With Assad’s fall in Syria, Russia sets sights on Libya as its next strategic base to sustain influence in the Mediterranean and Africa. 

Russia’s Strategic Shift to Libya

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria marks a significant turning point for Russia’s geopolitical ambitions. Having used Syria as a springboard for projecting power across West Asia and Africa for nearly a decade, Moscow is now recalibrating its regional strategy. With the loss of key bases like Tartus and Khmeimim, Russian President Vladimir Putin has turned to Libya as a critical alternative to sustain Moscow’s influence.

A New Base in Libya

Russia’s relocation efforts are already underway. Daily flights from Khmeimim airbase in Syria to Al Khadim airbase in Libya suggest a strategic pivot. Aircraft like the Antonov AN-124 and Ilyushin IL-76 are reportedly ferrying troops, equipment, and even advanced air defense systems to Libya. The Al Khadim base near Benghazi is poised to replace Khmeimim, while Russia is negotiating access to a port in Benghazi to fill the void left by Tartus.

If successful, these moves would grant Russia a foothold in the Mediterranean and a logistical hub for operations in Africa. Libya’s strategic location, fragmented governance, and willingness to cooperate with Moscow make it an attractive, albeit imperfect, substitute for Syria.

Why Libya Matters

Libya offers Russia several strategic advantages:

Access to Africa: A strong presence in Libya could facilitate Russian operations in Sudan, Chad, Niger, and the broader Sahel region, cementing Moscow’s role as a key player in Africa.

Mediterranean Reach: Control over air and naval bases in Libya allows Russia to project power in the Mediterranean, countering Western influence and safeguarding its energy and trade interests.

Defying the West: By consolidating its presence in Libya, Russia continues its broader geopolitical goal of challenging Western dominance, leveraging fragmented governance to secure military and economic footholds.

Challenges in Libya

While Libya presents opportunities, it is not without challenges:

Dependence on Turkey: Russian transport planes must overfly Turkey to reach Libya, giving Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan significant leverage over Moscow.

Fragmented Governance: Libya’s internal divisions pose risks to long-term stability, with rival factions and external powers vying for influence.

Africa and Beyond

Russia’s shift to Libya signals a recalibration of its Africa strategy. By using Libya as a hub, Moscow can continue its involvement in resource-rich regions and maintain its engagement with client states like Mali and Burkina Faso. The move underscores Russia’s adaptability in the face of setbacks, ensuring its ambitions in Africa and the Mediterranean remain intact despite losing Syria.

The fall of Assad marks the end of an era for Russia’s Middle Eastern strategy but also the beginning of a new chapter in Libya. While the path forward is fraught with challenges, Moscow’s swift redeployment to Libya demonstrates its determination to retain influence and counter Western powers. Whether Libya can become the new Syria for Russia remains uncertain, but it is clear that Putin is unwilling to relinquish his hold on the region’s strategic dynamics.

A potential pivot in U.S. foreign policy could see Somalia lose its strategic focus as Trump prioritizes China and domestic security.

The U.S. military presence in Somalia, a critical component of America’s Africa policy, could face significant downsizing under President-elect Donald Trump’s second term. Trump’s skepticism toward AFRICOM’s operations, combined with his broader aim to prioritize resources in Asia and counter China, raises the likelihood of scaling back military activities in Somalia.

The Case for Withdrawal

During his first term, Trump ordered the withdrawal of some 700 U.S. troops from Somalia, citing a lack of vital national security interests and concerns over the effectiveness of local partners like Somalia’s elite Danab unit. Experts like J. Peter Pham, former U.S. envoy to Africa’s Sahel region, argue that the persistent corruption and instability within Somalia’s central government make the case for a reduced U.S. presence.

“There are no U.S. national security interests in Somalia that cannot be addressed through offshore capabilities or nearby bases,” Pham said, adding that the Biden administration’s reversal of Trump’s withdrawal order in 2022 failed to produce measurable gains.

While AFRICOM has supported the Danab unit and other Somali forces in countering al-Shabab, the terror group remains entrenched. Critics argue that the international effort has yielded limited results, with insurgents regaining ground during periods of diminished U.S. presence.

A Broader Pivot

Trump’s potential defense policy, influenced by his nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy, Elbridge Colby, is expected to pivot sharply toward the Pacific to counter China’s expanding global influence. This shift could deprioritize AFRICOM and redirect military assets to higher-priority regions.

During his first term, Trump expressed a general disinterest in maintaining a U.S. military presence in Africa. In his memoir, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper described Trump’s desire to withdraw from Africa entirely, starting with Somalia, as part of a broader skepticism of overseas military commitments.

