I feel like I have seen better analysis of this elsewhere. In a nutshell, it is not simply a civil war. Regional actors are involved as a proxy war: Saudi Arabia against the UAE, for example (who are also having a proxy war in Yemen). And Egypt against Ethiopia. The wikipedia article covers some of the complexity:
It’s not getting much attention because the UAE is allied with the US against Iran. If you listen to their mouthpieces on the news you’re going to hear nothing but glowing praise for the US attacks on Iran and statements about the Iranian campaign against civilian targets in the UAE. I don’t think the US government has much stomach to go against the UAE. And it’s a sad commentary on what the people who control the executive and the legislative are about that they speak about Sudan not at all.
I appreciate your feedback and understand your criticism. I'll be sure to add more detail in future analyses. My main goal was to draw attention to this matter.
I almost commented before realizing I hadn't RTFA and deleting my draft in shame.
Having read it, how are UAE and the Saudis opposing each other in this proxy war while being nearly joined at the hip in their actual neighborhood? Your article was informative and I learned from reading it but this whole dynamic still makes zero sense to me. They don't talk? Maybe it makes zero sense to anyone.
This war is not even known about by the general public. The question is why not? I believe the actors of the war nobody hates or loves outside of Africa. Nobody knows them. If it would be Americans, Chinese, Israelis, or Russians involved, the war would be in the news.
“The world” is very complicit in supporting Israel’s genocide. It also has effects like stripping the rights of citizens in countries whose governments support Israel. That’s why people care.
It isn't a genocide for that matter. I always was projection by their detractors and it is getting old really. We have attacks on synagogues all over the world and we had protests on the day after Israel got attacked.
I don't like the government of Israel either, but I think the loudest critics are simply poor morons and uneducated fools at this point. Worse enough that some leaders of certain countries give into this primitive populism.
Yes, it doesn't really quack at all and you cannot explain these points away. There would be peace in Gaza today if it didn't invade Israel to slaughter civilians.
This is heartbreaking. Is there a place where I can donate? Will it help in anyway?
Edit: Thank you for your responses. Ended up donating to Doctors without borders. Hope it reaches someone. I was going to say humans are really just wild animals but then i thought that would be a disrespect to wild animals.
Dont wanne be the devils advocate here, but reality is that even if you find something "looking legit" in terms of donation, especially in such regions the most money will be "lost" halfway, and even if some will reach the destination it is more than rare that it will even help to benefit those suffering, and not land in the pockets of a few "in power" or just used to buy more weapons to kill more people.....
Yes helping is a good thing, tho reality is its not as "easy" as transfer some money. Tho respecting your good intentions
That's overly cynical. Donating to local warlords / psuedogovernment actors can be sketchy. Donating to e.g., UNICEF is much more likely to produce good results for refugees, especially children and mothers.
I'm not aware of where to send money to stop wars - it's likely to have the opposite effect, sadly.
Even donations to organisations such as UNICEF often end up in the wrong hands.
Lets go for the optimistic scenario in which UNICEF will only take a very small portion for the "processing" and really deliver lets say food and medical supplies to the region. Those warloard will simply come and take it away from those citizens and provide to their armies. Theres nothing those citizens can do against it.
Do i wish it would be different? Absolutely. But sadly the world doesn't work as i would wish it to.
I'm not sure where you get your assumptions from, but UNICEF works in camps and outposts that people come to, often in safer areas to treat refugees and establish aid stations. They don't catapult money/food/water into warring nations and call it a wash.
UNICEF also works on a permissioned basis: They wait until they are asked, and so they often work in countries neighboring crisis centers, where it is much safer anyway. They are constantly negotiating to be "asked", yes, but this is through diplomatic ties. UNICEF works with refugees mostly, not in war zones. For famine/disease intervention, they are at ground zero, but again with permission.
And UNICEF's overhead is low - they are efficient, considering they sometimes have to establish, e.g., their own refueling station networks, cold storage logistics, flight controllers, etc. Often, powerful industrialists in the target nations provide significant help - or at least I know of one case of this.
I'm close to UNICEF, or was, so I got sneak peaks into some of the problems they deal with. I assure you, "processing" is not a revenue stream for them.
You're thinking of the breast cancer scams. UNICEF is not a charity, they're a logistics organization with nation-state level resources. When Amazon can do it cheaper - they use Amazon. No organization is perfect, but this one is good.
I was approached on the street by a girl working for a marketing company, wanting me to start a subscription for $20 a month to Save the Children which I think is a pretty well regarded charity. We hit it off and met up later and I asked her about the job. For each person who signs up, she would get about $60. So that's the first three months of my subscription in her pocket. Furthermore, her employer would fly them around the country, staying about 2 weeks in a city, living in hotels and expenses paid. This girl did not even have a home, she lived permanently in hotels paid for by her employer. And of course the employer needs some profit on top, so I'd estimate that's at least like 3-6 more months of my subscription going towards her employer/expenses.
