Russia Condemns Western Peacekeeping Plan For Ukraine
P&C | Thursday, 08 Jan. 2026
Kyiv | Planet & Commerce
Russia has sharply rejected Western-backed plans to deploy European peacekeepers in Ukraine, branding the proposal “dangerous” and accusing Kyiv and its allies of forming an “axis of war,” in rhetoric that has cast fresh doubt over prospects for ending the nearly four-year conflict. The Kremlin’s response comes just days after Ukraine’s partners agreed on what they described as key security guarantees for Kyiv at a high-level summit in Paris. The criticism marks Moscow’s first official reaction to the Paris talks, where European leaders and US envoys discussed post-war arrangements intended to deter any renewed Russian aggression should a ceasefire be reached. Central to those discussions was the idea of a multinational European force, backed by US-led monitoring, to be deployed in Ukraine once active fighting stops. Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova dismissed the proposals outright, saying they were far removed from anything Moscow could accept. She accused the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” and the Ukrainian leadership of advancing militaristic plans that would prolong confrontation rather than pave the way for peace. “The new militarist declarations of the so-called Coalition of the Willing and the Kyiv regime together form a genuine axis of war,” Zakharova said, describing the peacekeeping initiative as both “dangerous” and “destructive.” Her remarks underscore the Kremlin’s long-standing opposition to any foreign military presence in Ukraine that includes NATO member states. The rejection comes at a delicate moment in diplomacy. US President Donald Trump has intensified efforts to broker an end to the war, engaging in shuttle diplomacy between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump has pressed both sides to compromise, hoping to secure a deal that would halt the fighting and stabilise Europe’s eastern flank.
An earlier 28-point draft proposal, seen as largely aligned with Moscow’s demands, drew criticism from Ukraine and European capitals, who argued it failed to provide meaningful protection against future Russian attacks. In response, Kyiv’s allies moved to strengthen the concept of post-war guarantees, prompting the backlash from Moscow. European officials have argued that credible security assurances are essential to any lasting settlement. Without them, Kyiv fears that Russia could regroup and launch a fresh offensive once a ceasefire is in place. However, the precise nature of the guarantees and the rules governing any peacekeeping force remain unclear, with leaders offering few public details. Russia has repeatedly warned that it would treat any foreign troops deployed in Ukraine as legitimate military targets. Zakharova reiterated that position on Thursday, echoing earlier statements by Putin that Moscow would not tolerate NATO forces on Ukrainian soil under any pretext, including peacekeeping. Zelensky, meanwhile, said that a separate bilateral agreement between Kyiv and Washington on US security guarantees was “essentially ready for finalisation at the highest level,” following discussions in Paris. He stressed that legally binding commitments from Ukraine’s allies were crucial to preventing renewed aggression, though he acknowledged that some of the most contentious issues in the war remain unresolved. Among those unresolved questions are the future of eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region and the fate of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Zelensky has said these topics are the most difficult to address in any settlement, and that he has yet to receive clear assurances about how allies would respond if Russia violated a ceasefire. As diplomatic tensions flared, the war on the ground showed no sign of easing. Russian strikes this week plunged hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians into darkness during freezing winter temperatures, targeting energy infrastructure in the Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. Entire neighbourhoods were left without heat and electricity, forcing hospitals to rely on generators.
“This is truly a national-level emergency,” said Dnipro mayor Borys Filatov, as authorities worked to restore power to critical facilities and extended school holidays due to the outages. Ukraine’s largest private energy company said around 600,000 households in the Dnipropetrovsk region remained without electricity. Zelensky said the latest attacks demonstrated that Moscow had no intention of de-escalating. “These strikes clearly don’t indicate that Russia is reconsidering its priorities,” he said, accusing the Kremlin of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure to apply pressure during diplomatic talks. In addition to missile and drone attacks, Russia has continued ground operations, claiming to have captured another village in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Although the area is not among the five Ukrainian regions Moscow claims to have annexed, the advance highlights Russia’s determination to maintain military momentum even as negotiations are discussed. The stark contrast between diplomatic initiatives and battlefield realities has left European leaders increasingly wary. While they continue to support peace efforts, many now see robust security guarantees as non-negotiable, fearing that a weak settlement would simply freeze the conflict rather than resolve it. For Moscow, however, the Paris proposals appear to confirm suspicions that the West is seeking to entrench its influence in Ukraine under the guise of peacekeeping. By framing the initiative as an “axis of war,” Russian officials are signalling that any deal involving foreign troops remains a red line. As winter deepens and the humanitarian toll mounts, pressure is building on all sides to find a way out of the conflict. Yet Russia’s latest rejection suggests that bridging the gap between Western security plans and Kremlin demands will be exceptionally difficult. With trust in short supply and fighting ongoing, the prospect that peacekeepers could help stabilise post-war Ukraine now looks more contentious than ever. Whether diplomatic momentum can survive this latest clash of narratives may determine whether the war edges toward resolution — or drags on into another brutal year.
