Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Ugandan President Yoweri K Museveni points out that Egypt repeatedly emphasizes its “historical rights” based on colonial-era Nile agreements, but the other Nile Basin countries are now asking a straightforward question: “What about us?” He argues that the Nile cannot be treated as if only downstream states have rights... show more

The Asrat Blog

16,956 subscribers

90,704 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Daniel Kibret is Abiy’s right-hand man, a close confidant, and one of the most trusted figures in Abiy’s inner circle. He is almost always at Abiy’s side at public functions and acts as the chief ideologue of the Prosperity Party. He is well known for using Amharic idioms and prose to ridicule and insult opposition figures. In practice, he appears to wield more influence than many of Abiy’s Ministers. Recently, he delivered a lecture on #Ethiopia’s so-called strategic necessity regarding the Nile River and the Red Sea basin, making it clear that Abiy often serves as a mouthpiece for Daniel Kibret’s ideas or vice-versa. The lecture was delivered to members of the artistic community in Addis Ababa and was titled Ethiopia’s War of Narratives. Its purpose was to instruct them on how to campaign using new narratives to “enlighten” the Ethiopian public—particularly narratives centered on water. He argued that Ethiopia’s enemies have deliberately prevented the country from benefiting from the Nile and the Red Sea. The lecture is deeply dangerous in its intent, as it seeks to plant the seeds of conflict in the Horn of #Africa for generations to come. Daniel Kibret openly questioned the legitimacy of colonial-era borders, asking whether Ethiopia should accept or reject them there by attempting to break one of the main tenets of African Union African Union . He argued that accepting these boundaries would mean losing access to the Nile, abandoning claims to the Red Sea, and even being restricted from freely using the term “water” itself. He went on to note that Ethiopia only recently established a Ministry of Water, more than a century after the modern state was formed, and framed this as evidence of historical injustice. His central question was clear: should Ethiopia accept or reject colonial boundaries? Throughout the lecture, he made numerous false, misleading, and outright untrue claims. I will address these in detail in subsequent posts.

Daniel Kibret is Abiy’s right-hand man, a close confidant, and one of the most trusted figures in Abiy’s inner circle. He is almost always at Abiy’s side at public functions and acts as the chief ideologue of the Prosperity Party. He is well known for using Amharic idioms and prose to ridicule and insult opposition figures. In practice, he appears to wield more influence than many of Abiy’s Ministers. Recently, he delivered a lecture on #Ethiopia’s so-called strategic necessity regarding the Nile River and the Red Sea basin, making it clear that Abiy often serves as a mouthpiece for Daniel Kibret’s ideas or vice-versa. The lecture was delivered to members of the artistic community in Addis Ababa and was titled Ethiopia’s War of Narratives. Its purpose was to instruct them on how to campaign using new narratives to “enlighten” the Ethiopian public—particularly narratives centered on water. He argued that Ethiopia’s enemies have deliberately prevented the country from benefiting from the Nile and the Red Sea. The lecture is deeply dangerous in its intent, as it seeks to plant the seeds of conflict in the Horn of #Africa for generations to come. Daniel Kibret openly questioned the legitimacy of colonial-era borders, asking whether Ethiopia should accept or reject them there by attempting to break one of the main tenets of African Union African Union . He argued that accepting these boundaries would mean losing access to the Nile, abandoning claims to the Red Sea, and even being restricted from freely using the term “water” itself. He went on to note that Ethiopia only recently established a Ministry of Water, more than a century after the modern state was formed, and framed this as evidence of historical injustice. His central question was clear: should Ethiopia accept or reject colonial boundaries? Throughout the lecture, he made numerous false, misleading, and outright untrue claims. I will address these in detail in subsequent posts.

Sirak Bahlbi

10,675 views • 9 months ago

It is not accurate to claim that Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud betrayed or "sold out" Egypt by attending the inauguration of Ethiopia's Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). On the contrary, he clearly emphasized the need to ensure an equitable flow of Nile waters, implicitly warning that any imbalance or injustice in water distribution could lead to unrest and instability in the region. In his speech, President Mohamud stated: "Water resources are managed differently in each country. For some, it is a matter of survival and security; for others, it is about energy and growth. Our challenge is to balance these needs with fairness and respect. Ethiopia has the right to pursue prosperity." Thus, his speech was not an absolute bias toward Ethiopia at Egypt's expense but rather an attempt to stress the necessity of finding a balance between development and fairness in sharing Nile waters. This aligns with Egypt's position, which supports Ethiopia's development provided it does not come at the expense of Egypt's interests and rights. Somalia has significant interests with Ethiopia, despite historical enmity and suspicions. However, this does not imply a complete rift between the two sides, as politics fundamentally involves managing relations to serve each country's interests.

It is not accurate to claim that Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud betrayed or "sold out" Egypt by attending the inauguration of Ethiopia's Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). On the contrary, he clearly emphasized the need to ensure an equitable flow of Nile waters, implicitly warning that any imbalance or injustice in water distribution could lead to unrest and instability in the region. In his speech, President Mohamud stated: "Water resources are managed differently in each country. For some, it is a matter of survival and security; for others, it is about energy and growth. Our challenge is to balance these needs with fairness and respect. Ethiopia has the right to pursue prosperity." Thus, his speech was not an absolute bias toward Ethiopia at Egypt's expense but rather an attempt to stress the necessity of finding a balance between development and fairness in sharing Nile waters. This aligns with Egypt's position, which supports Ethiopia's development provided it does not come at the expense of Egypt's interests and rights. Somalia has significant interests with Ethiopia, despite historical enmity and suspicions. However, this does not imply a complete rift between the two sides, as politics fundamentally involves managing relations to serve each country's interests.

khaled mahmoued

55,190 views • 1 year ago

Ethiopia Must Prepare for War... Sisi Revives Military Options Once Again Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi stated today, Sunday, that "Egypt will not stand idly by in the face of Ethiopia's irresponsible approach and will take all necessary measures to protect its interests and water security." In a striking escalation of Egypt's stance toward Ethiopia regarding the Renaissance Dam, amounting to a declaration of the end of Egypt's traditional patience, Sisi clarified during the opening of the Eighth Cairo Water Week (under the slogan "Innovative Solutions for Resilience Against Climate Change") that this approach has led to an "artificially induced industrial flood" that harmed the two downstream countries (Egypt and Sudan) in the past few days, due to undisciplined management of the dam's waters. Sisi reiterated his description of water security as an "existential issue" affecting the lives of more than 100 million Egyptians, calling on the international community and the African Union to confront "Ethiopia's recklessness" and impose a binding legal agreement that preserves the rights of downstream countries without harming upstream ones.Sisi's recorded speech reflects a shift in Egypt's strategy after 14 years of "wisdom and prudence" in ongoing fruitless negotiations since 2011. Here, Sisi revives potential military options with phrases like "will not stand idly by" and "all measures," which are not new (they were repeated in 2020-2021), but their current context—with an explicit reference to "actual harm" from the floods—suggests possible preparation for limited military operations, such as precision airstrikes on parts of the dam or closing the Nile waters at the border.Sisi's statements, which implicitly threaten Ethiopia, coincide with reports of recent Egyptian military exercises in Sinai involving "water security" scenarios. However, Sisi's insistence on "dialogue as the optimal path" leaves the door open for final negotiations before any radical step, emphasizing "cooperation" to avoid war.

