Sudan’s Crucible: Navigating War Scenarios and the African Union’s Imperative

Sudan crisis and African Union_SpecialEurasia

Executive Summary

By early 2026, the Sudanese conflict had escalated into the gravest humanitarian emergency globally, with no foreseeable end. The most probable trajectory involves a state of attrition and contested fragmentation, characterised by a breakdown of central authority and a patchwork of territorial control.

To address this entrenchment, the African Union (AU) must pivot from episodic diplomacy towards a robust, coordinated strategy that prioritises an inclusive, Sudanese-led political process. Failure to implement rigorous enforcement mechanisms and secure unhindered humanitarian access risks allowing the conflict to become a permanent and catastrophic political reality for the region.

Key Takeaways

  1. Pervasive Fragmentation: The most likely outlook for 2026 is a “Libya-style” de facto partition or continued attrition, where the SAF maintains a stronghold in the east while the RSF merges dominance in the west, severely complicating future national reconciliation.
  2. Humanitarian Catastrophe: The war has displaced over 10 million people, and the weaponisation of resources has led to rampant famine in regions such as Darfur and Kordofan, making the protection of civilians a non-negotiable priority for any intervention.
  3. Need for Robust Enforcement: Past mediation efforts have faltered because of a lack of accountability; the AU must now link ceasefires to verifiable disarmament, resource audits of the gold and weapons trade, and rigorous sanctions against internal and external spoilers.
  4. Inclusive Political Process: A sustainable resolution requires a shift away from imposed external solutions toward a framework developed by diverse Sudanese actors, including civil society and women’s groups, to restore legitimate civilian leadership.

Background Information

The Bleak Outlook: Understanding Sudan’s War Scenarios for 2026

The conflict in Sudan, which ignited inApril 2023between theSudanese Armed Forces (SAF)and theRapid Support Forces (RSF), has rapidly devolved into the world’s most severe humanitarian crisis. As of early2026, there are no clear signs of a definitive resolution, and the conflict risks becoming an entrenched political reality. Expert analyses outline several potential scenarios that could shape Sudan’s trajectory through December 2026, each with dire implications for its population and regional stability.

Scenario 1: Attrition and Contested Fragmentation

This scenario, often considered the most likely, paints a picture of prolonged conflict characterized by the breakdown of central authority and a patchwork of control. The SAF would likely maintain its stronghold in the east and center, including key cities like Port Sudan and parts of Khartoum, albeit under a government struggling with legitimacy and weak governance. The RSF, conversely, would consolidate its dominance across much of western Sudan, particularly Darfur, using coercive tactics such as extortion to maintain control. This fragmentation would intensify inter-communal violence, fueled by hate speech and ethnic targeting, leading to increased displacement, widespread looting, and sexual violence. Humanitarian access would remain severely constrained, exacerbating famine conditions in regions like Darfur and Kordofan.

The conflict’s continuation provides political and economic survival for the warring factions, reducing diplomacy to short-lived, ineffective efforts. The potential for splinter groups to emerge, particularly from within a fracturing SAF, further complicates this landscape, introducing radical elements and persistent pockets of resistance.

Scenario 2: SAF Reassertion and Escalated Conflict

A less probable but still significant scenario involves the SAF attempting to reassert control over territories currently dominated by the RSF, particularly in Kordofan and Darfur. This would lead to a significant escalation of fighting, especially around strategic locations like Nyala. The resource-rich Kordofan region, with its oil and agricultural assets, would become a critical battleground, drawing in other armed groups such as the SPLM-N/Al Hilu. Drone warfare would intensify, targeting civilian infrastructure, and the overall casualty rate, while potentially lower than peak 2025 levels, would remain alarmingly high. This scenario could also see the militarization of trade corridors, with potential shifts in alliances and external support for various factions.

Scenario 3: De Facto Partition and Regionalisation

This scenario suggests a movement towards a Libya-style partition, where the RSF solidifies its de facto control over Darfur. This consolidation would enable the RSF to engage in direct arms deals and diplomacy, operating as a quasi-state entity. Concurrently, the SAF, backed by external powers like Iran or Turkey providing drones, would leverage its international legitimacy and access to logistics hubs like Port Sudan and Khartoum. The war’s epicenter would likely shift to Kordofan, further destabilizing the region and drawing in neighbouring states, creating a complex web of proxy conflicts and humanitarian crises. Thisde factodivision would entrench separate governance structures, complicating any future attempts at national reconciliation.

Scenario 4: Disintegration and Widespread Anarchy

This dire scenario postulates a complete collapse of state structures, leading to widespread lawlessness and an even deeper humanitarian crisis. A mosaic of competing authorities and militias would emerge, characterized by weak rule of law, arbitrary taxation, and heightened protection risks for civilians. This scenario would magnify the famine conditions and displacement, making humanitarian aid delivery virtually impossible across vast swathes of the country.

