Current Dynamics of the Sudan Conflict: Analyzing Power Struggles and Future Prospects

The ongoing conflict in Sudan sees the SAF making territorial gains amid RSF’s attempts to form a parallel government for legitimacy. As casualty numbers rise and millions are displaced, observers express concerns about potential regional instability stemming from Sudan’s power struggles. While military momentum favors the SAF, experts warn of complexities and conflicts likely to persist without proper international intervention and resolution strategies.

The conflict in Sudan has intensified as the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have gained ground in Khartoum while the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) attempt to establish a parallel government. Since the outbreak of hostilities in April 2023, the war has resulted in significant casualties and displacements, necessitating urgent deliberations on the future of the country and prospects for peace. The RSF’s strategy to create a separate government is viewed as a desperate measure to regain credibility and assert its political influence amidst territorial setbacks.

A political charter was signed by the RSF and allied groups in Kenya to formalize their intention for a separate governance structure. Commentators, including analyst Jihad Mashamoun, interpret this move as a response to RSF’s diminishing credibility due to alleged war crimes, indicating a parallel with Libya’s internal divisions under rival military leader Khalifa Haftar. Observers express concerns that a successful RSF might embolden unrest in neighboring regions, including Chad, complicating the regional dynamics.

As SAF secures strategic victories, including the recent capture of El-Obeid, focus shifts to controlling Khartoum, the epicenter of the conflict. Alan Boswell of the International Crisis Group notes that full military possession of the city would mark a significant accomplishment for the Sudanese army while possibly escalating violence to Darfur and Kordofan. Additionally, the SAF’s amnesty offers to former RSF combatants may weaken the RSF further.

Although signs of SAF’s dominance are apparent, experts caution that the end of hostilities may not be near. The competing military and political interests imply a likelihood of escalation as external entities vie for influence. Furthermore, analyst Mashamoun posits that international acknowledgment of the RSF could exacerbate conflict conditions, warning against equating both factions as equal participants in the strife.

A potential resolution might involve characterizing the RSF as a terrorist organization to sever its funding and legitimacy, though international reluctance complicates this prospect. Finally, Boswell highlights that discussions concerning the conflict’s endgame will likely involve regional powers including Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.

The situation in Sudan remains precarious as the SAF advances towards controlling Khartoum while the RSF attempts to establish its separate governance. The conflict has created dire humanitarian implications, with the struggle for recognition and legitimacy and concerns about broader regional instability. Without decisive international action and a clear resolution framework, further fragmentation and violence appear inevitable. The focus must shift toward ensuring accountability for war crimes and fostering a transition toward democracy post-conflict.

Original Source: www.aa.com.tr