Ethiopia Must Prepare for War... Sisi Revives Military Options Once Again Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi stated today, Sunday, that "Egypt will not stand idly by in the face of Ethiopia's irresponsible approach and will take all necessary measures to protect its interests and water security." In a striking escalation of Egypt's stance toward Ethiopia regarding the Renaissance Dam, amounting to a declaration of the end of Egypt's traditional patience, Sisi clarified during the opening of the Eighth Cairo Water Week (under the slogan "Innovative Solutions for Resilience Against Climate Change") that this approach has led to an "artificially induced industrial flood" that harmed the two downstream countries (Egypt and Sudan) in the past few days, due to undisciplined management of the dam's waters. Sisi reiterated his description of water security as an "existential issue" affecting the lives of more than 100 million Egyptians, calling on the international community and the African Union to confront "Ethiopia's recklessness" and impose a binding legal agreement that preserves the rights of downstream countries without harming upstream ones.Sisi's recorded speech reflects a shift in Egypt's strategy after 14 years of "wisdom and prudence" in ongoing fruitless negotiations since 2011. Here, Sisi revives potential military options with phrases like "will not stand idly by" and "all measures," which are not new (they were repeated in 2020-2021), but their current context—with an explicit reference to "actual harm" from the floods—suggests possible preparation for limited military operations, such as precision airstrikes on parts of the dam or closing the Nile waters at the border.Sisi's statements, which implicitly threaten Ethiopia, coincide with reports of recent Egyptian military exercises in Sinai involving "water security" scenarios. However, Sisi's insistence on "dialogue as the optimal path" leaves the door open for final negotiations before any radical step, emphasizing "cooperation" to avoid war.

khaled mahmoued

132,996 views • 11 months ago

“This war in Congo, people have tried to make it Rwanda’s war, but it is not Rwanda’s war. Rwanda did not start this war; rather, what those who started it wanted, is what we are fighting against. And that is what I am going to explain to you. This war has its origins in the history I just mentioned. Some people who are called Rwandans found themselves on the other side of the borders that define Rwanda today. It was not Rwanda that took them there. Rwanda did not move Rwandans to Kisoro in Uganda. Rwanda did not move Rwandans to Masisi, Rutshuru, and other places. Rwanda did not take them there. Now, for those who found themselves there, if the governments of those countries want to tell them, ‘Get up and go back to where you belong, to Rwanda,’ if that is their decision, then they should expel them along with the land they live on, and remain with only what belongs to them. If you claim to act in truth or seek peace, as all people do, then you must respect people’s rights. Without a doubt, when you deny people their rights, they will fight for them, that is the fire I was talking about. And when you drag Rwandans into this situation and blame Rwanda because these other countries do not want the people who are there, what do you expect us to do? We will stand up for ourselves .” President Kagame | #KwegeraAbaturage

“This war in Congo, people have tried to make it Rwanda’s war, but it is not Rwanda’s war. Rwanda did not start this war; rather, what those who started it wanted, is what we are fighting against. And that is what I am going to explain to you. This war has its origins in the history I just mentioned. Some people who are called Rwandans found themselves on the other side of the borders that define Rwanda today. It was not Rwanda that took them there. Rwanda did not move Rwandans to Kisoro in Uganda. Rwanda did not move Rwandans to Masisi, Rutshuru, and other places. Rwanda did not take them there. Now, for those who found themselves there, if the governments of those countries want to tell them, ‘Get up and go back to where you belong, to Rwanda,’ if that is their decision, then they should expel them along with the land they live on, and remain with only what belongs to them. If you claim to act in truth or seek peace, as all people do, then you must respect people’s rights. Without a doubt, when you deny people their rights, they will fight for them, that is the fire I was talking about. And when you drag Rwandans into this situation and blame Rwanda because these other countries do not want the people who are there, what do you expect us to do? We will stand up for ourselves .” President Kagame | #KwegeraAbaturage

Presidency | Rwanda

180,462 views • 1 year ago

Imagine being dark-skinned in Egypt, standing in the land of your ancestors, only to have some Arabs tell you that you are not native and must be from Sudan. That kind of identity policing is wild, especially when Arabs themselves are not indigenous to Egypt or the rest of Africa. What makes it worse is that these same racist lighter-skinned Arab Egyptians will question the origins of dark-skinned Egyptians, then turn around and claim direct descent from the ancient Egyptians. If people want to say “modern Egyptians descend from ancient Egyptians,” they need to be more specific and honest about the ethnic lineages. Egypt was not untouched by foreign settlement or conquest. Persians, Greeks/Macedonians under the Ptolemies, Romans/Byzantines, Arabs, Kurds under the Ayyubids, Mamluk military slaves, and Ottoman Turks all ruled, settled, or left their population in Egypt at different points. So dark-skinned Egyptians alone should never be treated as foreigners in a land that has always been deeply connected to Africa and the Nile Valley. The hypocrisy is the problem: some Arabs want to claim ancient Egypt when it gives them prestige, but reject dark-skinned Egyptians when their appearance does not fit the image they prefer to be advertised for their country.

Imagine being dark-skinned in Egypt, standing in the land of your ancestors, only to have some Arabs tell you that you are not native and must be from Sudan. That kind of identity policing is wild, especially when Arabs themselves are not indigenous to Egypt or the rest of Africa. What makes it worse is that these same racist lighter-skinned Arab Egyptians will question the origins of dark-skinned Egyptians, then turn around and claim direct descent from the ancient Egyptians. If people want to say “modern Egyptians descend from ancient Egyptians,” they need to be more specific and honest about the ethnic lineages. Egypt was not untouched by foreign settlement or conquest. Persians, Greeks/Macedonians under the Ptolemies, Romans/Byzantines, Arabs, Kurds under the Ayyubids, Mamluk military slaves, and Ottoman Turks all ruled, settled, or left their population in Egypt at different points. So dark-skinned Egyptians alone should never be treated as foreigners in a land that has always been deeply connected to Africa and the Nile Valley. The hypocrisy is the problem: some Arabs want to claim ancient Egypt when it gives them prestige, but reject dark-skinned Egyptians when their appearance does not fit the image they prefer to be advertised for their country.

TheSunOfGod

77,951 views • 2 months ago

🇰🇪🇧🇮🇷🇼 Why only Burundians? Kenyan commentator points finger at Rwanda A Kenyan commentator sahdam africa is questioning why Burundian traders appear to be receiving much of the attention following President William Ruto’s crackdown on undocumented foreigners operating small businesses in Kenya. In his analysis, he argues that Kenya hosts foreigners from several neighboring countries and asks why Burundians, rather than undocumented traders of all nationalities, appear to be at the center of the controversy. He then makes a much bigger allegation: that Rwanda could be influencing what is happening in Kenya. His theory is based on regional politics. He points to the strained relationship between Rwanda and Burundi, particularly over the conflict in eastern DRC. Burundi has deployed troops in support of the Congolese government, while Rwanda has faced international accusations and sanctions over its support for M23. The commentator also points to the relationship between Presidents Paul Kagame and William Ruto, arguing that Rwanda and Burundi’s political rivalry may be spilling onto Kenyan soil. He further questions reports and videos of civilians allegedly attacking or intimidating Burundian traders, arguing that immigration enforcement should be conducted by Kenyan authorities against all undocumented foreigners, regardless of nationality. His central question remains: If Kenya’s policy is about undocumented foreign traders generally, why do Burundians appear to be receiving so much attention?

🇰🇪🇧🇮🇷🇼 Why only Burundians? Kenyan commentator points finger at Rwanda A Kenyan commentator sahdam africa is questioning why Burundian traders appear to be receiving much of the attention following President William Ruto’s crackdown on undocumented foreigners operating small businesses in Kenya. In his analysis, he argues that Kenya hosts foreigners from several neighboring countries and asks why Burundians, rather than undocumented traders of all nationalities, appear to be at the center of the controversy. He then makes a much bigger allegation: that Rwanda could be influencing what is happening in Kenya. His theory is based on regional politics. He points to the strained relationship between Rwanda and Burundi, particularly over the conflict in eastern DRC. Burundi has deployed troops in support of the Congolese government, while Rwanda has faced international accusations and sanctions over its support for M23. The commentator also points to the relationship between Presidents Paul Kagame and William Ruto, arguing that Rwanda and Burundi’s political rivalry may be spilling onto Kenyan soil. He further questions reports and videos of civilians allegedly attacking or intimidating Burundian traders, arguing that immigration enforcement should be conducted by Kenyan authorities against all undocumented foreigners, regardless of nationality. His central question remains: If Kenya’s policy is about undocumented foreign traders generally, why do Burundians appear to be receiving so much attention?

