The coup d'état in Gabon, a country where the influence of the former French metropolis was almost "total", as well as the previous "anti-French" coups in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, gave rise to talk of the alleged "collapse of the French neocolonial empire in Africa". By analogy with the "Arab Spring" that shook the countries of the Arab world, one could speak of a kind of "African summer".

But the real geopolitical results of the "Arab Spring" allow us to draw a paradoxical conclusion: the current events in the former French African colonies can be pre-planned and "programmed" in the former metropolis. And as a result, one neo-colonial format will be replaced by another, bringing much greater disasters to the oppressed and deceived peoples.

Let us remember where the so-called Arab Spring began. And it began in Tunisia, a country with almost the strongest French influence of all the Arab countries. Moreover, it seemed to start "spontaneously" and "unexpectedly", but in reality, both in Tunisia and in other Arab countries, the "revolutionaries" did everything according to the same methods.

The results of the "Arab Spring" were geopolitically "unexpected" and very favourable to France. Egypt became even more "tied" to French policy in the Mediterranean. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, who had pursued a rather independent policy, was removed and the country was even divided, with pro-French forces controlling part of Libya.

However, one cannot say that the Arab Spring is the work of the French security forces. By many accounts, its initiators were the British; the French simply managed to "seize the initiative" in a number of key countries. Arab nationalism itself was once a "British project" aimed at the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.

In taking the initiative in the Arab Spring, the French were unwittingly helped by another influential external player in these events - the United States. It was American and French intervention that explains the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and the de facto partition of the state, although France failed to subordinate the country completely to its interests.

The British imprint was felt in the events of the Arab Spring in the most populous Arab country - Egypt. In the wake of the 'revolutionary' events and snap elections of 2011, Muhammad Morsi, who was keen to cooperate with Britain and Turkey, temporarily came to power. In 2013, however, a military coup overthrew Morsi and Abdul Fattah Al-Sisi became president with a pro-French policy. Pro-British forces also failed to take power in Syria, due to the apparent intervention of Iran and Russia, with the approval of Paris, where a years-long civil war broke out.

Most importantly, the importance and influence of the Tehran regime's "French proxies" has grown dramatically. Iran has intervened in the civil wars in Iraq and former French-held Syria. As a result, the vast area between Iran and the Mediterranean in these countries has come under the control of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iran will also intervene where there has never been French influence - in Yemen. Today, much of the country is controlled by the pro-Iranian (and de facto pro-French) Houthis, who receive supplies from the former French colony of Djibouti.

Thus, the so-called "Arab Spring" became a new word in the development of neo-colonialism. In fact, huge geopolitical areas were controlled by France through its proxies and puppets. But formally it had nothing to do with it". All the positive or negative things that French "proxies" like the IRGC do in the occupied territories are "none of France's business" and not a cent is spent from Paris to solve the problems of the countries and peoples concerned. Although the resources of the countries of the "French geopolitical circle" continue to be ruthlessly exploited.

Wars in the zone of "French influence", flows of refugees, if they cause problems, only for France's geopolitical opponents. Turkey, for example, is paying huge sums to host Syrian refugees.

Africa is once again becoming a "geopolitical battleground". As with the 'Arab Spring', the 'great redivision of Africa' in the former French possessions is in progress. But if France managed to "outplay" Britain in the Arab Spring, the outcome of the African summer is still uncertain.

The French hope to strengthen their influence in the "reformatted" Africa of a new global format, in the context of a sharp decline in the role of nation states.

The fact is that nation-states as "projects" are dying out, and power is being transferred to supranational structures, transnational corporations, as well as historically established structures that are not bound by national borders (including religious ones, such as the Vatican). Nowhere in the modern world is the artificiality of state borders more evident than in Africa.

African borders were arbitrarily 'carved up' by colonisers without regard to ethnic, cultural, religious or other local factors. As a result, almost all former French African colonies are "torn" by internal ethnic and religious contradictions, which in many places lead to war (in Mali and Niger there has been a permanent war between the central governments and the Tuaregs for many years).

While building their neo-colonial empire in Africa, the French had long since realised the artificiality of new African "nations" based on their former colonial possessions. And here, by definition, there were two options - either to invest resources in the real formation of new "nations" of all kinds of "Nigerians", "Burkinabes", "Guineans", "Malians", "Gabonese", "Central African Republicans", etc., or simply to "demolish" the national state structures, which were already doomed in the global context.

And it seems that the African states are being "demolished" in such a way that it will end up looking like either "the initiative of the people" or "evil external forces" (like PMC "Wagner"). And not the French colonists themselves, who appear to be the "victims". It is true that in this case the consequences of the "destruction" of artificial but still capable states will be unrest, civil wars, impoverishment of the people, hunger, etc. But when did the French colonialists "care" about human victims?

