In eastern DR Congo, where power is usually measured by how long a force can hold territory, the most consequential development this month was not an advance, but a withdrawal. On December 10, 2025, the AFC/M23 movement captured Uvira, a strategic city on the shores of Lake Tanganyika, following a swift progression through Kamanyola and Luvungi. The coalition opposing them—comprising the Congolese army, the Burundian army, and allied armed groups—collapsed rapidly. Yet just six days later, on December 16, AFC/M23 announced a unilateral withdrawal from the city, presenting it as a confidence-building measure in support of the Doha peace process, undertaken after engagement with U.S. mediators. ALSO READ: AFC/M23 facilitates safe return of Burundian refugees, urges reciprocity The movement’s trajectory toward Uvira followed a steady military arc. Starting from Bunagana, it advanced through Goma in January, Bukavu in February, and onward through key towns in South Kivu. These advances were not random expansions but measured responses to repeated ceasefire violations, aerial bombardments of civilian areas, and attacks on vulnerable communities, including the Banyamulenge. Despite periodic calls for dialogue, Kinshasa consistently favored military coalitions over political engagement. ALSO READ: DR Congo coalition continues targeted extermination campaign against Banyamulenge civillians – AFC/M23 The diplomatic context is critical. On December 4, Rwanda and DR Congo signed the Washington Accords, a bilateral framework focused on border security and economic cooperation. At its core was a clear obligation: the dismantling of FDLR, a Kinshasa-backed genocidal militia rooted in the legacy of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda and deeply entrenched in eastern DR Congo. The group’s continued presence constitutes a documented security threat not only to Rwanda, but to civilians across the region. ALSO READ: How the Washington Accords implementation is a do or die deal for the African continent What the Washington Accords were not designed to do was resolve DR Congo’s internal political conflict. That task belongs to the Doha process, which aims to facilitate direct engagement between Kinshasa and AFC/M23. Yet international reactions have often blurred these two tracks, folding DR Congo’s internal crisis into a Rwanda-centric narrative that obscures the distinct responsibilities embedded in each framework. ALSO READ: How Burundian troops in South Kivu sparked a distinct humanitarian crisis amid DR Congo’s wider war In this context, AFC/M23’s withdrawal from Uvira demonstrates a rare form of strategic discipline, one that finds an unlikely parallel in the philosophy of the legendary Japanese swordsman Miyamoto Musashi. Musashi, undefeated in more than 60 duels, is remembered less for the number of opponents he killed than for how his understanding of victory evolved. In his early years, triumph meant elimination. Later, as his mastery matured, he would overpower opponents completely. Disarming and immobilizing them, only to spare their lives and walk away. In The Book of Five Rings, Musashi teaches that true mastery lies not in excess force, but in control. Knowing when the contest is already decided. ALSO READ: Kagame draws a line in Washington. Security comes first, always AFC/M23’s decision to withdrawal from Uvira mirrors this logic. By stepping back after a clear battlefield success, the movement signaled that its objectives extend beyond territorial control. It is clear demonstration of power and peace. Rather than consolidating occupation, it redirected momentum toward the political arena, reinforcing Doha’s relevance at a moment when diplomacy risked being eclipsed by military escalation. It was an assertion that dominance on the ground does not preclude negotiation and that restraint can itself be a strategic tool. The AFC/M23 movement embodies peace and minority protection. To those indulging familiar power fantasies in the corridors of Washington and in Europe, the old arrogance of “we speak, you listen” that has long defined Global North dominance over the Global South, this moment is being badly misread. AFC/M23 is neither impulsive nor reactive. It is tactical, methodical, and has learned how to play the game with discipline and precision. And to the African enablers of Western dominance, those who carry deep, unexamined anti-Tutsi hatred and now celebrate under the illusion that AFC/M23 has finally been broken by external pressure, remain in that darkness if you must. But do not mistake restraint for defeat. ALSO READ: The truth they don’t want told: Rwanda, DR Congo, and 30 years of denial International responses to the withdrawal have revealed familiar asymmetries. Military actions by state forces that result in civilian harm or involve cooperation with sanctioned armed groups often provoke limited scrutiny. By contrast, when a non-state actor voluntarily exercises restraint after victory, skepticism prevails. Such imbalance undermines confidence-building efforts and discourages precisely the behavior international mediators claim to seek. Musashi warned that relentless aggression is often a sign of insecurity, not strength. The highest form of power, he argued, lies in control, over one’s opponent and over oneself. By that measure, AFC/M23’s decision to leave Uvira was not a retreat, but a demonstration of confidence that the military balance no longer required constant assertion. ALSO READ: Why genocide ideology doesn’t dissolve three decades after dispersion of genocidaires Whether this moment becomes a turning point now depends on reciprocity. The commitments embedded in the Washington Accords, particularly regarding FDLR, must be pursued with seriousness. The Doha talks require sustained, good-faith engagement with all Congolese stakeholders. And international actors must apply pressure evenly, recognizing restraint rather than dismissing it. Eastern DR Congo has witnessed countless victories that led only to renewed violence. What it sees far less often is a victor choosing to step back voluntarily. In Uvira, the sword was raised—and then deliberately lowered. In the discipline of power, that choice may matter more than the battle itself. The writer is a development and alternative financing strategist.
