When Russia alone vetoed a Sudan ceasefire 1-14 at the UN, they claimed to be fighting colonialism. The irony is rich: Russia is blocking peace to protect their own colonial exploitation of Sudan’s civil war.
Russia invokes sovereignty while simultaneously undermining it in Ukraine, Sudan, and across Africa, which reveals a pattern where “anti-colonialism” really means “no one else gets to interfere with our interference.”
Russia’s veto doesn’t just represent opposition to a ceasefie. Putin is out to preserve a carefully cultivated position of chaotic influence in Sudan. By maintaining the devastating conflict’s status quo (over 10 million people displaced), Russia protects its ability to play both sides of the civil war, a strategy that serves multiple strategic objectives.
Money Laundering: Gold and Ports
Russia’s interests in Sudan are primarily concentrated in two areas: gold and maritime access. Through relationships with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Russia maintains access to Sudan’s highly inflated gold deposits to offset international sanctions. Simultaneously, through ties with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), Russia secures potential access to Port Sudan, a strategic Red Sea location vital for international trade and naval presence… ahem, exporting gold.
The gold trade isn’t just about profit, it’s about creating untraceable channels for moving money outside Western oversight. When Russia claims to oppose “colonial” intervention, they’re really protecting their shadow financial networks. A peaceful, let alone unified, Sudan likely would slam the cookie jar lid on Putin’s greedy fingers.
Ceasefire and increased international oversight surely would disrupt many lucrative hidden Russian operations:
- Weapons sales to both factions
- Gold extraction and trading operations
- Sanctions evasion networks
- Strategic military positioning in the Red Sea
Interestingly, the UN resolution’s failure to address the UAE’s substantial support for the RSF provides additional context on Russian money laundering through civil war.
This omission highlights how regional politics and competing interests complicate international efforts to resolve violence in Sudan. Russia’s veto, while appearing isolated, actually serves multiple parties who benefit from limited international oversight.
Beyond Sudan there’s a broader African strategy by Russia. Sudan in fact mirrors an approach taken in other African nations like Mali, Chad, and Niger. Maintaining a veneer of influence while stirring up chaos, Russia creates “opportunities” to undermine local authority (e.g. ignore sovereignty):
- Resource extraction
- Military training and tests
- Secret trade networks
- Diplomatic leverage
These various strategic interests come at a devastating humanitarian cost. Continuation of conflict directly impacts tens of millions of Sudanese civilians, leading to displacement, food insecurity, and loss of life. The international community’s inability to implement a ceasefire exemplifies how Russia can interfere to supersede humanitarian concerns with selfish gains, while trolling everyone about freedom from foreign interference.
Russia’s veto, drawing widespread international criticism, demonstrates the complexity of geopolitics. Regional conflicts often still represent broader international strategic objectives, always at the expense of civilian populations. Understanding Russia’s underlying motivation of greed becomes crucial for any meaningful attempt at conflict resolution.
The international community now faces the challenge of addressing not just the immediate conflict, but the external interests that continue to fuel it. Until underlying dynamics of exploitation by Russia change, achieving lasting peace in Sudan is blocked by Putin.
Over 10 million displaced Sudanese civilians and over 25K dead serve as collateral damage in Russia’s cynical game of profiting from chaos while preaching about sovereignty. Their lovely veto reveals their real position on sovereignty: African nations should be free from everyone’s influence except Moscow’s. The cost of this hypocrisy is measured in Sudanese lives.
Research from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimates that over 61,000 people died in Khartoum between April 2023 and June 2024, with violence claiming over 26,000 lives, far exceeding ACLED’s figure of 20,178 deaths nationwide during the same period. Alarmingly, over 90% of all deaths went unrecorded, suggesting a significantly underestimated toll in other regions.
Some estimate over 26 million people are facing starvation.
