The people of Ethiopia are an extraordinary and remarkable people. Other than the Creator, who can truly know and assess our people in their entirety? Through this year’s election, Ethiopians have once again shown the world that they are a people with a rich culture, deep patriotism, and the ability to safeguard the common good.
On this historic day:
* Citizens who were not intimidated by the cold and darkness of the night,
* Who were not deterred by the midday sun or sudden rain,
* Whom weddings, funerals, childbirth, and other social obligations did not prevent from participating,
* Who were not wearied by long lines,
* Whose physical disabilities did not stop them from casting their vote,
* Those whose illness and old age did not prevent from witnessing the hope of their country,
* Who were not exhausted by carrying their infant children; the future inheritors of the nation,
* And above all, whom the shouting and threats of enemies could not intimidate or stop;
The perseverance you demonstrated amid many challenges and hardships, against all odds, was a contribution made for democracy and for the very survival of the nation. For this, you deserve heartfelt gratitude.
It is a privilege to serve such a people. Therefore, may those who have been elected honor the trust placed in them and serve this people, with integrity and sincerity! A people who have paid a great price for the democratic system. May you be worthy of that responsibility.
@erisuper9@TiborPNagyJr My brother this days More Eritrean are calling Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia… the least goes on their home. My ask is have you ever asked why? For me it is because Eritrea is a closed jail on planet earth and if you are human having sense of security you need to run away from.
Friederich Nietzsche once quipped that when fighting for freedom, one has to distinguish between ‘freedom from’ and ‘freedom for’. Unless your ‘freedom from’ leads to a freedom for something, that freedom might as well be another form of Unfreedom- or in the language of the 18th century, Slavery.
That said, ዮሃና ንህቢ ኤርትራ ሳላ ቓልስኻ ቐተልትኻ ቀይርካ 35ን ዓመት ኣብ ሕሰምን መከራን ዘለኻ::
ንናፅነት ተቓሊስካ ናብ ባርነት ምጥሓል ከምዝክኣል ልዕሊ ዝኾነ ይዥኹን ፍጥረት 'ፍትዊ መራሒ' ኢሳያስ ኣፎርቂ ስለዘርአየና ድማ ዮሃና ክብሎ እፈቱ::
We have been asking this same question for the last God-knows-how many years. Isaias has always spoken like a philosopher king proffering unsolicited advice to the world than a man in charge of a country teetering on the brink of disaster. That there are more Eritreans in Kampala- or in Juba- than in Keren or say, Deqa Mahare, or Adi Quala, speaks volumes about the hopelessness president Isaias has been consciously and gleefully authoring for the last 35 years. It appears that he resents the very independence of Eritrea that he was ostensibly celebrating Yesterday for the 35th time.
I would like to thank all the commissioners who, over the past years, have patiently and professionally worked with a high standard of ethics to advance the national dialogue process and bring it to its current stage.
A culture of dialogue is extremely important for countries like Ethiopia. Building a strong civic culture also requires continuous practice of discussion and a mature spirit of mutual understanding. The process so far has demonstrated the great value of mutual listening at every level of our society. The process has reflected the views and discussion outcomes of more than 90 percent of Ethiopians across all corners of our country.
At this time, as the dialogue process, which carries significant national importance, transitions into its next phase aimed at producing tangible results, all stakeholders should contribute constructively and uphold a shared, firm commitment to ensuring peace, unity, and lasting stability for our country.
The rump TPLF's Beating of War Drums
Bravado, aggressive warlike rhetoric, a fear of peace, and self-aggrandizing claims to be the sole arbiter of Tigray's future have become defining traits of the rump Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF). A once-venerated political organization, the TPLF now projects insecurity through unsettling belligerence, as though confrontation were the organization's sole language. Having failed to adapt to the demands of postwar recovery, pluralistic politics, and democratic governance, the TPLF leadership remains trapped in the habits of militarized politics and an unsettling sense of entitlement — fatal flaws that continue to exact a steep price from the people of Tigray.
Recent remarks by Adisalem Balema, a member of the TPLF Central Committee, are a case in point. In a recorded audio of a briefing to Tigrayans in the diaspora, he made a number of alarming claims that confirmed the TPLF's casual adventurism. Adisalem boasts of the fact that Tigray is no longer politically and strategically isolated, and that it has cultivated alliances of convenience with armed domestic groups and external actors, including the Eritrean regime, in its confrontation with the Ethiopian federal government. He also asserted that, although the TPLF has shown "restraint" for the sake of peace, it has now finalized preparations with its allies for a militarized route. Furthermore, he claimed that the Sudanese government has allowed "us" access through Sudanese ports and logistical channels. Needless to say, these are reckless claims tantamount to open political provocation at a moment when concerted efforts towards peaceful solutions are desperately needed.
Adisalem's recorded assertions, whose authenticity was corroborated by himself, reflect a pathological instinct on the part of the old guard TPLF leadership: when confronted with political uncertainty, organizational fragmentation, and the demands of give and take, it reverts to the only language it has command of: militarized confrontation. Instead of crafting policies that improve the lives of ordinary Tigrayans, the TPLF leadership continues to invoke the specter of war, as if war were a source of legitimacy, not unmitigated disaster. Such an instinct doesn't demonstrate organizational prowess; rather, it is unmistakable evidence of political bankruptcy.
