Focus on South-Sudan:- How can South Sudan avoid becoming a playground for regional rivalries (Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya)?
South Sudan’s geostrategic location — bordering Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, DRC, and CAR — gives it enormous potential but also makes it highly vulnerable to regional rivalries. Rival states often seek influence through security, economic, or political channels. Avoiding being a “playground” for these rivalries requires deliberate domestic, regional, and diplomatic strategies.

1. Strengthen Internal Governance and National Cohesion

Reduce factionalism: Implement reforms that move power-sharing from elite-centric deals to functional, transparent institutions.

Build inclusive institutions: Incorporate civil society, women, youth, and local communities into governance, so external actors cannot exploit domestic divisions.

Economic independence: Diversify the economy beyond oil, invest in agriculture, mining, and regional trade corridors to reduce dependence on foreign funding or subsidies.

Unified security forces: Integrate rival militias into a professional national army and police, reducing the leverage external actors can wield over armed factions.

Why it matters: Weak internal governance makes South Sudan ripe for external influence; strong cohesion reduces this vulnerability.

2. Balanced Regional Diplomacy

Multi-vector foreign policy: Avoid over-reliance on any single neighbor. Maintain diplomatic ties with Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, and beyond.

Regional forums leverage: Actively use IGAD and AU mechanisms to mediate disputes and resolve cross-border tensions.

Strategic alliances without dependence: Negotiate mutually beneficial agreements on trade, energy, and security but preserve decision-making autonomy.

Example: Uganda has historically intervened militarily in South Sudan; balancing diplomacy with Kenya, Ethiopia, and Sudan reduces the perception that South Sudan is a proxy battleground.

3. Regional Trade and Economic Integration

EAC & AfCFTA participation: By embedding South Sudan in regional economic frameworks, its neighbors have incentives to support stability rather than intervene militarily.

Cross-border infrastructure: Shared roads, bridges, and ports create interdependence that discourages unilateral interference.

Diversified export routes: Reduce dependence on pipelines through Sudan by exploring options via Kenya (Lamu–Juba corridor) or Ethiopia, decreasing leverage from a single neighbor.

4. Conflict Prevention Mechanisms

Border management: Establish joint commissions for border security, resource disputes, and migration management.

Early warning & rapid response: Utilize IGAD’s and AU’s monitoring systems to prevent escalation of cross-border tensions.

Community-level peacebuilding: Invest in local reconciliation programs in border regions where ethnic groups span multiple countries.

5. Strategic Use of International Partners

UN and AU missions: Leverage peacekeeping, monitoring, and mediation to act as neutral buffers between South Sudan and regional interventions.

Targeted aid and development programs: Accept regional and international support in ways that build state capacity rather than fund factional elites.

6. Promote National Identity Over Ethnic/Regional Affiliations

Strengthen symbols of unity (language, education, civic initiatives) to reduce the likelihood that external actors can exploit internal divisions.

Encourage national media and civil society campaigns emphasizing “South Sudanese first,” decreasing susceptibility to external narratives.

Key Takeaways
Strategy and Goal
Internal cohesion & security reform- Limit domestic factional leverage for foreign actors.

Balanced diplomacy- Avoid dependence on any single neighbor

Regional trade integration- Align neighbor interests with South Sudan’s stability

Conflict prevention mechanisms- Reduce risk of cross-border escalation

International partnerships- Neutral buffers and development without elite capture

Nation-building- Reduce ethnic/tribal fractures exploited externally

Bottom line: South Sudan avoids becoming a playground for regional rivalries by strengthening its internal institutions, diversifying its economy, engaging multiple neighbors diplomatically, and embedding itself in regional trade and security frameworks.

Focus on South-Sudan:- Can the 2018 peace deal serve as a permanent foundation, or is it just another fragile truce?
The 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) has been central to peace efforts, but its potential as a permanent foundation is highly contested. Here’s a detailed assessment:

1. Strengths of the 2018 Peace Deal-
Inclusive on paper: Unlike earlier deals, it included multiple factions (SPLM-IO, opposition groups, other armed movements).

Power-sharing framework: Allocated government positions to rival leaders, creating incentives to avoid open warfare.

Security arrangements: Proposed integration of forces into a unified national army and reform of the police.

