In a long-awaited move that may mark a turning point in Sudan’s devastating war, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced on November 6, 2025, that they have agreed to a new humanitarian ceasefire proposal initiated by the United States and key Arab states. The truce, if honored, could provide the first real opening for relief and dialogue after more than two years of unrelenting conflict between the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).

The deal, brokered by a diplomatic coalition of the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, offers a phased approach: an initial three-month humanitarian pause, followed by a nine-month political process meant to steer Sudan toward a durable peace and inclusive governance.

While the announcement brought a flicker of hope to a battered population, the road ahead is riddled with distrust, competing agendas, and humanitarian desperation.

The War That Shattered Sudan

The war in Sudan began in April 2023, when tensions between the SAF, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the RSF, commanded by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo — widely known as Hemedti — exploded into full-scale confrontation.

The two men were once uneasy allies in the transitional government that followed the fall of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir. But power-sharing quickly turned to rivalry. Disputes over military integration, control of the economy, and the future of the state spiraled into one of the world’s most brutal internal conflicts.

In the years since, the war has devastated entire cities and displaced millions. According to UN estimates, over 10 million Sudanese have been forced from their homes, and nearly 25 million — more than half the population — now depend on humanitarian aid to survive. Civilians have borne the brunt of the violence, facing mass killings, famine, and disease.

The Darfur region, once synonymous with atrocities two decades ago, has again become a landscape of mass graves, ethnic violence, and scorched towns. The RSF’s capture of El Fasher in late October 2025**, after months of siege, triggered new waves of displacement and international outrage.

The New Ceasefire: What It Promises

The new humanitarian ceasefire proposal seeks to stop the bloodshed long enough for aid agencies to operate safely and for negotiators to test the political waters.

Under the plan, the RSF and SAF would observe a three-month cessation of hostilities monitored by international observers. During this time, humanitarian corridors would be opened, hospitals and clinics restored, and civilian infrastructure protected.

If the initial phase holds, the warring sides would then enter a nine-month political dialogue, facilitated by the so-called “Quad” mediators — the U.S., Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt — with support from the African Union and the United Nations.

The goal is to lay the foundation for a comprehensive peace settlement: power-sharing, transitional governance, the reintegration of armed forces, and eventually, democratic elections.

The RSF, in its statement, said it “looks forward to implementing the agreement” and “to engaging in arrangements that guarantee the cessation of hostilities and the political roadmap ahead.”

So far, however, the Sudanese Armed Forces have been more cautious, reportedly demanding the RSF withdraw from civilian areas and surrender key strongholds before any truce can take effect.

A War Without Trust

The announcement has been met with both relief and skepticism. For ordinary Sudanese, this is hardly the first ceasefire they have heard of. Since 2023, more than a dozen truces have been declared — and broken within days, sometimes hours.

Each time, civilians dared to hope for quiet, only to see bombs fall again. Markets burned, aid convoys looted, and hospitals shelled.

Diplomats familiar with past negotiations warn that trust between the RSF and SAF is nonexistent. Both sides accuse the other of using truces to regroup and rearm. The army sees the RSF as a rogue militia committing ethnic massacres; the RSF portrays the army as an entrenched elite clinging to power and willing to starve its own people.

Still, this new agreement differs in one critical respect: it has a clear humanitarian mandate and is being backed by some of the region’s most influential powers, including those who have leverage over the warring factions.

The Humanitarian Imperative

The urgency of this ceasefire cannot be overstated. Sudan’s humanitarian catastrophe has reached levels unseen in decades.

The UN World Food Programme warns that famine is imminent in several states, with harvests destroyed and supply chains broken. In displacement camps around Chad, South Sudan, and Egypt, refugees tell stories of entire villages wiped out and families torn apart.

Hospitals in Khartoum and Darfur operate without electricity or medicine. Aid workers describe it as a “war on survival itself.”

In this context, the three-month pause could be a lifeline. It would allow international agencies to reopen supply routes, deliver food and medical assistance, and vaccinate children who have gone months without healthcare.

However, humanitarian access depends entirely on whether the guns truly fall silent — and whether both sides honor their commitments.

The Role of the International Community

The involvement of the United States, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt is both strategic and symbolic. Each has influence over the warring parties — and stakes in Sudan’s stability.

• Saudi Arabia and the UAE seek to prevent a failed state that could threaten Red Sea security.

• Egypt, which shares deep historical ties with Sudan, worries about the war’s spillover effects.

• The United States, for its part, aims to restore some credibility after previous mediation efforts collapsed and to prevent further regional destabilization.
  
  

Analysts say this “Quad diplomacy” has a chance only if the mediators act in concert — pressing both Burhan and Hemedti to comply and ensuring humanitarian access is not politicized.

International observers, possibly under UN or African Union supervision, would likely monitor the truce. Yet enforcement will be difficult. In many conflict zones, no neutral authority remains, and both sides have fragmented into smaller militias.

Cautious Hope and Persistent Doubts

Humanitarian organizations cautiously welcomed the announcement but urged the parties to move from words to action.

“This agreement must translate into real relief for civilians — not another empty promise,” said one UN official. “We have seen too many declarations, too little implementation.”

For many Sudanese, the ceasefire offers only fragile optimism. Memories of past betrayals linger. Still, even a temporary lull in fighting could mean survival for families trapped in war zones.

Experts also note that the RSF’s decision may not stem purely from goodwill. Facing mounting international condemnation over alleged war crimes in Darfur, the group could be seeking to ease pressure, rebuild legitimacy, or secure political concessions.

What Comes Next

Several key factors will determine whether this ceasefire endures:

• The Army’s Response: The SAF’s official acceptance — and willingness to halt offensives — will decide whether the truce even begins.

• Humanitarian Access: Aid groups must be able to move freely without interference or taxation by armed factions.

• Monitoring Mechanisms: Independent verification is crucial to prevent violations and hold both sides accountable.

• Political Inclusivity: The nine-month process must involve civilians, women’s groups, and regional communities — not just generals and mediators.

• Justice and Accountability: Without addressing war crimes and human rights abuses, any peace will remain fragile.
  
  

If these pillars hold, Sudan could begin a slow but vital journey toward national reconciliation. If they crumble, the country risks descending even deeper into chaos.

Final Thought: Between Hope and History

Sudan’s tragedy has lasted too long, fueled by ambition, greed, and silence. The RSF’s acceptance of the ceasefire proposal may not end the war — but it signals a moment of possibility.

Ceasefires are like fragile glass — beautiful when they hold, catastrophic when they shatter. What Sudan needs now is more than an agreement on paper; it needs discipline, compassion, and accountability from its leaders, and unwavering pressure from the international community to ensure compliance.

For millions of Sudanese, the next few months could determine whether their country drifts further into darkness or takes its first real step toward peace.

History has shown that wars often end not with victory, but with exhaustion and negotiation. Perhaps, in this fragile truce, Sudan may finally find the courage to move from survival to rebuilding — and from despair to dignity.