Come on Trump, Is it Really about Sudan/Africa? Geopolitical Trends!

Hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. I'm your host, Dr. Oualaalou, excited to be with you as always. Uh, today I am going to be talking to you about the real reasons as to why the US president decided to take on the file of ending the war in Sudan. So he said. It's almost like what he said prior to becoming a president he will end the Ukrainian war within 24 hours on a phone call. Oh man, who breeze. Anyway, I'm gonna be providing you my own analysis about— there's a much bigger picture into just what's going on in Sudan. We're going to be talking about Africa writ large. That brings in other global major powers, mainly China and Russia, and Europeans now are catching up on this. And, uh, this is why I decided to do this particular, uh, analysis for you on this topic. But before I'll do this, let me say hi to our wonderful community. Say It Like It Is, good to see you. Dave H, good to see you. Willie Holman, as always. Leanne Truth Seeker and Momo from what Africa, from West Africa. Momo, good to see you. Soccer 088, good to see you on. Hi to you. As well. Uh, uh, yes, indeed, uh, uh, soccer. I intend to do this. I, I have it on my plan. I might even end up calling Giant Bahndari to have his own insights regarding this. So, uh, Harry Lokal, good to see you. I haven't seen you for a while. Good to see you, Harry. Hope all is well. Derek Johnson, good to see you as well, uh, and you are most welcome. As far as addressing this topic. So, all right, let's get into this. Uh, I'm gonna do some headlines for you that pertain to really what's going on, then I'll dive into the analysis. Well, first of all, I'm— the first headline I'm going to share with you has to do with the current visit of the French President Emmanuel Macron to China. He is in China. The reason I'm laughing, it just, it tells you how important China is when it comes down to the global stage right now. But what's more important about this is why the, the French president is going to China. There are two reasons. One of them has to do with having access to Africa's resources through China, and the second one has to do with France preparing to take over the presidency of G7 next year. So France, uh, this is the reason why. So all what they saying about the hypes, the press, that the French President Emmanuel Macron addressed with President Xi Jinping the issues of the, uh, uh, in their joint statements on Ukraine and Palestine. Yeah, it's all good. But what's at the heart of it is that France is seeking help from China because they know they can't count on the Americans. That's what's at the heart of it. So I just need you to know this, and I might do a specific analysis for you next week on this. I haven't decided on that yet. Second one has to do with the Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is currently in India. So Modi and Putin sort of strengthening their bilateral ties to face the US pressure. So Modi and Putin met today, as a matter of fact, for talks aimed at strengthening the ties, the bilateral ties between the two countries. And this comes at a time when New Delhi is facing intense US pressure to halt its purchases of the Russian oil aimed at the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Well, the logical question I'm going to ask about this is, are the Russians naive to trust the Indians, the Indian government? So straightforward, you know. I'm sure the Russian president knows what he's doing, but literally, are you gonna trust to go forward in strategic ties with India. That will be a strategic mistake in my opinion. So I'm gonna do an analysis for you about that at some point soon. And the third question is— third question, I'm sorry, the third headline has to do with Europe. Now Europe, and here is the shocking thing, find itself with about 100 tons of drugs that enter in Europe annually. In recent years, the drug trade has reached its peak expansion within the European Union. So where is Trump about this war on drugs and all that stuff? So, and the Europeans now are saying this is threatening public health and safety. And of course, the upcoming generations, or the emerging generation, that is and later along the impact on the, uh, economies of the bloc member states. And that goes without saying about how drugs usually fuel crimes and violence on a wider scale. So, so when Donald Trump is going, well, we're going to have to stop drugs in Latin America, let's first of all see what's going on in Europe. So, and the last headlines I'm sharing with you has to do with an event that took place in Bab el-Mandeb on the Red Sea This picture is not a recent one. This picture is from July of this year, during where, where two ships were attacked. I just wanted to share the picture for illustrative purposes only. So that— however, the attack took place, uh, in, in Bab el-Mandeb. And if you know where Bab el-Mandeb— I think I still have the map. Yeah, right here. This is right there at the bottom. That is right there. It says Bab el-Mandeb. That's where the attack, uh, occurred. And by the way, Bab el-Mandeb is controlled by— who controls Bab el-Mandeb? Does anybody know? Can you type it in chat box? No. And again, I'm not insulting your intelligence here, it's just sharing knowledge here with you. Who controls Bab el-Mandeb, or even Red Sea for that matter? Let me just see in the chat box when Yemen, that is correct. Specifically, uh, Ansarullah or Al-Houthi. Yeah, thank you, Richie, for answering that question. Appreciate it. So the idea is that United Kingdom, the UK, the irrelevant UK— because I look at it as irrelevant— UK is becoming— I heard some stories as to from people who just came back from London