Russia Threatens Global War Over Western Ukraine Deployment
P&C | Thursday, 08 Jan. 2026
Rome | Planet & Commerce
Tensions surrounding the Ukraine war escalated sharply after a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Western plans to deploy troops in Ukraine after the conflict could trigger a third world war. The warning followed a Trump-backed Western security declaration that outlined a post-war military presence aimed at guaranteeing Ukraine’s long-term security and deterring renewed Russian aggression. The comments were issued by a Russian-aligned Ukrainian politician living in exile in Russia since 2022, who described the European troop deployment plan as a deliberate political provocation. He argued that the initiative was designed to prevent the war from ending and would instead create conditions for a far wider global conflict. According to his assessment, the introduction of a multinational military contingent into Ukraine, even after a peace agreement, would push the international system toward catastrophic confrontation. The remarks came days after a high-profile summit in Paris produced a joint declaration by Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The declaration outlined plans for France and the United Kingdom to establish military hubs, protected facilities and operational support zones across Ukraine once hostilities with Russia formally end. Western officials described the agreement as a major step toward ensuring that any peace deal does not merely freeze the conflict but makes renewed Russian attacks impossible. The framework envisions a combination of ground forces, air and naval support, and reconstruction-related security missions operating under a coordinated European structure, with strong backing from the United States. For the first time since the war began, the Paris declaration formally acknowledged what Western leaders described as “operational convergence” among the so-called coalition of the willing. This grouping includes 35 countries, Ukraine and the United States, all committed to building enforceable security guarantees rather than symbolic assurances.
President Zelensky welcomed the agreement, saying the coalition had moved beyond statements of intent. He said participating nations had identified which countries were prepared to lead security efforts on land, in the air and at sea, and had also defined command structures and force requirements. According to Zelensky, the agreement sends a signal that Ukraine will not be left vulnerable once active fighting ends. The Paris summit also underscored broader Western alignment around Ukraine. Envoys linked to former US President Donald Trump attended the meeting, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. They publicly reaffirmed Washington’s support for the emerging security framework and stressed that the United States would play a leading role in monitoring any future ceasefire or truce. Western leaders insist that the goal is not escalation but stability. They argue that Ukraine’s past experience shows that weak or ambiguous guarantees invite renewed aggression. By embedding international forces and infrastructure in Ukraine after the war, they say, the risk of a future Russian military return would be significantly reduced, giving Ukrainians confidence that peace would be lasting. Moscow and its allies see the situation very differently. Russian officials have repeatedly stated that any foreign troop presence in Ukraine, regardless of whether it comes before or after a ceasefire, crosses a red line. The Kremlin has long argued that NATO or NATO-linked forces on Ukrainian soil represent a direct threat to Russian security. From Moscow’s perspective, the Paris declaration confirms long-held suspicions that the West intends to entrench its military footprint in Ukraine permanently. Russian officials and aligned figures claim that such a move would not stabilise the region but institutionalise confrontation, transforming Ukraine into a long-term flashpoint between Russia and the West.
The warning of a potential third world war reflects this interpretation. Russian-aligned voices argue that introducing multinational forces would make Ukraine a direct arena of great-power rivalry, where even a minor incident could escalate rapidly. In their view, Europe’s commitment to Ukraine’s post-war security is not a peace guarantee but a trigger for future global instability. The rhetoric has widened the already deep divide between Russia and Ukraine’s European backers at a moment when diplomatic efforts to end the war are continuing behind the scenes. While Western leaders speak of deterrence and permanence, Moscow frames the same measures as existential threats. Despite the escalating language, negotiations over a ceasefire have not been abandoned. However, the starkly opposing interpretations of what peace should look like underline how difficult a settlement remains. Ukraine and its allies insist that enforceable guarantees are essential, while Russia maintains that any such guarantees involving foreign troops are unacceptable. As the war approaches its fourth year, the debate over post-war security arrangements has become as contentious as the fighting itself. Whether Europe’s plan to deploy forces in Ukraine becomes a foundation for lasting peace or a new fault line for confrontation may ultimately determine not only Ukraine’s future, but the stability of the broader international order.
