Sudan at the Brink: War, Displacement, and Political Fragmentation

The ongoing conflict between Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) has escalated into a complex and decentralized war, defined by shifting territorial control, tribal fragmentation, and the rise of competing governance structures. The RSF’s siege of El Fasher and the Abu Shouk refugee camp reflects a broader strategy to dominate Darfur—a region historically marginalized and destabilized. Strategic advances into South and West Kordofan, including the recapture of towns such as Debeibat and Khawi, further reflect the RSF’s ambition to challenge SAF dominance and cement its authority.

Tribal fissures, such as internal divisions among the Arab Misseriya, underscore the deeply fractured nature of the conflict. These divisions reduce the likelihood of a coordinated national resolution and instead reinforce localized loyalties and parallel power structures. The RSF’s move to establish a rival governing authority has only deepened the political rupture, signaling the potential entrenchment of dual-state structures.

The SAF’s continued reliance on air power and drones—combined with the RSF’s asymmetrical tactics—indicates an enduring conflict with no near-term military resolution. Civilian populations remain trapped between factions, as each side vies for control while intensifying regional destabilization.

Humanitarian Crisis and Public Health Collapse

Sudan’s humanitarian situation has reached catastrophic levels. More than 14 million individuals are internally displaced, and upwards of 24,000 have been killed. Critical infrastructure—particularly in health, water, and sanitation—has been destroyed in targeted strikes and collateral damage. The siege conditions imposed by both parties exacerbate civilian vulnerability, cutting off access to aid and basic services.

A dramatic surge in cholera cases across states such as Khartoum reveals the complete collapse of Sudan’s public health system. Attacks on medical facilities—including the drone strike on Daman Hospital—reflect a broader disregard for international humanitarian law. The World Health Organization’s urgent calls for increased medical supplies have gone largely unmet, highlighting the mismatch between international relief efforts and the scale of on-the-ground needs.

This degradation of health services amidst armed conflict is a textbook example of how war fuels secondary emergencies, where disease, displacement, and hunger become weapons in a broader struggle for territorial dominance.

Political Uncertainty and Governance Challenges

The recent appointment of Kamel Idriss as transitional prime minister offers a superficial semblance of political progress. While his ability to form a cabinet independently of military influence may appear to signal a shift toward civilian governance, the lack of transparency and exclusion of armed actors not party to the Juba Peace Agreement raises doubts about the durability of his mandate.

Compounding internal instability are external diplomatic tensions, notably Sudan’s rejection of U.S. allegations regarding chemical weapons use. Although the establishment of a national inquiry reflects an attempt to manage international scrutiny, the Sudanese government’s portrayal of U.S. actions as politically motivated further undermines prospects for constructive engagement.

These dynamics signal deep-seated mistrust between Sudan and key international actors. The geopolitical calculus surrounding sanctions, arms flows, and diplomatic recognition could either accelerate or inhibit Sudan’s fragile transition, depending on how both internal and external stakeholders navigate this precarious moment.

Strategic Implications and Prospects for Peace

The military situation remains fluid and unpredictable. The RSF’s ability to seize key logistical centers and conduct drone strikes signals a level of operational sophistication that challenges conventional military strategies. The SAF’s airstrikes, while disruptive, have not prevented the RSF from consolidating control in several regions.

This battlefield stalemate, combined with weak state institutions and fragmented political authority, means that neither side appears capable of achieving decisive victory. Without a credible peace process inclusive of all relevant factions—military, political, tribal, and civil—the conflict is poised to persist. Humanitarian access remains contingent on security developments, making aid delivery both dangerous and inconsistent.

The persistent exclusion of significant armed groups from negotiations, and the reliance on narrow peace frameworks, further reduces the chances of a durable settlement. Civilian suffering will likely worsen unless a broader, more inclusive political process is initiated.

---

Recommendations for International Engagement

1. Expand Humanitarian Corridors: The international community, particularly through the United Nations and regional bodies, must negotiate and enforce humanitarian corridors that guarantee safe access to displaced populations and besieged urban centers.
2. Support Inclusive Mediation Efforts: Mediation should not be limited to actors within the Juba Peace framework. A revised peace process that includes tribal leaders, civil society, and armed groups currently excluded from formal talks is essential to prevent further fragmentation.
3. Enhance Monitoring and Accountability Mechanisms: Independent investigation mechanisms should be deployed to document human rights abuses, monitor alleged war crimes, and support future transitional justice frameworks.
4. Stabilize Public Health Infrastructure: Donor nations should prioritize funding for mobile medical units, vaccination campaigns, and emergency cholera response in coordination with local NGOs and international health agencies.
5. Recalibrate Sanctions Strategy: Sanctions should be targeted, time-bound, and linked to specific benchmarks on humanitarian access and political inclusivity. Blanket sanctions risk isolating civilians and exacerbating anti-Western narratives.

By focusing on these interventions, international actors can contribute meaningfully to a reduction in civilian suffering and lay the groundwork for a more sustainable resolution to the crisis. While the pathway to peace in Sudan is fraught with complexity, strategic engagement grounded in inclusivity, pragmatism, and humanitarian prioritization remains imperative.