Mali & the Sahel Alliance: The sovereigntist rupture tested by the world-system

From cognitive warfare to siege economics: Iran, Venezuela, Serbia, Libya – the same manual, different battlegrounds

Dr. Eloi Bandia Keita
25th January 2026

1. Introduction: the Sahel is no longer a stage, it is becoming an actor

Mali and the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) are not experiencing an ordinary transition. They are experiencing a structural confrontation between two worldviews: on one side, peoples who demand effective sovereignty; on the other, a hegemonic system that only tolerates independence when it does not threaten its interests.

The Sahel has long been managed as a periphery:

zone of "assistance", of "stabilization", of "counter-terrorism", therefore of control.
This model was based on three pillars: security dependency, financial dependency, narrative dependency.

The breakdown of AES shatters this architecture. And that is precisely why it triggers a reaction: The system punishes insubordination..

Moral and legal discourse is merely a facade. The real dynamic is one of power relations.

2. Effective sovereignty: a doctrine of survival (not a posture)

Sovereignty is not a slogan. It is a capability. It can be measured by a simple question: 

Who decides? Who controls the security apparatus, the currency, economic flows, the national narrative, and alliances?

In the contemporary world, states are classified into two categories:

1. those who have the right to disobey;
2. those who must remain "aligned".

When Mali steps outside the bounds of compliance, it changes category. It becomes a target. This is neither emotional nor moral: it is structural.

3. The Modern Destabilization Manual: 5 Phases and One Objective

Contemporary upheaval no longer needs armored columns. It needs slowness, fatigue, division, doubt.

Phase 1 – Delegitimization

Decisions are no longer being discussed: legitimacy is being attacked.
Objective: to make people believe that the sovereignist state is not a state, but an "anomaly".

Phase 2 – Economic Asphyxiation

Direct or indirect sanctions, bank strangulation, freezing of access to financing, sabotage of supply chains.
Goal : to create discontent, and then exploit it.

Phase 3 – Cognitive Warfare

Media saturation, moral inversion, guilt-tripping of patriotism, manufacturing of international outrage.
Goal : destroy the confidence of populations in their own trajectory.

Phase 4 – Internal subversion

Activation of relays (politicians, NGOs under influence, instrumentalized social segments).
Goal : turning social difficulties into a political crisis.

Phase 5 – The Disguised Restoration

A return to dependency under an "acceptable" label: rushed elections, "inclusive government", "reconciliation", "dialogue", "return to constitutional order".
Objective: to put the State back within the sphere of control.

This manual is not theoretical: it has been applied in different formats to Tehran, Caracas, Belgrade, Tripoli.

4. Iran: The state under siege, or the manufacturing of a long-lasting wear and tear

The Iranian case demonstrates the logic of extended seat Sanctions, isolation, diplomatic pressure, and constant narrative attacks. Even when sanctions do not cause the expected collapse, they persist and become a policy in themselves, because they establish a war of attrition.tandfonline.com)

In this type of setup, the goal is not simply "a change in behavior." The goal is threefold:

• weaken the state's power projection capabilities,
• exhaust the economy,
• to crack the internal cohesion.

Mali must learn an essential lesson: A state that breaks with hegemony must build an economy of resistanceOtherwise, it becomes vulnerable to attrition.

5. Venezuela: sanctions, delegitimization, fragmentation of elites

Venezuela is the complete laboratory: economic sanctions, financial strangulation, media warfare, institutional delegitimization, and encouragement of internal political divisions. Sanctions have become a structuring lever of political pressure and social crisis there.Minnesota Journal of International Law)

The hardest lesson: social crisis, if not anticipated, becomes a weapon.

This is why the ESA must avoid the classic mistake: believing that sovereignty is limited to security. Sovereignty must become economic et socialor it will be attacked at the heart.

6. Serbia: Revolution as technology (not as spontaneity)

The Serbian episode (2000) illustrates a different mechanism: the engineering of political shift through mobilization, symbols, militant structuring, mass communication, and tactics of non-cooperation. Movements like Otpor They are part of a repertoire inspired by the methods of Gene Sharp, later exported to various theaters.cidob.org)

This case reveals a brutal truth:

"Revolutions" can be industrialized, standardized, internationalized.