as to where, how, how chaotic and how It's just UK is not the same as it used to be. Anyway, suffice it to say, the United Kingdom's Maritime Trade Operations reported today that a vessel passing through Bab-el-Mandeb, sort of about 15 nautical miles west of Yemen, was attacked. Of course, they are saying suspected pirates. I couldn't confirm that. To me, it became clear that what this has to do with is the control of the, uh, Ansarullah of the Red Sea. Still, UK or not, nobody's passing through. That is the— I just want to bring this to your attention for you to be aware of. So, all right, let's get into our analysis here and, uh, Suez is open though. Uh, Dave H, you're talking about Suez Canal, that is true, but Red Sea is the location that makes it much preferable for the transits of, of, uh, I've got the, uh, the Suez Canal is, is, is, is not as conducive as the Red Sea. But thanks for bringing this up, is very, very important point. So in this video In this analysis, or livestream that is, what I intend to do is to examine this sort of a multi-dimension of the US engagements in Africa, particularly now when you have the US president sort of stepping in and taking the file of the Sudan war. He wants to end the war. I mean, I'm going to ask the logical question. What makes us think that Donald Trump is going to succeed when he said that he's going to end the war between Russia and Ukraine? What makes him think that this war, a civil war in Sudan, is going to be as easy as he might, he might think? So, and this is why I wanted to do the analysis for you, to explore sort of the intersection between— now you have the humanitarian concerns, there are civilians dying, Nobody's denying this, but you have also the geopolitical competition that exists between the US, China, and Russia. And now you're gonna have to add Europe, which what I will conclude this livestream with the European part into this. So I'm gonna leave Europe till the end to give you an idea, which by the way, you now understand why I had to do the headline for you regarding Emmanuel Macron. Visit to China. Then you add also the strategic resources access and of course the military positioning in the contested regions like the Red Sea. And that is why I want you to understand as I go into the analysis here, uh, about American foreign policy, whatever it is, if there is even a foreign policy to begin with, how short-sighted It is. Because it operates, and this is nothing new, it's for last 3 or 4 decades, we never had a strategy, we never had a cohesive foreign policy. And this is why we are operating on multiple simultaneous tracks. Can't do that. Yeah, I know you have to deal with the world events, but you're gonna have to have your ducks in a row, per se. So, and addressing the genuine, literally the root causes of the crisis. At the same time, the US wants to advance its national strategic interests. So, and I, if this is not enough, I'm gonna be compelled to push forward with the idea, you know, and the question as to whether the White House or Mr. Trump think whether the African nations can fully trust the Americans or Western power writ large, given the historical patterns, the exploitation, the self-interested engagements. So, and that is why I wanted to sort of provide you some pragmatic assessments onto this transactional relationship based on the so-called mutual benefits that Trump has been calling war. So, so what does it mean for Trump now to personally get involved in wanting to end the war in Sudan? And by the way, this announcement came by none other than the Secretary of State, which I never believed he was qualified for the position. I am not, uh, uh, just criticizing for the sake of criticism. I'm basing my arguments or criticism on facts. Marco Rubio was never qualified for the position. I said this from the first day when he was nominated for the position. So, and this is why, uh, sort of, uh, uh, uh, Marco Rubio saying, and I quote, listen to this carefully, Trump— this is quote from Marco Rubio, he said, and I quote, Trump is the only leader in the world capable of resolving the Sudan crisis, end of quote. That makes me just shake my head. And once again, when you hear something like this, you already, you know, Donald Trump's getting involved in this personally for ending the war in Sudan. That in itself has sparked some sort of a wave of mixed reactions, not only within Sudan, but the whole continent writ large. So, because some saw it, some saw this move by Donald Trump as an opportunity to really break through into the conflict, which by the way, he won't succeed to do so. And the conflict which has been going since 2023, I'm not going to get into the detail of it because It's a long— if I am to ever get involved, I need about 2 hours to just break it down for you, to go back to the '80s. So, so I'm not going to get into— suffice it to say, we go back to 2023. So this is what one camp is saying. Another camp is saying that what Trump interventions will do, it could further complicate matters, especially given the American reputation, lack of credibility, dishonesty, and desire to control the Red Sea. And of course, controlling the Red Sea, but also thinking in terms of containing the Chinese and the Russians' influence in the region. This is what the big picture, at least, and I'm going to be detailing each one of them. So, and that's exactly why When you think about in practical terms, this means what? It means that Trump wants to engage now in some high-level diplomacy. Basically, he's going to be sending envoys and just tell the Sudanese, "You need to do this, you need to do that." And what makes us think that they're going to say, "Yes, sir, we're going to do this or do that." So the Trump