Sudan is collapsing, and the world is barely watching. Since April 2023, the country has been consumed by a civil war between two rival military factions, both of which claim to represent the state and neither of which has any interest in the welfare of Sudan's 45 million people. The fighting has killed tens of thousands, displaced over 6 million, and pushed the country to the brink of famine. Hospitals, schools, and infrastructure have been destroyed. Atrocities—mass killings, sexual violence, ethnic cleansing—are routine. And the international response has been anaemic: a few UN resolutions, sporadic aid deliveries, and diplomatic hand-wringing, but nothing approaching the scale of support given to Ukraine or the attention paid to Gaza. Sudan is a humanitarian catastrophe in slow motion, and it is happening in the shadows because the world has decided it does not matter enough to intervene.
The war: a power struggle with no ideology
Sudan's civil war is not a conflict over ideas or identity. It is a naked power struggle between two military factions that jointly overthrew Sudan's brief experiment with civilian rule in 2021 and then turned on each other. On one side is the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the regular army led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. On the other is the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti. The RSF grew out of the Janjaweed militias that committed genocide in Darfur in the 2000s, and it has since become a powerful force with its own command structure, funding (from gold mining and other enterprises), and regional backers.
The immediate cause of the war was a dispute over plans to integrate the RSF into the regular army, which would have ended Hemedti's autonomy and control over lucrative resources. Tensions escalated in April 2023, and fighting broke out in Khartoum, the capital. Within days, the conflict spread across the country. The SAF controls the air force and heavy weapons; the RSF has more ground forces and mobility. Neither has been able to achieve a decisive victory, so the war has settled into a brutal stalemate with civilians caught in the middle.
The humanitarian crisis: famine, displacement, and atrocities
The UN describes Sudan as facing the world's worst hunger crisis. An estimated 18 million people—40% of the population—are experiencing acute food insecurity, meaning they do not know where their next meal will come from. In some areas, particularly Darfur and Kordofan, famine conditions have been confirmed. The causes are multiple: fighting has disrupted farming and markets, aid deliveries are blocked by both sides, and the economy has collapsed. Sudan was already poor before the war; now it is destitute.
Over 6 million people have been displaced inside Sudan, and another 1.5 million have fled to neighbouring countries—Chad, Egypt, South Sudan, Ethiopia. Refugee camps are overwhelmed, and host countries, themselves poor and unstable, are struggling to cope. The displacement is not just a humanitarian issue but a regional security threat, as refugees strain resources and risk spreading the conflict across borders.
Both sides have committed atrocities. The RSF has been accused by the UN and human rights groups of ethnic cleansing in Darfur, targeting non-Arab communities in a grim echo of the 2000s genocide. Mass graves have been documented, and survivors report systematic killings, rape, and looting. The SAF has conducted indiscriminate airstrikes on civilian areas, hitting hospitals, markets, and homes. Neither side distinguishes between combatants and civilians, and both have obstructed humanitarian access, using starvation as a weapon of war.
The health system has collapsed. Hospitals have been shelled, looted, or occupied by fighters. Medical supplies are scarce, and healthcare workers have fled or been killed. Diseases that were previously controlled—cholera, measles, malaria—are surging. Maternal and child mortality rates, already among the highest in the world, are climbing. The UN estimates that without a massive increase in aid, hundreds of thousands could die from starvation and disease in the coming months.
The international response: inadequate and inconsistent
The international community's response to Sudan's crisis has been woefully inadequate. The UN has passed resolutions calling for ceasefires and humanitarian access, but both sides ignore them. The African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a regional bloc, have attempted mediation, but talks have gone nowhere. The warring parties attend negotiations to buy time and legitimacy, not to compromise.
Humanitarian aid is trickling in, but it is nowhere near enough. The UN's humanitarian appeal for Sudan is less than 30% funded as of mid-2025. Aid agencies face enormous obstacles: fighting blocks roads, both sides demand bureaucratic approvals that can take weeks or months, and aid workers are targeted. Several international staff have been killed, and agencies have pulled out of some areas entirely. The result is that millions of people in need are beyond the reach of help.
Western governments have provided some funding and diplomatic support, but they have not made Sudan a priority. The UK has contributed tens of millions in aid, a fraction of what it spends on Ukraine. The US has imposed sanctions on individuals linked to atrocities but has not used its leverage to force a ceasefire. The EU has focused on preventing refugee flows to Europe rather than addressing the root causes of displacement. None of the major powers see Sudan as strategically important enough to invest serious political capital.
