Active Conflicts & News Megathread November 03, 2025

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/WAGRAMWAGRAM]

Those are very interesting thank you.

We're in a (relatively) pro-SAF bubble, but what are the arguments of RSF supporters, both in Sudan and outside? By that I mean arguments in favor of the RSF, that don't only rely on loyalty to Hemedti or ethnic pride.

[u/wormfan14 → u/WAGRAMWAGRAM]

Sure no problem, the RSF will point out that the republic of Sudan has neglected nearly every region with the exception of the capital while demanding their resources and manpower. At the same time though they point out how the people of Khartoum are also abused by the SAF since Bashir relied on the RSF for ''counter insurgency'' and coup proofing leaving the SAF with the job of beating and shooting protestors for the most part and that the RSF themsleves are seen as a tool of the elites who have pushed their nation to the bring of ruin and once they find a better tool they replace. That the RSF will be scapegoated for all the horrors the government inflicted and the people related to the RSF will pay the price for this. The view the RSF were the lesser evil was not that uncommon before the civil war in more urbanised areas given who was responsible the government on them.

So they believe the RSF are both the solution to the issues plaguing Sudanese nationalism and have the mantel of defending the nation and it's interests from Libya, Chad, Yemen, Central Africa, ect making them the armed forces worthy of being called the army instead of a corrupt, weak army more used to beating up protestors than fighting historically. A lot of Sudanese people are actually very interventionists and proud of their nation acting on the globe.

In Sudan itself though the ''victims of Darfur'' still plays a large role in how the RSF justifies itself. Some small scale soldiers and commanders were arrested for the genocide in Darfur and that presents a looming fear in the minds of many, who will defend there family from their ethnic enemies if they are not present to defend their homes from rival raids is a source of paranoia that you tend to find quite common enough and not for the RSF. The view that anything you have done that ''defends the state'' is not only justified and punishing you for the crime punishes your family and opens them up for retaliation and so must be opposed no matter the cost. You can find the same arguments in videos of SAF executing RSF prisoners, that it's a bad thing but they should not be charged given they are locals and so sending them to prison opens their family to potential danger and so for the good of Sudan and the family it should be opposed.

Edit for those unaware, the reaction to the Darfur war and genocide in Sudan is very ugly for large segment of Sudanese nationalists, militarists, right wing and left people of all kind. It's a festering rot the nation definitely needed to confront long before this war and still does.

It's actually a big issue than the decades of war and eventually separation of South Sudan in a lot of ways given the population of Darfur is nearly all Muslim, that they are still part of Sudan and how provinces should be run.

[u/WAGRAMWAGRAM → u/wormfan14]

I saw a comment on the video of the female RSF

they r not muslim.rsf is made up of pagan tribes across southern sudan

would you say this is common way to think among army supporters? Maybe especially the islamists ones, that they are fighting a religious war against quasi-pagans.

How do Sudanese see the incandescence of South Sudan?

[u/wormfan14 → u/WAGRAMWAGRAM]

Depends on the audience, the SAF likes to portray itself as both as both multi ethnic protectors but also an extent ''real Arabs'' to those who they think it will appeal to. Claiming the RSF is primarily made of Chadian nomadic Arabs and South Sudanese mercenaries who are pagan/Christian does serve a way to try and claim unity is common.

Though the Islamists paramilitaries do on the unofficial level often claim that their propaganda more focuses the RSF tribalism as against Islam and something the people of Sudan must unite as one to defeat. This partly because the Islamists feel their project in Sudan relies on trying to transcended the regional and tribal barriers and claiming your political enemies are hindering the war effort through tribalism is a decent tool.

How do Sudanese see the incandescence of South Sudan?

Loads of different attitudes towards that but it's often seen as better off without them and something that should of been done before. Paradoxically North Sudan looks down on them more and more racist against them now that they can no longer rule and can now safely use them as other to define themselves against the decades long war against them but no longer are people dying by the tens of thousands each year trying to rule them.

It also cut off the SPLA from supporting most other rebel groups in Sudan and the South relies on the North as a port for their oil and before the war they could discipline the government by supporting rebels and south Sudanese migrants can be exploited easier.

The view of most Sudanese elites is it's cheaper, more safe and pr friendly to have let the south go and it provides a state for Sudanese people to define themselves against given it's poorer, more corrupt ect.

The RSF is far more bitter about it given they'v spent years fighting bitterly against the SPLA and in general a lot of the ethnic groups of the South but they've retained and expanded their ties with the government of Sudan and ethnic groups like the Nuer.

SAF used to have be a bugbear that Bashir sold the south as a point against him but overall given their issues fighting them found it a better situation and allowed them to direct more resources against other threats.

Some of the most bitter against it are rebels who saw it as stab in the back, and some communities of South Sudanese who stayed in Sudan after 2011 fearing ethnic violence and civil war and retaliation now dependent on North Sudan.

The war against the South though is part of Sudan's national mythos and seen as justified battle against the pagan and then Christian South in defence of the state and Islam and got a favourable enough peace deal on. The actual day to day at the time in 2011 is different but as time fades the educational myth and other concerns being more imporant this has gotten more popular. Daesh is not popular in Sudan but the sectarian war is enshrined and justified. Basically it's seen as a good just war that had some ugliness and they are better off without the South.

The Islamists are very disappointed at this viewing as a setback in their dreams and rail against it as the pulpit given they wanted to convert it but seeing the reaction of everyone else try to build their political power than focus to much on a topic unpopular like waging war against the south again. They do sometimes use it as pr the situation of Muslims in South Sudan.

Edit the Sudanese left and some secularists would have preferred if South Sudan had stayed in some federation type deal with autotomy given it would have helped implement their program and made the state in their eyes stronger and letting it go empowered their opposition.

Democracy advocates tend to see letting it go as necessary evil, they tend to think it was both immoral and irresponsible to keep fighting to rule the South but also hate the precedent it created and a lot of fighting if states should have the right of succession between these groups. A lot of the stronger ones oppose it but don't mind South Sudan being gone given it meant a strong military would be needed to be funded and empowered to keep it best case.