Reading Details of Sudan’s War (1-3)

By: Ibrahim Al-Bashir Al-Kabbashi

News (and analysis) have been circulated in recent days about the goals of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) Commander’s visits to some African countries with a suspicious acceleration in Sudan’s inclusion at the top of the agenda of African regional organizations. What needs to be stated in the first place is that Hemedti’s movement, and indeed everything that is going on regarding the current war, is controlled by the UAE and its partners (Israel, then America and Britain). It employs its agents there (she is rude and then advances)..
The available information, supported by conclusive evidence, indicates that the goal of all of this is to prepare the regional arena for comprehensive international military and political intervention in the country, which the countries of the region undertake the “virtual ostensible” diplomatic mobilization in order to achieve. I say the “virtual” crowd because the idea of occupying Sudan, which began boldly and clearly since January 2020, was designed, and in complete secrecy, in Britain and Germany through their ambassadors in Khartoum. It was not Hamdouk (a foreign national) who wrote – on his own initiative – the secret letter of the Secretary-General of the United Nations calling for the establishment of this comprehensive and controlled political, military, administrative and security mission. At that time, he was nothing but an employee led by his employers – who paid his salary – in the direction they wanted. The role he plays today is only an extension of what he played in the year 2020 and beyond.
What every Sudanese must understand with certainty is that the strategy of those who made the war is constant and recurring, which is to control Sudan, whether united or disunited. Controlling Sudan requires first eliminating the sources of power that are likely to repel the missiles directed at its destruction. Therefore, the first goal was to dismantle the army, accompanied by a coordinated attack on the solid national Sudanese elements that cannot be bribed, blackmailed, or tempted. This is their strategic goal in their current war on Sudan… Tactics change to suit the circumstantial data on the ground, but the ultimate strategic goal remains constant.
During the days of Forces of Freedom & Change (FFC’s) mandate, they employed Hamdouk and FFC’s parties to implement the control strategy. The RSF was later accommodated – with a wild temptation that promised it “a tree of eternity and a kingdom that does not fade away,” but it was a temptation coupled (if he did not do so) with the threat of confiscation of his billions with a possible eternal imprisonment. Temptation and threats produced for them what they wanted in a clear manner, which was sparked by their launch of the current war..
However, the indicators of the conflict on the ground, after the death of most of the fighters of the RSF Tribal League, including thousands of mercenaries, in addition to the increasing financial and political cost of the war, especially on the UAE side, have changed tactically.
It appears from their signs of insistence to stop war for which they mobilized mercenaries which history did not record similar case, have realized that hiring mercenary in addition to the financial cost and his transportation, is only for his own pocket and not for the party serving him.
All of this led them to embrace the idea of achieving the strategic goal through international intervention, after realizing that their military tool today was no longer capable of achieving it. They kept waving the idea of military intervention…a veiled hint at times and a declared statement at other times.
Then the mobilization of the National Armed Popular Resistance broke out, which the Sudanese are adapting as a movement for national liberation from colonial settler colonialism, which is identical to the colonial Zionist settler colonialism in Palestine.
For this reason, the assessment of the situation tended to re-invoke the idea of international political and military intervention in Sudan. This is certainly nothing more than an updated, expanded and revised version of the first intervention project in early 2020. Of course, in order to restore the intervention project, it is necessary to restore the well-known requirements for its implementation: (what distinguishes the constitution of the Bar Committee, which is American-made – the framework agreement – dismantling the army and replacing it with RSF – imposing FFC authority – and the tyranny and dictation of ambassadors).

