Sudan Civil War

---

SITUATIONAL SUMMARY

Sudan's civil war — now entering its fourth year as of April 15–16, 2026 — has produced what the United Nations describes as the world's largest humanitarian and displacement crisis, one that has been systematically overshadowed by higher-profile conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine, and elsewhere. What began in April 2023 as a power struggle between two military leaders has metastasized into a catastrophic, multi-layered conflict with regional and global dimensions.

The Core Conflict and Its Origins

The war pits the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group commanded by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, widely known as "Hemedti." The two men were once allies who jointly ousted longtime autocrat Omar al-Bashir in 2019 and then, in a 2021 coup, removed the civilian transitional government that had been guiding Sudan toward democracy. Their falling-out — triggered primarily by a dispute over how and when the RSF would be integrated into the regular army, and who would command the resulting structure — erupted into open warfare on April 15, 2023.

Three years later, the SAF controls much of Sudan's east and center, including the capital Khartoum, which the army retook last year. The RSF dominates large swaths of the west, particularly the Darfur region, where it has established a rival administrative structure and rejected the SAF-backed government's claim to sole legitimacy. This de facto partition — with the internationally recognized government operating from Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast — has created what researcher Jan Pospisil of the Austrian Institute for International Affairs describes as a situation where "hardly any middle ground" exists for compromise.

The Human Toll: Scale and Severity

The humanitarian statistics are staggering, though sources differ on precise figures — a discrepancy worth noting. The UN officially estimates at least 40,000–59,000 deaths (Times of Israel/Straits Times), but former U.S. envoy Tom Perriello and the SBS Australia report cite figures as high as 400,000 when accounting for deaths from famine and disease — potentially up to ten times the direct conflict toll. This range reflects a well-documented challenge in conflict epidemiology: official counts capture only directly verified deaths, while excess mortality from hunger, disease, and displacement collapse is far harder to measure but often dwarfs battlefield casualties.

Displacement figures are similarly alarming: more than 11–14 million people have been forced from their homes (sources vary slightly), with 4.4 million crossing international borders, primarily into Chad, South Sudan, Egypt, and the Central African Republic. One in four Sudanese is now displaced. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization reports 21 million people facing acute food insecurity, including 6.3 million in the most dire "food emergency" category. Famine has been formally declared in North Darfur's capital El-Fasher and Kadugli, the capital of South Kordofan. The UNDP reports that poverty has nearly doubled — from approximately 38% of the population before the war to roughly 70% today, with average incomes having fallen to levels last seen in 1992 and extreme poverty rates worse than the 1980s.

The healthcare system is collapsing: only 63% of health facilities remain fully or partially functional, and disease outbreaks including cholera are spreading. A malnutrition center in Port Sudan has seen its caseload of severely malnourished children double to 60 per week — for a facility with only 16 beds.

Escalating Violence and Drone Warfare

A particularly alarming recent development is the dramatic escalation of drone warfare. The UN reports that nearly 700 civilians were killed in drone strikes in just the first three months of 2026 — roughly 7–8 civilians per day. The southern Kordofan region has emerged as the war's current main battleground, with near-daily strikes disrupting civilian life. UN-backed investigators have concluded that the RSF's siege and capture of El-Fasher bore "the defining characteristics of genocide," echoing the RSF's predecessor organization — the Janjaweed militia — which carried out the Darfur genocide in the early 2000s.

The Geopolitical Dimension: Proxy War Dynamics

Multiple sources emphasize that this is no longer simply an internal Sudanese conflict. External actors are sustaining both sides. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey are accused of backing the SAF; the UAE is accused of arming and financing the RSF. A particularly detailed account from Africanews describes a sophisticated war economy centered on Sudan's gold — one of Africa's largest producers. Gold extracted from conflict zones controlled by militias is smuggled through Chad and Libya, sold through opaque networks to Dubai, with proceeds cycling back to fund the RSF. The UAE's role extends to infrastructure investment in transit countries like the Central African Republic, which facilitates cargo flights supplying the RSF through central Africa. All accused parties deny involvement.

