The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Eritrea, Osman Saleh Mohammed, met on Thursday with the Acting Charge d’Affaires of the Embassy of the State of Qatar in Eritrea, Ghanem bin Mohamed Al Maadeed.

During the meeting in Asmara, the two sides discussed bilateral cooperation and ways to further strengthen relations between Eritrea and Qatar.

Both parties reportedly exchanged views on areas of mutual interest, with a focus on enhancing diplomatic engagement and future cooperation.

Due to its strategic location between the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean, Eritrea is increasingly viewed as a potential hub for trade, logistics, and regional infrastructure. This geographic position is contributing to the country attracting greater attention from international actors.

Reports indicate that economic contacts and discussions on possible cooperation in areas such as infrastructure, energy, and development are increasing. Observers see this as a sign of growing dynamism in the Horn of Africa.

International interest in the country’s long-term development is also rising, particularly in relation to regional stability and economic prospects.

Conclusion

Eritrea is expanding its international visibility and could play a more important role in the geopolitical landscape of the Red Sea in the future.

dangerous geopolitical trend is steadily emerging in the Horn of Africa — one that threatens not only regional stability, but also the foundational principles of international law and state sovereignty. Over the past several years, Ethiopia’s Prosperity Party under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has gradually shifted its political discourse from economic cooperation toward increasingly revisionist geopolitical ambitions.

What was initially presented as a discussion about economic access to the sea is now evolving into a broader ideological campaign targeting Eritrea’s territorial integrity and sovereign legitimacy.

The increasingly aggressive rhetoric of senior Prosperity Party officials reflects a deeply concerning trajectory. Statements regarding access to the Red Sea “by any means necessary” geopolitical doctrines such as the so-called “Two Waters Strategy” and public references to historical occupation models collectively indicate that elements within the Ethiopian leadership are attempting to normalize expansionist thinking under the guise of strategic necessity.

Particularly alarming is the growing effort to question the legitimacy of Eritrean statehood itself. Eritrea’s independence was not granted through political convenience or external favor. It was achieved through decades of resistance, immense sacrifice, and the internationally recognized 1993 referendum conducted under global observation. Both the United Nations and the African Union formally recognized Eritrea’s sovereignty. Any attempt to revise or undermine this historical and legal reality constitutes not only an attack on Eritrea, but also on the very foundations of international law.

At the same time, the Prosperity Party increasingly appears to be externalizing its deep domestic crises. Ethiopia today faces severe internal instability marked by ethnic tensions, economic hardship, armed conflicts, and political fragmentation. Rather than addressing these structural challenges through sustainable governance and national reconciliation, the current leadership seems increasingly inclined to redirect internal pressure outward through nationalist rhetoric and regional confrontation.

Equally dangerous is the manipulation of ethnic identities along regional borders for geopolitical purposes. Attempts to politicize cross-border ethnic dynamics and inflame regional divisions echo colonial-era strategies of destabilization that Africa has historically struggled to overcome.

The response of major international actors has also been deeply disappointing. Despite repeated provocative statements and increasingly revisionist rhetoric, much of the international community has remained noticeably silent. Such silence sends a dangerous message. When threats against sovereign borders and inflammatory political narratives are met without firm diplomatic response, regional instability becomes normalized.

The principles upon which both the African Union and the United Nations were founded are clear: respect for sovereign borders, non-interference in the affairs of states, and peaceful resolution of disputes. These principles cannot be selectively applied. Africa understands better than most the devastating consequences of expansionist politics and geopolitical destabilization.

In contrast, Eritrea has maintained a policy centered on patience, sovereignty, regional stability, and adherence to international law despite repeated provocations. Eritrea continues to advocate for mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and regional cooperation based on sovereign equality.

One reality, however, remains undeniable: Eritrea’s sovereignty is not open for negotiation. The Eritrean people defended their independence through extraordinary sacrifice, and they remain fully prepared to safeguard their territorial integrity and national dignity against any external pressure or revisionist ambition.

The Future of Regional Stability

Peace and stability in the Horn of Africa can only be built upon mutual respect, legal equality among sovereign nations, and genuine regional cooperation — not through coercion, revisionism, or geopolitical intimidation.

