The West Setting the Stage for Africa’s Final Territorial Dispossession

How Policy, Conflict, and Foreign Management Are Structuring the Exit of Africans from Their Last Continental Stronghold

(Wlliam Ruto, the chief puppet who will enable the globalists to turn Kenya into an Agentina, and Africa into a South America)

The historical record shows that Africans lived across the world. Today, they are losing control of the one continent they still occupy. The foreign governance over African states is exercised through formalised legal instruments and institutional arrangements. The control of Africa is established through multi-year agreements governing land use, resource extraction, and administrative reform. These agreements are rarely subject to full parliamentary oversight and often bypass public scrutiny altogether. The design and content of national policies are created and directed by external consultants embedded within ministries and regulatory bodies. In many cases, the primary function of government institutions has shifted from public service delivery to the management of externally funded programmes. Curricula in national education systems is then modified under the terms of donor-funded reform packages, prioritising compliance with global benchmarks over the development of independent intellectual frameworks. The national media and of late social media influencers receive structural funding from international agencies and foundations, creating strong incentive to replicate preferred narratives. The pattern is quite disturbing, and you look at cultural institutions, including museums and historical commissions, all are directed by the priorities of foreign grant cycles. The legislative power appears to be nominally intact, yet is increasingly subordinated to executive decisions negotiated with external partners. The result is the outward appearance of sovereignty, accompanied by the steady loss of substantive national autonomy.

Foreign control in Africa is applied through elections, aid programs, corporate partnerships, military arrangements, and digital governance. Puppet governments installed through these channels operate in line with global directives rather than local demands. Western-backed leaders are selected based on compliance with multinational strategy, nothing to do with popular legitimacy or national interest.

( William Ruto receiving an award from the Atlantic Council, the regime change specialist, a clear signal of Western approval, legitimising him for serving foreign interests and perpetuating neo-colonial influence in Africa)

Kenya is the current epicenter of this model. The last election produced a globist puppet presidency under William Ruto through a process widely contested by the population. The Supreme Court of Kenya authorised a re-run, but the result was shaped by low turnout and public rejection. Major international voices issued statements calling for stability while ignoring justice and transparency. The UN has since expanded its physical and operational presence in the country. Kenya is being converted into a central base for United Nations operations across East Africa. This move coincides with structured migration deals removing unemployed Africans to Europe and importing European personnel into Africa under humanitarian labels. This is an occupation by Europeans in progress. Recently more than 180 Kenyans have been killed in demonstrations which have failed to remove William Ruto. The Western intelligence apparatus is keeping him power in part using their surveillance capabilities of the social media applications.

This framework has moved into neighboring countries. Tanzania, Malawi, and Zimbabwe have been weakened by currency collapse, political fragmentation, and foreign economic interference. These conditions allow entry for the same networks that have captured governance in Kenya. Zimbabwe’s crisis follows years of economic sabotage driven by IMF structural adjustment programs and sustained foreign sanctions. NGOs and foreign policy foundations have since filled the institutional void. They control discourse, direct internal reform, and determine the viability of leadership. The House of Lords has publicly discussed Zimbabwe’s mineral wealth as a strategic interest. This confirms the material objective behind the continued interference.

Nigeria is undergoing a parallel transformation. Long-term internal conflict has been used to justify military partnerships and private sector penetration. Bill Gates’ foundation has obtained control of major agricultural initiatives through seed patent programs and digitized food supply systems. The energy and finance sectors are already integrated with Western-controlled institutions. Bola Tinubu’s presidency began with his endorsement at Chatham House in London, a signal of external backing rather than domestic consensus. His administration has not opposed any of the measures advanced by Western partners. His public stance alongside ECOWAS against the governments of Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso further illustrates his alignment with foreign policy priorities over regional self-determination. National decisions under his leadership reflect strategic interests set abroad, and not the wishes of Nigeria’s population.

Libya demonstrates the outcome of forced stability in practice. Once the most developed country on the continent, Libya was dismantled through NATO military intervention supported by Western governments. We witnessed the collapse of state institutions collapsed, disintergration of infrastructure, saddest of all, the return to open-air slave markets, and the country remains in permanent disarray. Western companies continue to profit from the oil sector under direct and indirect agreements. Public governance has still not returned.

The Sahel region had been transformed into a corridor of foreign occupation under the cover of counterterrorism agreements, with military installations operated by external powers and critical resources such as uranium, gold, and farmland placed under foreign control. However, this structure has since been challenged and is being reversed by the AES revolutions, though the situation remains fluid amid ongoing efforts to undermine the new governments. Congo remains a supply zone for cobalt and coltan, which are essential to global electronics. These materials are extracted under conditions of mass death, child labor, and political cover. Congo’s population receives no compensation and no recognition.

