Sudan’s al-Burhan rejects talks, vows to retake all territory from RSF

What are Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and how do they differ from the regular Sudanese army?

The RSF is a paramilitary organization, meaning it is an armed force outside the regular army’s formal structure. Sudan’s army, also called the Sudanese Armed Forces, is the country’s conventional national military. The distinction matters because both groups have military power, but they are separate institutions competing for control.

The article says the army and RSF began fighting after their leaders disagreed over plans to integrate the paramilitary force into the army. Integration would have required deciding how quickly the RSF joined, who commanded its fighters, and how authority was shared. Those questions became politically explosive.

The source does not provide the RSF’s full history or a complete map of its forces. It does show the RSF operating across Sudan and massing in West Kordofan, while the army advances in neighbouring North Kordofan. Their rivalry has produced a war that has killed tens of thousands and displaced about 13 million people.

What exactly has Abdel Fattah al-Burhan promised to do, and which areas of Sudan does the RSF control?

Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Sudan’s military chief, pledged to recover every part of Sudan controlled by the Rapid Support Forces. He rejected negotiations and said the military option would continue until the RSF was removed from the country. That position signals a military victory, rather than a negotiated settlement, as his government’s chosen route.

The article places important RSF activity in West Kordofan. It says the group has been massing there as the army advances toward En Nahud and Al Khuway, after army gains in neighbouring North Kordofan. The RSF also attacked Abu Ajal village in West Kordofan, according to a local committee.

However, the article does not provide a full list of RSF-held areas. It describes territory under RSF control generally, but not a precise map. The stated objective is therefore clear, while the complete geographic extent of RSF control remains unspecified in this source.

How large is the human cost of the war, including the deaths, the roughly 13 million people displaced, and the latest civilian displacement in Blue Nile?

Sudan’s war has created a vast humanitarian crisis. UN and international estimates cited in the article say tens of thousands of people have been killed and around 13 million displaced. Displacement means people have been forced from their homes, either to safer places inside Sudan or across borders. Such movement disrupts housing, work, schooling, and access to food and health care.

The latest figures show that the crisis is still expanding. In Blue Nile state, more than 5,500 people were displaced from villages over three days because of worsening security. In West Kordofan, a local charity group said an RSF attack killed 10 civilians and wounded several others. These are immediate examples behind the larger national totals.

The figures are not just historical measurements. They indicate continuing danger and instability. New fighting can create fresh waves of displacement even while earlier uprooted communities remain unable to return. The article therefore presents a crisis that is both enormous and still worsening.

Why did the Sudanese army and the RSF begin fighting in April 2023?

The fighting began because Sudan’s two major armed power centers could not agree on how the RSF would be integrated into the regular army. The RSF was a separate paramilitary force, while the army was the country’s conventional military. Merging them required agreement over command, timing, and the future balance of power.

The article does not give the precise timetable or detailed terms of the proposed integration. It does establish the central dispute: the leaders of the army and RSF fell out over plans to bring the paramilitary force into the army. That disagreement escalated into open fighting in April 2023 rather than being settled politically.

The result has been a prolonged national war. The armed groups now fight for territory and influence, while civilians bear the consequences. The conflict has killed tens of thousands and displaced around 13 million people. The original integration dispute therefore became a broader struggle over who controls Sudan’s armed forces and state.

What happens to civilians and to the chances of ending the war when one side rejects negotiations and chooses continued military action?

When one side rejects negotiations and commits to continued military action, the conflict has fewer immediate paths toward a ceasefire or political settlement. The fighting becomes a contest over territory and battlefield advantage. That can prolong uncertainty, destroy communities, and make compromise harder because each side may fear losing power if it stops.

The article gives concrete evidence of the civilian cost. Ten civilians were reportedly killed and others wounded in an RSF attack in Abu Ajal village, West Kordofan. More than 5,500 people fled villages in Blue Nile over three days as security worsened. These events show how military competition reaches ordinary people, not just fighters.

Al-Burhan’s promise to retake every inch held by the RSF suggests that negotiations are not currently his chosen route. The article also reports a US call for inclusive, Sudanese-led dialogue. Unless fighting gives way to talks, displacement and civilian danger may continue, while the possibility of a negotiated settlement recedes.

What would an inclusive, Sudanese-led dialogue and a transition to civilian government look like as an alternative to military rule?

An inclusive, Sudanese-led dialogue would bring Sudanese political and civic groups into talks about ending the war and rebuilding state institutions. “Inclusive” means the process should not be controlled only by army and RSF commanders. “Sudanese-led” means Sudanese parties set the priorities, while outside countries support rather than dictate the outcome.

The article gives the broad direction, not a detailed blueprint. It cites US adviser Massad Boulos calling for an inclusive national dialogue and a transition toward a civilian-led government. In practice, such a transition would require agreements on security, civilian authority, representation, and how armed forces relate to elected institutions. Those details are not specified in the source.

The goal would be to create political legitimacy beyond battlefield control. It could give communities a voice, reduce reliance on military rule, and establish a path toward civilian government. Yet dialogue would need meaningful participation and security to work. Continued fighting, territorial rivalry, and attacks on civilians make that alternative difficult to begin.

Why is control of territory and the army so important to who governs a country, and why does the United States say neither the army nor the RSF represents legitimate constitutional government?

Control of territory matters because governing requires more than making claims. Whoever controls towns, roads, institutions, and resources can influence security, movement, services, and daily life. Control of the army matters for the same reason: the armed forces can enforce decisions or overturn them. When rival forces hold territory, national authority becomes divided and unstable.

Sudan’s war shows this struggle directly. Al-Burhan says the army must retake every inch controlled by the RSF. The RSF, meanwhile, remains an armed power operating in places such as West Kordofan. Their contest is therefore not only military. It also concerns who can claim to represent and rule Sudan.

The US State Department said neither the Sudanese Armed Forces, the RSF, nor their leaders represent legitimate constitutional governance. In other words, military control alone does not create constitutional legitimacy. The article links the alternative to inclusive dialogue and a transition toward civilian-led government, rather than rule by either armed faction.

Key Facts:

📌 The RSF is a paramilitary force, separate from Sudan’s regular army.

📌 The two forces fought over plans to integrate the RSF into the army.

📌 The conflict has displaced roughly 13 million people.

📌 Al-Burhan vowed to retake “every inch” held by the RSF.

📌 He said military action would continue until the RSF was removed.

📌 The article identifies RSF activity and massing in West Kordofan.

📌 The war has killed tens of thousands of people.