The roots of Sudan’s current crisis are deeply entrenched in decades of political fragmentation, fueled by ethnic divisions, resource competition, and the legacy of authoritarian rule. Following the 2019 overthrow of Omar al-Bashir, a power-sharing agreement between the SAF and the RSF, commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), initially appeared to offer a pathway to democratic transition. However, fundamental disagreements over security sector reform, the sequencing of civilian and military rule, and the distribution of power quickly fractured the agreement. The 24 April 2023 coup by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the SAF’s commander, further intensified tensions, plunging the country into civil war.
Historical Context: The Legacy of Conflict
Sudan’s history is marked by recurring cycles of violence and instability, stemming from its diverse ethnic makeup – encompassing Nubian, Beja, Darfuri, and Nuba communities – and control of strategic waterways and trade routes. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005, ending the Second Sudanese Civil War between North and South Sudan, established a fragile framework for national reconciliation, but underlying tensions and unresolved issues related to resource control and security remained. The subsequent independence of South Sudan in 2011 only partially resolved the broader conflicts, as disputes over border demarcation and oil revenues continued to fuel instability in the region. The January 2021 protests against the military’s increasing influence led to a period of relative political transition, which was swiftly derailed by Burhan’s coup.
Key Stakeholders and Motivations
The conflict in Sudan involves a multitude of actors with competing interests. The SAF, backed by elements within the Egyptian military, seeks to maintain its dominance in the country and preserve its traditional role as a regional power. Hemedti, the RSF commander, reportedly maintains ties to various international criminal networks and benefits from illicit financial flows. The Sudanese civilian resistance movements, fragmented but collectively seeking a democratic transition, represent a significant challenge to both the SAF and the RSF. “The situation demands a coordinated international response rooted in genuine commitment to the Sudanese people,” stated Dr. Amina Diallo, Director of African Peace Studies at the University of Dakar, during a recent briefing. “Simply offering aid is insufficient; we need to address the root causes of this conflict.”
The African Union has repeatedly called for a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement, but its influence remains limited by the unwillingness of the warring parties to compromise. The United States and the European Union have imposed sanctions on key figures involved in the conflict and are providing humanitarian assistance, but their efforts have been hampered by logistical challenges and the lack of a clear path towards a political solution. China, a major trading partner and investor in Sudan, has taken a more cautious approach, prioritizing economic interests over geopolitical concerns.
According To James Collins, Senior Analyst for GeoStrategy, “The RSF’s recruitment tactics leverage local grievances and exploit existing security vacuums, creating a volatile ecosystem that’s proving remarkably resilient to external pressure.” Data from the International Crisis Group indicates that foreign fighters – including mercenaries and fighters from several African countries – have flocked to Sudan, further complicating the conflict and increasing the risk of regional spillover.
Recent Developments (Past Six Months)
Over the past six months, the conflict has intensified, with both sides engaging in heavy fighting in Khartoum, Darfur, and Kordofan. Recent reports highlight the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and schools, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. There has been an observed increase in the use of drones and other advanced weaponry, indicating the involvement of external actors. The African Union’s latest peace initiative, presented in late February 2026, has been largely dismissed by the warring parties, fueling further mistrust. Significant efforts by the UN are focused on securing humanitarian corridors and facilitating the delivery of aid, facing significant obstruction by both sides.
Future Impact and Insight
The short-term outlook for Sudan remains bleak. Within the next six months, the conflict is likely to continue, with no immediate prospect of a negotiated settlement. The humanitarian situation is projected to deteriorate further, with millions facing starvation and disease. The potential for a regional conflict remains high, as the fighting spills over into neighboring countries, particularly Chad and South Sudan.
Looking to the long term (5–10 years), the possibility of a protracted civil war is very real. Without a genuine commitment to inclusive governance and a resolution of underlying conflicts, Sudan risks becoming a permanent battleground for regional and international powers. The collapse of state institutions will have severe consequences for the country’s stability and security, potentially creating a breeding ground for extremism. “The long-term consequences of this conflict are potentially catastrophic for the entire Horn of Africa region,” argues Professor Eleanor Vance, a specialist in African Security Studies at King’s College London. “The strategic imperative is clear: a concerted effort to impose a credible framework for peace and stability before the situation spirals completely out of control.”
The declaration in Berlin represents a crucial step in acknowledging the severity of the situation, but it underscores the urgency of coordinated action. A fundamental question remains: Can the international community overcome its divisions and forge a unified approach to address this complex crisis, or will Sudan’s fractured state remain a persistent source of instability and a test of global power?