Everything described above is underpinned by what the West calls The Stability Doctrine, and majority of Africans have never heard of or come across it. The so-called Stability Doctrine backs this model that underpins all the agenda and operations of the West on the continent. Prioritising immediate commercial advantage over long-term national independence, the doctrine preserves the ruling class and neutralises any resistance. A good example of the recent protests against Ruto in Kenya. Leaders who follow orders receive financial support and international protection. Whilst leaders who resist face sanctions, regime change, or assassination. The population holds no recognised stake indecision-making. Policy is written elsewhere and delivered through embassies, banks, and development agencies. The installation of puppet governments and external control of national infrastructure operates as established policy. Africa is being divided again for the benefit of globist external actors. The policy aims at complete management of land, labour, and leadership, rather than any form of partnership.

Foreign ownership of strategic assets is increasing, through corporate leases on farmland, digital registration of property, and military oversight of borders, which are all part of this system. The stated purpose is stability, whilst the result is loss of sovereignty. Decisions once made by elected officials are now made through memorandums of understanding, private grants, and external technical assistance. The model fits within broader plans for centralised global control. In the process, independent nations are being phased out. Digital governance, biometric identification, and predictive policing are replacing public politics. Countries that cannot comply are destabilised until they can be restructured. The strategy follows a single direction, removal of opposition and full alignment with international control systems. The system functions as a form of occupation, where populations are removed, relocated, or administratively controlled rather than protected. Africans are leaving the continent by force or necessity. Migration is used to disperse the population while the continent is reorganised. Resettlement programs and humanitarian corridors disguise the loss of population and the introduction of foreign agents. This is the final stage of disinheritance. The Stability Doctrine operates as a structured instrument of sustained external control, without neutrality in its design orapplication. The African continent is being stripped of autonomy through legal means, financial coercion, and embedded governance structures. The people of Africa are being written out of their future through soft occupation and soft warfare, the so called 5th generation warfare.

Across Africa, no state remains fully sovereign, every government navigates policies shaped, constrained, or imposed by external powers. Whilst Africans are fighting amongst each other through engineered internal strifes, Africa is undergoing reoccupation, and the only question now concerns how long it will continue before full replacement is made permanent. The Stability Doctrine is a policy framework designed to preserve the existing power structure in African countries for the benefit of foreign states and corporate partners. It was developed in the early 2000s after the Cold War ended and African governments were no longer seen as ideological partners but as resource providers. The Doctrine gained momentum after the global financial crisis in 2008. Western governments needed predictable markets and dependable access to natural resources. Stability became the term used to justify uninterrupted extraction, unchallenged trade routes, and unopposed political allies.

The Doctrine has been in effect for nearly two decades. This has been applied through diplomatic channels, financial agreements, military coordination, election monitoring, and development programming. The doctrine supports leaders who can keep order and guarantee foreign access, even if they do so through violence or fraud. This is backed by a network of international institutions, private foundations, NGOs, and state departments. The doctrine is protected by soft power tools such as media narratives, academic endorsements, and humanitarian funding. The Doctrine does not invest in building national capacity, neither does it address inequality, development, or long-term governance. The purpose is to suppress resistance, stabilise commercial corridors, and maintain international control. The military arm of the Doctrine is built around permanent bases and rapid deployment forces. The United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom operate dozens of official and unofficial bases across the continent. These bases are not spread randomly, but are strategically located near key mineral zones, pipeline routes, shipping ports, and geopolitical chokepoints. In Djibouti, the US has its largest permanent base in Africa, close to the Red Sea. France operates in the Sahel, especially in Mali and Niger, where uranium, gold, and oil fields must be secured. Turkey and Israel have begun constructing ports and airstrips along the Horn of Africa to counterbalance growing Chinese presence. Every base is a node in a larger surveillance and command system.

Stability operations are often coordinated with counterterrorism initiatives. These missions are funded and trained by Western governments but operate through local armies and militias. In reality, these forces pretend to fighting terrorism and are armed extensions of global strategic interests. They also act as destabilising agents. In the Sahel, the security vacuum created by NATO’s destruction of Libya has been filled by proxy groups, many of whom receive indirect support from foreign states. These groups are then used to justify further military presence and permanent bases. Libya was the first full-scale application of the Stability Doctrine in the twenty-first century. In 2011, NATO launched a war to remove Muammar Gaddafi. The justification was humanitarian. The outcome was total collapse of the country which was divided into militia zones, gold reserves looted, and oil fields captured by external companies. As formal governance collapsed and national borders ceased to function, slavery re-emerged. Over a decade later, Libya remains under foreign supervision with no functioning national authority. Sudan is another example. After years of economic sabotage, sanctions, and external pressure, the country was divided. South Sudan was created through a foreign-brokered referendum, giving oil reserves to Western-controlled companies. Civil war followed in both states. Today, Sudan remains in permanent crisis. External actors continue to mediate and dictate peace terms that ensure long-term instability and dependency. The Democratic Republic of Congo has never recovered from foreign interference. Since the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the country has remained under a cycle of foreign-backed governments, civil wars, and external resource extraction. Tonnes and tonnes of cobalt and coltan are looted to feed the global electronics industry. The mines are guarded by foreign troops and private contractors, as the national army is fragmented, with no full authority of the central government. Congo remains one of the richest countries in the world by resources and one of the poorest by income.

