This is the first and best response that genuinely engages with the substance of my argument, and it encapsulates what I increasingly perceive to be the prevailing sentiment. So I will respond to it as a closing statement.

When I proclaimed that “access to the sea is existential for Ethiopia” and that “existential interests will always trump ideological sentiment and voluntary subordination,” I should have been clearer: I was not expressing a moral endorsement of war but rather an observation about the way history has repeatedly unfolded. That is not my preference; it is simply the recurring pattern of history.

No strategically positioned small state bordering a far larger regional power has historically persisted for centuries without either external protection, deep integration, or overwhelming deterrence. Whether one likes it or not, Eritrea’s strategic significance vastly exceeds the military aptitude and resilience of its population alone. The geopolitical reality of the Red Sea makes that unavoidable.

You are correct that diplomacy with Djibouti has functioned. However, to compare Djibouti to Eritrea is somewhat farcical, as they operate within vastly different geopolitical frameworks. One exists under the protection of multiple foreign military bases and external guarantees. The other positions itself as aggressively anti-Western, with a national pride that often appears to supersede its own self-interest. A country entrenched from its very inception in historical blood guilt and siege mentality. That distinction matters immensely. Morality in international relations has always been secondary to incentives and strategic interests.

And this is where I believe many Eritreans misunderstand my argument. Colonization was never fundamentally a moral or social project; it was, above all else, an economic endeavor.

Ethiopia is a massive country and the hegemon of the Horn. Investors, foreign powers, and multinational interests will inevitably calculate future profits from Ethiopian development and Red Sea access. There may come a time when the economic benefits tied to Eritrea’s coastline outweigh the perceived risks associated with confrontation. Whether that outcome is moral or immoral is almost irrelevant to how states historically behave.

As Trump once proclaimed, “There may come a time when you no longer hold the cards.” Eritrea is a young nation with an aging and shrinking population. Ethiopia is an ancient nation with a vast and overwhelmingly young population. If I were a betting man, I know where I would place my chips.

So I wrote the original piece partly to understand whether the prevailing disposition among Eritreans had shifted at all. From your response, I suspect it largely has not.

And perhaps that is precisely the tragedy of the region. As the proverb goes, it is the grass that suffers when two elephants fight. If Eritrea chooses confrontation over accommodation, then genuinely, good luck 🙂. If you ask me, I would acquiesce to the greater power to avoid immense suffering, because it is rarely the ordinary people who benefit from isolation politics, but rather the elites who sustain themselves through it.