Russian Intervention on Dual Sides of Terror

Russian President Vladimir Putin meeting with Sudan’s de facto President, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, in 2019. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Devastation engulfed Khartoum, Sudan's capital. In April of 2023, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) began an armed confrontation with one another over regional governance. Since then, the brutal conflict has only grown deadlier. The SAF continues to bomb areas controlled by the RSF, regardless of civilian presence, while the RSF pursues minerals while ethnically cleansing Sudan’s indigenous population. While this war has two main actors, it continues to be funded by outside players for a profit—and Russia is fueling the fire on both ends. In Sudan, the Kremlin is aiding both the RSF and the SAF. In New York, they are chipping away at the legitimacy of the United Nations by continuing to hold the powers of a permanent member of the Security Council. 

The most recent conflict was ignited after the Sudanese Armed Forces, Sudan’s official military, and the Rapid Support Forces were unable to agree on a governmental structure, despite a history of cooperation. In 2019, the two paramilitary groups worked together in a coup to oust former President Omar al-Bashir. Following their coup, the groups attempted to create a transitional government with President Abdalla Hamdok, whom they were unsatisfied with, and collaborated to oust him in 2021. Tensions rose as negotiations between the two were unsuccessful until physical violence broke out in 2023. 

While the war is being fought between recent enemies, the conflict is just the latest chapter in a long history of violence in Sudan.  The RSF is a product of the Janjaweed militia, a government-backed group funded by former President al-Bashir. A longstanding presence in Sudan, the Janjaweed militia is responsible for the Darfur genocide, which killed 200,000 civilians from various African tribes, including the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa, between 2003 and 2005. Since the beginning of Sudan’s latest war, an estimated 150,000 individuals have been killed, and another fourteen million have been displaced. Sexual violence, including rape, gang rape, and forced marriages, is widespread and worsened through the perpetuation of the conflict. In the face of such an extreme humanitarian crisis, the United Nations has the resources to impose the necessary international pressure needed to bring the warring parties towards a ceasefire, but is undermined in the form of Security Council vetoes and abstentions from the unreprimanded Russian Federation. 

Following al-Bashir’s ousting, Russia aligned itself with the RSF to support their extraction of natural resources, in addition to supporting their targeting of Sudan’s indigenous African population. Beginning in the summer of 2024, however, the Kremlin shifted its funding towards the SAF. This could be, in part, due to continued attacks on Wagner-backed RSF Units by Ukrainian forces in Sudan, whose mission is to ‘clean up’ operations of the African-based Russian Special Forces. The shift in Russia’s public-facing support can also be attributed to the benefits Moscow received out of it, namely a naval base in Port Sudan. At the same time, Wagner Group, a private military company that acts as a Russian proxy, persists in securing weapons for the Rapid Support Forces and collaborating with them in pervasive gold smuggling, which leaves Sudan through Russian military airfields. By contributing to each warring side, Russia has established itself as an actor benefiting from the chaos of war. Sudan’s vast mineral deposits, strategic location on the Red Sea, and persistent political turmoil have made it vulnerable to one of the world’s biggest bullies. Though falling short, the United Nations has tried to address the war in different ways—from calling on nations to provide additional humanitarian aid to attempting to pass resolutions that call for a ceasefire.

While the Kremlin makes political and monetary gains from the perpetuation of war in Sudan, the absence of checks and balances from the United Nations allows the Russian Federation to have a legitimate voice as a permanent Security Council member, voting on international procedures that directly affect the Sudanese people. The United Nations, being an organization whose goal is international peace and security, has an obligation to scrutinize and reprimand even its most powerful members if their actions contradict its mission. Russia continues to act as a parasite, holding power through its unquestioned position in the United Nations while repeatedly voting against the best interests of civilians.  

Last November, Russian dual interference in the Sudanese war became obvious when I observed a United Nations Security Council briefing on the Protection of Civilians in Sudan. Permanent Members to the UNSC, eight temporary member states, and a representative from Sudan were represented in the room. They all agreed that the atrocities plaguing the region must stop— the way to get them to stop seemed to be the issue. Sudan’s representative, Mr. Mohamed, came to the defense of the SAF, claiming they were prioritizing civilian protection and urged against foreign interference before peace was established in the region. When the Russian Federation, which seconded Mr. Mohamed, was the sole member to abstain from voting, and four days later vetoed a draft resolution, the reaction of international organizations was predictable frustration. The veto came on the heels of their five previous abstentions on the situation in Sudan throughout 2024. The resolutions’ call to action demanded that the Jeddah Declaration, a written commitment towards peace that was facilitated by the United States and Saudi Arabia and signed by both the SAF and RSF, be implemented, condemned the actions of the RSF, called for an immediate end to hostilities, and began good-faith negotiations. Russia’s veto, however, gave way to the persistence of violence in Sudan with a lack of enforceable international pressure, carving more time for the country to profit from both warring parties. 

In February of this year, the Russian Federation once again abstained from another attempt to establish protections for civilians in Sudan. While February's draft resolution was adopted, Russia’s uninterrupted participation in voting procedures continues to delegitimize the effectiveness of the Security Council, the United Nations' most powerful body. Sudanese civil society representatives have consistently expressed how pressure from international institutions like the United Nations is necessary to bring peace to the region, as neither warring party has been able to do so for years. However, when one of the five strongest members of the institution dedicated to peacemaking is contributing and profiting off the continuation of the war, the once-feared international pressure is going to mean far less to the warring parties. Allowing Russia to have a powerful and unsanctioned voice in the Security Council Chamber validates that voice as legitimate. The Russian Federation's votes affirm the alliance between the SAF, RSF, and the Kremlin—ensuring that there will be perpetuation of the war as long as all sides continue to profit. 

 The five permanent members of the UN’s Security Council–China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia–uniquely hold the ability to veto resolutions. Russia continues to be one of the leading permanent members in using its veto power, with over 150 vetoes since the conception of the UN. The Kremlin's power has been unrestricted, and is now being used to prey upon citizens in a different nation and continent. The United Nations has the ability to expel member states that persistently violate the Principles listed in its Charter. By abstaining from resolutions that call for the protection of civilians and the maintenance of international peace, and directly contributing to the perpetuation of the Sudanese war on both fronts, Russia has consistently violated Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles of the United Nations Charter. 

On this basis, the United Nations Security Council has a responsibility to recommend the expulsion of the Russian Federation from its institution, and the General Assembly has a responsibility to vote upon that recommendation. Russia is not using its veto and abstention powers because it believes the Sudanese Armed Forces will bring peace to the territory, but rather to further their profits at the expense of Sudanese civilians. 

While the United Nations is nowhere near ideal, it has institutional checks on power—which it must use to remove the Russian Federation before it inflicts additional catastrophic ripple effects on the Sudanese civilian population. When permanent member states are permitted to commit atrocities without accountability, the United Nations renders itself impotent. If the Security Council is dedicated to international peace, as it claims, then it has a responsibility to look inwards at its members. The pedestal that the Russian Federation sits upon must be toppled, either through the efforts of the institution itself or member states with equal power, before their continued interference in Sudan’s war results in more deaths of innocent civilians.