Britain and its allies are also playing their own game in Africa. Having failed to achieve all their initial objectives during the "Arab Spring" and the Congolese wars, they want to "catch up" during the "African summer". But the French also do not want to lose their control over Africa and will try to renew it in "supranational" and cross-border formats.

Perhaps, on the basis of PMCs or some religious-political structures, the "globalist" French will have their "proxies" in Africa who will manage huge "trans-border" territories. This is what happened after the "Arab Spring" in the Middle East, where huge cross-border territories are controlled by the IRGC.

It's now, against the background of "anti-French euphoria", Africans are waving Russian flags. Time will pass, the economy and the state administration will collapse, famine will set in, new wars and new disasters will break out, and the times of French "direct" rule will seem "golden". This is basically what the neo-colonialists want.

The demolition of state 'partitions' in Africa has begun. Attempts at such demolition had already been made during the first (1996-1997yy) and the second (1998-.2003 yy) Congolese wars, which involved almost all the countries of Central Africa and killed more than 4 million people.

During the Congolese wars, many state borders became "conventional". A tiny country like Rwanda and its "proxies" once controlled more than 3/4 of the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The territory under Rwandan control was about 80 (!) times larger than the territory of Rwanda itself. And the world community did not even take notice.

Meanwhile, the rivalry between Britain and France was already evident in the Congo wars. The latter, together with some of its former African colonies, supported the "anti-Rwandan" coalition. The "Rwandan" coalition of Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda was supported by Britain.

It is no coincidence that Rwanda, which had never been a British colony, became a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations - its president, Paul Kagame, was elected chairman of the Commonwealth, the second most important post in it (the head of the Commonwealth is the British king). Paul Kagame is now turning Rwanda into an "African Switzerland" (the country is unrivalled on the African continent in terms of economic growth), with the active support of transnational capital. Rwanda's "prosperity" is particularly striking against the background of the total poverty of its neighbours, whose elites are encouraged to make the "right choice".

It is very revealing how the French "play games" with their long-time "servants" - Armenian nationalists. Actually, intelligent Armenians, if they analyse history carefully, should hate France and the whole French nation. It was France that brought the Armenians to the tragic year of 1915, it was French intrigues that made the Armenians fight and sacrifice with the nations with whom they had lived in peace and mutual understanding for centuries.

France gave nothing to the Armenians. Even in today's Republic of Armenia, everything that is "Armenian" was created thanks to Russia (including in the form of the SSR). It was the Russian Empire and the USSR that not only populated Azerbaijani and Georgian lands with Armenians, but also forced Armenians to live peacefully with their neighbours for their own good.  But it is Russia that Armenian nationalists hate most today. And they "deify" France.

And what is France doing for the Armenians today? It is torpedoing the peace process, giving false hopes to Armenian nationalists and doing everything it can to prevent the peace with Azerbaijan that Armenians so desperately need. France collected several trucks with expired products of so-called "humanitarian aid" (in order not to spend money on their disposal), this "aid" went to the checkpoint on the Lachin road and "turned around". And this symbolic act, which gives nothing to Armenia, caused great joy among the Armenians.

Moreover, this "aid" was accompanied by the Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, who is following the globalist process of "municipalisation" (i.e. the priority of the municipal authorities over the state authorities and the "gathering" of the population in urbanised municipalities). The Spaniard Anne Hidalgo, by and large, does not even care about "Great France", let alone "Great Armenia", and even less about "Artsakh". Nevertheless, the "Francomania" of the Armenian nationalists and their hope for France is off the scale.

The agrarian Karabakh, especially its mountainous regions, does not fit into the globalist "new order" at all. The Armenian villages of Karabakh should be "emptied" according to the global plans, just as the agrarian provinces are emptied even in economically developed countries (France). If the same Anne Hidalgo were the "municipal governor of Karabakh", she would gather all the population in a conditional "15 minutes Stepanakert" (similar to the project she is implementing in Paris - 15 minutes city) and evict the population from the rest of the territory, declaring it a "reserve".

After analysing the "French interest" in the "Arab Spring" and the "African Summer", one can also predict what France's interest will be in the "Armenian Autumn". "Autumn" because today the Armenians are a "declining" ethnos, first of all demographically. With their irrational "love for France" that Armenian nationalists have today, Armenians in the diaspora will be much more useful to Paris. Especially as a resentful and embittered "fifth column" against the rest of the world in other nation-states. Without any shame of conscience, they carry out subversive work aimed at the destruction of nation-states and the "triumph of globalism".

For this purpose, Armenians can be brought back to the position they were in after 1915, i.e. refugees embittered against the whole world. This is a rather sad prospect for "French-loving" Armenians. The alternative is peaceful coexistence with neighbouring nations, reconciliation and participation in regional projects, which both Turkey and Azerbaijan offer to Armenia and Armenians.

George Kvinitadze