Xtrafrica

23,881 views • 15 days ago

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭’𝐬 𝐓𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩𝐬: 𝐀 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 – 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐲’𝐬 𝐕𝐎𝐀 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 General Michael Langley’s recent interview with VOA offers critical insight into the growing complexities of the Horn of Africa’s security landscape, with troubling developments in #Somalia at the center. While ISIS has gained a foothold in northern #Somalia (#Puntland), growing twofold over the past year, the situation in #Somalia itself is deteriorating rapidly. The feud between #Somalia and #Ethiopia threatens not only the African Union’s AUSOM construct but also the broader fight against Al-Shabaab. #Ethiopia has proven to be a formidable force, particularly in southwest Somalia, where its troops have led the charge in dismantling Al-Shabaab’s hold. Yet, #Somalia's increasingly hostile stance toward #Ethiopia is nothing short of irrational. #Ethiopia has been instrumental in stabilizing key regions, and their efforts have safeguarded #Somalian territory from falling entirely to militant control. For #Somalia to undermine this relationship is not only shortsighted but dangerous. Moreover, the #Somali government’s failure to consolidate its gains against Al-Shabaab, as highlighted by General Langley, shows a tactical incompetence. While Somali forces may clear regions, they lack the capability to maintain a credible holding force, allowing Al-Shabaab to reverse any gains within mere months. Even more concerning is the fact that the #Somali president, Hassan Sheikh (Hassan Sheikh Mohamud), openly admitted in #Oslo, Norway that he has placed former founders of Al-Shabaab in high-ranking government positions. How can any government hope to defeat terrorism when it actively integrates terrorists into its administration? This internal dysfunction within #Somalia presents a ripe opportunity for #Egypt, a nation that has long sought to destabilize the Horn of Africa to further its own interests. #Egypt, already known for using #Somalia as a proxy to distract #Ethiopia from its Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (#GERD) project, is now capitalizing on these divisions to amplify instability. By fostering discord, #Egypt aims to weaken #Ethiopia’s focus on its development and claim rights to the Nile based on outdated colonial agreements. This aggressive and destabilizing stance threatens to plunge the region into further conflict, all for #Egypt’s ambitions of controlling the Nile—a resource to which it contributes nothing. The US must call #Egypt out for its role in destabilizing the Horn of Africa. By leveraging regional tensions, #Egypt risks turning a delicate situation into an all-out war that could cost millions of lives, and it’s clear that their motives go beyond mere water rights. The stakes are higher than ever, and #Egypt’s actions represent the kind of colonial mentality that seeks to exploit and control the region. #Somaliland, a nation committed to stability and self-defense, stands ready to cooperate with #Ethiopia in safeguarding against this aggression. Together, these nations will work to counteract the influence of states driven by colonial ambitions and destabilizing policies. The Horn of Africa cannot afford to be the playground of nations seeking to advance their interests at the expense of millions. The growing threat of Al-Shabaab, the tactical failures of the #Somali government, and #Egypt’s manipulative role all point to a crisis that demands immediate international attention. #Ethiopia has played its part in defending the region—now it's time for the rest of the world to hold the true destabilizers accountable. #SomalilandRises #EthiopiaRises #HornOfAfrica #WarOnTerror

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭’𝐬 𝐓𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩𝐬: 𝐀 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 – 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞𝐲’𝐬 𝐕𝐎𝐀 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 General Michael Langley’s recent interview with VOA offers critical insight into the growing complexities of the Horn of Africa’s security landscape, with troubling developments in #Somalia at the center. While ISIS has gained a foothold in northern #Somalia (#Puntland), growing twofold over the past year, the situation in #Somalia itself is deteriorating rapidly. The feud between #Somalia and #Ethiopia threatens not only the African Union’s AUSOM construct but also the broader fight against Al-Shabaab. #Ethiopia has proven to be a formidable force, particularly in southwest Somalia, where its troops have led the charge in dismantling Al-Shabaab’s hold. Yet, #Somalia's increasingly hostile stance toward #Ethiopia is nothing short of irrational. #Ethiopia has been instrumental in stabilizing key regions, and their efforts have safeguarded #Somalian territory from falling entirely to militant control. For #Somalia to undermine this relationship is not only shortsighted but dangerous. Moreover, the #Somali government’s failure to consolidate its gains against Al-Shabaab, as highlighted by General Langley, shows a tactical incompetence. While Somali forces may clear regions, they lack the capability to maintain a credible holding force, allowing Al-Shabaab to reverse any gains within mere months. Even more concerning is the fact that the #Somali president, Hassan Sheikh (Hassan Sheikh Mohamud), openly admitted in #Oslo, Norway that he has placed former founders of Al-Shabaab in high-ranking government positions. How can any government hope to defeat terrorism when it actively integrates terrorists into its administration? This internal dysfunction within #Somalia presents a ripe opportunity for #Egypt, a nation that has long sought to destabilize the Horn of Africa to further its own interests. #Egypt, already known for using #Somalia as a proxy to distract #Ethiopia from its Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (#GERD) project, is now capitalizing on these divisions to amplify instability. By fostering discord, #Egypt aims to weaken #Ethiopia’s focus on its development and claim rights to the Nile based on outdated colonial agreements. This aggressive and destabilizing stance threatens to plunge the region into further conflict, all for #Egypt’s ambitions of controlling the Nile—a resource to which it contributes nothing. The US must call #Egypt out for its role in destabilizing the Horn of Africa. By leveraging regional tensions, #Egypt risks turning a delicate situation into an all-out war that could cost millions of lives, and it’s clear that their motives go beyond mere water rights. The stakes are higher than ever, and #Egypt’s actions represent the kind of colonial mentality that seeks to exploit and control the region. #Somaliland, a nation committed to stability and self-defense, stands ready to cooperate with #Ethiopia in safeguarding against this aggression. Together, these nations will work to counteract the influence of states driven by colonial ambitions and destabilizing policies. The Horn of Africa cannot afford to be the playground of nations seeking to advance their interests at the expense of millions. The growing threat of Al-Shabaab, the tactical failures of the #Somali government, and #Egypt’s manipulative role all point to a crisis that demands immediate international attention. #Ethiopia has played its part in defending the region—now it's time for the rest of the world to hold the true destabilizers accountable. #SomalilandRises #EthiopiaRises #HornOfAfrica #WarOnTerror

𝐃𝐫𝐂𝐚𝐚𝐫𝐨 🇺🇸

31,132 views • 2 years ago

🇪🇷Eritrea Does Business by Choice, Not by Threat — Sovereignty Isn’t Negotiable. Abiy’s port speech sounds like a kid discovering big words — but international relations aren’t built on fantasy. 🇪🇷Eritrea isn’t here to play by anyone’s delusions — especially not Abiy Ahmed’s “Give and Take” fantasies about Red Sea access. Let’s get the facts straight: 1️⃣ Ethiopia stopped using Eritrean ports in 1998 — Eritrea respected that choice. 2️⃣ Ethiopia pays $1B+ to Djibouti annually. With that kind of money, negotiate better terms — don’t cry over Eritrea. 3️⃣ Djibouti even offered Ethiopia a port to manage — yet no response from Abiy. 4️⃣ Ethiopia threatens Egypt over the Nile, but now demands ports from neighbors? The hypocrisy is loud. 5️⃣ “Give and take,” says Abiy — yet look at how he’s turned on his allies. Ask the Amhara people. Meanwhile, Eritrea’s principles are clear: ✅ Eritrea is not for sale — not to the U.S., not to the EU, and definitely not to reckless neighbors. ✅No force on earth dictates how Eritrea uses its resources. ✅ Eritrea is committed to regional peace, but ready for any scenario. ✅ Eritrea partners on trust, not pressure — and never forgets betrayal. ✅ Eritrea today holds more leverage, stronger alliances, and unshakable resolve. As we approach Independence Day, Eritreans are laser-focused on development, sovereignty, and regional dignity — not on chasing empty noise from those who rejected us before. Abiy didn’t invent geopolitics. Sovereign nations choose — not beg. Eritrea stands tall. 📷 We don’t beg. We don’t bend. We build. 💪🏽🇪🇷 #EritreaFirst #RedSeaSovereignty #RespectBorders #NoMeansNo #HornOfAfrica #Geopolitics101 #AbiyUnmasked #EritreaSpeaks #PortPolitics #EritreaStrong #DevelopmentNotDistraction #AfricanSovereignty #HandsOffEritrea #May24Spirit #Eritrea #Ethiopia #Tigray #Somalia #Sudan #Egypt #Kenya #Africa