administration now is working on part of this so-called Quad, the equivalency of what they have in Asia, along with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. But one reality you need to understand is you need to understand the role of the United Arab Emirates inside Sudan, whether is it for a good reason or a bad one. I'll let you reach that conclusion for, for yourself. For me, I know what the United Arab Emirates is doing in Sudan. Not in a good way. And this is what Trump wants to do. And look who he's using: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Egypt— vassal states— to end the fighting and establish a path to so-called democratic transition. Did we do the same in Syria? Look what's going on right now. And that is what you need to think in terms of really what's, what's really behind all this. Then you think about the leveraging of regional relationships. Why is this important? Because the European major players been kicked out, especially in the Sahel region right here. And I'm going to do geography for you to give you a clear picture as to where Sudan is for those who might not know where it is geographically speaking. This is part of what's called the, the, the, the, the political geography. You have to understand the geography. This is what geopolitics is all about, by the way. Geography plays a major role into this. So rather than direct military intervention, which you all remember Donald Trump said he will intervene militarily in Nigeria because Christians were targeted. You know, so what Trump's gonna do now is try to position to mediate among the outside powers. So why will outside powers get involved in mediating something they don't even understand the root causes of? So when you have the likes of, uh, Turkey, when you have the likes of Egypt, the likes of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, you know All those, by the way, all those countries have leverage among certain groups inside Sudan. That's why Sudan conflict is so complicated. Can't, can't be resolved overnight just because the American president gets involved is going to be resolved. No, no. The other thing we need to consider is that, is Trump making this now priority at this time? So once again, divert the tensions from the other failures that the president doesn't want the American people to know, given now you have some regions inside the United States that were supportive of him are turning on him right now. So the White House now has moved from staying out of the negotiations to now Trump making a direct commitment or involvement. Yeah, to some we say, oh, that's America's coming back to Africa. No, no, no, no, no, we never— when I say we, I'm referring to the government, US government— never cared for Africa or Africans. What have we built for Africa? Let's be honest about it, you know. To me, that's what it means when you get involved in a country. So, and like I mentioned earlier, the war in Sudan, and I'm only going back to 2023, has created humanitarian devastation. Nobody's denying this. So with the millions have been displaced, widespread famine conditions. So, so if we are to say that Donald Trump's involvements represent a shift in US engagements on the issue compared to what his predecessor did, then maybe, maybe not. But the big question still looms large. Africans will not trust America, period. Let me, let me, uh, do quickly here geography because I need to share with you about— once again, I don't assume, and it doesn't hurt to just do a brief description here about geography and history just to put things in perspective, uh, for, for, for the community here. So All right, let me put this up here for you. Okay, Sudan, where is it? Sudan is in Northeast Africa, is a Northeast African country, northeast of Africa. So it is located in the northern and the eastern hemispheres of the Earth. Sudan is bordered by 7 countries. I don't think so this map will show— yeah, it does. So 7 countries. So you're looking at Egypt, it's bound to the north. It has also borders with Libya, meaning Sudan, that is borders with Libya and Chad to the northwest and west respectively. To the south and southeast are South Sudan and Ethiopia respectively, while Eritrea borders Sudan to the east. The northern, the northeastern part boundary is formed by the Red Sea, which makes it a very strategic location. Do you have Addis Ababa here, Ethiopia? Then you have Eritrea, Asmara here, and you have access. This is the port of Sudan, and you have access to the Red Sea. All this area here. Of course, if you go all the way to the bottom right, you'll end up at Bab el-Mandeb, which what I'm going to show you right here. But Bab el-Mandeb will more— will be more on the— on the area of Eritrea than it is on Sudan, just to put it in perspective for you. So when we consider the history of Sudan The history of Sudan is kind of— let me stop this one here. If we need to go back to it, we'll go back to that. The history of Sudan, and I'm gonna keep this brief, guys, is because it's too, too long and, and I, I need to focus on the major aspects of the geopolitical lenses that I am looking at this issue under. So Sudan's history, if you think about its history, it spans all the way to the ancient Nubian, Nubian kingdoms. To those who are familiar with the history of Sudan, the first thing that comes to your mind is the Kush. It's K-U-S-H, which is part of these Nubian kingdoms. So, and this kingdom was, was those kingdoms, rather, the establishment were sort of along the Nile River. I don't know if the map will show it here, but I doubt it. Yeah, it will not show the Nile River. Anyway, no problem with that. Then you have— after that came the powerful Islamic Sultanates. You have like the, the Funji