This time, our five questions go to Gerald Hainzl, researcher and principal lecturer at the National Defense Academy in Vienna. We spoke to the expert on African security policy about the current situation in Sudan.
Mr. Hainzl, the Sudanese civil war has now been going on for almost two years. What is the driver of this conflict, in which over 60,000 people died and around twelve million were displaced?
The civil war in Sudan has many facets and is usually presented in a very simplified way as a conflict between the SAF and the RSF. In reality, however, it is not ONE war, but several violent conflicts that are being fought at different levels. This happens within communities, between different groups and at local and national level. But regional and international actors are also involved in Sudan for various reasons.
Depending on which level is addressed in the conflict, issues of identity – for example ethnic identity – or political issues play a significant role in the conflict. However, economic issues are important at every level. This can mean a conflict between cattle breeders and land farmers as well as the struggle for access to resources for international markets; gold would be an example of this.
What makes the situation in Sudan so complex is that all of these components are interlinked in different ways and make it so difficult to find a way out of this situation. This means, for example, that an end to the conflict between the SAF and the RSF would not necessarily be followed by an end to the violence. Inter-ethnic disputes or conflicts over land or land use will continue at local level.
“It is not ONE war, but several violent conflicts that are being fought on different levels.”
The Kremlin has sided with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). What strategic importance does Sudan have for Russia?
Russia has been interested in a military base in Port Sudan for some time now. This project was already being pursued under the then President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir and was repeatedly disrupted by developments in Sudan.
This military base would be of great strategic importance to Russia. It also underlines Russia’s claim to power projection in this part of Africa. On the one hand, it would enable surveillance over a waterway that is particularly important for Europeans and, on the other, create the possibility of disrupting shipping traffic in the long term. If a situation like the one triggered by the container ship Ever Given in 2021 (de facto closure of the Suez Canal) were to be brought about, the European economy could be severely affected in terms of supply chains and fossil fuels.
While official Russia is apparently on the side of the SAF, Russian Wagner mercenaries are supporting the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). What is the aim Moscow with this approach?
The involvement of the Wagner Group and Russia’s support for the RSF are not comparable, both because of the distance in time and because of the different interests involved. As a state, Russia pursues strategic interests in the region and beyond, while the Wagner Group and its cooperation with the RSF essentially served economic goals. The mining of gold, for example, should be mentioned in this context.
There have been reports that Ukrainian special forces are active in Sudan to disrupt Russian interests. Are there any indications that these operations are still ongoing?
While some media reported on Ukrainian involvement in Sudan at the beginning of 2024, things have been relatively quiet recently. Only the Financial Times reported in September 2024 that retired Ukrainian pilots and Russian snipers were involved in the conflict on the same side, supporting the Sudanese armed forces under General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan. The fact that former and active soldiers from countries with opposing interests are fighting side by side can be explained more by personal economic considerations than by the strategic calculations of their countries of origin.
“I think it is very optimistic to count on there being a consensus on which strategies could lead to a ceasefire in Sudan.”
What needs to change in the conflict and what strategies are available to the international community to achieve a ceasefire in Sudan?
This is the “1 million euro question”. The longer the conflicts last, the more complex the possible solutions will be. The formation of a kind of counter-government including a transitional constitution by the RSF and the involvement of various groups in this will not be very conducive to the goal of a comprehensive ceasefire.
The international community certainly has different views and interests in Sudan. I think it is very optimistic to count on there being a consensus on which strategies could lead to a ceasefire in Sudan. From a pessimistic point of view, proxy conflicts could be fought out in Sudan, as we saw in the 20th century. I would also not completely rule out the possibility of the state breaking up into several parts.
Click here to read the other articles in our “5 questions to” series.
