Before the Explosion… How Was the Scene Set?

Adel Al-Rifai Abu Al-Hassan
According to a number of observers, the war in Sudan was not merely an internal dispute that developed into a military confrontation. Rather, it followed a long series of political, security, and regional transformations that reshaped the overall landscape and altered the balance of power. Proponents of this analysis argue that the attempt to seize power was not conceived when fighting broke out, but followed a period of preparation and groundwork across political, media, and military dimensions.
In the period preceding the war, the political landscape witnessed, according to this reading, notable changes. These included the retreat or disappearance of a number of influential leaders, as well as the neutralisation of certain political forces and figures through various means and circumstances. This, in turn, weakened some parties’ ability to influence the course of events. This school of thought also holds that developments within certain regional circles contributed to a more complex environment and affected the nature of the balances surrounding Sudan.
Those advancing this analysis argue that any major project requires a suitable environment before it emerges, and that weakening or neutralising forces capable of opposing it forms part of the struggle for influence that often precedes major transformations. Understanding the period before the war is therefore key to understanding the nature of the confrontation itself.
In the political and media sphere, some observers point out that the militia’s political wing gained access to a number of international platforms, organisations and institutions, promoting its narrative under banners such as the civil state and democratic transition. Critics of this trajectory argue that certain figures with neither significant political weight nor clear electoral representation were nevertheless granted extensive space and influence, providing the project with political and media cover at crucial stages.
At the military level, meanwhile, this force does not, according to this analysis, resemble the traditional models of militias seen in many parts of the world. Rather, it is distinguished by the multiplicity of its sources of support, the diversity of its personnel, and its possession of extensive networks of relationships and communications, in addition to considerable capabilities in armament, mobility and logistics.
The scale of the capabilities that became apparent during the war raised wide-ranging questions about funding sources, the ability to replace losses, and the capacity to sustain fighting over prolonged periods. Some analysts believe that the availability of financial resources and multiple support networks helped this force maintain its operational capacity, making the confrontation far more complex than a limited conflict between two local parties.
The confrontation was not confined to the battlefield; it also extended into the media and information sphere. The war saw extensive activity in constructing competing narratives, shaping public opinion, and disseminating misleading or contradictory information through media platforms and media rooms both inside and outside the country. Those who hold this view believe that this information battle formed part of an attempt to influence public consciousness, undermine confidence in institutions, and cast doubt on the course of events.
Some analysts also argue that the speed with which the militia moved between phases of the fighting, and its ability to redeploy after heavy blows, indicate contingency plans and an organisational flexibility beyond what might normally be expected of an irregular armed force. Some of its movements within cities also raised questions about the nature of the intelligence it possessed, particularly regarding vital sites and movement routes. This, in turn, opened the door to debate about the sources of information and support it relied on.
On the security and social front, observers believe that the use of chaos, intimidation and the spread of fear among citizens had a significant impact on the course of the war. Control, after all, is achieved not only through weapons, but also through attempts to break the morale of society and weaken the state’s capacity to endure.
In sum, this reading holds that the militia was not simply an isolated military force, but part of a more complex landscape in which political, military, media and regional calculations intersected. Nevertheless, determining the nature of the supporting parties or the extent of external involvement still requires documented evidence and independent investigations.
The most important lesson revealed by this war, however, is the urgent need to develop early-warning and strategic monitoring systems. The emergence of a force of this scale, the gradual growth of its capabilities, and the expansion of its networks were all indicators that should have been subject to continuous monitoring and analysis by the competent authorities—not merely to determine the scale of the threat, but to understand its objectives, the course of its development, and its potential impact on the security of the state and the wider region.
The real failure lies not only in dealing with a danger after it has emerged, but in failing to detect its early signs in time. Strong states do not wait for crises to occur; instead, they build the capacity to read transformations, connect indicators, and anticipate risks before they develop into major threats.
For this reason, protecting Sudan in the future will require more than strengthening military power. It will require a state equipped with strategic institutions capable of monitoring, analysis, and foresight, because early action and risk awareness constitute the first line of defence for a state’s security and stability.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=17315