This proxy dimension is critical: as Pospisil told CNBC-TV18, "This is not just a war between two Sudanese factions… they both have powerful allies behind them," and the absence of meaningful pressure on those external backers has been the single most important factor prolonging the conflict.

International Response: The Berlin Conference and Its Limits

On April 15, 2026, ministers gathered in Berlin for the International Sudan Conference — the third such high-level gathering after similar events in London and Paris that produced no diplomatic breakthrough. The conference aimed to rally donors and revive faltering peace talks, but notably excluded both warring parties. The Sudanese government denounced the gathering as "surprising and unacceptable" interference. The UN's 2026 humanitarian appeal of $2.9 billion is only 16% funded. Germany pledged the equivalent of C$343 million; Canada announced C$120 million. UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper acknowledged the world had "failed the people of Sudan."

The U.S., historically a key mediator in Sudanese affairs, has been largely distracted by its military campaign against Iran. This attention deficit has materially weakened the diplomatic architecture needed to pressure external backers toward a settlement.

Fuel Costs and Cascading Effects

A compounding factor noted by multiple sources: the Iran war has driven fuel prices in Sudan up by more than 24%, further straining food supply chains and humanitarian logistics in a country already on the edge of collapse.

Source Assessment and Framing Differences

The sources in this collection are predominantly Western and international (CNBC-TV18, CBC, Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, SBS Australia, The Times of London, Straits Times), with no direct Sudanese government or RSF sources. Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, frames the crisis through an economic destruction lens with detailed UNDP data. Western sources (CBC, The Times) emphasize humanitarian failure and donor responsibility. Africanews provides the most granular account of the gold-smuggling war economy. The Times of Israel notably contextualizes Sudan within the broader regional crisis including the Iran war. No source here represents the Sudanese government's or RSF's perspective directly, which is a meaningful gap — the Sudanese government's characterization of the Berlin conference as interference reflects a sovereignty argument that deserves acknowledgment even if one disagrees with it. All sources cited are independent journalism or UN/NGO reporting; none are state-affiliated propaganda outlets, though Al Jazeera's Qatari state funding warrants noting as a potential framing consideration.

---

HISTORICAL PARALLELS

Parallel 1: The Democratic Republic of Congo's Perpetual War Economy (1996–Present)

The Second Congo War (1998–2003), often called "Africa's World War," involved at least nine African nations and dozens of armed groups fighting over the DRC's vast mineral wealth — coltan, gold, diamonds, and cassiterite. Like Sudan today, the conflict was nominally framed as a political and military struggle but was fundamentally sustained by resource extraction and the interests of external state and non-state actors who profited from the chaos. Rwandan and Ugandan forces backed proxy militias that controlled mining areas; proceeds funded continued fighting in a self-reinforcing loop. International conferences produced peace agreements (Lusaka 1999, Sun City 2002) that collapsed or were only partially implemented because they failed to address the underlying economic incentives.

The parallel to Sudan is direct and disturbing. Sudan's gold economy — extraction by militia-controlled mines, smuggling through Chad and Libya, sale through Dubai's opaque markets, reinvestment in logistics infrastructure to sustain the RSF — mirrors the DRC's mineral war economy almost precisely. As journalist Roula Merhej describes it, this is a "circular economy" of conflict. The DRC parallel also illuminates why external conferences without the warring parties, and without mechanisms to disrupt the resource flows, consistently fail: the economic incentives for continued fighting outweigh the diplomatic incentives for peace.

The DRC's trajectory is sobering: more than 25 years after the Second Congo War began, eastern DRC remains mired in conflict, with the M23 rebellion and Rwandan involvement persisting into 2026. Peace agreements have come and gone. The lesson is that resource-driven conflicts with external patron networks are extraordinarily resistant to diplomatic resolution unless the economic architecture of the war is directly targeted — something no current Sudan peace initiative has seriously attempted.