Macron Says US Breaking International Rules Order
P&C | Thursday, 08 Jan. 2026
Paris | Planet & Commerce
French President Emmanuel Macron has delivered one of his sharpest critiques yet of the United States’ global posture, warning that Washington is “gradually turning away” from its allies and “breaking free from international rules” it once championed. His remarks underscore growing unease in Europe over an increasingly unilateral American foreign policy and signal a push for greater European strategic autonomy. Speaking during his annual address to French ambassadors at the Élysée Palace, Macron painted a picture of a world entering a new era of power politics, where established norms and multilateral institutions are losing influence. His comments come as European capitals scramble to coordinate a response to recent US actions in the Western Hemisphere, including Washington’s role in the removal of Venezuela’s leader and renewed territorial ambitions expressed by former US president Donald Trump. “The United States is an established power, but one that is gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from international rules that it was still promoting recently,” Macron told diplomats, warning that the transatlantic relationship is entering a more uncertain and transactional phase. Macron argued that multilateral institutions are becoming less effective, creating a vacuum increasingly filled by raw power politics. “We are living in a world of great powers with a real temptation to divide up the world,” he said, a formulation that echoes European fears of a return to spheres of influence and zero-sum competition between major states. The French president’s remarks reflect mounting concern within Europe that US foreign policy is shifting toward unilateral decision-making, often with limited consultation of allies. Recent developments in Latin America, the Arctic and global trade have reinforced the perception that Washington is willing to bypass established frameworks when they no longer align with its immediate interests. Against this backdrop, Macron urged Europe to take greater responsibility for protecting its own political, economic and technological interests. He called for deeper European coordination and stronger regulatory sovereignty, particularly in the digital domain, which he described as a central battleground of modern power.
Macron placed special emphasis on the need to consolidate Europe’s regulatory approach to technology companies, arguing that control over information flows and digital infrastructure is now a strategic issue. He stressed the importance of safeguarding academic independence and preserving a “controlled information space” where public debate remains free, but not dominated by opaque algorithms. “The possibility of having a controlled information space where opinions can be exchanged completely freely, but where choices are not made by the algorithms of a few, is essential,” Macron said, in a clear reference to the growing influence of major technology platforms over public discourse. He strongly defended the European Union’s digital regulatory framework, singling out the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act as pillars of Europe’s effort to rein in the power of large tech firms. The two laws aim to strengthen competition, curb abusive practices by dominant platforms and impose stricter responsibilities for content moderation. Macron dismissed criticism from Washington that these rules unfairly target American companies or amount to censorship. US officials have previously accused Brussels of using regulation to coerce US-based social media platforms into suppressing viewpoints they oppose. Macron rejected that narrative outright. “The DSA and DMA are two regulations that must be defended,” he said, framing them as necessary tools to protect democratic debate, fair competition and European sovereignty in the digital age. The speech reflects a broader strategic debate unfolding across Europe, where leaders are increasingly questioning the reliability of long-standing alliances and the durability of the post-Cold War international order. Macron has long argued for “strategic autonomy” for Europe, urging the continent to reduce its dependence on external powers in defence, energy, technology and supply chains.
His comments also highlight a growing rift over values and governance models between Europe and the United States. While both sides remain allies, differences over regulation, trade, security guarantees and global leadership have become more pronounced, particularly amid shifting US domestic politics. For European policymakers, the concern is not only about American disengagement, but also about unpredictability. Rapid policy shifts, unilateral actions and transactional diplomacy have made it harder for Europe to plan long-term strategies based on stable US commitments. Macron’s warning comes as the European Union seeks to position itself as a regulatory superpower, using its market size and legal frameworks to shape global standards in technology, climate policy and competition. Defending digital sovereignty has become central to that ambition, especially as artificial intelligence and algorithm-driven platforms increasingly shape societies. The French president’s address suggests that Europe must prepare for a world in which traditional alliances can no longer be taken for granted. While he stopped short of calling for confrontation with Washington, his message was clear: Europe must be ready to defend its interests independently when necessary. As global politics tilt toward great-power rivalry and fragmented rule-making, Macron’s speech captures a growing European conviction that the era of automatic alignment with US leadership is fading. Whether Europe can translate that conviction into coherent action remains an open question, but the tone from Paris signals that complacency is no longer an option.
RSF Drone Attack Triggers Massive Power Outages Across Sudan
P&C | Thursday, 18 Dec. 2025
Khartoum | Planet & Commerce
Sudan has been plunged into fresh darkness after a large-scale drone assault by the Rapid Support Forces struck a key power installation in the country’s east, causing widespread electricity outages and killing rescue workers, as the brutal civil war shows no sign of easing. The attack has drawn renewed condemnation over what officials described as the RSF’s “complete lack of respect for human life,” amid an already catastrophic humanitarian crisis. According to a Sudanese military source speaking to AFP, RSF forces launched a coordinated drone offensive early Thursday morning, targeting critical civilian infrastructure in River Nile State. The strikes hit the strategic Al-Muqrin power station near the city of Atbara, a crucial hub in Sudan’s national electricity grid. The assault triggered power outages across multiple states, including Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast, where the army-backed government has temporarily relocated. “We’ve been without power since 2:00 am,” Abdel Rahim al-Amin, a local official in Port Sudan, said, confirming that large parts of the eastern city were left without electricity for hours. Sudan’s national electricity company later confirmed that the attacks had caused outages in several states, disrupting daily life for millions already struggling with shortages of food, water and medical care.