Somalia remains a flashpoint in U.S.-Africa policy. While al-Shabab has proven resilient, its operations are largely regional, with little demonstrated capacity to threaten the U.S. homeland. This limited threat perception could make Somalia an easy candidate for reduced military engagement.

However, U.S. disengagement risks creating a vacuum that could be filled by other powers, including China and Turkey. Both nations have made strategic inroads into Africa, leveraging trade, infrastructure development, and security partnerships to expand their influence. For Trump, balancing disengagement with countering China’s growing foothold in Africa could complicate policy decisions.

A New Approach?

Experts like Pham advocate for a complete overhaul of U.S. policy in Somalia, emphasizing a “blank slate review” before committing additional resources. Such a review could focus on prioritizing offshore capabilities, supporting African Union initiatives, and limiting direct U.S. involvement in ground operations.

While the Biden administration emphasized a return to continuity and stability in Somalia, Trump’s approach is likely to emphasize cost-cutting and a narrower definition of U.S. interests. This could mean a shift away from nation-building efforts and toward counterterrorism operations conducted from a distance.

As the Trump administration reassesses America’s global military footprint, Somalia’s future as a focal point of U.S. Africa policy hangs in the balance. With a renewed focus on China and an emphasis on reducing unnecessary overseas commitments, Somalia may see a scaled-back U.S. presence, leaving regional partners to shoulder more of the burden. Whether this approach will bolster long-term stability or exacerbate existing challenges remains to be seen.

Cairo’s Expanded Role in the African Union Force Signals Broader Ambitions in the Horn of Africa

Egypt is significantly expanding its military presence in Somalia as part of the new African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), marking a strategic move in its regional ambitions. Backed by a UN Security Council resolution, Cairo is replacing Ethiopian forces with its own contingent, seizing an opportunity to enhance its influence in the Horn of Africa while addressing long-standing tensions with Addis Ababa over Nile water rights.

This deployment aligns with a broader pattern of Egyptian engagement in the region. Somalia’s request for Egypt’s participation reflects warming relations between the two nations, solidified through military cooperation agreements earlier this year. Egypt’s contingent, expected to comprise around 25% of the AUSSOM force, underscores its growing footprint in a region fraught with geopolitical rivalries.

The decision to replace Ethiopian troops with Egyptian forces is laden with symbolic and strategic significance. It not only secures Somalia’s preference to exclude Ethiopia—whose presence has been contentious—but also places Egypt in a position to exert indirect pressure on Addis Ababa amid an unresolved Nile water dispute.

Expanding Influence in the Horn of Africa

Egypt’s deployment adds to its existing military bases in Eritrea and Djibouti and its cooperation agreements with Kenya, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. By bolstering its presence in Somalia, Egypt gains strategic leverage across Ethiopia’s borders, a move that could recalibrate negotiations over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).

This military maneuver also counters Turkey’s influence in the region. Despite recent diplomatic thawing between Cairo and Ankara, their rivalry remains evident, particularly as both nations vie for influence in the Horn of Africa and beyond.

Egypt’s growing involvement in Somalia could shift the balance of power in the Horn of Africa. With international legitimacy granted by the UN resolution, Cairo’s actions gain a diplomatic shield that allows it to play a pivotal role in countering terrorism while advancing its geopolitical goals.

Meanwhile, Ethiopia faces the delicate challenge of respecting Somalia’s sovereignty while addressing its diminished role in the region. The exclusion of Ethiopian forces from AUSSOM highlights the evolving dynamics between Mogadishu and Addis Ababa, particularly following Ethiopia’s maritime deal with Somaliland.

Regional Context

Egypt’s move coincides with escalating competition among global and regional powers for influence along Africa’s Red Sea coast. With Sudan’s civil war, terrorism, and the effects of climate change destabilizing the region, Egypt’s enhanced military presence could position it as a key player in shaping the future of the Horn of Africa.

However, this deployment also raises questions about the sustainability of Egypt’s expanding regional ambitions. Balancing its military commitments, domestic challenges, and the Nile dispute will test Cairo’s capacity to maintain its growing influence.

As AUSSOM prepares for deployment in January 2025, Egypt’s involvement underscores its strategic calculus: combating Al Shabab, strengthening ties with Somalia, and using its regional presence as leverage in broader geopolitical conflicts. The move is a testament to Egypt’s determination to secure its national interests while navigating a complex web of regional and global rivalries.

Arrests, alleged abductions, and the battle for civil liberties fuel unrest as President William Ruto faces mounting pressure.

