The European Union (EU) never fails to amaze with its selective outrage and performative diplomacy.

In the ongoing crisis in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the EU pretends to be an impartial mediator while actively fueling the very chaos it claims to condemn.

On January 25, 2025, the EU issued a press statement regarding the ongoing war in the eastern DRC.

It was a well-crafted document filled with strong words, hollow commitments, and an uncanny ability to ignore reality.

If diplomacy were an art form, this statement would be a masterpiece—hanging proudly in the museum of international hypocrisy.

At first glance, the EU appears deeply concerned. It "reaffirms its unwavering support for MONUSCO,” condemns "violations of international humanitarian law,” and demands that "all sides prioritize the protection of civilians.”

Noble sentiments, indeed. However, a deeper look reveals what is conspicuously absent: any mention of who is actually fueling the conflict, who is guilty of these abuses, and who is benefiting from this chaos.

Selective blindness: MONUSCO as a holy cow

The EU’s unwavering support for MONUSCO is stated in terms so strong that one might mistake the UN mission for an infallible deity.

Any attack against MONUSCO is "inexcusable,” yet there is no mention of MONUSCO’s direct collaboration with the FDLR, a génocidaire militia composed of remnants of the forces that committed the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda.

Perhaps the EU believes that peacekeeping means providing safe haven for war criminals and genocidaires?

Not a single word about MONUSCO’s failures over the last two decades. Not a word about how its presence has only ensured that the eastern DRC remains a playground for armed groups.

The mission has become an expensive, ineffective bureaucracy that occasionally fires tear gas at Congolese protestors but does little to curb the actual violence.

But of course, criticizing MONUSCO would require honesty—something the EU statement masterfully dodges.

In its latest statement—completely ignores the presence of European soldiers of fortune—former French Legionnaires, Romanians, Bulgarians and other unknowns.

These internationally illegal elements—are deeply embedded in the Congolese state’s military operations and work alongside the ragtag armed groups, including the genocidal FDLR.

Perhaps the most shocking part of the statement is its complete silence on the fact that MONUSCO has been operating alongside the FDLR.

A UN mission, supposedly dedicated to peace, fighting alongside a genocidal militia? Surely, this should be headline news! But the EU prefers not to notice. It’s easier that way.

If the EU were serious about peace, it would demand the immediate disbanding of the FDLR and the arrest of its leaders.

Instead, it asks for the "neutralization” of the group, which in diplomatic terms means absolutely nothing.

It’s the kind of word one uses when one wants to sound tough without actually committing to any action.

The EU’s soft words for a deadly problem

The statement expressed outrage for the capture of Minova by the rebels. Why is this capture a Big Deal? It is a mystery without a doubt.

The EU statement does not explain why the recent capture of Minova by the M23 and its allies is being treated as an international emergency.

What is so special about Minova? Why is its fall more alarming than the countless atrocities committed by the Congolese army (FARDC) and its allies, the FDLR and dubious militias?

Ah, but here’s the trick: the EU only raises the alarm when the Congolese government is losing.

When the FARDC and its FDLR partners are on the offensive, when they are massacring civilians and committing widespread atrocities, the EU suddenly finds itself unable to comment. The silence is deafening.

The EU "reiterates in unequivocal terms its condemnation of hate speech and xenophobia.” How bold! How courageous!

But where is the mention of who exactly is promoting this hate speech? Nowhere!

Where is the explicit condemnation of the Congolese government officials who have turned xenophobic rhetoric into state policy? Silence!

Where is the accountability for politicians who openly call for the extermination of Congolese Tutsis? Nothing!

Instead, the EU speaks in elusive, general terms, as if hate speech is some abstract concept floating in the air, rather than a coordinated campaign actively driving ethnic violence.

Nowhere in the statement is there any mention of the Congolese officials, media figures, and military leaders who have openly incited violence against Congolese Tutsis and Rwandans.

There’s no mention of government-backed militia groups hunting down civilians based on their ethnicity.

