‘Russia will tell our story': African experts react to Moscow's major media move
In February, Russian news agency
Sputnik
opened its first African editorial center in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia's capital.
Foreign policy experts opine that the move is a clear indication of Moscow's deliberate intention to intensify its engagements with the African continent.
Boniface Muoka, chairperson of the Department of Security, Diplomacy, and Peace Studies at Kenyatta University in Nairobi, Kenya, observes that Russia's media investment in Africa is not only about stamping Moscow's diplomatic authority on the continent but also redefining Africa's image.
'For decades, Western-owned and controlled media coverage of Africa has been skewed, biased, and unfair. Africa's negative story has dominated Western media and the entry of Russia into this space is likely to turn the tide and show us the other side of the continent,'
Muoka told RT.
Muoka adds that since Russia is not interested in
'policing Africa,'
its media investment will likely be focused on strengthening its relationship with the continent by telling Africa's positive story.
Read more
Here's what NATO really fears in Africa
'Through Sputnik, we are more likely to witness a story of good deeds by both Africa and Russia and not the usual stories of hunger, corruption, conflict, poverty, and underdevelopment which have been a norm in the Western media,'
Muoka adds.
Sputnik's editorial center in Ethiopia is Russia's first large-scale, multi-functional media center in Africa.
'Showcase the continent's potential and milestones'
Muoka explains that the move to set up the editorial center in Africa's diplomatic capital demonstrates Russia's intent to cement its media presence and influence on the continent.
'To reach across the continent and win the souls of the African masses, Russia has every reason to make such media investments because it needs a voice that can tell and sell its story,'
Muoka told RT.
Dr. Jacinta Maweu, a media ethics and communication policy expert at the Global Center for Policy and Strategy (GLOCEPS), notes that Russia needs a strong global media influence and presence to advance its diplomatic, economic, and military strategies.
'The opening of the media center was well-timed and very strategic because Russia has made huge investments in Africa and it needs a tool to amplify that,'
Maweu told RT.
Read more
Paradise of lies: How the West manipulates Africa through neocolonial media
According to Maweu, Russia's media investment in Africa will help neutralize the continent's negative image that has long been painted by Western media.
'Russia's coverage of Africa will not be about what is not being done or what has failed but what is been achieved and efforts being made. It will help showcase the continent's potential and milestones,'
she said.
'Counter Western media's dominance'
Alfred Otieno, a Nairobi-based independent journalist specializing in diplomacy reporting, argues that Russia's media entry into Africa provides African journalists with an opportunity to tell the African story in a positive way, with an African voice.
'Russia's strong media presence on the continent will help counter Western media's dominance in the coverage of African affairs,'
says Otieno.
Speaking when she officiated the opening ceremony of Sputnik's office in Addis Ababa,
Valentina Matvienko
, speaker of the Russian Federation Council, acknowledged that Russia and Africa have been lacking information interaction, a gap Moscow's media investment in Africa seeks to address.
'We are taking a giant step towards the emergence of a broad Russian-African interaction. First of all, of course, information interaction, which we have been sorely lacking, and which is now crucial for the formation of a truly fair multipolar world order, in which the interests of African countries will be fully taken into account,'
Matvienko said.
Read more
Dirty tactics: How the US tries to break China's soft power in Africa
Sputnik, which has membership in the African Union of Broadcasting, already runs radio stations in several African countries, including Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, Mali, Guinea, Botswana, and Zambia. The radio stations broadcast programs in English and French.
According to Dmitry Kiselev, director general of the Rossiya Segodnya media group, which runs Sputnik, there are also plans to open other Sputnik editorial centers in South Africa and Tanzania.
Muoka, however, warns that even as Russia expands its media footprint in Africa, a move that will help balance narratives, the continent must be awake to the potential shaping of public perceptions through media-led propaganda.
'Russia's media investment in Africa must solely focus on showcasing African solutions to African problems and not a tool of division and propaganda,'
says Muoka.