Military officials said the RSF launched as many as 35 drones at dawn, striking the cities of Atbara, Al-Damer and Berber. The drones specifically targeted civilian infrastructure, including transformers and transmission facilities, in what the army described as a deliberate attempt to cripple essential services. Witnesses in Atbara reported seeing flames and thick smoke rising from the power station following the explosions. The Al-Muqrin facility plays a central role in Sudan’s electricity network. It receives power generated by the Merowe Dam, the country’s largest hydroelectric source, before redistributing it to large swathes of northern and eastern Sudan. Damage to the station has therefore had cascading effects, cutting electricity to regions along the Nile and the Red Sea, and further straining an already fragile system. An official at the power plant told AFP that the attack unfolded in two stages. An initial drone strike hit the facility overnight, prompting emergency crews to respond. A second strike then targeted rescue workers at the site, killing two people and injuring another. River Nile State authorities confirmed the deaths in a statement, condemning the RSF as “militias who have no respect for human life.” As of Thursday morning, the fire at the power station had not been fully contained, according to the Sudan Electricity Company. Engineers were working under dangerous conditions to prevent further damage, but officials warned that restoring full power could take significant time, depending on the extent of the destruction to transformers and control systems.
The RSF has not commented on the latest drone attack. However, in recent months the paramilitary group has increasingly relied on long-range drones to strike army-controlled territory, particularly after losing control of Khartoum. These attacks have repeatedly targeted civilian infrastructure, including power plants, fuel depots and communications facilities, plunging cities into darkness and disrupting water supplies. Sudan has been engulfed in war since April 2023, when fighting erupted between the regular army and the RSF following a power struggle between rival military leaders. The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people, displaced millions and devastated the country’s infrastructure. The United Nations has described the situation as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with entire regions facing famine-like conditions. The latest attack comes amid mounting international outrage over RSF atrocities. In October, global condemnation intensified after reports of mass killings emerged following the RSF’s seizure of El-Fasher, the army’s last stronghold in Darfur, after an 18-month siege. More recently, the UN said more than 1,000 civilians were killed during three days of RSF attacks on the Zamzam displacement camp in April, calling for an investigation into possible war crimes. Sudan’s army chief and de facto leader, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, was expected to travel to Cairo on Thursday to discuss possible pathways out of the crisis with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Egypt, which shares deep security and political ties with Sudan, has positioned itself as a key mediator, warning that continued instability threatens the wider region.
Diplomatic efforts have seen renewed activity in recent weeks. Hopes of a breakthrough were raised last month when US President Donald Trump said he would help end the war, following calls from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for Washington to intervene. Saudi Arabia is part of a so-called Quad mediation group alongside the United States, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, all of whom are seen as wielding influence over the warring parties. Despite these efforts, violence on the ground continues unabated. While Khartoum has seen relative calm in recent months after the army regained control of the capital, the RSF has intensified attacks in other regions, using drones to extend its reach and keep pressure on government-held areas. For civilians, the consequences are immediate and severe. Power outages disrupt hospitals, water pumping stations and communications, compounding the suffering of communities already battered by war. Humanitarian agencies have warned that repeated attacks on infrastructure could push parts of Sudan closer to total collapse, with life-saving services becoming impossible to sustain. As Sudan slips deeper into crisis, the drone strike on the Al-Muqrin power station stands as a stark reminder of how the conflict has evolved into a war on civilians. With rescue workers now among the dead, officials and aid groups alike warn that without urgent international action, the toll on human life and basic survival will continue to rise.
Burkina Frees Nigerian Air Force Crew After Diplomatic Talk
P&C | Thursday, 18 Dec. 2025
Abuja | Planet & Commerce
Burkina Faso has released 11 personnel of the Nigerian Air Force who were detained earlier this month after their military aircraft made an emergency landing in the West African country, marking a rare diplomatic thaw amid strained regional relations in the Sahel. Nigeria’s foreign minister confirmed the development on Thursday, describing it as a success for sustained diplomacy at a time of heightened security sensitivities across the region. The Nigerian personnel were detained on December 8 after their aircraft, en route to Portugal for scheduled maintenance, made an unscheduled emergency landing in western Burkina Faso. The incident quickly escalated into a sensitive diplomatic issue, given the fragile relations between Nigeria and the Alliance of Sahel States, a bloc comprising Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, all currently ruled by military juntas.
