Viewpoints Africa Sudan’s civil war has entered a dangerous new stage, with fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces intensifying in ways that are pushing the country toward collapse. Nearly two years after the conflict began, the crisis has grown more complex and more entrenched, driven by political rivalries, foreign involvement, economic interests, and institutional decay. The result is a catastrophe that now threatens not only Sudan but the entire Horn of Africa.
Khartoum remains a symbol of the state’s fracture. Entire districts have been reduced to rubble as the Rapid Support Forces tightened their control over large parts of the capital. The Sudanese Armed Forces, meanwhile, have re-established political and administrative operations in Port Sudan. The country now functions under two competing power centers, each claiming legitimacy and each unwilling to concede ground. This division has made negotiations increasingly difficult and has created space for opportunistic actors who profit from prolonged instability.
The humanitarian situation is worsening at a rapid pace. Millions have been displaced in what aid agencies describe as one of the world’s most severe crises. Food shortages are deepening as farmers abandon fields, supply routes collapse, and markets become inaccessible. The health system, once fragile, is now barely functional. Hospitals have shut down, medical workers have fled, and outbreaks of preventable diseases are emerging across displacement camps. With fuel shortages and blocked roads, humanitarian agencies struggle to deliver aid, and in some areas cannot enter at all.
The conflict’s economic drivers are becoming more visible. Control of gold mines, trade routes, and taxation points has become central to both sides’ strategies. The Rapid Support Forces have built an extensive shadow economy through gold exports and informal levies, while the Sudanese Armed Forces control access to state resources and foreign support networks. Analysts say neither faction is willing to negotiate seriously because each believes continued fighting secures greater leverage. This economic dimension is a major reason previous talks have collapsed and why external pressure has had limited effect.
In the background, foreign actors are quietly shaping the conflict’s trajectory. Competing regional powers support different sides for strategic and economic gain. This external involvement has contributed to the prolonging of the war, hardened negotiating positions, and limited the effectiveness of peace efforts led by the African Union and IGAD. Multiple mediation tracks have produced overlapping initiatives that often undermine one another. Without a unified diplomatic front, both sides feel they can wait out pressure and seek advantage through continued fighting.
Yet the most overlooked factor is the absence of Sudanese civilians from the negotiation process. The same grassroots coalitions and professional associations that helped bring down Omar al-Bashir in 2019 have been pushed aside. Their exclusion has robbed peace talks of legitimacy and has allowed military actors to dominate decisions about the country’s future. Many analysts argue that without meaningful civilian participation, any ceasefire will be fragile, and any transition will fail.
Despite the bleak landscape, there are realistic pathways to de-escalation. The first step is a unified mediation process. The international community must consolidate all peace negotiations into a single platform with shared pressure mechanisms. Parallel tracks create loopholes that the warring factions exploit. A unified front that links ceasefire commitments to humanitarian access and political benchmarks is essential.
Humanitarian access must also be non-negotiable. Sudan needs protected aid corridors monitored by neutral observers and supported by coordinated diplomacy that pressures both sides to comply. Without access, famine will spread, and the human cost will multiply.
Local solutions matter as well. Sudan’s tribal elders, women’s groups, and civil society networks have historically played stabilizing roles. Empowering these actors to lead local ceasefires and community-level negotiations can reduce violence in specific regions even when national talks stall. This bottom-up approach has worked in parts of Darfur in previous conflicts and can be replicated if properly supported.
Finally, Sudan requires long-term institutional rebuilding. Reconstructing the justice system, restoring local government councils, reforming the security sector, and establishing civilian oversight must be central to any transition plan. Without institutional reform, any ceasefire risks becoming another pause before renewed fighting.
Sudan stands at a point where the cost of inaction is increasingly measured in human lives. The conflict is no longer a temporary power struggle but a structural crisis that threatens to redraw the map of the region. A coordinated, civilian-inclusive, and economically informed peace process is no longer optional. It is the only path that can prevent Sudan from collapsing entirely.
