The Sudanese civil war was given some attention from news when it started, given it was a quieter time in world news, but recently it's been mostly (and understandably) been crowded out by other...
The Sudanese civil war was given some attention from news when it started, given it was a quieter time in world news, but recently it's been mostly (and understandably) been crowded out by other conflicts in recent times. It seems to have escalated further - the Sudanese army is on the backfoot, and the RSF seems to be attempting the ethnic cleansing of the Masalit people in the territory they control.
From memory, the context is that Sudan was intended to transition into a democratically elected government, but the Sudanese military refused near the end of the process and retook control - at the same time, they attempted to fold the RSF, a paramilitary group originally created to quell rebellions (during which they are claimed to have committed crimes against humanity against the non-Arab population per the UN) by the prior government (and it is claimed that the group was part of a "divide and conquer" strategy by said government to stir ethnic conflict by creating an Arab paramilitary group to put down non-Arab Sudanese rebellions). "Hemetti", the RSF leader, then broke off from the Sudanese military and a civil war began in conjunction with the coup.
It really begins to feel like a page out of a history book. "Warlord X was hired to take out Y", which then happens to backfire. (para)military forces are rarely reliable even if they are...
at the same time, they attempted to fold the RSF, a paramilitary group originally created to quell rebellions (during which they are claimed to have committed crimes against humanity against the non-Arab population per the UN) by the prior government
It really begins to feel like a page out of a history book. "Warlord X was hired to take out Y", which then happens to backfire. (para)military forces are rarely reliable even if they are effective with a degree of plausible deniability. The later is of course bullshit in practice, but unfortunately it's very useful on the geopolitical theatre for this.
I'm very pessimistic about this situation, and would be surprised if this doesn't continue for years to come. With its many minorities and ethnic tensions I wouldn't rule out worst-case scenarios. Unfortunately, outside interference may well make things worse unless shit really hits the fan.
The Sudanese civil war was given some attention from news when it started, given it was a quieter time in world news, but recently it's been mostly (and understandably) been crowded out by other conflicts in recent times. It seems to have escalated further - the Sudanese army is on the backfoot, and the RSF seems to be attempting the ethnic cleansing of the Masalit people in the territory they control.
From memory, the context is that Sudan was intended to transition into a democratically elected government, but the Sudanese military refused near the end of the process and retook control - at the same time, they attempted to fold the RSF, a paramilitary group originally created to quell rebellions (during which they are claimed to have committed crimes against humanity against the non-Arab population per the UN) by the prior government (and it is claimed that the group was part of a "divide and conquer" strategy by said government to stir ethnic conflict by creating an Arab paramilitary group to put down non-Arab Sudanese rebellions). "Hemetti", the RSF leader, then broke off from the Sudanese military and a civil war began in conjunction with the coup.
The UAE has been claimed to be funding the RSF: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/29/world/africa/sudan-war-united-arab-emirates-chad.html
Al Jazeera has the most detailed reporting, but take into consideration the geopolitical backing the outlet has. That being said, I don't think there's any reason to think they're falsifying anything. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/10/corpses-on-streets-sudans-rsf-kills-1300-in-darfur-monitors-say
It really begins to feel like a page out of a history book. "Warlord X was hired to take out Y", which then happens to backfire. (para)military forces are rarely reliable even if they are effective with a degree of plausible deniability. The later is of course bullshit in practice, but unfortunately it's very useful on the geopolitical theatre for this.
I'm very pessimistic about this situation, and would be surprised if this doesn't continue for years to come. With its many minorities and ethnic tensions I wouldn't rule out worst-case scenarios. Unfortunately, outside interference may well make things worse unless shit really hits the fan.