👏 The chairman of the
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee has expressed serious concern
over reports that a training center linked to the United Arab
Emirates has been established in Ethiopia for Sudan’s Rapid Support
Forces, with possible supply routes passing through Somaliland.
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said in
a post on X on Tuesday that he was troubled by allegations of a
UAE-linked training hub in Ethiopia for what he described as
“genocidal RSF thugs,” and by claims that supplies and weapons
may be routed through the port of Berbera in Somaliland.
“These moves would be
escalatory and further reason to designate the RSF as a Foreign
Terrorist Organization, bringing consequences for this regional proxy
support,” Risch wrote.
He said such actions could
further destabilize the Horn of Africa and add to the case for
formally labeling the RSF as a foreign terrorist organization, a
designation that would carry significant political and criminal
implications under U.S. law.
The statement comes amid
mounting international scrutiny of the RSF, a powerful paramilitary
force locked in a brutal conflict with Sudan’s army. The group has
been accused by rights organizations and foreign governments of
serious human rights abuses and acts of genocide, particularly in
Sudan’s Darfur region.
There has been no official
response from Somaliland, Ethiopia or the United Arab Emirates to
Risch’s remarks.
The UAE has previously faced
accusations of supplying weapons and military equipment to the RSF,
including claims that shipments passed through Bosaso port in
Somalia’s Puntland region. The UAE has repeatedly denied providing
military support to the militia.
In November 2025, Somalia’s
defense minister, Ahmed Moallim Fiqi, confirmed before the Upper
House that aircraft had flown from Bosaso to Sudan, marking the first
official acknowledgment from Mogadishu following widespread
speculation about the flights’ purpose. Fiqi said the federal
government was aware of the flights but did not know what cargo they
carried or who operated them.
Somalia’s relations with the
UAE have been strained in recent years. Mogadishu nullified security
and port agreements with Abu Dhabi, leading to a suspension of formal
security cooperation between the two countries.
The allegations emerge at a time
when the international community is closely monitoring the
involvement of foreign actors in Sudan’s war, which has drawn in
regional and global powers.
👹
The
Genocidal Babylon Arab Emirates (UAE) Will be Destroyed Soon | ኤሚራቶች
ትጠፋለች
An investigation into how Jeffrey Epstein’s tentacles reached
Ethiopia, and what it reveals about power, complicity, and the global
reckoning with sexual predation.
In the grand tradition of British scandals involving the powerful and
the predatory, the Jeffrey Epstein affair has proven to be the gift
that keeps on giving—or rather, taking. As the US Department of
Justice released millions of documents related to the convicted sex
trafficker and financier, Britons watched with grim familiarity as
two of their own, Lord Peter Mandelson and Prince Andrew, found
themselves ensnared in the lengthening shadow of Epstein’s crimes.
For Ethiopians and East Africans, however, the revelations have taken
on a peculiar local dimension: their country appears in approximately
334 of the released documents, raising uncomfortable questions about
who knew what, and when.
The British experience offers a cautionary tale. Lord Mandelson, the
Labour grandee and former EU trade commissioner, has faced renewed
scrutiny over his association with Epstein, leading to swift
rejection of his potential appointment as US ambassador and intense
public opprobrium. Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, has become a
pariah within his own family, stripped of royal duties and forced to
settle a civil sexual abuse case brought by Virginia Giuffre for a
reported £12 million. Both men’s falls from grace illustrate a
crucial shift in public tolerance: proximity to a convicted
paedophile is no longer merely unfortunate it is damning.
For Ethiopia, a nation already grappling with internal conflicts,
economic challenges, and questions of governance, the Epstein
connection represents yet another unwelcome international
embarrassment. But it also raises profound questions about how
predators like Epstein exploited developing nations, and whether
enough is being done to investigate his network in Africa.
Britain’s reckoning with the Epstein scandal has been particularly
visceral, perhaps because it touches upon enduring anxieties about
privilege, power, and paedophilia within the establishment. Lord
Mandelson’s association with Epstein reportedly introduced through
mutual connections in elite circles—has proven politically toxic.
