Presented as spaces dedicated to the promotion of the Russian language and culture, “Russian Houses” are now occupying an increasingly problematic position in several African countries. Recent investigations point to a worrying shift: in certain contexts, these structures appear to go beyond a purely cultural mission and become embedded in arrangements that combine ideological influence, opaque professional mobility channels, and, in some documented cases, pathways that have led African nationals directly to the front lines of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
These centres fall under Rossotrudnichestvo, a federal agency created in 2008 and officially tasked with promoting Russian culture and language abroad. Unlike other foreign cultural institutes, their operations rely heavily on local partnerships and intermediary actors. This fragmented organizational model tends to blur lines of responsibility and obscure the boundary between cultural action, private initiatives, and the strategic objectives of the Russian state.
Investigations published by the platforms News Now and Global Sentinel highlight several concrete cases illustrating these drifts. The case of Bankole Manchi, a 36-year-old Nigerian mechanic, is particularly revealing. Attracted by what was presented as a legitimate and well-paid job offer, he reports having obtained a visa without thorough scrutiny before transiting through several regional hubs on his way to Russia. According to his testimony, he was then taken to a closed facility, subjected to military training, and ultimately sent to fight in Ukraine, where he was wounded. He describes a gradual process marked by the confiscation of his documents, the absence of any administrative recourse, and the practical impossibility of withdrawing from the situation.
A similar pattern emerges from the testimony of a Ugandan national who claims to have been recruited for civilian activities related to private security and commercial logistics. Here again, initial promises reportedly gave way to coercion upon arrival in Russia: confinement in closed installations, armed threats, and assignment to missions directly linked to the conflict. The individual states that he eventually managed to escape and join Ukrainian forces, after a brief detention intended to verify his identity.
These situations do not correspond to classic, explicit, and openly acknowledged military recruitment. Rather, they reflect processes of gradual slippage, made possible by the socio-economic vulnerability of the individuals concerned, the complexity of migration trajectories, and the opacity of the intermediaries involved. The testimonies do not indicate prior ideological commitment, but instead a search for employment, income, or opportunities for international mobility. Ideology, when it appears, emerges downstream, in contexts that are already tightly controlled and coercive.
The investigations also point to a shift in the content and atmosphere of certain Russian Houses. There is evidence of an increasing number of events with a militarized tone, a valorizing portrayal of the Russian armed forces, and the dissemination of narratives framing the war in Ukraine as a civilizational confrontation. These spaces, initially conceived as neutral cultural venues, thus tend to become sites where the conflict is normalized, and in some cases, gateways into professional channels linked to defense or military logistics.
A central factor lies in the role of local intermediaries. The trajectories described rarely pass through formal diplomatic channels or embassies. Instead, they rely on recruitment agents and associative, community, or religious networks capable of lending credibility to poorly documented offers. Complex transit routes, short-term contracts, and promises of high remuneration contribute to dulling risk perception among candidates already weakened by unemployment or economic instability.
For African states, the issue extends far beyond the Russian case alone. It exposes shortcomings in regulation, consular protection, and oversight of international recruitment channels. The response cannot be solely political or symbolic. It requires stricter legal frameworks governing foreign cultural centers, enhanced monitoring of mobility offers toward conflict zones, and better information campaigns targeting the most exposed populations.
