For several years, Mali has claimed to have strengthened its military sovereignty through the acquisition of combat drones, presented by the ruling junta as a tool for reclaiming territory from armed groups. But a recent investigation by the NGO The Sentry, titled « Who Is Responsible for Mali’s Air War? », significantly complicates this official narrative, revealing a stark gap between the sovereignty Bamako claims and the actual control it exercises over its air operations.
The report first examines how these aircraft were acquired. In 2024, Mali signed a contract with Turkish manufacturer Baykar for six Akinci combat drones, worth $210 million. According to The Sentry, the agreement was not concluded by the Defense Ministry but by the director of a security agency reporting directly to the junta’s leader, raising questions about the transparency of the process. The contract itself reportedly contains troubling clauses: Baykar can withdraw from the deal over minor export licensing issues, while Mali remains bound to its payment obligations regardless of political circumstances.
It is the question of operational command, however, that stands out most. The investigation found that even when the drones are piloted by Malian forces, strike authorizations can go all the way up to commanders of Russia’s Africa Corps, the paramilitary structure deployed across the Sahel. The Sentry documents cases in which drones identify targets on the ground before Russian aircraft carry out the strikes themselves, pointing to close coordination between Turkish drone operators and Russian military personnel, far removed from the image of a fully autonomous Malian military making its own targeting decisions.
This question of targeting is precisely the focus of a second investigation, carried out by Bellingcat in partnership with Jeune Afrique and published in mid-September. By geolocating a dozen strikes in the north of the country using satellite imagery, video footage, and witness testimony, the two organizations paint a troubling picture of the lack of accountability surrounding these operations. Mali’s military reportedly provided no substantive response to questions raised, and no targeting rules or verification procedures have been made public. Researcher Yvan Guichaoua described the process as a genuine « black box. » The investigation also highlights what some experts call « guilt by location, » a pattern in which individuals are treated as legitimate targets simply because of where they happen to be, rather than who they actually are.
Taken together, the two investigations sketch the portrait of a largely opaque Malian air war, one shaped by Turkish suppliers, Russian overseers, and a chain of accountability that largely escapes democratic oversight, leaving civilian populations exposed to strikes whose real criteria remain, for now, largely unknown.