🇪🇷Eritrea Does Business by Choice, Not by Threat — Sovereignty Isn’t Negotiable. Abiy’s port speech sounds like a kid discovering big words — but international relations aren’t built on fantasy. 🇪🇷Eritrea isn’t here to play by anyone’s delusions — especially not Abiy Ahmed’s “Give and Take” fantasies about Red Sea access. Let’s get the facts straight: 1️⃣ Ethiopia stopped using Eritrean ports in 1998 — Eritrea respected that choice. 2️⃣ Ethiopia pays $1B+ to Djibouti annually. With that kind of money, negotiate better terms — don’t cry over Eritrea. 3️⃣ Djibouti even offered Ethiopia a port to manage — yet no response from Abiy. 4️⃣ Ethiopia threatens Egypt over the Nile, but now demands ports from neighbors? The hypocrisy is loud. 5️⃣ “Give and take,” says Abiy — yet look at how he’s turned on his allies. Ask the Amhara people. Meanwhile, Eritrea’s principles are clear: ✅ Eritrea is not for sale — not to the U.S., not to the EU, and definitely not to reckless neighbors. ✅No force on earth dictates how Eritrea uses its resources. ✅ Eritrea is committed to regional peace, but ready for any scenario. ✅ Eritrea partners on trust, not pressure — and never forgets betrayal. ✅ Eritrea today holds more leverage, stronger alliances, and unshakable resolve. As we approach Independence Day, Eritreans are laser-focused on development, sovereignty, and regional dignity — not on chasing empty noise from those who rejected us before. Abiy didn’t invent geopolitics. Sovereign nations choose — not beg. Eritrea stands tall. 📷 We don’t beg. We don’t bend. We build. 💪🏽🇪🇷 #EritreaFirst #RedSeaSovereignty #RespectBorders #NoMeansNo #HornOfAfrica #Geopolitics101 #AbiyUnmasked #EritreaSpeaks #PortPolitics #EritreaStrong #DevelopmentNotDistraction #AfricanSovereignty #HandsOffEritrea #May24Spirit #Eritrea #Ethiopia #Tigray #Somalia #Sudan #Egypt #Kenya #Africa

G. Drar

12,677 views • 1 year ago

Are the WWE graphics team just becoming very lax at their job or whats going on here? This week on Main Event The Creed Brothers took on Noam Dar & Romeo Moreno. It has now been 2 months since El Grande Americano Vs OG Americano where Chad Gable lost and processed to go on his redemption tour as a babyface. He has had zero interactions with American Made since then. It's like he turned face and just flat out forgot about them. Ivy Nile has been wrestling on Main Event most weeks while The Creed Brothers have returned recently to wrestle on the same show. Ivy Nile is still using all the American Made stuff despite not interacting with neither Chad or the Creeds. The big difference is that she has her own graphic with the crest that reads "Ivy Nile". The Creed Brothers are back a few weeks now and are still being announced as representing "American Made" instead of just as The Creed Brothers. Just calling them The Creed Brothers would make way more sense. "American Made" could have then been switched to just being Ivy Niles nickname. The biggest takeaway is that it has been 2 months and in that time they have not been able to come up with a new graphic for The Creeds. They are still using the graphic featuring Chad Gable despite Gable being babyface and not with the group now for 2 months. Ivy gets one but the Creeds don't get one? What is happening here? Do they just not care about the team? Are they getting repackaged? What's the delay here? They look like such an afterthought coming out to an old presentation. Have them interact with Gable and each other, change their graphics and music and move on. The Creed Brothers deserve more of a look in than this. Ivy has her thing now as the main roster gate keeper for the ladies. It's time to find something for Julius and Brutus.. #WWEMainEvent #MainEvent

Are the WWE graphics team just becoming very lax at their job or whats going on here? This week on Main Event The Creed Brothers took on Noam Dar & Romeo Moreno. It has now been 2 months since El Grande Americano Vs OG Americano where Chad Gable lost and processed to go on his redemption tour as a babyface. He has had zero interactions with American Made since then. It's like he turned face and just flat out forgot about them. Ivy Nile has been wrestling on Main Event most weeks while The Creed Brothers have returned recently to wrestle on the same show. Ivy Nile is still using all the American Made stuff despite not interacting with neither Chad or the Creeds. The big difference is that she has her own graphic with the crest that reads "Ivy Nile". The Creed Brothers are back a few weeks now and are still being announced as representing "American Made" instead of just as The Creed Brothers. Just calling them The Creed Brothers would make way more sense. "American Made" could have then been switched to just being Ivy Niles nickname. The biggest takeaway is that it has been 2 months and in that time they have not been able to come up with a new graphic for The Creeds. They are still using the graphic featuring Chad Gable despite Gable being babyface and not with the group now for 2 months. Ivy gets one but the Creeds don't get one? What is happening here? Do they just not care about the team? Are they getting repackaged? What's the delay here? They look like such an afterthought coming out to an old presentation. Have them interact with Gable and each other, change their graphics and music and move on. The Creed Brothers deserve more of a look in than this. Ivy has her thing now as the main roster gate keeper for the ladies. It's time to find something for Julius and Brutus.. #WWEMainEvent #MainEvent

Rony Mac

68,614 views • 1 month ago

Dangerous Escalation in East Africa: Museveni and His Son Threaten Kenya with War for the First Time to Ensure Uganda's Access to the Indian Ocean !! In a development that portends sharp regional tensions, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has declared that Uganda is "entitled" to access the Indian Ocean via Kenyan territory, warning of the outbreak of "future wars" if Kenya does not provide permanent guarantees for that access. He continued: "The Indian Ocean is mine... If we do not get guarantees, we will face future wars!!" Hours after this threat, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Uganda's defense chief and Museveni's son, issued a similar statement in media remarks: "I agree with my father – Kenya must grant us swift access to the Indian Ocean because it rightfully belongs to us. In the future, there will be very big problems if they do not respect our wishes. For years, we have remained silent while being deprived of what is our right." While no official response has been issued by the Kenyan government to the statements from the Ugandan president and his son, Kenyans have responded with sarcasm, threatening to "drop Kampala!" They also advised Museveni to "take some water from the ocean and make his own ocean in Uganda," with some describing his statement as "daydreaming" or an "empty threat." Uganda is a geographically landlocked country with no seaport of its own, relying on 90% of its imports and exports—including oil and strategic goods—on Kenya's Mombasa port. Museveni's statement marks the first direct military threat from him against Kenya in the history of bilateral relations, surpassing previous disputes that were confined to economic issues (such as the oil pipeline and railway tariffs). This escalation comes after years of Ethiopia's ambitions to access the Red Sea via Eritrea or Djibouti, indicating the expansion of the phenomenon of "landlocked countries" in East Africa seeking to break their isolation through force or threats.

Dangerous Escalation in East Africa: Museveni and His Son Threaten Kenya with War for the First Time to Ensure Uganda's Access to the Indian Ocean !! In a development that portends sharp regional tensions, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has declared that Uganda is "entitled" to access the Indian Ocean via Kenyan territory, warning of the outbreak of "future wars" if Kenya does not provide permanent guarantees for that access. He continued: "The Indian Ocean is mine... If we do not get guarantees, we will face future wars!!" Hours after this threat, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Uganda's defense chief and Museveni's son, issued a similar statement in media remarks: "I agree with my father – Kenya must grant us swift access to the Indian Ocean because it rightfully belongs to us. In the future, there will be very big problems if they do not respect our wishes. For years, we have remained silent while being deprived of what is our right." While no official response has been issued by the Kenyan government to the statements from the Ugandan president and his son, Kenyans have responded with sarcasm, threatening to "drop Kampala!" They also advised Museveni to "take some water from the ocean and make his own ocean in Uganda," with some describing his statement as "daydreaming" or an "empty threat." Uganda is a geographically landlocked country with no seaport of its own, relying on 90% of its imports and exports—including oil and strategic goods—on Kenya's Mombasa port. Museveni's statement marks the first direct military threat from him against Kenya in the history of bilateral relations, surpassing previous disputes that were confined to economic issues (such as the oil pipeline and railway tariffs). This escalation comes after years of Ethiopia's ambitions to access the Red Sea via Eritrea or Djibouti, indicating the expansion of the phenomenon of "landlocked countries" in East Africa seeking to break their isolation through force or threats.

