## Stakeholder Dynamics and Motivations
Several key actors are deeply entrenched in Sudan’s conflict, each driven by distinct, often overlapping, motivations. The SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, seeks to maintain its dominance and consolidate power following the 2021 coup, viewing the RSF as a rebellious faction that must be neutralized. The RSF, commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), aims to achieve greater political influence and control over resources, leveraging its significant military capabilities and financial connections. Both factions have benefited from the influx of weapons, largely originating from Russia, the UAE, and Egypt, fueling the escalation. According to the International Crisis Group, “the RSF’s ability to operate with relative impunity is largely due to external support, particularly from the UAE, which has provided significant financial and logistical assistance.”
The international community’s response has been characterized by a mix of condemnation and hesitant action. The “Sudan Core Group,” comprised of countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates, has repeatedly called for a cessation of hostilities and a return to negotiations. However, these calls have largely been ignored, and sanctions against key RSF figures have had a limited impact. As Foreign Secretary James Cleverly stated, “the window for a diplomatic solution is rapidly closing.” “We need to see a genuine commitment from both sides to come to the table and engage in serious negotiations,” he added, underscoring the urgency of the situation.
“The failure to effectively address the root causes of the conflict, coupled with the persistent flow of weapons, has created a volatile environment where atrocities are not only occurring but are being actively encouraged,” explains Dr. Elizabeth King, Senior Analyst at the Atlantic Council’s Africa Policy Center. “The RSF’s behavior reflects a deliberate strategy of intimidation and violence, designed to destabilize the region and secure its position.”
## Recent Developments and Regional Implications
Over the past six months, the fighting in El Fasher has intensified significantly, with the RSF gaining ground and pushing back the SAF. Reports from Médecins Sans Frontières indicate a dramatic increase in civilian casualties and a severe shortage of medical supplies. The targeting of humanitarian aid convoys and the deliberate obstruction of aid delivery have become increasingly commonplace, exacerbating the already dire humanitarian situation. Recent intelligence assessments suggest a growing role for Wagner Group mercenaries in supporting the RSF, further complicating the geopolitical landscape. The conflict’s impact extends beyond Sudan’s borders, fueling instability in Chad and exacerbating existing tensions within the Lake Chad Basin Commission.
A newly formed Coalition for Atrocity Prevention and Justice in Sudan, announced by the Sudan Core Group, represents a step towards a more coordinated international effort. The coalition aims to provide support for victims of the conflict, facilitate accountability for perpetrators, and promote reconciliation. However, the effectiveness of this coalition will depend on the willingness of member states to translate their commitments into concrete action. “The key challenge is not just providing humanitarian assistance, but also establishing mechanisms for justice and accountability,” argues Dr. Ahmed Hassan, a Sudanese political analyst with the Sana’a Center. “This requires a sustained and politically sensitive approach, recognizing the deep-seated mistrust and trauma within Sudanese society.”
## Future Projections and the Need for Reflection
Short-term (next 6 months), the conflict is likely to remain entrenched, with neither side demonstrating a clear willingness to concede. Continued violence and displacement will continue to strain humanitarian resources and pose a significant threat to regional stability. Long-term (5-10 years), several scenarios are possible. A protracted stalemate could lead to the emergence of multiple armed groups, further fragmenting the country. Alternatively, a negotiated settlement, brokered by regional actors, could bring a fragile peace, though lasting stability remains highly uncertain. The potential for further regional spillover remains significant, particularly if the conflict destabilizes neighboring countries.
The situation in Sudan demands a fundamental reassessment of the international community’s approach. The reactive, piecemeal responses of the past six months have proven inadequate. A more proactive and comprehensive strategy is urgently needed, one that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict, strengthens civilian protection mechanisms, and holds perpetrators accountable for their actions. The world’s failure to adequately respond to the unfolding crisis in Sudan serves as a potent reminder of the ongoing challenges of humanitarian intervention and the complexities of conflict resolution in the 21st century. As the crisis deepens, it is imperative that we reflect on the lessons learned – or not learned – and engage in a critical dialogue about the future of international security and the responsibility we bear towards those suffering in conflict zones.