The Devastating Conflict Where Both Sides Have Reasons to Keep Fighting

Published: March 5, 2026
The English Chronicle Desk
The English Chronicle Online

In the midst of a series of violent global flashpoints, one of the most protracted and destructive conflicts continues unabated in Sudan, where rival factions are locked in a prolonged war marked by entrenched motives and shifting alliances. What began as a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has evolved into a broader national crisis in which both sides retain compelling, if deeply opposed, reasons to continue fighting — a dynamic that has made peace elusive and humanitarian suffering severe.

The roots of the conflict trace back to a breakdown in political order and decades of authoritarian governance, but the current war, which erupted in April 2023, has layered complex strategic, economic and identity interests on top of personal rivalries among military leaders. Both the SAF and RSF describe the struggle in existential terms: the paramilitary force led by Muhammad Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti) frames its campaign as a revolutionary effort to dismantle the entrenched military‑dominated state and forge a new political structure, while the SAF sees RSF aspirations as an illegitimate challenge to sovereign authority and national stability.

Long‑standing ethnic divisions have also been weaponised, with nomadic Arab groups in the south and west — core support bases for the RSF — pitted against populations aligned with the traditional Nile Valley power structure that underpins the SAF. Violence in regions such as Darfur has taken on the hallmarks of ethnic targeting, prompting accusations of mass atrocities and even genocide by United Nations observers.

The wider strategic stakes have compounded the conflict’s intractability. Outside powers — including the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia — have supplied weapons, political backing or logistical support to one faction or the other, viewing the outcome as tied to their influence in the Horn of Africa. Those external interests have sometimes encouraged continued fighting, as neither side’s patrons want to see their investment dissipate without securing political advantage.

Humanitarian consequences have been catastrophic. Millions of Sudanese have been displaced, with estimates suggesting **more than 12 million people forced from their homes and 25 million facing acute food insecurity. The war has created one of the most severe humanitarian crises in the world, with widespread shortages of food, medical supplies and basic services.

Efforts to broker peace have thus far faltered, in part because each side calculates that continuing the fight may yield better long‑term leverage than agreeing to a ceasefire perceived as a surrender. The so‑called “Quad” framework — involving the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt — has proposed a roadmap for a humanitarian truce and broader negotiations. While the RSF has verbally acknowledged aspects of this plan, neither faction has committed formally, and fighting has in some cases intensified despite international mediation attempts.

Analysts point out that a sustainable end to hostilities would require addressing fundamental questions of governance, identity, security and resources. A ceasefire or humanitarian respite would only be meaningful if it were tied to agreements on political power‑sharing, resource distribution and accountability for war crimes — matters on which both sides remain deeply opposed.

For the civilians caught between the bullets, this war has become a grim daily reality. Thousands continue to flee conflict zones, seeking refuge in neighbouring countries, while international aid efforts struggle to keep pace with the scale of displacement and hunger. In a conflict where both factions believe the stakes are existential, the incentives for peace remain outweighed by the perceived costs of compromise.

Read More At>>