khaled mahmoued

36,771 views • 10 months ago

2025: Elon Musk wants the European Union to be abolished 2016: That time David Cameron reminded us of the benefits of being in the EU, including the special op-out status the UK once had Comparing US states to EU countries works as a shorthand: both are smaller entities in a larger union, but unlike US states, EU countries keep their full sovereignty - here are some examples: ❌U S states gave up sovereignty to form a union ✅ EU countries keep their sovereignty 🆘 Abolishing the EU isn’t breaking up a federation, it’s attacking national sovereignty ❌ US states can’t have separate militaries ✅ EU countries maintain their own armies 🆘 Dismantling the EU wouldn’t "free states" it would undermine national sovereignty ❌ US states follow one federal constitution ✅ EU countries retain their own constitutions 🆘 Ending the EU would ignore the sovereignty each nation has carefully preserved ❌ US states can’t sign international treaties ✅ EU countries sign treaties individually and collectively 🆘 Abolishing the EU attacks their sovereignty on both national and international levels ❌ US states can’t control borders ✅ EU countries control who enters their territory 🆘 Destroying the EU would remove their border sovereignty ❌ US states rely on one federal currency ✅ EU countries, like those outside the eurozone, can keep their own money 🆘 Abolishing the EU would compromise financial sovereignty ❌ US states can’t impose independent foreign policy ✅ EU countries have independent foreign policies 🆘 Ending the EU doesn’t restore "freedom" it erodes national sovereignty ❌ US states can’t set nationwide defense policies ✅ EU countries maintain sovereignty over defence and security 🆘 Dismantling the EU threatens each nation’s sovereign decisions ❌ US states can’t maintain unique laws on education, healthcare, taxes ✅ EU countries make their own laws 🆘 Abolishing the EU ignores the sovereignty in domestic governance ❌ US states cannot leave the US ✅ EU countries can theoretically leave the union (like Brexit) 🆘 Attacking the EU’s existence is an attack on countries’ sovereign choice ❌ US states rely entirely on federal law enforcement ✅ EU countries maintain their own police and justice systems 🆘 Abolishing the EU would undermine their sovereign law enforcement ❌ US states cannot print passports or control visas ✅ EU countries issue their own passports and control immigration 🆘 Ending the EU would infringe on national sovereignty over borders ❌ US states cannot veto federal treaties ✅ EU countries vote on treaties and agreements individually 🆘 Abolishing the EU would strip countries of treaty sovereignty ❌ US states share a single central bank ✅ EU countries can keep or choose their own currencies 🆘 Destroying the EU would attack financial sovereignty ❌ US states can’t run independent foreign aid programs ✅ EU countries manage foreign aid and international development 🆘 Abolishing the EU would erode sovereign control over foreign policy ❌ US states cannot maintain their own national holidays or symbols officially ✅ EU countries preserve national symbols, holidays, and languages 🆘 Ending the EU wouldn’t restore “freedom”—it would threaten cultural and political sovereignty The EU union setup is often considered "better" than the US state system in terms of sovereignty and flexibility This allows each country to make independent decisions while still benefiting from cooperation on trade, environmental standards, and other shared policies The EU model encourages policy diversity and experimentation. Countries can implement unique social, economic, or environmental policies without conflicting with the union, whereas US states are often limited by federal law The EU balances shared governance with national sovereignty, which is why the sooner the UK rejoins the EU the better We will most likely have lost all of the opt outs we had before Brexit, maybe it's time for the UK to join the EU on a similar terms as other nations - all for one and one for all 👍

2025: Elon Musk wants the European Union to be abolished 2016: That time David Cameron reminded us of the benefits of being in the EU, including the special op-out status the UK once had Comparing US states to EU countries works as a shorthand: both are smaller entities in a larger union, but unlike US states, EU countries keep their full sovereignty - here are some examples: ❌U S states gave up sovereignty to form a union ✅ EU countries keep their sovereignty 🆘 Abolishing the EU isn’t breaking up a federation, it’s attacking national sovereignty ❌ US states can’t have separate militaries ✅ EU countries maintain their own armies 🆘 Dismantling the EU wouldn’t "free states" it would undermine national sovereignty ❌ US states follow one federal constitution ✅ EU countries retain their own constitutions 🆘 Ending the EU would ignore the sovereignty each nation has carefully preserved ❌ US states can’t sign international treaties ✅ EU countries sign treaties individually and collectively 🆘 Abolishing the EU attacks their sovereignty on both national and international levels ❌ US states can’t control borders ✅ EU countries control who enters their territory 🆘 Destroying the EU would remove their border sovereignty ❌ US states rely on one federal currency ✅ EU countries, like those outside the eurozone, can keep their own money 🆘 Abolishing the EU would compromise financial sovereignty ❌ US states can’t impose independent foreign policy ✅ EU countries have independent foreign policies 🆘 Ending the EU doesn’t restore "freedom" it erodes national sovereignty ❌ US states can’t set nationwide defense policies ✅ EU countries maintain sovereignty over defence and security 🆘 Dismantling the EU threatens each nation’s sovereign decisions ❌ US states can’t maintain unique laws on education, healthcare, taxes ✅ EU countries make their own laws 🆘 Abolishing the EU ignores the sovereignty in domestic governance ❌ US states cannot leave the US ✅ EU countries can theoretically leave the union (like Brexit) 🆘 Attacking the EU’s existence is an attack on countries’ sovereign choice ❌ US states rely entirely on federal law enforcement ✅ EU countries maintain their own police and justice systems 🆘 Abolishing the EU would undermine their sovereign law enforcement ❌ US states cannot print passports or control visas ✅ EU countries issue their own passports and control immigration 🆘 Ending the EU would infringe on national sovereignty over borders ❌ US states cannot veto federal treaties ✅ EU countries vote on treaties and agreements individually 🆘 Abolishing the EU would strip countries of treaty sovereignty ❌ US states share a single central bank ✅ EU countries can keep or choose their own currencies 🆘 Destroying the EU would attack financial sovereignty ❌ US states can’t run independent foreign aid programs ✅ EU countries manage foreign aid and international development 🆘 Abolishing the EU would erode sovereign control over foreign policy ❌ US states cannot maintain their own national holidays or symbols officially ✅ EU countries preserve national symbols, holidays, and languages 🆘 Ending the EU wouldn’t restore “freedom”—it would threaten cultural and political sovereignty The EU union setup is often considered "better" than the US state system in terms of sovereignty and flexibility This allows each country to make independent decisions while still benefiting from cooperation on trade, environmental standards, and other shared policies The EU model encourages policy diversity and experimentation. Countries can implement unique social, economic, or environmental policies without conflicting with the union, whereas US states are often limited by federal law The EU balances shared governance with national sovereignty, which is why the sooner the UK rejoins the EU the better We will most likely have lost all of the opt outs we had before Brexit, maybe it's time for the UK to join the EU on a similar terms as other nations - all for one and one for all 👍

Farrukh

168,375 views • 9 months ago

This is perhaps the most important and powerful case against AUKUS that I've heard, especially because it comes from one of Australia's preeminent strategic thinkers: Hugh White, inaugural Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and former Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence in the Australian Department of Defence. Here's what he says: - White argues that the era of Anglo-Saxon (British and American) dominance in the Western Pacific is ending. He states: "We are facing one of the, perhaps the biggest transformation in our shared international setting since European settlement." This transformation is driven by China's rise as an economic and military power comparable to the United States. - As a result he argues that there's no alternative to treating China as an equal partner: "Nobody really knows what America's aim in Asia is. But one thing's for sure, nobody in Washington thinks they should treat China as an equal partner. And my basic argument to my many friends in Washington is that if they don't treat China as an equal partner, then they're going to be taking on a rivalry with China that I don't think they can win." - He emphasizes this point repeatedly, arguing that given China's economic and military power, especially in the Western Pacific, the U.S. cannot maintain its previous position of uncontested primacy: "I don't see how, in an era where China's economy is as big as America's, in an era where its military power in the West Pacific is really quite comparable to America's, in an era where China is increasingly potent as a nuclear armed power, the US and China can find a way to get on in which the United States doesn't, at the very least, treat China as an equal partner." - White sees AUKUS as problematic because it aligns Australia (and potentially New Zealand) with a U.S. strategy that refuses to acknowledge this new reality. He argues that by supporting AUKUS, these countries are effectively endorsing a primacy approach that is "not a smart way to go" and risks destroying both their prosperity and their security, because they'll "only be prosperous and secure if the United States and China can find a way to get on." - On the economic benefits arguably brought by AUKUS: "The idea that you buy those economic benefits at the price of committing yourself to support an approach to this really fundamental question about the shape of our future order in Asia, which I don't think is going to work, that would be a very high price to pay for a very doubtful benefit."