Nigeria’s Foreign Affairs Minister Yusuf Tuggar announced the release in a statement posted on X, saying the issue had been resolved through dialogue with Burkina Faso’s military-led government. “Through sustained dialogue, we also resolved the matter concerning Nigerian Air Force pilots and crew, reaffirming the effectiveness of diplomacy in addressing sensitive issues,” Tuggar said. According to Nigerian officials, the released group included two flight crew members and nine passengers. Alkasim Abdulkadir, a spokesperson for the foreign minister, confirmed that all 11 personnel were no longer in detention and were safe. “Matters have been resolved, they are no longer detained,” Abdulkadir told The Associated Press, adding that the engagement between both governments had been constructive. Burkina Faso’s military regime, led by Captain Ibrahim Traoré, agreed to release the Nigerian personnel following meetings with a Nigerian delegation headed by Tuggar. The talks reportedly focused not only on the immediate detention issue but also on broader bilateral concerns and regional security cooperation.
The Nigerian Air Force has maintained that the emergency landing was conducted strictly in line with international aviation guidelines and standard safety procedures. Officials said the aircraft was on a routine mission to Portugal for maintenance when a technical issue forced the crew to land in Burkina Faso. No hostile intent was involved, Nigerian authorities stressed, as they sought to defuse suspicions surrounding the incident.
Despite these assurances, the emergency landing triggered a strong security response from the Alliance of Sahel States. Shortly after the incident, the alliance placed its air and anti-air defenses on maximum alert. In a statement issued by General Assimi Goïta, the leader of Mali’s military junta, the alliance authorized forces “to neutralize any aircraft that violates the confederation’s airspace.” The move highlighted the deep mistrust that currently defines relations between the Sahel alliance and neighboring states, including Nigeria. The detained crew will now be allowed to continue their journey. Nigeria’s foreign ministry spokesperson Kimiebi Ebienfa confirmed on Thursday that the aircraft would proceed to Portugal as originally planned for its scheduled maintenance. The resolution effectively closes a potentially dangerous episode that could have escalated into a wider diplomatic or security crisis.
The timing of the incident was particularly sensitive. Relations between Nigeria and the Alliance of Sahel States have been strained in recent months, especially following Nigeria’s involvement in regional security efforts. Earlier this month, Nigeria played a key role in reversing a short-lived coup attempt in Benin, during which the Nigerian Air Force conducted airstrikes against coup plotters. Burkina Faso borders Benin to the northwest, while Nigeria lies to Benin’s east, making the region strategically volatile. Analysts say the emergency landing and subsequent detention were viewed through this wider lens of suspicion, with Sahel alliance states increasingly wary of Nigeria’s military activities and its alignment with regional and international security frameworks. Nigeria, for its part, insists its actions are aimed at preserving constitutional order and regional stability. Nigeria remains a leading member of the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, a 15-nation regional bloc that has been at odds with the Sahel alliance. Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger formally withdrew from ECOWAS earlier this year, accusing the bloc of imposing inhumane sanctions following military coups and of acting against the interests of their populations. The split has created parallel power centers in West Africa and complicated cooperation on security, trade and diplomacy.
The release of the Nigerian Air Force personnel has been welcomed by diplomats as a rare positive development amid these tensions. As part of the resolution, Nigeria and Burkina Faso agreed to hold regular consultations and explore steps to deepen bilateral cooperation and regional integration, according to Abdulkadir. While details of these consultations have not been made public, officials suggested they could help prevent similar incidents in the future. Security experts note that the episode underscores the fragile state of trust in the Sahel, where military governments have adopted increasingly hardline postures on sovereignty and airspace control. The authorization to shoot down aircraft deemed to violate airspace reflects the depth of insecurity felt by these regimes, even as it raises concerns about miscalculation and escalation. For Nigeria, the incident also highlights the challenges of navigating a region where traditional diplomatic norms are being tested by shifting alliances and military rule. Abuja has sought to position itself as a stabilizing force in West Africa, but its leadership role has also made it a target of suspicion among juntas that view ECOWAS and its members as hostile to their rule. The successful release of the detained aircrew suggests that diplomacy remains possible, even in a deeply polarized regional environment. Nigerian officials have emphasized that dialogue, rather than confrontation, was key to resolving the standoff, a message likely aimed at reassuring both domestic and regional audiences. As West Africa continues to grapple with coups, insurgencies and geopolitical realignments, the Burkina Faso-Nigeria episode serves as a reminder of how quickly routine military operations can become flashpoints. For now, the immediate crisis has been defused, but broader questions about trust, security coordination and regional unity in the Sahel remain unresolved.
