The Truth Face | Ibrahim Shaglawi Stupefying Neutrality

The Sudanese war, since its outbreak in April 2023, has transformed from a military conflict between the state institution and a rebel militia into a comprehensive political crisis that has redefined the standards of political ethics and placed the elites before a historic test: either to align with the state as the collective framework of national sovereignty, or to fall—consciously or out of interest—into paths of internal dismantling and the undermining of national decision-making under banners that appear neutral yet are politically instrumentalized.

In this context, this article seeks to read the scene in light of the recent field transformations, particularly in the Kordofan states, by analyzing the implications of the Sudanese Armed Forces’ victories in their battles against the rebellion, and the political positions that emerged from these shifts, which exposed the fragility of the discourse of certain political forces that found themselves—consciously or unconsciously—in direct confrontation with the will of the state and the choices of the people.

The lifting of the siege of Dilling constituted a field victory that broke a long-standing strategic bet aimed at dismantling the state from its margins, exhausting the army, and pushing local communities to accept the militia as a fait accompli. With this transformation, the balance of conflict has clearly tilted in favor of the military institution, as the safety valve of national sovereignty and the last shield for the country’s unity and social cohesion.

In contrast, the move by the “Sumoud” coalition—the political extension of the Forces of Freedom and Change, headed by Dr. Abdullah Hamdok—toward the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, demanding the formation of an international investigation committee against the Sudanese Armed Forces, came at a critical moment. Despite the seriousness of the allegations raised, their timing and political context open the door to legitimate questions about their true motives, especially as they coincided with clear field setbacks for the Rapid Support Forces militia and its allies.

The issue here is not about rejecting the principle of investigation or legal accountability, as that is an inherent right in any state seeking to entrench the rule of law, but rather about the political context in which these demands are employed, and about the actor who advances a discourse that is neutral in form while, in political practice, standing against the institution that bears the burden of protecting the state in a moment of existential threat. Neutrality, according to well-established political standards, does not mean equating the state with those who challenge it with arms outside the framework of legitimacy, nor does it justify suspending national belonging at the first political disagreement.

This debate gains an additional dimension in light of the description by human rights organizations, the British press, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, of the war in Sudan as a war “fought by proxy in pursuit of natural resources.” This characterization does not render the conflict an internal affair; rather, it places every political position on a moral scale, where alignment or neutrality becomes a calculated political act with impact, not merely an abstract discourse or isolated human-rights slogans detached from reality.

From this angle, what is presented as neutrality turns into what can be described as “stupefying neutrality”—a neutrality that loses its moral meaning when it becomes a tool usable by external actors seeking influence and control over resources, while weakening the state from within and distorting its image before the international community.

Political ethics are not measured by intentions, but by outcomes and impacts, and by the extent to which a position serves the interest of the state at a moment of existential danger.

Field developments in South Kordofan and Blue Nile confirmed the fragility of the regionally backed militia’s alliances, with increasing internal divisions and exchanges of accusations among their leaders following repeated defeats. This reality reflects the failure of regional bets on non-national tools to reshape the balance of power, and reveals that the political internationalization of accusations at the moment when the army is regaining control of territory is nothing but an attempt to compensate for field losses through the international arena.

The regional reality, in turn, has further complicated the scene, with reports indicating the use of neighboring countries’ territories to facilitate militia movements and provide logistical support, within the framework of a war of attrition against the state. Nevertheless, the military institution has proven its cohesion, succeeded in restoring supply lines, and imposed control over strategic areas, while making notable efforts to protect civilians—earning it broad popular support that has made any attempt to balance the situation through external channels collide directly with the popular will.

The modern political history of Iraq, Libya, and Yemen offers harsh lessons that admit no interpretation: forces that bet on the الخارج against their countries’ armies in existential moments neither gained legitimacy nor succeeded in building a state, but rather contributed to its dismantling, before being left isolated after the end of their functional role.

Today, the Sudanese experience confirms that the survival of the state is a moral and political priority that precedes any partisan or personal calculations, and that criticism and accountability—however legitimate—must be practiced from within the national framework and after the danger has receded, not through external tools exploited to undermine the state at the peak of its existential threat.

Between the lifting of the siege of Dilling and the escalation of international condemnation campaigns, another kind of battle is revealed: a battle over the narrative of the war, over legitimacy, and over the meaning of neutrality. The army, in its field advances and recovery of strategic areas, is not fighting only for land, but for the survival of the state, in the face of forces that bet on the outside to weaken and dismantle it.

Whoever chooses—consciously or ignorantly—to stab his country’s military institution before the outside world in a moment of proxy war does not stand in a position of neutrality, but in a position of political alignment devoid of moral legitimacy, no matter how much it is cloaked in human-rights discourse.

For the people, in moments of danger, do not mistake the position of the state, nor lose their compass when they see in the army the last line of defense for the national entity.

In the end, and according to #The_Truth_Face, “stupefying neutrality” remains not merely a political description, but a symbol of mistaken bets, and of the danger that political grievance may turn into a tool for demolishing the state at the height of its existential battle, while the people stand with their army, and history watches… and does not forgive.

Thursday, 29 January 2026

Shglawi55@gmail.com