International backing: IGAD, UN, AU, and key donors support the deal with political, technical, and financial assistance.

Transitional government timeline: Provided a roadmap for elections, legislative reform, and national governance institutions.

2. Weaknesses & Fragility-
Elite-centric focus: The deal primarily addresses faction leaders, leaving out civil society, youth, women, and local communities, who bear the brunt of conflict.

Slow implementation: Security sector reform, cantonment of forces, and integration into a unified army are delayed or stalled.

Factionalism within parties: SPLM-IO and other groups remain internally divided; loyalty to leaders often supersedes commitment to the state.

Ethnicized politics: Positions and security arrangements often reinforce ethnic patronage, deepening divisions rather than fostering national unity.

Weak enforcement mechanisms: There is no credible mechanism to punish spoilers; violations often go unchecked.

3. Comparative Lessons-
Mozambique (1992 peace agreement): Integration of armed opposition into politics worked because it included long-term reconciliation, institutional reform, and community-level peacebuilding.

Burundi (1993–2005 agreements): Power-sharing initially reduced violence but entrenched ethnic quotas that later became rigid and politicized.

Sierra Leone (1999 Lome Agreement): Ceasefire and power-sharing reduced immediate conflict but failed to address structural causes; only with DDR programs and international oversight did stability emerge.

Implication for South Sudan: Power-sharing alone is necessary but not sufficient; structural reforms and inclusion are critical.

4. Key Indicators for Durability-
Implementation of security integration: Unified national army and police.

Functioning government institutions: Ministries, courts, and local governance operating without factional obstruction.

Justice and accountability mechanisms: Hybrid court or transitional justice to deter impunity.

Economic reforms: Revenue-sharing, diversification, and service delivery to reduce grievances.

Civil society and grassroots engagement: Peace embedded at local and communal levels, not only among elites.

5. Conclusion-
The 2018 deal can serve as a foundation if:

Delays in army integration, local governance, and transitional justice are resolved.

Power-sharing evolves into institutionalized, not personalist, governance.

Citizens feel tangible benefits: schools, roads, healthcare, markets.

Otherwise, the deal risks being another fragile truce, where elites exchange positions but ordinary South Sudanese continue to experience insecurity, poverty, and marginalization — increasing the likelihood of renewed conflict.

Is India’s infantry adequately equipped for next-generation battlefield challenges, from drones to cyberwarfare?
India's infantry is undergoing a significant transformation to meet the challenges of modern warfare, but its readiness is a mix of promising advancements and persistent gaps.
The military recognizes that the traditional "foot soldier" must evolve into a "technology-empowered warfighter" to be effective on a modern battlefield dominated by drones, cyber threats, and network-centric operations.

Modernization Efforts and Strengths
The Indian Army's Futuristic Infantry Soldier as a System (F-INSAS) program is at the heart of this modernization drive.
It's a comprehensive initiative that aims to upgrade every aspect of the soldier's gear, from firepower to survivability and digital integration.

Upgraded Firepower: The Indian Army has been phasing out its long-standing INSAS rifles, which were known for their reliability issues, in favor of modern assault rifles like the Sig Sauer 716 and the AK-203.
This is a significant step towards improving the soldier's primary weapon. Additionally, the infantry is being equipped with advanced anti-tank guided missiles, precision-guided munitions, and modern grenade launchers to enhance their ability to engage enemy fortifications and armored threats.

Enhanced Survivability: The push for indigenous Level 6 body armor, which provides enhanced ballistic protection without excessive weight, is a crucial step towards better protecting soldiers.
The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is also exploring the use of exoskeletons to increase endurance and reduce the physical burden on soldiers in difficult terrains.

Counter-Drone Capabilities: India is actively developing and deploying counter-drone systems to protect its infantry from the growing threat of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and loitering munitions. The "Bhargavastra" system, developed by a private Indian company, is a notable example. It is a multi-layered, low-cost system designed to detect and neutralize drone swarms with micro-missiles and rockets.
Furthermore, every infantry battalion is being equipped with a dedicated drone platoon to enhance reconnaissance, target acquisition, and situational awareness.

Cyber and Network-Centric Warfare: India has established new doctrines for cyberspace and amphibious operations.
The Battlefield Management System (BMS), currently in development, aims to create a real-time digital network that allows commanders to make precise, informed decisions based on live intelligence. This is a critical step in a future where information superiority is a key determinant of success.

