Addis Ababa, August 13, 2026 (FMC) -— The illegal TPLF group has joined hands with Shabia and other extremist forces under an arrangement dubbed “Tsimdo,” an alliance riddled with political contradictions and driven by a destructive agenda. Rather than offering anything of value to the people of the Tigray region, this gathering of disparate forces is moving toward a wider crisis, placing the people it claims to champion in the path of renewed instability.
Tsimdo is not built on a common political vision, shared principles or the interests of the people. It is a convergence of forces brought together by hostility toward Ethiopia’s government and by a temporary calculation of power. Beneath its carefully assembled façade lies an uncomfortable reality: these forces have little in common beyond their desire to weaken the Ethiopian state and obstruct the country’s path toward peace and stability.
The alliance is, in essence, a gathering of old political thinking struggling to survive in a changing Ethiopia. Forces divided by ideology, political interests and even long-standing hostility have suddenly discovered a temporary common cause. Their unity is therefore less a partnership of conviction than a marriage of convenience, stitched together by political desperation.
As Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed recently pointed out, the emergence of such an alliance reflects the growing pressure on destructive forces as the government’s capacity to uphold the rule of law continues to strengthen. Faced with diminishing political space and declining influence, forces that once stood on opposing sides are now reaching across old fault lines in an attempt to preserve themselves.
The contradiction is impossible to miss. Forces that spent years distrusting, confronting and accusing one another have suddenly gathered under one umbrella, apparently convinced that their differences can be suspended long enough to pursue a common objective. But political arrangements built on temporary calculations rarely survive the weight of their own contradictions.
The history between the illegal TPLF and Eritrea alone exposes the fragility of this arrangement. For decades, the two forces existed within a bitter cycle of hostility and confrontation. Their sudden alignment therefore says less about reconciliation than it does about political expediency. When former adversaries discover common ground only after their influence begins to erode, the alliance deserves to be examined for what it is: a desperate attempt at political survival.
The same contradiction becomes even sharper when forces with entirely different interests are drawn into the same orbit. Egypt, for instance, has its own strategic calculations concerning Ethiopia, particularly the use of the Abbay River and the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Those interests do not automatically coincide with the objectives of domestic political forces. Yet Tsimdo appears willing to overlook these fundamental differences in the pursuit of a temporary alignment against Addis Ababa.
That willingness exposes the depth of the political opportunism behind the arrangement. Forces whose objectives and interests fundamentally diverge cannot suddenly manufacture a durable common cause simply by giving their coalition a name. A label cannot erase history, ideology or competing strategic interests.
Nor can propaganda transform contradictions into coherence. The forces gathered around Tsimdo have different political histories, different ambitions and different conceptions of power. Their shared hostility may bring them together for a moment, but hostility alone is too fragile a foundation on which to build a lasting political project.
The illegal TPLF’s participation is particularly revealing. A group that once claimed to speak for the people of the Tigray region now finds itself seeking partnerships with forces whose strategic interests may have little connection with the welfare of those very people. The contradiction is stark: the louder the claim of representing the public interest becomes, the more questionable the political choices made in its name appear.
This is ultimately where Tsimdo’s greatest weakness lies. Its members may temporarily coordinate, but they cannot escape the political contradictions that brought them together. They may share an opponent, but they do not share a coherent future. They may coordinate against Addis Ababa, but coordination against a common adversary is not the same as possessing a common political vision.
The alliance therefore resembles less a durable political force than a collection of actors attempting to hold one another together as their domestic influence weakens. As their strength inside Ethiopia diminishes, their turn toward increasingly extreme and improbable alliances becomes almost inevitable.
Yet Ethiopia’s trajectory is not determined by such temporary alignments. The country’s strengthening institutions, expanding economic activity and continuing pursuit of peace and stability represent a far broader and more enduring political direction. A fragile coalition assembled from forces divided by history and ideology cannot simply reverse that trajectory.
Tsimdo may exist on paper and may be amplified through political messaging, but its members carry too much historical hostility, ideological contradiction and political weakness to travel far together. What has been presented as an alliance is ultimately a desperate convergence of forces seeking to avoid political decline and regain relevance.
Its members may attempt to dress this convergence in political language, but the underlying calculation remains clear: survival first, principle later. And when an alliance is held together not by shared values or the interests of the people, but by a common fear of political irrelevance, its durability is already compromised.
The people of Ethiopia have seen this pattern before. Temporary alliances built around confrontation have repeatedly exacted their price from ordinary citizens. The country’s future cannot be held hostage to another political experiment assembled by forces that have little trust in one another and even less in common.
Tsimdo may call itself an alliance, but a collection of contradictory interests does not become a common cause merely by standing under one name. Its members may share a temporary objective, but their histories, ambitions and political contradictions remain. That is why this unholy convergence is unlikely to withstand the weight of reality—and why Ethiopia’s march toward greater stability and stronger rule of law cannot be halted by a hollow alliance born of political desperation.