By Eiad Husham
Nearly three years into Sudan’s catastrophic conflict, the world still struggles to understand its nature, origins, and forces sustaining it. The war, which has devastated cities, fractured communities, and unleashed one of the worst humanitarian and displacement crises in recent history, is often framed through simplified or misleading narratives. These narratives — repeated across international media, diplomatic statements, and policy circles — obscure the deeper political, regional, and global dynamics driving Sudan’s destruction.
Five key misconceptions dominate this landscape of misinformation, shaping international attitudes and often distorting the path toward a realistic solution.
The Myth of a “Civil War”: Erasing the Role of Regional and International Backers
Much of the global coverage still describes Sudan’s war as a civil war, a term that implies an internal struggle limited to Sudanese actors. While the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are indeed the main warring parties, this framing obscures the essential truth: the war is fueled, extended, and shaped by regional and international backers who provide political support, weaponry, funding, logistics, and diplomatic cover.
It is this external involvement — not merely local rivalries — that has allowed the conflict to stretch on with no end in sight. Without ongoing military supplies, intelligence cooperation, cross-border financing, and political shielding from regional powerhouses, neither side would have the material strength to sustain nearly three years of continuous warfare. The result has been the collapse of public services, the mass starvation and killings of civilians, and the forced displacement of more than ten million people.
Reducing this conflict to a “civil war” does not simply oversimplify — it actively blinds international observers to the geopolitical networks enabling the fighting, and it downplays the responsibility of foreign actors who have turned Sudan into an arena for influence.
The False Promise of Democracy Through Military Victory
Another misleading narrative suggests that if either SAF or RSF ultimately wins militarily, Sudan could be put back on track toward a democratic transition. This assumption ignores the very origins of Sudan’s post-2019 political crisis.
After the 2019 revolution ousted the 30-year Muslim Brotherhood-aligned dictatorship of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan entered a fragile transitional period. During this time, both General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (SAF) and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo “Hemedti” (RSF) undermined the transitional process, culminating in their joint October 2021 coup against the civilian-led government.
These are not forces committed to democratisation. Their histories reflect a consistent pattern: accumulate military and economic power, manipulate the political process, marginalise civilian actors, and deploy violence to secure control. Presenting either side as potential stewards of democratic reform is not only inaccurate, but it also erases the role they played in dismantling Sudan’s democratic transition in the first place.
Misrepresenting Civilian Political Forces: The case of Summud, Tasis, and the Democratic Bloc
International reporting frequently positions the three civilian coalitions — Summud, Tasis, and the Democratic Bloc — as the legitimate representation of Sudanese civilian voices. This framing is deeply flawed.
Each of these coalitions is either directly aligned with or heavily influenced by one of the warring parties, despite their claims of neutrality. Their political messaging, negotiation positions, and alliances consistently mirror the interests of SAF or RSF factions. As a result, the media’s elevation of these coalitions reinforces the narrative that Sudan’s political space is limited to elite groups with formal structures — groups that, in reality, enjoy limited legitimacy among ordinary Sudanese.
Meanwhile, grassroots civilian actors — the very people who toppled al-Bashir in 2019 — are often overshadowed or ignored. These include neighbourhood resistance committees and, most notably, the Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs), which have been twice nominated for the Nobel Prize, and now run life-saving kitchens, medical support networks, civilian evacuations, and documentation efforts. The ERRs represent the moral and operational backbone of Sudanese civilian resistance, yet they are rarely centered in international narratives. By sidelining these grassroots efforts, the media inadvertently weakens the visibility of the most legitimate civilian stakeholders in Sudan’s future.
The RSF/UAE Narrative: Framing the War as a Fight Against the Muslim Brotherhood
The RSF and some of its regional allies — most prominently the UAE — promote the argument that the RSF is waging a war against the remnants of Sudan’s Muslim Brotherhood—aligned deep state. While it is true that Islamist networks maintain influence within segments of the SAF, this narrative is strategically misleading.
The RSF itself was created, armed and institutionalised by the very same Muslim Brotherhood regime it now claims to oppose. Hemedti’s forces began as Janjaweed militias under Bashir, and throughout the 2000s and 2010s, they served as the regime’s forces in Darfur and other regions. The RSF’s long record includes war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing campaigns, and genocide — atrocities documented long before the current conflict.
The rebranding of the RSF as an anti-Islamist counterweight is, therefore, less an ideological transformation and more a geopolitical public relations campaign, designed to secure international support and distract from its own deeply abusive current and past history.
By amplifying this narrative, foreign media outlets risk validating a distorted version of the conflict that obscures the RSF’s origins and whitewashes its extensive record of violence.
SAF’s “Dignity War”: A Nationalist Slogan Masking Power Ambitions
On the opposite side, SAF promotes its own narrative: that the conflict is a “dignity war,” a patriotic fight to defend Sudan’s sovereignty against foreign mercenaries and outlawed militias. While this framing resonates with segments of the public who view the RSF as illegitimate, it remains fundamentally misleading.
The war is not driven by national dignity but by the political ambitions of SAF’s leadership and the strategic interests of its regional and international supporters. Like the RSF, SAF is fighting to preserve power, maintain control over vast economic interests, and secure the backing of foreign governments that view Sudan as a strategic battleground.
The “dignity war” narrative obscures internal SAF power struggles, its history of political interference, and its role in derailing democratic processes — including the 2021 coup. It also masks the reality that both armies have engaged in abuses, forced disappearances, and indiscriminate attacks affecting millions of civilians.
Conclusion: Misinformation Is Not a Side Effect — It Is a Weapon
Sudan’s war is sustained not only by bullets and funding, but by narratives. These narratives — civil war, democratic saviours, legitimate civilian coalitions, anti-Islamist crusades, dignity campaigns — shape diplomatic decisions, humanitarian responses, and public opinion.
When misinformation dominates the global discourse, the actual drivers of the conflict remain hidden: regional rivalries, military greed, political manipulation and the systematic sidelining of genuine civilian voices. Correcting these narratives is not merely an academic exercise — it is a step toward acknowledging the true architecture of the war, identifying the actors enabling it, and supporting the Sudanese civilians who continue to shoulder its most devastating consequences.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Media Diversity Institute. Any question or comment should be addressed to [email protected] of the Media Diversity Institute (MDI).