Despite his protestations that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s
crimes during their acquaintance, the court of public opinion has
rendered its verdict. His nomination as ambassador to Washington was
effectively dead on arrival, with both Conservative and Labour
figures expressing alarm.
The Mandelson affair echoes the Prince Andrew debacle but with
notable differences. Whilst Andrew’s relationship with Epstein was
documented through photographs, flight logs, and eventually legal
testimony, Mandelson’s connection appears more tangential, dinners,
social gatherings, the sort of networking that defines elite circles.
Yet in the post-Epstein era, such distinctions matter less than they
once might have. The question is no longer “Did you know?” but
“Should you have known?” and increasingly, “Why didn’t you
ask?”
Prince Andrew’s trajectory from the Queen’s favourite son to
virtual exile illustrates the mechanism of social rejection in real
time. The now-infamous BBC Newsnight interview in November 2019, in
which he claimed he couldn’t have been at a nightclub with Virginia
Giuffre because he was at Pizza Express in Woking and suffered from a
medical condition preventing him from sweating, became a masterclass
in self-immolation. Public revulsion was swift and comprehensive.
Corporate sponsors fled. Charities distanced themselves. The military
stripped him of honorary titles.
What united both men’s downfalls was their association with a man
whose crimes were, by 2008, a matter of public record. Epstein’s
initial conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor, a
sweetheart plea deal that saw him serve just 13 months, should have
ended his social acceptability. That it didn’t speaks to the power
of wealth, influence, and the willingness of elites to overlook
uncomfortable truths.
Epstein’s 2019 arrest on federal charges of sex trafficking minors
and his subsequent death by apparent suicide in a Manhattan jail cell
merely confirmed what investigators had long suspected: his earlier
conviction represented only a fraction of his crimes. The subsequent
releases of court documents, flight logs from his private jet (dubbed
the “Lolita Express”), and now the DOJ files have painted a
portrait of industrial-scale sexual exploitation involving girls as
young as 14.
Yet the released documents reveal something far more disturbing than
the already horrific sex trafficking operation. Buried within
thousands of pages are references to Epstein’s fascination with
eugenics, transhumanism, and what can only be described as a God
complex that would make Lucifer himself envious. Witnesses and
associates described Epstein’s interest in using his New Mexico
ranch to seed the human race with his DNA, impregnating multiple
women to create a “superior” bloodline a scheme that echoes the
darkest chapters of 20th-century pseudoscience.
The files contain disturbing allegations that extend beyond sexual
abuse into territory that seems almost mediaeval in its barbarity.
Court testimonies reference Epstein’s circle discussing practices
that blur the line between scientific experimentation and occult
ritual. One particularly harrowing account describes conversations
about cellular regeneration theories and the procurement of
biological materials from young victims allegations that, whilst
unproven in court, paint a portrait of a man whose depravity knew no
bounds.
Whether these represent literal truths or the exaggerations of
traumatised witnesses struggling to articulate unspeakable
experiences, they underscore a crucial point: Jeffrey Epstein was not
merely a sex offender but a man who believed himself above natural
and moral law. His interest in cutting-edge science, from artificial
intelligence to genetics, was inseparable from his conviction that
wealth and intellect entitled him to treat human beings, particularly
young girls, as experimental subjects. This, then, was the “Lucifer”
that Professor Berhanu Nega might have unwittingly invoked.
The revelation that Berhanu Nega, now Ethiopia’s Minister of
Education, received scholarship funding from Jeffrey Epstein takes on
an almost prophetic irony given the professor’s own public
statements. During his years in opposition to the Ethiopian People’s
Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) government, Nega famously
declared that he would “work with Lucifer himself” if it meant
overthrowing the regime he despised.
It was not mere rhetoric. Nega’s political journey has been one of
scorched-earth pragmatism. Having left the United States, where he
held academic positions, he took the extraordinary step of accepting
Eritrean citizenship to wage an armed insurgency against the
Ethiopian government. His organisation, Ginbot 7, launched attacks
from Eritrean territory, making common cause with one of Africa’s
most repressive regimes a government that has held no elections since
independence in 1993 and operates what human rights organisations
have described as an open-air prison.