The Unlikely Path: Negotiated Resolution or Ceasefire Breakthrough

A scenario leading to a negotiated resolution or a significant ceasefire breakthrough remains a low probability given the current trajectory. It would require sustained internal Sudanese civilian dialogues, empowered civil society, and a unified push from international partners, including the “Quad” (US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, UK), aligning with AU/IGAD efforts. Such a breakthrough would aim for a three-month unconditional truce, the restoration of civilian authority, and potentially, future elections. However, the history of failed mediation efforts, often lacking a clear vision and accountability mechanisms, underscores the immense challenges. Cutting off arms supplies and enforcing robust sanctions would be critical to shift the dynamics towards peace.

The African Union’s Imperative: A Path Forward for Sudan

TheAfrican Union (AU)has been actively involved in addressing theSudan crisis, though its efforts have faced significant challenges and criticisms regarding effectiveness. DespitesuspendingSudan’s participation in AU activities and repeatedly calling for civilian rule, the ongoing conflict highlights the need for a more robust, coordinated, and impactful AU strategy. The following outlines how the AU should deal with the Sudan crisis, leveraging its unique position and mandate for “African solutions to African problems.”

Revitalizing Mediation and Ensuring Inclusivity

Past mediation failures underscore the necessity for the AU to lead an inclusive, Sudanese-owned political process. This involves pushing for a framework developed by Sudanese actors, rather than imposing external solutions. The AU must explicitly warn against recognizing any parallel governments or fragmented authorities, consistently advocating for a consensual settlement that restores legitimate civilian leadership. Integrating diverse Sudanese voices, including civil society and women activists, is crucial to building a credible and sustainable roadmap for a ceasefire, humanitarian access, and transitional governance.

Key Mediation Principles:

  • Sudanese-Led Dialogue: Empower internal Sudanese civilian dialogues to foster ownership and legitimacy.
  • Preventing Recognition of Parallel Governments: Uphold the principle of a unified state and refuse to legitimize fragmented control.
  • Broad Inclusion: Ensure all stakeholders, particularly marginalized groups and civil society, have a voice in the peace process.
  • Enhancing Coordination and Regional Enforcement

The AU must intensify its coordination with regional and international partners, including theIntergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the UN, the Arab League, and influential states like the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This coordinated approach is essential to avoid fragmented efforts and to present a unified mediation front. Critically, the AU should revive IGAD/AU mediation efforts by linking ceasefires to verifiable disarmament and resource audits, particularly focusing on the war economy sustained by gold mines and weapons flows. Sanctions should be enforced rigorously, targeting commanders and external actors who profit from the conflict.

Given thefailure of previous UN and Saudi/Cairo-led initiatives, the AU should prioritise regionally led enforcement mechanisms. This might involve deploying AU-monitored ceasefires and leveraging its proximity to pressure regional backers of the SAF (like Egypt) and RSF (like the UAE). Preventing the de facto partition of Sudan, particularly by countering RSF consolidation in Darfur, should be a diplomatic priority, with the AU Peace and Security Council playing a key role in early warning and strategic response.

Prioritising Humanitarian Access and Civilian Protection

A non-negotiable priority for the AU must be securing rapid and unhindered humanitarian access, especially to regions like Darfur and Kordofan, where famine is rampant. This includes establishing secure corridors for aid delivery and ensuring the protection of civilians as a precondition for any political process. The AU should integrate with efforts like IOM’s response plan to manage the mobility crisis, bolster civilian protection policies, and actively cut off funding to militias that exacerbate violence.

The AU should also support investigations into atrocities and ensure accountability for war crimes. This could involve advocating for the extension of ICC jurisdiction to all of Sudan and establishing independent judicial mechanisms. Such accountability measures are vital for any durable solution and for restoring trust among communities.

Key Interventions for the African Union:

The following mind map illustrates the multifaceted approach the African Union needs to adopt to effectively address the Sudan crisis, encompassing diplomatic, humanitarian, and enforcement strategies.

Sudan crisis and African Union

Fostering Accountability and Justice

The AU must invest significantly in accountability and justice. This involves not only supporting ongoing investigations into atrocities but also ensuring that any durable solution incorporates mechanisms for justice. This could include advocating for the extension of International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction to cover all war crimes in Sudan, not just Darfur, and the establishment of independent national or hybrid judicial mechanisms to prosecute those responsible for human rights abuses.

Sustained Leadership and Early Warning

The AU’s role in early warning and sustained political leadership is critical to prevent backsliding and maintain dialogue between civilian and military actors. Leveraging existing AU early-warning capacities, such as VIEWS forecasts, can provide timely intelligence for preventative action. Furthermore, sustained political engagement is necessary to incentivize parties towards a civilian-led transition and to counter the narrative that violence is a permanent political system.