Remaining Challenges
Despite these advances, several challenges remain that prevent the infantry from being fully prepared for next-generation combat.

Procurement Delays: The Indian defense procurement process has historically been slow and bureaucratic. This often leads to significant delays in the acquisition and deployment of new equipment, creating critical gaps in capabilities.

Technological Gaps: While India is pushing for indigenization, it still faces technological gaps in high-end defense systems and components. The country's defense budget, while large, allocates a limited portion to research and development, which hinders innovation.

Infrastructure and Training: Modernizing a military of 1.4 million personnel is a monumental task. Ensuring that all infantry units, especially those in remote and high-altitude areas, have access to the latest equipment, and are adequately trained in its use, remains a significant logistical and training challenge.

Fragmented Approach: While the F-INSAS program is comprehensive, its implementation has been fragmented. Critics have pointed out that the Army is still in the initial phases of this modernization, and bureaucratic inefficiencies have hampered its swift execution.

In conclusion, the Indian Army is well aware of the challenges posed by next-generation warfare and is taking decisive steps to equip its infantry for a multi-domain battlespace.
The F-INSAS program and the focus on indigenous technology are positive developments. However, to truly be ready for the threats of drones and cyber warfare, India needs to overcome its persistent challenges in procurement, budget allocation, and the full-scale integration of its modernization efforts.

Does the Indian Army have the logistical capacity for long-term high-altitude warfare along the China border?
The Indian Army's logistical capacity for long-term high-altitude warfare along the China border has been a major focus of modernization efforts, particularly since the 2020 border standoff in Ladakh.
While India has made significant progress, a complex set of challenges and improvements characterize its current capabilities.

Strengths and Improvements
Extensive Experience: The Indian Army possesses significant experience in high-altitude warfare, having maintained a military presence in treacherous terrains like the Siachen Glacier for decades.
This experience has given it a deep understanding of the unique logistical difficulties, such as the effects of thin air on equipment and personnel, and the need for specialized clothing and rations.

Infrastructure Development: India has accelerated the development of infrastructure along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
This includes the construction of strategic roads, bridges, and tunnels, such as the Zojila Tunnel and the Sela Tunnel, which aim to provide all-weather connectivity to previously isolated forward areas.
The Border Roads Organisation (BRO) has been instrumental in this effort, building thousands of kilometers of roads to improve the speed of troop and supply movements.

Advance Winter Stocking: The Indian Army has a well-established and highly-effective system for "advance winter stocking."
This involves stockpiling massive quantities of rations, fuel, ammunition, and specialized winter gear in forward posts before the passes close due to snow.
This ensures that troops can be sustained through the long winter months when road access is impossible.

Upgraded Equipment: The army is acquiring and deploying specialized equipment for high-altitude operations.
This includes indigenous all-terrain vehicles, which are helicopter transportable and capable of operating in snow-covered, undulating terrain.
The introduction of modern artillery, tanks, and missile systems has also bolstered firepower in these regions.

Challenges and Vulnerabilities
Infrastructure Asymmetry with China: Despite India's progress, China's infrastructure along the border, particularly in Tibet, is far more advanced.
China has built an extensive network of roads, high-speed railways, and airports, allowing for rapid troop and material mobilization.
While India is catching up, this infrastructure gap remains a significant vulnerability, potentially giving China a speed advantage in a conflict.

Dependency on Air-Lifting: In a long-term conflict, while road infrastructure is crucial, the initial and emergency response would rely on airlifts.
While India has a credible air force, air-lifting supplies in high-altitude environments is a logistical challenge.
The thin atmosphere significantly reduces a helicopter's carrying capacity and increases operational costs, making it an expensive and limited option for mass transportation.

Personnel Costs and Budgetary Constraints: The high cost of maintaining troops in high-altitude environments is a significant drain on the defense budget.
The cost of a single soldier at a post like Siachen can be astronomical, and this massive expenditure on personnel, specialized equipment, and winter supplies can divert funds from other modernization priorities.