Jacinta Maweu, on the other hand, observes that Russia will not allow its media to be used to propagate negative narratives against the continent.
'Russia is presenting itself as a friend of the continent and an anti-imperialist, something which will endear it to the emerging African leadership and earn the much-needed trust the Russian media needs from the African people,'
Muoka told RT.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
Israel's ‘preemptive' strike in Iran: Live updates
Israel announced a 'preemptive' strike in Iran on Friday and declared a state of emergency in anticipation of possible retaliation. Multiple loud explosions were reported in Tehran, along with missile interceptions. News organizations reported last month that Israel had discussed potential strikes on Iranian nuclear sites with the United States. The attack comes after five rounds of U.S.-Iranian talks on Iran's nuclear program failed to produce a breakthrough. The sixth round of negotiations is scheduled for Sunday in Oman.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Russian envoy shares details of Trump meeting
Russia's new ambassador to the United States, Alexander Darchiev, said he held a brief but 'very constructive' meeting with President Donald Trump on Wednesday, after formally presenting his credentials at the White House. Trump held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on June 4 – their fourth conversation since Trump returned to the White House. 'We agreed on the need to restore ties in accordance with the instructions issued by Presidents Putin and Trump during their phone conversation,' Darchiev told RIA Novosti at the Russian Embassy following the meeting. 'I assured the president that, in line with the directives I received, I will do everything possible to help restore Russian-US relations and return them to a state of normalcy and common sense,' he added. 'A window of opportunity has opened to rebuild relations on the basis of mutual trust and equality,' the envoy said. 'Russia and the United States are destined, as great powers, to have a non-confrontational and peaceful coexistence.'Darchiev noted that the two sides are discussing business initiatives and the resumption of direct flights. He earlier told TASS that the embassy would work toward lifting what he called 'absurd' restrictions on Russian diplomatic activity in the US, as well as simplifying visa procedures. Under former President Joe Biden, the US severed nearly all direct contact with Russia in 2022 over the conflict in Ukraine and imposed sweeping sanctions on Russian officials and businesses. Trump has criticized his predecessor for sidelining diplomacy and pledged to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev. While Moscow has praised Trump and his team for their shift in rhetoric and willingness to engage, no breakthrough has been achieved. Trump has threatened to impose additional measures on Russia if a ceasefire is not reached, but he has not endorsed the sanctions bill currently under consideration in the Senate.
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Russia Today
Redefining history: Why the fate of the Russia-Ukraine war is being decided in Türkiye
Before the latest round of Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan paid a visit to both Moscow and Kiev. These emerged as a potentially pivotal moment in the context of efforts to resolve the conflict. While the Moscow visit was officially framed as a step toward deepening bilateral Russian-Turkish relations, the true priorities of the visit became evident from the first day: The agenda extended far beyond routine diplomacy and touched upon far more delicate and consequential matters. Behind the formal protocol lay an informal mission. Beyond the public statements, it became clear that Fidan's trip was aimed at probing Moscow's position ahead of a possible new round of peace talks with Kiev. This interpretation is supported by the choice of interlocutors – notably his meeting with Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to the Russian president and head of the Russian delegation in the talks with Ukraine – as well as his audience with President Vladimir Putin himself. The symbolism was heightened by the fact that Fidan would proceed to Kiev following his visit to Moscow, a move that clearly underscored Ankara's mediating role. The informational vacuum initially surrounding the visit was telling in itself. Neither the Kremlin nor the Turkish side disclosed substantive details of the discussions, instead issuing only brief summaries referring to 'important high-level contacts.' This silence typically signals the presence of sensitive topics related to security, conflict resolution, or potential diplomatic breakthroughs. Shortly thereafter, RIA Novosti, citing an informed source, reported that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine were indeed discussed with Medinsky. However, the specific aspects – be it content, format, guarantees, or international participation – remained