At a time of growing instability across the region, preserving the sovereignty of states and respecting international law remain essential pillars for lasting peace in Africa.

According to military statements, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia suffered heavy losses in personnel and military equipment during the clashes. The operation is being viewed as a significant step toward restoring security and stability in southeastern Sudan, a region that has experienced intense conflict and instability in recent months.

The Sudanese military emphasized that the offensive is part of a broader strategy aimed at reestablishing state authority, protecting civilians, and eliminating armed groups from key territories. Analysts believe the recent gains could strengthen the government’s position and influence the balance of power across several regions of the country.

Regional observers also noted the strategic importance of the Blue Nile area due to its role in transportation routes and regional security dynamics. Continued military advances by SAF could reshape the security landscape and impact future political developments within Sudan.

Despite the military progress, humanitarian concerns remain critical, with international organizations continuing to call for civilian protection and unrestricted humanitarian access to affected communities.

The latest developments highlight a shifting momentum in the conflict and signal a new phase in Sudan’s ongoing struggle for stability, sovereignty, and national security.

The delegation also included Egypt’s Minister of Transport and senior representatives from major Egyptian companies operating in infrastructure, energy, mining, logistics, and maritime transport sectors.

Eritrea’s Growing Strategic Importance

As geopolitical competition intensifies across the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, Eritrea’s strategic relevance continues to grow. Positioned along one of the world’s most important maritime trade routes, Eritrea occupies a critical geographic location connecting Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

A substantial portion of global trade and energy shipments passes through the Red Sea every day, making regional stability increasingly important not only for neighboring countries but also for international economic security.

Political observers increasingly view Eritrea as an important regional actor whose stability and geographic position give it a vital role in safeguarding the security of the Red Sea corridor. Despite regional tensions and external pressures, Asmara has maintained an independent foreign policy centered on national sovereignty, regional self-reliance, and resistance to foreign interference.

The expanding cooperation between Eritrea and Egypt may therefore represent more than bilateral economic engagement. Analysts believe it could signal the emergence of a broader regional realignment focused on maritime security, economic integration, and political coordination in the Red Sea region.

Maritime Cooperation and Economic Investment

During the visit, both sides signed a maritime transport agreement aimed at strengthening direct links between Egyptian and Eritrean ports. The agreement is expected to enhance cooperation in:

• Port and logistics infrastructure
• Maritime transportation
• Energy and electricity
• Mining and industrial development
• Agriculture and irrigation
• Pharmaceutical production

Egyptian officials emphasized that major Egyptian companies are not seeking short-term commercial opportunities alone, but are preparing for long-term investment and industrial cooperation inside Eritrea.

Several participating companies have previously implemented major infrastructure projects across Africa, including large-scale hydroelectric and transportation initiatives.

“Eritrea is a Pillar of Stability”

In remarks during the visit, Foreign Minister Abdelatty described Eritrea as a “fundamental pillar of stability” in the Horn of Africa. He praised Eritrea’s approach toward regional diplomacy and emphasized the importance of dialogue, de-escalation, and cooperation in addressing regional challenges.

The Egyptian delegation also conveyed a message from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and extended an official invitation to President Isaias Afwerki to visit Cairo.

Red Sea Security and Regional Sovereignty

Both Eritrea and Egypt reaffirmed their shared position that the security and governance of the Red Sea must remain the responsibility of the region’s coastal states. Discussions also focused on strengthening regional mechanisms for cooperation among Red Sea nations in areas such as maritime security, port connectivity, rescue coordination, and economic integration.

The talks come at a time of rising geopolitical tensions across the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, increasing the strategic importance of stable regional partnerships.

For many observers, the growing Eritrea–Egypt partnership reflects a broader effort to build a new framework of regional stability based on sovereignty, cooperation, and independent regional decision-making.

Source:
Based on information published by shabait.

Independence Day is not an ordinary date on the calendar.

May 24 is the expression of the tireless spirit of struggle of the Eritrean people, led by the People’s Front, who shattered the worldview of impossibility.

The struggle of the Eritrean people for independence is a record of victory written in blood.
But Eritrea’s independence was not a free gift. It is a light bought at a great price. More than 65,000 martyrs burned their lives like candles to dispel the darkness of colonialism.

