War in Sudan: What’s Hiding Behind the SAF and RSF’s Support

Introduction:

In the past weeks, the war in Sudan intensified as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured the city of El-Fasher in the Darfur region, leading to violences against the civilian population. Reports mentioned mass killings, executions and looting in the city. The conflict started in 2018, when a popular revolution led in 2019 to the fall of Omar El-Bechir who had been ruling over the country since 1989. A transition was then mapped between a military council and a civil government and was supposed to pave the way to a democratic regime in Sudan. Nevertheless, the military refused to hand over the power to a democratic regime, leading to strong repressions and to the death of hundreds of civilians.

In 2021, the leaders of the two main military forces, the general Abdel-Fattah Al-Burhane — leading the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) — and Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo (RSF), led a coup, denying the country of any democratic transition. Unable to find a common way to unify the two forces within a common command and divided on the question of the repartition of the country’s resources, a division occurred, leading in 2023 to an official war between the SAF and the RSF. The conflict is now reaching a peak as El-Fasher fell into the hands of the SFR. In response, the SAF strengthened its posture to counter RSF atrocities in the region, while Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo (nicknamed Hemedti) declared plans to push for further territorial gains.

United Nations map of Sudan (UN Geospatial, 2020)

To resume, the war in Sudan is a civil war, opposing two factions over the control of the country. The exactions committed are not only tied to the fight over power, but as well grounded in ethnic grievances and repressions, showing a pattern of violence motivated by ethnicity. In addition to this conflict, another fight over influence is at play, where multiple nations (the United Arab Emirates, Russia/Wagner Group, Egypt, Turkiye, Iran) are competing and supporting either the SAF or the RSF.

Why Sudan is the battleground of a foreign influence fight:

As South Sudan seceded from the rest of the country, denying Sudan with precious oil revenues, the gold rich soil in Sudan became central to both the SAF and the RSF. These groups have forged important networks relying on gold, therefore requiring a certain control over the Sudanese territory. Because South Darfur, Kordofan, and northern Sudan hold some of the country’s richest gold deposits, both sides are vying to dominate a bigger territory. Meanwhile, foreign powers are also willing to take advantage of the instability in the country, and support one or another side in this conflict, in order to pursue national interests. 

Russia/Wagner Group: Russia is present in the country through diplomatic and material support to the SAF and seems to have a great interest in a naval base in Port-Sudan. This Base would be particularly strategic, enabling a certain control over a key chokepoint in the Red Sea, and countering a French and American presence in Djibouti. Nevertheless, the Wagner Group (until 2024 and its dismantlement), a Private Military Company controlled by the Russian government, supported the RSF, providing surface-to-air missiles to fight against the SAF. The group is known for benefiting from instability to obtain gold concessions in countries like Mali, Burkina Faso or Central African Republic. Behind this ambiguous involvement, Russia seems to take advantage of the instability, reinforcing its capacity to bypass the Western sanctions by seeking other sources of revenues and reinforcing its diplomatic ties. 

Egypt: The country seems mostly seeking to stabilise Sudan by providing diplomatic and military support to the SAF. The war in Sudan is a direct threat to the stability of the region as well as the national security of Egypt, and the flow of Sudanese refugee pressures seriously Cairo. Thus, Egypt appears to adopt a rational position by advocating for peace and stability in Sudan, as one of the main mediators in the conflict. In addition, it has some incentives by assisting the SAF, as it would reinforce its ties with Sudan, potentially securing an ally regarding the Blue Nile disputes with Ethiopia and reinforcing Cairo's position in the Red Sea.  

Türkiye: Türkiye’s involvement seems rather based on its drone diplomacy to gain influence in Sudan, as Ankara backed the SAF with TB-2 drones to counter the RSF. Diplomatically, Türkiye proposed to mediate the UAE-Sudan tensions, as it tries to become a greater actor on the international scene. Through this diplomatic positioning, Ankara might seek a seat at the negotiation table to discuss the post-conflict concessions in the country, therefore reinforcing both its ties with Sudan and its position as a great actor on the international scene, while assuring itself precious resources in Sudan. 

Iran: Similarly to Turkey, Iran is backing the SAF through the provision of drones, thus reinforcing political ties between the two countries. This support appears to be tied to a certain will of Iran to gain access to the Red Sea, which would reinforce its maritime depth, challenging the American presence in the region. As for the other foreign powers involved in the conflict, Iran might seek gold concessions as a retribution for its support to the SAF.

The United Arab Emirates: The UAE has been backing the RSF, smuggling weapons from Chad to the group in the Darfur region. Through their involvement, the UAE seems to reinforce their influence over the Red Sea corridor, and maintain its grip over Sudanese gold, as the UAE import 90% of Sudan’s gold, not counting illegal gold flux from the RSF. In addition to gold, the UAE are also seeking farmland, as Sudan has been a major agricultural trade partner. Its support is also tied to an ideological difference, as the SAF is often linked to political Islam, which can further explain the UAE’s support to the RSF.

What are the implications of the conflict:

First of all, the foreign involvement in Sudan represents a serious issue, as it reinforces the violence and instability in the country. Both sides are supported, thus explaining the longevity of the war. This fuelling is particularly dangerous, as it means a longer instability in the region, and directly leads to bigger flows of displaced people. Since 2023, 11.8 million forcibly displaced people have been reported, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

This leads to the second issue, being the humanitarian crisis with important flows of displaced people. As mentioned earlier, they pressure the neighbouring countries and reinforce instability, with a risk of spillover growing. In addition, these populations are subject to food and water scarcity, making them particularly vulnerable in a region already marked by violence and repression.

Conclusion:

What started as a contest between the SAF and the RSF is now rooted in a greater conflict involving foreign powers in Sudan.  External patrons are supporting one side or the other in what seems to be a fight over influence in the region, monetized by gold and strategic position in the Red Sea. The immediate consequence is a humanitarian crisis, forcing millions of people to flee mass murders, executions, war crimes and lootings from the RSF and the SAF. Meanwhile, the war is threatening the stability of the region, already marked by instability, as flows of displaced people pressure the neighbouring countries. As the future of the conflict remains uncertain, will external powers be able to bring a true ceasefire that could lead to durable peace in Sudan?