The Face of Truth: Drones Undermine Prospects for Peace
Ibrahim Shglawi
Each passing day of the Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) war against the Sudanese state confirms, beyond any doubt, that they are out of touch with the nature of the Sudanese people. They seem to believe that the recent brutal attacks on infrastructure and public services can create enough pressure on the Sudanese population to influence the government and military to enter negotiations—succumbing to this blatant political and military blackmail.
However, this will only strengthen the people’s resolve to reject submission and extortion.
Today, Sudan stands at a crossroads—between a project that seeks to uphold the rule of law and institutions, and another that aims to dismantle these foundations, backed by foreign agendas.
This article seeks to examine the implications of the war from political and moral perspectives, while calling on the militia and its backers to come to the negotiating table after the tragic events the country has endured.
The conflict between the armed forces and the RSF has shifted from a political dispute to a decisive existential confrontation.
It is no longer merely a power struggle, as some claim, but a test of Sudan’s very survival—between a sovereignty project rooted in law and institutions, and a dismantling project driven by external agendas and systematic violations on the ground.
Drone attacks on the city of Port Sudan, and the disruption of electricity, water, and communications, are not just hostile acts—they are tools in a psychological and economic war designed to break the will of the people and subjugate the state.
Official statements confirm that these drones were launched from outside Sudan’s borders, clearly pointing to the scale of regional interference and efforts to impose a new political reality that serves foreign interests rather than Sudan’s.
Following the drone strikes on Port Sudan’s infrastructure, the RSF issued a call for dialogue—an inherently contradictory move that only deepened the rift between them and the Sudanese people.
This invitation, promoted by some media platforms, was widely rejected—especially as the militia continued targeting civilian facilities that primarily serve the Sudanese public.
Dr. Abdalla Hamdok, one of the proponents of negotiation, was widely criticized for failing to explicitly condemn the militia’s attacks on civilian infrastructure in Port Sudan and other areas—despite the severity of the damage and its impact on citizens.
Many saw this silence as out of touch with the aspirations of the Sudanese people, especially in light of broad regional and international solidarity with the victims. His call for dialogue seemed disconnected from reality and at odds with justice.
Peace prospects collapsed when negotiations became a tool for submission, and drone attacks turned into a means of blackmail and pressure, all in the absence of a conducive political environment.
When weapons are used not for deterrence, but to impose a bloody reality, calls for settlement become mere covers for reproducing chaos.
The massacres and crimes committed are enough to strip the RSF of any future legitimacy to negotiate—they have committed virtually every conceivable atrocity, and the Sudanese memory remains vigilant.
In April and May 2023, horrific massacres occurred in El Geneina, West Darfur, claiming thousands of civilian lives in just a few days—bodies left in the streets amid international silence.
Similar crimes were repeated in Wad Al-Noura (Gezira State) in December 2023, in Al-Sarihah and Al-Hilaliya in early 2024, and in the Sabreen Market massacre (February 2025), which killed 61 people due to random shelling.
Then came the Al-Saliha massacre on May 3, 2025, which claimed 250 lives, followed by the May 2025 Nahud massacre in North Kordofan, where 300 citizens were killed in cold blood, according to the Sudanese Doctors’ Network.
These atrocities were committed based on identity—a scene reminiscent of the darkest chapters of civil war.
These are systematic policies aimed at depopulating land, spreading terror, and paralyzing popular will.
Despite this hellish reality, the Sudanese people have shown they will not trade dignity for comfort.
Many lived without water, electricity, or communication—but never wavered in their support for the state.
As the martyred King Faisal once said: “We lived in tents and can return to them. To lose wealth is better than to lose honor.”
This is a sentiment deeply rooted in Sudanese collective consciousness—just as Malek Bennabi expressed: “He who loses his dignity has nothing left but to live as a slave, even if he appears free.”
As we see through #TheFaceOfTruth, the conflict in Sudan has moved beyond geography—it has extended into cyberspace. It now requires strategic awareness, beginning with understanding the nature of the threat, continuing with fortifying the home front, and ending with rejecting any settlement imposed from abroad.
The roadmap is not for negotiating with those who desecrated cities—but with those who recognize the importance of respecting the people and their resources, and who lay down arms in allegiance to the people’s will.
This is a battle for dignity and sovereignty—there is no room for grey settlements. The Sudanese have no option but to prevail.
Thursday, May 8, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com