The people of Eritrea devoted all their strength to their fighters and revolutionaries.

1. There are characteristics that set Eritrea’s independence apart from other countries.
   African countries gained their independence through political agreements. But Eritrea defeated the colonial army through revolutionary struggle and gained independence through the sacrifice of its children.
   
2. It proved the self-confidence of the Eritrean people.
   The fact that Eritrea’s independence was achieved without external assistance is a testament to the self-confidence, courage, and perseverance of Eritreans.
   
3. It is the fruit of the unity and harmony of the Eritrean people.
   The Eritrean revolution is the result of common sacrifice and the ability to unite the nine ethnic groups of Eritrea, irrespective of religion and race, in one common national struggle.
   
4. Eritrea’s independence was secured by force of arms and by ballot.
   The Eritrean people gained independence by force of arms in 1991 and showed the world their full will by voting yes to independence in the 1993 referendum with 99.8 percent of the vote.
   
5. Eritrea’s independence is not nominal.
   A free political line is its hallmark. The independence of Eritrea is not merely a flag raised in public squares, but an honor and pride that lives in every Eritrean.

Eritrea sees independence not as the end goal, but as the starting point of the long journey of nation-building and dignity. While freedom is decolonization, sovereignty means having full control over your wealth, land, and political decisions.

Since the raising of its flag, Eritrea has been fighting and winning to turn independence into actual sovereignty. The greatest legacy of Eritrea is not material, but spiritual.

Public interest above personal interest, dedication without surrender in times of hardship and pressure, and marching forward with endurance are among our most precious legacies.

The celebration of Independence Day is a national mystery of profound significance to the people of Eritrea. This holiday brings together the struggle of yesterday, the perseverance of today, and the hope of tomorrow.
Eritrea is an African example of politically overcoming contempt and refusing to follow the imposed path of African countries simply because it is African. Eritrea is African, but because she responded independently, pressure was turned into punishment.

In the modern world, free thinking is both precious and dangerous. The price Eritrea has paid so far is the price of its independence. A free line shocks the powerful more than anything else.

Eritrea is a sovereign country that has liberated not only its land, sea, and air, but also its mind.

That is the true definition of sovereignty. Eritrea is an African country that has established both territorial and intellectual sovereignty.

Powerful countries are more threatened by free thinking than by missiles. Their power relies on the fear of smaller nations. Dependency is one of the tools powerful countries use to control the world.
Eritrea bows to no force, inwardly or outwardly, and no power has been able to control it. Courage is Eritrea’s greatest weapon, one that cannot be controlled by satellites or detected by radar.

Eritrea does not attract the world’s attention only because of its strategic location, but because of its strategic and independent thinking.

Over the past 35 years, Eritrea has survived attempts to reverse or make its independence meaningless. Eritrea’s struggle to defend not only its independence but also its existence as a sovereign state is unparalleled.

As a young nation, it faced military pressure from various directions.

In the early 1990s, Eritrea decisively resisted terrorist attempts from Sudan aimed at destabilizing the country.
Yemen’s attempt to seize Eritrea’s strategic maritime borders was defeated through military heroism, and their arguments were made to fail.
Between 1998 and 2000, heavily foreign-funded Ethiopian invasions sought to enter Asmara. Through the perseverance of the Eritrean people and army, Eritrea blocked all three invasions.

When Eritrea refused to be subdued by military force, various structures were established to isolate it regionally and internationally.

The Sanaa Forum, formed in 2002 under the alliance of Ethiopia, Sudan, and Yemen, sought to encircle Eritrea diplomatically. The Bahir Dar–based Tana Forum, launched in 2012, attempted to portray Eritrea as a problem in the Horn of Africa.

Unfair sanctions aimed at weakening Eritrea’s defense capabilities and hindering investment remained for years. Eritrea, however, broke the siege through fact-based diplomacy and today stands as a decisive regional actor.

Eritrea was neither invaded nor robbed for three reasons:

1. Because it possesses a strong and experienced defense force.
2. Because it follows a free political line that does not yield to pressure.
3. Because the strong bond between the people and leadership prevented external conspiracies from succeeding.

Today, Eritrea has crossed the pit dug to destroy it and stands tall as a symbol of perseverance. The proverb “the hole is for the digger” has become reality in Eritrean history.