Vulnerability of Supply Lines: Even with improved infrastructure, India's supply lines, which are often single-lane roads in rugged mountainous terrain, remain vulnerable to enemy attacks, landslides, and extreme weather. A successful strike on a key bridge or tunnel could cripple the logistical chain to a forward post.

In conclusion, the Indian Army has a robust and continuously evolving logistical capacity for high-altitude warfare.
It has learned from decades of experience and is making a concerted effort to bridge the infrastructure and technological gaps with its primary adversary.
However, the inherent challenges of the Himalayan terrain and the scale of China's own military infrastructure development mean that India must continue to prioritize these logistical capabilities to ensure its long-term readiness and ability to sustain a prolonged conflict.

How much of India’s military strategy is shaped by outdated doctrines versus modern combat realities?
India's military strategy is in a state of continuous evolution, a dynamic process shaped by a blend of long-standing doctrines and the pressing realities of modern, high-tech combat.
It is not a simple case of one versus the other, but rather a complex interplay of adapting old principles to new challenges.

The Legacy of Outdated Doctrines
Historically, India's military doctrines, particularly for its land forces, have been criticized for being overly reliant on a conventional, attrition-based approach.
The "Cold Start Doctrine," for instance, while never officially acknowledged, was a strategy designed for swift, limited conventional attacks against Pakistan.
However, critics have argued that this doctrine was developed with a focus on large, traditional military formations and may have underestimated the impact of a nuclear threshold and the complexities of modern, asymmetric warfare.

This emphasis on a continental, ground-centric mindset has also been a point of contention. For decades, the Indian Army, being the largest service, has often dictated the overall military strategy, with the Air Force and Navy playing a supporting role.
This approach is increasingly seen as outdated in an era where conflicts are multi-domain, involving air, sea, land, cyber, and space assets.

Adapting to Modern Combat Realities
However, in recent years, there has been a significant shift in India's military thinking to address modern combat realities. This transformation is driven by several key factors:

The Rise of Hybrid Warfare: India's military is now actively preparing for "grey zone" and "hybrid warfare" threats. This includes cyberattacks, information warfare, and the use of drones and other unmanned systems. Recent statements from the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) have emphasized the need for a "proactive, indigenous, and adaptive vision" to counter these evolving threats.

Technological Integration: The armed forces are increasingly focused on integrating disruptive technologies into their operational frameworks.
This includes a push for artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and advanced analytics for surveillance, decision-making, and cyber defense.
The Indian Army, for example, is incorporating AI-powered surveillance drones and advanced sensors for real-time situational awareness, particularly along its borders.

Jointness and Integration: The creation of the CDS and the move towards Integrated Theatre Commands are perhaps the most significant steps in this direction. This restructuring aims to break down the silos between the Army, Navy, and Air Force, fostering greater synergy and a unified approach to a multi-front conflict.

Shifting from Attrition to Decapitation: There is a growing recognition that full-scale invasions and territorial occupations are no longer viable in a nuclearized environment.
Modern military thinking is shifting towards swift, decisive, and calibrated strikes to disrupt the enemy's "Centre of Gravity"—its command and control centers, communication hubs, and other critical infrastructure. This "decapitation strategy" aims to achieve military objectives with speed and precision, before international pressure can mount.

Self-Reliance and Modernization: The "Make in India" initiative for defense is a clear reflection of the desire to reduce technological dependency and build a robust domestic defense industrial base.
The Indian Army is charting an ambitious roadmap for modernization, seeking industry partnerships for developing hypersonic weapons, loitering munitions, and directed energy weapons.

In summary, India's military strategy is not entirely shackled by outdated doctrines.
It is a work in progress, with a concerted effort to move away from a traditional, attrition-based approach towards a more agile, technology-driven, and integrated framework.
While the legacy of past doctrines still influences some aspects of planning and force structure, the new emphasis on multi-domain operations, hybrid warfare, and indigenous technology demonstrates a clear and conscious effort to adapt to the realities of 21st-century warfare.

Are India’s armed forces ready for a simultaneous two-front conflict with China and Pakistan?
The question of whether India's armed forces are ready for a simultaneous two-front conflict with China and Pakistan is a subject of intense debate among military analysts and strategists.
While India has been actively modernizing and restructuring its forces to meet this challenge, several factors complicate the assessment of its readiness.

