Andrew Korybko: American on Ethiopian payroll stokes Ethnic sentiments

In his recent article titled “Russia’s Balancing Act In The Horn Of Africa Is Challenged By The Region’s Security Dilemma,” Andrew Korybko, an American pseudo-political analyst whose recent email leaks exposed him as being on the payroll of certain Ethiopian warmongering elements, employs an old propaganda tactic of misdirection and academic camouflage.

Korybko, who claims to hold a Ph.D., invokes the academic concept of ‘International Relations Theory’ to disguise and give a false appearance of intellectual rigor to his article, repeatedly flaunting academically glossed terms such as the ‘Security Dilemma’, not for genuine scholarly inquiry but as a deceptive screen to lend a semblance of credibility to his propaganda.

Through those invocations, Korybko wants the readers of this particular article to believe that his primary focus is on the geopolitical predicament of Russia within the relational context of the Horn of Africa. In reality, his goal, which later becomes clear is to foment ethnic discord within Ethiopia and to scapegoat the domestic crises within Ethiopia using Eritrea.

However, even if one were to be duped into believing that his article is focused on Russia’s predicament, the verbiage and warped understanding of the concept of international relations, along with the obvious biases and contradictions that litter his discussion of Eritrean-Russian-Ethiopian relations, are so glaring that one cannot contemplate them without concluding that they are reading the work of an academic crook.

Warped understanding of Eritrea – Russia relations

For instance, Korybko claims that ‘Russian-Eritrean relations have only recently begun to blossom and lack the deep basis.’ On account of that, he then implies that if Russia were to choose between Ethiopia and Eritrea, it would choose Ethiopia, stating, ‘After all, Eritrea is a non-traditional partner with whom ties have only recently begun to blossom this past year‘.

He then concludes that this is due to ‘Asmara’s ties with Moscow not having anywhere near as deep of a basis as Addis’, before taking a commercial break, and urging his readers to look up a list of propaganda pieces published on his network of low-traffic web pages, where clickbait adverts occupying more space than content earn him passive income to supplement the remuneration from his Ethiopian hirers.

The rest of the article’s discussion of the so-called security dilemma focuses entirely on Eritrea’s alleged misinterpretation of Russia’s actions and downplays Ethiopia’s role. This blatant bias not only reveals Andrew Korybko’s intent of portraying Eritrea as the likely loser in any such counterbalancing scenario but also fits into his personal great power worldview.

This view is based on the idea of ‘great nations’ such as Russia and the US leading the world over those, he considers lesser, like Eritrea. So much so that he sees in Ethiopia a ‘great nation’ that can be patronized by the US and/or Russia as a regional hegemon in the Horn of Africa – perhaps the one point on which Korybkoand his Ethiopian hirers agree based on principle rather than on profit!

Still, Korybko’s shallow presupposition that Russia would sacrifice its mutually beneficial relationship with Eritrea—its most strategic bilateral relation in Africa within the geopolitical optics of the emerging multipolar world—because “Eritrea is a non-traditional partner with whom ties have only recently begun to blossom this past year” defies academic logic.

Not least, it ignores the evolving reality of international relations and the critical role of the leadership principle, one in which the Eritrean leader, President Isaias Afwerki, has earned the most respect and admiration for any African leader from Russia. Korybko’s rape of academic credentials to discredit Eritrea-Russian relation is therefore naïve, although not anywhere as ridiculous as his subsequent insinuations.

Parroting diversionary propaganda about seaport access

After parroting recent diversionary chatter by some Ethiopian leaders flouting provocative claims to ownership of sea ports belonging to neighboring countries by calling it ‘peaceful port plans,’ he then contradicts himself by suggesting the possibility of conflict over the same but blaming Eritrea.

Additionally, he attempts to internationalize the port issue by introducing the proposition of a Russian mediatory role, stating, “Any attempt that Russia might make to peacefully resolve the port dimension of the Horn’s security dilemma for the purpose of averting a future conflict over this sensitive issue could be misinterpreted by Eritrea as a means for Ethiopia to gain an edge at its expense.”

One sees a malevolent attempt at presenting the port issues as a serious matter belonging to the so-called “dimension of the Horn’s security dilemma”, despite the Eritrean leadership ignoring it with hardly any reply. However, Korybko’s insinuation that ownership of the Eritrean port is negotiable and that Ethiopia’s claims to it, are consistent with international law, is what really leaves one wondering which rubbish pit Ethiopian pay masters picked this academic fool from.

He concludes his academic misdemeanor with an attempt at internationalizing the issue by drawing in Russia as a potential mediator through the rather naive assumption that Russia, currently conducting a military operation to preemptively neutralize risks to Russian territorial integrity, would entertain anything that questions Eritrean territorial integrity. It is the kind of presumption that would be deemed so crassly flawed by the lowest standards of common sense, but the so-called Ph.D. holder pathetically presents it as an academic deduction.