Guinea Military Bans Opposition as Referendum Sparks
P&C | Saturday, 23 Aug. 2025
Africa| Planet & Commerce
The fragile hopes of a democratic transition in Guinea have been dealt another blow. On Saturday, the country’s ruling military government suspended the activities of its three largest opposition parties, including that of ousted former President Alpha Conde, just weeks before a critical constitutional referendum scheduled for September 21.
The decision, which comes under the rule of General Mamady Doumbouya, has been widely condemned by civil society groups and opposition leaders as an attempt to consolidate military power under the guise of constitutional reform. For many Guineans, the move deepens fears that Doumbouya’s promise to return the country to civilian rule following his 2021 coup is now in jeopardy.
The Suspended Parties
The decree issued by the junta targeted Guinea’s three most prominent opposition groups:
- Rally of the Guinean People (RPG): The party of former President Alpha Conde, who was overthrown by Doumbouya in September 2021.
- Union of Democratic Forces of Guinea (UFDG): Led by former Prime Minister Cellou Dalein Diallo, long-time rival of Conde and one of the country’s most influential opposition figures.
- Party of Renewal and Progress (PRP): A smaller but significant voice in Guinea’s political landscape.
The order, read out on state television, prohibits the parties from engaging in any political activity for 90 days, covering the entire referendum period.
The junta claimed the suspension was due to the parties’ “failure to meet required obligations,” though it did not specify what obligations had been breached.
Referendum Campaign Postponed
In a separate announcement on Friday night, Guinea’s military rulers also delayed the official start of the referendum campaign period, moving it from August 24 to August 31.
The referendum will ask Guineans to vote on a revised constitution that the junta says is designed to return the country to civilian government. However, opposition leaders fear that the new constitution could allow Doumbouya or other junta members to run for office, despite a 2021 transition charter that explicitly banned them from participating in future elections.
Opposition and Civil Society Outrage
The suspension of parties has been described as a serious setback for democracy in Guinea. Opposition leaders argue it eliminates any meaningful competition ahead of the vote and silences dissenting voices.
Cellou Dalein Diallo, leader of the UFDG, condemned the ban, saying it was a “blatant act of repression” meant to stifle the will of the people.
Civil society groups, which had been planning demonstrations beginning September 5, say they will move forward despite the risks. Protests are expected to be met with heavy force, as all demonstrations have been banned since 2022 under Doumbouya’s regime.
Analyst Perspectives
Al Jazeera’s West Africa correspondent Nicolas Haque, reporting from Dakar, Senegal, noted that the suspension “strips away any pretence that the transition was actually working to protect democracy.”
“When Colonel Doumbouya came to power in a coup, he promised not only to bolster democracy but to give more space to political parties and civil society. What we’re seeing now is the opposite: three main political parties banned, unable to canvass, to post on social media. For them, it feels like a silencing of their voice.”
Haque added that the measure will likely prompt “more people to take to the streets, confronting security forces.”
The 2021 Coup and Its Aftermath
Guinea has been under military rule since September 2021, when Colonel Mamady Doumbouya and his special forces ousted Alpha Conde after 10 years in power. Conde had become deeply unpopular after altering the constitution in 2020 to seek a controversial third term, sparking protests and violent clashes.
At the time of the coup, Doumbouya pledged to “rewrite the social contract”, promising to restore civilian rule through a transitional process guided by a transition charter. That charter stated that:
- No member of the junta, government, or military institutions could run in future elections.
- The process would include consultations with civil society and political parties.
- A new constitution would pave the way for free and fair elections.
However, three years later, opposition figures say the junta has failed to uphold its commitments, instead pursuing a strategy of tightening control while paying lip service to democratic ideals.
Draft Constitution and Hidden Ambitions
A draft constitution, presented to Doumbouya in June, is at the centre of the current crisis. While the text nominally sets out a framework for civilian rule, it is vague on whether Doumbouya himself could stand for president.
Legal experts say this ambiguity could be deliberate, allowing the junta to reinterpret restrictions in its favor once the referendum passes. Opposition leaders insist this is a blueprint for a disguised military presidency.
International Reaction
So far, international reaction has been muted. The African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have called for a peaceful transition in Guinea but stopped short of issuing sanctions.
Observers warn that Guinea risks following the path of other West African nations, such as Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, where military juntas have consolidated power under the cover of transition plans.
Western governments have also expressed concerns. The United States and European Union have repeatedly urged Doumbouya to uphold the 2021 commitments and avoid steps that could derail democratic governance.
