Berlin Summit Aims to Shape Sudan’s Post-War Future – Despite Boycott by Warring Groups

Why It Matters

Without a political settlement, the Sudan war threatens regional stability and prolongs a humanitarian crisis affecting millions; the Berlin summit signals renewed international pressure despite the warring parties’ absence.

Key Takeaways

• Berlin summit gathers 50 civilian leaders, excludes warring militias.
• Sudan government boycotts meeting, claiming lack of invitation.
• EU, US, UK, France, Germany, AU host “Quintet” talks.
• Conflict has killed >400,000, 33 million need aid ($2.4 bn gap).
• EU sanctions SAF and RSF; resists designating RSF terrorist.

Pulse Analysis

The three‑year civil war in Sudan, ignited by a power struggle between General Abdel Fattah al‑Burhan’s Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has become a protracted stalemate with no clear military victor. By convening civilian leaders in Berlin, the international community hopes to shift the dialogue from battlefield calculations to a roadmap for political transition, a move echoed by former prime minister Abdalla Hamdok who argues that only a negotiated process can address the conflict’s root causes.

Yet the summit’s impact is constrained by the absence of the very actors who control the front lines. Both the SAF‑backed government and the RSF have rejected the invitation, underscoring the difficulty of achieving legitimacy without on‑the‑ground buy‑in. Meanwhile, regional powers such as the UAE, Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia continue to supply or support the warring sides, complicating diplomatic leverage. The EU’s dual‑sided sanctions regime reflects an attempt to pressure both parties, but its reluctance to label the RSF as a terrorist organization limits the punitive toolkit available to Western capitals.

Humanitarian stakes add urgency to the political calculus. More than 400,000 deaths and 33 million people requiring aid—against a $2.4 bn funding gap—highlight the cost of inaction. If the Berlin gathering can galvanize fresh donor commitments and translate diplomatic rhetoric into concrete mechanisms for cease‑fire monitoring and transitional governance, it could reshape the conflict’s trajectory. Conversely, a repeat of last year’s London summit, marked by donor fatigue and limited outcomes, would reinforce the perception that international forums are merely symbolic, risking further erosion of civilian protection and regional stability.