I wonder how many more of these private companies exist to just siphon off these donation streams? The charity itself may be efficient, but how many private companies provide goods and services to them for a healthy profit?
I'm a member of an organization that collects money for Sudanese soup kitchens and hospitals in affected areas (https://sound-of-sudan.org/) , and I know a few other organizations that indirectly support such campaigns (e.g. https://sudfa-media.com/). Being personally acquainted with people, who spend much of their time, energy and last-but-not-least their own money on such activities, your claim makes me slightly angry.
> such regions the most money will be "lost" halfway
Please elaborate and don't lump all "regions" in with each other. My personal impression is that the combination of the community kitchen movement (which has its roots in the failed Sudanese revolution) and money transfers to mobile phones makes it relatively transparent where one's money goes and what it achieves. I'm not in the US, but I have no doubt that money donated to an organization like the Sudanese American Medical Association (https://sama-sd.org/about-us/finances/) largely reaches the people that need it.
> Those warloard will simply come and take it away from those citizens and provide to their armies.
I can assure you none of use would send money to hospitals or community kitchens, if this was likely to happen. What makes you think so?
So, let me first of all clear up one thing. I did not, and never intended to, degrade anyone who actually tries to make a difference. If you read my original comment, you can see that I clearly state that I respect the wish to help. I also state that I wish the world were a "better" place where things work the way we would like them to—but reality has too often proven otherwise. Also, while I will try to fully address your points, the totality of this problem is too complex and has too many factors to incorporate every variable; therefore, at some point, we have to refer to "grouping." I think you will understand what I mean by that.
When I referred to "such regions," I was personally referring to a combination of factors: infrastructure, supply chain consistency, reliability, and the general political situation. In this case, I would argue that poor infrastructure impacts transport and storage control when it comes to shipments. Supply chain consistency (even with organizations like UNICEF) is often not guaranteed; local partners change frequently, often influenced by the local situation, making it nearly impossible in some regions to maintain trusted chains. Reliability suffers because of these factors—when it is hard to maintain trusted partners, the problem persists. As for the political situation, I don’t believe I need to elaborate further.
So, when I say "such regions," I mean areas that fit this basic pattern. While not a perfect comparison, a notable example of this is when food supplies sent for civilians are intercepted by local armed groups. The supplies might reach the target location, but they do not always feed the people they were intended for. As you work in this area, you likely know this is not an isolated occurrence.
I am also not from the US, and I cannot speak specifically to the Sudanese American Medical Association. If they are truly creating change, that is a great thing, and everyone is free to donate to them. You will not see me advocating against donating to them.
Regarding your question on why I think you would send aid even if diversion was likely: I don't believe you would willingly fund "warlords." Rather, I believe that in high-risk regions, the intent of the donor doesn't always control the reality on the ground. My skepticism isn't a critique of your virtue or your specific organization, but a reaction to a historical pattern of aid diversion in volatile zones. You do this work because you believe the collected money will reach its destination and will not be abused, and I respect that you follow your beliefs for the "greater good."
You seem to be a good person doing important work, and to do that, you need to believe in the efficacy of your mission.
For context: SAF is backed by Saudis/Qatar/Egypt/Iran/Russia and RSF is backed by UAE/Libya/Ethiopia/Chad/previously Wagner but Russia switched sides.
The US and others have pushed for negotiations but the competing interests by the gulf states, russia, and other african countries have complicated things.
You're right, I underweighted that. The Abraham Accords logic sits underneath the whole US posture toward the UAE and I should have named it directly. The piece treats it as part of the "economic interests" frame but that's too abstract.
Concretely: the US has tied its Gulf diplomacy, arms sales, and regional security architecture to the normalization framework, and the UAE is the pivot. Calling out UAE arms transfers to the RSF would mean fracturing that, which nobody in Washington wants to do, Biden administration included.
On the second point I'd be more cautious. There were signals after the Iran escalation that Abu Dhabi was getting nervous about regional entanglement, and some reporting suggested a partial cooling on RSF support. But I haven't seen hard evidence that the arms pipeline has actually slowed, and the ICC evidence-gathering announcements haven't produced any UAE course correction yet. The incentive structure to keep hedging via Hemedti is still intact as long as the RSF controls Darfur and the gold flows.
Fair catch on the Accords piece though, that's a gap.
"But I haven't seen hard evidence that the arms pipeline has actually slowed"
Sure, as I understand it, it is mainly structured around flights and spread out over several logistics lines and already partly shadowed by turned-off transponders and so on. Disturbances at sea are unlikely to affect this.
However, there has already been squawks from the UAE about having to turn to the renminbi to clear oil sales and the like. China is not particularly fond of the RSF and has had good relations with the sudanese state since the fifties. Choking the Hormuz is likely to make this relation and stability in Sudan even more important to China.
More medium term the UAE now has incentive to go look for partners besides the US and Israel. At the moment they try not to, but this is highly likely to change, especially since money is pouring out eastwards from the emirates and to win it back they would need friends that seem stable in the long term, like they did until their remote and nearby allies started beating on one of their largest neighbours.
