Efforts to secure a ceasefire in Sudan have suffered another setback after the United States confirmed that neither of the warring parties has formally accepted a new truce proposal. The plan, presented by Washington in recent days, was intended to halt a conflict that has devastated the country since April 2023. Yet it has instead exposed deep mistrust between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces, along with growing frustration over international mediation.
United States envoy Massad Boulos said on Tuesday that both sides had received what he described as a strong text for a truce. While neither objected to the content, the Sudanese army returned with what Boulos called impossible preconditions. These terms were not publicly detailed, but they have already cast doubt on any immediate progress towards a ceasefire.
The Rapid Support Forces had declared a unilateral cessation of hostilities on Monday, in an apparent effort to align with recent calls from Washington. However, the initiative yielded little movement. The following day the army announced it had repelled an RSF attack on a base in Babanusa in West Kordofan, the newest active frontline. The claim suggested that the unilateral declaration had done little to change the realities on the ground, where neither force seems willing to relinquish military advantage.
President Donald Trump said last week that he would intervene to stop the war, which has plunged Sudan into famine, unleashed ethnic massacres and displaced millions. Despite this renewed attention, previous attempts involving the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have produced no meaningful breakthrough. A proposal put forward by the group in September forms the basis of Washington’s latest effort, but it too remains stalled.
Boulos noted that neither the Sudanese Armed Forces nor the RSF had formally accepted the new text. Yet within hours, Sudan’s Security and Defence Council, led by army chief Abdel Fattah al Burhan, instructed the relevant authorities to respond to the proposal. The shift in language stood in contrast to Burhan’s earlier remarks on Sunday, when he condemned the United States plan as the worst he had seen and accused Washington of sidelining the army while granting legitimacy to the RSF.
Boulos insisted that Burhan’s objections were based on inaccurate information. His comments came during a press conference held alongside Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the president of the United Arab Emirates. The UAE remains a controversial actor in the conflict, with the Sudanese army accusing it of arming the RSF. Abu Dhabi denies the charge, and Gargash reiterated on Tuesday that misinformation campaigns would not deter his country from pursuing peace.
The Sudanese army has long objected to the involvement of the UAE in mediation efforts and maintains that it will only agree to a truce once the RSF withdraws from civilian areas. The RSF, for its part, seeks recognition as a political as well as military actor and has shown little willingness to concede territorial control.
With the latest proposal in limbo and the frontlines still active, Sudan’s crisis looks set to deepen. International actors continue to push for dialogue, but without a shift in the calculations of the two forces the prospect of a lasting ceasefire remains distant. The country’s civilians, already enduring hunger, violence and displacement, will continue to bear the brunt of a war that shows no sign of nearing an end.
