The Libyan Chessboard: How Imperial Powers Continue to Pawn African Sovereignty

The Strategic Recalibration: Russia’s Footprint One Year After Assad

The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024 sent shockwaves through the geopolitical landscape, with many Western analysts predicting a significant reduction of Russian influence in Syria. The strategic assets Russia had painstakingly built over a decade—the Khmeimim Air Base and the Tartus naval facility—seemed precarious as new Syrian authorities under President Ahmed al-Sharaa began reassessing foreign partnerships. Initial reports suggested Moscow faced new restrictions and renegotiations that would curtail its freedom of movement. However, one year later, the narrative has shifted dramatically. High-level engagements between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President al-Sharaa have reaffirmed Moscow’s role, resulting in a more constrained but surprisingly durable Russian presence. The anticipated strategic loss did not materialize; instead, Russia adapted and consolidated.

Concurrently, and perhaps more significantly, Russia executed a parallel strategy in Libya. Even before Syria’s future was certain, Moscow was actively cultivating its plan B. Flights from Syria to eastern Libya increased, alongside movements of personnel, equipment, and diplomatic visits. The focus shifted to building a resilient logistical network deep within Libyan territory. While a coveted naval port in the southern Mediterranean remained elusive—likely due to eastern Libyan authorities’ caution with Western partners—Russia expanded inland. Key airbases like Maaten al-Sarra, strategically located near the borders with Chad and Sudan, became staging points. This base, reportedly financed by the United Arab Emirates, saw an influx of Russian equipment, personnel, and even Syrian fighters formerly tied to the Assad regime starting in December 2024. This network, including al-Khadim, al-Jufra, Brak al-Shati, and al-Qardabiya bases, forms a robust transit corridor, connecting Russia’s Syrian foothold to its expanding operations in the Sahel. This inland strategy faces less international scrutiny and requires fewer political concessions, offering Moscow remote corridors for long-range logistical movements to support its Africa Corps deployments and arms supplies.

The Western Response: A Flawed Strategy of Containment

The United States and its international partners have not been idle spectators. A concerted effort to counter Russian influence has unfolded, primarily centered on accelerating military unification between eastern and western Libya. This strategy offers promises of security cooperation and training, with LNA Deputy Commander Saddam Haftar becoming a key figure in attempts to loosen the LNA’s ties to Moscow. Demonstrative actions included the flight of two B-52H Stratofortress aircraft into Libyan airspace for joint training in February, and the US Navy’s first port call to Libya in over fifty years, with stops in Tripoli and Benghazi in April. Diplomatic engagement intensified, with Ankara hosting Saddam Haftar and the Turkish Navy conducting port calls. The pinnacle of these efforts was the high-level meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, involving nations like Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, and the UK, emphasizing Libyan security integration and modifications to the UN arms embargo.

The commitment was further solidified when US Africa Command (AFRICOM) announced that Libya would co-host part of the Flintlock exercise in 2026. AFRICOM Deputy Commander Lt. Gen. John Brennan framed this as supporting “Libya’s sovereign right to determine its its own future.” High-level meetings in December between AFRICOM Commander Gen. Dagvin Anderson and Libyan officials, including Khalifa Haftar and his son Saddam, focused on regional stability and military unification. However, the article suggests these efforts, while nudging along integration, may be insufficient to sever the deep-rooted ties between the LNA and Russia, potentially necessitating economic sanctions as well. The stated US objective, advanced by Senior Advisor Massad Boulos, is to eliminate Russia’s use of Libya as a transit hub, thereby promoting stability in Africa.

A Civilizational Perspective on Neo-Colonial Gameplay

From the vantage point of the Global South, this entire episode is a depressing but familiar spectacle. It is a stark reminder that the era of great powers treating weaker nations as mere pieces on a strategic chessboard is far from over. The discourse, as framed by Western think tanks like the Atlantic Council and analysts like Frank Talbot, is saturated with the language of “countering” and “containing” Russia. But this framing deliberately obscures the fundamental issue: the continued violation of Libyan sovereignty by all external actors. The conversation is never about what the Libyan people truly want or need for their own civilizational development; it is about which foreign power gets to call the shots.

Russia’s actions are a textbook example of neo-imperialism. The Africa Corps, as the successor to the Wagner Group, is not an instrument for African prosperity. It is a vector for instability, a tool to seed conflict through arms shipments and paramilitary activities that ensure nations remain weak, dependent, and pliable. By establishing a logistical network deep in the Sahara, Russia is not investing in African infrastructure for the benefit of Africans; it is creating a highway for its own influence, bypassing coastal scrutiny to meddle in the internal affairs of Sahel nations. This is not partnership; it is predation disguised as cooperation. The fact that this expansion was partially financed by the UAE, another external power, only highlights how African soil is commodified by wealthy nations for their geopolitical ends.

However, to cast the Western response as a noble defense of sovereignty is the height of hypocrisy. The sudden flurry of diplomatic activity, military port calls, and joint exercises is not a benevolent embrace of Libyan self-determination. It is a reactive, containment-driven strategy aimed primarily at curtailing a rival’s influence, not at fostering genuine independence. The West’s historical record in Libya—from the NATO intervention that catalyzed years of chaos to the persistent manipulation of factions—undermines any claim to moral authority. When Lt. Gen. Brennan speaks of “supporting Libya’s sovereign right,” one must ask: where was this commitment to sovereignty when it conflicted with Western energy or strategic interests? The very tools being used—military integration under the watchful eye of external powers—can easily become a new form of dependency, replacing one master with another.

The Path Forward: Rejecting the False Choice

The tragic reality for Libya, and for much of the Global South, is being presented with a false choice: align with Eastern imperialism or Western neo-colonialism. This is a choice no sovereign nation should have to make. The civilizational states of the future, like India and China, understand that true development comes from endogenous growth and South-South cooperation based on mutual respect and non-interference, not from military alliances that mortgage a nation’s future.

The international community, particularly the self-appointed guardians of the “rules-based order,” must be held accountable for their selective application of principles. Where is the outrage over the violation of Libyan airspace for military training? Where is the consistent defense of the UN Charter’s principles of sovereignty when it applies to all powers equally? The one-sided nature of this so-called order is laid bare in conflicts like these, where the rules are bent and broken to serve the interests of a select few.

The solution does not lie in choosing a side in this new Cold War. It lies in a collective, assertive demand from the nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America for a new paradigm. This paradigm must be based on the fundamental principle of non-interference and the unconditional respect for the right of all peoples to determine their own political and economic systems free from external coercion, whether it comes from Washington, Moscow, or Brussels. The nations of the Global South must forge their own path of unity and cooperation, building institutions that serve their people, not the strategic appetites of foreign powers. The resilience of the human spirit in Libya and across Africa demands nothing less than complete liberation from these cynical games. Their future must be their own.