Kenya’s streets are alive with defiance as citizens protest against a wave of alleged abductions targeting government critics. The issue has exposed deep fractures in the country’s political and human rights landscape. Over the weekend, President William Ruto pledged to end the disappearances, but his earlier dismissal of the crisis as “fake news” casts doubt on his sincerity.

On Monday, the protests escalated, with law enforcement resorting to tear gas and mass arrests. Among the 53 detained were opposition lawmaker Okiya Omtatah and former presidential candidate Reuben Kigame. Their detention has become a flashpoint, galvanizing demonstrators who decry police brutality and demand accountability.

Allegations of State-Sponsored Abductions

Rights groups like Amnesty International Kenya and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) have reported harrowing details of disappearances and police abuses. The protests began in June after widespread dissent over a controversial finance bill that led to mass demonstrations and, according to activists, marked the start of intensified abductions.

At least 82 government critics are alleged to have gone missing since then. These cases often share chilling similarities: arrests without charge, incommunicado detentions, and allegations of torture. The government, however, has denied involvement, with President Ruto blaming social discontent on poor parental oversight.

Violent Crackdowns

Monday’s demonstrations were marred by heavy-handed police tactics. Videos circulating online showed unarmed protesters being fired at with tear gas canisters and subsequently rounded up, with some reportedly assaulted in police custody. Opposition figure Omtatah, filmed arguing with armed guards in a holding cell, has become a symbol of resistance against what many see as state overreach.

Amnesty International and KNCHR condemned the police response, highlighting violations of Kenyan law, including the denial of legal representation for detainees. Security officials have been ordered by the High Court to release six of the missing, but compliance remains uncertain.

Political and Legal Implications

The abductions and subsequent protests have added to the fallout from Ruto’s unpopular finance bill. The bill, initially intended to address public debt through tax hikes, was withdrawn after violent protests that left 23 people dead. However, the government’s response to the protests—marked by disappearances and alleged crackdowns—has escalated tensions, casting a shadow over Ruto’s leadership.

The involvement of high-profile figures like Omtatah underscores the growing political stakes. With security chiefs summoned to court and facing potential contempt charges, the judiciary is emerging as a critical battleground in the fight for accountability.

Kenya’s Civil Liberties at a Crossroads

The unrest reflects a broader struggle over civil liberties in Kenya. The protests against abductions are not just about missing individuals—they are a broader indictment of governance, human rights abuses, and the state’s role in suppressing dissent.

President Ruto’s ability to navigate this crisis will determine not only his political survival but also the trajectory of Kenya’s democratic ideals. As protests continue and international attention grows, the government faces mounting pressure to address the allegations and ensure justice for victims.

What’s Next?

Kenya’s anti-abduction protests are likely to intensify as long as the government resists transparency and accountability. For many Kenyans, these demonstrations represent a pivotal moment in the fight for civil liberties, rule of law, and a government that respects dissent.

The coming days will be critical. Will the government heed the High Court’s directives and address the protesters’ demands? Or will it continue on a path of deflection and suppression, risking further unrest? The eyes of the nation—and the world—are firmly on Kenya.

A shift toward isolationism might see reduced U.S. engagement, leaving Africa to navigate existing global power dynamics.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House raises questions about how his administration will approach Africa, a continent historically sidelined in U.S. foreign policy. Despite the critical geopolitical and economic roles Africa plays, America’s engagement has often been shaped by corporate interests, military priorities, and strategic competition with China. Under Trump, these trends are expected to persist, albeit with a potentially more isolationist tone.

Historically, U.S. policy toward Africa has been reactive rather than proactive. While Barack Obama and George W. Bush increased military involvement in counterterrorism operations across Africa, these efforts yielded limited long-term stability. Under Trump’s first presidency, Africa received scant attention. Notably, he reduced U.S. military presence in Somalia and made inflammatory remarks about African nations, further straining relations.

Joe Biden’s administration sought to recalibrate this approach, hosting a U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit and initiating projects like the Lobito Corridor to connect Angola, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, these efforts largely failed to address Africa’s broader development needs, focusing instead on countering China’s influence.

China’s approach to Africa has stood in stark contrast to America’s. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative has delivered transformative infrastructure projects across the continent, solidifying its position as Africa’s largest bilateral trade partner. By comparison, U.S. funding mechanisms have been slow and bureaucratic, with little tangible impact.

Trump’s return could exacerbate this disparity. His administration’s focus is likely to remain on minimizing U.S. involvement, both militarily and diplomatically. This could mean a further drawdown of American troops and a diminished role for U.S.-led development initiatives. While such isolationism might reduce neo-colonialist perceptions, it risks leaving Africa vulnerable to unchecked external influences, including those from China and Russia.

