By Dr. Tomas Solomon | October 18, 2026
Ignoring the depth of Eritrea’s wounds and simply declaring, “I stand with my troops,” without questioning the consequences of another war or the leadership driving the country toward it, will only deepen the people’s suffering and push Eritrea further toward catastrophe. In this article, I will examine the potentially devastating consequences of the looming war and present an alternative path that prioritizes the lives of Eritreans, addresses the root causes of the national crisis, and offers a practical way forward toward a peaceful, free, and prosperous future.
Eritrea and Ethiopia are once again standing on the brink of a potentially devastating all-out war, one that could unleash destruction on a scale the people cannot afford to endure. On October 15, the Associated Press reported mounting alarm over the escalating confrontation as Washington urged both nations to exercise restraint. The horrors of the 2020 – 2022 Tigray war, which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives according to widely cited estimates, remain a terrifying reminder of the human cost of such conflicts. Yet another war between Eritrea and Ethiopia could prove even more destructive, turning the Horn of Africa into a battlefield of unprecedented suffering. For Eritrea in particular, the consequences could be existential, threatening not merely its stability but the very survival of the nation as we know it.
Eritrea would enter such a conflict after decades of extreme national exhaustion. Independence promised its citizens the freedom to shape their own future. Instead, they have endured a dictatorial regime characterized by political repression, indefinite national service, economic stagnation, and a continuing exodus of young people. Human Rights Watch’s 2026 World Report documents the persistence of these abuses. A nation already suffering from demographic decline, institutional decay, economic paralysis, and deep social exhaustion has limited capacity to absorb the devastating consequences of another prolonged war. Under these conditions, a major military defeat could trigger far more than territorial losses. It could accelerate mass displacement, destroy what remains of the public services, and precipitate a humanitarian and political catastrophe that threatens the very existence of Eritrea as a sovereign nation.
Many Eritreans bitterly oppose PFDJ rule yet understandably fear that Ethiopian military intervention might revive the subordination they experienced under the Derg regime, which Eritreans fought so hard to end. That fear gives rise to a familiar declaration: “I oppose the PFDJ dictatorship, but at this moment, I will stand with my troops to defend my country.” The impulse seems patriotic, but it raises a difficult question: If defending the country means granting the same leaders unlimited authority to sacrifice another generation, what precisely is being saved? What kind of patriotism places greater value on protecting the land than on preserving the lives of the people who call it home?
This is not an argument for Ethiopian domination of Eritrea, nor does it suggest that defending our land is unimportant. Rather, it challenges the dangerous assumption that loyalty to one’s country requires unconditional support for its rulers and troops during times of war. History has already taught Eritreans the devastating consequences of failing to question those in power. Following the disastrous 1998 – 2000 war with Ethiopia, the G15, a group of high ranking independence veterans and senior government officials, questioned the conduct of the war and demanded accountability and democratic reforms, although their demands came late. Independent journalists and other concerned Eritreans also raised critical questions about the country’s direction. Instead of listening to these voices, the regime responded with arrests, enforced disappearances, and the complete shutdown of the independent press in September 2001.
More than two decades later, Eritrea faces another potentially devastating confrontation, yet the same argument is being repeated: that patriotism requires setting aside our differences and rallying behind the leadership in the name of national defense. But how many times must Eritreans sacrifice their youth before questioning the decisions that repeatedly lead them into wars? True patriotism demands the courage to hold leaders accountable, especially when their actions threaten the nation’s very survival. A nation is not defined by its territory alone, but by the people who inhabit it and the future they are able to build. Protecting the land while allowing its people to be endlessly sacrificed is not national preservation. It contradicts the very purpose of independence. Sovereignty belongs to the Eritrean people, not to the PFDJ, and no government should be allowed to invoke it as a justification for sacrificing the nation it claims to defend.
There is another path forward: urgent de-escalation of the conflict, a negotiated framework for an Eritrean-led political transition, and a lasting peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia founded on mutual respect, shared economic interests, and practical cooperation. The removal of the PFDJ regime must be a prerequisite for establishing lasting peace and stability in the region, and achieving this goal must be a shared responsibility of Eritreans, Eritrea’s neighbors, and the international community, as decades of authoritarian rule and recurring confrontation have undermined the foundations of regional stability. Rather than remaining trapped in a destructive cycle of confrontation under PFDJ rule, both Eritrea and Ethiopia could pursue a new relationship that transforms their geographic proximity, economic interdependence, and shared history into opportunities for lasting peace and prosperity. A future partnership between Eritrea and Ethiopia could include commercially negotiated Ethiopian access to Eritrean ports, expanded cross-border trade, transportation and energy cooperation, investment, and mutually beneficial security arrangements that build trust and strengthen regional stability. Eritrea’s and Ethiopia’s national interests need not be in conflict. With responsible leadership, credible guarantees, and a genuine commitment to peaceful coexistence, their respective interests can complement one another, creating a more secure and prosperous future for both peoples.
