As the civil war in Sudan drags into its second year, a complex mix of power struggles, regional tensions, and humanitarian disasters continues to escalate, turning the country into one of the world’s most critical zones of conflict. Since April 15, 2023, when hostilities between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) erupted, Sudan has faced a catastrophic unraveling of its social, economic, and political fabric. This conflict is no mere internal power struggle—it’s a geopolitical chessboard that spans far beyond Sudan’s borders, pulling in foreign powers, exacerbating regional tensions, and stoking fears of further destabilization in an already volatile region.
In the following analysis, we will delve deeper into the origins, current situation, and likely future trajectory of the Sudan conflict, examining not only the immediate actors involved but also the broader global implications.
The roots of the current conflict between the SAF and the RSF trace back to Sudan’s troubled post-colonial history, a history marred by civil wars, coups, and genocides. Central to this narrative is the rivalry between Sudan’s two most powerful military leaders: General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who leads the SAF, and Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, commander of the RSF.
Hemedti’s RSF emerged from the infamous Janjaweed militia, a paramilitary group notorious for its brutal campaigns in Darfur during the early 2000s, where they were accused of ethnic cleansing and widespread atrocities. Initially a tool of former dictator Omar al-Bashir to suppress rebellions and consolidate his power, the Janjaweed was rebranded as the RSF and given a more formal status within the Sudanese military structure.
This uneasy relationship between the SAF and RSF festered over the years. Both factions united briefly to overthrow al-Bashir in 2019, but the post-coup period was characterized by increasing tension. The turning point came when negotiations over Sudan’s transition to civilian rule broke down in 2021. The SAF and RSF, once allies, began to jostle for dominance, leading to open conflict in April 2023. Their power struggle has since devolved into a brutal and protracted civil war.
At its heart, this war is about power—specifically, the control of Sudan’s vast resources, its political institutions, and the military command structure. The SAF, led by General al-Burhan, remains the official military arm of the Sudanese state, controlling much of the north and east of the country, while the RSF under Hemedti dominates western Sudan, including large parts of Darfur and Khartoum, Sudan’s capital.
One of the primary sources of friction between these two forces has been the planned integration of the RSF into the regular army—a process that broke down over disagreements on the timeline, command structure, and the future roles of Hemedti and al-Burhan. With neither side able to achieve a decisive military victory, the war has settled into a grinding stalemate, with battles being fought over control of key cities and resources.
While the power struggle rages, the people of Sudan are paying an unbearable price. The conflict has displaced over 8.6 million people, many of whom have fled to neighboring countries such as Chad, Egypt, and South Sudan. Internally, cities like Khartoum have turned into warzones, with civilians caught in the crossfire. The UN estimates that around 25 million people—more than half of Sudan’s population—are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. This includes millions facing acute food insecurity, with nearly 5 million on the brink of famine.
Sudan’s healthcare system has collapsed, with over 70% of its hospitals out of service. Schools have been shut, leaving approximately 19 million children out of education, raising the specter of a lost generation. The conflict has also decimated Sudan’s economy, which is projected to shrink by a staggering 18.3% in 2024, plunging more of the population into poverty.
The destruction of critical infrastructure, from water treatment facilities to electricity grids, has compounded the crisis. In many parts of Sudan, particularly in the Darfur region, reports suggest that the RSF is engaging in ethnic cleansing campaigns against African minorities, further fueling the humanitarian catastrophe.
While the conflict is deeply rooted in Sudan’s internal dynamics, it has taken on a broader regional and international dimension. Foreign powers like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iran, and Russia have been accused of supplying weapons to the warring factions, complicating efforts to broker peace.
The UAE, in particular, has been implicated in providing support to the RSF, reportedly funneling arms through Libyan and Chadian intermediaries. The UAE’s interests in Sudan appear to be primarily economic, particularly in Sudan’s gold reserves, which Hemedti’s forces control. By backing the RSF, the UAE secures a foothold in Sudan’s resource-rich regions, further entrenching its influence in the Horn of Africa.
Iran, on the other hand, has thrown its weight behind the SAF, supplying drones and other military equipment in a bid to counter the influence of Gulf states and assert its presence in the strategically important Red Sea region. Iranian drones have provided the SAF with a tactical advantage in several battles, notably in retaking parts of Khartoum.