Guinea’s Democratic Struggles
Guinea’s political history has been dominated by strongmen and coups since independence from France in 1958. The suspension of parties before a referendum reflects a familiar cycle of authoritarianism cloaked in reformist rhetoric.
- Alpha Conde was the country’s first democratically elected president in 2010 but undermined his legacy by seeking unconstitutional third terms.
- Doumbouya’s junta capitalized on public frustration with Conde but now faces the same accusations of power-grabbing.
- Repeated bans on protests and arrests of opposition leaders demonstrate how the military has clamped down on dissent.
Risks of Unrest
The suspension of opposition parties heightens the risk of violent unrest in Guinea, a country with a long history of street protests and state repression.
Civil society groups have already called for nationwide demonstrations beginning September 5, just weeks before the referendum. With the opposition silenced and security forces empowered, confrontations appear inevitable.
Guinea’s population, particularly in urban centres like Conakry, has grown increasingly restless over:
- Rising food and fuel prices.
- Lack of political freedoms.
- The uncertainty of a genuine democratic transition.
The Road Ahead
The September 21 referendum is now shaping up less as a democratic exercise and more as a test of Doumbouya’s grip on power.
- If passed, the new constitution could give the junta sweeping authority to shape Guinea’s future.
- If rejected or marred by protests, Doumbouya risks both domestic backlash and international isolation.
Either way, the suspension of opposition parties has already cast doubt on the credibility of the process.
Conclusion
The suspension of Guinea’s three main opposition parties ahead of a constitutional referendum represents a critical moment for the nation’s fragile democratic hopes. What was once presented as a path toward stability and civilian governance now increasingly looks like a power consolidation strategy by the military junta.
For Guineans, the stakes are clear: whether the September referendum ushers in a return to democracy or entrenches another cycle of authoritarian rule. For Doumbouya, it is a gamble that could secure his legacy as a reformer—or expose him as just another strongman in a region where democracy has long struggled to survive.
Museveni Accepts US Deportees Amid Push for Better Trade
P&C | Saturday, 23 Aug. 2025
Africa| Planet & Commerce
Uganda has emerged as the latest country to sign a controversial deportation deal with the United States, agreeing to temporarily host third-country nationals expelled under President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown. The agreement, confirmed by Kampala’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has been framed as a “temporary arrangement” but already raises sharp questions about trade, sovereignty, and human rights.
While Washington hails the pact as part of its global campaign to “remove uniquely barbaric criminals” and unwanted migrants, analysts argue Uganda’s decision is driven less by humanitarian considerations and more by economic and diplomatic expediency. Facing tariffs on key exports and growing international isolation after its anti-LGBTQ+ law of 2023, Kampala appears eager to get back into Washington’s good books ahead of the 2026 elections.
What Uganda Agreed To
In a statement issued Thursday, Bagiire Vincent Waiswa, permanent secretary of Uganda’s Foreign Ministry, confirmed that Kampala had struck a deal with Washington to host certain deportees from the US.
Key points of the arrangement include:
- Uganda will not accept individuals with criminal records.
- The country will not host unaccompanied minors.
- Kampala “prefers Africans” be transferred as part of the deal.
- The arrangement is temporary, with no timelines yet announced.
“The two parties are working out the detailed modalities on how the agreement shall be implemented,” the ministry said.
The US State Department later confirmed that President Yoweri Museveni discussed the deal with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, alongside negotiations on “migration, reciprocal trade, and commercial ties.”
Uganda’s Initial Denial and Sudden Flip
Just a day earlier, Uganda’s Foreign Minister Henry Okello Oryem had denied the reports, insisting Uganda lacked facilities to accommodate deportees.
“We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?” he told the Associated Press.
Yet, within 24 hours, Kampala’s narrative flipped, signaling that tariffs, visas, and sanctions relief were likely part of the behind-the-scenes bargaining.
What Uganda Hopes to Gain
Although the Foreign Ministry’s statement did not specify quid pro quos, officials and analysts suggest Uganda is eyeing several benefits:
- Tariff Relief
- Uganda faces 15 percent tariffs on goods entering the US, part of Trump’s protectionist trade war.
- Exports most affected include coffee, vanilla, cocoa, and petroleum products.
- Kampala hopes hosting deportees will unlock tariff reductions, boosting competitiveness against suppliers like Colombia.
- Uganda faces 15 percent tariffs on goods entering the US, part of Trump’s protectionist trade war.
- Restoration of Preferential Trade Access
- Uganda was suspended from AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) in 2023 after passing its anti-LGBTQ+ law.
- Deportee cooperation may help Uganda negotiate re-entry or at least limited tariff-free concessions.
