The afterlife of the Rwandan genocide
Armed groups and security fears crossed the border after 1994. Rwanda cites hostile FDLR forces; Congo accuses Rwanda of using security claims to dominate territory and resources.
Severe intensityCeasefire erodingSince M23 resurgence in 2021; regional roots since 1994
The Eastern Congo and M23 Conflict
Rwanda-backed M23 holds Goma, Bukavu and major eastern territory despite peace agreements, while Kinshasa relies on a fragmented coalition and struggles to restore state authority.
Displaced7M+Conflict-wide eastern DRC context
Key cities heldGoma & BukavuCaptured in early 2025
Foreign roleRwandan troops remainCFR / UN reporting
Peace statusUnimplementedMajor provisions remain pending
01
Executive assessment01 02 03
The bottom line
M23 and Rwanda won the 2025 battlefield phase by taking the east’s principal cities and retaining them through diplomacy. Congo’s government prevented a broader collapse and built international pressure, but it has not reversed the territorial result. The current test is whether negotiations convert M23’s military gains into a durable political-security arrangement or merely pause the next campaign.
Failed demobilization and citizenship disputes
M23 emerged from earlier rebel formations and says Congo failed prior agreements. Tutsi identity, citizenship and land claims remain mobilized by all sides.
Weak state and war economy
Mineral wealth, informal taxation and inaccessible terrain sustain armed groups while abusive state and militia behavior erodes trust.
How this war reached its current phase
Regional wars
The Rwandan genocide’s aftermath contributes to two Congo wars and durable cross-border armed networks.
First M23 rebellion
M23 briefly takes Goma, then is defeated and signs an agreement.
M23 resurgence
The group returns with stronger capabilities and expands across North Kivu.
Goma and Bukavu fall
M23 seizes the east’s two largest cities, transforming the conflict.
Ceasefire erodes
Pro-government forces continue an offensive in the South Kivu highlands while M23 expands control in southern Masisi and fighting continues along the RN2 corridor despite peace talks.
02
Interactive operational picture
Pressure points and lines of control
Choose a map layer, then tap the numbered points to understand why each place matters.
GEOGRAPHIC BASEM23 theater in the eastern KivusAssessment: September 8, 2026
Side A / coalition Side B / opposition Active / contested Aid / access
Selected pressure point
Goma
M23’s principal political and logistical prize on the Rwandan border.
Generalized public-source influence map. It separates the M23 theater from other eastern Congolese armed-group conflicts only imperfectly. Boundaries use Natural Earth public-domain geography. Control overlays are generalized editorial estimates from the report's cited public sources and are not suitable for navigation, targeting or legal boundary claims.
03
Order of battle
Who is fighting—and what each side needs
Side A
DRC government coalition
FARDC, allied Wazalendo militias, Burundian support and other armed partners
- Political objective
- Restore sovereignty, remove M23/Rwandan forces and reestablish administration in North and South Kivu.
- Principal advantage
- International recognition, national scale, external diplomatic pressure and access to state revenue.
- Binding constraint
- Command weakness, corruption, abusive auxiliaries, difficult terrain and loss of local tax bases.
Side B
AFC/M23 and Rwanda
M23-led AFC political-military coalition with direct Rwandan support alleged by UN experts and governments
- Political objective
- Hold strategic territory, protect claimed security/communal interests and force national political concessions.
- Principal advantage
- Superior local command, training, drones, logistics and proximity to Rwanda.
- Binding constraint
- Sanctions, occupation burden, local resistance and dependence on external backing.
04
Human cost
Casualties, without false precision
Rows may use different dates and definitions. They are not designed to be summed.
Party / populationKilledWoundedWhat the number misses
2025 M23 offensiveThousands of civiliansThousands
Reuters/CFR synthesis; urban fighting and inaccessible burial sites prevented a precise count.
Congolese forces and alliesUnknown; likely thousandsUnknown
Fragmented coalition and missing records make totals unreliable.
