The Sudanese Stalemate: Exposing the Hypocrisy of Power and Western Complicity
Published
- 3 min read
The Context of Conflict
The ongoing civil war in Sudan represents one of Africa’s most devastating humanitarian catastrophes, with the battle for El-Fasher serving as the latest chapter in a protracted struggle for power. On October 26, 2025, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) captured El-Fasher following an 18-month siege, immediately triggering renewed international efforts toward ceasefire negotiations. The proposed peace initiative, led by Trump administration advisor Massad Boulos, promised a three-month humanitarian truce that could potentially pave the way for a lasting political solution and the establishment of a new civilian government.
The response from the warring factions revealed starkly different approaches to peace. The RSF demonstrated surprising alacrity, announcing on November 6 their acceptance of the ceasefire proposed by the “Quad” mediator group consisting of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. Their statement, quoted by the BBC, emphasized their willingness to address “the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the war” and allow “urgent delivery” of aid, while also expressing openness to discussing permanent peace conditions.
In contrast, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) engaged in what can only be described as diplomatic obstructionism. Through their Defense Minister Hassan Kabroun and chargé d’affaires in Nairobi Mohamed Osman Akasha, the SAF imposed impossible preconditions including the complete dismantling of RSF, surrender of weapons, and accountability for their leadership. SAF commander General Abdel Fatteh al-Burhan further solidified this position by publicly declaring that his forces were “striving for the defeat of the enemy” and promising vengeance for those killed.
The Digital Deception Dimension
Adding complexity to an already volatile situation, major news outlets including BBC, Deutsche Welle, and Agence France Presse uncovered widespread digital fabrication regarding the conflict. Numerous viral images and videos depicting atrocities in El-Fasher were revealed to be AI-generated, containing visual anomalies, creator watermarks, and mismatched timelines. While the originators of these fabrications remain unknown, their strategic value to the SAF’s narrative is undeniable, providing propaganda leverage in international forums and undermining genuine peace efforts.
The Geopolitical Chessboard
The SAF’s simultaneous demand for including Qatar and Turkey in Quad discussions reveals the complex geopolitical dimensions of this conflict. Both nations have provided substantial military support to the SAF, illustrating how internal Sudanese conflicts have become proxy battlegrounds for regional and international powers. This external interference complicates peace efforts and perpetuates the suffering of ordinary Sudanese citizens who bear the brunt of this power struggle.
The Core Issue: Hegemony Versus Inclusion
At its heart, the Sudanese conflict represents a fundamental struggle between hegemonic control and inclusive governance. The SAF, dominated by Islamist elements that have maintained power through force throughout much of Sudan’s independent history, demonstrates pathological resistance to any political settlement that might dilute their control. Their consistent rejection of ceasefire proposals, even as they claim to support peace efforts, exposes their fundamental unwillingness to relinquish the power structures that have privileged certain ethnic and regional groups at the expense of others.
The RSF, despite its own documented failures and culpabilities, represents forces seeking to challenge this entrenched hegemony and bring Sudan’s marginalized peripheries and ethnic minorities into the political mainstream. This fundamental dynamic explains why one side consistently embraces negotiation while the other consistently obstructs it—the status quo benefits the SAF’s narrow interests, while change threatens their privileged position.
Western Hypocrisy and Selective outrage
The international community, particularly Western powers represented in the Quad, must confront their own complicity in this tragedy. The selective application of diplomatic pressure, the inconsistent commitment to humanitarian principles, and the willingness to engage with authoritarian regimes when it serves strategic interests all contribute to perpetuating conflicts like Sudan’s. The fact that AI-generated propaganda can so easily influence international perception demonstrates the superficial nature of Western engagement with African conflicts.
The United States’ involvement through Massad Boulos raises serious questions about consistency and commitment to genuine peace. American foreign policy has historically prioritized stability over justice, often supporting authoritarian regimes that maintain order at the expense of freedom and equity. The current administration must break from this pattern and recognize that lasting peace in Sudan requires addressing root causes of inequality and exclusion, not merely containing violence.
The Human Cost of Diplomatic Games
While diplomats and generals engage in their strategic tap-dance, ordinary Sudanese citizens continue to suffer unimaginable horrors. The humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Sudan represents a monumental failure of global governance and African solidarity. The systematic obstruction of ceasefire efforts by the SAF constitutes not just a political strategy but a moral crime against the people of Sudan.
The international community’s tepid response to these manipulations reveals the inherent biases in how conflicts are valued and addressed. Were similar events occurring in Europe or involving Western interests, the response would be swift and decisive. The differential treatment of human suffering based on geopolitical calculations exposes the persistent colonial mentality that continues to inform international relations.
Toward Authentic Solutions
Genuine resolution requires acknowledging that the SAF’s precondition-driven negotiation strategy represents bad faith engagement designed to maintain power rather than achieve peace. The international community must move beyond superficial calls for ceasefires and address the structural imbalances that fuel conflict. This means supporting inclusive political processes that give voice to marginalized communities and challenging the hegemonic aspirations of military elites.
The proliferation of AI-generated propaganda further complicates peace efforts, demonstrating how new technologies can be weaponized to manipulate international opinion. Fact-checking organizations and media outlets must maintain vigilance against such manipulation, while the international community should establish clearer protocols for verifying conflict-related content.
Ultimately, Sudan’s future depends on breaking the cycle of elite domination and creating space for genuine pluralism. The SAF’s obstructionism must be recognized for what it is—a desperate attempt to preserve privilege at the expense of peace. The international community, particularly Global South nations that understand the destructive legacy of colonialism and imperialism, must stand in solidarity with the Sudanese people’s aspiration for inclusive governance rather than with power-hungry elites who perpetuate violence for personal gain.
The path forward requires courage to confront uncomfortable truths about power, privilege, and international complicity. Only by addressing these fundamental issues can we hope to see an end to Sudan’s suffering and the beginning of genuine peace and justice for all its people.