and you have the Fur. Then you get the Turco-Egyptian rule. And with this, what do I mean? This is when you had the Anglo-Egyptian colonization took place. Then you have the post-independence struggles, which marked, by the way, the civil war, which you still seeing today, and the instability that was still going on. And all this culminated into having South Sudan secession in 2011. So in addition to other conflict, which part of it was the Darfur one that took place. So if you are to think of the history of Sudan, you divide it into three. You have the ancient and medieval, you have the colonial period, and you have the post-independence. So briefly, in the ancient and the medieval eras, what you have— you have the Nubian civilization, and this one is one of Africa's oldest civilizations that existed there. That's the one where they developed farming cattle herding and sophisticated societies along the Nile River by the third— according to historical record, the third millennium BCE, Before Common Era. So all the way to— that's when they start building some sort of types of pyramids and adopting the Egyptian culture. Then you have the Era of the Kingdoms within this ancient, medieval eras. So the kingdoms flourished in the area, the likes of Kush, which by the way had its capital called Kerma, K-E-R-M-A, and that one emerged at that time with the deep cultural and genetic ties to ancient Egypt. There is a link over there. So then you have of course the era of Islam and Sultanates That's following the Arab invasions. Islamic influence spread, leading to powerful sort of states like the, the, the, the, the first sultanates between the 14th and the 16th century. Move to the colonial period and the independence. This is when you had the, the Turco-Egyptian rule, which was between 1820 and 1880, Egypt invaded Sudan and initiated the exploitation and slave trade, ending with the Mahdist, uh, uh, uh, revolt. And that's where the Mahdist state was established. And this was established between 1880 and 1898, according to historical record. And this basically was a nationalist Islamic state formed under none other than Muhammad Ahmad, which known as the Mahdi. That's where the Mahdist state name came from. Then after this, you have the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. This came between 1850s— 1899 to 1956. The Anglo-Egyptian— because remember, Egypt was colonized by England. So the Anglo-Egyptian forces regained control of Sudan, and then that's where administered Sudan jointly. But British policies created future divisions. What do we, what do we expect from imperialists anyway? And that paved the way for the independence of Sudan, which took place in 1956. That's where Sudan signed independence from the UK and Egypt. So the post-independence challenges, those are the north-south conflict, of course, decades of civil war between the Arab Muslims in the north and the largely Christians in the south. And that's what paved the way for the, the secession of the South Sudan in 2011. So, and that of course paved the way for the political instability the country has faced. Groups, authoritarian rules, the likes of Omar al-Bashir, a massive corrupted guy. Not just him, there were others. Of course, we have them right here. We have corrupted people right here. So when I say something like this, I don't mean it just to criticize that. We have corruption right here in my own country. So just to put this on a record. Then what we have right now is the recent conflicts, of course, start with the military coups in 2021 and a major power struggle erupting into a war in 2023, which further destabilized the nation. So I don't understand how Mr. Trump is going to just get involved and resolve this issue overnight like he said. Liking this video so far? Don't just be a watcher. Go ahead and hit the like, share, and subscribe button. And don't forget to tap the bell so you will not miss any of my videos or live streams. This way, you will be supporting a channel that stands for the truth and objective reporting. The choice is yours. Thanks for your support. Now, let me get into the second, the analysis part of this. And I'm going to start right off the bat. With the fundamental question, among others, because I will be asking other questions. Is it truly about saving lives, or is it about geopolitical competitions and influence against Russia and China? Straightforward, because I don't see any other reason. We have forgotten Africa forever. We only cared for Africa because of the resources, and there is one particular resource that even as of last year, we were still getting it from Africa. And I'll detail that as I move forward. So, so when you think about this question, it gets at the tension exactly between this humanitarian and the strategic motivation for why Trump all of a sudden wants to get in. So, and the honest answer is both, because both factors end up playing a major role and they are not mutually exclusive. Just for the record here. So if we are to think about the humanitarian case, uh, uh, uh, uh, standalone by itself, Sudan faces one of the world's worst ongoing humanitarian crisis. Of course, we can't forget about Gaza, we can't forget about Yemen, we can't, we can't forget about certain areas in Asia or even in Latin America. But the most known is the what's going on in Gaza and what's going on in Sudan. Millions are displaced. It's the same thing that's going on in Gaza. Famine conditions are widespread in Sudan. And the death toll continues to climb. You know, and there is, of course, genuine humanitarian argument for any major power to intervene diplomatically to stop the suffering. And the second part of this argument is, okay, if we're going to do this to Sudan, Why couldn't