The Strategic and Operational Dilemma-
A two-front war scenario is a worst-case contingency that Indian military and political leadership has long acknowledged as a serious threat. This is due to the "near-absolute collusivity" between China and Pakistan, who have a close strategic relationship and have provided each other with military and diplomatic support. The challenge for India is to be able to defend its long and rugged borders with both adversaries without being overstretched or compromising its ability to respond to a major offensive on either front.


Recent Reforms and Preparedness Efforts-
In recent years, the Indian military has undertaken significant reforms to enhance its readiness for a multi-front conflict:

Restructuring the Army: The Indian Army has been overhauling its structure to create more agile and integrated units.
This includes the formation of "Rudra brigades," which are all-arms combat units with infantry, tanks, artillery, special forces, and drones, designed for faster and more integrated responses along the borders. New "Bhairav" light commando battalions and drone platoons in every infantry battalion are also being introduced to enhance battlefield awareness and precision.

Modernization of Hardware: India is investing in advanced missile systems, including the BrahMos, Akash, and S-400 air defense systems, which have been tested in recent clashes with Pakistan. This is part of a broader effort to upgrade its air defense network and artillery.

Tri-Service Synergy: The creation of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the move towards Integrated Theatre Commands are aimed at improving coordination and operational synergy between the Army, Navy, and Air Force. This is a crucial step for a two-front war, which would require a seamless and integrated response across all three services.

Key Challenges and Vulnerabilities-
Despite these reforms, significant challenges remain that could hinder India's ability to effectively fight a two-front war:

Resource Constraints: A large portion of India's defense budget is spent on revenue expenditures like salaries and pensions, leaving limited funds for capital acquisition and modernization. This has resulted in critical shortfalls in key areas, such as the Indian Air Force's fighter squadron strength.

Infrastructure Deficiencies: While India is rapidly building infrastructure along its northern borders, it still lags behind China in terms of roads, tunnels, and airfields, which could impede the rapid movement of troops and supplies.

Technological Gaps: While India has made progress in indigenous defense production, it still relies heavily on foreign imports for advanced military technology. This can create vulnerabilities in supply chains and make India's defense preparedness dependent on its relations with key suppliers.

Hybrid Warfare: India is also vulnerable to "grey zone" and "hybrid warfare" tactics from both adversaries, including cyberattacks and the use of non-state actors. These threats can divert resources and attention, complicating India's response to a conventional conflict.

In conclusion, while the Indian Armed Forces are actively preparing for a two-front conflict and have implemented significant reforms, they are still grappling with challenges related to budget, technology, and infrastructure.
The military leadership has acknowledged that a two-front war is a "reality" and a possibility that the nation must be prepared for.
However, they also emphasize the importance of diplomatic and political engagement to prevent such a scenario, recognizing that a country does not go to war with its armed forces alone.

Behind every cap badge is a story of honour, service, and tradition. William Scully Ltd. has produced thousands of unit badges over the decades, from historical regiments to newly formed branches. Our cap badges are made in Canada using time-tested materials—non-tarnish metals, detailed embroidery, and durable finishes—designed to meet military specifications and preserve heritage on every uniform. Explore at https://www.williamscully.ca/index.php/shop/cf-regimental-badges-insignia/cap-badges.html


#CAFUniform #CapBadge #CanadianArmy #RCMP #WilliamScully

Who are the sponsors of wars in Congo, Sudan and South-Sudan?
Chad, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, UAE and Iran are directly and indirectly involved in the wars in these countries.

Why are there no protest in European elite countries and America against these war sponsors in Africa?

External Interests and Rivalries Fueling Conflicts in Congo, Sudan, and South Sudan:-

Wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sudan, and South Sudan are complex, protracted conflicts with deep internal roots, yet significantly inflamed and sustained by a web of external state and non-state actors. These sponsors, driven by diverse geopolitical, economic, and security interests, provide financial, military, and political support to various factions, often exacerbating instability and prolonging the suffering of civilian populations.

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): A History of Regional Meddling and Resource Exploitation

The long-standing conflicts in the DRC, particularly in its eastern regions, have been marked by extensive foreign interference. Neighboring countries Rwanda and Uganda have been repeatedly accused by UN experts and international observers of backing rebel groups, most notably the M23. This support allegedly includes direct military intervention, arms provision, and financial assistance. Their motivations are often linked to their own security concerns, such as combating hostile armed groups operating from Congolese territory, and significant economic interests, particularly the lucrative trade in minerals like gold, coltan, and diamonds.