This is perhaps the most important and powerful case against AUKUS that I've heard, especially because it comes from one of Australia's preeminent strategic thinkers: Hugh White, inaugural Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and former Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence in the Australian Department of Defence. Here's what he says: - White argues that the era of Anglo-Saxon (British and American) dominance in the Western Pacific is ending. He states: "We are facing one of the, perhaps the biggest transformation in our shared international setting since European settlement." This transformation is driven by China's rise as an economic and military power comparable to the United States. - As a result he argues that there's no alternative to treating China as an equal partner: "Nobody really knows what America's aim in Asia is. But one thing's for sure, nobody in Washington thinks they should treat China as an equal partner. And my basic argument to my many friends in Washington is that if they don't treat China as an equal partner, then they're going to be taking on a rivalry with China that I don't think they can win." - He emphasizes this point repeatedly, arguing that given China's economic and military power, especially in the Western Pacific, the U.S. cannot maintain its previous position of uncontested primacy: "I don't see how, in an era where China's economy is as big as America's, in an era where its military power in the West Pacific is really quite comparable to America's, in an era where China is increasingly potent as a nuclear armed power, the US and China can find a way to get on in which the United States doesn't, at the very least, treat China as an equal partner." - White sees AUKUS as problematic because it aligns Australia (and potentially New Zealand) with a U.S. strategy that refuses to acknowledge this new reality. He argues that by supporting AUKUS, these countries are effectively endorsing a primacy approach that is "not a smart way to go" and risks destroying both their prosperity and their security, because they'll "only be prosperous and secure if the United States and China can find a way to get on." - On the economic benefits arguably brought by AUKUS: "The idea that you buy those economic benefits at the price of committing yourself to support an approach to this really fundamental question about the shape of our future order in Asia, which I don't think is going to work, that would be a very high price to pay for a very doubtful benefit."

Arnaud Bertrand

395,098 views • 2 years ago

HUGE ‼️ It’s Official, Donald Trump is designating the Muslim Brotherhood a domestic terrorist organization in all 50 states “Exclusive interview with President Donald Trump confirming that his administration will be formally designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. The president said, quote, "It will be done in the strongest and most powerful terms. Final documents are being drawn." Now, this designation, if finalized, would prohibit US material support to the Muslim Brotherhood. It would bar members from entering the US. It would enable asset freezes and sanctions via the Treasury Department, and it would align with international allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. Now, just to provide a little bit of context, several countries have already labeled the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain. Egypt and Jordan banned it outright, citing its role in uprisings and violence, while Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain designated them as a terrorist organization in 2014 and linked them to regional instability. All of those countries are predominantly Muslim countries, and they designated them as a terror organization. So, just to provide a little bit of context. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood has chapters, political parties, and affiliates worldwide, including in the United States via organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which it denies ties to. But critics, including several governments, accuse them of fostering extremism, supporting terrorism, and destabilizing regions through affiliated groups like Hamas and other organizations. Now, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to oversee the State Department's implementation of this, potentially via executive order or formal foreign terrorist organization listing. As of today, the documents are in their final drafting, which I would say signals an imminent announcement which could reshape US counterterrorism policy towards some of these networks.”

HUGE ‼️ It’s Official, Donald Trump is designating the Muslim Brotherhood a domestic terrorist organization in all 50 states “Exclusive interview with President Donald Trump confirming that his administration will be formally designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. The president said, quote, "It will be done in the strongest and most powerful terms. Final documents are being drawn." Now, this designation, if finalized, would prohibit US material support to the Muslim Brotherhood. It would bar members from entering the US. It would enable asset freezes and sanctions via the Treasury Department, and it would align with international allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. Now, just to provide a little bit of context, several countries have already labeled the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain. Egypt and Jordan banned it outright, citing its role in uprisings and violence, while Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain designated them as a terrorist organization in 2014 and linked them to regional instability. All of those countries are predominantly Muslim countries, and they designated them as a terror organization. So, just to provide a little bit of context. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood has chapters, political parties, and affiliates worldwide, including in the United States via organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which it denies ties to. But critics, including several governments, accuse them of fostering extremism, supporting terrorism, and destabilizing regions through affiliated groups like Hamas and other organizations. Now, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to oversee the State Department's implementation of this, potentially via executive order or formal foreign terrorist organization listing. As of today, the documents are in their final drafting, which I would say signals an imminent announcement which could reshape US counterterrorism policy towards some of these networks.”

Wall Street Apes

47,996 views • 10 months ago

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump declares he will CUT OFF TRADE with nations that are allowed to pay lower interest rates than the United States WAR MODE ON THE ANTI-AMERICAN FINANCIAL ORDER 🇺🇸 "Each point in interest in this country that we pay costs us $650 billion. We should be at 1 percent, or a half a percent. We shouldn't be at 4 percent." "We have countries paying, some countries are paying a half a point. And we're paying 4 points. And yet, we're a much stronger credit than they are!" "Because if we don't trade with them, they don't have any money to pay the bills. And if we're not going to be treated properly, we're going to do that." "And all we have to do to cut our trade deficit with a country is not trade with them. Canada is one. If we don't do any trading with Canada, we just end all trade with Canada. We'd save ourselves $90 billion!" "All trading with Canada. Don't forget, they do all of their business, almost all of their business with the United States. And we do a relatively small amount of business with them." "But if we didn't want to, if we were playing hardball, all we'd do is say we're going to do no trading with Canada. If we did no trading with Canada, we'd save $90 billion." "And so what I'm saying very simply is that we should be paying the lowest interest rate in the world." "We have other countries at a half a percent. And yet, if it weren't for us, they'd be bankrupt countries. We should be the lowest in the world, as we were 25 and 30 years ago, under any circumstance."

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump declares he will CUT OFF TRADE with nations that are allowed to pay lower interest rates than the United States WAR MODE ON THE ANTI-AMERICAN FINANCIAL ORDER 🇺🇸 "Each point in interest in this country that we pay costs us $650 billion. We should be at 1 percent, or a half a percent. We shouldn't be at 4 percent." "We have countries paying, some countries are paying a half a point. And we're paying 4 points. And yet, we're a much stronger credit than they are!" "Because if we don't trade with them, they don't have any money to pay the bills. And if we're not going to be treated properly, we're going to do that." "And all we have to do to cut our trade deficit with a country is not trade with them. Canada is one. If we don't do any trading with Canada, we just end all trade with Canada. We'd save ourselves $90 billion!" "All trading with Canada. Don't forget, they do all of their business, almost all of their business with the United States. And we do a relatively small amount of business with them." "But if we didn't want to, if we were playing hardball, all we'd do is say we're going to do no trading with Canada. If we did no trading with Canada, we'd save $90 billion." "And so what I'm saying very simply is that we should be paying the lowest interest rate in the world." "We have other countries at a half a percent. And yet, if it weren't for us, they'd be bankrupt countries. We should be the lowest in the world, as we were 25 and 30 years ago, under any circumstance."