undisclosed. Following his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Fidan confirmed that 'important and sensitive' issues for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan were discussed, including the situation in Ukraine. He explicitly stated that he had conveyed to Moscow Türkiye's proposal to host potential future rounds of negotiations. Fidan emphasized that Türkiye sees its mediating role not merely as a diplomatic option, but as a 'responsibility to the region and to the world.' This rhetoric is no accident: Ankara seeks to solidify its status as a regional power and global mediator capable of maintaining dialogue with both Moscow and Kiev. Lavrov expressed gratitude for Türkiye's previous efforts in providing a platform for negotiations, indicating that Russia would not be opposed to utilizing it again. His remark that 'things went very well in Istanbul' served as diplomatic acknowledgment of Russia's willingness to return to this format. Nevertheless, Lavrov made it clear that for Moscow, the fundamental issue remains the elimination of the root causes of the conflict. On this point, he noted, the positions of the two sides remain far apart. He also pointed out that, unlike Russia, Ukraine has not shown a willingness to uphold previous agreements – including those reached in 2022 but never implemented. The three years since the escalation of the war in Ukraine in 2022 have profoundly reshaped the landscape of international politics. What was once perceived as a short-term crisis – one the West hoped to strangle through sanctions and military aid – has morphed into a prolonged confrontation, draining not only the front lines but also the diplomatic reserves of the actors involved. Today, the conflict has transcended the bounds of a regional war; it has become a symptom of a systemic shift in the global order – a backdrop against which once-unshakable pillars are crumbling, including the West's monopoly over rule-setting, mediation, and legitimacy. The West, which sought Ukraine's victory and Russia's diplomatic isolation, now finds itself fractured and strategically adrift. Europe increasingly reveals its dependence on the US – not only militarily, but politically as well. Yet, with US President Donald Trump's return to the White House, a tectonic shift has occurred. The new administration has adopted a restrained, almost isolationist approach to the issue of Ukraine. Despite earlier bold claims that he could end the war 'within 24 hours,' Trump has quickly encountered the harsh realities of geopolitics. In the first hundred days of his new presidency, there has been no diplomatic breakthrough – no direct pressure on Moscow, and no effective push to compel Kiev toward compromise. Recognizing the impossibility of achieving its stated goals – and facing the risk of a domestic political crisis – the Trump administration has begun to gradually retreat from direct involvement in resolving the conflict, delegating initiative to regional actors. This is not merely a tactical maneuver, but a strategic reorientation: Trump is determined to not let the Ukraine conflict become his war, as Syria became Obama's or Afghanistan Biden's. To avoid reputational collapse, the White House is now consciously shifting responsibility to Ankara – a capital which, unlike Brussels or Washington, still retains a degree of trust in the Kremlin. Against this backdrop, Türkiye – under the leadership of Erdogan – stands as the only platform where substantive talks could realistically be resumed. Türkiye has already demonstrated its capacity as an effective mediator. In 2022, the most promising negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian delegations took place in Istanbul. Despite intense Western pressure, both parties had at the time reached the threshold of a possible compromise. That experience has not been forgotten – neither in Moscow nor in Kiev. Russia, for its part, is increasingly signaling readiness for peace – but not on the basis of unilateral concessions. Moscow insists on firm, guaranteed agreements. For decades, Russia has warned of the fragility of the existing global security architecture – one built on Western hegemony, unilateral interventions, and double standards. Since the 1990s, it has consistently pointed to the threats posed by NATO expansion, the abandonment of equal dialogue, and the West's failure to consider the legitimate interests of other powers. These warnings went unheeded. Today, the Kremlin no longer views Western capitals as reliable partners – which is why, during recent talks with Fidan, Lavrov made it unequivocally clear: If there was to be a second round of negotiations, it must again take place in Türkiye. Moscow is sending a clear message – peace is possible, but only under conditions that address the root causes of the conflict. These include firm guarantees against Ukraine's NATO accession, as well as neutral status for Ukraine and recognition of Russia's core security concerns. The West, by contrast, has lost its moral