The devastating conflict that erupted in Sudan in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), commanded by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo ("Hemedti"), is often framed as a domestic power struggle. However, a closer analysis reveals that the war has been profoundly shaped, prolonged, and intensified by the strategic and material involvement of a complex web of foreign powers. Far from being a contained internal affair, Sudan has become a critical battleground for competing regional and global interests, transforming the crisis into a multifaceted proxy conflict.
The primary external actors can be broadly divided into those supporting the RSF and those more cautiously backing the SAF, with motivations ranging from economic exploitation to geopolitical positioning.
The United Arab Emirates: Fueling the RSF’s War Machine
The most significant and controversial foreign actor is widely seen as the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE’s relationship with the RSF is rooted in a deep economic interest, primarily the lucrative trade in Sudanese gold. Before the conflict, Dubai served as a major hub for Sudanese gold, much of it allegedly smuggled, providing a vital financial lifeline to the RSF and its leader, Hemedti, who controls many of the country’s gold mines.
Since the outbreak of hostilities, the UAE has been repeatedly accused of providing the RSF with critical military and logistical support, often under the guise of humanitarian aid flights. Reports indicate that supplies have included weapons, ammunition, and even UAE-manufactured armored vehicles. This support is not merely transactional; it is a calculated geopolitical move. By backing the RSF, the UAE seeks to secure its long-term economic investments in Sudan—particularly in gold and agriculture—and to project its influence as a dominant regional power, mirroring its interventionist strategies in other conflicts like Libya. The sustained flow of arms and funds from the UAE is a key factor in the RSF’s ability to maintain its offensive capabilities and prolong the urban warfare that has devastated Khartoum and other major cities.
.svg/1920px-War_in_Sudan_(2023).svg.png)
The latest situation in Sudan. The green are is now controlled by the RSF. (Wikipedia)
Regional Counterweights: Egypt and Saudi Arabia
In response to the perceived UAE–RSF axis, the SAF has received varying degrees of support from other regional heavyweights, most notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Egypt’s involvement is driven by deep historical ties and, more critically, by strategic concerns over the security of the Nile River and its water supply. Cairo views the SAF as the legitimate, stable, and historically aligned military institution in Sudan. A stable, friendly government in Khartoum is essential for Egypt’s national security, particularly in its ongoing dispute with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Egypt has provided military training and, reportedly, logistical and intelligence support to the SAF, viewing the RSF’s rise as a destabilizing threat that could undermine its regional interests.
Saudi Arabia, while initially attempting to mediate the conflict alongside the United States, has also leaned toward supporting the SAF. The Kingdom’s primary motivation is regional stability and the maintenance of a balance of power. Saudi Arabia is wary of the UAE’s growing unilateral influence and sees the SAF as a necessary counterweight to the RSF’s expansion. The Saudi-US-led Jeddah talks, though currently stalled, represent an attempt to manage the conflict and prevent a total collapse of the Sudanese state, which would have severe implications for the entire Red Sea region.
Global Geopolitics: Russia’s Strategic Play
Beyond regional rivalries, global powers have also inserted themselves into the conflict, most notably Russia. The Wagner Group, a Russian state-linked mercenary organization, was deeply entrenched in Sudan long before the war. Wagner’s primary interest was, like the UAE’s, the exploitation of Sudan’s gold resources, which it used to fund its operations across Africa and to circumvent Western sanctions.
While the Wagner Group initially funneled weapons and aid to the RSF in exchange for gold concessions, Russia has also sought to deepen ties with the SAF. Moscow’s overarching strategic goal is to secure a naval logistics base at Port Sudan on the Red Sea, which would grant it a critical military foothold in a vital global shipping lane. This dual-track approach, profiting from the RSF while negotiating a long-term strategic alliance with the SAF, reflects Russia’s opportunistic foreign policy, exploiting instability to advance its geopolitical ambitions. The war in Sudan has even become a minor proxy theater for the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with reports of Ukrainian special forces targeting Russian operatives within Sudan.
The Destructive Impact of External Interference
The influx of foreign support has had a devastating impact on the trajectory of the war. By providing a continuous supply of arms, intelligence, and financial resources, external actors have effectively removed the incentive for either the SAF or the RSF to negotiate a lasting ceasefire. This backing has created a military parity that ensures a prolonged stalemate, turning the conflict into a war of attrition.
External interference has directly contributed to the catastrophic humanitarian crisis. The protracted fighting has displaced millions, led to widespread atrocities, and pushed the country to the brink of famine. Sudan’s war is a stark example of how competing international interests can hijack a domestic crisis, sacrificing the well-being of a nation for the sake of economic gain and geopolitical advantage. The failure of the international community to effectively sanction or restrain the external sponsors of the war remains a major obstacle to achieving peace and restoring a path toward civilian rule in Sudan.
Photo: Gemini AI