Eric Daugherty

96,060 views • 18 days ago

Hegseth’s message to Europe could hardly be clearer: the US is pivoting toward the Asian model of alliance management - pragmatic, interest-driven, and results-oriented - rather than the old European model of values-based diplomacy laced with moralizing and lectures on human rights and the “rules-based order.” For Asian countries (Singapore, Philippines, etc.), relations with the US have always been structured more on common interests than common values. Singapore and Asian states are pragmatic and are willing to work with whoever occupies the White House because America’s role as the balancer in Asia remains indispensable. Even non-aligned countries such as India and former adversaries such as Vietnam now recognize this. They appreciate hard power and credible deterrence more than pretty speeches, which is perfectly in line with the US's new national security strategy. Managing the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and other hotspots requires credible deterrence and military capability far more than human rights resolutions. Asia’s focus on this aligns with the need to impose costs on revisionist behavior. Basing your foreign policy on human rights and democracy, you risk losing nations that don't exactly hold the American variant of democracy in high regard. Hegseth praised “model allies” who are “capable, clear-eyed, and ready to defend their national interests.” His use of "clear-eyed" is important here. It means that to be an ally, you must agree on what the threat is. That should be the starting point. From there, national interests converge. Note how European "allies" diverge from this framework. You have many European nations now characterizing the US as the threat to the global order instead. This is the opposite of clear-eyedness. In a world where China presents a serious, long-term challenge to the regional order, utility and resolve matter more than shared ideology. Asia adapted after the collapse of the TPP by building CPTPP and RCEP; it managed Trump’s hard-power instincts and Biden’s style alike by staying focused on interests. The US, facing its own fiscal and strategic realities, is now explicitly choosing to reward and prioritize that same pragmatism. Western Europe would indeed do well to take note.

Hegseth’s message to Europe could hardly be clearer: the US is pivoting toward the Asian model of alliance management - pragmatic, interest-driven, and results-oriented - rather than the old European model of values-based diplomacy laced with moralizing and lectures on human rights and the “rules-based order.” For Asian countries (Singapore, Philippines, etc.), relations with the US have always been structured more on common interests than common values. Singapore and Asian states are pragmatic and are willing to work with whoever occupies the White House because America’s role as the balancer in Asia remains indispensable. Even non-aligned countries such as India and former adversaries such as Vietnam now recognize this. They appreciate hard power and credible deterrence more than pretty speeches, which is perfectly in line with the US's new national security strategy. Managing the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and other hotspots requires credible deterrence and military capability far more than human rights resolutions. Asia’s focus on this aligns with the need to impose costs on revisionist behavior. Basing your foreign policy on human rights and democracy, you risk losing nations that don't exactly hold the American variant of democracy in high regard. Hegseth praised “model allies” who are “capable, clear-eyed, and ready to defend their national interests.” His use of "clear-eyed" is important here. It means that to be an ally, you must agree on what the threat is. That should be the starting point. From there, national interests converge. Note how European "allies" diverge from this framework. You have many European nations now characterizing the US as the threat to the global order instead. This is the opposite of clear-eyedness. In a world where China presents a serious, long-term challenge to the regional order, utility and resolve matter more than shared ideology. Asia adapted after the collapse of the TPP by building CPTPP and RCEP; it managed Trump’s hard-power instincts and Biden’s style alike by staying focused on interests. The US, facing its own fiscal and strategic realities, is now explicitly choosing to reward and prioritize that same pragmatism. Western Europe would indeed do well to take note.

Melissa Chen

95,979 views • 3 months ago

Now that we’ve all had a few days to process the hype surrounding the proposed 650,000 bbl/d refinery in East Africa 🇰🇪 🇺🇬 🇹🇿, let’s take a long, hard look in the mirror. [1] Funding Gap: Where will Kenya 🇰🇪, Uganda 🇺🇬, and Tanzania 🇹🇿 raise the ~ $20 billion needed to build this facility when they already spend more on debt servicing than on healthcare or education? Just as critical - can they raise that capital, cheaply? [2] Diplomacy Deficit: Relations between these three countries are prickly on most days. Can nations that block agricultural imports, incinerate day-old chicks and limit the reach of each other’s airlines really cooperate on a project of this magnitude? [3] Successor Risk: With potential changes in government in Kenya 🇰🇪 (2027) and Uganda 🇺🇬 (2031), will the successors of William Ruto and Yoweri Museveni prioritize regional interests over national ones? “When Aliko Dangote built his refinery in Nigeria, he was essentially dealing with one country,” says Wangari Kebuchi, Founder & MD at Expertise Global . Given the clashing interests involved here, she warns that “discussions are going to be much more intense than what was faced in Nigeria.” What trade-offs are East African policymakers willing to accept? Do they have the policy discipline to execute this without wasting billions in taxpayer dollars, as they have in other, smaller infrastructure projects?

Now that we’ve all had a few days to process the hype surrounding the proposed 650,000 bbl/d refinery in East Africa 🇰🇪 🇺🇬 🇹🇿, let’s take a long, hard look in the mirror. [1] Funding Gap: Where will Kenya 🇰🇪, Uganda 🇺🇬, and Tanzania 🇹🇿 raise the ~ $20 billion needed to build this facility when they already spend more on debt servicing than on healthcare or education? Just as critical - can they raise that capital, cheaply? [2] Diplomacy Deficit: Relations between these three countries are prickly on most days. Can nations that block agricultural imports, incinerate day-old chicks and limit the reach of each other’s airlines really cooperate on a project of this magnitude? [3] Successor Risk: With potential changes in government in Kenya 🇰🇪 (2027) and Uganda 🇺🇬 (2031), will the successors of William Ruto and Yoweri Museveni prioritize regional interests over national ones? “When Aliko Dangote built his refinery in Nigeria, he was essentially dealing with one country,” says Wangari Kebuchi, Founder & MD at Expertise Global . Given the clashing interests involved here, she warns that “discussions are going to be much more intense than what was faced in Nigeria.” What trade-offs are East African policymakers willing to accept? Do they have the policy discipline to execute this without wasting billions in taxpayer dollars, as they have in other, smaller infrastructure projects?

Ramah Nyang

76,077 views • 4 months ago

The upcoming weeks could be a period that requires close attention in terms of the geopolitical direction of East Africa. The overall picture in Addis Ababa indicates that the region is passing through a critical threshold. We are in Addis Ababa as part of President Erdoğan’s visit to Ethiopia. 1. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Ethiopia–Türkiye relations. Türkiye’s first embassy in Sub-Saharan Africa was opened in Addis Ababa in 1926. The main theme of the visit, consistent with this historical continuity, is a “Permanent Partnership.” 2. Ethiopia occupies an extremely sensitive position within the conflict-prone and competitive environment of the Horn of Africa. The leadership seeks to consolidate its position on issues it considers vital. At the same time, it tends to turn any emerging opportunity into a strategic gain. 3. However, growing demographic pressure, economic challenges, the fatigue of internal conflict, and other domestic vulnerabilities-combined with the structural disadvantages of being a landlocked country-are pushing Addis Ababa toward alternative strategic options. 4. In this context, the strategy of “access to the sea” is seen as a form of strategic relief-both for managing internal pressures and deepening regional influence. Creating economic breathing space, reducing logistical dependence, and increasing strategic maneuverability are the core motivations behind this approach. 5. This places Ethiopia in a difficult equation: it must produce policy within a competitive-and at times confrontational-regional environment where its ambitions may clash with the sovereignty sensitivities of its neighbors. The search for maritime access therefore stands out as an issue that could easily harden the region’s fragile balance. 6. Its closer alignment with the UAE in the Sudan civil war reflects the cumulative pressures of multiple security and economic challenges. Recent developments suggest that Ethiopia may seek a more active and visible role in the Sudan file in the near term. 7. At the same time, military movements along the Eritrean border carry risks that could trigger a new confrontation. For Ethiopia, the Eritrea issue is directly linked to its most critical maritime option. Access to the sea through Assab remains central to its strategic thinking. Historical grievances and current security concerns are deeply intertwined in this file. 8. Another critical relationship is with Egypt. The core issue here is the Nile Basin and water security. While the GERD dam represents energy production, development, and strategic leverage for Ethiopia, it is perceived by Egypt as a high-risk scenario. What began as a technical water management issue has evolved into a geopolitical matter directly tied to regional power balances. 9. When regional dynamics and the engagement of external actors are considered together, it becomes clear that Ethiopia is navigating a multilayered but high-risk foreign policy landscape-one that affects fault lines across North Africa, the Middle East, the Gulf, and the Horn of Africa. 10. Within this broader tension environment, Türkiye-Ethiopia relations remain in a positive trajectory. Despite differences in certain areas, the potential for deeper cooperation is high. Today, both leaders delivered strong messages in this direction. 11. President Erdoğan’s visit comes at a time when regional conflict dynamics are becoming increasingly visible. Ankara is seeking to develop a balancing approach aimed at preventing potential conflicts and lowering rising regional tensions. Given that Türkiye has both direct and indirect interests tied to the nature of its relationship with Ethiopia, the process is being managed with careful strategic consideration. 12. From arrival to departure, President Erdoğan was warmly received in Addis Ababa. The key areas of focus included economic cooperation, defense industry partnerships, and critical regional issues. Murat Yeşiltaş SETA

