Sections

SpecialOperations.com

The Definitive Spec Ops Resource

THE DEFINITIVE SPEC OPS RESOURCE FOR FITNESS AND SELECTION

Foreign Policy

Russia’s Trump Card: Is Wagner’s African Playbook Running in Ukraine?

As the war in Ukraine continues, there is increased scrutiny of the Russian government’s global activities. In Africa, the newest development uses Russian mercenaries, most prominently the Wagner group, to achieve Russian interests. Even if the mercenaries are not particularly effective at defeating rebel groups, their appeal to African leaders and ability to implant themselves into the host country’s political system makes them difficult for the international community to counter. 

Using mercenaries offers the Russian state several benefits. Firstly, it allows Moscow’s most controversial activity in Africa to remain deniable, even if Wagner’s connections to the Kremlin are common knowledge and Wagner’s deployments are preceded by a deal with the Russian government. It also allows Russia more access to gold, diamonds, and other precious resources, which are suitable for the economy and a small way to mitigate the impact of Ukraine-related sanctions. Furthermore, because Wagner’s ability to operate depends on its link to the Kremlin and the Russian state’s willingness to overlook the constitutional ban on mercenaries, there is almost no risk that Wagner will operate against Moscow’s interests. Lastly, When Wagner mercenaries die, which is not infrequent, Russia owes the public no explanation.

The largest Wagner Group telegram channel posted this image (left) of their contractors posing with a sledgehammer in Kherson Oblast [Source: Twitter/@GuinieZoo_Intel]
Wagner initially fought for Russian interests in Eastern Ukraine and Syria but quickly secured contracts in Africa supporting then-President Omar Al-Bashir in Sudan and Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar. However, in the Central African Republic and now Mali, they developed their playbook of opportunistically exploiting ill-will towards France and the E.U. to secure lasting contracts and political influence.

The Wagner Playbook in Africa: The Central African Republic and Beyond

Wagner’s appeal to some African leaders is simple. They offer to train the military, act like a praetorian guard, and conduct counterinsurgency operations at a relatively low cost. The deal is incredibly enticing if a state or its people are unsatisfied with its current security assistance. Former French colonies, particularly those with an ongoing conflict and French military presence, are especially susceptible. The Central African Republic, for instance, relied on French, EU, and U.N. missions as their primary security partners from 2014 until 2018. Then, as it became clear that peacekeepers and French forces were unable or unwilling to stem the violence or defeat CAR’s many rebel groups, President Touadera reached out to Russia. Alongside a shipment of weapons, some 170 mercenaries arrived under several names, including Sewa Security Services and COSI.  

https://twitter.com/banko416/status/1544638366049763328

Wagner’s presence jumped dramatically in response to a rebel offensive on the capital. Rebel coalitions overthrew the government multiple times in CAR, making the newest effort, led by a former President, an existential threat to President Touadera and Russian interests. Reinforcing over 2,000 personnel, Wagner halted the rebel advance and launched a counterattack that reconquered massive territory in a few months. 

Wagner also offers a few ways to pay for its services. The traditional way to pay mercenaries costs thousands of dollars per mercenary per month. Some countries, like the Central African Republic, offered Wagner access to resources such as gold and diamonds. 

Engagement with Wagner also comes with a constellation of other companies linked to the same group of Oligarchs, most notably Putin associate Yevgeny Prigozhin. The oligarch’s companies range from security, such as Wagner and Sewa Security Services, to mining and resource extraction, such as M-Invest. Wagner protects resource extraction sites, such as in Sudan, and secures mines to bring Russian mining interests or extort the miners and seize the resources. There are also media and disinformation efforts, such as Prigozhin’s infamous “troll farm.” Wagner produced a trilogy of films about itself, the first of which Touriste was shot in the Central African Republic and screened to the Central African audiences in the capital city, Bangui.  

Once Wagner is in the country, the results on the ground are more mixed than the sales pitch. They can be effective in a conventional fight against lightly amred rebel groups, as demonstrated by their counteroffensive in the Central African Republic, but they struggle to win counterinsurgencies. In Mozambique, Wagner took severe losses against Islamist militants in Cabo Delgado, and their relations with the Mozambican government deteriorated to the point of ending the mission. 