The insurgency failed militarily but succeeded in keeping Nega
relevant. When Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power in 2018, Nega
was among the formerly exiled opposition figures welcomed back to
Addis Ababa. His transformation from armed rebel to Minister of
Education was swift and, to many observers, bewildering. That he now
oversees the education of Ethiopia’s children whilst having
received funding from a convicted paedophile strikes many Ethiopians
as a cosmic joke in exceptionally poor taste.
Nega has maintained that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes
when he received the scholarship funding in the early 2000s. This is
plausible, Epstein’s 2008 conviction came later, and his ability to
maintain a veneer of respectability amongst academics was
well-documented. Yet the symbolic resonance remains inescapable: a
man who vowed to work with Lucifer did, in fact, accept money from
perhaps the closest thing to a living embodiment of evil that modern
America has produced.
The question now confronting Nega and the Ethiopian government is
whether historical ignorance absolves present responsibility. Should
a Minister of Education, responsible for safeguarding children,
remain in post whilst associated, however tangentially, with the
world’s most notorious child sex trafficker?
The Epstein connection to Ethiopia becomes more disturbing when
examined alongside recent developments in the country’s digital
infrastructure. According to documents circulating amongst civil
liberties advocates and technology researchers, the Ethiopian
government has harvested DNA and biometric data from approximately
five million children as part of a digital identity programme. The
initiative, ostensibly designed to improve access to education and
health services, has raised alarm bells amongst data protection
experts.
What transforms this from a concerning privacy issue into a potential
Epstein connection is the funding architecture. Investigative
journalists have identified links between the biometric programme and
funding arrangements involving entities connected to Epstein’s
network of technology investments. Moreover, contracts with United
Arab Emirates-based businesses, some of which appear in the periphery
of the Epstein files, suggest a complex web of financial
relationships that demand scrutiny.
The UAE connection is particularly troubling. Epstein maintained
extensive business relationships in the Gulf states, where privacy
laws and less stringent regulatory oversight provided convenient
cover for questionable transactions. That Ethiopian government
contracts for biometric data collection involving children might flow
through similar channels raises urgent questions.
To be clear: there is no evidence of direct Epstein involvement in
Ethiopia’s digital ID programme, which postdates his death. But the
pattern is familiar developing nations desperate for technological
advancement and foreign investment, complex funding arrangements
involving offshore entities, and programmes that collect sensitive
biological data from vulnerable populations. These are precisely the
conditions that predators like Epstein exploited.
The collection of children’s DNA in particular evokes Epstein’s
documented fascination with genetics and eugenics. His stated desire
to “seed the human race” with his genetic material, his funding
of research into human longevity and enhancement, and his connections
to the transhumanist movement all suggest a man obsessed with
biological manipulation on a grand scale.
For five million Ethiopian children to have their genetic information
collected and stored in databases accessible to foreign contractors
recalls the darkest elements of the Epstein files. What safeguards
exist to prevent this data being sold, shared, or exploited? Who has
access? What purposes, beyond the stated administrative ones, might
it serve?
These questions acquire particular urgency given Ethiopia’s
political instability and history of surveillance. The EPRDF
government, which Nega spent years fighting, was notorious for its
extensive security apparatus. The current government under Abiy Ahmed
has shown little inclination toward greater transparency or respect
for privacy rights. The Tigray conflict demonstrated the willingness
to use technology, including telecommunications shutdowns, as weapons
of war.
The majority of Ethiopian references in the released documents relate
to market intelligence reports that Epstein commissioned from
consultants, suggesting he had, or was considering, investments in
the country. One confirmed investment was iCog Labs, an artificial
intelligence research laboratory co-founded by Ben Goertzel, a
prominent AI researcher, and Getnet Aseffa. The emails reveal
Goertzel’s energetic cultivation of Epstein as a funder, with
repeated assurances that “the guys” in Ethiopia were doing
“amazing things”, the sort of vague enthusiasm that signals
either genuine excitement or, more cynically, the massaging of a
wealthy patron’s ego.
