How Sudan Is Being Conspired Against Through Kenya

By Azmi Abdel Razek

Every day, it becomes clearer that the war that erupted in Sudan nearly two years ago was neither an unexpected event nor a typical military coup, as we have grown accustomed to. Instead, external forces have been fueling it to burn the core of the state, causing the country to collapse so that it can be re-engineered and divided according to long-standing Western plans.

Kenya as a Tool for Western Interests

Kenya appears to be deeply involved in the Sudanese conflict, seemingly siding with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). However, in reality, it is merely a proxy state—a contractor carrying out hosting duties and setting the stage for redrawing the African region to make it easier for the West to dominate. It is, in essence, one of the claws of U.S. influence in the region.

Despite Arab warnings and Sudan’s threats of economic retaliation—such as stopping the import of Kenyan tea and coffee and barring Kenya Airways from flying in Sudanese airspace—Kenyan President William Ruto insisted on hosting the RSF leadership. His government also facilitated the gathering of certain political figures to sign what became known as the “Founding Charter,” which explicitly calls for establishing a secular, democratic, and decentralized state in Sudan.

Contradictions Within the Founding Platform

The demand for a secular state is primarily linked to Abdelaziz al-Hilu, leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), who was recently included in the agreement. He has long insisted on “either a secular Sudan or self-determination for the Nuba Mountains,” which has derailed many negotiation attempts in the past.

This time, however, there was no objection—from figures like Fadlallah Burma, leader of the National Umma Party and heir to the Mahdist revolution with all its religious aspects, or from some Darfurian movements that originate from communities deeply attached to their Islamic faith and culture.

Moreover, the so-called “founding coalition” lacks public support. Its members are only united by their pursuit of power, status, and privileges. Many within Sudan’s political elite are driven by personal interests rather than genuine concern for the nation and its citizens.

Most of the individuals who participated in the signing ceremony in Nairobi are remnants of Sudan’s old state, built by the independence leaders and now targeted for dismantling by the RSF.

Major Military Shifts

This coalition is riddled with contradictions and is bound to spark further conflict. Meanwhile, the RSF—the main force in this alliance—is losing ground. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have reclaimed most of the territories they lost at the beginning of the war. Even the Presidential Palace, with all its political symbolism, has been neutralized and is now within SAF’s firing range. The army has also secured key bridges and strategic points in Khartoum, signaling a major shift in the military balance.

Even Darfur will not remain under RSF control for long. The overall landscape is changing as the SAF gains the upper hand.

Interestingly, al-Hilu only joined this coalition after intense negotiations, agreeing to grant them control over Kauda in South Kordofan as their capital. This is because al-Fashir, the historic capital of Darfur, is still resisting RSF control. As a result, the Dagalo family made significant concessions, including abandoning their long-held dream of a “Greater Arab State”—a vision that cost hundreds of young Darfurian Arabs their lives.

However, even within al-Hilu’s own movement, tensions remain. Many Nuba fighters, who reluctantly accepted his leadership, will not allow their historic homeland to be taken over by their longtime enemy, the RSF. This means—unless we are mistaken—that al-Hilu himself could be ousted and replaced by his deputy, Jaqoud Makwar, or SPLM’s Chief of Staff, Ezzat Koko, effectively dismantling the Nairobi alliance once and for all.

Why Should We Be Concerned?

Despite these setbacks, we must be wary of efforts to establish a rival government, even if only in exile. Sudan’s fragile political situation cannot withstand further center-periphery disputes. Such a move could also spark calls for an independent Darfurian state, as the current environment is ripe for secessionist tendencies.

Another danger lies in the possibility of securing international recognition for this alternative government, allowing it to acquire military aircraft and heavy weaponry. Those who incited the RSF to rebel and orchestrated its war effort would have no qualms about financing new arms deals and lobbying for diplomatic recognition of this virtual government.

While it may seem that the war’s consequences have led to this precarious moment in Sudan’s history—marked by ethnic and regional polarization—it is also plausible that these alarming scenarios are intended to pressure the SAF into negotiations and force it into full submission to those backing the RSF.

A Storm of Challenges

Looking deeper, these events appear to be carefully orchestrated. We must analyze them from both political and military perspectives, reading between the lines. They are, after all, a byproduct of the RSF’s battlefield defeats.

How did the crisis unfold over two years? It began as a surprise attack that trapped the army’s leadership under siege. The conflict then spread, engulfing central Sudan, Khartoum, Al-Jazira, and Sennar, ultimately forcing the SAF to negotiate.

At that time, RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti) had one goal: to force SAF Commander Abdel Fattah al-Burhan to surrender. He was convinced of his impending victory. But the tides have turned dramatically—SAF and its allied forces have shifted from defense to offense, systematically reclaiming lost territories. They have re-established control over the country’s airspace and cut off RSF supply routes in White Nile and Kordofan states. It is increasingly likely that al-Burhan will soon declare victory from the Presidential Palace—a site the RSF failed to use as a seat for their government.

However, military victories alone are not enough to prevent Sudan from following in the footsteps of Libya and Yemen, where conflicts led to lasting divisions. The country remains at risk of existential threats.

Moving Towards Elections

To navigate this crisis, practical solutions must be adopted to close the current constitutional and political vacuum. It is crucial to swiftly form a civilian government led by a competent national figure capable of overcoming these challenges. Meanwhile, the military must focus on safeguarding the country’s unity and ensuring a secure transition until democratic elections can be held—elections in which all political forces, without exclusion, can participate.

Whoever seeks power must earn it through democratic means by convincing the people with solid programs and policies that align with their aspirations.

Above all, Sudan is a sovereign nation, and its national interests must remain non-negotiable. The country cannot afford to tolerate any attempts to alter its borders or divide its lands. Sudan, rich in resources and history, is not up for sale or partition.

Source: Al Jazeera Net