The upcoming weeks could be a period that requires close attention in terms of the geopolitical direction of East Africa. The overall picture in Addis Ababa indicates that the region is passing through a critical threshold. We are in Addis Ababa as part of President Erdoğan’s visit to Ethiopia. 1. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Ethiopia–Türkiye relations. Türkiye’s first embassy in Sub-Saharan Africa was opened in Addis Ababa in 1926. The main theme of the visit, consistent with this historical continuity, is a “Permanent Partnership.” 2. Ethiopia occupies an extremely sensitive position within the conflict-prone and competitive environment of the Horn of Africa. The leadership seeks to consolidate its position on issues it considers vital. At the same time, it tends to turn any emerging opportunity into a strategic gain. 3. However, growing demographic pressure, economic challenges, the fatigue of internal conflict, and other domestic vulnerabilities-combined with the structural disadvantages of being a landlocked country-are pushing Addis Ababa toward alternative strategic options. 4. In this context, the strategy of “access to the sea” is seen as a form of strategic relief-both for managing internal pressures and deepening regional influence. Creating economic breathing space, reducing logistical dependence, and increasing strategic maneuverability are the core motivations behind this approach. 5. This places Ethiopia in a difficult equation: it must produce policy within a competitive-and at times confrontational-regional environment where its ambitions may clash with the sovereignty sensitivities of its neighbors. The search for maritime access therefore stands out as an issue that could easily harden the region’s fragile balance. 6. Its closer alignment with the UAE in the Sudan civil war reflects the cumulative pressures of multiple security and economic challenges. Recent developments suggest that Ethiopia may seek a more active and visible role in the Sudan file in the near term. 7. At the same time, military movements along the Eritrean border carry risks that could trigger a new confrontation. For Ethiopia, the Eritrea issue is directly linked to its most critical maritime option. Access to the sea through Assab remains central to its strategic thinking. Historical grievances and current security concerns are deeply intertwined in this file. 8. Another critical relationship is with Egypt. The core issue here is the Nile Basin and water security. While the GERD dam represents energy production, development, and strategic leverage for Ethiopia, it is perceived by Egypt as a high-risk scenario. What began as a technical water management issue has evolved into a geopolitical matter directly tied to regional power balances. 9. When regional dynamics and the engagement of external actors are considered together, it becomes clear that Ethiopia is navigating a multilayered but high-risk foreign policy landscape-one that affects fault lines across North Africa, the Middle East, the Gulf, and the Horn of Africa. 10. Within this broader tension environment, Türkiye-Ethiopia relations remain in a positive trajectory. Despite differences in certain areas, the potential for deeper cooperation is high. Today, both leaders delivered strong messages in this direction. 11. President Erdoğan’s visit comes at a time when regional conflict dynamics are becoming increasingly visible. Ankara is seeking to develop a balancing approach aimed at preventing potential conflicts and lowering rising regional tensions. Given that Türkiye has both direct and indirect interests tied to the nature of its relationship with Ethiopia, the process is being managed with careful strategic consideration. 12. From arrival to departure, President Erdoğan was warmly received in Addis Ababa. The key areas of focus included economic cooperation, defense industry partnerships, and critical regional issues. Murat Yeşiltaş SETA

Tunç Demirtaş

14,159 views • 7 months ago

January 1986. Washington. A confidential memo landed on desks with a blunt title: Uganda Under a Museveni Regime. Yoweri Museveni had just captured Kampala. The CIA's first assessment was clear: the south might rally to him, but the north was a powder keg of bitter, armed veterans. Uganda, the analysts concluded, now teetered on the edge of partition. The CIA's First Assessment of Yoweri Museveni - 1986 The analysts saw a pragmatic strongman emerging from the bush. Museveni spoke of human rights and economic recovery, a welcome contrast to the carnage under Milton Obote. Yet he was a puzzle of contradictions. He appealed to Western donors while embedding leftists in his inner circle. He promised reconciliation but flatly rejected quick elections. His National Resistance Army was disciplined, but its ethnic composition stoked northern fears of revenge. The memo was unequivocal: his priority was stability, democracy a distant concern. He would not risk chaos for pluralism. The immediate threat was geographic. Acholi and West Nile remnants were already regrouping with their weapons. A new civil war was not a possibility but a certainty. If Museveni moved to confront them, the conflict could escalate, potentially drawing in Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, who had already sent a congratulatory message deriding the West as "fascist usurpers", and flooding the region with refugees. The economic picture was equally grim. Museveni faced a wasteland. His rebuilding promises depended on Western aid, but too much pressure could push him toward Tripoli; too little could collapse the state. The memo's final lines offered a stark, binary prognosis. Museveni was Uganda's best hope in a generation, a force for precarious order. But the forces against him, tribal hatred, economic ruin, and the drumbeat of war, were colossal. Washington's dilemma was clear: the survival of his government would take precedence over all other considerations, making him susceptible to offers of Libyan or Soviet assistance. The assessment closed not with a prediction of what would be, but with a warning of what hung in the balance. What does it mean when the world's most powerful intelligence agency concludes that your best hope is a pragmatic strongman who may not deliver democracy, and that his failure could shatter a nation? The CIA's January 1986 memo was not a celebration of Museveni's victory. It was a sober ledger of the forces arrayed against him. The war was over. The wars were just beginning. The analysts in Washington knew it before the new president had finished unpacking his bags. #ughistory NRM Party Yoweri K Museveni CIA Department of State U.S. Embassy Kampala, Uganda Government of Uganda

January 1986. Washington. A confidential memo landed on desks with a blunt title: Uganda Under a Museveni Regime. Yoweri Museveni had just captured Kampala. The CIA's first assessment was clear: the south might rally to him, but the north was a powder keg of bitter, armed veterans. Uganda, the analysts concluded, now teetered on the edge of partition. The CIA's First Assessment of Yoweri Museveni - 1986 The analysts saw a pragmatic strongman emerging from the bush. Museveni spoke of human rights and economic recovery, a welcome contrast to the carnage under Milton Obote. Yet he was a puzzle of contradictions. He appealed to Western donors while embedding leftists in his inner circle. He promised reconciliation but flatly rejected quick elections. His National Resistance Army was disciplined, but its ethnic composition stoked northern fears of revenge. The memo was unequivocal: his priority was stability, democracy a distant concern. He would not risk chaos for pluralism. The immediate threat was geographic. Acholi and West Nile remnants were already regrouping with their weapons. A new civil war was not a possibility but a certainty. If Museveni moved to confront them, the conflict could escalate, potentially drawing in Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, who had already sent a congratulatory message deriding the West as "fascist usurpers", and flooding the region with refugees. The economic picture was equally grim. Museveni faced a wasteland. His rebuilding promises depended on Western aid, but too much pressure could push him toward Tripoli; too little could collapse the state. The memo's final lines offered a stark, binary prognosis. Museveni was Uganda's best hope in a generation, a force for precarious order. But the forces against him, tribal hatred, economic ruin, and the drumbeat of war, were colossal. Washington's dilemma was clear: the survival of his government would take precedence over all other considerations, making him susceptible to offers of Libyan or Soviet assistance. The assessment closed not with a prediction of what would be, but with a warning of what hung in the balance. What does it mean when the world's most powerful intelligence agency concludes that your best hope is a pragmatic strongman who may not deliver democracy, and that his failure could shatter a nation? The CIA's January 1986 memo was not a celebration of Museveni's victory. It was a sober ledger of the forces arrayed against him. The war was over. The wars were just beginning. The analysts in Washington knew it before the new president had finished unpacking his bags. #ughistory NRM Party Yoweri K Museveni CIA Department of State U.S. Embassy Kampala, Uganda Government of Uganda

UgHistory

14,817 views • 2 months ago