authority in the eyes of Moscow. The policy of sanctions, rejection of compromise, exploitation of the Ukraine conflict, and overt interference in peace efforts have all but destroyed any remaining trust. The US and EU are no longer seen as impartial mediators. Even rhetorically, Western leaders continue to insist on a Ukrainian victory, effectively ruling out the possibility of genuine dialogue. The EU and UK, left without the American umbrella, are increasingly confronted with their own vulnerability. Military, financial, and political support for Kiev is unsustainable without Washington. And as the US begins to distance itself, European unity begins to fracture: Eastern European nations call for continued confrontation, while major Western European economies show signs of fatigue and are beginning to openly discuss the need to find a way out of the impasse. In this context, Türkiye finds itself presented with a unique window of opportunity. Its interests are multifaceted and long-term. First, peace in the Black Sea region is crucial for Türkiye's economic stability – encompassing maritime trade, grain shipments, energy transit, and control over migration flows. Second, the role of mediator allows Ankara to bolster its ambitions as a regional – and even global – actor, positioned as an alternative to both Western and Eastern diplomacy. Third, peacebuilding in Ukraine provides a means for Türkiye to balance its relations with both Russia and the West, maintaining strategic autonomy without severing ties with either Moscow or Washington. Ankara is operating according to a logic of historical revisionism. Erdogan seeks to restore Türkiye's stature as a power whose influence stretches from the Balkans to the Caucasus, from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia. The resolution of the Ukraine conflict is key not just to Türkiye's participation in global diplomacy – but to its ability to shape the rules of that diplomacy. What now draws Moscow and Ankara together goes far beyond tactical cooperation or pragmatic exchanges in regional conflicts. Increasingly, the two are united by a shared worldview and a desire to redefine the global order that, for decades, has been shaped by Western dominance. Both Russia and Türkiye are growing ever more critical of the unipolar system – one in which the US and its closest allies not only impose 'universal rules', but apply them selectively to serve their own interests. For Moscow, this is a continuation of its historical struggle for sovereignty and security along its borders. For Ankara, it is a path toward reclaiming geopolitical weight in line with its historical and civilizational legacy. Both countries find common cause in their desire to move beyond the destabilizing politics of Western hegemony – a system that undermines global stability, particularly across the Global South, and obstructs the emergence of a more just international order. Türkiye is increasingly vocal in its solidarity with Moscow and Beijing on key issues: From reforming international institutions to reducing reliance on the US dollar as a global payment instrument. Today, Ankara speaks in the same language as the BRICS countries – advocating for the de-Westernization of the global economy, the end of sanctions-based coercion, and the right of regions to pursue their own paths of development. While Türkiye is not yet a member of BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), its interest in these blocs is unmistakable. Ankara regularly takes part in SCO summits as a dialogue partner, and the Turkish leadership's remarks on potential BRICS membership have sparked debate in diplomatic circles. For Türkiye, closer alignment with Russia – and with the broader Global South, including China, Iran, and Arab nations – is not merely an alternative to the EU or NATO, but a strategic choice. The Turkish political elite understands that the West no longer sees Ankara as an equal partner, but at best as a tool to contain Russia and Iran. In this light, cooperation with Moscow offers Türkiye a chance not only to enhance its standing in the post-Soviet space and the Black Sea region, but also to help shape a new world order – multipolar, equitable, and free from Washington's dictates. This is why Russian-Turkish efforts toward resolving the Ukraine conflict should not be viewed as an isolated diplomatic episode, but rather as part of a broader attempt to redirect the arc of global history. Thus, a new diplomatic reality is emerging from the ruins of the old one. The US has lost its initiative and credibility; the EU is weak and dependent; and Moscow has made it clear it will no longer play by the old rules. Against this backdrop, only Türkiye possesses the necessary qualities – geopolitical positioning, the trust of both parties, independent agency, and strategic interest – to serve as an effective, perhaps decisive, platform for negotiations to end the Ukraine conflict. And if peace is to be made, it will not be brokered in Geneva or Washington – but in Istanbul.
