by: Andrew Korybko
The timing of this latest report was probably aimed at complicating the revived Russian-US talks on Ukraine by putting “deep state” pressure on Trump to demand that Sudan rubbish this deal in exchange for American support, but it might also inadvertently bring them closer together.
Get Awesome Patriot Gear Today! Pay Just S&H For Most Items!
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) cited unnamed Sudanese officials to report that Russia was offered a 25-year-long deal to place up to 300 troops and four warships at the long-delayed naval base that they’ve talked about setting up since 2020. All that Sudan requests are advanced weapons at preferential prices to help them defeat the “Rapid Support Forces” (RSF) rebels. To sweeten the deal, they’re also offering Russia “the inside track on lucrative mining concessions”, but nothing has been agreed to as of yet.
This proposal was allegedly passed along by Sudan to Russia in October, so prior to Russia’s Ambassador to Sudan telling Sputnik that “Given the current armed conflict [in Sudan], progress on this matter is currently suspended.” He was therefore either telling the truth or deflecting in retrospect from what might be the potentially imminent implementation of this deal if the WSJ’s report is accurate. In any case, the WSJ then fearmongered about the geopolitical implications of this base, which was predictable.
What’s most surprising about their article was the casual disclosure that the RSF reached out to Ukraine for support despite their reported ties with Russia at the time and Ukraine allegedly helping the military against them both, which led to Russia and Ukraine switching roles in this conflict. The RSF was recently condemned for the massacre that it’s accused of carrying out in the North Darfuri capital of Al-Fashir so this makes Ukraine look terrible by association. Here are ten background briefings on this dirty war:
* 11 June 2022: “Analyzing Russia’s Strategic Interests In Sudan”
* 30 September 2022: “America’s Neo-Imperialist Pressure On Sudan Exposes Its True Intentions Towards Africa”
* 16 April 2023: “Sudan’s ‘Deep State’ War Could Have Far-Reaching Geostrategic Consequences If It Continues”
* 21 April 2023: “Here’s Why The US Is Trying To Pin The Blame For Sudan’s ‘Deep State’ War On Russia”
* 27 April 2023: “Russia Is Right: ‘Political Engineering’ From Abroad Is Responsible For The Sudanese Crisis”
* 4 May 2023: “The Mainstream Media’s Admissions That American Meddling Ruined Sudan Are Misleading”
* 10 March 2024: “Ukraine Is Presenting Itself As A Reliable Mercenary Force Against Russia In Africa”
* 27 May 2024: “Russia’s Planned Base In Sudan Might Be Downgraded To A Naval Logistics Support Facility”
* 19 November 2024: “Russia’s Veto Of The UNSC Resolution On Sudan Saved It From A Neocolonialist Plot”
* 20 December 2024: “Bloomberg Is Manufacturing Consent For More Western Meddling In Sudan”
The context within which the WSJ published their report also includes Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman requesting during their meeting in the White House last month that Trump play a much more active role in brokering an end to this conflict. At the same time, Trump also revived the Russian-US talks on Ukraine, which could be complicated by him hypothetically pressuring the Sudanese Government to ditch its naval base deal with Russia as a quid pro quo for more robust American diplomatic support.
Nevertheless, the WSJ’s report was probably published now instead of in October when Sudan allegedly passed along its latest terms to Russia for their long-delayed naval base for precisely that purpose, hoping that it’ll put “deep state” pressure on him for inadvertently complicating talks with Russia. This could actually backfire, however, if Russian and US diplomats creatively propose coordinating their military support for the Sudanese Government and jointly cooperate on brokering a peace deal.
For these reasons, the report that Russia’s long-delayed Sudanese naval base might be back on track could inadvertently bring it and the US closer together, not tear them apart. It of course depends on the creativity of their diplomats and the political will of their leaders, but the scenario can’t be ruled out, though nor can the one of Trump capitulating to “deep state” pressure to demand that Sudan rubbish this deal in exchange for US support. The US’ response will in any case likely affect relations with Russia.
