Analysts have linked the possibility of ending the war in Sudan to applying effective pressure on the Sudanese Army, the Rapid Support Forces and the external parties supporting them, in a way that would halt arms supplies and create conditions for humanitarian truces and a political process. This comes amid stalled initiatives and both sides’ insistence that they can achieve a military victory and impose their terms on any future settlement.
Stalled initiatives and conflicting external interests
Political initiatives aimed at addressing the crisis have multiplied since fighting broke out in April 2023, without producing a solution to end the war, which has created a humanitarian situation the United Nations describes as among the worst in the world. Analysts say the intertwining of developments on the ground and the humanitarian catastrophe with the interests of regional and foreign states makes reaching a near-term settlement unlikely.
The Sudanese Army and the Rapid Support Forces continue to use rhetoric centred on their ability to achieve victory, despite neither having sufficient control on the ground to impose its terms unilaterally. Analysts also say the two sides are no longer able to independently decide whether to continue or halt the fighting because they depend on external backers and the support they receive enables the war to continue.
The army demands that the Rapid Support Forces be excluded from any future political or military arrangement, refusing to give it a seat in possible negotiations or treat it as an equal party. This position, along with the other side’s demands and both parties’ attempts to strengthen their positions on the ground, has kept political tracks from making tangible progress.
Amid the political deadlock, the UN Security Council unanimously voted to extend the sanctions imposed on Sudan for an additional two months. The continuation of sanctions as fighting expands raises questions about whether current international pressure can change the calculations of the warring parties and those providing them with support.
The control map prevents a military victory
On the ground, the Rapid Support Forces control Darfur’s five states, except for parts of North Darfur and West Darfur, while the army exerts influence over most of the other 13 states, including the capital, Khartoum. The current control map gives neither side an advantage that would allow it to end the war militarily or impose a settlement on its own terms.
Health needs have worsened after 37% of health facilities went out of service, alongside the spread of epidemics including cholera and malaria. These indicators place civilians among those most affected by continued military escalation and political intransigence, while the warring parties continue to bet on improving their positions before entering a settlement.
Torshin rules out a military solution to the war
Writer and political analyst Mohammed Torshin said there was no military solution to the war in Sudan, arguing that the Rapid Support Forces would not agree to leave any agreement to halt the fighting without securing military and economic gains. He said this calculation led it to avoid entering genuine negotiations that would not guarantee it a role or gains in the next phase.
Torshin said the US initiative was the most effective at present, but that it did not give the Rapid Support Forces a role in the country’s future. By contrast, he said the army might accept removing its current leaders and replacing them with other commanders from its ranks, preserving the military institution’s presence in future arrangements.
According to Torshin, the army is relying on a war of attrition and seeking to deepen divisions within the Rapid Support Forces and bring defectors into its ranks, ultimately unifying the military institution. He added that both sides were seeking gains on the ground that could later be converted into political gains when negotiations resumed.
The analyst said the Rapid Support Forces’ strength had declined compared with its position at the start of the war, attributing this to the army’s combat experience. But he said the forces were still receiving modern equipment and technology, making attrition a key option for the armed forces despite the heavy humanitarian cost of continuing this approach.
Bedge warns of a proxy war and external support
Former US diplomat Susan Bedge said both sides in the war understood how difficult it was to achieve a military victory, but were receiving support that enabled them to continue fighting. She described the conflict as having turned into a proxy war, saying neither side was still able to make an independent decision away from its backers, while Sudanese people were paying the greatest price.
Bedge said reaching a political solution would not be easy because of the difficulty of satisfying all the actors and persuading them to halt arms supplies. She said an attempt to reach such an agreement could come at the expense of the Sudanese people, pointing to the absence of a neutral party in the crisis, including the United Nations in her view.
She added that there could be no talk of genuine negotiations or a cessation of fighting without effective pressure on the warring parties and those supporting them. She linked the growing complexity of the crisis to its overlap with the conflict in Yemen and what she described as the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has broadened the circle of regional and international interests surrounding the Sudan file.
According to Bedge, neither side in the fighting will move towards peace unless it secures broad external legitimacy enabling it to speak on behalf of the Sudanese people. She considered this difficult to achieve, saying that both sides’ sense that they had not suffered a decisive loss encouraged them to continue the war rather than make concessions that could pave the way for a settlement.
Jonathan Ofaye, a researcher specialising in African affairs, said a political solution remained possible if it received support from Egypt, the rest of the African Union states and international organisations. He linked the success of this path to providing guarantees for trials after the war ended, alongside establishing a road map governing the country’s future and the period following the fighting.
Ofaye agreed that a military victory would be difficult, but stressed that wars did not continue for ever and proposed starting with humanitarian truces to lay the groundwork for a broader process. He said: «If the supporters were forced to stop supplying weapons, the two sides in the fighting would be forced to find a solution.» Torshin concluded that the keys to a solution lay more with external actors than with the two warring parties.
He said that the serious use of US influence, and obliging the relevant parties to implement the UN Security Council resolution banning arms supplies to Darfur, could help end the fighting and pave the way for future arrangements in Sudan.