For Eritrean families, especially the youth, the first priority must be protecting their lives rather than repeating the sacrifices of previous generations to keep the PFDJ regime in power. History has repeatedly shown how the regime uses the defense of Eritrean territory to justify endless wars and forced military service, while ordinary Eritreans pay the price with their lives, freedom, and future. Those who declare, “I stand with my troops,” must ask themselves whether their support truly protects the soldiers and the people or merely strengthens the leadership sending them into another war. If the government cannot secure peace, its continued existence must be challenged rather than defended at any cost. Eritrean families have already endured decades of separation, forced conscription, displacement, and sacrifice. Their suffering cannot be treated as an endless obligation. In other countries, citizens have challenged governments over increases in the price of basic necessities, sometimes as small as a few cents. Against that comparison, the continued forced roundup of Eritrean youth raises an even more fundamental question about the value placed on human life. The protection of young people, an end to coercive mobilization, and a peaceful existence must be central to any serious effort to secure Eritrea’s future.
Tigray offers a painful warning of the devastating consequences of war, one that Eritreans cannot afford to ignore. The 2020 – 2022 conflict robbed an entire generation of young people of precious years that should have been devoted to education, building careers, raising families, and improving their lives. Those who survived were left to confront displacement, trauma, poverty, and an uncertain future. Even after the guns fell silent, the suffering continued. Communities remained fractured, and livelihoods were destroyed. This is the true cost of war. Its destruction is measured not only in lives lost on the battlefield but also in the opportunities, prosperity, and human potential that vanish for generations. For Eritrea, another devastating war could inflict damage so intense that the nation may never recover again. This time around, Eritrean youth must confront a fundamental question: What will another round of sacrifice achieve if it leaves their families grieving, their communities devastated, and their country poorer, weaker, and less free?
An important challenge facing the Eritrean justice seeking community is the development of a credible alternative for an Eritrean-led democratic transition. Such an alternative would require more than opposition to the existing regime. It would need a clear and practical framework for establishing accountable institutions, protecting individual freedoms, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring an inclusive political system that represents all Eritreans. It would also need to address the country’s economic recovery and the rebuilding of institutions weakened by decades of authoritarian rule. Equally important is a comprehensive approach to peaceful coexistence with neighboring countries, particularly Ethiopia, based on mutual respect, economic cooperation, and shared security interests. A credible transition plan would demonstrate how Eritrea could move beyond dictatorship without compromising its independence, while creating the conditions for lasting peace, stability, and prosperity.
Ethiopia must also actively seek a peaceful resolution to its current standoff with Eritrea. Understandably, the PFDJ has repeatedly proved that it cannot be a reliable partner for peace. Nevertheless, the regime can be politically and deplomatically cornered while the Eritrean people are given a clear opportunity to rally around a transparent post-PFDJ framework. By explicitly guaranteeing equitable arrangements on port access and trade, Ethiopia would strip the regime of its ability to weaponize fear as a tool for survival. The framework should include credible commitments to peaceful coexistence and a mutually beneficial partnership that addresses the interests of both countries. Decades of confrontation and mutual suspicion have created deep mistrust that a military campaign alone cannot resolve and could instead prolong instability. Recognizing Eritrean-led efforts toward democratic transition and maintaining sustained engagement with advocates for political change could help rebuild confidence and establish a foundation for future cooperation. A relationship in which Ethiopia gains reliable economic access routes and stronger regional connectivity, while Eritrea benefits from expanded trade, investment, economic growth, and greater security, could create powerful incentives for lasting peace and prosperity for both countries.
The international community must recognize that preventing war in the Horn of Africa and backing a democratic transition in Eritrea are two sides of the same coin. Leaving the PFDJ in power does not resolve the crisis, it only allows its return in an even more catastrophic form. The regime’s track record speaks for itself: repeated wars, siding with Moscow over Ukraine, undermining African Union efforts, and relentlessly destabilizing its neighbors. History shows the PFDJ cannot exist without generating conflict and without sustained global pressure, it will simply hold its fire until it can strike again.
