Revealed by the Russian Ambassador.. Does US ‘ introduction of extremists constitute a shift in the war in Sudan?

Sudan Events – Abdul Basit Idris

The Russian Ambassador to Sudan has unveiled the ongoing work to introduce extremists into the war in Sudan by America to prolong the conflict to find a foothold for military intervention under the pretext of striking terrorist sites..Does this constitute a shift in the course of the war, meaning that the Sudanese army will win its first round? And what is its impact on national and regional security?
Western plans:

Russian Ambassador to Sudan Andrei Cherno said in an article in which he reviewed the targeting and plans of America and Western countries for Sudan and igniting war in it, and added, “According to the plan, declaring famine in Sudan and opening the borders by force, as a necessity for the uncontrolled supply of ISIS formations, as was practiced in Syria, and what follows is an inevitable prolongation of the conflict with the influx of extremists from all over the coast to Sudan. The final situation, in the best American traditions, must be the bombing of hotbeds of international terrorism, such as Fallujah, Raqqa and Mosul, where tens of thousands of civilians have died and ISIS has not been defeated.”

Setting the Stage:

The Russian ambassador’s talk reveals the intensity of the conflict between his country and China on the one hand and America and the European Union on the other hand, a conflict whose stage is Africa, where promising resources are, and Sudan is at the heart of this conflict, after America and Europe failed to stop the Russian and Chinese advance and their positioning in the heart of the continent and their tendency to establish solid relations with the countries of the continent, and the emergence of more independent African currents that were able to rebel against Western countries, so America and Europe sought to drown the region in armed conflicts to spoil the positioning of Russia and China in the region until their important concerns such as Ukraine, Iran, Hezbollah and Gaza were resolved.
On the other hand, the Sudanese army’s victory constituted the first round of the war after it nullified Hemeti’s coup, which was intended to control Sudan at the lowest possible cost and remove it from the circle of competition with China and Russia in favor of America and its allies in the region, and worked to prepare the stage of events, by focusing on the humanitarian crisis through media pressure and raising the presence of extremists fighting the Rapid Support Forces RSF RSF -in a worrying indication – of the explosion of the popular resistance supporting the SAF .

Writer and political analyst Al-Nour Ahmed Al-Nour told Al-Ahdath that attempts to link the army and the mobilized to extremism in the media discourse of the Rapid Support RSF Militia spokesmen aim to consolidate the accusation despite its weakness and to prepare the climate for bringing in extremists from the African Sahel countries. Al-Nour added that this step, if it happens, will threaten the security of Sudan and the region from the Horn of Africa in the west to the African Sahel in the east.

It is likely that the parties that sponsor the Rapid Support RSF Militia and provide it with military and diplomatic support and security cover are behind this plan referred to by the Russian ambassador.

Long Hand:

In contrast, the Sudanese security services have a long arm and great capabilities in combating terrorism, and this has been evident in pursuing terrorist cells internally and fragmenting their activity, in addition to regional and international cooperation in a way that has made Sudan one of the most important partner countries in the war on terrorism and made it a regional actor that cannot be ignored in this field, which was confirmed by reports from American and regional intelligence and institutions concerned with combating money laundering and human trafficking.

Hidden moves: The attempt to bring in extremists to find a justification for American or regional military intervention does not seem new.
Despite the SAF crushing the plan to seize power and killing thousands of foreign mercenaries who were brought in through Hemeti’s militia in the battles to invade the country, the US envoy Tom Perriello revealed what is going on behind the scenes of alternative plans. In a leaked meeting that brought him together with a number of Sudanese in Nairobi, he answered a question about whether his country would intervene militarily by saying that he ruled it out, but in return he revealed ongoing discussions taking place in the corridors of the African Union AU and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in order to “play a greater role in protecting civilians from the conflict,” affirming that his country and the countries of the region support these steps.
The American envoy warned of the serious consequences of the war in Sudan on the countries of the region, which have actually begun to be affected by it – according to him.
Behind the talk: The US envoy’s talk reveals intensive regional consultations taking place with their knowledge regarding Sudan and behind the back of its government. These consultations may reveal a slow-cooked recipe according to an international intervention scenario that depends on intervention through the African system with the support of some foreign countries, including semi-regional countries. Military intervention requires international legitimacy through a resolution issued by the Security Council, but the council itself is not yet qualified to consider the Sudanese issue, as it said in the first session called for by Britain after the outbreak of the war that what is happening in Sudan is an internal conflict, that is, a conflict between the army and a faction that rebelled against it.
The war that has broken out so far does not threaten international peace and security, but the council has referred the matter to the African Union and international initiatives to contribute to resolving the crisis, based on incorrect African approaches according to the Sudanese government, which believes that the African Union AU sided with the rebel militia and worked to impose solutions without holding consultations with it. The African Union AU suspended Sudan’s membership after the army’s actions on October 25, and its institutions worked to prepare a roadmap with the participation of countries. And institutions from outside the African House, which prompted Sudan not to deal with them.

Diplomatic retreat:
These movements taking place on the African stage and with regional tools and means indicate the extent of the Sudanese diplomatic retreat, as Sudan, until recently, African countries, especially the African Sahel countries, represented a vital area for it and a first line of defense and defense. This was evident in the support of African countries for all issues, such as the International Criminal Court, rejecting the sanctions imposed on it and retrieving its file in more than one crisis from the Security Council to the African House and agreeing to participate in the UNAMID mission, in addition to the effectiveness in understanding its issues through African political elites through what was known as the Council of African Parties.