Regional powers are part of the problem. The United Arab Emirates is widely reported to be backing the RSF with weapons and funding, seeing Hemedti as a useful ally. Egypt supports the SAF, fearing that an RSF victory would bring instability to its southern border. Saudi Arabia, which has economic interests in Sudan, has tried to mediate but lacks the influence to impose a settlement. Russia, through the Wagner Group (now absorbed into the Russian state), has interests in Sudan's gold mines and has played both sides. These external actors are not seeking peace; they are seeking advantage.
Why the world ignores Sudan: the hierarchy of suffering
Sudan's invisibility is not an accident. It reflects a brutal hierarchy in how the world values human life and suffering. Ukraine receives billions in aid and wall-to-wall media coverage because it is in Europe, because it is fighting a clear aggressor in Russia, and because it matters strategically to the West. Gaza receives attention because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict's long history and emotional resonance. Sudan is poor, African, and geopolitically marginal. Its war does not fit a simple narrative, and it does not threaten Western interests directly. So it is ignored.
Media coverage is a fraction of what Ukraine or Gaza receive. Major news outlets send correspondents to Kyiv and Jerusalem but rely on wire services and local stringers for Sudan. The result is that the public in the UK, US, and Europe knows little about Sudan and cares less. Politicians respond to public pressure, and there is none. Aid budgets are finite, and Sudan loses out to conflicts that generate more attention.
This is not to say that Ukraine or Gaza are undeserving of support—they are. But the disparity is stark and morally indefensible. Suffering is suffering, and a child starving in Sudan is no less deserving of help than a child in Ukraine or Gaza. The international system claims to be based on universal human rights, but in practice, some humans matter more than others.
What happens next: fragmentation and state failure
The most likely outcome is that Sudan fragments. The SAF controls some areas, the RSF controls others, and neither can dislodge the other. Over time, the country could break into de facto statelets, each controlled by a warlord or faction, with no central authority. This is what happened in Somalia in the 1990s and Libya after 2011. It is a recipe for prolonged instability, humanitarian disaster, and regional spillover.
There is little prospect of a negotiated settlement in the near term. Both sides believe they can win, or at least that they cannot afford to lose. Ceasefires are announced and broken within hours. External mediators lack leverage, and regional powers are pursuing their own agendas. The war will continue until both sides are exhausted, which could take years.
In the meantime, the humanitarian situation will worsen. Famine will spread, disease will kill more than bullets, and millions will remain displaced. The international community will continue to provide just enough aid to prevent total collapse but not enough to address the crisis. Sudan will become another chronic emergency, like Yemen or the Democratic Republic of Congo—a place where suffering is normalised and the world has learned to look away.
The view from Britain: limited influence, moral responsibility
Britain has historical ties to Sudan, having ruled it as a colony until 1956, but little current influence. The UK has provided humanitarian aid and supported UN resolutions, but it has not made Sudan a foreign policy priority. Britain's focus is on Ukraine, the Middle East, and managing its relationship with China. Sudan does not register.
But Britain has a moral responsibility that goes beyond strategic interest. The UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a major aid donor, and a country that claims to uphold human rights and the rules-based international order. If those principles mean anything, they mean not turning away from suffering because it is inconvenient or strategically irrelevant.
What can Britain do? It can increase humanitarian funding, press for sanctions on those obstructing aid, support African-led mediation efforts, and use its voice to keep Sudan on the international agenda. It cannot stop the war—Britain does not have that power—but it can ensure that Sudan is not forgotten. The alternative is to accept that the international system is purely transactional, that human rights are conditional, and that some lives simply do not matter. That is a world Britain should not accept, but it is the world Sudan is living in.
Frequently asked questions
What caused Sudan's civil war?
The war is a power struggle between two rival military factions that jointly overthrew Sudan's civilian government in 2021. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, is the regular army. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti), is a paramilitary force that grew out of the Janjaweed militias responsible for atrocities in Darfur in the 2000s. The two factions fell out over plans to integrate the RSF into the regular army, and fighting erupted in April 2023. It is not an ideological conflict but a struggle for power and resources.
Why isn't Sudan getting the same attention as Ukraine or Gaza?
Several factors: Sudan is poor and geopolitically marginal, so major powers have less strategic interest. The conflict is complex and does not fit a simple narrative of aggressor vs victim. Media access is limited due to fighting and restrictions. And, bluntly, conflicts in Africa receive less Western media coverage than those in Europe or the Middle East. The result is that Sudan's suffering is largely invisible to international audiences, which in turn reduces political pressure on governments to act.
What can be done to stop the war?
Ceasefires have been attempted and broken repeatedly. Neither side has been able to win militarily, but both believe they can, so they keep fighting. External pressure is limited—regional powers like Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia have their own interests and are not neutral. The UN and African Union have little leverage. The most realistic hope is that the war grinds both sides down to the point where they accept mediation, but that could take years and cost tens of thousands more lives. In the meantime, the priority is humanitarian access to prevent mass starvation.