In terms of public relations and international image, employing Wagner undermines goodwill towards African leaders. Wagner is almost always too heavy-handed in its operations, leading to systematic abuses against civilians in pursuit of rebels. Worse still, they encourage the local security forces they accompany to do the same. U.N. reports from the Central African Republic found that Wagner and the Central African Armed Forces (FACA) were responsible for nearly half of all confirmed instances of abuse. 

Wagner and Russia use the international isolation of their host states to increase their influence. The President of the Central African Republic has a Russian national security advisor, mandated teaching Russian in schools, and now seeks to make Russian an official language, along with a raft of changes allowing him to run for a third term. More importantly, CAR appears no closer to peace as fighting continues, and Wagner-led FACA forces create more grievances for people in central and eastern CAR than they solve. Wagner’s ability to personally protect the President means that his fortunes can rise even if his country falls. Russia supported anti-French protests and fund some civil society figures, accompanied by legitimate anger at France for its decades of paternalistic policies in Africa, ensure that there will be some level of support in Capital cities independent of the performance of presidents and juntas as heads of state. 

Wagner in Mali, The Newest Mission

Mali, Wagner’s newest mission in Africa, follows the same playbook as the Central African Republic. Mali’s years-long conflict against rebels and Al-Qaeda and ISIS-affiliated extremist groups led to French intervention, an E.U. training mission and task force, and one of the U.N.’s largest current peacekeeping missions. After a series of coups in 2020 and 2021, the governing junta decided to close the airspace over Mali and expel the French mission. In September 2021, press reports revealed that the committee was negotiating with Russia to send Wagner forces to help fight extremists.

Wagner and Russia played on the Malian government’s dissatisfaction with France’s inability to restore order and the post-coup junta’s poor relationship with the international community to push anti-French propaganda and promise results in exchange for monthly payments and access to resources in the Southwest of the country. Like CAR, the mission has grown in scope, pushed the junta away from its traditional security partners, and now wields significant influence. 

Wagner has already engaged in severe human rights abuses in Mali. U.N. reports note a 300% increase in civilian deaths compared to prior years, a disproportionate number committed by security forces. The numbers are likely higher since Wagner, and the Malian government refuses to cooperate with U.N. investigations. The prime example is the town of Moura, where the Wagner and the Malian Armed Forces (FAMA) likely killed 300-600 people while “liberating” it from extremists. According to eyewitness accounts, Wagner and FAMA detained, interrogated, and executed most men in the town, regardless of affiliation with extremists. Malian authorities refused to allow the U.N. to investigate with support from Russia in the U.N. Security Council. They even detained investigators when they approached the town.

The E.U.’s Plan to Counter Wagner

Several countries are looking for ways to contain and degrade Wagner’s operations in Africa. The U.S. Department of Treasury and its European counterparts have Prighozhin and other associates under sanctions. In addition, Wagner will likely feature prominently in the Countering Malign Russian Activities Act, which passed the House of Representatives and awaits approval. The U.K. Foreign Affairs Committee has also launched an investigation into Russian mercenaries. 

While most anti-Wagner efforts are nascent at the national level, a recently leaked E.U. report from the European External Action Service (EEAS) proposes taking ambitious steps to contain Russian mercenaries. According to the EEAS, Wagner’s activities in Mali forced the E.U. to suspend its training mission, leading to the erosion of democratic principles and worse humanitarian outcomes. The EEAS wants to launch three missions in West Africa and the Gulf of Guinea that go beyond the typical E.U. training mission. These missions would be trained, equipped, accompanied, and virtually guaranteed that E.U. soldiers would enter combat. 

Without overwhelming support from its member states, the E.U.’s plan is dead on arrival. Brussels is betting that improving its reliability as a security partner and making some efforts to counter Russian disinformation will prevent other West African nations, particularly Burkina Faso and Niger, who face the same security environment as Mali and are reportedly next on the Wagner hit list. However, the obstacles to implementing the plan are likely insurmountable for the E.U. in the near term. 

For all the talk of launching a broad effort across West Africa, doing so actually requires the countries in West Africa to be on board. Niger and Burkina Faso requested E.U. support, but only for logistical support. While they may be interested in an E.U. training, equipping, and accompanying the mission, overstepping their request dramatically might undermine public confidence in their governance and appear to have less sovereignty over their affairs. 

