What started as a peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has exploded into a geopolitical chess match, with South Africa and Rwanda teetering on the edge of a diplomatic—and possibly military—showdown. At the heart of the firestorm? DRC President Félix Tshisekedi, a leader accused of playing both victim and puppeteer in a conflict that refuses to die.
Mission Impossible: South Africa’s Bloody Foray into the DRC
The drama began when South African troops, deployed under the Southern African Development Community (SADC) peace mission, entered the volatile eastern DRC to take on the notorious M23 rebels. What was supposed to be a strategic intervention quickly turned into a disastrous bloodbath, with at least 13 South African soldiers killed in brutal combat. Disturbing footage soon surfaced—South African troops waving white flags, signaling surrender under relentless enemy fire.
With casualties mounting, the million-dollar question arose: Who pulled the trigger?
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa wasted no time in naming the villain—Rwandan President Paul Kagame. According to Pretoria, the M23 rebels—widely accused of being Kagame’s proxy army—were behind the attack. In a fiery statement, Ramaphosa’s Defence Minister went as far as directly blaming Kagame for the blood of the fallen soldiers, hinting that South Africa could consider military retaliation.
But if Ramaphosa thought Kagame would sit quietly in the corner, he was dead wrong.
Kagame Fires Back: “If South Africa Wants a Fight, Rwanda is Ready”
Kagame came out swinging, flipping the blame right back onto Ramaphosa. In a no-holds-barred statement, he called out South Africa’s military intervention as reckless, branding it a “belligerent force” that had no business meddling in Congo’s internal mess. He also accused South Africa of siding with anti-Rwanda militias—groups Kagame claims have genocidal ambitions against Rwanda.
Then came the Twitter bombshell. Kagame mocked Ramaphosa’s diplomatic finesse, accusing him of twisting their private phone conversations to create a false narrative.
“I spoke to President Ramaphosa twice this week. What has been said in the media by South African officials—and by Ramaphosa himself—contains distortions, deliberate attacks, and even lies.”
And then, the real twist—Kagame dropped a game-changing revelation:
“President Ramaphosa confirmed to me that M23 did not kill the South African soldiers—FARDC (Congolese army) did.”
Wait. What?
If Kagame’s claim is true, it means South African troops were killed not by M23, but by the very forces they were sent to protect. If that’s the case, why is Ramaphosa still blaming Kagame? Enter Tshisekedi, the real puppet master of this crisis.
Tshisekedi’s Endgame: Keeping the War Alive
Critics have long accused Félix Tshisekedi of using the M23 rebellion as a political smokescreen to shore up international support while conveniently dodging accountability for DRC’s never-ending instability.
For years, Tshisekedi has pushed the narrative that M23 is a Rwandan-backed militia, a claim Kagame vehemently denies. Privately, Kagame insists that M23 is composed of Congolese Tutsis, not Rwandans—a distinction that Tshisekedi reportedly acknowledges behind closed doors but publicly ignores to keep his war-time image alive.
The ultimate red flag? When Kenyan President William Ruto and other regional leaders pushed for peace talks between DRC and M23, Tshisekedi flat-out refused to attend. If peace was truly his goal, why dodge the table?
Because, as Kagame has long argued, Tshisekedi doesn’t want peace—he wants perpetual war. Why? Because a war-torn DRC means:
- International sympathy
- More foreign aid money
- A solid excuse for political failures
- A prolonged grip on power
Peace, on the other hand? It would expose his government’s deep internal cracks and even threaten his presidency.
Facebook Comments