Where the parallel breaks down: Sudan has a more clearly defined two-faction structure than the DRC's fragmented militia landscape, which theoretically makes a negotiated settlement more tractable. Sudan also has a recognized government with international legitimacy, whereas the DRC's state, though weak, was never fully displaced. And Sudan's strategic location on the Red Sea gives it a geopolitical salience that the DRC's landlocked interior lacks, potentially creating different leverage points.

Parallel 2: The Nigerian Civil War (Biafra, 1967–1970) and Post-Conflict State Reconstruction

The Nigerian Civil War, in which the southeastern region of Biafra attempted to secede, resulted in approximately one to three million deaths — the majority from famine and disease rather than direct combat, in a pattern that closely mirrors Sudan's mortality profile today. The conflict featured deliberate blockades of food and humanitarian aid, mass displacement, and international powers backing different sides (the UK and USSR supported the federal government; France and several African states backed Biafra). The humanitarian catastrophe — particularly images of starving Biafran children — galvanized international attention and gave birth to the modern humanitarian NGO sector, including Médecins Sans Frontières.

The parallel to Sudan is instructive on two levels. First, the use of starvation as a weapon: Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand explicitly stated there is "credible evidence that starvation is being deliberately used as a method of warfare" in Sudan, echoing the Nigerian federal government's blockade strategy. Second, the post-conflict reconstruction challenge: Nigeria's reintegration after Biafra's surrender in 1970 was remarkably swift by some measures — the federal government pursued a policy of "no victor, no vanquished" — but the underlying ethnic and economic grievances that fueled the war were never fully resolved, contributing to decades of instability.

The UNDP's projection that even under the most optimistic peace scenario Sudan would lose $18.8 billion in GDP by 2043 suggests a reconstruction challenge that dwarfs Nigeria's post-Biafra experience. Sudan's economy was already one of the world's most impoverished before the war; Nigeria in 1970 had oil revenues to fund reconstruction. Sudan has gold, but that gold is currently funding the war rather than the peace.

Where the parallel breaks down: The Nigerian war ended with a clear military victor (the federal government), which provided a definitive endpoint and a legitimate authority to lead reconstruction. Sudan's current trajectory does not point toward a clear military resolution — both sides retain significant capacity and external backing, making a Biafra-style surrender unlikely in the near term.

---

SCENARIO ANALYSIS

MOST LIKELY: Frozen Conflict with Accelerating State Collapse

The weight of evidence — three years of failed diplomacy, entrenched battlefield positions, active proxy networks, a resource-based war economy, and a distracted international community — points toward a prolonged frozen conflict in which neither side achieves decisive military victory but the Sudanese state continues to disintegrate. The Berlin conference, like its London and Paris predecessors, will likely produce pledges that are partially fulfilled but no political breakthrough. The de facto partition between SAF-controlled east/center and RSF-controlled west will harden, with both sides consolidating administrative control in their respective territories.

This scenario is directly informed by the DRC parallel: when external patrons have economic incentives to sustain conflict and peace processes exclude the warring parties, agreements don't hold. The SAF's refusal to participate in Berlin and its denunciation of the conference as interference signals that the internationally recognized government has no interest in a negotiated settlement that might legitimize the RSF's territorial control. Meanwhile, the RSF's gold revenue stream — flowing through Dubai — gives it the financial autonomy to sustain operations indefinitely without needing to win militarily.

The Iran war's distraction of U.S. diplomatic bandwidth is a critical enabling condition for this scenario. American mediation was already the most credible external pressure mechanism; its effective withdrawal removes the last serious check on external patron behavior.

Humanitarian conditions will continue to deteriorate. The 16% funding of the UN appeal, combined with Trump administration cuts to foreign aid, means that the 20 million people the UN hopes to reach in 2026 will likely receive significantly less support than planned. Famine will expand beyond currently declared areas. Drone warfare will continue to escalate, with civilian casualties mounting.