It is also unclear if there is sufficient appetite for the E.U. member states to contribute troops for three additional missions with a more aggressive mandate. In terms of deployments, smaller countries might be squeamish about large implementations. The E.U. might be worried that deploying former colonial powers like France would make the missions susceptible to the same kind of Russian propaganda they seek to counter. Most democracies are casualty-averse, meaning that any significant reversal could compromise participation. Lastly, with Europe’s newfound concern for Russia comes a desire to keep within their borders or contribute to NATO’s frontier with Russia. 

It’s always possible that the E.U. and other efforts contain the group, but generally, Wagner is defeated by its host government. For example, the Mozambican government ended Wagner’s mission following its poor performance, not an E.U. mission in a neighboring country. Moreover, detaching Wagner will be tough without sustained diplomatic and political pressure for those increasingly relying on Wagner to prop up the regime and personalize control over the state, such as CAR and Mali. 

This is a user-submitted piece by Marcel Plichta. Marcel Plichta is a Ph.D. Candidate in International Relations at the University of St Andrews and a former intelligence analyst for the U.S. Department of Defense. He has written on African security issues for Newsweek, Defense One, and World Politics Review. All views are his own.

Want your analysis published here in SOFREP? Send your pitch to our editorial team at [email protected].

Is China’s Aggression Really Out of Control?

Headlines the last few days screamed about Chinese aggression and Chinese warplanes buzzing over Taiwan. Then, came the “bombshell” report of U.S. troops in Taiwan, training the Taiwanese military. To invade China? To repel a Chinese invasion? To quit losing at paintball? How about because we maintain an agreement with them that has been in place for decades?

 

The Republic of China or the People’s Republic of China?

After World War II, the U.S. and China were not exactly allies, but not enemies either. Same with Russia. In order to defend against Japanese forces, the U.S. forged alliances with Chinese Nationalists. After the war, a pro-Communist government established the People’s Republic of China (P.R.C.) on the mainland, forcing Chinese Nationalists to flee to Taiwan, where they continued as the Republic of China in exile. Because the U.S. had backed Nationalist forces against the Japanese, they also backed the exiled Republic of China (R.O.C.). At least on paper. Or in words. Maybe it was thoughts and prayers?

 

The US and Taiwan

Shu Lin Kou Air Station Taiwan
The entrance to Shu Lin Kou Air Station, Taiwan. (Courtesy of Roger W./Wikimedia Commons)

Since the end of WWII and the standup of Communist China on the mainland, the U.S. has maintained ties with the R.O.C. government in Taiwan. The Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty was signed by the U.S. and R.O.C. in 1954, promising Taiwan aid in case of P.R.C. aggression. It also adjured Taiwan not to attempt aggression toward mainland China, effectively recognizing the two as separate entities. The problem is that both governments consider themselves to be the “true” Chinese government

What, then, is an ally supposed to do? From 1955 to 1979, the U.S. formally recognized the R.O.C. via the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty. The treaty was built on political, social, and economical welfare, and military needs, cementing a U.S. military presence in the Taiwan Strait. After President Carter nullified the Sino-American Treaty in 1979, the U.S. officially recognized the People’s Republic of China, and the Taiwan Relations Act was enacted.

 

Taiwan Relations Act

In an effort to be as ambiguous as possible, the TRA recognizes the “governing authorities” on Taiwan, and allows for continued diplomatic relations, even though the P.R.C. is the legitimate government. All of this is confusing and written in such a way as to offend the least amount of people. While we don’t recognize you as a sovereign country, we will act as if you are a sovereign country. Though we don’t explicitly say our military might is available, we don’t explicitly say that it is not. All that the Taiwan Relations Act says is we will help you to defend yourselves, but falls short of saying exactly how.

 

Taiwanese and US Military

To that end, U.S. military support for Taiwan has been steady for years. Taiwan has purchased billions of dollars worth of U.S. weapons and aircraft, building and maintaining an impressive defensive posture. Why shouldn’t the U.S. Army and Marine Corps also provide training? Whether that training is on the various weapons systems Taiwan has bought, or training on military tactics, the U.S. commitment to support Taiwan is still there.

