Sudan’s War: From International Neglect to Renewed Attention

Rakabi Hassan Yaqoub

With its recent attacks on humanitarian aid convoys, medical facilities, civilian infrastructure, and columns of displaced people in North and South Kordofan, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia may have fired the final shot in the war—this time against itself. Nearly three years ago, it fired the first shot in a failed bid to seize power in Sudan, triggering a devastating conflict in which the RSF committed systematic atrocities, massacres, and grave violations, most of them against civilians.

Throughout the war, the RSF has deliberately targeted civilian objects and vital infrastructure—particularly essential services such as electricity, water, telecommunications, fuel stations, oil facilities, hospitals, health centers, schools, places of worship, and other critical infrastructure. Attacks on civilians, civilian assets, and healthcare facilities became a consistent pattern of conduct. The result has been the worst humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan’s history and the largest wave of displacement and refugee flight witnessed in Africa over the past half century.

Since the outbreak of hostilities, the Sudanese government has repeatedly warned the international community, issuing appeals and calls for intervention to prevent further violations and curb the RSF’s expanding campaign of abuses. Khartoum urged an end to all forms of support provided by certain regional actors to the militia.

The government went beyond general appeals, directly naming specific regional powers it accused of backing the RSF. It presented documented evidence, including satellite imagery that allegedly tracked flights transporting weapons, supplies, ammunition, and mercenaries into Sudanese territory. Additional documents and advanced weaponry were reportedly discovered by the Sudanese army in former RSF-controlled sites after they were retaken—some of it described as sophisticated and strategic arms not even possessed by several regular African armies. Yet these allegations failed to generate sustained international engagement. They were met instead with muted reactions, reflecting intersecting regional interests and the strategic calculations of influential international actors allied with those accused of supporting the RSF.

This indifference fostered the perception that Sudan’s war was a “forgotten conflict,” despite its catastrophic toll and the widespread documentation of atrocities viewed by millions worldwide.

The lack of decisive international action emboldened the RSF’s regional backers to escalate their support—both quantitatively and qualitatively. In quantitative terms, the volume of weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and loitering munitions reportedly increased, along with the recruitment of foreign fighters from Colombia and neighboring countries. Qualitatively, the RSF was said to have acquired advanced long-range drones, air defense systems, electronic jamming devices, and sophisticated communications equipment—some of which were used to strike civilian service facilities and military sites.

One consequence of this international inaction was the RSF’s eventual breach of El Fasher after more than a year and a half of a suffocating siege. During that period, humanitarian aid and food supplies were blocked under what authorities described as a deliberate starvation policy. The city endured repeated shelling and some 260 assault attempts before it was overrun. Subsequent massacres against residents were documented, including footage reportedly recorded by RSF members themselves, shocking global audiences with their brutality.

Despite widespread sympathy for El Fasher’s population and condemnations issued by UN and non-UN humanitarian and human rights organizations, such statements were not matched by concrete measures on the ground. No decisive international steps were taken to pressure the regional actors accused of supporting the militia.

The response largely remained confined to expressions of concern and denunciations—an approach that, critics argue, encouraged further RSF expansion and additional atrocities in parts of West and South Kordofan.

Facing this reality, the Sudanese government pressed ahead with its defensive strategy, aiming to reclaim territory without waiting for meaningful international intervention. The Sudanese army has since made incremental gains, retaking major towns in South Kordofan and securing surrounding villages and supply routes.

These developments coincided with shifting dynamics in Yemen, Somalia, Somaliland, and Djibouti, which reportedly constrained the regional influence of actors accused of backing the RSF across the Horn of Africa and along the Red Sea corridor from Bab al-Mandab to the Suez Canal. The recalibration of regional alliances—particularly in light of concerns about national security among major regional powers, including Saudi Arabia—has altered the strategic landscape.

Saudi Arabia, which shares an extensive maritime border with Sudan, reportedly recognized early the potential regional spillover of the conflict. Riyadh intensified diplomatic efforts aimed at containing the crisis, contributing to a noticeable shift in regional and international rhetoric that now more explicitly condemns RSF violations, including attacks on civilians and humanitarian convoys.

This shift has strengthened Sudan’s diplomatic and military position while weakening the RSF politically and operationally—particularly after its latest attacks in North Kordofan, including shelling of displaced persons’ convoys and the destruction of a health center in Kadugli, resulting in civilian casualties, including children.

Notably, recent international condemnations have explicitly named the RSF—an evolution from earlier statements that referred vaguely to “both parties to the conflict.” This rhetorical shift may signal a broader international reassessment of the war.

There are growing indications that the international community is moving toward a regional approach to resolving the conflict, particularly following sudden political and security upheavals centered in Yemen. Such developments could create momentum for a settlement that addresses not only Sudan’s stability but also the security concerns of peace-seeking regional actors in the Horn of Africa and along the Red Sea.

From this perspective, a viable solution would require ending regional support for the RSF—whether through direct pressure from international allies on its backers, through battlefield defeat and severing supply lines, or through disarmament, demobilization, and the prosecution of its leadership in fair trials.

For Sudan and affected regional states, a sustainable post-war order would also entail excluding the RSF from any role in the country’s future governance. Beyond being an irregular force with foreign fighters in its ranks, it stands accused of war crimes and acts of genocide, as well as widespread violations of international law—raising profound ethical and professional questions about any potential reintegration into formal security structures.

Similarly, the RSF’s political wing—comprising entities that allegedly supported its bid for power and participated in what critics describe as an attempted armed takeover—would, under this view, have no role in post-war Sudan. Some of its affiliates even served in what was referred to as the unrecognized “Hemedti government.”

What was once widely portrayed as a domestic power struggle between two rival generals is increasingly understood, in this analysis, as a conflict with deep regional dimensions and cross-border implications. The Sudanese military leadership’s warnings that the war would reverberate across the region now appear prescient.

Yet this recognition comes at a staggering cost: tens of thousands of civilian deaths, millions displaced internally and across borders, and the destruction of hospitals, essential infrastructure, schools, universities, cultural institutions, museums, and heritage sites. The devastation has touched every facet of Sudanese life.

As international attention intensifies, the question remains whether it will translate into decisive action—or arrive too late to undo the immense human and national loss already endured.