The iCog Labs connection is particularly relevant because it
illustrates Epstein’s modus operandi in respectable society. By
positioning himself as a patron of cutting-edge scientific research,
he also funded Harvard University’s Programme for Evolutionary
Dynamics and MIT’s Media Lab, Epstein purchased legitimacy.
Scientists and academics who accepted his funding found themselves in
an impossible position after his crimes became undeniable: return the
money and acknowledge poor judgment, or keep it and face accusations
of complicity.
Given Epstein’s documented interest in artificial intelligence,
genetics, and human enhancement, his funding of an AI laboratory in
Ethiopia takes on sinister overtones. Was this genuine philanthropic
interest in African technological development, or was Ethiopia, with
its limited regulatory oversight and desperate need for investment,
an attractive location for research that might face ethical
objections elsewhere?
More colourful, if less consequential, are the emails from Shaher
Abdulhak, a Yemeni billionaire who died in 2020 and who addressed
Epstein as “cousin brother” a term of endearment that sounds
rather less charming in English than presumably intended. Abdulhak’s
pitches to Epstein included the gloriously ill-conceived idea of
creating an energy drink from khat (a stimulant plant chewed across
the Horn of Africa and Yemen) mixed with lemon juice to compete with
Red Bull.
More seriously, Abdulhak sought a $20 million loan for National
Tobacco Enterprise Ethiopia, claiming his Sheba Investment Company
owned 60% of it. Whether Epstein provided the funds remains unclear,
though the brazen nature of the request speaks to the casual
corruption that characterised elite interactions with the financier.
Buried in the correspondence is one email that transforms the
Ethiopian connection from merely embarrassing to potentially
sinister. In a message apparently sent to Abdulhak, Epstein mentioned
that a “good friend who runs a modelling agency” believed there
were “interesting girls” in Ethiopia.
In isolation, this phrase might be innocuous. In context, an email
from a convicted sex offender who trafficked underage girls
internationally, it becomes chilling. The term “interesting girls”
echoes the euphemistic language Epstein and his associates used to
discuss recruitment of victims. Modelling agencies, legitimate and
otherwise, have long been identified as potential vectors for
exploitation, offering young women from impoverished backgrounds
promises of international careers whilst potentially exposing them to
abuse.
Court documents from Epstein’s trials reveal a recruitment pattern
that was both systematic and global. Victims were often approached
through seemingly legitimate channels, modelling scouts, educational
programmes, employment opportunities, before being groomed and
trafficked. The operation relied on local recruiters who understood
cultural contexts and could identify vulnerable targets.
Ethiopia, with its poverty, limited opportunities for young women,
and a culture where deference to wealthy foreigners remains common,
would have been an ideal hunting ground. That Epstein’s private jet
received permission to land in Ethiopia, and that he mentioned
visiting the country in correspondence with Steve Bannon, confirms he
had physical presence there.
There is no direct evidence in the released documents that Epstein
trafficked Ethiopian girls or engaged in criminal conduct within
Ethiopia. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,
particularly when so much of Epstein’s operation was deliberately
hidden. Victims have described being trafficked to numerous
countries, being flown on his private jets to locations where their
passports were confiscated and they were kept in conditions
resembling sexual slavery.
For Ethiopian law enforcement and civil society, these revelations
demand investigation. If Epstein visited Ethiopia, whom did he meet?
Were any young Ethiopian women recruited through his network? Did any
of his associates, the modelling agency friend, for instance, operate
in the country?
The reaction amongst Ethiopians and East Africans to the Epstein
revelations has been complex, reflecting broader ambivalences about
corruption, foreign influence, and accountability. On social media
and in diaspora communities, there is genuine anger, not merely at
Epstein, but at the Ethiopian individuals and institutions that
enabled his presence.
The revelation about Berhanu Nega has proven particularly divisive.