Those of us who have been in positions of responsibility understand the destructive consequences of such rhetoric. What Tigray needs is peace, not tired slogans; reconstruction, not the usual overinflated bravado; and stability, not fantasies of favorable domestic and foreign alliances.
To speak casually of preparations for war is to trivialize the immense sacrifices paid by the people of Tigray. Adisalem's rhetoric, representing the rump party's consensus of sorts, is decidedly far from strategic sophistication. Rather, it signals a dangerous adventurism, the consequences of which will be borne by the people of Tigray. Tigray cannot live in peace, much less rebuild, while the TPLF continues to normalize the language of militarized conflict and wallow in fantasies of shifting alliances, as if the suffering of the last war taught them nothing.
The political symbolism of such talk coming from Adisalem is also too glaring to miss. Adisalem's freedom was secured through the Pretoria Agreement, a peace accord he and his comrades have pronounced dead. Pretoria created the conditions for prisoners to be released, services to resume, and political space to reopen. Above all, it silenced the guns. Although significant issues, such as the return of IDPs and the restoration of Tigray’s territories remain unresolved, Pretoria laid the framework for their eventual resolution based on the FDRE constitution. Instead of intensifying efforts towards lasting peace, the TPLF leadership is now beating the drums of war.
I asked Google Gemini the following question: What is the greatest victory against colonial powers in Africa. Here is the answer
If we are looking for the "greatest" victory—measured by tactical brilliance, the scale of the defeat, and long-term historical impact—the Battle of Adwa (1896) is the undisputed champion.
While other battles like Isandlwana were shocking tactical upsets, Adwa was a strategic masterpiece that changed the map of the world.
1. The Battle of Adwa (1896) – Ethiopia vs. Italy
This is the only instance during the "Scramble for Africa" where an African power decisively defeated a European colonial army in a full-scale war to preserve its independence.
The Strategy: Emperor Menelik II played a brilliant diplomatic game, buying modern rifles from the Italians' rivals (France and Russia) while pretending to be fragmented. When the Italians invaded, he mobilized a unified army of over 100,000 soldiers from across Ethiopia. The Tactics: The Italians, misled by false maps and overconfidence, divided their forces into three isolated columns. The Ethiopians used the mountainous terrain to ambush and overwhelm each column individually. The Result: Italy was forced to sign the Treaty of Addis Ababa, recognizing Ethiopia as an independent state.
Why it's the "Greatest": It shattered the myth of European biological and military superiority. Ethiopia became a "Zion" and a symbol of resistance for Black people globally, directly inspiring the Pan-African movement.
ወዳጅም ጠላትም ስማ እኚህን ትልቅ ያደረጉንን ትልቅ ሰው "እምዬ" ብለን የምንጠራቸው በምክንያት ነው
Congratulations, brother @Jawar_Mohammed Your persistent conflation of personal opposition to the Prime Minister with a coherent critique of Ethiopia’s long-term strategic interests is remarkable. Disliking the ruling party does not free you from having to distinguish between regime politics and state/national interests.
Over the past few days, you — once an ally of the Prime Minister but now a vocal critic — have repeatedly attacked Ethiopia for seeking to protect its strategic interests in the context of the Sudanese conflict. Some of the reports you circulate or the ideas you share may be factually accurate in isolation. Yet, you present them without reference to the broader strategic context shaping Ethiopia’s calculations. Facts, detached from structure and strategy, can easily be marshaled into a misleading narrative.
Do you genuinely believe Ethiopia should behave as a passive bystander in a region defined by intense geopolitical competition? The tragedy unfolding in Sudan is indeed exacerbated by foreign intervention. But Ethiopia is hardly unique in pursuing its interests. In fact, Ethiopia, more than any other country in the region and beyond, stands to lose more as a result of Sudan’s instability. It has a real skin in the game, as it were. Egypt and other regional actors are not neutral mediators; they are actively shaping the trajectory of the conflict to favor their preferred belligerents.
You position yourself as a politician–activist, but your posture suggests an aversion to the very language of national security and strategic interest. In a region marked by proxy competition, transboundary security threats, and zero-sum maneuvering among rival states, such discomfort is not a virtue. It is a liability. States do not have the luxury of moral abstraction when core national interests are at stake.
Moral posturing in such an environment may be emotionally satisfying, but it is not strategy. Critiquing policy is legitimate. However, presenting every move as evidence of strategic folly simply because it originates from Prime Minister Abiy’s government risks substituting partisan grievance for analysis.
More importantly, anyone with aspirations for higher office should be cautious about adopting a scorched-earth posture toward the state itself. While governments change, strategic geography is stubborn. Ethiopia’s long-term national interests are distinct from — and larger than — the party temporarily in power. A credible alternative must demonstrate an ability to separate those two. Thus far, however, you have shown a near-pathological inability to make that distinction.