Is Africa's current Africa's courtship a scramble dressed as partnership?

Russia's President Vladimir Putin (L) attends a meeting with Chairman of the Transitional Sovereignty Council of Sudan
Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (R) on the sidelines of the Russia-Africa summit in Moscow on October 30, 2026. [AFP]

Africa has become a coveted but often abused bride, attracting suitors drawn by her natural wealth, strategic location, youthful population and growing geopolitical influence.

China, Russia, the United States and Europe have long jostled for her attention, dangling promises of friendship, investment, security and prosperity. Now Ukraine has joined the queue. But this is no ordinary suitor.

Ukraine enters the courtship with a markedly different geopolitical profile from its competitors: a nation fighting a devastating war, with an economy under immense strain and strategic influence heavily shaped by its Western allies. Yet Kyiv is determined to establish its own foothold in Africa.

What, then, can a country whose economic and military fortunes are closely tied to Western support, and whose global influence remains limited compared with the major powers, realistically offer Africa today—while Kyiv is fighting, rather than in some hypothetical tomorrow when the war is over, elections must be held, everything will change, power will change, and so too will the conditions being imposed by Ukraine and its Western partners?

The question is worth asking. Africa has endured decades of grand diplomatic courtship, only to find itself too often reduced to a supplier of raw materials, a market for foreign goods and a convenient voting bloc at the United Nations. Is Ukraine bringing something different, or merely joining the scramble for influence?

In May 2026, Kyiv convened an Africa-focused diplomatic forum, signalling its determination to deepen relations with the continent.

The initiative preceded Russia’s Third Russia–Africa Summit in Moscow on October 28–29, placing Ukraine’s outreach against the backdrop of its bitter rivalry with Moscow.

Africa’s 54 United Nations member states, strategic waterways, resources and expanding markets make it an increasingly valuable diplomatic prize.

For Ukraine, the courtship is hardly detached from strategic necessity. Since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in February 2022, Kyiv has sought international support for its sovereignty, countered Moscow’s influence and cultivated allies beyond Europe and North America. Africa offers diplomatic votes, commercial opportunities and a platform to challenge Russia’s narrative.

Veteran journalist and Pan-Africanist Denis Kodhe is sceptical of the diplomatic theatre. He sees yet another summit where African leaders risk pursuing personal deals at the expense of their citizens. The format, he argues, is patronising and one-sided, with convening powers often extracting disproportionate benefits.

Kodhe questions the wisdom of Ukraine undertaking expensive diplomatic initiatives while fighting an existential war. Who pays for the courtship when Kyiv’s survival depends substantially on Western support, including taxpayer-funded assistance?

Africa, he insists, does not need patronising overtures. It needs partnerships that deliver shared prosperity, not exploitation dressed up as friendship.

International relations expert and university lecturer Dr Ken Imbali brings the debate home to Africa’s perennial vulnerability: food insecurity and dependence on external benefactors.

His message is blunt: Africa must stop being a perpetual carrier of the begging bowl.

Africa can feed itself if it puts its house in order. Imbali invokes the African Union’s Agenda 2063, which seeks to eliminate hunger and food insecurity through modern agriculture, improved productivity and value addition.

The continent’s agricultural transformation requires investment in production, research, irrigation, processing, storage, transport and markets. Africa needs partners who can help build these capacities, not merely supply food when harvests fail.

Yet Imbali raises an uncomfortable question about Ukraine’s ability to guarantee food supplies while its own agricultural sector remains exposed to the consequences of war. Can a country struggling to secure its production and export infrastructure reliably feed another continent?

For him, sustainable trade and long-term development arrangements become more credible when the conflict ends.

Former legislator and governance consultant Kennedy Okongo similarly questions Kyiv’s capacity to deliver.

The proposed Mombasa grain hub, for instance, must be assessed against financing, timelines, infrastructure and practical implementation—not diplomatic excitement.

Who will fund it? Who will own and operate it? What benefits will Kenyan farmers, traders and consumers receive?

These are not arguments for excluding Ukraine. They are arguments against confusing diplomatic ambition with economic capacity.

The continent should not become a theatre for rivalries whose consequences it may ultimately bear.

The real question is whether African leaders can negotiate collectively rather than compete for the attention of powerful outsiders.

Agenda 2063 provides the compass: food sovereignty, industrialisation, technology transfer, infrastructure, economic integration and jobs must define every partnership.

The bride, meanwhile, must stop being dazzled by every suitor bearing gifts. She must ask what lies behind the bouquet, read the fine print and insist on a relationship that serves her interests.

The world is scrambling for Africa. The continent must finally learn to negotiate the terms of its own courtship.