Taiwan’s air force is trained to resist invasion. This includes operating from strips of highway if airbases are rendered inoperable. (R.O.C. Ministry of Defense)

The Taiwanese Air Force flies numerous aircraft bought from the U.S., including the F-16. Taiwanese pilots receive flight training at Luke AFB, Arizona. USAF officials would like to train alongside the Taiwanese air force, but the way is hampered by Washington’s fears of offending Communist China. Taiwan owns and operates hundreds of U.S.-made tanks, helicopters, and missile and rocket launch systems. It only makes sense for U.S. military personnel to provide training, but, again, what would Beijing say?

 

Indo-Pacific Region

In the South China Sea, the US, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan all feel the pressure of Chinese aggression. That is why there are regularly scheduled exercises that take place there. That is why the US works alongside our allies in the region, showcasing not only our might but our ability to project and sustain it. Because of tense US-China relations, the presence of ground troops in Taiwan is concerning to China.

But, and hear me out, the US has had a presence in Taiwan for over 60 years. Although the last official US military base in Taiwan closed in 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act assured the US would maintain close military ties with the country. Though they do not officially train together, US officials often act as observers during Taiwanese military exercises. According to The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2003, Taiwan is considered to be a major non-NATO ally to the US. Why, then, should we not work together?

 

US Military Presence in Taiwan

A small group of U.S. forces has been in Taiwan for over a year now. Initially reported in Taiwanese media in late 2020, both U.S. and Taiwanese officials have said that the troops’ presence was part of bilateral exercises, rather than straight training. The Army posted a video on Facebook last year of Operation Balance Tamper showing American troops working side-by-side with the Taiwanese military. Though the Army took the video down, it was widely reported at the time, and the video is still out there.

Fast rope insertion extraction training
A Green Beret with 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) conducts fast-rope insertion extraction system training from MH-60S Helicopter, June 2, 2021. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Ryan Hohman)

Taiwan exists in a Schrodinger’s box, as far as the U.S. and China are concerned. As long as the U.S. leaves Taiwan alone, China catcalls about unification but stays on its side of the street. As long as China leaves Taiwan alone, the U.S. continues regularly supporting it but doesn’t move in. It is a balancing act and has been for a very long time with both sides too evenly matched for it to tilt one way or the other.

Regardless of how it is portrayed in the media, the U.S. and Taiwan have maintained a working military arrangement since the end of World War II. For many of those years, the U.S. and Communist China also maintained military arrangements, including arms sales in the 1980s. Tensions are escalating in the region, but they have been escalating since a pro-Communist government was stood up in mainland China. This is not to say tensions won’t boil over, but there is no new threat to stability except China’s buildup. But, again, China is always building up.

As long as sabers are rattled, other sabers will also be rattled in response. Until one of those sabers is pulled and pointed, rattling is all it is. And it goes on and on and on…

What Will the Future US Strategy in Afghanistan Look Like?

Foreign Policy

The longest war in American history is now officially over. At 11.59 pm local time on August 30, the last American C-17 took off from Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, carrying the last load of U.S. troops.

While it is very hard to reconcile leaving Afghanistan — and for many people, this is both the right and wrong decision — it is the new reality. Adding to the difficulty of that reconciliation is the controversial and frustrating nature of how the withdrawal was handled over the last couple of weeks. Nonetheless, it is done: this long, confusing chapter of American history has come to an end.

So, now, the question is what comes next. It is likely that the Taliban will return to their brutal and strict version of Islamic Sharia law. ISIS-K will also likely continue to grow and move towards its goal of an even stricter and more brutal Islamic caliphate in the region. Other extremist groups will also likely continue to gain a foothold and influence.

Meanwhile, most Afghans will bear the brunt of this future conflict and any suffering that comes from it. Women, girls, and Afghans who helped the West will suffer the most. The new resistance movement that has emerged will likely fight until it cannot keep fighting any longer. Another long, protracted Afghan civil war will break out. Or, a very short, ruthless civil war in which the Taliban crushes the opposition.

A UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter door gunner, assigned to TF Wolfpack, 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, looking for any sign of trouble while flying through the mountains of Nangarhar province near the Afghan-Pakistan border Feb. 9, 2015. (Photo by Capt. Jarrod Morris, TAAC-E Public Affairs)

 

Time to End the Dysfunctional and Naive Co-Dependency on Pakistan

By leaving Afghanistan, perhaps the biggest gain for the United States will be the ability to now hold Pakistan accountable for playing both sides over the last 20 years. A huge reason the United States struggled mightily against the Taliban and other extremist forces, is because they simply melted away or found refuge in Pakistan. There is no reason to maintain any more false pretenses. The U.S. no longer has the need to maintain the relationship to benefit from Pakistani ports and roads, either.

One of the best things the Biden administration can do right now is call out Pakistan. It is also time for the U.S. government to finally admit that trying to keep Pakistan as allies had few benefits. The U.S. should create more distance from Pakistan, and instead foster a strong relationship with India.

Holding Pakistan responsible and not giving it any additional economic or military aid, is imperative. Reducing Pakistani interference will be key to any future success in the region. The U.S. must put sanctions in place against Pakistan that will have decisive and severe effects.

The U.S. did not want to take military action against Pakistan when there was a good reason. Now, diplomatic and economic means must be used to impede Pakistan’s ability to play both sides.

The U.S. must stop giving money that ends up in the hands of its adversaries and extremists.

A U.S. Army Special Forces soldier assigned to Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan provides security during an advising mission in Afghanistan, April 10, 2014. (Photo by Spc. Sara Wakai/U.S. Army)

 

Future Military Operations

America’s exit from Afghanistan is certainly not the last we will hear of this beleaguered country, nor of the extremist factions who want to occupy the region. However, by leaving Afghanistan, there are new options that could and will present themselves to the United States. Perhaps now the U.S. will finally be able to take the gloves off in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan could become a covert intelligence or special operations war. Given that a larger, more conventional approach to dealing with Afghanistan did not yield the desired results, it is clearly time to try something else.

Further, there are still Americans and Afghan allies left in Afghanistan. They will need to be rescued. It would not be the first time that U.S. special operations forces conduct raids or rescues in foreign countries, either. Such rescues could set the stage and the pace for future operations, as well.

There will be operational costs and intelligence losses by not having “boots on the ground,” however. Creating new assets and allies will have to be a priority. The U.S. will have to find new methods of gaining information. Hopefully, this will be underway shortly. Even if leaving Afghanistan was the right decision, conducting limited and precise operations is still quite likely. This will not be the end.

 

Charlie Wilson’s War, Part II

Waging the war in Afghanistan for over 20 years has been very expensive. It is going to be more expensive to have to go back one day. But if things keep escalating and extremist groups gain both a strong foothold, the U.S. will have to go back. In this situation, the similarities between ISIS’s emergence in Iraq and Syria are notable. The fact that the U.S. went back to Iraq as a result, should not be ignored.

Funding the resistance to the Taliban will be a cheaper option in the long run. It could possibly yield better results than funding the Afghan National Army, did. At the least, everyone knows the resistance will fight.

The terrorist and extremist groups in Afghanistan must be targeted, militarily and economically. We have to make it painful for them, in every way possible. Perhaps, the better way will be through funding the resistance.

Creating and funding an insurgency against the insurgency just might be the most brilliant thing that can be done. Part of the U.S. counterinsurgency mission was to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. While there is merit to that, part of the problem is that the U.S. and NATO allies were still always seen as foreigners and outsiders in the country. Allowing the Afghans to learn how to win the hearts and minds of their own people, and instill them with courage would be a true victory.

U.S. special operations forces, members of Task Force Dagger, and Afghanistan Commander Abdul Rashid Dostum on horseback in the Dari-a-Souf Valley, Afghanistan, in October 2001. (Photo by Master Sgt. Chris Spence/U.S. Army)

 

A New Chapter

Al-Qaeda, ISIS-K, and other extremist groups will most certainly once again find haven, training, and support in Afghanistan. The Taliban cannot be trusted to limit these groups to any real degree any more than before. Now that the Taliban are back in power, al-Qaeda and other groups will probably expect sanctuary. Some groups, like ISIS-K, will likely try to take over the country; that will be worse.

The time to re-engage in Afghanistan is now. As more and more time passes by, extremists will become increasingly entrenched, and progress will be difficult. Atrocities will continue, and opportunities will pass. Right now, the Taliban are spread thin. Other groups are planning their next move. Therefore, the U.S. should immediately put things in motion.

Perhaps now it’s our turn to play the insurgent.