we do it to Gazans as well? Then comes the geopolitical dimension, and that's what's at the heart of it. So, because in my argument, all this points to geopolitical— that matters. Sudan is strategically significant because it sits on the Red Sea, controls imports shipping routes and has regional influence. Sudan always did play a role in Africa. So you think about both other major powers, Russia and China, both have interest in Sudan, with Russia seeking influence in the region and China concerned about Belt and Road Initiative projects and of course access to resources. So if Trump can broker a peace deal, which I don't think so he will, it will enhance US influence in the region and potentially— this is the key word— potentially limit the Russian and Chinese gain. This is what the Trump administration wants to do. This is why you have the conversation now about the port, the Russian port in Sudan, which by the way the Russians denied it, the Sudanese denied it, I was aware of it a few years ago. There'd been talks when Omar al-Bashir was still in power. So of course, both, both entities are going to have to deny that one. So now when you think about this, you're going to have to think in terms of what the US is capable of achieving. Policymakers, when they craft a strategy or policy, rarely operates with purely altruistic or purely strategic motives. So, so in this case, U.S. administration, Donald Trump's, can sort of maybe genuinely wanted to reduce the suffering and simultaneously view resolving the conflict as beneficial to American interests and regional standing. But again, if I am to say this argument, why couldn't they do the same for Gaza? Because that, that shows the double standards. Are the Sudanese lives better than the Gazans? Are the Ukrainian lives better than the Yemenis? You can't have these double standards because even if we are to think in those terms, yeah, it's not going to work. Because your credibility will be put to test. So, and if this were to be purely based on a humanitarian engagement, then US engagements wouldn't necessarily depend on whether it advance any geopolitical interests or not, because you're doing it for humanitarian reasons. The fact that Donald Trump's involvement coincided with Saudi Arabia's appeal and fits into the broader Middle East strategy. That, in my opinion, suggests geopolitics is indeed a significant driver into this policy. That's the only way I see it. So, and that becomes why will it matters politically, uh, uh, is whether sort of this motivation results in an actual progress towards ending the conflict, alleviating the suffering. I'm not denying all this, regardless of the underlying mix of motivations. But couldn't we say the same arguments about Gaza? Couldn't we do the same about Gaza regardless what the underlying motivations? So, and if I put all this aside, I am forced to ask the other logical question: is the US after access to Africa's natural resources? When I say Africa, I'm referring writ large. Sudan has also oil, just FYI. And this basically— access to Africa, which I'm talking now in a big picture— Africa's natural resources is indeed a significant factor in US strategic calculations regarding not only Sudan but the continent. And, and, and, and I'm going to share some numbers with you. Consider this: Africa, the continent, holds nearly 30% of the world's proven reserves of minerals like cobalt, like cobalt, lithium, or rare earth elements. With a global demand expected to increase anywhere from 2 to 10 times by 2050. And these minerals are critical for technologies the US considers essential to its future competitiveness and security. You're looking at from EVs to renewable energy, to defense system, to smartphones, to AI, you name it. And just consider this, just last year, once again, the media is not disclosing those little details, and those little details is what's going to give you a sense of why all of a sudden the US is interested in Africa. The US was 100% reliant on imports for 15 mineral commodities in 2024, just last year. And that includes transition critical graphite and manganese. I, I'm aware of that the Department of Defense depend greatly on graphite, by the way. So that's FYI. So this dependency, in my opinion, is what drives the US strategy, or Donald Trump's now all of a sudden wanted to get involved. While the US aims to increase investments to diversify its critical mineral supply chain, its investments in Africa still fall short of China's portfolio in Africa. That's where you see the tracks of where things are headed. So the competition with China is explicit in this setting here, you know. Doesn't take genius to figure it out. The writing is on the wall. China holds a dominant position through long-term state-driven investments with the Chinese-owned, of course, enterprises benefiting from favorable financing terms, while the US has largely been absent from Africa's sort of mining landscape. Well, of course, the Chinese are offering a better term. IMF puts strings attached to any loans they give. Countries end up in debt, sinking in debt. Drowning in that. The Chinese investments, and I'm not saying Chinese just handing, Chinese at least can renegotiate the terms, which they did with some African countries last year, to my knowledge. When was the last time IMF renegotiated any deals with us? Look, Argentina as an example is a case in point. I was aware of the loan that IMF gave Argentina back in 1986. Till today, that loan has not been paid yet. Argentina owes about $42 billion, to my knowledge. I'm sure that number has changed. So US strategy is much more for Sudan with this initiative or Africa writ large is much more about countering China as it is about Africa itself, or Sudan