M23 / Rwandan forcesUnknownUnknown
Belligerent claims are not independently auditable.
Wider eastern DRCTens of thousands over decadesNot consolidated
M23 is only one of many conflicts; adding historical and current figures would double count.
Why estimates diverge
Restricted access, propaganda incentives, missing bodies, repeated injuries, different time windows and inconsistent treatment of fighters, auxiliaries and indirect deaths. The most honest answer is often a bounded range with a date.
05
Financial burden
What the war is costing each side
Direct military outlays are only one layer. We also track destroyed assets, lost output, disrupted trade and reconstruction.
Best available cost signalDefense spending tripled
World Bank economic update; conflict also closed revenue offices and widened the deficit.
High direction confidence basisCost stack
01 Military operations
02 Asset destruction
03 Lost economic output
04 Long-term care & reconstruction
06
Outcomes lab
What happens next?
Explore the base case across four horizons, then inspect the mutually exclusive near-term scenarios.
Base-case outlook · Medium-high confidence
1/4Talks continue while M23 retains the strategic cities; local violations are more likely than a total breakdown.
Selected scenario
0%
Frozen M23 autonomy
M23 retains de facto rule while talks defer final sovereignty.
Signals that would raise this probabilityLocal administration persists; border trade normalizes; national authorities do not return.
Probabilities are independent editorial estimates for the stated horizon and sum to 100%. They are not intelligence assessments or investment advice.
07
Paths out
Potential solutions—and why they fail
Path 01Essential
Rwanda–DRC verification mechanism
Mutual security steps: Rwandan withdrawal and end of M23 support matched to credible action against the FDLR.
Path 02Plausible
Local administration and rights compact
Return civil authorities, protect minorities and resolve land/citizenship disputes without embedding a rebel army.
Path 03Low
Military reconquest
Kinshasa retakes the Kivus by force.
08
Military science01 02 03 04
What this war is teaching
Preliminary lessons—not universal laws. Adversaries adapt, technologies interact with terrain, and survivorship bias is powerful.
Short logistics beat national scale
A small, well-supported force near a friendly border can outperform a larger but disorganized national army.
Proxy ambiguity protects escalation
Unacknowledged external troops and support complicate deterrence, sanctions and negotiation.
Cities create political facts
Capturing administrative and commercial hubs changes diplomacy even when countryside control is incomplete.
Militia coalitions carry strategic debt
Mobilizing abusive auxiliaries may slow an advance while weakening legitimacy and command discipline.
09
Answers in plain English
Frequently asked questions
Who is winning in eastern Congo?+
M23 and Rwanda are ahead militarily because they hold Goma, Bukavu and important corridors. Congo retains international recognition and wider national resources but has not reversed those gains.
Is Rwanda at war with Congo?+
Rwanda denies supporting M23 in the manner alleged. UN experts, Congo and multiple governments report direct Rwandan military support and troop presence, making the conflict interstate in substance even when formally indirect.
Is this war mainly about minerals?+
Minerals finance and incentivize armed control, but security fears, identity, land, citizenship, regional power and failed agreements are also causal. “It’s just minerals” is incomplete.
Would a peace deal end violence in eastern Congo?+
It could end the M23 front but not the wider ecosystem of ADF, CODECO, FDLR and local militias. Security reform and local governance are separate long-term tasks.
10
Evidence ledger
Core sources
Direct links used for the dated facts in this edition. Analysis also cross-checks open-source reporting across institutions.
01
Council on Foreign Relations · Updated Aug. 2026Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo
↗02Reuters · May 27, 2025Congo faces rising military costs
↗03World Bank · 2026DRC Economic Update
↗04Council on Foreign Relations / Reuters · Jul. 17, 2026UN Security Council sanctions expansion
↗05Critical Threats Project · Sep. 4, 2026Congo War Security Review
↗Editorial note
This report synthesizes public information available through September 8, 2026. Front lines and casualty totals can change before the page is updated. Forecasts are the site’s own probabilistic judgments, not claims made by the linked sources.