Strategic Assessment: Ongoing Conflict in Sudan Between Army and RSF Amid Regional Geopolitical Dynamics

Read Title Aloud
Go to Source Article

1. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

The conflict in Sudan, entering its fourth year, involves the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), with significant humanitarian consequences. The RSF controls Darfur, while the army holds the east, with ongoing clashes in Kordofan and near Ethiopia. The situation is exacerbated by foreign involvement and humanitarian crises. Overall confidence in this assessment is moderate.

2. Competing Hypotheses

• Hypothesis A: The conflict is primarily driven by internal power struggles between the Sudanese army and the RSF, exacerbated by their failure to integrate forces and transition to civilian rule. Evidence includes the historical alliance and subsequent fallout between Generals Burhan and Dagalo.
• Hypothesis B: The conflict is significantly influenced by external actors providing support to both sides, with regional powers using Sudan as a proxy battleground. Evidence includes allegations of UAE support for the RSF and backing of the Sudanese army by Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
• Assessment: Hypothesis A is currently better supported due to the direct involvement and leadership roles of Generals Burhan and Dagalo, though external influences remain a critical factor. Indicators such as shifts in foreign support or changes in leadership dynamics could alter this judgment.

3. Key Assumptions and Red Flags

• Assumptions: The RSF and Sudanese army remain the primary belligerents; foreign support continues to be indirect; humanitarian conditions will worsen without intervention.
• Information Gaps: Precise levels of foreign military and financial support; comprehensive civilian casualty figures; internal decision-making processes of the RSF and Sudanese army.
• Bias & Deception Risks: Potential bias in U.N. and U.S. sources regarding foreign involvement; risk of manipulated casualty figures by conflicting parties.

4. Implications and Strategic Risks

The conflict's continuation could further destabilize the region, with potential spillover effects into neighboring countries. The humanitarian crisis may prompt international intervention or increased refugee flows.

• Political / Geopolitical: Potential for increased regional tensions and proxy conflicts involving neighboring states.
• Security / Counter-Terrorism: Risk of extremist groups exploiting the chaos to establish footholds in Sudan.
• Cyber / Information Space: Potential for cyber operations targeting Sudanese infrastructure or propaganda campaigns by involved parties.
• Economic / Social: Continued economic decline and social fragmentation, exacerbating humanitarian needs and potentially leading to further unrest.

5. Recommendations and Outlook

• Immediate Actions (0–30 days): Monitor foreign military movements and aid flows; assess humanitarian aid delivery mechanisms; track shifts in conflict zones.
• Medium-Term Posture (1–12 months): Develop resilience measures for regional stability; engage in multilateral dialogues to mediate conflict; strengthen partnerships with humanitarian organizations.
• Scenario Outlook:
  • Best: Ceasefire and renewed negotiations, triggered by international mediation.
  • Worst: Escalation into a broader regional conflict, triggered by direct foreign military intervention.
  • Most-Likely: Protracted conflict with intermittent ceasefires, influenced by internal power dynamics and external pressures.

6. Key Individuals and Entities

• General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan - Leader of the Sudanese army
• General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo - Leader of the Rapid Support Forces
• United Arab Emirates - Alleged supporter of RSF
• Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar - Supporters of the Sudanese army

7. Thematic Tags

regional conflicts, internal conflict, humanitarian crisis, foreign intervention, regional stability, power struggle, proxy war, drone warfare