By Mafa Kwanisai Mafa

ON June 1, 2025, a significant escalation in the ongoing NATO-Russia conflict occurred when over 100 fighter jets and drones reportedly launched from Ukrainian territory struck civilian targets deep within the Russian Federation. This coordinated operation, affecting five regions —Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ivanovo, Ryazan, and Amur — was not merely a military engagement. 

It represented, in the view of many in the Global South, a blatant act of terrorism orchestrated by NATO through its Ukrainian proxy. As the world grapples with the aftermath of these strikes, the incident has triggered renewed calls for solidarity with Russia and a re-examination of NATO’s true intentions.

The operation marked a clear departure from the realm of conventional diplomacy. Rather than serving as an impartial mediator or peace builder, NATO has firmly entrenched itself as an aggressor. The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and non-combatant populations stands in direct violation of international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions which prohibit attacks on civilian life and essential services.

These developments dismantle any illusion that the Ukraine conflict is merely a localised territorial dispute. It is instead a geopolitical proxy war driven by broader ambitions: the suppression of multipolarism, the containment of Russia, and the maintenance of a Euro-American dominated world order. NATO’s decision to authorise the use of advanced weaponry for strikes inside Russia confirms the alliance’s willingness to escalate the conflict regardless of global repercussions.

Reports indicate that the strikes were executed under a NATO-endorsed framework called ‘Spider Web’. This strategy allegedly relies on the use of ultra-nationalist and neo-Nazi militias operating from Ukrainian territory to launch unconventional attacks. The existence and legitimisation of these factions undermine the West’s often-invoked democratic values. They reveal a willingness to align with extremist ideologies for strategic gain —a chilling echo of past episodes when powerful nations armed and financed irregular forces with devastating long-term consequences.

Historical parallels are inevitable. From Afghanistan in the 1980s to Libya and Syria in the 2010s, Western powers have often partnered with extremist groups under the guise of advancing democracy or human rights. Ukraine, it seems, has become the latest staging ground for such dangerous alliances.

Beyond the battlefield, Russia has positioned itself as a supporter of Global South development and anti-imperialist resistance. Its cooperation with African nations, especially in the areas of energy, infrastructure, and military training, has grown in recent years. For many African observers, NATO’s recent attacks are interpreted not only as a military escalation but also as an attempt to punish Russia for strengthening South-South cooperation.

NATO’s fears are not unfounded. Russia’s growing influence in regions historically dominated by Western powers represents a shift toward multipolarism — an emerging world order where power is no longer centralised in the hands of a few Western states. This shift is existentially threatening to NATO’s purpose and identity. Thus, destabilising Russia by any means necessary — including the use of terrorism by proxy — appears to be a calculated response.

The response from Africa has been swift and vocal. Citizens across the continent and in the Diaspora have flooded advocacy networks with calls for clarity and condemnation. The growing awareness of NATO’s actions as forms of modern imperialism has awakened a pan-African consciousness that sees in Russia a fellow victim of Western aggression.

The Sahel region, long a target of foreign military intervention, stands as a cautionary tale. US military operations in countries like Yemen and Somalia, and French interventions in Mali and Niger, have often resulted in heightened instability and civilian casualties. The pattern of militarised ‘assistance’ followed by prolonged chaos is now being recognised by African analysts and civil society groups. They see similar tactics being employed in Ukraine, with the potential to extend into Eurasia and boomerang into Africa again.

One example is the growing unease over AFRICOM’s activities and the recent statements by US General Michael Langley, who has assumed an increasingly aggressive posture in West Africa. His rhetoric aligns closely with NATO’s Ukraine doctrine: preemptive militarisation under the guise of ‘stabilisation’. African civil society organisations are right to ask whether the Sahel will be the next front in NATO’s global war doctrine.

Diplomatic efforts, such as those initiated in Turkey, have failed — largely because they have been treated as performative rather than genuine. The West’s reluctance to negotiate on equal terms, or to recognise Russia’s legitimate security concerns, has doomed talks to collapse. Instead, NATO’s continued expansion and aggressive military exercises close to Russian borders have reinforced the image of a belligerent alliance trapped in a Cold War mindset.

The escalation on June 1 cannot be separated from this broader diplomatic failure. NATO’s actions seem to be aimed at provoking Russia into disproportionate retaliation, which could then be used to justify further Western militarisation. This is a dangerous cycle that risks dragging humanity into a nuclear confrontation.

The silence of major Western media outlets and international institutions over the attacks on Russian civilians is telling. When similar events occur in Western capitals, the language of ‘terrorism’ and ‘barbarism’ is employed without hesitation. Yet, when civilian infrastructure in Russia is targeted, the narrative shifts to one of ‘strategic countermeasures’ or is simply ignored.

This selective outrage undermines the very foundations of international law. The principle of state sovereignty, the protection of civilians during wartime, and the condemnation of terrorism must apply universally. Anything less erodes global norms and opens the door to unrestrained violence under the guise of self-defense or ideological warfare.

In light of these developments, the international community must ask hard questions. Is NATO’s continued existence and expansion compatible with global peace? Can any military alliance that partners with extremist groups be trusted to safeguard democracy? What mechanisms exist to hold powerful states accountable for state-sponsored terrorism?

Russia’s current struggle is being watched closely not just by global superpowers, but by nations and peoples resisting neo-colonial domination everywhere. Africa, in particular, must remain vigilant. While Ukraine may dominate headlines today, tomorrow it may be the Congo, Niger, or Ethiopia targeted for destabilisation under similar pretenses.

As history has shown, an attack on one sovereign state under the pretext of imperial domination is ultimately an attack on all. International solidarity, rooted in justice and sovereignty, is the only sustainable path forward.

The events of June 1, 2025, are more than just a milestone in a tragic conflict. They are a wake-up call to the Global South, particularly Africa, to reassess its geopolitical alignments, security partnerships, and narratives about global conflict. NATO’s use of Ukraine as a proxy to wage war on Russia — and by extension on the emerging multipolar world — should not go unnoticed or unchallenged.

There is a growing consensus among progressive voices in the Global South that unchecked Western militarism is incompatible with a peaceful and just world. The challenge is to transform this consensus into political action: mobilising public opinion, forging regional alliances, and resisting the creeping militarisation of international relations.

Only then can the world hope to break free from the cycle of terror, war, and imperialism that continues to define the actions of NATO and its proxies. And only then can genuine peace, built on mutual respect and sovereignty, begin to take root.