Other regional powers have also been involved. Burundi has reportedly sent troops into the DRC, at times allied with the Congolese army and at others with interests that align with or counter Rwandan and Ugandan objectives. Historically, countries like Angola, Zimbabwe, and Namibia intervened in past Congo wars, supporting different sides of the conflict.

Beyond immediate neighbors, wider international interests are at play. While less direct in recent frontline combat, historical involvement from countries like France, Belgium (the former colonial power), the United States, and China has shaped the political and economic landscape. Regional blocs such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East African Community (EAC) have deployed forces with mandates to stabilize the region, though their efforts are often complicated by the intricate network of alliances and rivalries. The draw of the DRC's vast natural resources continues to be a significant magnet for various international corporations and shadowy networks, whose activities can indirectly fuel conflict.

Sudan: A Vicious Power Struggle Entangled with Foreign Agendas

The devastating conflict that erupted in Sudan in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) quickly drew in external sponsors. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been widely implicated as a key backer of the RSF, allegedly supplying weapons, drones, and financial aid. This support is seen as part of the UAE's broader strategy to project influence in the Red Sea region and secure economic interests, including gold mining operations largely controlled by the RSF.


Conversely, Egypt has a long-standing relationship with the Sudanese military establishment and is reported to be a primary supporter of the SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Cairo views a stable, military-led Sudan as crucial for its own national security, particularly concerning border stability and the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam upstream on the Blue Nile.


Iran has also emerged as a notable supporter of the SAF, reportedly providing drones and other military assistance. This marks a renewal of ties and is viewed by some analysts as an effort by Tehran to counter regional rivals and expand its influence in a strategically important area.

Russia, primarily through the activities of the Wagner Group (now rebranded), has established a footprint in Sudan, focusing on gold mining concessions and security arrangements. While initially appearing to cultivate ties with both factions, recent reports suggest a potential alignment with Iran in supporting the SAF, though its overarching goal remains securing access to resources and projecting power.

Other regional actors, including Chad and elements within Libya (specifically Khalifa Haftar's Libyan National Army), have been accused of facilitating support for the RSF. Saudi Arabia and Turkey also hold significant political and economic interests in Sudan and have engaged with various parties, though their direct military sponsorship in the current conflict is less clear-cut than that of the UAE, Egypt, or Iran.

South Sudan: Civil War Compounded by Regional Rivalries and Resource Politics

The civil war that plagued South Sudan from 2013, shortly after its independence, also saw significant external involvement. Uganda openly deployed its troops in support of President Salva Kiir's government against rebel factions led by Riek Machar, playing a crucial role in preventing the government's collapse in the early stages of the war.

The conflict in neighboring Sudan has more recently had a direct impact on South Sudan's internal dynamics and external alignments. President Kiir's government has reportedly sought closer ties with the UAE and the RSF in Sudan to safeguard South Sudan's critical oil exports, much of which transits through Sudan and areas under RSF influence. This has potentially strained relations with the SAF, which, in turn, has been accused of reactivating ties with opposition groups within South Sudan.


Regional bodies, particularly the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), have been central to mediation efforts, often with the backing of the "Troika" – the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway. However, neighboring countries like Sudan (prior to its current internal conflict), Kenya, and Ethiopia have also been described as "financiers" or "regulators" of the conflict, at times providing material support to different factions or leveraging their influence in peace negotiations to serve their own strategic and economic interests. The control and revenue from South Sudan's substantial oil reserves remain a critical factor influencing both internal power struggles and external involvement.

In conclusion, the wars in the DRC, Sudan, and South Sudan are fueled by a dangerous confluence of internal grievances and external interference. A multitude of state and non-state actors, driven by a complex array of geopolitical ambitions, security concerns, and economic opportunism – particularly the exploitation of vast natural resources – continue to sponsor various warring parties. This external involvement often undermines peace efforts, prolongs the conflicts, and deepens the humanitarian crises afflicting these nations.