His supporters argue that accepting scholarship funding from Epstein
over two decades ago, before the full extent of his crimes was
publicly known, represents an unfortunate association rather than
complicity. His critics counter that a man who vowed to work with
Lucifer cannot now claim shock at having done precisely that.
The controversy has reignited broader questions about Nega’s
judgment and principles. His acceptance of Eritrean citizenship to
fight Ethiopia, making common cause with a regime at least as
repressive as the EPRDF he opposed, already raised eyebrows. His
seamless transition from armed insurgent to government minister
suggested a pragmatism that borders on opportunism. The Epstein
connection adds another troubling layer.
Yet there is also a strain of fatalism in East African responses, a
sense that corruption and exploitation by wealthy foreigners is
simply business as usual. Ethiopia has long experience with foreign
actors from colonial powers to modern corporations and NGOs
extracting value whilst leaving minimal benefit. In this reading,
Epstein is merely the latest in a long line of predators, and
focusing on him distracts from structural problems.
This cynicism, whilst understandable, is dangerous. It normalises
exploitation and discourages the accountability mechanisms necessary
to prevent future abuses. The global reckoning with Epstein’s
crimes has demonstrated that exposure and prosecution are possible,
albeit belatedly.
The convergence of Epstein’s eugenic obsessions with Ethiopia’s
biometric data collection programme represents a thoroughly modern
nightmare. Epstein’s interest in “improving” the human race
through selective breeding was, at least in his expressed ambitions,
constrained by biology how many women could he impregnate? But
contemporary genetic databases and artificial intelligence offer
possibilities that would have seemed like science fiction even a
decade ago.
The five million Ethiopian children whose DNA has been harvested now
exist as data points in systems whose full capabilities and access
protocols remain opaque. In the wrong hands, such databases could
enable precisely the sort of genetic manipulation and selection that
Epstein fantasised about. Even in benign hands, the data represents
extraordinary value pharmaceutical companies pay enormous sums for
genetic information from diverse populations.
That contracts related to this programme involve UAE-based entities
with peripheral connections to Epstein’s network may be
coincidental. But given the pattern of Epstein’s investments,
artificial intelligence in Ethiopia, genetic research globally,
transhumanist projects, the possibility of intentional targeting
cannot be dismissed.
The Ethiopian government’s response to questions about data
security has been, at best, inadequate. Officials tout the benefits
of digital identity whilst providing few details about encryption,
access controls, or international data-sharing agreements. For a
government that has demonstrated willingness to use technology
repressively, and which employs a Minister of Education who received
funding from a paedophile eugenicist, assurances ring hollow.
What the Epstein files ultimately reveal, whether the references are
to Britain, Ethiopia, or the dozens of other jurisdictions touched by
his crimes, is the banality of elite evil. Epstein was not a Bond
villain operating from a secret lair. He was a fixture of respectable
society, funding university departments, advising the wealthy,
socialising with princes and presidents.
His crimes were enabled not by exotic conspiracy but by the mundane
mechanisms of wealth and power: the assumption that rich men deserve
privacy, the reluctance to ask awkward questions of generous donors,
the willingness to overlook earlier convictions in exchange for
access and funding.
For Ethiopia, the lessons are particularly stark. When Professor
Berhanu Nega vowed to work with Lucifer himself to achieve his
political aims, he articulated a principle, that ends justify means,
which is fundamentally corrupting. Whether he knowingly accepted
money from a monster is less important than his demonstrated
willingness to do so. That such a man now oversees the education of
Ethiopia’s children, whilst his government harvests their genetic
data through murky international contracts, should alarm anyone
concerned with child welfare.
The parallels with Britain’s experience are instructive. Lord
Mandelson and Prince Andrew discovered that wealth, title, and power
provide no immunity from public judgment when the crimes are
sufficiently heinous and the association sufficiently close. Both
have been effectively exiled from polite society, their legacies
permanently tarnished.
👹
EPSTEIN PROVES EYES WIDE SHUT WAS REAL!