- Uganda was suspended from AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) in 2023 after passing its anti-LGBTQ+ law.
- Renewed Aid and Diplomatic Leverage
- Washington froze aid for HIV/AIDS programs and imposed visa bans on Ugandan officials.
- The deportee deal could soften relations and bring back critical funding.
- Washington froze aid for HIV/AIDS programs and imposed visa bans on Ugandan officials.
- Political Legitimacy Ahead of Elections
- With elections due in January 2026, Museveni is eager for Western acceptance to counter accusations of authoritarianism.
- The deal projects Uganda as a “responsible partner” to the US.
- With elections due in January 2026, Museveni is eager for Western acceptance to counter accusations of authoritarianism.
Critics: “Human Beings Are Not Bargaining Chips”
Rights advocates argue the deal amounts to outsourcing human suffering for trade benefits.
Nicholas Opiyo, a leading Ugandan human rights lawyer, condemned the arrangement:
“We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency. That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?”
Opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi said the deal was designed to “clear Museveni’s image” before elections, warning the US not to ignore Uganda’s human rights abuses.
Trump’s Deportation Policy and Africa as a “Dumping Ground”
Trump’s administration has vowed to deport millions of undocumented migrants, labeling some “uniquely barbaric monsters.”
Rights groups say the policy disproportionately targets African countries with weak human rights protections. Melusi Simelane of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre told Al Jazeera:
“The US is treating Africa like a dumping ground, focusing on countries where rights are already fragile.”
Uganda’s Refugee Paradox
Ironically, Uganda already has one of the world’s most progressive refugee policies. It hosts 1.7 million refugees from South Sudan, Sudan, and the DRC, allowing them to work and move freely.
The UNHCR has praised Kampala’s open-door stance. Yet, critics note the contradiction: while Uganda is lauded for supporting refugees, it is now agreeing to take in deportees rejected by their own governments.
Uganda’s Strained Relations with Washington
Relations between Uganda and the US soured sharply after Museveni signed the anti-homosexuality bill in 2023.
- The US accused Kampala of “gross human rights violations.”
- Aid cuts targeted crucial HIV programs.
- Uganda was banned from AGOA.
- Visa restrictions were imposed on officials accused of undermining democracy.
The deportee deal may represent Kampala’s first step toward repairing ties, even as rights groups insist Washington must not overlook ongoing abuses.
What Other Countries Have Agreed To
Uganda is not alone. Several countries have quietly struck similar deportation deals:
- Eswatini: Accepted five deportees from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen in July, reportedly in exchange for tariff reductions.
- South Sudan: Took eight deportees, including convicted murderers and drug traffickers, after a US Supreme Court ruling.
- Rwanda: Agreed to host 250 deportees, offering workforce training, housing, and health care — echoing its controversial but lucrative UK migrant deal.
- El Salvador: Received 300 Venezuelan migrants for a $6 million fee.
- Costa Rica: Took 200 asylum seekers from Asia and Africa.
- Panama: Accepted nearly 300 deportees in February.
This trend highlights how the US uses economic leverage to secure cooperation from smaller states.
Regional Security Concerns
Neighbouring countries have raised alarms. South Africa summoned Eswatini’s diplomats in August, worried that violent offenders sent there could destabilize the region.
Uganda may face similar scrutiny, especially given its porous borders and history of hosting rebel groups and proxy wars.
Uganda’s Domestic Risks
Hosting US deportees may bring short-term gains, but it carries risks:
- Integration challenges: Communities may reject non-African deportees.
- Security threats: Some deportees may have criminal pasts not disclosed by the US.
- Political backlash: Citizens may see the deal as “selling sovereignty for coffee prices.”
- International reputation: Uganda could be viewed as complicit in Trump’s harsh deportation agenda.
The Bigger Picture: Trade Over Rights
The deportee deal reveals a harsh reality of global politics: trade concessions are being tied to human lives.
For Trump, the deals demonstrate “toughness on immigration.” For Museveni, they offer a pathway to tariff relief and political rehabilitation. But for deportees, the arrangement leaves them in legal limbo — neither recognized as refugees nor fully accepted as residents.
Conclusion
Uganda’s decision to accept deportees from the US underscores the intersection of migration policy, trade, and political survival. In exchange for hosting people unwanted elsewhere, Kampala hopes to reduce tariffs, revive exports, and restore Western legitimacy.
But the price is steep: the arrangement risks turning Uganda into a dumping ground for unwanted migrants, while glossing over its own human rights record.
As elections approach in 2026, Museveni is betting that Washington’s goodwill will outweigh domestic dissent. Yet, the question lingers: will the short-term gains of tariff relief and aid outweigh the long-term costs of sacrificing rights and sovereignty?