During a recent online forum hosted by Stanis Bujakera Tshiamala, political analyst Christian Moleka presented a nuanced evaluation of Kinshasa’s military and diplomatic strategies concerning the ongoing conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Moleka observed that despite a substantial allocation of 4.5 billion dollars for military programming between 2022 and 2025, the operational outcomes on the ground have “not met expectations.” He noted that the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC) have consistently failed to regain the upper hand against the M23 rebels (AFC/M23) since the capture of Bunagana in 2022.

On the diplomatic front, the analyst acknowledged several positive developments. These include the implementation of European sanctions against Rwanda, a noticeable shift in Washington’s perspective on the conflict, and the unanimous adoption of a resolution by the United Nations Security Council. However, Moleka underscored a persistent disconnect between these diplomatic achievements and the stark realities encountered in the field. He pointed to a report from the UN Group of Experts, which indicated that the M23 had expanded its occupied territory by an additional 35% since the Doha agreements. He summarized these diplomatic efforts as “tools that yielded only partial and temporary results.”

When questioned about the primary factor contributing to this mixed assessment, Christian Moleka unequivocally stated, “I would say it lies more with the military.” He drew an analogy, likening the relationship between diplomacy and military engagement to a two-person dance, emphasizing that “one cannot maintain a diplomatic stance without a robust military component to support it.” According to Moleka, the gains secured on the international stage risk ultimately working against Kinshasa if they are not bolstered by a more favorable military balance of power.

The analyst concluded by contextualizing the conflict within a broader historical perspective, characterizing it as a “thirty-year war of attrition.” In such a protracted struggle, he posited, “it is not the intensity that matters, but the capacity to endure for a long time” – a challenge that, in his view, confronts both Congolese diplomacy and its armed forces equally.