By Jo Ikeji-Uju
https://afriprime.net/pages/Anything

Germany's Merz pushing China's Xi on support for Ukraine ceasefire... Interesting to see China has strong power now in world affairs than before.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to support international efforts to get Russia to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine, in a first phone call between the two leaders since Merz took office earlier this month.

Merz and Xi assured each other they were open to cooperating on overcoming global challenges, government spokesman Stefan Kornelius said after the call on Friday.

China is considered Russia's most important ally, as Moscow has found itself increasingly isolated by Western nations who have been providing Kiev with financial and military support in its defence against the full-scale Russian invasion launched over three years ago.

US efforts under President Donald Trump to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a halt in fighting have so far not produced any significant results.

Merz and Xi also discussed economic relations, Kornelius said, with the German chancellor noting the importance of fair competition.

The two leaders agreed to "soon continue the direct exchange, to develop German-Chinese cooperation further."

Tight-lipped Chinese response

The Chinese side only briefly touched on the Ukraine issue when commenting on the conversation.

Instead, Beijing stressed the importance of mutual relations, with Xi noting that the international situation was increasingly characterized by disorder and change.

The strategic and global significance of relations between China and Germany, as well as between China and Europe, was now even clearer, he reportedly said.

China was ready to open a new chapter in its comprehensive strategic partnership with Germany, according to Xi.

Political trust must be strengthened, and the resilience of bilateral relations increased, the president said, adding that China regards Germany as a partner and welcomes its growth and prosperity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has held a phone call with Hamburg Mayor Peter Tschentscher following the knife attack at the northern German city's central train station.

Merz wrote on X: "The news from Hamburg is shocking. My thoughts are with the victims and their families. My thanks go to all the emergency services on the ground for their rapid assistance."

Government spokesman Stefan Kornelius said Merz has offered the assistance of the federal government, after Tschentscher informed him about the situation and the condition of the injured.

According to emergency services, six people suffered life-threatening injuries in the attack on Friday, with six more being hurt.

A 39-year-old German woman has been detained in connection with the attack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese President Xi Jinping and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in a call on Friday highlighted the importance of their countries' relationship as both China and Europe are trying to tackle uncertainty caused by U.S. tariff policies.

Europe and China are among the biggest trading partners of the U.S. and have deep trading ties with each other. Chinese-German trade volume alone accounted for around 246 billion euros ($279 billion) last year, according to official figures.

Germany has in recent years sought a difficult balance in relations with China, seen by Berlin as both a strategic rival and a vital trading partner whose giant market has buoyed Germany's large export-driven economy.

In the call, Xi noted changes in the world unseen in a century, with "intertwined turmoil and transformation," official broadcaster CCTV reported.

"China is willing to work with Germany to open a new chapter in their all-round strategic partnership, to lead China-EU relations toward new development, and to contribute to the stable growth of the global economy," Xi was quoted as saying.

Merz's spokesperson said both leaders emphasized their willingness to cooperate to overcome global challenges.

"Chancellor Merz emphasized the importance of fair competition and reciprocity," he added.

Neither Berlin nor the CCTV report explicitly mentioned U.S. tariffs.

Beijing earlier this month urged Germany not to undermine cooperation in the name of de-risking, a strategy by Europe to reduce its dependence on China trade.

The European Union, of which Germany is the biggest economic power, and China are also at odds over Chinese electric vehicles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
New German Chancellor Friedrich Merz gave his support on Thursday to a higher spending target for the military, as pressure grows on NATO countries to increase their defence budgets.

Speaking during a visit to Lithuania, where he formally launched a new German brigade, Merz said the German government agreed with the new target, as previously outlined by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Rutte had proposed that defence-related spending by members of the military alliance should reach 3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), with an additional 1.5% for military infrastructure.

"From the perspective of the German government, these are two figures that we could get close to. They seem reasonable to us, they also seem achievable to us, at least in the specified timeframe up to 2032," Merz said.

On Tuesday, Merz's Defence Minister Boris Pistorius unveiled a roadmap for how to achieve the higher spending target.

On the sidelines of a meeting in Brussels, Pistorius outlined a plan for Germany to increase military expenditure as a ratio of GDP by 0.2 percentage points per year over a period of seven years up until 2032.