Trump’s advisers have reportedly expressed interest in recognizing Somaliland, which could destabilize the already volatile Horn of Africa. While this move might counter China’s regional influence, it risks exacerbating tensions with Somalia and its neighbors.

The withdrawal of U.S. troops could reshape Africa’s security dynamics. Niger’s junta recently expelled U.S. forces, reflecting growing resistance to Western military presence. Similarly, France’s collapse in the Sahel highlights the limitations of foreign-led counterinsurgency operations. A reduced U.S. footprint might compel African nations to develop self-reliant security frameworks, but it also risks leaving power vacuums that extremist groups could exploit.

In the face of waning U.S. interest, African nations must diversify their partnerships and strengthen regional cooperation. Collaborating with both Western and non-Western powers, such as China and India, can help mitigate the risks of overreliance on any single external actor.

Trump’s presidency may inadvertently push Africa toward greater self-determination, but the continent will still require global cooperation to address challenges such as climate change, debt relief, and equitable trade policies. While reduced U.S. engagement might seem like a setback, it also presents an opportunity for Africa to redefine its role in the global order and pursue more balanced, mutually beneficial partnerships.

Turkish firm Favori’s unchecked operations in Somalia expose systemic issues tied to President Erdogan’s influence.

The management of Somalia’s Mogadishu Aden Abdulle International Airport by Turkish company Favori LLC has become a focal point of controversy, bringing allegations of corruption, labor exploitation, and political interference into sharp focus. Backed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Favori’s operations demonstrate the intersection of political patronage and questionable corporate practices.

Favori LLC, a subsidiary of the Kozuva Group, had no prior experience in aviation management before securing the 20-year contract in 2013 to oversee the airport. Despite lacking qualifications, the deal was facilitated at a high political level, reportedly due to Erdogan’s direct intervention. This decision prompted immediate questions about the legitimacy of the agreement and whether it represented a misuse of influence by Turkish leadership.

Ertuğrul Karaferiyeli

The company’s operations have since been marred by allegations of corruption and abuse. Most recently, the arrest of Favori’s HR manager, Ertuğrul Karaferiyeli, on charges of sexual harassment and labor violations highlighted the firm’s alleged mistreatment of Somali employees. Although Somali authorities initially took a strong stance, Karaferiyeli’s subsequent release—reportedly facilitated through an out-of-court settlement—underscored the perceived impunity enjoyed by the company and its executives.

Favori’s rise exemplifies how Erdogan’s political influence has been leveraged to secure lucrative international contracts for Turkish firms with close ties to his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

The Kozuva brothers (from L to R): Sinan Kozuva, Süleyman Kozuva, Mustafa Kozuva and Emre Kozuva.

The Kozuva family, which owns Favori, has longstanding ties to Erdogan and the AKP. Favori transitioned from a small construction company into a major player in airport management, coinciding with Erdogan’s support and political backing.

The 2016 UN report on Favori’s contract further criticized the deal, describing it as a “technically poor agreement” that disproportionately benefited the private firm over Somalia’s federal government. Concerns over the revenue-sharing model and the contract’s broader implications for Somali sovereignty highlighted the deeper issues of foreign intervention and exploitation.

Somalia’s reliance on foreign operators like Favori reflects the broader challenge of rebuilding state infrastructure in a post-conflict environment. While international partnerships can offer critical expertise and funding, they also risk entrenching power imbalances and fostering dependency.

The allegations surrounding Favori’s management of Mogadishu’s airport raise urgent questions about governance, accountability, and ethical business practices in Somalia. Moreover, they underscore the risks of political influence shaping economic decisions, often at the expense of local workers and national interests.

As Somalia works to strengthen its institutions and assert its sovereignty, the Favori case serves as a cautionary tale of the need for transparency, rigorous oversight, and equitable agreements in public-private partnerships. For Turkey, the controversy highlights the reputational risks associated with using political influence to secure international contracts, raising broader questions about Erdogan’s legacy on the global stage.

State-sponsored breach exploited third-party service vulnerabilities, highlighting rising cybersecurity threats from Beijing-linked groups.

In a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities within critical U.S. systems, Chinese state-sponsored hackers breached the U.S. Treasury Department’s security infrastructure, stealing unclassified documents in what officials labeled a “major incident.” The sophisticated operation exploited weaknesses in BeyondTrust, a third-party cybersecurity service provider, emphasizing a rising trend of leveraging trusted external vendors to bypass safeguards.