for this matter. So the Trump administration's recent engagements with African countries, including Sudan, is partly framed as offering an alternative to China's approach, emphasizing that official, that sort of what the US officials been going to Africa because they characterize it as a better offer, as better labor practices, as better environmental standards and so forth than what the Chinese are offering, which you and I know it's nothing but hypes. So while humanitarian concerns may be genuine, nobody's denying this, the broader, the big picture strategic context includes securing influence over Africa's resources and of course at the same time preventing China from dominating the continent economically. So the two motivations, humanitarian and resource strategic, operates simultaneously in the US policy. This is what I'm saying, our strategy, our foreign policy has never been cohesive or clear. We just, we just react to events as they happen. And I am sure you will be asking the question, what about Russia? Russia's naval base in Sudan— does the US want to prevent that from happening so it can control the Red Sea? Once again, look at the map. This is where that political geography comes in. Look at the map, look where Sudan is. Access to Red Sea will also give you access to Indian Ocean, means a lot. So Russian naval base in Sudan, it is a major strategic concern for the US and some other Western powers. Nobody's denying this. And Russia has been in talks with the the Sudanese about it. You know, again, I was aware of it when I was in, still in Washington at that time. Omar al-Bashir was in talks with the, with Moscow regarding this. So the Russian naval base is a reality. So because Sudan approved the Russian first African naval base in Port Sudan, which was approved in February of this year, 2025, by the way. And that's why, because you all remember what happened in Syria, Tartus base. Remember, Russia had to move to Africa, had choices between Libya or Sudan. So that is why it's important. And this is why when, for example, in the case of Russia, when the closure of, uh, Bosphorus and Dardanelles were closed, that deprived the Russians and other strategic access points. That's why the base in Sudan will allow Russia to deploy up to 300 troops and dock up to 4 Navy ships, and that includes, by the way, nuclear-powered ones. And that in itself gives you an idea about how permanent the Russian naval presence in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean is going to be. So, and why the Red Sea matters for control? The Port of Sudan, which is located along the Red Sea. There's a port in Sudan right here. I know you can't see the cursor on my screen here, but it's right in the middle. Where Sudan, it says, go straight. To the Red Sea. That's what it is. And that serves as a vital link between the Mediterranean and the Indian Oceans. And of course, how is this happen? Via the Suez Canal on one end and Bab-el-Mandeb on the other, or Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. And that in itself, just that trajectory, is handling approximately 12% of the global trade. So from this possession, Russians could monitor key maritime, uh, routes, counter Western and Gulf influence, and potentially disrupt the Red Sea traffic if needed. Because that's exactly what we're seeing right now with Ansarullah Houthis doing in the Red Sea. So it's a strategic move on parts of the Russians, but the US will not want it That's why Donald Trump offered what he offered to the Sudan. Then you have the US and Western— when I say Western, I'm referring to France, UK, maybe Germany, maybe Dutch, who knows— Western alarm. That's why they are concerned about the Russian naval base in Sudan, have raised alarms. So, but it has not raised alarms when you have the NATO forces are being trained in Mauritania. Let me show you where that is, right there, Mauritania, the presence of NATO troops training there. So should this country be concerned also? Wouldn't that raise alarm among the Sahel region? Of course it will. It's so funny how we justify our reactions to We cherry-picking. And this in itself leads to what we call in geopolitical terms, geopolitical crowding. There's a terminology for this. And this is an important context just for you to understand it. The region already, region meaning Africa, including Sudan region, has already a significant foreign presence. I mean, you look at China in Djibouti, you know, which is only 6 miles from Camp Lemonnier. And Camp Lemonnier, if you know about it, is the largest U.S. military facility in Africa. So the Red Sea, in this case, it will become a contested space with multiple powers jockeying for possession. Russia, China, US, the key players. Then you have Turkey, you have Egypt to a degree, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, which is just like, uh, you know, little players. Those are— will be given orders what to do and not to do. They can't play any major influence. You only have 3 countries that matter: Russia, China, US. Simple as that. So this is why I wanted to put this within the context, if we put this within the context of Trump's effort to broker a peace deal in Sudan, takes an added strategic dimension to it. Purely is not about humanitarian, while it might be part of it, but it's not about— because if the US could influence Sudan government or broker the settlement that favored American Western interest, it could potentially complicate or reverse Russia's naval base agreements. That's one end. And second, raise a red flag among the Sahel region. Once again, look at the map, look where Sudan is, look what's close to it. You have Chad, you have Niger, you have Mali, Burkina Faso, and you have Uh, those are the key ones