Britain has struck at the heart of Russia’s expanding disinformation campaign in Africa by imposing sanctions on key figures behind a Moscow-backed news agency that Western intelligence agencies say is spreading Kremlin propaganda across the continent.

The mid-July sanctions package targeted three individuals at the center of African Initiative, a Russian news agency established in September 2023 that presents itself as an “information bridge between Russia and Africa” but which British and European intelligence services have identified as a front for Russian information warfare operations.

The most prominent figure sanctioned is Victor Lukovenko, a former Russian Military Intelligence (GRU) operative who also operates under the alias Viktor Vasilyev.

According to French intelligence agency Viginum, Lukovenko has a criminal past, having served eight years in Russian prison for a racially motivated killing before reinventing himself as a self-proclaimed West Africa expert.

He maintained a Telegram channel called “Smile and Wave” and claimed to be the founder of African Initiative’s operations in Burkina Faso before his arrest in Kyrgyzstan in April 2025 on charges of recruiting mercenaries for foreign conflicts.

Also sanctioned was Artyom Kureyev, African Initiative’s Editor-in-Chief, who intelligence services link to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB).

Kureyev previously presented himself as deputy head of the Baltic Spaces Research Centre, which European agencies suspect is a front for Russian intelligence services.

His background illustrates the sophisticated way Moscow has deployed intelligence operatives with academic credentials to legitimize its information operations.

The third target, Anna Zamareyeva, served as Deputy Editor-in-Chief of African Initiative after previously working as a spokesperson for the Wagner mercenary group.

Her transition from Wagner’s communications apparatus to African Initiative underscores the continuity between Russia’s military and information operations on the continent.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy described the sanctions as a response to “GRU spies running a campaign to destabilize Europe, undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and threaten the safety of British citizens.”

He emphasized that Britain would not tolerate Russian hybrid warfare tactics conducted “in the shadows.”

The sanctions represent more than symbolic punishment—they target a sophisticated Russian strategy that emerged after Moscow’s isolation following its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Cut off from Western partnerships, Russia has aggressively courted African nations, formalizing this approach in its 2023 Foreign Policy Concept document.

African Initiative exemplifies this strategy by producing content that systematically promotes anti-Western narratives while portraying Russia as Africa’s natural ally.

The agency’s website features stories like “Russia to deliver mobile anti-epidemic laboratory to Burkina Faso” and quotes from officials like Guinea-Bissau’s Natural Resources Minister claiming “Moscow has always supported Africa” and helps the continent “rid itself of the influence of Western neo-colonialism.”

This messaging builds on genuine African grievances about historical exploitation while obscuring Russia’s own imperial ambitions.

By republishing legitimate news stories with pro-Kremlin editorial slants and commissioning original content that emphasizes Western failures, African Initiative creates a narrative framework that serves Russian geopolitical interests.

The timing of these sanctions is significant as Russia expands its presence across Africa through military partnerships, economic deals, and information operations.

The Wagner Group’s digital influence activities, which were temporarily disrupted by founder Yevgeny Prigozhin’s death in 2023, have been reconstituted under state control with African Initiative serving as a key platform.

Intelligence assessments suggest this represents a broader evolution in Russian information warfare, moving from the more overtly mercenary-based Wagner model to state-integrated operations that appear more legitimate while pursuing identical objectives.

By sanctioning the key personnel behind these operations, Britain aims to disrupt this network and signal to other Russian operatives that their activities are being monitored.

However, the effectiveness of these sanctions remains to be seen.

While they may complicate the sanctioned individuals’ international travel and financial operations, the underlying Russian strategy of exploiting legitimate African concerns about Western behavior continues.

Moscow’s success in Africa depends not just on covert information operations but on offering tangible alternatives to Western partnerships, particularly in security cooperation and resource extraction.

The British action nonetheless marks an important recognition that Russia’s challenge to Western influence in Africa extends far beyond military or economic competition into the realm of narratives and information.

As competition for African partnerships intensifies, the battle for influence increasingly involves competing stories about who truly serves African interests—making the targeting of Russian information operations a crucial front in this broader geopolitical struggle.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

An Indian Air Force pilot gets out of a Rafale fighter jet during its induction ceremony at an air force station in Ambala, India, September 10, 2020. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab

Item 1 of 5 An Indian Air Force pilot gets out of a Rafale fighter jet during its induction ceremony at an air force station in Ambala, India, September 10, 2020. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

Summary

Companies Intel failure on range of China-made PL-15 missile central to downing of India’s Rafale jet-sources

Shootdown of Rafale had raised questions about effectiveness of Western hardware against Chinese alternatives

Pakistan claims successful electronic warfare assault though India disputes scale

Outcome of the battle ignites interest from other countries in purchasing Chinese fighter jets

ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI, August 2 (Reuters) – Just after midnight on May 7, the screen in the Pakistan Air Force’s operations room lit up in red with the positions of dozens of active enemy planes across the border in India.

Air Chief Mshl. Zaheer Sidhu had been sleeping on a mattress just off that room for days in anticipation of an Indian assault.

Sign up here.

