I will accept the following criticism (though I don't think any of us would have proclaimed to have been experts or even particularly knowledgeable on Niger or Nigeria, we are typically not the kind of people who go and look at wikipedia articles for 30 minutes and then come back as X Country Understanders) and this is an incredibly useful article that I am always in desperate need of. There's a tendency within myself, which I am always at work to purge, to come up with explanations that sound very nice and explanatory and all the pieces fit together quite nicely, but without actually going ahead and verifying whether any of it actually true.

That being said, and I fucking hate being the guy to say this because it's always so cliche, but I think the truth might lie somewhere in the middle between the broad geopolitical (which we tend to focus on in our ignorance of on-the-ground conditions much of the time) and the narrow local (which this article very helpfully provides). Both domains govern and shape the other. I think it's perfectly plausible to fit this into the jigsaw of the Second Cold War, you just have to be careful you aren't forcing the jigsaw piece in where it doesn't actually fit. And as the article says, fitting the coup into the "This is an act by America against France to cut them off from uranium and force them to take American gas" place doesn't work for a number of reasons as they explain. Fitting the coup into the "This is Russia being based and being anti-colonial" place also doesn't work. It's got something to do with the origins of jihadist groups in West Africa, something to do with Western exploitation, something to do with the jostling for allies and resources by big powers - but also something to do with local ethnicities (e.g. as Bazoum is), something to do with the governments of West African countries, and something to do with the recent histories of these countries and how their independences came to be, and a whole number of other factors. Really it's an entire 1000-page book to have a decent description.

It's important to remember - for myself and others - that these countries and their people do have agency. Liberals and conservatives tend to assume that they don't, from a perspective of racism, explicitly or implicitly, and it's easy to do something similar by assuming that these countries are mere pawns by other great powers in a great geopolitical game (and perhaps handwaving that there's probably other things going on and then not bothering to learn what those other things are), and while that's a little closer to the truth than racistly assuming that they're incapable of having independent ideas, it's still not correct. I must keep purging my liberalism every single day.

Many of the commentators in the alternative media space of the Western world may wish the best for the African continent, but, more often than not, they are not equipped to understand the nuances inherent in the complex web of relationships and interests that exist among various African states.

Through their narrow field of vision, these commentators only see the jostling of France, USA, UK, Russia and China for influence in Africa, and interpret all moves by African states as either for the Russia-China axis or the USA-French axis.

It never even occur to these commentators that a huge country such the Nigeria could have core national security interests in Niger, which is separate from the geopolitical manoeuvrings of USA and France, both of which are mere interlopers and not native to the landscape. I often notice that many of these commentators have barely heard of the three organizations that Nigeria diligently funds and controls in order to secure its regional and national interests. I am referring to ECOWAS, Lake Chad Basin Commission and the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF).

There is a hyper-focus on Tinubu (who is no doubt a corrupt man) as if he is the sole decision-maker inside Nigeria. He is not. There is the national legislature, civil society groups, the local media, respected traditional chiefs and many influential politicians whose views on military intervention must be taken into account by Tinubu.

If Tinubu were the sole decision-maker and an American/French puppet, then Nigerian-led ECOWAS intervention in Niger would have already started as Tony Blinken, Vicky Nuland and Emmanuel Macron have fervently lobbied for.

...

There is no doubt in my mind that France, the EU and USA are incredibly frustrated by Tinubu's lack of decisiveness, but he is definitely not their puppet in any way or fashion. Nuland or Macron may not give a damn about a possible refugee crisis in Niger following a military intervention, but Tinubu does. Not because he is a humanitarian, but because it will damage his political standing in Nigeria, especially among Northern Nigerians who form a formidable support base for his political party, All Progressives Congress.

...

Officials of France, EU and USA have mostly been reduced to following Nigeria’s meandering political system instead of calling the shots.