The Challenge of Enforcement

One of the persistent criticisms of the AU’s approach is the lack of robust enforcement mechanisms. Ceasefires have repeatedly failed, and without verifiable disarmament and resource audits, the conflict risks becoming a permanent fixture. The AU must find ways to ensure compliance with its resolutions and to hold member states accountable for their roles, direct or indirect, in prolonging the conflict.

The Humanitarian Catastrophe: A Deeper Look

The Sudanese conflict has created the largest humanitarian crisis globally, with over 10 million people displaced and millions more facing acute food insecurity and famine. The weaponization of resources, coupled with attacks on humanitarian aid workers and infrastructure, has severely hampered relief efforts. The table below summarizes the critical humanitarian and economic impacts across the primary conflict scenarios:

ScenarioTerritorial Control DynamicsKey Humanitarian ImpactsEconomic Effects & War Economy
Attrition/Contested FragmentationSAF: East/Center (weak governance); RSF: West (coercive control)Escalating violence, massive displacement, severe protection crises, widespread famine, urban unrestWeak governance, extortion-based control, limited legitimate trade, persistent localized war economy
SAF ReassertionSAF gains in West (Kordofan, Darfur); multi-group conflictsIntensified clashes, drone attacks on civilian infrastructure, increased casualties, constrained aid accessMilitarized trade corridors, resource competition (oil, agriculture), potential for economic exploitation by dominant force
De Facto PartitionRSF: Darfur (consolidated); SAF: Port Sudan/KhartoumHigh casualties (thousands), chaos in partitioned zones, persistent famine, entrenched humanitarian crisisGold/weapons flows sustaining conflict, illicit trade routes, separate economic systems, limited national development
DisintegrationMosaics of authorities/militias; collapse of state structuresWidespread lawlessness, extreme protection risks, deepening humanitarian crisis, impossible aid deliveryCompeting taxation, informal economies, complete breakdown of formal economic activity, widespread looting

External Influences and Mediation Challenges

The Sudanese conflict is not solely an internal affair; external influences play a significant role in perpetuating it. Various regional and international actors have vested interests, often providing support to one side or the other, complicating mediation efforts. The lack of a unified international approach, coupled with episodic diplomacy that fails to yield lasting agreements, means that peace remains elusive.

Conclusion

The conflict in Sudan presents a multifaceted crisis with profound humanitarian and geopolitical implications. The most probable scenarios for 2026 point towards continued fragmentation, escalating violence, and a deepening humanitarian catastrophe.

While the challenges are immense,the African Union holds a crucial mandate and unique position to spearhead a sustainable resolution.By prioritising an inclusive, Sudanese-led political process, enhancing coordination with international partners, and rigorously enforcing humanitarian and accountability measures, the AU can move beyond episodic diplomacy towards a comprehensive and lasting peace for Sudan.

The path is fraught with difficulties, but a concerted, strategic, and well-resourced effort from the AU, supported by the international community, remains the most viable hope for the Sudanese people.

Disclaimer: SpecialEurasia does not endorse or support the findings and conclusions presented in this report, which are solely attributed to the author. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the company.

Additional References

Written by

  • Gamal Photo 18 Jan 2025 1

    Independent Researcher. He is a Sudanese academic and public intellectual known for his work on Sudan’s political economy, governance, and development challenges. Affiliated with the African Union (Senior Communications Officer within AU Commission in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia), his research and commentary often examine state formation, civil–military relations, and the economic roots of conflict in Sudan. Karrar contributes to policy debates through lectures, media commentary, and analytical essays that explore pathways toward institutional reform, economic diversification, and sustainable peace in Sudan and the wider Horn of Africa.

    Read the author's reports
Key words:,,,,

Get Your Custom Insights

Need in-depth geopolitical, security, and risk analysis of Eurasian countries and regions?
Our custom reports and consulting services provide tailored insights.
Contact us atinfo@specialeurasia.comfor more information!

Geopoolitical Intelligence Analysis Course 11 April 2026_SpecialEurasia
Online Course Terrorism Analysis SpecialEurasia February 2026

SpecialEurasia Training Courses 1-to-1 Formula

Terrorism Analysis Course_SpecialEurasia
Terrorism Analysis Course
Geopolitical Intelligence Analysis Course_SpecialEurasia
Geopolitical Intelligence
Analysis Course
Intelligence Analysis Fundamentals Course_SpecialEurasia
Intelligence Analysis
Fundamentals Course
Webint & Open Source Intelligence Course_SpecialEurasia
Webint & Open Source
Intelligence Course