The conflict is the most recent catastrophe to affect the country of North Africa, which has had multiple coups and civil conflicts since gaining independence in 1956. what’s going on in Sudan The main focus is a conflict over dominance between two opposing organisations. the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary organisation, and the Sudanese military. Since the coup in 2021, which was led by coup leader General Abdel Fattah Burhan, the military has been the de facto ruler of Sudan. The coup overthrew the interim government that had been in place following the overthrow of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir in 2021. His RSF, led by General Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, aka Hemedoti, will work with the Sudanese army to keep him in power by 2023, and Barhan has promised a transition to civilian rule. However, neither Burhan nor Dagalo seem willing to relinquish power. They are also engaged in a power battle that descended into violence on April 15, 2023. Conflicts between the RSF and the Sudanese army have since taken place both inside and outside of Khartoum, the country’s capital. Disagreements regarding how the RSF paramilitary troops should be integrated into the Sudanese army were the cause of the recent bloodshed. Tensions sprang up after the RSF began dispatching personnel throughout the country and to Khartoum without the military’s express permission. But in reality, there has been violence in Sudan for some time due to worries that the RSF will continue to seize control of its economic resources, particularly its gold mines.
Who are his two men at the center of the discussion?
According to Dagalo, he has been in charge of the RSF since the early 2000s and is the leader of the Janjaweed, a force that has committed atrocities against people’s rights in the Darfur region. The International Criminal Court (ICC) held the then-president of Sudan, Bashir, accountable for alleged genocide against the Darfuri people and later indicted him for crimes against humanity. However, the Janjaweed were also blamed by the ICC. increase. Dagalo progressed through the ranks as they did this. While serving as the head of the RSF, Dagalo was accused of orchestrating a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy activists, including the 2019 massacre of 120 protesters. Military authorities have also come under scrutiny from human rights organisations as a result of Burhan’s conduct. He has presided over a crackdown on pro-democracy activists for the past two years as the leader of the military in charge and the nation’s de facto prime minister. Both men can be seen as impediments to Sudan’s move towards civil democracy. But the main conflict here is one of personal dominance. African proverb: “When elephants fight, the grass is trampled.”
Is power more important than ideology?
We don’t talk about two men or factions who have different opinions on how this country will shape up in years to come. This is not a right-left or party struggle. This isn’t a geopolitical conflict at all. A majority of Muslims north, and the Christians south. And it’s not racist violence like the Darfur conflict where self-proclaimed Arab Jana Jweed murdered a black man. some observers see what’s happening in Sudan between his two men, who are desperate not to be pushed out of the corridor of power by the transition to an elected government. How does this violence fit in with Sudan’s troubled past? What worries is the protracted dynamics in Sudan is that violence is now part of a narrative that fits the image of a failed African country. Sudan has organised more coup d’etats as any country in Africa. The coups of 1958, 1969 and 1985, 1989, 2019 and 2021 occurred as a result of independence from Britain in 1956.A coup in 1989 kept Bashir in power as a dictator for 30 years. Meanwhile, the Sudanese people suffered typical dictatorial excesses, including secret police, opposition crackdowns, and corruption. When Bashir was exiled in his 2019, it shocked many observers, myself included. Bashir thought he would either die in power or his reign would end in an assassination. However, there was little hope that Bashir’s death would lead to democratic government. He made the decision to take over when elections were scheduled two years after his downfall and justified it by claiming the military was stepping in to prevent a civil war. The recent riots have been eye-opening, but in many ways not uncommon in the context of Sudan’s history. In Sudan’s political turmoil, the military has played a central role. Also, since independence in 1956, resistance to civil rule has continued more than usual.
Is there a risk of violence escalating?
Civil society coalitions in the country are calling for an immediate end to the violence, as are US and other international observers. However, that seems unlikely as both factions have been delved into. In a similar vein, chances for free and fair elections in Sudan appear remote. There seems to be no easy path to a short-term solution. To make it even more difficult, there are two powerful men, each with their own military commander, battling for power that neither seems willing to relinquish. It is feared that the conflict will lead to increased and destabilized situation in this area, thereby jeopardising Sudan’s relations with its neighbours. Chad, which shares the western border with Sudan, has already closed its borders. While unrest broke out in Khartoum, several Egyptian soldiers were captured in northern Sudan. Ethiopia, Sudan’s neighbor to the east, is still suffering the effects of a two-year civil war in the Tigray region. The uneasy peace agreement between the people of South Sudan, which has been plagued by ethnic conflict since becoming independent from Sudan in 2011, is being closely watched because of concern that there will be an increase in unrest in Sudan. So the effects of this instability, in particular for Burhan, Dagal and indeed on the country’s future as a whole, may go far beyond these three. It may also pose a threat to regional stability.
Why the US is attempting to blame Russia for the “Deep State” War in Sudan
If Burhan repeats these emerging anti Russian rhetoric and vows to cancel the naval base agreement with Sudan after Russia’s victory over the RSF,the US could “justify” a military intervention there on the grounds of “defending Sudanese democracy from a Kremlin coup.”. It will also be revealed that Russia’s support for the “Unurgent RSF,” which would have been based on Russian interests to oppose speculation about Wagner mining operations, is at the root of this latest conflict. Overall, by introducing the narrative of Russia arming the RSF, the United States plans to achieve the following strategic goals:
1.Entice Burhan’s acceptance of these claims is a quid pro quo for US military support;
2. Request that he also revoke Russia’s rights to a naval base and end Russia’s accesibility in the region
3. To ensure that an evacuation operation is carried out in Sudan, think of providing SAF with direct support;
4. attempting to incite a crisis in ties between Russia and Sudan’s neighbors like in Chad and Egypt;
5.In order to confront Russia in Africa, the above scenario must be exploited and a coalition of nations formed;
6. Encourage Chad to assist a rebel/terrorist offensive backed by France in the CAR, which is allied with Russia;
7. Plan a copycat war with Russia on Mali that would destroy Kremlin influence over the Sahel; ensure it is perfect prior to applying this new tactic of simultaneous military operations across all continents:
8. Making Africa the principal theater of the New Cold War’s proxy conflicts. Therefore, the U.S. is well-positioned to continue this false news campaign, and while it is uncertain whether any of its goals will be achieved, it now has a lot of justifications for doing so.