A new NATO spending target is set to be adopted at the NATO summit in the Dutch city of The Hague in June.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany's new chancellor said it will build Europe's strongest army — but can it deliver?
Chancellor Friedrich Merz pledged to build Europe's strongest military for Germany.

Germany's shift in defense policy followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine and NATO goals.

Experts highlighted challenges like underinvestment, recruitment, and political consensus.

Germany's new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, vowed last week that the country will build "the strongest conventional army in Europe."

It comes as Germany and others adapt to the drive for European countries to rapidly rearm in the face of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — but contrasts with recent decades when the country has preferred soft power over military strength.

So, how feasible is it for Germany to be the continent's biggest military power?

"For now, the money is there, and Germans have deep pockets," Ulrich Kühn, a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Business Insider.

"What is missing is a general cross-party consensus on the issue, including the left wing of the governing Social Democrats, who are more skeptical of projecting military power," he said.

Last month, Germany announced that it was deploying troops to Lithuania on a long-term basis—the first long-term deployment of German soldiers to another country since World War II, another sign of its changing military approach.

Kühn added that the commitment to increase Germany's defense spending "can only be the beginning if the goal is really to position itself as Europe's defense champion."

"What the German arms industry needs are long-term contracts well into the 2030s and state subsidies to rapidly scale up production," he said.

As of May 2024, Germany's army, the Bundeswehr, had 180,215 active-duty personnel.

Jörn Fleck, senior director of the Atlantic Council's Europe Center, told BI that a targeted increase of the German armed forces to 200,000 had been delayed until 2031 "due to lackluster recruitment and an ageing force."

But he said that Germany "has taken important initial steps to rebuild the German military into one of Europe's leading conventional forces."

Fleck cited a €100 billion special fund to modernize the military, announced in 2022, and constitutional changes to partially exempt defense spending from Germany's debt brake, which was imposed after the 2008 financial crisis and limits the deficit to just 0.35% of GDP. By contrast, the US deficit exceeded 6% last year.

But Fleck warned that Germany "will have to overcome two if not three decades of underinvestment in its armed forces."

"The resulting force reductions, readiness problems, capability gaps, and infrastructure challenges will take years to reverse," he added. "They will not be solved by money alone and will require sustained political will and leadership."

One positive for Germany is its thriving defense industry, which includes major players like Rheinmetall and KNDS, along with medium-sized companies and innovative startups.

In 2024, Rheinmetall saw sales related to its defense business increase by 50% year-on-year.

Germany's defense industry strategy, focused on key technologies, greater economies of scale, and the potential of the European market, is a "positive step in the right direction," Fleck said, but he added that the country will "have to fundamentally reform its procurement agency and processes" to boost its defense industry.

He also said that advancing Germany's military capabilities will move the needle across Europe, given the country's political and economic weight on the continent.

This has already been visible when it comes to the REARM initiative that opened the door for countries to spend more on defense, and the proposal for common EU borrowing to fund joint development and procurement.

"If Germany, Europe's reluctant hegemon with its fraught history, can get its act together on defense," Kühn said. "So can others."

Pakistan school bus bombing....Islamabad blames India
Pakistan blaming India in a terror bombing is a "Blame game" of China.
The death toll from a school bus bombing in southwestern Pakistan rose to eight on Friday after three more critically wounded children died, according to the country’s military, which blamed rival India for allegedly supporting rebels behind the attack.

The victims included two soldiers who were aboard the bus when it was attacked Wednesday in Khuzdar, a city in Balochistan province, where a separatist insurgency has raged for decades. A total of 53 people, including 39 children, were wounded in the attack.

The children were going to their Army Public School when the bombing happened.

Military spokesperson Lt. Gen. Ahmad Sharif said that several of the wounded children remain critical. He said an initial investigation suggested the bombing was carried out by insurgents from the outlawed Baloch Liberation Army, which was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in 2019, on India's instructions.


Sharif said Pakistan had evidence that India is orchestrating “terrorists attacks inside Pakistan" and the international community should take its notice. India has not responded to the allegation and Pakistan has presented no proof to back up its claim.

No group has claimed responsibility for the bombing,... No need to claim because Pakistanis military can just do it as a terror heaven just to blame India.

Tensions between India and Pakistan remain high after the two sides earlier this month engaged in a four-day border conflict before agreeing to a cease-fire.