WI: Kabila loses the Second Congo War

What would happen if the Rwandans were successful in taking Kinshasa in 1998 and replacing Laurent Kabila with another puppet government? For a POD say Zimbabwe doesn't intervene for some reason. Mugabe might decide it's an overreach, that he has bigger problems at home, etc.

Would other African nations that supported Kabila IOTL like Angola, Chad, Namibia, etc. accept the new regime as an on the ground reality or would they call it an illegitimate coup government and back rebels?
 
If the states that did back Kabila IOTL decide to oppose the Rwandans the war could get even worse. If insurgents can operate out of Angola and Zambia for example, the Congolese forces and Rwandans will have thousands of miles of border to lock down. International intervention might be required one way or another.

What do you guys think?
 

trurle

Banned
If the states that did back Kabila IOTL decide to oppose the Rwandans the war could get even worse. If insurgents can operate out of Angola and Zambia for example, the Congolese forces and Rwandans will have thousands of miles of border to lock down. International intervention might be required one way or another.

What do you guys think?
Worse than African World War? I re-checked the events and fell only revulsion on idea of making situation worse. Cannot guarantee, but given terrible OTL situation, any change can only be to the better side. In your particular case, Rwandans may decide the situation is too lopsided and negotiate a peace settlement in exchange of leaving Kongo.
 
Worse than African World War? I re-checked the events and fell only revulsion on idea of making situation worse. Cannot guarantee, but given terrible OTL situation, any change can only be to the better side. In your particular case, Rwandans may decide the situation is too lopsided and negotiate a peace settlement in exchange of leaving Kongo.

The problem is that Rwanda's effort was pretty much self-sustaining IOTL because of looted natural resources and likely would be IATL as well. All of the combatants either recouped their expenses or got a significant rebate from that; it was a major incentive not to deescalate.

Yeah, this is a Vlad Tepes scenario only a half tier below the Nazis winning and implementing Generalplan Ost, but I'm just using it as a thought exercise.
 

trurle

Banned
The problem is that Rwanda's effort was pretty much self-sustaining IOTL because of looted natural resources and likely would be IATL as well. All of the combatants either recouped their expenses or got a significant rebate from that; it was a major incentive not to deescalate.

Yeah, this is a Vlad Tepes scenario only a half tier below the Nazis winning and implementing Generalplan Ost, but I'm just using it as a thought exercise.
As i remember my adventures during 1990-2000 decade, black market prices for grenade in that decade were about $200, and Kalashnikov was $1000. Therefore, any profit from warfare is possible only if resistance is extremely weak, and loot is very valuable. Well, you can try to estimate the local margin of profit. May be i mis-estimate and weapons+ammunition were incredibly cheap in Kongo compared to Southern Europe during that period.
 
As i remember my adventures during 1990-2000 decade, black market prices for grenade in that decade were about $200, and Kalashnikov was $1000. Therefore, any profit from warfare is possible only if resistance is extremely weak, and loot is very valuable. Well, you can try to estimate the local margin of profit. May be i mis-estimate and weapons+ammunition were incredibly cheap in Kongo compared to Southern Europe during that period.

You sound like a man with some interesting stories ;)

But yes, they are close to half as cheap in Africa as opposed to elsewhere in the world based on that Foreign Policy article. Compared to your figures it's closer to a third. Relevant passage:

Killicoat also looks at the price of an AK-47 in 208 countries between 1990 and 2005. He finds that, although the average global price of an AK-47 has risen from $448 in 1990 to $534 in 2005, in African countries purchasing an AK-47 is on average $200 cheaper than anywhere else in the world. Here’s why:

[T]his staggering Africa-discount is predominantly driven by porous borders. Since borders are more porous than elsewhere, the trade in assault rifles across the African continent approaches a deregulated market in which prices converge and there are only negligible trade barriers that arms supply must overcome to meet demand. At any one time, only a few African countries have very high demand for weapons due to conflict. This demand profile across the continent changes over time as localized tensions rise and recede. Porous borders enable the entire supply of weapons on the African continent to meet whichever country currently has high weapons demand.

I think it's a safe bet this disparity is present in other categories of weaponry.
 
Top