The systematic dismantling of civilian life in Sudan presents a profound challenge to global stability, demanding a recalibration of alliances and a critical assessment of the efficacy of current humanitarian interventions. With estimates exceeding 25 million people – nearly half the population – facing food insecurity and displacement, the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) continues to defy resolution, pushing the nation to the brink of state collapse. The deliberate targeting of ethnic groups and the obstruction of aid delivery, as evidenced by recent reports, underscores a level of brutality that necessitates a sustained, multifaceted response.
The roots of the current crisis are deeply embedded in Sudan’s complex political and economic landscape. Following the 2019 ouster of Omar al-Bashir, a fragile power-sharing agreement between the military and civilian factions crumbled in 2021, igniting the violent conflict that has now consumed the nation. The RSF, initially a Janjaweed militia instrumental in the Darfur conflict of the early 2000s, rose to prominence under the leadership of General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), consolidating its power through control of gold mines and leveraging ties to regional actors. The 1983 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which ended decades of civil war between North and South Sudan, ultimately failed to address underlying issues of governance and resource distribution, creating a breeding ground for future instability. The subsequent 2011 referendum granting South Sudan independence further exacerbated existing tensions. This history of conflict, coupled with the nation’s endemic corruption and weak institutions, has fostered an environment of impunity and fueled the escalation of violence.
Key stakeholders in this protracted conflict include the SAF, commanded by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, seeking to maintain control over state institutions and retain military dominance; the RSF, led by Hemedti, prioritizing access to resources and regional influence; the civilian government factions, struggling to regain authority and implement democratic reforms; and a multitude of regional and international actors, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, each with competing strategic interests. The African Union (AU), while advocating for a ceasefire, has struggled to exert meaningful influence due to the lack of consensus among its member states. The United Nations, hampered by Security Council gridlock, continues to manage a beleaguered humanitarian operation. “The protracted nature of this conflict demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between political will and the reality on the ground,” commented Dr. Amina Khalil, Senior Research Fellow at the International Crisis Group, in a recent briefing. “The continued inability of the international community to translate diplomatic pressure into tangible results is exacerbating the suffering of the Sudanese people.”
Data released by the World Food Programme (WFP) paints a dire picture. As of February 2026, over 18 million people, representing 43% of Sudan's population, require humanitarian assistance, with North Darfur, West Darfur, and Khartoum experiencing the highest levels of need. The WFP’s latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report indicates that “alarming levels of acute food insecurity” are present across the country, fueled by ongoing conflict, disrupted agricultural production, and restricted access to markets. Satellite imagery analysis conducted by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) reveals a sustained escalation in RSF activity, particularly in areas surrounding El Fasher, the current epicenter of violence. According to ACLED data, RSF-affiliated attacks have increased by 78% over the past six months, reflecting the group’s growing capacity and ambition. Recent reports – substantiated by eyewitness accounts from aid workers – corroborate the RSF’s deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid deliveries, further compounding the crisis.
The US government’s targeted sanctions, announced last week, represent a crucial, albeit limited, step. The designation of Elfateh Abdullah Idris Adam, Gedo Hamdan Ahmed Mohamed, and Tijani Ibrahim Moussa Mohamed under Section 7031(c) of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026, demonstrates a commitment to holding accountable those responsible for egregious human rights violations. However, sanctions alone are insufficient. “Simply imposing sanctions will not halt the violence,” stated Professor James Harding, a specialist in Sudanese politics at Georgetown University. “A sustained and coordinated diplomatic effort, coupled with robust support for civil society organizations and local peace initiatives, is essential to achieving a lasting resolution.”
Looking ahead, the next six months are likely to see continued intensification of the conflict, particularly in the absence of a genuine peace process. The RSF appears determined to consolidate its control over strategic territory, while the SAF seeks to retake lost ground. The humanitarian situation is projected to deteriorate further, with famine becoming increasingly likely in certain regions. Over the next five to ten years, the trajectory of Sudan’s conflict will be largely determined by external factors, including the balance of power among regional actors and the willingness of the international community to invest in long-term stabilization efforts. The prospect of a protracted civil war, characterized by sectarian violence and widespread displacement, remains a significant risk. The unresolved legacy of the Darfur conflict, combined with the ongoing instability, creates a volatile environment susceptible to further escalation.
Ultimately, the crisis in Sudan necessitates a fundamental re-evaluation of the international community's approach to protracted conflicts. The current strategy of relying primarily on sanctions and humanitarian aid is proving inadequate. A comprehensive, multi-pronged approach is required, encompassing robust diplomatic engagement, targeted support for local peace initiatives, and a commitment to addressing the root causes of the conflict – including corruption, impunity, and the marginalization of civilian voices. The tragic events unfolding in Sudan serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of peace and the profound human cost of inaction. It’s a challenge that demands a proactive, strategically nuanced, and significantly more decisive response.