The Eritrean narrative is least evolved and self defeating. T
he act of incursion or invasion into a sovereign country can potentially trigger UN military/blockade intervention under its Chapter VII - articles [39] [41] [42].
Although, the Ethiopian govt. has not made calls to the UN under those terms [unlikely to do so], nonetheless, as the
Eritrean participation is considered to be impeding peaceful outcome and thus creating security risk, such mechanisms could still be taken. Again, since the Eritrean narrative was that the country was not involved [actually still appears to be so], then it doesn't really have any line of propaganda to set a narrative. This has reduced the Eritrean narrative to be nothing more than challenging the veracity of charges leveled against its armed forces.
Eritrean army is killing innocent Tigrayans at this very moment in Tigray in contravention of UN charters. Its presence in Tigray is
unlawful, uninvited and criminal.
To cross an international border can only be done under self defense or consent of the host country. Otherwise, it is considered unlawful. It would have severe consequences. The only way we can mitigate that is if PM Abiy Ahmed tell the world that he invited the Eritrean army, I hope Moxie or MM come up with a fitting adage to make the position of PM Abiy clear.
Eritrea, if concerned of security [which is a lie], then it only needs to move to reinforce the border area. In other words, countries do that all the time, they move troops to the border areas of their territory.
Axum, Adwa, Adigrat, Meqelle ... are not border areas. I know some Eritreans (on both sides) are assuming that their untoward sentiments against Tigrayans is somewhat justification of committing violence and distraction against them in this scale.
This is not a valid war for Eritrea. Eritrea's very presence in Tigray is a dangerous violation of UN charters, this will have serious ramifications for the country in the times ahead. The massacres, lootings, rapes and the rest are in addition to the basic offense of invading Tigray. If PMAA says he invited the Eritrean troops however, that changes everything and he takes all responsibility.
It seems that a lot of Eritreans are thinking about the future ramifications of Isaias's adventurism in Tigray.
Ethiopians are saying, "ሰራዊት ኤርትራ ኣብ ዓለም ተሰሚዑ ዘይፈልጥ ንምስምዑ ዘስካሕክሕ ዘበለ ኩሉ ገበናት ኣብ ላዕሊ ትግራይ ፈፂሙ:: በዚ ድማ ኤርትራ ንወለዶታት እትኸፍሎ ዕዳ ኣሰኪምዋ ኣሎ:"
So, does Eritrea have an exit strategy? Very unlikely, judging by the way things are going.
By accepting that it had opted for invasion/incursion for its own security, Eritrea assumes full responsibility for damages. The Ethiopian PM had recently estimated that the damage in Tigray is so far hoovering around $ 1 billion USD.
Would Eritrea be held accountable for repaying part of this? The Ethiopian govt. had made it abundantly clear that it did not invite Eritrea into the country. So, who will assume the costs for the damages? Are Eritreans willing to foot the bill?
Ultimately, the Tigray conflict will be settled on a round table. The problem is for us, Eritrea, because we
will not have a seat at the table. Rather, we are
likely to end up as a meal on the table."
Once you invade a land you become the occupier. Once you break it you're going to own it. You are going to be responsible for the 6/7 million people ...