Overall, Andrew Korybko’s academic distortions of the Eritrea-Russian relationship, based on the premises of the ‘International Relations Theory,’ are numerous. However, as I implied earlier, this is merely one-half of the propaganda hit piece. The other half involves using the discussion of the so-called Russian dilemma as a facade beneath which to spew targeted propaganda talking points aimed at stoking ethnic sentiments in Ethiopia while scapegoating it using Eritrea.

Stoking ethnic division against Amhara in Ethiopia

A careful examination of the article reveals how he cunningly slots in and parrots, almost as afterthoughts, at least three more propaganda talking points predicted by previous leaks about his hire job. This is where the article’s mask falls, and the vile intention of its malevolent author, now a daily feature on Ethiopian national media—print, social, and television— becomes clear: to lend an academic veneer to ethnically driven propaganda talking points assigned by his paymasters.

Reading the article, the insinuations are so crass; one is tempted to pass them over with a shrug of the shoulders as merely rubbish expected from a pseudo-political analyst whose pay-per-article contract is a source of livelihood. However, it is not merely harmless nonsense; it’s a malevolent misrepresentation of relational inter-ethnic and inter-state dynamics that in their essentials, belong to the political phenomenon critical for the unity of Ethiopia and the stability of the Horn of Africa.

Internationalizing Amhara Civil War

The first notable talking point that Andrew Korybko silently weaves into his propaganda discourse against Eritrea is the claim that Eritrea is involved in destabilizing Ethiopia. Although he does not specifically mention the ongoing civil war in the Amhara region, it is clear what he means when he says, ‘Some Ethiopians have begun to suspect that Eritrea might have secretly resumed its former policy of backing their country’s armed anti-government groups.’ What “former policy” is that? How true is it? Any keen reader who contemplates these questions cannot, but see how Korybko seamlessly inserts a monotonous allegation as a settled fact.

Besides that, notice his use of ‘armed anti-government groups’ in the same breath. This is clearly a reference to FANO forces, the resistance forces of the Amhara region currently waging a defensive war and increasingly seen as championing a national Ethiopian cause. Andrew Korybko here attempts to link them to Eritrea to internationalize the Amhara conflict and, in line with his paymaster’s instructions, further divert attention from the legitimate demands of the Amhara people that are at the core of their resistance struggle.

Cessation of Hostilities Agreement

In the same breath, Andrew Korybko writes about the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COHA), in such a manner as to parrot the wrong perception that Eritrea had any issues with the agreement. “PM Abiy’s Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COHA) with the TPLF was likely considered by PIA to be a betrayal after he was caught off guard by this deal…” he says. This is an obvious distortion of facts as anyone who followed the optics of that war knows the key role that Eritrea played in compelling the belligerent TPLF to the negotiating table, resulting in the COHA.

Doesn’t Korybko know that? Of course, he does. But when you are paid handsomely to be stupid, the result is that you lose all scruples. He says no more than that line on the matter of the COHA, but I can predict, knowing the propaganda hit job description his Ethiopian paymasters gave him, that Korybko will, in upcoming articles, delve into the COHA.

He will regurgitate the claims by his paymasters bedeviling the Amhara, attempting to water down the legitimate fears and demands of the Amhara regarding the implementation of the COHA, arguing that the key provisions of the COHA have been successfully implemented, that other regions like Tigray and Afar have acted accordingly, and that only the Amhara are rebelling!

Final Word

A growing number of articles and video analyses by non-Africans, led by Andrew Korybko, posturing as “international political analysts,” are now prominently featured in Ethiopian state media, both in print and on television. Until recently, their propaganda was mostly published on random low-value websites with little to no traffic that, despite appearing independent, are actually centrally coordinated by the same non-Africans to disseminate their works, creating the illusion of extensive coverage and credibility.

As revealed in recent email leaks, these non-Africans are on the payroll of certain elements in Ethiopia and have been tasked with rationalizing, manipulating, and shaping public opinion in Ethiopia. The underlying premise is that if such validation comes from individuals with white faces, it is more readily accepted by the average Ethiopian. This fact becomes apparent when considering, for example, the recent Red Sea issue that has been circulating in the Horn of Africa.

Almost all those downplaying, rationalizing, and validating provocative claims by some Ethiopian leaders regarding Eritrean ports, thereby risking an inter-state war, are non-Africans. This includes those who had previously portrayed themselves as acting in the region’s interest. The convergence of these several non-Africans points to a deep conspiracy aimed at turning Ethiopia against Eritrea. Beware African.

Going forward, we should not lend even a shred of credibility to Korybko’s propagandist articles and videos. Still, it is crucial to continuously expose the malevolent plans that he and his network of hired non-Africans are orchestrating to deceive unsuspecting Africans and foster discord among us. Hopefully, Ethiopians whom they have been hired to manipulate and condition into adopting an ethnically driven posture against each other, particularly against the Amhara, won’t fall for the vile swindles of these non-African crooks.