KEY CLAIM: By April 2027, Sudan will remain in active conflict with no ceasefire agreement in place, the RSF will retain administrative control of Darfur, and the number of people facing famine conditions will exceed 25 million — a 20% increase from current levels.

FORECAST HORIZON: Long-term (1-3 years)

KEY INDICATORS:

1. The UAE fails to implement any verifiable reduction in arms or financial flows to the RSF following the Berlin conference — observable through continued gold export data from Dubai and satellite imagery of RSF supply routes through the CAR.

2. Fighting intensifies in South Kordofan and Blue Nile state, with the SAF launching major offensive operations using drone strikes that kill more than 1,000 civilians per quarter — a trajectory already established by Q1 2026's 700-death toll.

---

WILDCARD: Regional Spillover and Neighboring State Destabilization

A lower-probability but high-consequence scenario involves the conflict metastasizing beyond Sudan's borders in ways that trigger direct military confrontation between regional powers. Chad, which hosts the largest number of Sudanese refugees and shares a long border with Darfur, is particularly vulnerable. The RSF has historical roots in cross-border Chadian-Sudanese tribal networks; if RSF forces face serious military pressure from the SAF, they could retreat into Chad, bringing the conflict with them. Chad's own fragile political situation — it has experienced multiple coups and has its own internal armed groups — makes it poorly positioned to absorb this pressure.

Egypt, which backs the SAF and has its own strategic interests in Nile water rights and Sudanese stability, could escalate its involvement if it perceives the RSF gaining the upper hand or threatening Egyptian-aligned interests. Egyptian military intervention — even covert — would dramatically change the conflict's dynamics and could draw in UAE-backed forces in a direct confrontation between two Arab states, with implications far beyond Sudan.

This scenario is informed by the DRC parallel's "Africa's World War" phase, when what began as an internal conflict drew in nine neighboring states. It is also consistent with the UN's explicit warning that "the risk of wider regional instability is high." The trigger would most likely be a major RSF military reversal that threatens its territorial control, prompting either a desperate cross-border retreat or an escalatory response from its external backers.

The Iran war context adds a further wildcard dimension: if the U.S.-Iran ceasefire collapses entirely and the region descends into broader instability, the already-strained humanitarian logistics corridors through the Red Sea and East Africa could be further disrupted, accelerating Sudan's collapse and potentially forcing Egypt into a more active role to protect its southern flank.

KEY CLAIM: By October 2026, RSF forces will have conducted at least one significant cross-border military operation into Chad or Central African Republic, prompting a formal diplomatic protest or military response from the affected government and an emergency UN Security Council session on regional spillover.

FORECAST HORIZON: Medium-term (3-12 months)

KEY INDICATORS:

1. A significant SAF military offensive in Darfur that threatens RSF territorial control — observable through satellite imagery of troop movements and a spike in refugee flows toward the Chad border exceeding 50,000 people in a single month.

2. Chad or the Central African Republic formally lodging a complaint with the African Union or UN Security Council about cross-border RSF incursions or arms smuggling activity on their territory.

---

KEY TAKEAWAY

Sudan's civil war is not a forgotten crisis but an *abandoned* one — a distinction the UN's top official in Sudan has explicitly drawn — sustained not by neglect alone but by the active economic and military interests of external patrons, particularly the UAE's financing of the RSF through Sudan's gold trade, a circular war economy that no current diplomatic initiative has seriously attempted to disrupt. The Berlin conference, like its predecessors in London and Paris, addresses symptoms (humanitarian funding gaps) while leaving the structural drivers of conflict — external patron networks and resource-based war financing — entirely intact. Most critically, the international community's attention deficit is not accidental: with the Iran war consuming U.S. diplomatic bandwidth, the Ukraine conflict demanding European resources, and Sudan producing no strategic commodity that Western powers depend on, the geopolitical incentives to resolve this crisis remain far weaker than the incentives to manage it cheaply through underfunded humanitarian responses — a calculus that, if the DRC precedent holds, could leave Sudan in conflict for decades.