The war in Ukraine, ongoing since February 2022, defies all logic of peace. Its economic, political, and strategic repercussions ripple across the world. Yet a pressing question looms: Why is Africa, a continent unrelated to this war, suddenly a diplomatic target for the great powers? While some in the West claim Africa has everything to gain by “getting involved,” it’s time to deconstruct this narrative with boldness and pragmatism.
The war in Ukraine didn’t emerge overnight. It is the result of a complex web of historical, strategic, and political interests.
Independent since 1991, Ukraine has long been a strategic battleground between Russia and the West. For Moscow, Ukraine represents a vital geopolitical buffer against NATO’s expansion. Conversely, Kyiv aspires to European integration, synonymous with prosperity and independence.
In 2014, Ukraine’s people ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych after he refused to sign an agreement with the European Union. This pivot toward the West prompted a violent reaction from Moscow: the annexation of Crimea, support for separatists in the Donbas, and, eventually, full-scale war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin justifies the invasion as a necessity to protect Russian-speaking populations and counter NATO’s encirclement of Russia. However, behind this narrative lies a stark reality: a Kremlin desperate to maintain its regional and global influence.
The United States, the European Union, and their allies have poured billions into military and economic aid to Kyiv. Without this support, Ukraine would likely have capitulated long ago. This solidarity serves as a strategy for the West to contain Russian ambitions.
Russia, despite sanctions, hasn’t backed down. Moscow is betting on the depletion of Ukraine’s resources and fractures within Western unity.
The positions of both sides remain irreconcilable: Ukraine demands the complete withdrawal of Russian troops, while Russia refuses to relinquish annexed territories.
Could Donald Trump influence this conflict? The possibility warrants scrutiny.
During his presidency, Trump often took an ambiguous stance toward Putin. A new Trump presidency could mean U.S. disengagement, weakening Ukraine and giving Russia free rein.
Trump might seek to negotiate a swift end to the war, but this would likely come at Ukraine’s expense, with potential territorial concessions to Russia. He has already criticized NATO and U.S. military aid to Ukraine, and his leadership could fracture Western unity, directly benefiting Putin.
The great powers are now courting Africa not out of respect but to serve their interests in this conflict. Russia seeks to maintain its economic and military alliances on the continent, while the West aims to undermine this influence.
Neither Ukraine nor Russia has vital interests in Africa, aside from exploiting its resources and diplomatic weight. Why should Africa take sides in a conflict that has no bearing on its own realities?
Taking an active role or choosing sides in this war offers no tangible benefits for Africa. On the contrary, it risks exposing the continent to economic and diplomatic pressures.
At best, Africa could adopt a neutral stance and promote peaceful resolutions. However, this requires resources and strategies that few African nations are equipped to deploy.
Africa must resist being instrumentalized in a war that isn’t its own. It cannot become the diplomatic battlefield for powers that value the continent only when it serves their needs. African leaders must prioritize their people’s interests by addressing the food and economic crises worsened by this conflict and asserting themselves as independent voices on the global stage.
Africa has nothing to gain from this war except by reminding the world that its dignity and sovereignty are not for sale. The West and Russia must resolve their disputes, leaving Africa out of their geopolitical games.