that matter here. That is why it's important to understand, so far the argument is about countering the Russians' naval base, because the concern is that the Russians may move some nuclear submarine or something like that. And that is why we are trying to create substantial obstacles to Russia's base becoming a reality. And that includes for us creating an uncertainty within Sudan's political future while creating more divisions inside the government. That is the big picture. So yeah, preventing the Russians' expansion in the Red Sea is definitely part of what's driving the US strategic interest in Sudan. It's just, it is framed as humanitarian. The other question that is very crucial for us to ask is, will Africa writ large ever trust the US? I know I'm asking the question that is, you all know the answer to, but again, I don't assume. I've learned in my professional career to never assume. So it's worth asking, bring it to the fore. And that is, in my opinion, a profound question. Why? Because it gets at the depth, historically speaking, of the grievances. And also you add the structural power dynamics that the European Western powers have done in Africa. So the answer can be very complicated. I'm not denying this. It's because trust isn't binary, has never been, but it exists to a level that varies dramatically across African countries, communities, and over time. Because you have, like for example what Donald Trump just did, sign the peace accord between Uh, Rwanda and Congo, which happened last night, Thursday, on, on, yeah, Thursday, last night. So all of a sudden Trump wants to get credit for all this. All this move, it's like what Trump did between Azerbaijan and, uh, what's the other one? Uh, jeez, I draw a blank on the name of the other country. That's Azerbaijan, uh, Armenia. So, but it was something in return for that. And you know what it was? It was the establishment of a military base in Armenia that the US is going to put because it's closer to Iran's border. There is no, there is no free lunch, as the saying goes in America. So the government here is not doing anything for the sake of people. No, there is always something. So This is what I'm saying. The historical context matters in this because you think about Africa's experience. And I'm, again, I'm going to be talking the big picture. Sudan is included into this, but Africa's experience with Western powers that included, you're talking about US colonialism, the Cold War proxy wars, the support for authoritarian regimes, the structural adjustment program that enriched foreign companies while at the same time impoverishing the locals. Then the exploitation of resources. And I always give the example of France taking our uranium, okay, uranium that they take from— used to take, used to take from Mali or Niger, one of these countries, selling it for $200 a pound while paying The Nigerians were $10 for it. So that's what I'm saying. Yeah, Africa's experience, historically speaking, they will never forget this. And this is why many African nations view the US engagement as historically self-interested, and it is, because the US often prioritizing geopolitical advantages and resource access over African sovereignty and development. And that is why that legacy from last century has created some sort of deep skepticism within Africa. Of course, you have some African leaders still puppet to Western powers. I know names. So suffice it to— we're not talking about this one as we focus on this big picture here. The current reality is that many African governments, and citizens for that matter, are pragmatic rather than just trusting blindly like what the Europeans are doing with the Americans. So, but make no mistake, some of these African leaders are willing to work with the US, but they are also willing to work with China and work with Russia and work with other regional powers based on what each offer, not based on, for example, trust, but on calculated self-interest. This is what Africa finds the difference between China and the US. China When investing in Africa, yes, you're giving loans, whatever, but they are rebuilding Africa. The US, it's not rebuilding, it's extracting resources. And when I say US, I'm referring to the collective West. This is where that difference is. So African nations increasingly play a major role in this geopolitical power game. So, and that is where that difference— this is actually the form of where things are in Africa as we speak. So, but this isn't as easy as we may think because Africa is not one single country. In other words, Africa isn't monolithic. Some governments are more aligned with the US, others are more aligned with China and Russia. You have to look at the big picture, you have to look at the civil society, you have to look at the youth, you have to look at the diaspora's committee— or communities rather— that may have some sort of different views than governments because they are on the ground. Politicians operate from here. People on the ground live on a daily basis. And that's why the element of trust varies from one country to the next, including Sudan, from one sector to another in every country, and from one issue to another in every country. And, and you look at it just like I said, Donald Trump just oversaw the peace, uh, agreement between Rwanda. When, when you think about Rwanda's relationship with the US, is completely different from, let's say, Tanzania, which is different from South Africa. Those are examples, and the reason I'm sharing this with you to highlight this one. So the realistic scenario is that rather than Africa trusting the US, what's more likely is continued transactional on part of the US. This is how they seeing it, because the US thinks of relationships