No Negotiation, No Truce” With RSF, Says Senior Sudan Official

Sudan’s devastating civil conflict shows no signs of easing after a senior government official declared there would be “no negotiation and no truce” with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The statement underscores the widening rift between Sudan’s rival power centers and suggests that diplomatic efforts to end one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises may face even greater obstacles ahead.
Since fighting erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF, millions of civilians have been caught in the crossfire. The latest remarks indicate that the government is doubling down on a military-first strategy, even as international mediators warn of catastrophic consequences if the war continues unchecked.
Why the Government Is Rejecting Talks
According to senior officials, the refusal to negotiate stems from accusations that the RSF has committed widespread atrocities, including attacks on civilians, mass displacement, and the destruction of vital infrastructure. Government leaders argue that engaging in talks would legitimize an armed group they accuse of undermining Sudan’s sovereignty and stability.
From the state’s perspective, negotiations without accountability could set a dangerous precedent. Officials insist that peace can only come after the RSF is militarily defeated or dismantled, not through compromise.
This hardline stance reflects growing frustration within the military leadership, which believes previous ceasefires were repeatedly violated, allowing the RSF to regroup and expand its control in key regions.
The RSF and the Power Struggle
The RSF, originally formed from militias operating in Darfur, has evolved into a powerful paramilitary force with significant economic and territorial influence. Its rivalry with the SAF represents more than a military clash—it is a struggle over Sudan’s political future, control of resources, and the structure of the state.
Analysts say the conflict is rooted in years of unresolved tensions following the ouster of longtime ruler Omar al-Bashir. Competing visions for governance, security sector reform, and civilian rule have repeatedly derailed transitions, culminating in the current war.
Humanitarian Costs Continue to Mount
While political leaders trade ultimatums, civilians pay the highest price. The United Nations estimates that millions have been displaced, with many fleeing to neighboring countries under dire conditions. Food insecurity, disease outbreaks, and the collapse of healthcare systems have pushed Sudan toward famine-like conditions in several regions.
Aid agencies warn that continued fighting will make humanitarian access even more difficult. Roads, airports, and supply routes have been damaged or blocked, leaving vulnerable populations without assistance.
The government’s rejection of negotiations raises fears that the conflict could intensify further, worsening an already catastrophic situation.
International Reactions and Diplomatic Pressure
Sudan’s stance has drawn mixed reactions from the international community. Some regional actors quietly sympathize with the government’s position, citing concerns over the RSF’s conduct. Others argue that refusing dialogue altogether risks prolonging the war indefinitely.
The African Union, United Nations, and neighboring states have repeatedly called for ceasefires and inclusive talks. However, diplomatic efforts have struggled to gain traction, partly due to mutual distrust and fragmented mediation initiatives.
Observers note that without sustained international pressure and unified mediation, the conflict may harden into a long-term war with shifting frontlines rather than a clear resolution.
Risks of a Prolonged Military Approach
History offers sobering lessons about conflicts resolved solely through force. Prolonged wars often weaken state institutions, fuel extremism, and create power vacuums that are difficult to fill. In Sudan’s case, a drawn-out conflict could further fracture the country along ethnic, regional, and political lines.
Economically, the war has already devastated Sudan’s fragile economy. Currency depreciation, unemployment, and disrupted trade are pushing millions deeper into poverty. A military-only strategy may secure short-term gains but risks long-term instability.
Voices Calling for a Political Solution
Despite the government’s position, many Sudanese civil society groups continue to advocate for a negotiated political settlement. Activists argue that neither side can achieve a decisive victory without destroying what remains of the country.
They emphasize that sustainable peace must include civilian leadership, accountability for abuses, and reforms to prevent future militarization of politics.
These voices, however, remain largely sidelined as military leaders dominate decision-making.
What Comes Next for Sudan?
The declaration of “no negotiation, no truce” marks a critical moment in Sudan’s conflict. It signals that the government is prepared for a prolonged confrontation, even as humanitarian conditions worsen.
Whether this strategy leads to stability or deeper chaos remains uncertain. Much will depend on battlefield developments, international pressure, and whether internal or external factors eventually force a shift toward dialogue.
For now, Sudan stands at a crossroads—one where the path of uncompromising warfare risks overshadowing opportunities for peace, reconciliation, and recovery.