy projects, deliveries of grain or fertiliser, often presented as gestures of political support.
These dimensions are not deployed everywhere with the same intensity. Countries under military transition (Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger) are the preferred arenas, while coastal states (such as Senegal, Benin or Côte d’Ivoire) maintain more diversified partnerships, with a more limited or essentially diplomatic Russian presence.
A security shift? Real effects on the dynamics of violence
The most visible argument put forward by the authorities moving closer to Moscow is a security one: the arrival of Russian partners is presented as a more “effective” response to jihadist groups and local insurgencies. The observable results, however, remain mixed.
In Mali: a substitution of partners rather than a change of dynamic
In Mali, the gradual withdrawal of French forces and then of MINUSMA was followed by stronger cooperation with Russia. Open-source analyses (ACLED, International Crisis Group, ISS Africa) point to several trends:
- Concentration of operations around certain strategic areas (central Mali, logistics corridors), with increased use of air strikes and joint Malian army / Russian personnel operations.
- Violence against civilians: several reports by NGOs and international organisations note an increase in abuses attributed to state forces and their allies, in a context already marked by strong intercommunal tensions.
- Limited power projection: despite Russian support, groups affiliated with al-Qaeda (JNIM) and with the Islamic State in the Sahel retain a strong capacity for action, particularly in rural and cross-border areas.
In strictly security terms, the Russian presence therefore appears more as a reshaping of partnerships than as a reversal of the balance of forces on the ground. Conflicts remain structured by local factors: governance, access to resources, marginalisation of certain communities, rivalries between armed groups.
In Burkina Faso and Niger: a trend still taking shape
In Burkina Faso, the rapprochement with Moscow is more recent, but it is accompanied by a discourse of national mobilisation and the build-up of auxiliary forces (Volunteers for the Defence of the Homeland, VDP). Russian support currently seems to focus on:
- the supply of equipment (drones, weapons);
- training and advice for certain segments of the armed forces;
- cooperation on information and communication.
In Niger, the break with Western partners is recent and the contours of security cooperation with Russia are still evolving. The effects on the ground are still difficult to measure, all the more so as the country is at the heart of a regional reorganisation (creation of the Alliance of Sahel States – AES, repositioning of foreign bases, reshaping of trafficking routes).
In both cases, it is still premature to assert that the Russian presence is durably changing the dynamics of violence. The observable trends rather suggest a transition between partnership models, with considerable uncertainty over the financial, logistical and political sustainability of these choices.
A geopolitical rather than a security rebalancing
The clearest impact of Russian influence is at the geopolitical and diplomatic level.
Challenging regional architectures
The rapprochement with Moscow is part of a broader movement contesting existing regional frameworks:
- Strained relations with ECOWAS, accused by some regimes of defending external agendas.
- Creation or strengthening of alternative frameworks (such as the AES) that seek to assert strategic autonomy vis-à-vis traditional Western partners.
- Search for new backing from Russia, but also from China, Turkey and the Gulf states, in a logic of diversification.
Russia has thus become one of the symbols of a rebalancing of alliances, in which Sahelian states are trying to reduce their dependence on their former dominant partners, without breaking with all international actors.
Mutual instrumentalisation of partnerships
The regimes in power use the relationship with Moscow to:
- consolidate their domestic legitimacy by relying on a discourse of sovereignty and of a break with “the old order”;
- obtain political support in international forums, particularly in the face of sanctions or diplomatic pressure;
- gain room for manoeuvre in negotiations with other partners.
For its part, Russia benefits from these rapprochements to:
- assert its presence in a theatre from which Western powers are partially disengaging;
- gain access to natural resources (gold, uranium, manganese, etc.);
- position itself in a broader global competition, in which Africa is becoming a space for projection and political symbolism.
Russian influence therefore changes the balance of alliances and narratives more than the fundamental configuration of threats.
The information dimension: a change of narrative more than a change on the ground
Pro-Russian information campaigns and the discourse of some Sahelian governments have helped transform local and international perceptions:
- dissemination of narratives highlighting the failure of Western interventions and the need for a “new partner”;
- promotion of Russia as an actor that respects sovereignty and does not interfere in internal affairs, despite debate over this image;
- growing mistrust of certain international organisations or NGOs perceived as aligned with Western agendas.
This change of narrative is not solely imposed from outside. It builds on:
- long-standing resentment linked to the results of international interventions, seen as disappointing;
- socio-economic frustrations, particularly among urban youth;
- internal political dynamics in which denouncing external “interference” serves to consolidate power.
Russian influence acts here as an amplifier of pre-existing trends, rather than as an entirely new factor.
Economic and governance effects: limited opportunities, real risks
Economically, Russian partnerships often focus on strategic sectors: mining, energy, agriculture (deliveries of grain, fertiliser). Medium-term effects remain difficult to assess, but several watch points emerge from the available analyses:
- Opaque contracts: lack of transparency on the terms of mining or security agreements, which makes it harder to assess the benefits for local populations.
- Risk of sectoral dependence: one dependence replacing another if states do not genuinely diversify their partnerships.
- Links with informal economies: in some areas, actors linked to Russian networks may become part of circuits already marked by smuggling, trafficking and the capture of local rents.
In terms of governance, cooperation with Moscow takes place in contexts where institutions have been weakened by political crises, military transitions and mistrust of elites. The most likely effect is less a profound transformation of state structures than a strengthening of certain segments of power (security apparatuses, regime inner circles).
For economic and institutional actors: what strategic impacts?
For companies, NGOs and international organisations, Russian influence mainly changes:
- The frameworks for dialogue: new priorities set out by the authorities, redefinition of key interlocutors, repositioning of defence and security ministries.
- Local perceptions: increased polarisation around the Western presence, need for greater caution in communication and positioning.
- Risk mapping: changing relations between local forces, armed groups and foreign actors; reshaping of access zones and sensitive areas.
On the other hand, the nature of the fundamental risks (insecurity, institutional fragility, political volatility, vulnerability of supply chains) remains largely determined by long-term internal dynamics, which the arrival of new partners changes only at the margin.
Rupture or continuity? A real influence, but bounded by local dynamics
The Russian presence in West Africa and the Sahel undeniably represents a significant development in the geopolitical landscape: reshaping of alliances, redefinition of narratives of legitimacy, repositioning of external powers. However, several factors suggest the idea of a “total shift” should be put into perspective:
- jihadist groups and other armed actors remain structured by local and regional logics that go beyond the question of external partners alone;
- Sahelian and coastal states retain a degree of autonomy, seeking to diversify rather than entirely replace their alliances;
- structural constraints (institutional weakness, territorial inequalities, resource governance, demography, climate change) remain the main drivers of conflict.
In this sense, Russian influence changes the balance of partnerships and narratives more than it transforms, at this stage, the underlying balance of the security and political crises. Its medium- and long-term impact will depend largely on:
- the capacity of states to strengthen their institutions and improve local governance;
- the evolution of internal conflicts and community dynamics;
- how populations perceive the concrete results of these new partnerships, beyond the rhetoric of rupture.