The conspirators were buried in the pits they dug. Eritrea turned the trenches intended for its destruction into defensive fortresses. Those who claimed Eritrea would disappear are absent from history today.

But Eritrea celebrates its Independence Day every year and looks to the future with hope.

History teaches one truth: Eritrea and truth always win together.

After all these lessons, it is strange to hear those still lying in hospital beds breathing relief oxygen claim, “We lost the sea, prepare us.”
The truth is not a port or a sea, but a healthy dream. Keep dreaming, because dreams cost nothing. As for the land and sea of Eritrea, they belong only to the heroes who bought them with their blood.
The consequence of arrogance is that Eritrea has become a graveyard for greed, and history will repeat itself if necessary.

The history of the Horn of Africa has always been a graveyard for arrogant regimes. Any attempt to repeat that history will lead to the same graveyard of failure. The final result, as always, will be victory for the masses.

We also have words for our struggle friends. Eritrea will never forget its friends and those who stood with it. As Eritrea rises as an invincible country, know that you are part of this victory.
Our friendship, built on common values, will endure forever.

The Eritrean people paid a heavy price because of sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations. But those sanctions never brought the Eritrean people to their knees. They did not seek temporary solutions. They clenched their teeth and chose the difficult but correct path.

The leadership of the Eritrean government, reflecting the spirit of the Eritrean people, demonstrated perseverance and endurance under every kind of pressure.

There have been many kinds of leaders in the world. Some do not know the truth, some know it and abuse it, and some know it and hold firmly to it.
For example, dictator Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam, in my opinion, was a leader who did not know the truth. He tried to do what he believed was right, but his problem was that he did not know the correct path. That is why he fled his country and his people.
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, on the other hand, is a deceiver who knows the danger of the path he has chosen for Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, yet continues upon it.

But President Isaias Afwerki repeatedly proved that he knows the truth and chooses the right path.

What I announce today is the result of far-sighted leadership.

Today, alongside our independence, we celebrate victory over sanctions. The United States has lifted sanctions against Eritrea.

This is an important step for Eritrea, the United States, the Horn of Africa, and the wider world. The harmful consequences of sanctions have long been condemned by many leaders, organizations, and influential voices.

The lifting of sanctions proves a larger truth: if you hold firmly to truth and principles, and are willing to pay the proper price, victory will eventually come.

The Eritrean people proved through action that they choose the long and bitter but righteous road rather than shortcuts.

At the dawn of independence, the President declared:

“We are raising our flag on the unbroken staff of truth.”

Once again, our flag shines upon that same unbroken staff of truth.

So today, as we celebrate our independence and the lifting of sanctions, we celebrate victory itself.

The United States’ decision to lift sanctions carries a message far beyond diplomacy. It marks a moment where Eritrea struggled, fought, and prevailed.
In 2021, sanctions were imposed on Eritrea to isolate it internationally and create obstacles in finance and development. The objective was clear: pressure the Eritrean people and government.

Despite the economic and social hardships caused by these sanctions, Eritrea never bowed.

If Eritrea had surrendered under pressure, then freedom would have been only symbolic and sovereignty would never have been guaranteed.

The lifting of sanctions reflects Eritrea’s inner strength. The world now clearly sees that Eritrea’s strength is built upon patience, discipline, unity, and a far-sighted commitment to sovereignty.

Who besides the people and government of Eritrea could withstand such pressure without losing direction?

Patience means enduring waves of opposition without abandoning principles. It means seeking justice without surrendering sovereignty. Patience is true power. It is strength born from endurance, not violence.

Had Eritreans not fought together, freedom would never have arrived, sovereignty would never have been respected, and repeated sanctions would never have been lifted.

For Africa and the world, this is a powerful message:

That sovereignty under pressure must not be compromised.
That perseverance overcomes isolation.
That patience is the greatest weapon.

External pressure could delay Eritrea’s journey, but it could never erase its sovereignty.

Eritrea won this battle over sanctions. Those sanctions were designed to weaken and subdue Eritrea, but instead they revealed the resilience of its people.

The lifting of sanctions is not a gift from the United States to Eritrea. It is recognition of perseverance and triumph.
This victory belongs to every Eritrean family that sacrificed, and every hero who never surrendered.