So the issue for Mali is not to deny social issues or protests. The issue is to understand that, in an environment of cognitive warfare, real crises can occur.

• accelerated,
• scripted,
• amplified,
• converted into an institutional shift.

The sovereign state must therefore control the codes of informational conflict and the field of perceptions.

7. Libya: From humanitarian narrative to strategic collapse

Libya represents the other end of the spectrum: military intervention came under the guise of a humanitarian narrative and international legitimacy. Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized measures under the pretext of protecting civilians, paving the way for intervention.main.un.org)

The result: the Libyan state collapsed, the territory was fragmented, regional security was destabilized, and the Sahel suffered the shockwave.

The lesson is fundamental: 

When the state falls, it is not values ​​that govern, it is militias, trafficking and external powers.

Mali, precisely because it is at the center of this geography, knows that it cannot afford to collapse.

8. The Sahelian front: the AES model as a strategic challenge

The AES is more than an agreement: it is a political deterrent blocIt aims to break two mechanisms:

1. State-by-state isolation (classical technique);
2. the war of internal fragmentation.

The very existence of AES changes the opponents' calculations.

But it also creates an imperative: cohesion.
Because the number one objective of a rational adversary is to break the Alliance by:

• internal tensions
• personal rivalries,
• ego wars,
• Manipulation of public opinion through fatigue.

9. Armed forces, civilians and political combatants: the chain of resilience

Sovereignty is held by a chain.

The foundation: the army

The Malian Armed Forces (FAMa) and allied forces form the material base. The security reconquest restores the authority of the State and reduces the strategic depth of armed groups.

The plot: civilians involved

Administrators, teachers, communicators, caregivers: they keep the state running.

The lock: the political fighters

They are the ones who prevent retreat through confusion. They maintain the line.

This is where the central chapter becomes decisive.

10. Aboubacar Sidik Fomba: the political obstacle to restoration

In ordinary times, politics is management.
In periods of nationalism, politics becomes strategic resistance.

The Honourable Aboubacar Sidik Fomba plays a structuring role: it acts as political lock against three major weapons of subversion:

1. the story of shame,
2. moral guilt,
3. the internal division.

He wages the battle in the public sphere: the very place where cognitive victory or defeat is now decided. For it is a modern law:
When sovereigntists abandon the media, the adversary occupies the country without firing a shot.

Fomba refuses this void. He endures the symbolic violence, the caricatures, the organized hostility – and he holds the line.

This consistency is a strategic resource:
It stabilizes the transition, it gives a point of reference to the population, it reduces the space for opportunists, and it increases the political cost of betrayal.

In a world where hegemony produces docile elites, political courage becomes a rare commodity. And what is rare is strategic.

11. The AES red lines: what you must never cross again

To avoid the Iran/Venezuela (prolonged siege) and Serbia/Libya (tipping point or collapse) scenarios, the AES must adhere to 6 red lines:

1. non-outsourced security,
2. integrated intelligence,
3. productive economy and food sovereignty,
4. mastery of storytelling (informational doctrine)
5. tough and continuous anti-corruption,
6. strategic cohesion of sovereignist elites.

A single dropped point creates a breach. And breaches, in geopolitics, never remain small.

12. Conclusion: AES or the planned end of guardianship

The AES is not a regional accident. It is a response to an architecture of domination.

Mali has understood a simple truth:

A people can survive poverty,
but they can not survive permanent dependence,
nor permanent humiliation,
nor the abrogation of their decisions.

Sovereignty is not a favor granted. It is conquered, defended and structured.

Mali's and the AES's adversaries do not so much support the transition itself as the meaning of the transition:

Proof that Africa can say no, and that this no can last.

The question is therefore not whether the pressure will continue. It will continue.
The question is whether the AES will be coherent enough to transform the test into a lasting doctrine.

And in this fight, nations must honor their pillars: the soldiers, the civilians, and the political fighters who hold the line.

Because history is merciless:

Peoples who forget their advocates often end up losing their case.

 

Source: https://reseauinternational.net/mali-aes-la-rupture-souverainiste-a-lepreuve-du-systeme-monde/