New Delhi had blamed Islamabad for backing militants who carried out an attack the previous month in Indian Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians. Despite Islamabad denying any involvement, India had vowed a response, which came in the early hours of May 7 with air strikes on Pakistan.

Sidhu ordered Pakistan’s prized Chinese-made J-10C jets to scramble. A senior Pakistani Air Force (PAF) official, who was present in the operations room, said Sidhu instructed his staff to target Rafales, a French-made fighter that is the jewel of India’s fleet and had never been downed in battle.

“He wanted Rafales,” said the official.

The hour-long fight, which took place in darkness, involved some 110 aircraft, experts estimate, making it the world’s largest air battle in decades.

The J-10s shot down at least one Rafale , Reuters reported in May, citing U.S. officials. Its downing surprised many in the military community and raised questions about the effectiveness of Western military hardware against untested Chinese alternatives.

Shares of Dassault (AM.PA) , opens new tab , which makes the Rafale, dipped after reports the fighter had been shot down. Indonesia, which has outstanding Rafale orders, has said it is now considering purchasing J-10s – a major boost to China’s efforts to sell the aircraft overseas.

But Reuters interviews with two Indian officials and three of their Pakistani counterparts found that the performance of the Rafale wasn’t the key problem: Central to its downing was an Indian intelligence failure concerning the range of the China-made PL-15 missile fired by the J-10 fighter. China and Pakistan are the only countries to operate both J-10s, known as Vigorous Dragons, and PL-15s.

The faulty intelligence gave the Rafale pilots a false sense of confidence they were out of Pakistani firing distance, which they believed was only around 150 km, the Indian officials said, referring to the widely cited range of PL-15’s export variant.

“We ambushed them,” the PAF official said, adding that Islamabad conducted an electronic warfare assault on Delhi’s systems in an attempt to confuse Indian pilots. Indian officials dispute the effectiveness of those efforts.

“The Indians were not expecting to be shot at,” said Justin Bronk, air warfare expert at London’s Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think-tank. “And the PL-15 is clearly very capable at long range.”

The PL-15 that hit the Rafale was fired from around 200km (124.27 mi) away, according to Pakistani officials, and even farther according to Indian officials. That would make it among the longest-range air-to-air strikes recorded.

India’s defense and foreign ministries did not return requests for comment about the intelligence mistakes. Delhi hasn’t acknowledged a Rafale being shot down, but France’s air chief told reporters in June that he had seen evidence of the loss of that fighter and two other aircraft flown by India, including a Russian-made Sukhoi. A top Dassault executive also told French lawmakers that month that India had lost a Rafale in operations, though he didn’t have specific details.

Pakistan’s military referred to past comments by a spokesperson who said that its professional preparedness and resolve was more important than the weaponry it had deployed. China’s defense ministry did not respond to Reuters’ questions. Dassault and UAC, the manufacturer of the Sukhoi, also did not return requests for comment.

“SITUATIONAL AWARENESS”

Reuters spoke to eight Pakistani and two Indian officials to piece together an account of the aerial battle, which marked the start of four days of fighting between the two nuclear-armed neighbors that caused alarm in Washington. The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss national security matters.

Not only did Islamabad have the element of surprise with its missiles’ range, the Pakistani and Indian officials said, but it managed to more efficiently connect its military hardware to surveillance on the ground and in the air, providing it with a clearer picture of the battlefield. Such networks, known as “kill chains,” have become a crucial element of modern warfare.

Four Pakistani officials said they created a “kill chain,” or a multi-domain operation, by linking air, land and space sensors. The network included a Pakistani-developed system, Data Link 17, which connected Chinese military hardware with other equipment, including a Swedish-made surveillance plane, two Pakistani officials said.

The system allowed the J-10s flying closer to India to obtain radar feeds from the surveillance plane cruising further away, meaning the Chinese-made fighters could turn their radars off and fly undetected, according to experts. Pakistan’s military did not respond to requests for comment on this point.

Delhi is trying to set up a similar network, the Indian officials said, adding that their process was more complicated because the country sourced aircraft from a wide range of exporters.

Retired U.K. Air Mshl. Greg Bagwell, now a fellow at RUSI, said the episode didn’t conclusively prove the superiority of either Chinese or Western air assets but it showed the importance of having the right information and using it.

“The winner in this was the side that had the best situational awareness,” said Bagwell.

CHANGE IN TACTICS

After India in the early hours of May 7 struck targets in Pakistan that it called terrorist infrastructure, Sidhu ordered his squadrons to switch from defense to attack.

Five PAF officials said India had deployed some 70 planes, which was more than they had expected and provided Islamabad’s PL-15s with a target-rich environment. India has not said how many planes were used.

The May 7 battle marked the first big air contest of the modern era in which weaponry is used to strike targets beyond visual range, said Bagwell, noting both India and Pakistan’s planes remained well within their airspaces across the duration of the fight.

Five Pakistani officials said an electronic assault on Indian sensors and communications systems reduced the situational awareness of the Rafale’s pilots.

