Africa: Coups, Counter-Coups, and the Arsonist–Firefighter

From Alaska to Africa: What This Week Tells Us About Power

Friends, let’s sit down and talk about what really unfolded this week in geopolitics. On the surface, the world saw summits, peace treaties, and handshakes. But beneath those headlines, we find something deeper: patterns of power, repetition of history, and the same familiar Western fingerprints across regions as far apart as Alaska, Mali, and the Congo.

Take the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska. Presented as a bold step toward peace in Ukraine, it revealed something very telling. Russia pushed for recognition of the territories it seized, while the U.S. signaled it might be open to a broader “grand bargain” instead of an immediate ceasefire. Ukraine, the country most affected, was left out of the initial talks. Doesn’t this sound like a familiar script? The big powers sit at the table while smaller nations are expected to accept the decisions afterward.

The markets reacted too—oil dipped slightly on hopes of sanctions relief, defense stocks wobbled, and whispers of a “peace dividend” began floating around. But when we see peace being negotiated in terms of territory and oil supply, we know we are really talking about economics dressed as diplomacy.

Corridors, Tariffs, and Balancing Acts in Asia

Now, look east. Armenia and Azerbaijan, after decades of bitter conflict, signed a peace framework at the White House. At first glance, it’s a hopeful moment. But part of that deal is a new corridor—one that conveniently serves U.S. strategic and economic interests. The West now gets a transport link in a region long considered part of Russia’s sphere of influence. Here again, the mediator is also the beneficiary.

Meanwhile in South Asia, India is walking a tightrope. On one side, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi prepares for high-level talks in New Delhi, a step toward defusing border tensions. On the other, India is being squeezed by new U.S. tariffs—50% on some exports—because it continues to buy Russian oil. Washington pressures, Beijing beckons, and India is forced into the role of the balancer.

Do you see the pattern? Whether in the Caucasus or the Himalayas, Western powers insert themselves as referees and gatekeepers, offering “peace” or “partnership” in one hand while tightening economic screws with the other.

Africa: Coups, Counter-Coups, and the Arsonist–Firefighter

Let’s turn to Africa, where the façade of “stability” often hides the hand that set the fire. In Mali, the military junta claims it foiled another coup attempt, blaming foreign actors for trying to destabilize the country. True or not, one thing is undeniable: the Sahel has been the graveyard of Western experiments. Years of French military presence and U.S. counter-terror operations left behind more chaos than order. When those forces retreated, a vacuum opened, and Mali’s leaders now frame every internal purge as resistance to Western plots.

But this isn’t only about Mali. Think about the Congo and Rwanda. We know the story of the 1994 genocide, where Western powers were complicit—not by accident, but by choice. France armed a regime that went on to orchestrate massacres, and international institutions looked away until it was too late. Those same powers today present themselves as peace brokers between Rwanda and the DRC. Isn’t it strange that the ones who fueled the fire now pose as the firefighters?

And what sits at the heart of it? Minerals. Cobalt, coltan, gold—resources the world needs for its green energy revolution. The Congo’s soil is filled with them, and its people have paid the price for over a century. First under colonial plunder, now under the guise of global supply chains. Western companies continue to extract value while talking about “responsible mining” and “peace dividends.” It’s the same pattern, just with a new marketing slogan.

Drawing the Threads Together

So, what do we learn when we step back and compare Alaska, Armenia, India, Mali, and the Congo?

We see that peacemaking and profiteering often walk hand in hand. The Alaska summit is as much about oil markets as it is about Ukrainian lives. The Armenia–Azerbaijan corridor is about trade routes and strategic reach as much as reconciliation. The DRC–Rwanda treaty is about cobalt as much as coexistence.

We also see that the narrative of “foreign plots” is powerful. In Mali, the junta gains legitimacy by casting itself as the shield against Western meddling. In Ukraine, the story is that global stability requires territorial compromise. Everywhere, narratives are wielded like weapons—framing who is victim, who is aggressor, and who deserves the sympathy of the world.

And finally, we see that the age of geoeconomics is here. Borders, peace deals, sanctions, tariffs—these are not just about maps or treaties. They are about who controls the flow of oil, lithium, cobalt, and data.

Dear readers, the lesson is this: when you hear of peace summits, corridors, or ceasefires, always ask—who profits? Because too often, the hands shaking at the table are the same ones that armed the conflict in the first place.