The Face of Truth: The Army’s Advance Reshapes the Sudanese Landscape”
Ibrahim Shaglawi
As the war in Sudan nears its second year, the political and military landscape is witnessing rapid developments, most notably the territorial advances made by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) on multiple fronts, particularly in Khartoum. This has led to clear shifts in the positions of several countries and the United Nations regarding the Sudanese crisis. Many regional and international powers are now more inclined to support the legitimate government and reject any attempts to establish parallel political entities. In this article, we will discuss how the momentum of military victories has influenced the international stance and how this could impact the political and security future of Sudan.
In light of these significant military developments, the UN Secretary-General’s envoy to Sudan, Ramtane Lamamra, emphasized the need for unified political efforts to overcome the crisis. He conveyed the UN’s welcome of the roadmap presented by the Sudanese government for managing the transitional period (United Nations News). Lamamra stressed that any solution must respect Sudan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and be based on the shared political will of the conflicting parties. This position reflects a significant shift in international discourse, as more countries and organizations now recognize the Sudanese government as a key player in shaping the country’s future.
This international shift aligns with clear regional stances, as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar have all rejected any measures taken outside the legitimate frameworks of the Sudanese state. This signals clear Arab support for national institutions. Similarly, Egypt has taken a firm stance against any attempts to form a parallel government. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Aty affirmed that “Sudan’s territorial integrity is a red line,” emphasizing the importance of supporting reconstruction efforts with active Egyptian participation (Asharq Al-Awsat). This reflects Cairo’s strategic, security, and economic perspective on the crisis.
The stance of the Secretary-General of the Arab League was consistent with this position, as was that of the Turkish government. Turkey’s Foreign Ministry expressed concern over the continued escalation of the conflict and the worsening humanitarian situation in Sudan. In a statement, the ministry reiterated its call for all parties to cease hostilities and refrain from actions that could undermine Sudan’s unity, territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence.
At the UN Security Council meeting on February 26, 2025, several countries, including the United States, Britain, France, and China, expressed concern over the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia’s announcement of its intent to form a parallel government in the areas under its control. They warned that such a move could lead to the de facto division of Sudan. This unified international position against alternative political entities underscores the extent to which the SAF’s military advances have reshaped international calculations.
Despite these positive shifts in international positions, Sudan still faces major challenges. The primary challenge remains military, as battles continue to affect the stability of Khartoum and other cities. The Sudanese army is relying on its territorial gains to regain full control, having made significant progress despite the RSF’s reliance on urban warfare tactics.
There is also the political challenge: although the international community has recognized the government’s roadmap, some opposition forces, such as the Smod alliance—whose exact composition remains unclear, according to Maryam Al-Mahdi—believe that the UN envoy is biased toward one side. This perception could hinder or at least complicate the political process. Meanwhile, Islamists, who support the Sudanese army and have gained influence in political discourse, argue that any political process should be postponed until the battle for liberation and dignity is complete, though they implicitly agree on the need for Sudanese dialogue.
The economic challenge is another pressing issue. Sudan is grappling with a severe economic crisis, marked by the devaluation of its local currency and soaring inflation rates. This makes international support for reconstruction efforts crucial in mitigating the war’s impact and restoring infrastructure and essential services.
Looking at similar experiences from other countries that faced attempts to establish parallel governments during armed conflicts, Libya serves as an example. The political division between two competing governments deepened the crisis, as international powers backed different factions, prolonging the conflict for years without effective solutions. Similarly, in Yemen, the presence of a parallel government controlling vast areas has hindered peace efforts and complicated the political landscape—an outcome the international community seeks to avoid in Sudan.
Based on these factors, it appears that the international stance is increasingly leaning toward strengthening the legitimacy of Sudan’s current government while tightening restrictions on the RSF militia by rejecting any recognition of alternative political entities. This shift may lead to a restructuring of political balances, as recent developments suggest growing international isolation of the RSF in contrast to the strengthened legitimacy of the government.
Given this scenario, and based on the Face of Truth’s perspective, the coming period is likely to witness further military escalation as the SAF continues its battle against the militias, moving toward the liberation of the Republican Palace and Khartoum. Parallel to this, diplomatic efforts will intensify to block any political openings for parallel entities. However, the real challenge remains Sudan’s ability to leverage this international support to rebuild the state, achieve stability, and restore security and peace—avoiding scenarios of division or potential chaos.
Wishing you all well.
Sunday, March 2, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com