The future is now clearer. With sanctions lifted, the nation-building process will accelerate further. Eritrea’s role in ensuring peace in the Red Sea region and the Horn of Africa will grow stronger.

It sends a powerful message to the world:

A united and purposeful people possess immense power.
Today, Eritreans are not only celebrating the lifting of sanctions.
We are celebrating the victory of Eritrean determination.
We celebrate the patience of our people, the strength of our government, and the unity of our nation.

Eritrea has won.
This is history.

Its sovereignty is sacred.
Its endurance is its strength.
And its freedom is eternal.

Victory to the masses.
Eternal remembrance and honor to the martyrs of Eritrea.

For months, suspicious cargo and military flights between the UAE and Ethiopia have been documented. Particularly notable is Bahir Dar Airport in northern Ethiopia, which appears to have become a strategic hub for regional military activity.

Recent reports from the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) regarding downed Turkish Bayraktar Akinci drones have further strengthened suspicions that Bahir Dar may have served not only as a logistical center, but potentially also as an operational base for military activities connected to the Sudan conflict.

If these allegations are confirmed, the consequences for the entire region could be severe.

While Addis Ababa publicly speaks about regional cooperation and stability, there is an increasing perception that the PP regime is, in fact, pursuing a policy of military power projection — supported by external actors with their own geopolitical interests.

At the same time, the United Arab Emirates is facing growing criticism over its alleged involvement in African conflicts, both directly and indirectly. Emirati interests, weapons transfers, and military networks have already been linked to several crisis zones across the continent. The current developments surrounding Ethiopia and Sudan could represent another chapter in this increasingly assertive foreign policy.

Particularly alarming is the potential internationalization of the Sudan war. Every form of foreign interference prolongs the conflict, deepens the humanitarian catastrophe, and further destabilizes the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea region.

Meanwhile, the PP regime continues to dismiss criticism as “conspiracy theories” or “anti-Ethiopian propaganda.” Yet the number of unanswered questions continues to grow:

Why are military flights between the UAE and Bahir Dar increasing?
What role are foreign drones playing in the Sudan conflict?
Why are more indications of covert military cooperation emerging?

The people of the region deserve answers — not propaganda, intimidation, or geopolitical power games.

The Horn of Africa needs peace, economic development, and genuine regional cooperation. But as long as external actors and regional governments continue to instrumentalize conflicts for strategic interests, the risk of a much larger escalation will remain real.

Behind the diplomatic language and symbolic gestures lies a deeper reality: the world is moving away from a unipolar order dominated by a single power toward a more complex multipolar system shaped by competing political, economic, and strategic centers.

The rivalry between Washington and Beijing remains significant. It plays out through economic competition, technological confrontation, military tensions in the Pacific, disputes over Taiwan, and the broader struggle for global influence. Taiwan, in particular, remains one of the most sensitive flashpoints in international politics. Beijing views the island as part of China and considers foreign involvement a direct challenge to its sovereignty. At the same time, the United States continues to provide political and military support to Taiwan, further intensifying regional tensions.

Yet despite these disputes, the meeting in Beijing shows that even major rivals understand the risks of uncontrolled escalation. The two powers remain deeply interconnected economically and strategically, making dialogue not just desirable but necessary.

For many countries in the Global South, especially in Africa and the Horn of Africa, the summit is another reminder that international politics is driven more by strategic interests than by public rhetoric or moral principles. Over the past decades, geopolitical competition among major powers has extended far beyond Europe and Asia, increasingly shaping Africa through economic pressure, military partnerships, infrastructure projects, and foreign political influence.

As global competition intensifies, smaller nations face growing pressure to align with competing power blocs. This dynamic creates serious risks for regional stability, sovereignty, and independent decision-making. The current international environment therefore demands caution, strategic independence, and a clear understanding of the shifting balance of power.

The future of international stability will not depend solely on relations between Washington and Beijing, but also on whether emerging multipolar dynamics can evolve without pushing the world toward larger confrontations. For countries seeking stability and sovereignty, the central challenge remains how to protect national interests while avoiding becoming instruments of larger geopolitical struggles.