Ethiopian figures connected to Epstein deserve similar scrutiny. The
fact that Ethiopia is poorer than Britain, that its media
infrastructure is weaker, that competing crises demand attention none
of these absolve the moral responsibility to investigate and, where
appropriate, demand accountability.
As more files are released and investigations continue, the full
extent of Epstein’s Ethiopian connections may become clearer. For
now, Ethiopians are left with uncomfortable questions, partial
answers, and the knowledge that their country appeared on the radar
of one of history’s most prolific sexual predators a man whose
interests in genetics, artificial intelligence, and young girls may
have found fertile ground in a nation desperate for investment and
incapable of effective oversight.
If Berhanu Nega truly made a Faustian bargain, working with his
Lucifer to achieve power, the devil has certainly had his due. The
question now is whether Ethiopia’s children will pay the price for
their elders’ moral compromises. With five million of them reduced
to data points in databases connected, however tenuously, to a dead
paedophile’s trans humanist fantasies, the answer may already be
written in code we’ve yet to fully decrypt.
☪ The Union of Ishmael
and Esau that is shaking the world continues!
❖ People of the flesh are united in persecuting those of the
spirit!
👹 Emails released in the Epstein Files by the US Department
of Justice (DoJ) reveal that Emirati diplomat Hind Al-Owais was in
regular contact with convicted paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey
Epstein, arranging meetings with a number of “girls” and even her
younger sister.
Hind Al-Owais, a prominent diplomat from the UAE, has been mentioned
469 times in the Epstein Files. Al-Owais is currently the Director of
the UAE Permanent Committee for Human Rights (PCHR).
Email exchanges between her and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein
in 2011 and 2012 appear to arrange meet-ups directly with Epstein,
along with her minor-aged sister.
One email from January 2012 shows Al-Owais writing to Epstein:
“Getting one girl ready is difficult enough, two girls, you can
certainly call a challenge.”
Epstein’s calendar and messages, as seen
in his email exchanges, show repeated coordination with Al-Owais,
including comments about introducing her sister.
In one email from Al-Owais to Epstein, she wrote: “Hi, already in
discussion with [redacted] on time – I am so excited to see you and
introduce you to my sister – she is even prettier than me!”
Another email read: “My sister is here and I have told her so much
about you… I want her to meet you… let me know when!”
Epstein replied asking Al-Owais if she could come to lunch with them
on a Saturday.
The files also reveal that Hind Al-Owais’ sister is called Hala,
although no verified public information has been made available about
her.
Emiratis in
the Epstein Files
Al-Owais appears frequently at public conferences to speak about
human rights, particularly women’s rights. In one speech, she said:
“Investing in women is not only the right thing to do, but it’s
also the smart thing to do. It’s a strategic choice that I’d like
to present to you at this conference. Investing in women.”
The Epstein Files do not suggest that Epstein helped her secure her
UN role, but the timing of Al-Owais securing her position raises
questions about her career advancement, as Epstein was known to
assist those around him through his powerful international network.
Al-Owais was the first Emirati to hold the position of senior adviser
at the UN headquarters in New York since 1971. On a public biography
platform for notable Arabs, she is described as working “primarily
to ensure that gender considerations are integrated into the
implementation of internationally agreed Sustainable Development
Goals.”
Various other
Emirati
individuals have been implicated in the Epstein Files.
One of the most prominent
figures is Emirati billionaire businessman Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem,
who is mentioned 336 times and is known to have had a close
relationship with Epstein, even after Epstein was convicted as a
child sex offender.
Sulayem was
pictured at Epstein’s residence looking over the Kiswa (the unholy
covering of the Kaaba), as well as making Islamophobic jokes about
Muslims “blowing themselves up”. He also reportedly sent torture
videos to Epstein, according to their email correspondence.
Another notable
figure linked to the UAE is UAE-based businesswoman Aziza Al-Ahmadi,
who controversially sent Epstein the Kiswa to his home.