In conclusion, Eritreans fought and sacrificed for independence so that future generations could live in freedom, dignity, and peace. Yet what is the purpose of claiming independence today if the regime continues to repress its citizens, manipulate the meaning of nationhood to preserve its own power, and use the defense of the land as a justification for sacrificing the very generations whose future that land is meant to secure? Independence was never meant to be merely about having our own government and preserving territory. It was a promise of a better life for the people who call Eritrea home, a promise that remains unfulfilled as generation after generation continues to endure repression, war, and uncertainty. Accepting the current reality is not patriotism. True patriotism should not be measured by unconditional support for wars called by the regime or by the number of lives sacrificed in the name of national defense. Rather, it should be measured by our commitment to building a country where Eritrea’s children can grow up in freedom, pursue educational and economic opportunities, raise their families in peace, and live without fear of repression or endless military service. Achieving that future requires breaking the cycle of war, embracing a democratic transition toward accountable governance, and establishing peaceful and mutually beneficial relationships with Ethiopia and other neighboring countries. Ultimately, a nation is not saved by endlessly sacrificing its people, but by bringing about a transformation that allows its people to live with dignity, determine their own future, and enjoy the peace and prosperity for which so much has already been sacrificed.
A friend forwarded me Dr. Thomas’s sobering article and I thank Dr. Thomas for his excellent articulation of the situation. Isaias has exploited the emotional “we support our troops” innocent patriotism masterfully to escape accountability and to continue Eritrea’s suicidal trajectory unhindered. Every time he brings Eritrea to the brink of a disaster, he knows people will be hypnotized by emotions of “nai hager guday” letting him free to craft the next disaster – always oblivious to the fact that he is the only enemy Eritrea has. How can he lose?
I would only add that Dr. Thomas is being generous to hold a ‘PFDJ’ collective accountable. It may have started that way but Eritrea has been nothing more than Isaias’s private property for the last three decades. A semi-competent government was eliminated after the 1998 war with the disappearance of the G15. Eritrea ceased to exist as a nation then. The 1998 war was about Badme – a border village. This time, as Dr. Thomas puts it concisely, it is about whether Eritrea will exist or not.
So what can be done in the short but precious window before the shit hits the fan? There must be at least a few seasoned politicians and diplomats, like Haile Menkorios with access to effective global networks, who also know Eritreans inside and outside the country to organize government-like bodies with the objective of minimizing or erasing Isaias’s role in Eritrea’s future. Maybe the PFDJ remnants Dr. Thomas mentions can be part of the inside partnership. The main purpose of this body should be to liberate Eritrea’s status from being the private property of a sadistic despot, and to make it become a country again.
Part of the transition to being a country should also include a clear draft policy how Eritrea’s ports will be accessible to Ethiopia. A fair and clear policy that is defensible by international laws with named committee members leading it (Haile Menkorios etc.) could pre-empt the impending war. This committee should also challenge Abiy publicly to name his own team to meet with them…..
Tewelde Stephanos (tstephanos@yahoo.com)
Thomas and Stephanos seem either detached from the realities on the ground or overly influenced by Western democratic ideals that may not adequately reflect the political realities of the Horn of Africa. I knew Stephanos when we were students at HHSI University, and I will give him credit: he was a bright student. However, I disagree with the position advocated by him and Thomas that Eritrea should pursue peace at almost any cost simply because we want to move beyond the unelected, one-man government of Isaias Afwerki.
The central issue is not whether Eritrea should seek peace. Of course it should. The question is what exactly is there to negotiate when Ethiopia’s demand is perceived as going beyond access to the sea and toward ownership, including a naval presence? Peaceful relations, commercial access, port agreements, and regional economic cooperation are legitimate subjects for negotiation. Eritrea’s sovereignty, however, should not be treated as a bargaining chip.
Political leaders, whether elected or authoritarian, can use state institutions and nationalist issues to reinforce their hold on power. In my view, both Abiy Ahmed and Isaias Afwerki must be viewed critically through that lens. Eritrea should therefore pursue peaceful coexistence and constructive regional relations, but not under pressure created by rhetoric suggesting that the Red Sea was “stolen” and must be regained by whatever means necessary.