Khartoum Liberation … and the fall of the crossing project – the face of the truth – ✍️ Ibrahim Shaqlawi
Since the overthrow of the Bashir regime in April 2019, the transition phase that followed was not simply an area to correct the national path as promoted, but has been formed an entry to prepare a sweet political coup, which was carefully prepared by the regional and international powers which have sought to restore the Sudanese State on new foundations which serve its interests and the agenda, far from the aspirations of the Sudanese state. This preparation was not isolated, but rather through specific stations, starting with the formation of the “Quadruple International” and by placing the country under international supervision, through the project of “constitution of the lawyer”, and reaching “the framework agreement” which tried to grant a false legitimacy to the removal of the State and to reinstall the project.
However, the failure of these plans to obtain soft control over the articulations of power, due to the consciousness of the Sudanese armed forces and the national resistance, accelerated the transition to the military option as a developed option, as d. Maryam al -Sadiq al -Mahdi. The war broke out in April 2023, as a last link in an integrated project which has not achieved its objectives through civil and political tools, it therefore uses armed force to impose a new reality.
This is what we will try to stick by analyzing the dimensions of this great event, by reading the regional and international contexts which surrounded it and by dismantling its political and military connotations, in order to understand what the State means restoring its national capital.
From there, the release of Khartoum of the fist of the rapid support militia was not simply a restoration of security, but rather a patriotic moment, which was abandoned the mask of the “false political process”, and the dimensions of an external project which did not want to remedy Sudan is in the size of the interests which do not recognize its sovereigny, nor lift it from its stability. The release of Khartoum is therefore read as a collapse of a system of interventions, Paris and cross -tools, which thought it could redraw the Sudanese scene in a way that serves the sales and geopolitical interests.
Certain regional powers have bet on the fact that the rapid support militia becomes an alternative to the Sudanese State, has invested in the fragility of the transition period, by encouraging the blow against the civilian way and supported by a system of large interests which include competition for ports and resources, the penetration of intelligence and political penetration. On the other hand, influential international powers or a manufactured balance preferred to prolong the conflict as a means of inserting the country and pushing them towards unequal negotiation or restructuring the State under its command.
The release of Khartoum came to turn these equations. For the first time since the start of the war, the Sudanese state, represented in its army and its popular resistance, succeeded in decisively restoring the capital and dismantling the largest centers of heaviness in the militia, in a scene that did not leave an ambiguity room: the production of the army is advanced, the militia is to be collapsed.
The scenes from areas such as “Al -Salaha” west of Omdurman – of a huge military arsenal left by the militia, to decomposition bodies in closed boxes, and torture and liquidation sites – revealed that what was supported is not a political project, but a system of violence and dominance. These facts coinciding with the complete collapse of militia fighters, tackled a brief ethical blow to international speeches which tried to give the “peer” character between the State and the rebellion, according to the discourse of supporters of the local militia.
But what increases the importance of the event is the importance that the government officially returns to Khartoum and begins to exercise its functions from the heart of the state, after months of forced deportation. The capital was not only a military target, but was a political hostage and a test field for the legitimacy of the state itself. That the government returns to the management of the country’s affairs, is a declaration of the end of retirement and the start of the national training scene from the center of sovereignty and leadership, for a Sudanese state which does not know dependent or refraction despite unfair sanctions.
The return of citizens to return to memory, dignity and belong to the place. The districts that have been abandoned and the institutions that stopped come back today, confirming that Khartoum was not occupied, but rather a moment of conscience and restoration of the national will. What happened did not drop Sudan, but wake up; The state was not fascinated, but united it; The capital did not come out of the hands of its people, but rather returned them, with pride and pride which tell the greatness of their army and its experience for a hundred years, and the greatness of the popular resistance when the loyalty lead it.
This, and according to what we see from the face of the truth, the release of Khartoum is not reduced in a declaration of victory, but rather a reference at the beginning of a new stage, the title that Sudan is not a fragile state which formulates its future from the foreigner, but rather a deep root fatherland; The more they try to break it, the more cohesion there is. And if some people think that the periods come from the main capitals, then Khartoum’s experience proves that the national will – as it is expressed by the Imad Al -Din Khalil thinker – is capable of “responding abroad and redoing history”, because the nation that triumphs over its fear, triumphs compared to those who try to occupy it.
You are fine and well.
Friday May 23, 2025 ad shglawi55@gmail.com