in transactional manner, because most African nations will, including Sudan in this case, will extract maximum minimum benefit for them, but maximum benefit for the West. So, and the US of course will have or maintain some strategic hedging over them. So, ah, there is a deeper challenge for the US, and I'm gonna do the conclusion and end this conversation, this livestream here. So the deeper challenge for the US, as long as the US engagement is primarily framed around African interests, resources, geopolitical competition, military bases, deep trust is unlikely. Trust would require, in my opinion, for the US government to genuinely prioritize— that's what the US government needs to do— prioritize African developments sovereignty, self-determination, even if it doesn't— meaning America— even if it doesn't serve immediate American strategic interests. This is why we cannot do it, because we put the strategic interest before anything else, which rarely happens, by the way, in great power games. But I'm seeing it with the Chinese. They are investing there for them to access resources and same time. At the same time rebuilding Africa, so they doing something. So, so once again, I'm, I'm just providing the big picture that, that differs from one country to the next. So strategic partnerships, the mutual benefits arrangements, and pragmatic cooperation and so forth are entirely possible. And it may be even durable. That's why trust can be there, but we have to show goodwill, good faith, and we don't seem to have that. That's the reality of it. Let me share my conclusion with you. As I said at the beginning, I'm going to share about Europe, why all of a sudden Europe is considering now China, Africa through China. There is what I need you— that's the reason why I did that headline for Emmanuel Macron being in, in China. Of course, the G7 coming up, but G7 now doesn't matter anymore economically speaking when you consider just BRICS, for example, 35% of the world GDP versus 28% for G7. G7 is irrelevant. At least by today's standards. So this is why Europe is entering the race in Africa for influence with China in the heart of Africa. So you remember in December 2021, remember that the Global Gateway Initiative was launched with an ambitious plan to mobilize— that was the European did this, don't know if you recall this or not— and they were planning initiative, remember, just talks, initiative of €300 billion, the equivalency of $350 billion of investments between 2021 and 2027 in Africa. Half of this budget was later allocated to the African continent in what is officially known as Africa-Europe Investment Package. And that in itself should give you an idea about a clear indication of the centrality of the African continent within this initiative and within the global landscape writ large. Then they add the dimension of the intense geopolitical competition. So the presence of geopolitical competition is as evident as daylight, which is in the background of this initiative, by the way, when it was launched with the European Union now wanted to increase, and they are increasingly realizing that it has become— here is the key word— a driver rather than a player. So which means what? You tell the driver, you go here or you go there. You know, if you are the player, you decide which route to take. So Europe is realizing it's becoming a driver. Look at just what's going on in the Ukraine-Russia conflict and how the US sidelined Europeans altogether. So Europe is realizing this in Africa, but also on the global stage. That's exactly what is happening. And that's exactly why you have the French president, Emmanuel Macron, is in China. Because now the Europeans' response to this changing dynamics of the global infrastructure investment, they are looking particularly at one aspect, and that aspect is China's BRI, the Belt and Road Initiative. That's the big picture of all this. And I wanted— and we came to the top of the hour here, so perfect timing on that. So let me see if there's any question from you, uh, just before I let you guys go. Uh, okay, uh, Jim Pasaradi, good to see you, Jim. Uh, Dr. O, can the US use Africa to replace China? Well, yeah, that's what the US wants to do, Jim, but the problem is The problem is, is that African nations, you have few elements that they still will bow to US pressures, but the majority don't trust the US. You can't trust the US. When I see US government, people is different story. So, and yes, it has to do with the China, but we're not going to succeed in that. It's because China's building infrastructure. We're not. We just wanted to withdraw the resources. That's all. So, so I hope I answered this one, Jim. Uh, let me see another question if there is one here before I let you, uh, before I sign off, rather. No, I don't see any questions. So anyway, I gotta move on here. I will be working on some, uh— oh, let me put the link for If you want to support the channel, should you decide to do so, this is the link for it, and I'm going to put the link for you in the chat box. We greatly appreciate your support should you decide to do so. Right there. And thank you to all, uh, those who've been buying me coffee recently. Uh, I'm gonna be doing, uh, uh, uh, an exclusive, uh, Q&A for the members on both the channel and the Buy Me a Coffee. So I'm, I'm going to be working on it. Uh, Matt Becky, thank you for the message, uh, regarding, uh, uh, Max Blumenthal. I hope he'll come on the channel. We'd love to have him here and we'll have a great conversation. I will reach out once again and we just go from there. So in any event, I hope you guys enjoyed it and I look forward to seeing you next time. As always, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, bye-bye.