Somalia has been under permanent external management since the 1990s. US military operations, UN missions, and NGO coordination have not produced a functioning state. Instead, they have maintained a permanent state of emergency. Maritime routes off Somalia’s coast are now patrolled by foreign navies. Oil exploration rights have been issued through offshore companies. Political appointments are made with donor input, and the elections do not reflect independent political movements. The Doctrine maintains a state that cannot govern itself but also cannot fall apart.

In every case, stability has meant the survival of structures that serve foreign ownership. Stability has meant the removal of leaders who resist and the protection of those who comply. This has produced a generation of African elites who speak the language of development but enforce the interests of external networks. Stabikity has broken political independence and created economic systems dependent on debt, subsidy, and foreign aid. The Stability Doctrine has sustained conflict beneath the surface of political order. Peace has remained absent, and development has been replaced by asset transfer and foreign ownership. Institutions have been hollowed out and repurposed to serve external contracts. Governance now depends on agreements made with actors prepared to exchange national control for short-term gain. Two decades on, the consequences are unmistakable; Africa’s resources have been further plundered, its youth increasingly displaced, and its governments more deeply captured.

This policy has no expiration date, and continues with every election, e loan agreement, and joint military exercise. The Africans have no clue how the system works. What many may think of as a failure of foreign policy, is all but a deliberate design, sustained until directly challenged and dismantled. The Stability Doctrine functions as a system grounded in concrete policy instruments and institutional arrangements, rather than a mere theoretical abstraction. The doctrine manifests through military agreements, diplomatic protocols, regional governance frameworks, and the influence of externally financed think tanks. These tools are presented as mechanisms for peacekeeping, development, and security cooperation. In practice, they preserve existing regimes, secure access to resources, and neutralise political movements that challenge external interests.

The core regional framework is the ECOWAS Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peace-Keeping and Security, adopted in 1999. This protocol authorises direct intervention in member states under broad definitions of instability. In 2001, it was expanded by the Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance. In 2008, ECOWAS launched the Conflict Prevention Framework (ECPF), which formalised early-warning systems, preventive diplomacy, and the deployment of standby forces. These instruments do not prioritise citizen sovereignty, instead prioritise political continuity. The framework is funded by the ECOWAS Peace Fund, supported by external donors, particularly the European Union and major Western states. The Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS), created in 1999 and funded by the United States Department of Defense, plays a key role in guiding the implementation of these policies. ACSS trains African military and civilian officials, shapes security discourse, and promotes alignment with U.S. strategic objectives. ACSS operates as a tool of U.S. foreign policy, it’s not independent body. In parallel, the United Nations has developed an operational model that mirrors the same principles. UN missions in Mali, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan fall under what has become known in academic and policy circles as the UN Stabilisation Doctrine. This doctrine freezes political conditions in place, and does not rebuild states or restore sovereignty. An influential paper titled Can the UN Stabilize Mali? describes this approach in detail, and prioritises short-term order over political resolution and embeds foreign control into national security structures.

These regional and international systems are backed by research institutions and think tanks that provide analysis, legitimacy, and personnel. The South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) works closely with European policy organisations to shape governance frameworks and provides policy recommendations that favour controlled reform over fundamental change. Other groups, such as the Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), occupy advisory roles and feed into donor policy structures. Far from opposing the doctrine, they function as integral components of its design. Together, these instruments and institutions form a complete apparatus. Military bases secure physical control, whilst protocols provide legal cover. Think tanks produce the clever language, the disguise, whilst Aid agencies supply the funding. Development programs deliver the slick smart messaging. All work toward the same outcome, the removal of resistance, protection of capital, and consolidation of foreign power under the name of stability.

So in essence, rather than being a theoretical framework, the Stability Doctrine constitutes a fully operational system institutionalised through policy mechanisms, governance structures, and security apparatuses throughout the continent. The African brothers have a saying when they are out clubbing and buying drinks for the ladies. They say they are “marinating the meat” (excuse the saying). Africa is being marinated by the West, and it's from the looks of it, it's several drinks down, and it’s only a matter of time.

Authored By:

Global GeoPolitics

If a few more people choose to become paid subscribers, Popular Information could expose more lies, root out more corruption, and call out more hypocrites. So, if you can afford it, please support this work.”

buymeacoffee.com/ggtv

Global GeoPolitics

( Alarm bells ringing, UN relocates to Kenya)