The Bet Between Hemedti and Al-Burhan: Can Sudan’s Problem Be Solved in Moscow?_ Captain Mohammed Hassan Al-Tahir_

Date: November 2026. 1

The story of Sudanese politics always begins by raising more questions than finding answers, and perhaps it begs for an answer from Will Durant’s ideas about the story of philosophy, attempting to reveal the journey of searching for the story of civilization.. Therefore we begin with the following question:

– Is Khartoum searching for the key to solving Sudan’s problem in the snow-covered streets of Moscow?

A question that seems strange, but it is not absurd. Sudan today stands between two Russian stations that need scholars of formal logic and mathematical logic to analyze premises and results together to decode the process of events in Sudan and its relationship with Moscow

– Hemedti started the war with a visit to Moscow (days) before the first bullet,

– And Al-Burhan ended up there after (years)

Which naturally generates the following question:

– Is Moscow the beginning and the end? Or is it merely a coincidence?

The relationship of the Soviet Union with the Third World went through two contradictory stages.

_Before the Afghan War (1956 – 1979):_ The Soviet Union was the father of liberation movements. It does not ask about your religion. It supports

– Muslim Nasser,

– And secular Nehru,

– And African Lumumba.

Its slogan was against American imperialism, so you find it building

– The High Dam in Egypt,

– And the iron factory in India, and sending weapons for free to Syria, Iraq and Sudan.

In the view of Islamic peoples, it was a sincere friend because it does not ask for a military base in exchange for the Quran, but asks for an alliance against Washington.

_After the Afghan War (1979 – 1991):_ Everything turned upside down. The Soviets entered Kabul to protect a communist ally, and found themselves facing the entire Islamic world.

The Afghan mujahid who used to listen to Radio Moscow, began to hear it as “the Red Invasion”.

Here Moscow lost the Islamic heart. It was no longer a friend of peoples, but became an occupation force like America.

And this lesson pushed it to collapse. It left Afghanistan defeated, and (fragmented) two years later.

And here is the crux of the matter where we find that there is an amazing similarity between Russia after 1991 and Sudan after the independence of the South

Russia after fragmentation: A huge empire fragmented into 15 states, a strong army without doctrine, an economy rich in oil but poor in bread, and an elite in conflict: security generals, money oligarchy, and nationalists searching for old glory.

Sudan after independence: A huge African empire (one million square miles), a strong army without a unifying national doctrine, an economy rich in gold and the Nile but poor in development, and an elite in conflict: army generals, war merchants, and intellectuals searching for identity:

– Are we Arabs or Africans?

Despite the similarity between the two models, we find that

– Russia preserved the essence of the state despite fragmentation,

– And Sudan lost its essence and fragmentation remained.

Moscow used dynamics of action (tanks, oil, Wagner) to preserve permanence of essence (the Russian state),

While we in Sudan used dynamics of action to destroy the essence, so is it time to save face of Sudan and restore the essence by sharpening minds towards benefiting by borrowing the solution from Moscow?

There is no doubt that peoples love those who resemble them, for the like is attracted to its like, therefore perhaps the Sudanese finds himself close to the Russian that he came to walking and it came to him running with open arms and an ancient Sudanese conscience..

That is why it was not strange that Hemedti found in Moscow a haven for gold, and Al-Burhan found in it a haven for weapons.

Russia does not ask about democracy and human rights, so what does it ask about:

– Does it ask about gold?

– Or about a port on the Red Sea?

_Can Moscow solve our crisis?_

The answer: Moscow can be a platform, but it cannot be a solution.

It can because it is the only station visited by both parties and trusted by both parties, because it does not condemn anyone. And because it holds the Wagner card that knows the terrain of Sudanese war more than some Sudanese.

But it cannot be a final solution unless Moscow’s mentality today is a project mentality not a deal mentality.. Russia wants

– A port,

– Gold

– To tell America I am also present in Africa.

It does not work on building a Sudanese identity (permanence of essence and dynamics of action) or perhaps it seeks that, so is that so? In general politics is moved by interests, so is it governed by morals?

Sudan’s solution will not be in Moscow, nor in Jeddah, nor in sisterly Cairo, oh truth..

Sudan’s solution may begin in Moscow if we understand its lesson:

– That the state that does not preserve its essence with dynamics of action will fragment, then return to search for itself in others’ snow.

Perhaps Moscow can bring Al-Burhan and Hemedti together on one table (tarbeeza like or trabeezoid) of politics

But it will not bring Sudanese together on one heart.

This is our duty, we the people of Sudan for the people of Sudan, thus homelands are built and repent to God all of you O people of Sudan