"the ICC evidence-gathering announcements haven't produced any UAE course correction yet"
That "yet" does a rather hefty deadlift. The UAE has begged the US to shield them from the ICC but as I understand it, it did not result in a clear and reliable response. Perhaps they count on the US to do for them what they've done for Israel, but since the US put all their efforts into protecting Israel during this latest iranian response and left their other allies in the region to help themselves, I kind of doubt that this can last.
Russia has an interest in the gold, but I don't think they care whether it comes to them from the RSF or the state, and they are more dependent on China than the UAE. In a pinch I'd wager they would support stability as long as the gold keeps flowing and China is happy.
Edit: Personally I believe the US to be so deficient in short-term memory that they can't manage the relations to other West Asia states than Israel with any form for strategic reliability. They might promise the UAE a dollar swap line, do a press conference about it, and then forget to actually open one, or give it to them and then a few weeks later pull the plug on it because budget reasons or whatever.
Your comment is heavily downvoted because, especially the first sentence, seems AI generated. Was this comment AI generated? HN is for human discussions
Is anyone stopping any of the genocides around the world? Governments and citizenry are engaged in many attempts to wholly eradicate cultures and minorities. Sometimes fast, like Israel attempting to eradicate Palestinians. Sometimes they are slow, like the barriers put into place against indigenous communities after generations of genocide against them.
It's not new either. Sudan, Uyghers, Rohingya, Yazidi, Armenians, Hutus, Tutsi, Bengalis, Cambodians. The world has stood by and not intervened in many of these. Heck, Palantir just posted that they believe some cultures should be eliminated in the United States.
"The world" cares about some more than others. That's why the plight of the Palestinians is daily on the news, while that of the Yazidis or Druze is not.
Maybe read better news? I've been hearing about the Yazidi through reporting on the YPJ/YPG since circa 2015.
But I think theres multiple factors happening. One is scale. Millions of Palestinians are currently experiencing displacement, bombings, and settler colonialism.
Thats a large group of people. Multiple times the size of the Yazidi or Druze populations.
There's also the scale of the conflict and the weapons deployed. Israel deployed somewhere around 80,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza. Thats more explosives than were deployed in World War 2. Add in evidence of white phosphorus being deployed, and the scale of the devastation is newsworthy.
And I think access to communication is different, people care about what they can see. Footage of Gaza is readily available and terrible to behold.
Finally, and I'm not pleased about this one, I think many in the west excuse behavior of some countries because they have racist ideas about those countries. Like, many Americans probably expect developing nations to have atrocities, but then look at Israel and go, "I thought this was supposed to be a model democracy! We aren't supposed to do genocide!" (Of course this idea is nonsense, developed countries have done genocide many many times, but I think it does drive news cycles.)
I had compassion for Ukrainians weaponized against me here on this site (you are racist, you only care about white people, etc). Many now days use/express compassion as a weapon/political tool.
Let's be honest. If someone did send in the troops to restore order, people would be screaming "How dare you invade a sovereign country" or "You're only doing this because you want oil" or "The President wants to make Sudan the 51st state" or "You're wasting money and soldiers' lives messing around in a place most of us can't even put on a map" or "You're just doing whatever the Jews tell you to do."
There are other countries and coalitions in the world that aren't the United States. Humanity fought and ended wars for thousands of years before the United States ever existed.
Most of the countries and coalitions you're alluding to have no functional militaries or actual interest in doing something about the war. They do strongly condemn.
It's really hard to cry victim about others misrepresenting Trump's motives for the Iran war as oil, oil, oil when the US did in fact launch a military attack on a country - within the last six months - where the subsequent negotiated agreement on oil rights was quite literally described by the White House press secretary as "the president’s control of Venezuela’s oil" [1] and just a few weeks later the president held a public, televised conference with Chevron and ExxonMobil executives in the White House where he pitched them on investing in the Venezuelan oil industry [2]
A. Our tactics would constitute an invasion
B. We would try to seize oil or other natural resources while we were there.
C. The president would literally say something like this on national television.
No one is saying the US should send troops to Sudan. But it has made the situation for civilians much much worse by gutting USAID, and it could flex its might to force diplomatic solutions to end the fighting, but it's not.
If Sudan had oil though, we'd probably have already see the US militarily involved.
Exactly this, the same "The Guardian" that routinely complains that any western/US military intervention in Africa is "western colonialism" is now begging for western/US military intervention.
Typical example:
> Colonialism in Africa is still alive and well
> Today’s waves of migration are a direct result of Britain’s disastrous intervention in the ousting and killing of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
> The current situation is down to the failure of western powers, particularly the US and British governments, who feel they’re the custodians of almighty power and believed could do as they wished in Africa without any blowback.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_civil_war_(2023%E2%80...
EDIT: This is what I am thinking of: https://youtu.be/bpH37vGoRJc