3 February 2025

3 min read

M23 on the move: The significance of Goma’s Fall

Geopolitical analysis
Soldier in Congo.
M23 on the move: The significance of Goma’s Fall
6:35

With M23's advances in the eastern DRC showing little sign of slowing down, the group's territorial expansion and recent success in the region raise serious concerns regarding the prospects for a resolution to the conflict and the integrity of critical mineral supply chains.

By 29 January, the Mouvement du 23 mars (March 23 Movement, M23) had captured most of Goma, the capital of North Kivu Province, following a swift offensive into the city and surrounding areas that left dozens dead, including 17 peacekeepers. M23, the best-equipped and most well-trained group in eastern DRC, has made consistent territorial gains in the region since 2022, setting the stage for its recent push into Goma.

The group’s external backing further complicates the situation. According to the UN and several Western states, Rwanda is M23’s primary supporter, with reports indicating a substantial presence of Rwandan troops in both North and South Kivu. While Kigali continues to deny any ties to M23, Rwandan support has likely played a key role in the group’s consolidation of control in North Kivu and its advances into South Kivu. Although M23 has since declared a unilateral ceasefire, its significant territorial gains in recent weeks have further entrenched its position in eastern DRC, worsening an already fragile security situation and raising concerns over its control of critical mineral deposits.

Déjà vu?

This is not the first time M23 has seized Goma. The group previously captured the city for just under two weeks in 2012, during an armed rebellion in North Kivu Province that followed the collapse of the March 23 Agreement between the Congolese government and the Congrès national pour la défense du peuple (CNDP), a predominantly ethnic Tutsi militia. However, at that time, international pressure from African countries and the wider global community – directed at both M23 and Rwanda – played a key role in forcing the group’s withdrawal.

In contrast, the international response in 2025 has been muted and has yet to yield meaningful results. The ceasefire comes ahead of a joint Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East Africa Community (EAC) in Tanzania, and is expected to be attended by DRC President Félix Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Paul Kagame. However, the broader international community, including the US, the EU, and the UN Security Council, has yet to take decisive steps with a tangible impact on the ground. While the UK has warned Rwanda that its continued support for M23 could put its USD 1 billion in annual aid at risk, it remains uncertain whether other key players, such as the EU, will apply similar pressure, given their close ties with Rwanda. For example, in February 2024, the EU signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Rwanda regarding the supply of critical minerals. Furthermore, with a change in the US administration, the ongoing war in Ukraine, and tensions in the Middle East, there is significant uncertainty over whether the international community has the appetite for applying sustained pressure on M23 and Rwanda this time around.

Battlefield dynamics have also shifted in M23’s favour. After being ousted in 2012 by a counteroffensive led by Congolese forces and African troops under the UN Force Intervention Brigade (FIB), M23 now possesses advanced weaponry, including surface-to-air missiles, drones, and guided mortar rounds, making any future counteroffensive more challenging. Additionally, there are serious doubts about whether the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (SAMIDRC), despite having a more robust mandate than the UN mission, is capable of mounting such an offensive. SADC leaders appear more inclined to withdraw forces from the region rather than reinforce them for a counteroffensive.

The critical issue of minerals

In addition to the serious security and political implications of M23’s territorial expansion in eastern DRC, its advances also have considerable consequences for the region’s mining operations. Over the past year, M23 has captured key mining towns in North Kivu, including Rubaya, where the surrounding mines account for approximately 15 percent of global coltan production. In areas under its control, the group has established taxation systems on mining revenues and monopolies over mining operations and is reportedly earning over USD 800,000 in taxes from coltan trade and production alone, providing a steady revenue stream to fund continued military operations.

The situation is creating serious concerns for companies sourcing minerals from the DRC and Rwanda. The UN has reported mineral smuggling across the border, with exports passing through Rwanda into global supply chains. In 2023, for example, the UAE declared USD 885 million in gold imports from Rwanda – a 75 percent increase compared to the five-year average – despite Rwanda not being a major gold producer. While the MoU between the EU and Rwanda commits to increased due diligence and adherence to international Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards, the lack of transparency and traceability in Rwanda’s mineral exports will continue to be a major concern for companies reliant on the region’s resources. Yet these issues are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. M23’s ability to establish its authority in occupied areas is likely to extend to the newly captured mining towns of Lumbishi and Numbi in South Kivu, which are rich in minerals such as gold, tin, tantalum, and tungsten.

Looking ahead

With limited international pressure on M23 in eastern DRC and continued Rwandan support for the group, the prospect of a sustainable resolution – one that involves M23 withdrawing and Congolese forces establishing control over the occupied territories in North and South Kivu – is diminishing. On the contrary, M23’s grip on the region appears to be strengthening. Despite the recently announced ceasefire, without a shift in approach from African leaders and the broader international community, the group will only continue to consolidate its control, with long-term consequences for political stability and the integrity of critical mineral supply chains from the region.

Subscribe to our insights

Get industry news and expert insights straight to your inbox.