Why the Coup in Niger and Ukraine Are Viewed Differently by Global Powers

Understanding why the coups in Niger and Ukraine were met with different international reactions requires a nuanced examination of the geopolitical and strategic interests at play.

Analysis of the Nigerian Coup

First and foremost, it is important to clarify that the international community, including the government of the United States and the Russian Federation, have not explicitly stated that the coup in Niger is legal.

On July 27, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov characterized the coup as unconstitutional. The official stance of the Russian government emphasizes the need for peaceful and bloodless solutions to internal conflicts. Russia advocates for the resolution to be reached through negotiations between the people and elites of Niger. Any military intervention, especially from the West, is seen as inappropriate, especially since Africa is not considered part of the Western sphere of influence.

Moreover, the Russian government has clearly stated its non-recognition of the junta formed after the coup. This position is further underscored by the actions of Algeria, another member of the BRICS countries, which has also acknowledged Bazoum as the legitimate President of Niger.

Understanding the Ukrainian Crisis

Turning to the situation in Ukraine, the context is significantly different. In stark contrast to the Niger dispute, where external military intervention was not seen as necessary, Russia played a more direct role in the Ukraine crisis.

Russia recognized the new regime in Ukraine after the 2014 Euromaidan protests and did not favor a return of Viktor Yanukovych to power. From a strategic perspective, Russia intervened in Crimea primarily to protect the Russian-speaking population and prevent further escalation. However, Russian military incursions into the Donbas region were more limited compared to the situation in Crimea.

The Minsk Agreements, a series of ceasefire and peacekeeping deal framework arrangements, served as a roadmap to return the region of Donbas to Ukrainian control in exchange for specific constitutional guarantees that would protect the rights and status of Russian-speaking minorities.

It is crucial to understand that Russia's stance on the situation in Ukraine is rooted in a deep historical and cultural connection with the people of Crimea and the Donbas region. This connection transcends political boundaries, and the protection of these communities remains a significant factor in Russian foreign policy.

Geopolitical Context and Differences

Niger's location and political landscape are fundamentally different from that of Ukraine. Although Niger is a member of the African Union, its proximity and cultural ties to Western powers are not as pronounced as those of Ukraine to European powers.

In contrast, Ukraine's border with Russia places it in a strategic position that demands a different response from Russia than would be required for a faraway country like Niger. The implications for Western powers, especially for France, which shares cultural and historical ties with Niger, are also more minimal compared to the direct impact on Russia from the Ukraine crisis.

Conclusion

The divergent views on the coups in Niger and Ukraine reflect not only the legal interpretations of the actions but also the geopolitical interests, cultural connections, and historical contexts. While the Russian and Western governments have differing perspectives on these events, a deeper understanding reveals the complexity of international relations and the varied responses to political upheaval in different regions.