However, what is new this time is the mobilization of African leaders who have been controlled, either by bribery, blackmail, or various temptations, to reproduce the project of military and political intervention…and one of the requirements for this is the recycling of UNITMS (under the command of the Sudanese people and their leadership), with a new version and bolder leadership than the role played by Volcker.. Leadership is similar to the role played by Paul Bremer in Iraq after the US invasion in 2003.
Its implications should be pondered over: A number of the countries included in Hemedti’s tour are themselves a major supplier of mercenaries who are today engaged in killing the Sudanese people, and who are engaged in all crimes of looting, arson and destruction. It is also necessary to remember from our recent history that a number of the leaders of the countries included in the visit had experiences in a simultaneous and coordinated invasion of Sudan in the mid-nineties of the last century.
Two things – in this race – should not be absent from the mind of every careful observer. First: There is no logic in today’s world when it is said that the leaders of these countries know nothing about their citizens who are mercenaries within the RSF militia or they act alone without the knowledge of their countries.
Second: The one who incited these countries to invade Sudan in the 1990s is the same one who is promoting the idea of foreign intervention today. The methods of hostile action may change in quantity and quality, but their destination is fixed. In any case, I do not imagine that the Sudanese leadership is unaware of what those lurking around us are up to, whose relationship with us continues to fluctuate between a confirmed enemy and a temporary friend!! What is different from this understanding is the same one that Western politicians and international relations scholars describe with the term “Effusive nativity!!
As the conflict extended, a belief spread among those lurking in the country about the weakness of the Sudanese leadership, and the ease of overtaking or containing it with the tools of overtaking and containment available to them in abundance. This is what their experiments based on, especially with the continuing phenomenon of the syndrome of being slow and cautious in making political and military decisions and delaying them beyond their due dates. Timing in political decisions is like timing in music: its effectiveness evaporates or decreases as its temporal cause fades away.
This belief was strengthened in their minds after their daily monitoring of H.E President Al-Burhan’s decision-making approach, with a remarkable observation that when presidential decisions are issued after long anticipation and waiting, their implementation also slows down, and may even never take place.
By inducing that touches on reality, let us extract from the pile of issues the most important necessary factors that must be present when the goal is to achieve Sudan’s victory and establish the foundations of its independence and sovereignty on its land, without the slightest doubt, the absence of these necessities represents an attractive pole for Sudan’s enemies to plot the plots of its occupation. The apparent indolence in achieving it only serves to strengthen the aggression camp, with its mutual support, RSF and its political incubator.
First: One of the most prominent current risks is the institutional vacuum in the management of all the country’s organs.
The situation the country is experiencing (militarily and civilly) requires an active government whose efforts are many times greater than usual in conditions of peace and stability. The necessities of life do not disappear with the outbreak of war, rather it is quite the opposite. People need to arrange the minimum – at least – of the basics; Trade, industry, services, education, health, and security…it is not right to suspend them until the end of the war, when no one but God knows when it will end. There is no way to achieve the basics of life without an effective and active government apparatus that does not know neglect or indifference. Even if the war ended today, the extent of the comprehensive devastation would require an extended period of recovery and convalescence. Today, years have passed since the absence of this organ… and no one understands the wisdom behind its absence.
Second: The war is taking place today on two coordinated, mutually supportive fronts. An interior whose theater is all Sudanese soil.. Its tools are weapons, soldiers, and material jihad.
Its external theater is the regional and global spaces, its tool is active diplomacy that does not yawn, let alone blink an eyelid.
Sudan has well-established friends in the global arena, and we have been united with them – over the years – by the common and accumulated grievances produced by the international imbalance in the past decades. Our cooperation experiences with them were mostly positive to achieve the interests of both parties.
The international situation as a whole today is moving towards a world that transcends uni-polarity, towards a more just and balanced world. Global theater today is not what it was in the 1990s.
America and Britain, under the influence of the Emirati and Israeli lobbies, will not be able to impose military and political intervention in Sudan under Chapter Seven of the United Nations Charter through the Security Council. However, the inability (and I do not say unwillingness) of Sudanese diplomacy to engage in positive, active action, especially with the veto powers (Russia and China), which have been steadily supporting us, may weaken its usual desire to align with us when necessary.