👹
The
Genocidal Babylon Arab Emirates (UAE) Will be Destroyed Soon | ኤሚራቶች
ትጠፋለች
💭 A Reuters investigation reveals that the genocidal Oromo
Islamic regime of Ethiopia built a secret military training camp in
the Benishangul-Gumuz region near Assosa to train fighters from
Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF). According to sources and
satellite imagery, the camp may have hosted thousands of RSF fighters
amid Sudan’s ongoing civil war.
This report explores the location, regional implications, and
international reactions to the allegations, including concerns about
security along the Ethiopia–Sudan border and the wider impact on
East Africa’s stability.
The fascist Oromo Islamic regime of Ethiopia is secretly training
thousands of fighters for the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary
group, which is involved in Sudan’s civil war. This marks the first
direct evidence of Genocidal Abiy Ahmed's and UAE's role in the
conflict, providing the RSF with a significant number of new soldiers
amid escalating violence in southern Sudan.
Reports indicate that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) financed the
construction of this training camp and supplied military trainers and
other support, though the UAE denied any involvement in the
hostilities.
Reports state that as many as 4,300 RSF fighters are currently
receiving training at the camp in Ethiopia’s Benishangul-Gumuz
region, near the Sudanese border, with logistical and military
supplies coming from the UAE. This information comes from various
official sources and is supported by satellite imagery indicating
recent construction activity at the camp, including a drone ground
control station.
The recruits at the camp mostly consist of Ethiopian citizens, as
well as individuals from South Sudan and Sudan, including members of
the SPLM-N rebel group. It is reported that some recruits have
already crossed into Sudan to fight alongside the RSF. The Ethiopian
National Defense Force’s Chief of Defense Intelligence, General
Getachew Gudina, is said to have overseen the establishment of the
camp.
Sudanese army officials have accused the UAE of supplying weapons to
the RSF, a claim that U. N. experts and U. S. lawmakers have found
credible.
Construction
of the camp
The camp is located in Menge, about 20 miles from the border, at a
key point between two countries and South Sudan. Activity began in
April with forest clearing and the building of metal-roofed
structures. In October, the construction of tents started, leading to
a facility with a capacity for 10,000 fighters, according to a
diplomatic cable from November. The source of the cable remains
unnamed.
During October, officials noted trucks from Gorica Group, an Emirati
logistics company, heading towards the camp. Satellite images confirm
the timeline and show clearing activities followed by the placement
of tents starting in early November. An analysis indicated that the
camp could hold at least 2,500 people, based on the number of tents
observed. However, the analysis could not confirm the military nature
of the site.
By mid-November, new recruits were seen arriving at the camp, with
significant truck convoys transporting trainees. On November 17, a
column of 56 trucks with fighters was witnessed, followed by another
convoy a few days later. An image from November 24 showed large
trucks at the site, typically used by the Ethiopian military, but it
remains unverified what they were carrying.
Construction continued into late January, with new developments noted
in satellite images, including ongoing excavation work and the
arrival of construction machinery through Asosa. A senior Ethiopian
government official confirmed that work on the camp was still ongoing
but did not disclose future plans.
Asosa airport, located 33 miles from the camp, has seen new
construction since August 2025, including a new hangar and UAV ground
control station. The Ethiopian military plans to make the airport a
drone operation center among other drone facilities across Ethiopia.
This move is part of a strategy to strengthen defenses along the
western border with Sudan and to protect critical infrastructure like
the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).
Concerns have been raised about the camp’s proximity to the dam,
which is Africa’s largest hydroelectric project, as it could be at
risk if conflicts arise nearby. The camp is roughly 63 miles from the
dam. Experts believe that the airport’s upgrades are linked to the
increased presence of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the region,
aiding their supply lines from Sudan.
Funding for the airport refurbishment is believed to have come from
the UAE, although this has not been independently verified. Following
Abiy’s rise to power, the UAE has offered $3 billion in aid and
investments to Ethiopia, including funds aimed at alleviating the
country’s foreign currency crisis. In 2025, a memorandum of
understanding was signed between the UAE and Ethiopian air forces to
enhance both nations’ air and defense capabilities.
👹 Genocidal UAE Against African ♰ Christians of Ethiopia
