Niger: Salaou Barmou, a general sacrificed on the altar of Russian dependence

The removal of Moussa Salaou Barmou from his post as head of Niger’s armed forces, less than two weeks after the attempted coup of August 28 and 29, raises a far deeper question than a simple military reshuffle. In this crisis, General Barmou emerges above all as the symbol of a dividing line: how far can Niger accept that a foreign force participates directly in a confrontation between Nigeriens?

Barmou is not the traitor some would like to see

General Moussa Salaou Barmou is no stranger to the Nigerien army. A former head of special forces and chief of staff of the armed forces since 2023, he belongs to the inner military circle that emerged from the overthrow of Mohamed Bazoum. Until his replacement, he embodied a central piece of the CNSP’s power apparatus.

On September 11, however, Abdourahamane Tiani decided to replace him with General Mamane Sani Kiaou. The decree gives no official explanation for this decision.

This silence naturally fuels questions.

Should it be seen as a sanction? A tightening of control? A desire to reorganize the chain of command after the mutiny? Or the consequences of deeper disagreements over how to conduct the military response?

One thing is certain: nothing in the publicly available information allows us to affirm that Barmou participated in the attempt to overthrow Tiani. The Nigerien authorities have not publicly accused him of treason.

August 28: a strictly Nigerien crisis

On the night of August 28 to 29, dissident soldiers attacked several strategic sites in Niamey, including air base 101, the presidential palace and public television installations.

The mutineers came largely from special forces and garrisons in the interior of the country. For several hours, the balance of power remained uncertain. Some units reportedly refused to participate in the assault against their own brothers in arms.

The heart of the crisis is therefore first and foremost Nigerien.

Nigerien soldiers were confronting other Nigerien soldiers. Disagreements concerned power, the conduct of the war against armed groups, the living conditions of soldiers and, more broadly, the situation of the country.

It is precisely in this context that a major question arises: why should a foreign military power intervene directly in an internal confrontation within the Nigerien forces?

Africa Corps: from security partner to conflict actor

The answer is now documented: the Russian Africa Corps provided decisive support to loyalist forces.

Approximately 200 Russian elements present at base 101 reportedly participated in retaking the site. International sources report land and air support. Russia itself has acknowledged the help provided by its military to the response to the putsch.

Information published on September 14 also mentions the use of kamikaze drones by Russian forces during the fighting. This dimension should, however, be treated with caution, as operational details remain partially documented.

But the political problem remains entire.

When foreign soldiers intervene in a confrontation between soldiers of the same state, the question of sovereignty can no longer be avoided.

Niger can invite foreign partners to fight terrorist groups attacking its territory. That is classic military cooperation. But intervening against Nigerien soldiers engaged in an internal political and military crisis is of a completely different nature.

We then move from security partnership to a form of direct participation in the decision of which faction of the state apparatus should prevail.

If his men die, Barmou must know

This is where the position attributed to Barmou takes on its full political meaning.

A military leader can accept leading his men into combat. He can accept the risk of losing soldiers. But it is difficult to conceive that he could be kept out of decisions that determine their survival, especially when foreign military means are engaged against them.

If Nigerien soldiers are to die, their leader must know who is striking them, with what means and on whose decision.

This is an elementary question of military responsibility.

That is why reducing Barmou to the image of a “traitor” or a “sellout” would be too easy. His replacement can be interpreted differently: as a sign of disagreement over the chain of command, the conditions of employment of foreign forces or the place granted to Africa Corps in Nigerien military affairs.

But this interpretation remains, at this stage, a hypothesis. No public document yet allows us to establish that Barmou actually refused a drone operation or that he resigned for this reason.

The real problem is Tiani and sovereignty

The debate should therefore not be limited to Barmou’s personal fate.

It must focus on the political choice of General Abdourahamane Tiani.

The CNSP has presented itself since 2023 as the defender of Nigerien sovereignty. The regime has broken with France, demanded the departure of American forces and strengthened its alliance with Russia.

This sovereignty discourse nevertheless becomes difficult to defend when, in an internal crisis, the power must rely on a foreign force to regain control of a strategic military base.

The paradox is brutal: in the name of sovereignty, Niamey has reduced certain Western cooperations; in the name of regime survival, it now accepts direct Russian involvement in a confrontation between Nigeriens.

This paradox deserves more than an official communiqué.

Barmou sidelined, questions remain

General Barmou has been replaced. General Kiaou now heads the armed forces. Officially, no reason has been given for this reorganization.

But the timing is striking.

Less than two weeks after a mutiny that revealed deep fractures in the army, the CNSP changes two of the main levels of its military hierarchy.

The problem does not disappear, however.

There remains that of army cohesion. That of command responsibility. That of the place of foreign forces. And above all that of Niger’s real sovereignty.

Salaou Barmou may not have been a hero. He has also not been publicly established as a traitor.

He is today a sidelined general, after a military crisis during which a Russian force helped crush a rebellion of Nigerien soldiers.

The real subject is therefore not whether to smear or sanctify Barmou. The real subject is whether, in Niger, the sovereignty proclaimed by the CNSP also applies when the survival of power is at stake.

And on this point, General Tiani’s silence may be heavier than General Barmou’s departure.