Where the Accord Could Realistically Succeed (or Make Progress)- 

• It could break a long cycle of violence, if implemented seriously. The June 2025 deal aims to end decades of conflict in eastern DRC by committing both sides to “respect for territorial integrity and a prohibition of hostilities,” disarmament of non-state armed groups, and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons.

• It may offer a path to coordinated security and reduced cross-border interference. Under the deal, Rwanda pledged to withdraw troops from eastern DRC within an agreed timeframe, while DRC committed to “neutralizing” militias linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide (notably the armed group Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda — FDLR).

• It could attract Western investment, giving economic incentives for peace. A major part of the deal is a regional economic-integration framework: cooperation on infrastructure, mining (cobalt, lithium, copper, tantalum, etc.), energy, and resource supply chains, reportedly with interest from U.S. and Western investors. 

• If stabilized, it could benefit civilians — refugees, displaced people, and war-torn communities. Observers and signatories emphasise the human cost of the conflict: years of killing, displacement, sexual violence, and community disruption in eastern DRC. Ending the war could allow return, reconstruction, and humanitarian relief. 

• It could shift regional geopolitics and resource-sector dynamics. Because eastern DRC is rich in critical minerals used globally for batteries, technology, and energy — by opening stable access, the accord may draw in foreign capital and diversify supply chains away from dependency on Chinese-dominated mining operations.

In sum: if implemented seriously, the accord could deliver a mix of security, economic development, and humanitarian gains.

But Many Experts Are Skeptical — and Warn the Peace Remains Fragile

• The deal has already failed to stop violence in parts of eastern DRC. Even after signing, fighting continues: clashes near border areas, shelling in towns, displacement of civilians. Many analysts warn that diplomatic commitments have outpaced what’s happening on the ground.

• Major players — especially rebel groups — may be excluded or uninterested. The dominant rebel group M23 has reportedly said the accord does not apply to it. Since M23 is central to the conflict, this raises serious doubts about the peace deal's comprehensiveness. 

• Implementation mechanisms remain weak or slow. Key parts — like the promised withdrawal of Rwandan troops, the neutralization of FDLR, and the establishment of the joint security coordination body — have seen delays or little visible progress. 

• The deal may be more about mining/resources than peace. Some analysts and human-rights observers characterise the accord as “a mineral deal first, an opportunity for peace second.” There are concerns that economic incentives — especially foreign investment in mines and mineral export deals — could overshadow the needs for genuine social reconciliation or safeguarding of civilian rights. 

• Local populations remain distrustful and skeptical. Citizens from conflict zones express wariness: many say they've heard promises before that failed, or report ongoing violence even after formal deals. For many, this peace agreement might feel like yet another fragile promise. 

In short: many experts view the accord not as a final solution, but as a fragile opportunity — one that could collapse without vigilant implementation, local commitment, and durable institutions.

What Are the Realistic Scenarios: What Happens Next

Based on expert-confidence ranges and on-ground developments, here are three likely trajectories — from optimistic to pessimistic:

Many analysts currently place probability highest on Scenario B — a fragile, imperfect peace — with Scenario A possible (but challenging), and Scenario C a serious risk if implementation fails. 

What Needs to Happen — Preconditions for Real Peace

Experts generally agree that for the accord to translate into lasting peace (Scenario A), the following preconditions must be met:

1. Concrete troop withdrawal and disarmament — foreign troops (if present) must leave, rebel groups must be neutralized or integrated, demobilization verified.

2. Effective, transparent security coordination and oversight — joint security bodies must function, monitor ceasefire violations, and respond swiftly.

3. Inclusion of all armed groups — especially rebel ones — in peace framework — excluding dominant groups like M23 undermines the deal’s comprehensiveness.

4. Humanitarian support & refugee/IDP returns — enabling displaced persons and refugees to return safely; reconstructing communities and infrastructure.

5. Economic development that benefits local communities, not just foreign investors or elite interests — mining and resource extraction must be regulated fairly, with environmental safeguards and equitable sharing.

6. Long-term commitment and trust-building — reconciliation, justice mechanisms, and inclusion of civil-society actors to address root causes (ethnicity, resource competition, historical trauma).

Without these, observers warn the accord could merely paper over problems. 

Geopolitical Implications — What This means for the Region and Beyond

• Shift in global supply chains for critical minerals. If the accord leads to stable mining operations and Western investment — as planned — the region could become a major source for cobalt, lithium, tantalum, etc. This may reduce global dependence on supply lines dominated by certain powers (e.g. China). 

• Model for conflict-resolution in Africa. If the accord (or a later expanded version) leads to real peace, it might set a precedent for resolving other protracted conflicts in Africa: blending foreign mediation, economic incentives, resource governance, and multilateral cooperation.

• Rise of economic-first peace diplomacy. The strong emphasis on minerals and investments signals a trend: using resource wealth and economic cooperation as a foundation for peace — but also raises concerns about “peace for profit.” Observers warn this could lead to resource exploitation without justice or social stability. 

• Risk of recurring crises. If the agreement fails or only partial commitments are met, the region could see a resurgence of conflict — which would have humanitarian, economic, and geopolitical costs, especially given global demand for critical minerals.

My Assessment (Based on Evidence + Analysis)

I lean toward the view that this accord — while offering a rare window of opportunity — is a fragile ceasefire and negotiation framework, not a guarantee of lasting peace. The combination of:

• ongoing violence even after signing;

• exclusion (or weak inclusion) of main rebel groups like M23;

• delayed troop/ militia withdrawal;

• the strong economic/mineral-investment angle;

• deep-rooted structural problems (ethnic tensions, resource competition, weak governance)

makes it unlikely this deal alone will end decades of conflict.

However — and this is important — if international pressure remains strong, investments are managed responsibly, and there is meaningful, inclusive dialogue (including civil-society), the accord could gradually lead to stabilization, partial peace, and economic rebuilding. In other words: “conditional, incremental progress” is the realistic best-case scenario.

Still — the biggest risk is “peace for profit, not for people.” If the drive for minerals and foreign investment overtakes security, justice, and social reconciliation, the deal may become a veneer over continuing suffering.