The Treasury Department confirmed that attackers gained access to a key used by BeyondTrust to secure its cloud-based remote support service. This allowed the hackers to override security protocols, infiltrate workstations used by Treasury Departmental Offices (DO), and access sensitive unclassified documents. The breach was detected on December 8, and Treasury immediately began collaborating with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the FBI to evaluate the damage.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington denied responsibility, accusing the U.S. of baseless allegations. Yet, cybersecurity experts argue that this attack follows a familiar pattern of state-sponsored campaigns by China, targeting third-party services to penetrate high-value government and corporate networks.

The incident comes amid an alarming increase in cyberattacks by PRC-linked groups, whose methods have evolved to exploit trusted third-party vendors. Such tactics not only grant access to protected systems but also obfuscate the attackers’ entry points, making detection and response more challenging.

This breach underscores broader security challenges in an era of growing dependence on cloud services and outsourced IT solutions. While vendors like BeyondTrust are expected to fortify defenses, their vulnerabilities can become gateways to sensitive national infrastructure.

The Treasury incident also highlights the increasing geopolitical dimension of cyber threats. The U.S. has repeatedly accused Beijing of state-backed hacking campaigns aimed at stealing intellectual property, government secrets, and disrupting critical infrastructure. China’s advanced capabilities in cyber espionage pose a strategic challenge to Washington, particularly as both nations compete for technological and geopolitical supremacy.

Experts warn that this latest breach may only be the tip of the iceberg. Tom Hegel, a cybersecurity researcher at SentinelOne, noted that PRC-linked groups have increasingly targeted trusted third-party services, exploiting the implicit trust placed in such vendors. This method, he stated, “fits a well-documented pattern” and presents a significant threat to both public and private sectors.

For policymakers and cybersecurity professionals, the incident highlights the urgent need to bolster defenses and establish stringent oversight of third-party providers. It also reinforces the importance of clear red lines and actionable deterrence strategies to prevent future breaches.

The Treasury breach is not just a wake-up call for the U.S. government but a global warning about the critical importance of securing digital ecosystems in an age of persistent and sophisticated state-sponsored cyber threats. As investigations continue, the incident may prompt renewed calls for international norms to curb state-backed cyber activities, ensuring accountability in an increasingly interconnected digital landscape.

A year of political upheavals saw dramatic departures of leaders from Rishi Sunak to Sheikh Hasina, reshaping global political landscapes.

The year 2024 was marked by a series of dramatic exits from power, underscoring the fragility of political leadership in an increasingly volatile world. From electoral upsets to resignations under pressure, these departures highlighted shifting political landscapes and mounting public discontent across continents.

In the United Kingdom, Rishi Sunak’s meteoric rise was met with an equally rapid fall. As Britain’s first Indian-origin prime minister, Sunak’s tenure began with hope but was marred by soaring inflation, internal party divisions, and anti-incumbency sentiment. His Conservative Party faced a crushing defeat, cementing his legacy as one of the shortest-serving prime ministers in modern British history. Despite his efforts to stabilize the economy, Sunak could not overcome the baggage of a party battered by Brexit and pandemic-related challenges.

Japan’s Fumio Kishida also faced a tumultuous exit, resigning amidst corruption scandals and dwindling public support. His tenure, which saw Japan’s largest military buildup since World War II and efforts to strengthen ties with South Korea and the United States, was overshadowed by rising living costs and internal party strife. Kishida’s resignation leaves Japan at a critical juncture as it navigates regional security threats and economic instability.

Bangladesh’s Sheikh Hasina, one of Asia’s longest-serving leaders, was deposed in the wake of mass protests against her government. Celebrating her fourth consecutive election victory just months earlier, Hasina faced escalating unrest fueled by accusations of authoritarianism and economic mismanagement. Her abrupt departure, followed by the appointment of Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus as interim leader, marked the end of an era in Bangladeshi politics. The country now stands at a crossroads, with elections slated for late 2025 or early 2026.

Belgium’s Alexander De Croo resigned after his party’s poor performance in national and European elections. Known for his unconventional political trajectory, De Croo brought private-sector expertise to governance but struggled to unite Belgium’s fragmented political landscape. His departure underscores the challenges of coalition politics in a deeply divided nation.

In Ireland, Leo Varadkar’s surprise resignation ended his historic tenure as the country’s first gay and biracial prime minister. While he guided Ireland through Brexit and significant social reforms, internal party tensions and a polarized political environment hastened his exit. Varadkar’s resignation reflects the growing difficulty leaders face in maintaining support amidst shifting societal and political expectations.

These unexpected exits reveal a common thread: leaders grappling with public discontent, economic challenges, and internal party dynamics. In an era of heightened political scrutiny and citizen activism, the events of 2024 remind us that even the most seasoned leaders are not immune to the shifting tides of global politics.