Military Junta in Niger has released a statement claiming that ECOWAS has completed its preparations for an Invasion of Niger with at least 2 Members of the Organization

ECOWAS’ deadline for the new Nigerien govt to peacefully step down lest they use military action has passed. "A Senior Military Commander with the ECOWAS-Standby Force has told the Wall Street Journal that it’s Forces need more time to prepare before any kind of Military Intervention in Niger, with the “Success” of the Operation being dependent on these preparations"

French Ministry of Foreign Affairs updates travel advisory to Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso (the three nations declared to defend the new Nigerien govt against military intervention) the highest level of caution

  • CTHlurker [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t know how to say this, but international law is not really a specific set of magical words that everyone has to respect at all times. It’s more like a set of guidelines that smaller nations have to abide by, while the big guys get to do whatever they want. If Russia has an agreement with the people currently holding the reins of power in Niger, there is nothing preventing them from stationing troops (sorry, “mercs”) and using them to guard extraction projects that Russia wants. Also, Russia is currently the most sanctioned country on Earth, so I struggle to sort of see what the west plans on doing against them, in particular in light of the general antipathy that West Africa feels towards Europe.

    Thirdly, stationing troops in another country as a “tripwire” force is also something that the Americans and other NATO countries have been doing for a while now. Otherwise the miniscule force in the Baltics make no sense, because their one job is to die so that the Americans can declare war on the basis of “their” soldiers being attacked.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know how to say this, but international law is not really a specific set of magical words that everyone has to respect at all times. It’s more like a set of guidelines that smaller nations have to abide by, while the big guys get to do whatever they want.

      Legal realists rise up!

    • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      the actual US troops in the Baltics are also backed up by NATO membership of those nations. the parallel would be if the US had contractors somewhere, and used their deaths as justification for intervention—which to my knowledge the US has not ever done. the US basically never discusses contractors’ deaths to launder low official bodycounts for wars. it’d actually be a novel development to launder real or proxy war on behalf of a specifically disavowable asset being attacked.