The war in Sudan has crossed the three-year mark, a grim milestone in what many analysts now describe as an “abandoned crisis.” Despite staggering human suffering and widespread displacement, the conflict has struggled to maintain consistent international attention. As highlighted by The Soufan Center, the situation continues to deteriorate, with little indication that a resolution is imminent.
Since fighting erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the country has been plunged into chaos. According to multiple humanitarian assessments, the death toll may have reached as high as 150,000, though figures vary. What is undisputed, however, is the scale of displacement. Millions have fled their homes, with approximately 4.5 million seeking refuge in neighboring countries such as Chad and Libya, while millions more remain internally displaced.
At the center of Sudan’s crisis is a rapidly collapsing food system. Years of conflict have devastated agriculture, leaving nearly 29 million people facing acute food insecurity. Farmers have been driven from their land, irrigation systems have fallen into disrepair, and rising fuel costs have crippled supply chains. Markets have become fragmented and localized, forcing families to adopt extreme survival strategies, including skipping meals or consuming unsafe alternatives. Aid organizations are overwhelmed, struggling to meet the needs of a population on the brink of famine.
The country’s healthcare system has also effectively disintegrated. Hospitals and clinics have been destroyed or abandoned, leaving millions without access to basic medical services. This collapse has contributed to deadly outbreaks, including cholera, which has claimed thousands of lives. Vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, face heightened risks. Reports indicate that incidents of sexual and gender-based violence have surged dramatically, underscoring the broader breakdown of social and institutional protections.
Militarily, the balance of power has shifted over time. In late 2025, the RSF achieved a significant breakthrough by capturing El Fasher, the last major SAF stronghold in the Darfur region. This victory followed a prolonged siege that left the civilian population devastated by starvation, violence, and mass displacement. In the aftermath, numerous human rights organizations and United Nations bodies raised alarm over the scale of abuses, with some describing them as potential mass atrocity crimes with genocidal implications.
Although fighting continues across multiple regions, the center of conflict has increasingly shifted to Kordofan. This strategically vital region has become a decisive battleground due to its geographic importance. Control of Kordofan would allow the RSF to connect its strongholds in Darfur with the capital, Khartoum, and potentially secure access to the Red Sea. While the SAF regained control of Khartoum in 2025 and resumed government operations there, the RSF has established parallel governance structures in areas under its control.
Recent months have seen intensified fighting in Kordofan, with both sides deploying increasingly advanced military technology. The RSF, in coordination with allied groups such as the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North, has relied heavily on drones and siege tactics, blockading key cities including Kadugli and Dilling. These blockades have contributed to famine-like conditions, drawing concern from international observers. In response, the SAF has conducted drone strikes to break these sieges, signaling an escalation in the use of unmanned systems in the conflict.
External actors have played a crucial role in sustaining the war. Both the SAF and RSF receive varying degrees of support from regional and international partners, creating a complex web of alliances that prolongs the fighting. The RSF is widely believed to benefit from backing linked to the United Arab Emirates, with supply routes running through countries such as South Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya. A significant portion of its financing reportedly comes from a gold trade network, in which resources are smuggled out of Sudan and sold abroad to fund military operations.
On the other side, the SAF has received strong political and logistical backing from Egypt. This support has reportedly intensified in response to RSF gains, particularly following the fall of El Fasher. Concerns have grown that further RSF advances toward the Red Sea could shift regional power dynamics, increasing the strategic stakes for external players. Reports suggest that Egyptian facilities have been used to facilitate certain military operations, though such claims remain politically sensitive.
The conflict has also drawn in other regional actors, either directly or indirectly. Areas such as the Blue Nile region have become new flashpoints, partly due to their proximity to neighboring states like Ethiopia. Allegations of external support, including the presence of training camps and logistical assistance, have further complicated the situation, even as governments deny involvement.
Despite the scale of the crisis, international diplomatic efforts have struggled to gain traction. Initiatives led by the United States and regional partners, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, initially aimed to broker de-escalation. However, by early 2026, these efforts had largely stalled, overshadowed by other global conflicts, particularly tensions involving Iran. This shift in focus has created a vacuum, allowing both the SAF and RSF to pursue their objectives with limited external pressure.
Humanitarian efforts, while substantial, have been largely disconnected from political solutions. International conferences have generated billions of euros in pledges for aid, reflecting global recognition of the crisis. Yet these contributions have done little to address the root causes of the conflict or to halt the violence. As local aid networks within Sudan continue to weaken, the gap between humanitarian need and available support continues to widen.
Experts warn that the lack of sustained international engagement reflects a broader problem in global crisis response. While the stakes for Sudanese civilians are existential, they are often perceived as secondary by major powers. This imbalance has led to inconsistent attention and fragmented policy approaches, undermining the prospects for a lasting resolution.
As Sudan enters its fourth year of war, the outlook remains bleak. Without a coordinated international strategy that prioritizes both humanitarian relief and political solutions—and crucially includes Sudanese voices—the conflict is likely to persist. What began as a power struggle has evolved into one of the world’s most severe yet overlooked crises, where the cost of inaction continues to mount with each passing day.
