The roots of Sudan’s conflict lie in decades of authoritarian rule, ethnic divisions, and power struggles between military factions. The 2019 ouster of Omar al-Bashir, followed by a fragile transitional government, ultimately fractured along fault lines, culminating in open warfare in April 2023. The SAF, largely composed of Bashir’s loyalists, and the RSF, a paramilitary force originally formed to support the government, now control vast swathes of territory and engage in sustained fighting. The complex web of actors involved includes regional powers like Egypt, which has provided support to the SAF, and external forces deploying mercenaries from countries such as Colombia and Syria. Understanding this context – the historical grievances, the strategic ambitions of various actors, and the sheer complexity of the Sudanese internal dynamics – is crucial to analyzing the implications of the UK’s actions.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the situation in Sudan is “not just the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, but one of the worst of the current century.” As of early February 2026, an estimated 9.3 million people are displaced within Sudan, with an additional 4.3 million seeking refuge in neighboring countries, primarily Chad and Egypt. The United Nations estimates that over 21 million people are currently suffering from acute food insecurity, a staggering figure driven by conflict, disrupted agricultural production, and limited access to humanitarian assistance. “The scale of displacement is unprecedented,” stated Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, “creating a complex logistical challenge for delivering aid effectively.” This crisis has become a magnet for irregular migration, further straining the resources of already fragile nations. Data from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) indicates a significant increase in migrant flows from Sudan towards Europe, demonstrating the human cost of the conflict and the potential for further destabilization across the Mediterranean.
Key stakeholders in this drama are numerous and often operate in opaque alliances. The SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, prioritizes maintaining its control over the country’s resources and institutions, resisting any attempts at civilian governance. The RSF, headed by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), seeks to consolidate power and secure economic benefits from the conflict, allegedly amassing wealth through illicit activities and controlling valuable mineral resources. Regional powers, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have taken sides, providing political and potentially military support to the SAF. Foreign mercenaries, often recruited from Colombia and Syria, are drawn by the promise of lucrative contracts and the opportunity to engage in combat. The United Nations, the African Union, and various international NGOs are attempting to broker a ceasefire and facilitate humanitarian assistance, but their efforts have been repeatedly hampered by the warring parties’ refusal to adhere to agreed-upon ceasefires and the challenges of gaining access to conflict zones.
Recent developments, particularly the UK’s December imposition of sanctions on 12 commanders, highlight a shift in strategy. This initial action targeted RSF and SAF commanders implicated in atrocities, including mass rape, killings, and forced displacement. Subsequently, the UK has broadened its sanctions regime to include those facilitating the recruitment of foreign fighters – specifically targeting individuals linked to Colombian mercenary groups operating in Sudan. As Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper emphasized, “Through these sanctions, we will seek to dismantle the war machine of those who perpetrate or profit from the brutal violence in Sudan.” This focus on disrupting the financing and logistical support networks supporting the warring factions is a crucial step in building pressure for a resolution. “The sanctions are a powerful tool, but they are just one piece of the puzzle,” noted Dr. Evelyn Sharpe, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group. “A lasting solution requires a concerted diplomatic effort to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table and address the underlying causes of the conflict.”
Looking ahead, the next 6-12 months likely will see continued instability and a worsening humanitarian situation unless a significant breakthrough is achieved in the peace process. The UK’s sanctions, coupled with increased pressure from the UN Security Council, may contribute to a gradual weakening of the warring factions’ ability to sustain the conflict. However, the deeply entrenched interests and power dynamics make a swift resolution unlikely. Over the 5-10 year horizon, the outcome hinges on the ability of regional and international actors to effectively mediate a political settlement and address the root causes of the conflict, including ethnic grievances and economic inequalities. The potential for Sudan to descend into a protracted state of civil war, with regional implications for security and stability, remains a substantial concern. “The longer the conflict drags on, the greater the risk of a fragmented Sudan, with multiple armed groups vying for control,” warned Dr. Ben Carter, a researcher at Chatham House’s Africa Programme. “This scenario would have profound consequences for regional security, potentially exacerbating existing tensions and creating a breeding ground for extremism.”
The UK’s sanctions represent a critical, albeit potentially limited, step in addressing the crisis. However, the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe and the complex political dynamics demand a more comprehensive approach. Moving forward, sustained diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions, and robust humanitarian assistance are essential. Crucially, the international community must engage in a frank and honest assessment of the role of external actors supporting the conflict, demanding accountability for war crimes and human rights abuses. As the situation in Sudan demonstrates, the consequences of inaction can be catastrophic. It is imperative that we collectively reflect on the lessons learned from this crisis and strengthen our capacity to respond effectively to future humanitarian emergencies – a challenge that will only intensify in a world increasingly characterized by instability and geopolitical competition.