Russia’s involvement, through the notorious Wagner Group, has also been crucial. Wagner mercenaries have long been active in Sudan, particularly in securing lucrative mining contracts. Russia’s role in the conflict is more opportunistic than ideological, with Moscow keen to expand its influence in Africa while reaping the benefits of Sudan’s natural resources.
This external interference has not only prolonged the war but also complicated diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire. With powerful international actors vested in the conflict’s outcome, peace remains elusive.
The international community has largely struggled to respond effectively to the Sudan crisis. Diplomatic efforts have floundered, with ceasefire agreements routinely violated by both sides. The UN Security Council, in March 2024, passed a resolution calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities, but this has had little impact on the ground.
Humanitarian aid, while desperately needed, has been insufficient. The UN’s humanitarian aid appeal for Sudan in 2024 was only 50% funded, leaving millions without the support they need. The United States, for its part, launched the Aligned for Advancing Lifesaving and Peace in Sudan (ALPS) Group, aimed at coordinating global action. However, these efforts have been hampered by the sheer scale of the crisis, logistical challenges, and the destruction of communication infrastructure within Sudan.
A major obstacle to international involvement has been the targeting of journalists and the destruction of media networks. Both the SAF and RSF have clamped down on press freedom, making it difficult to get accurate information out of the country. Many international media outlets have largely ignored the conflict, focusing instead on higher-profile global crises like Ukraine and Gaza.
This lack of media attention has also stunted diplomatic urgency, with Sudan slipping down the list of international priorities. Calls from Human Rights Watch and other organizations for a more comprehensive international response, including the expansion of the arms embargo, have so far gone unheeded.
The ongoing conflict in Sudan has laid bare several critical issues surrounding international intervention, media attention, and the ethics of external involvement. The selective nature of global attention to conflicts—often driven by geopolitical interests rather than humanitarian need—raises questions about the equity of international aid and diplomatic efforts. Why has the world, particularly Western media, paid so little attention to a crisis that has displaced millions and claimed thousands of lives?
Moreover, the involvement of foreign powers such as the UAE and Iran raises ethical concerns about the exploitation of Sudan’s resources amid such devastation. The conflict has morphed into a battleground for regional influence, with little regard for the suffering of Sudanese civilians.
There is also the issue of how international legal frameworks, like the UN arms embargoes, are being sidestepped by these powers. The weapons supplied by these external actors are fueling human rights abuses, prolonging the conflict, and exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. The moral responsibility of these actors—both state and non-state—cannot be overlooked in any future discussions on Sudan’s recovery.
As of April 2024, the Sudan conflict shows no signs of abating. Both the SAF and RSF remain locked in a deadly stalemate, neither capable of delivering a knockout blow. The possibility of a negotiated settlement seems remote, as both sides are deeply entrenched, and their foreign backers continue to supply them with arms and financial support.
The humanitarian crisis will likely worsen as the conflict drags on. Food insecurity, already affecting over 17.7 million people, will deepen as agricultural production grinds to a halt in conflict zones. The looming threat of famine, especially in the Darfur region, presents a dire challenge for aid agencies operating with limited resources and access.
Internationally, there is a risk that Sudan’s war could spill over into neighboring countries, further destabilizing an already fragile region. With millions of refugees flooding across borders, countries like Chad, Egypt, and South Sudan are struggling to cope with the influx, raising fears of regional conflict.
Sudan stands at a critical juncture. The ongoing civil war between the SAF and RSF has not only devastated the country but also highlighted the failures of international diplomacy and humanitarian intervention. With millions suffering from hunger, displacement, and violence, the world can no longer afford to ignore Sudan’s plight.
What is needed now is a concerted global effort, one that goes beyond mere ceasefire negotiations to address the root causes of the conflict. This includes holding foreign actors accountable for their roles in exacerbating the war, ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches those most in need, and laying the groundwork for a genuine and inclusive political settlement that includes civilian leadership.
Sudan’s future may be uncertain, but one thing is clear: the international community must step up before this already devastating conflict spirals further out of control. The lives of millions depend on it.