The Beijing meeting should not be seen simply as another diplomatic summit. It reflects a world order undergoing historic transformation one in which dialogue, however fragile, remains essential to navigating the uncertainties of global rivalry.

Western diplomats continue to speak of “partnership” and “regional stability,” but Ethiopia under Abiy is sinking deeper into political crisis, economic decline, and internal fragmentation. Millions of Ethiopians face inflation, insecurity, armed conflict, and state repression. International monitors have documented mass arrests, extrajudicial killings, restrictions on press freedom, drone strikes on civilians, and widespread abuses carried out under state authority.

Instead of resolving Ethiopia’s internal crises, the regime has turned outward deploying nationalist rhetoric and external tensions as political distraction.

Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the dangerous discourse surrounding the Red Sea.  

In speeches delivered in Amharic, Abiy Ahmed and senior military officials have repeatedly declared that Ethiopia will secure “sovereign access” to the sea “peacefully if possible, militarily if necessary.” State narratives increasingly portray Eritrea’s coastline, and those of neighboring states, as negotiable assets justified by Ethiopia’s alleged “historical rights” or “strategic necessity.”

This is not diplomacy. It is war provocation.

The facts remain clear: no country in the region has denied Ethiopia commercial access to ports. Eritrea has never opposed economic cooperation, trade agreements, or regional connectivity based on mutual consent and sovereign equality. What Eritrea rejects is the arrogant assumption that a larger state can pressure smaller neighbors into compromising their sovereignty.

Eritrea paid an enormous price for independence. Tens of thousands of Eritreans died during the long struggle against occupation and foreign domination. That sacrifice is not symbolic it is foundational to Eritrean national identity. For this reason, Eritrea will never accept renewed fantasies from politicians in Addis Ababa who speak as though Eritrean territory or coastline can be treated as bargaining chips.

Excerpt 

The real crisis facing Ethiopia is not access to the sea.
The real crisis lies within Ethiopia itself: ethnic tensions, armed insurgencies, economic collapse, political fragmentation, and declining public trust. Nationalist mobilization has become a substitute for genuine political solutions.

The Horn of Africa is already one of the world’s most fragile regions. Sudan is collapsing under civil war, foreign powers compete for influence along the Red Sea, and millions suffer displacement, famine, and insecurity. In such an environment, openly discussing militarily enforced access to the sea is not only irresponsible it is profoundly destabilizing.

Eritrea, by contrast, has consistently upheld a clear position: respect for sovereignty, non‑interference, regional cooperation based on equality, and rejection of hegemonic politics. This is precisely why Addis Ababa’s rhetoric is generating growing concern across the region. Increasingly, regional actors recognize that the issue is not economics or trade access it is power projection, political pressure, and the normalization of expansionist thinking.

Diplomatic theater must no longer obscure reality. A government cannot speak of peace abroad while normalizing military threats at home. It cannot present itself as a force for stability while promoting rhetoric that risks igniting confrontation.

The Nobel Peace Prize once symbolized hope. Today, it stands as a painful irony.  

The defining legacy of Abiy Ahmed’s era is no longer reconciliation or reform. It is polarization. Militarization. Internal collapse. Regional tension. And the growing fear that Ethiopia’s leadership is steering the Horn of Africa toward unnecessary confrontation.

Eritrea has every right to defend its sovereignty, its coastline, and its national dignity against intimidation or territorial ambition. The Horn of Africa cannot afford another reckless gamble with peace.  

The choice before Ethiopia’s leadership is stark: resolve internal crises through genuine reform, or continue down a path of militarized distraction that threatens not only Eritrea’s sovereignty but the stability of the entire region.

This is no longer just diplomacy.
It’s a geopolitical realignment unfolding in real time.

For years, the West debated how to counter China’s rise.

Now, world leaders are lining up in Beijing — not out of symbolism, but necessity.

Trade.
Supply chains.
Technology.
Capital.
Influence.

China is no longer simply part of the global economy.
It is becoming one of its central gravitational forces.
The bigger question is no longer whether China matters.

The question is whether any major Western power can realistically afford to remain outside Beijing’s economic orbit.

Is this strategic engagement?
Economic dependency?
Or the early foundation of a new multipolar world order?

One thing is certain:

The balance of global power is shifting East, faster than many expected.

Time will tell.