No condemnation of the infamous "Hutu Power” rhetoric that has been re-emerging in Kinshasa.

The EU’s statement treats hate speech as an abstract concept rather than a government-sponsored tool of war.

It’s almost as if the EU is terrified of naming names—probably because doing so would force them to take real action.

Instead, we get a vague moral statement that no one in Kinshasa will take seriously.

Try to imagine a fire department responding to an arson attack by releasing a statement that condemns "all instances of heat and flames.” That’s essentially what the EU has done here.

The PR agency for Kinshasa

This is no ordinary oversight. It’s a deliberate refusal to acknowledge uncomfortable truths, making the EU look less like an international body committed to peace and more like a public relations firm on retainer for Kinshasa.

The statement reads like a press release drafted in Kinshasa and given a final touch by Brussels.

The EU is eager to call for the withdrawal of Rwandan forces—despite no proof of Rwandan military presence in eastern DRC—but conveniently ignores the presence of European mercenaries fighting for Kinshasa.

The statement reaffirms the EU’s "full and steadfast support to the Luanda process” and calls for the resumption of negotiations.

This would be commendable—if the EU had even the slightest intention of pressuring the DRC government to actually engage in those negotiations.

President Félix Tshisekedi has spent years refusing to talk with M23, despite multiple agreements requiring him to do so.

Instead, he’s invested heavily in war rhetoric, blaming Rwanda for all his military failures, and cozying up to the very genocidal militia groups that are supposed to be neutralized.

And what does the EU say about this blatant violation of peace agreements? Nothing.

Instead, the EU focuses on the "withdrawal of Rwandan forces,” despite the fact that the biggest foreign actors in the DRC conflict are SADC troops, Burundian troops, and mercenaries—all fighting on behalf of Kinshasa.

But the EU avoids mentioning those inconvenient details. Because, once again, this statement isn’t about peace—it’s about making sure the DRC government feels supported in its reckless approach to the war.

Perhaps next time, the EU should just save itself the trouble and let Kinshasa write the statement for them. At least then, the hypocrisy wouldn’t be so painfully transparent.

The EU’s big stick: Empty threats

Finally, the EU warns that it "will consider all the tools at its disposal in order to hold accountable those responsible for sustaining armed conflict.”

This is a curious line. Because the biggest contributors to conflict in the DRC—the FARDC, the FDLR, and Kinshasa’s hate-preaching political class—are entirely absent from the EU’s threats.

So, who, exactly, is the EU planning to hold accountable? It’s not hard to guess.

The EU has a well-established pattern of placing sanctions on rebel groups like M23 while letting government-backed militias and genocidal forces off the hook.

If history is any guide, these "tools at its disposal” will be wielded selectively—against groups the DRC government wants eliminated, while the actual perpetrators of mass violence remain untouched.

Oh no! Not "all the tools”! Will the EU issue yet another strongly worded statement? Will it impose symbolic sanctions on mid-level commanders while ignoring the real power players?

The statement is so vague that it might as well be a horoscope reading: "Something will happen, and we might react to it, or we might not.”

The EU’s press release is a best example in saying a lot while meaning nothing. It is a carefully constructed exercise in avoidance—avoiding the hard questions, avoiding the uncomfortable truths, and above all, avoiding any action that might actually contribute to peace in the DRC.

It ignores the Congolese government’s complicity in war crimes, sidesteps MONUSCO’s failures, and treats the FDLR as if it were a minor inconvenience rather than a major source of violence.

It offers vague condemnations without naming names, and empty threats without any real follow-through.

If peace were built on dull words and meaningless statements, the EU would have solved the DRC crisis years ago.

But since reality requires more than just well-phrased condemnations, the war will go on—and the EU will continue issuing its elegantly useless press releases.

For anyone hoping to find a serious engagement with the realities on the ground, the statement was an exercise in diplomatic gymnastics—so careful in its wording that it managed to say everything and nothing at the same time.