The two Indian officials said the Rafales were not blinded during the skirmishes and that Indian satellites were not jammed. But they acknowledged that Pakistan appeared to have disrupted the Sukhoi, whose systems Delhi is now upgrading.

Other Indian security officials have deflected questions away from the Rafale, a centerpiece of India’s military modernization, to the orders given to the air force.

India’s defense attaché in Jakarta told a university seminar that Delhi had lost some aircraft “only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack (Pakistan’s) military establishments and their air defenses.”

India’s chief of defense staff Gen. Anil Chauhan previously told Reuters that Delhi quickly “rectified tactics” after the initial losses.

After the May 7 air battle, India began targeting Pakistani military infrastructure and asserting its strength in the skies. Its Indian-made BrahMos supersonic cruise missile repeatedly sliced through Pakistan’s air defenses, according to officials on both sides.

On May 10, India said it struck at least nine air bases and radar sites in Pakistan. It also hit a surveillance plane parked in a hangar in southern Pakistan, according to Indian and Pakistani officials. A ceasefire was agreed later that day, after U.S. officials held talks with both sides.

‘LIVE INPUTS’

In the aftermath of the episode, India’s deputy army chief Lt. Gen. Rahul Singh accused Pakistan of receiving “live inputs” from China during the battles, implying radar and satellite feeds. He did not provide evidence and Islamabad denies the allegation.

When asked at a July briefing about Beijing’s military partnership with Pakistan, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters the work was “part of the normal cooperation between the two countries and does not target any third party.”

Beijing’s air chief Lt. Gen. Wang Gang visited Pakistan in July to discuss how Islamabad had used Chinese equipment to put together the “kill chain” for the Rafale, two PAF officials said.

China did not respond when asked about that interaction. The Pakistani military said in a statement in July that Wang had expressed “keen interest in learning from PAF’s battle-proven experience in Multi Domain Operations.”

Additional reporting by John Irish in Paris, Idrees Ali in Washington, Nur-Azna Sanusi in Singapore and the Beijing newsroom; Editing by Katerina Ang

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

The U.S. and NATO are working on a novel approach to supply Ukraine with weapons using funds from NATO countries to pay for the purchase or transfer of U.S. arms, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

The renewed transatlantic cooperation on Ukraine comes as U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed frustration with Moscow’s ongoing attacks on its neighbor.

Trump, who initially took a more conciliatory tone toward Russia as he tried to end the more than three-year war in Ukraine, has threatened to start imposing tariffs and other measures if Moscow shows no progress toward ending the conflict by August 8.

The president said last month the U.S. would supply weapons to Ukraine, paid for by European allies, but did not indicate how this would be done.

NATO countries, Ukraine, and the United States are developing a new mechanism that will focus on getting U.S. weapons to Ukraine from the Priority Ukraine Requirements List, known under the acronym PURL, the sources said.

Ukraine would prioritize the weapons it needs in tranches of roughly $500 million, and NATO allies – coordinated by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte – would then negotiate among themselves who would donate or pay for items on the list.

Through this approach, NATO allies hope to provide $10 billion in arms for Ukraine, said a European official, speaking on condition of anonymity. It was unclear over what timeframe they hope to supply the arms.

“That is the starting point, and it’s an ambitious target that we’re working towards. We’re currently on that trajectory. We support the ambition. We need that sort of volume,” the European official said.

A senior NATO military official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the initiative was “a voluntary effort coordinated by NATO that all allies are encouraged to take part in”.

The official said the new scheme included a NATO holding account, where allies could deposit money for weapons for Ukraine, approved by NATO’s top military commander.

NATO headquarters in Brussels declined to comment. The White House, Pentagon, and Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.

Russian forces are gradually advancing against Ukraine, and control one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory.

FASTER ARMS RESTOCKING

If a NATO country decides to donate weapons to Ukraine, the mechanism would allow that country to effectively bypass lengthy U.S. arms sales procedures to replenish its own stocks, said one U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Money for the arms would be transferred into a U.S.-held account, possibly at the U.S. Treasury Department, or to an escrow fund, although the exact structure remains unclear, the official said.

The new mechanism would be in addition to the United States’ own effort to identify arms from U.S. stockpiles to send to Ukraine under the Presidential Drawdown Authority, which allows the U.S. president to draw from current weapons stocks to help allies in an emergency.

At least one tranche of weapons for Ukraine is currently being negotiated under the new mechanism, two sources said, though it was unclear if any money has yet been transferred.

Trump’s fellow Republicans in Congress have introduced legislation, known as the PEACE Act, that aims to create a fund at the U.S. Treasury in which allies can deposit money that would pay to replenish U.S. military equipment donated to Ukraine.

Ukraine’s needs remain consistent with previous months – air defenses, interceptors, systems, rockets, and artillery.

The last statement of need from Ukraine came in a July 21 video conferenceof the country’s allies, known as the Ramstein group, now led by Britain and Germany.

(Reporting by Gram Slattery, Mike Stone, Phil Stewart in Washington; additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle in Washington and Andrew Gray in Brussels; editing by Michelle Nichols, Rod Nickel and David Gregorio)