Sudan's Civil War Enters Fourth Year: SAF and RSF Battle for Control as Humanitarian Crisis Deepens
Verified information from multiple international sources
Sudan's civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has now entered its fourth year, with no resolution in sight. The conflict began in April 2023 following disagreements between SAF General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo over integrating the RSF into the national army. The RSF, which traces its origins to Janjaweed militias from the Darfur conflict, has captured significant territory including El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, in October 2025 after an eighteen-month siege. Recent fighting has intensified in the Kordofan region, where SAF forces have made strategic advances, including retaking Dilling in January 2026 after two years of RSF control. Both sides employ sophisticated weaponry including drones and conduct widespread aerial bombardments. The humanitarian situation has become catastrophic, with reports of mass killings, sexual violence, and potential genocide in El Fasher. The conflict has displaced millions and created severe food security concerns with global implications. Despite mediation efforts by the US, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, neither side appears willing to compromise, with al-Burhan rejecting ceasefire proposals until RSF forces completely withdraw from occupied territory.
From an international cooperation perspective, Sudan's civil war represents a critical test of global governance mechanisms and multilateral institutions. The United Nations Security Council, African Union, and League of Arab States have all engaged in mediation efforts, with Sudan's Transitional Prime Minister proposing UN-monitored ceasefire mechanisms in December 2025. The Quad—comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the United States—declared a humanitarian ceasefire in September 2025, though implementation has failed. International organizations emphasize that resolving deep-rooted ethnic, political, and economic grievances requires coordinated external engagement addressing root causes of conflict. The UK and France have pursued targeted sanctions against RSF commanders responsible for documented war crimes and potential genocide in El Fasher, demonstrating how international accountability mechanisms can complement diplomatic efforts. Global humanitarian organizations warn that the conflict threatens regional stability and food security worldwide, necessitating coordinated international response. However, analysts note that external actors' competing interests—with different regional powers supporting different factions—complicate unified multilateral action. The international community increasingly recognizes that sustainable peace requires not only ceasefire agreements but comprehensive frameworks addressing governance, integration of armed groups, and transitional justice mechanisms that respect international humanitarian law and protect civilian populations from further atrocities.
From an international cooperation perspective, Sudan's civil war represents a critical test of global governance mechanisms and multilateral institutions. The United Nations Security Council, African Union, and League of Arab States have all engaged in mediation efforts, with Sudan's Transitional Prime Minister proposing UN-monitored ceasefire mechanisms in December 2025. The Quad—comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the United States—declared a humanitarian ceasefire in September 2025, though implementation has failed. International organizations emphasize that resolving deep-rooted ethnic, political, and economic grievances requires coordinated external engagement addressing root causes of conflict. The UK and France have pursued targeted sanctions against RSF commanders responsible for documented war crimes and potential genocide in El Fasher, demonstrating how international accountability mechanisms can complement diplomatic efforts. Global humanitarian organizations warn that the conflict threatens regional stability and food security worldwide, necessitating coordinated international response. However, analysts note that external actors' competing interests—with different regional powers supporting different factions—complicate unified multilateral action. The international community increasingly recognizes that sustainable peace requires not only ceasefire agreements but comprehensive frameworks addressing governance, integration of armed groups, and transitional justice mechanisms that respect international humanitarian law and protect civilian populations from further atrocities.
From a national sovereignty perspective, Sudan's conflict reflects fundamental questions about who controls the state and its resources without external interference. General al-Burhan has consistently rejected international ceasefire proposals and UAE-mediated peace deals, asserting that Sudan will not accept truces while RSF forces occupy any territory—a position reflecting nationalist determination to restore state authority through military means rather than compromise imposed by foreign powers. The SAF views the conflict as an internal matter requiring resolution through Sudanese actors, not international mediators whose interests may not align with Sudanese national interests. Nationalist analysts argue that external powers—including regional actors like the UAE and Saudi Arabia—have their own strategic agendas in Sudan, potentially using mediation efforts to advance geopolitical interests rather than genuine peace. The government's January 2026 return to Khartoum symbolizes reassertion of state control and national sovereignty after operating from Port Sudan. Sovereignty-focused observers emphasize that sustainable solutions must emerge from Sudanese political processes and national dialogue, not imposed international frameworks that may undermine state legitimacy. However, they acknowledge that both SAF and RSF comprise diverse actors with competing interests, complicating unified national governance. The nationalist perspective prioritizes territorial integrity and state authority restoration over international humanitarian interventions, viewing external pressure as potentially destabilizing rather than stabilizing.
From a grassroots perspective, Sudan's civil war represents unimaginable suffering for ordinary civilians caught between military forces. In towns like Dilling and Kadugli in South Kordofan, residents endured nearly two years of RSF siege before SAF forces reopened supply routes in January 2026, during which time humanitarian conditions deteriorated catastrophically. Civilians face constant danger from drone strikes, artillery shelling, and ground combat, with documented incidents including RSF attacks killing 28 civilians in Mustariha in February 2026 and 28 more in Dalang through shelling. Markets, aid convoys, and civilian infrastructure have become targets, with RSF drone strikes killing aid workers attempting to deliver humanitarian supplies. Local communities experience displacement, food insecurity, malnutrition affecting children and women, and limited access to medical care. Tribal and ethnic divisions exploited by both SAF and RSF fracture community cohesion, with rival RSF factions clashing in some areas. Grassroots voices emphasize that peace agreements negotiated by distant international actors or military leaders often fail to address local security concerns, resource access, and community reconciliation needs. Ordinary Sudanese prioritize immediate humanitarian access, protection from violence, and restoration of basic services over political settlements. Local perspectives reveal that both SAF and RSF commit atrocities affecting civilians indiscriminately, eroding trust in military solutions. Communities increasingly advocate for localized conflict resolution mechanisms, humanitarian corridors, and international support for civilian protection rather than military intervention supporting either faction.