Where is the conflict in Sudan heading?

This outcome could push back any transition to civilian government, leaving the army clearly in control and likely to dominate any discussions with political figures. While the army may bring conditions with it to talks, attention will focus on how open it may appear to be to the democratic transformation and civilian rule that is a condition of international aid for Sudan.

The most dangerous aspect of this scenario is the potential exploitation of a clear army victory by leaders of the former regime.

Supporters of the former regime have been vigorously backing the Sudanese army, hoping to receive something in return when the battle ends. They believe that this could make them a viable political alternative to the Freedom and Change Bloc which came after the regime. Their goal is to either return to power directly, or at least to settle scores with the political forces that toppled them. The chances of such plans succeeding look limited.

As Sudan emerged from the revolution, a feeling of renewal led to widespread political participation, particularly from the youth sector. A strong mass movement was born. It is unlikely to accept a return to power by the former regime.

The international community, not least Sudan's neighbours, will also resist any return of the former regime. There will be continued calls for the army to retreat from power and to set up a civil democratic transition to end the isolation of a country on the brink of economic collapse.

Scenario 2: The RSF triumphant

A clean military victory for the Rapid Support Forces and their subsequent control of Sudan is a complex possibility bringing grave consequences.

It is unrealistic to assume that the RSF would willingly relinquish power in favour of democratic transition after engaging in battle and enduring the hardships of war, despite Hemedti's claims it will do so.

Victorious military leaders are often tempted to expand their political ambitions to safeguard their wealth and maintain their power over national affairs. Hemedti, who is among the wealthiest people in Sudan, hails from a border tribe that extends between Chad, Niger, and Central Africa, and has close ties to the Western region of Sudan.

That could fuel his aspirations for regional expansion or cultivating relationships that enhance his influence, including attracting the attention of global superpowers. America and France are currently competing for influence in the region, and Russia has been increasing its presence, particularly through the deployment of forces from its Wagner mercenary group.

The RSF's control of Sudan would inevitably result in significant and hazardous complications, given the nature of the organisation itself and its leaders' connections with regional and international powers.

Scenario 3: Protracted fighting with no clear winner

If the war drags on without a decisive victory, the suffering of Sudanese civilians and ordinary military personnel will only intensify.

 They will bear the brunt of this catastrophic conflict, which has already brought about population displacement, a lack of access to essential resources like drinking water and utilities including electricity alongside rampant destruction and loss of life.

In pictures: Violent clashes spark food crisis in Sudan

The fighting has jeopardised livelihoods at home, further exhausting the already overburdened Sudanese state with the high economic costs of an urban war. Abroad, it has destabilised the region.

If the war persists, we will undoubtedly see a rise in waves of flight and displacement to neighbouring countries including Egypt and Ethiopia, or to peripheral areas outside the control of the warring parties.

The longer the lack of a victor holds, the greater the humanitarian catastrophe will be and the more urgent the response of the international community becomes.

This form of crisis could be more severe, due to the fragility of neighbouring nations already suffering in similar ways, including Ethiopia, Libya, Chad, Niger, Central Africa, South Sudan, and Egypt.

Any decisive victory, whichever way round, may prove challenging. Neither side has achieved military superiority in the week of continuous fighting, a sign that any clear and swift outcome will not occur.

The conditions on the ground also point away from a military resolution in the near term. The conflict spans across a vast area. Both sides have having forces deployed throughout the country.

Read more: Sudan clashes demonstrate high-stakes nature of political transition

Even if the Sudanese army resolves the battle in Khartoum, it must still address the conflict in the Darfur region or South Kordofan. Each region's tribal composition may lean one way or the other in terms of picking sides, making a difficult situation more complex. While the RSF may get the backing of Darfur, the army may prevail in the northern and some central states.

Talks may hold the answer to Sudan's terrible question

The most likely outcome is that the conflict ends through negotiation and dialogue. If this happens, it would significantly reduce the chances of prolonged armed conflict. It is the current state of battle that gives this outcome a higher chance of occurring.  

Negotiations come in various forms. Talks can happen when one party prevails over the other, leading the victor to impose their conditions. They also occur when both sides perceive themselves as equal in strength, or when they anticipate substantial losses without the possibility of achieving victory. When both parties feel weak, or at least unable to land the final blow, negotiations can also take place.

There is a tendency for talks to produce a paradox, where agreements set up by stronger parties making concessions to weaker ones tend to endure – as seen at the end of the Cold War – while those set up by weaker parties giving ground often collapse. This shows how perceptions of strength can be illusory.

Read more: UN envoy to Sudan optimistic about transition to civilian rule

Presently, there is no doubt that Sudan is in a state of weakness. Significant international effort is needed for the cessation of hostilities and the restoration of the political process, distinct from what has previously been attempted in the country and among its neighbours.

Successful international intervention would depend heavily on a quadruple mechanism composed of countries that wield influence over both sides, political movements, civil society, and resistance committees. These countries can counter any destructive attempts by foreign powers with vested interests in prolonging the conflict or weakening the Sudanese army.

There is a quartet of nations capable of establishing such a mechanism: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

A vital role can be played by other parties in the United Nations, particularly the United Nations Mission in Sudan, the African Union, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which comprises eight East African countries and works collectively to resolve differences in Sudan via the tripartite mechanism.

Additionally, the Troika countries with interests in Sudan and that have already been actively calling for calm – Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States – could exert influence alongside initiatives from within political and civil society.

Whatever the politics, the condition of the civilian population during the war is a vital factor that will intensify pressure on both sides. The conflict has caused immense suffering, with a population at risk of becoming refugees, or internally displaced persons. This situation is alarming and calls are emerging for urgent attention to alleviate such suffering.

Sudanese citizens have distanced themselves from the ongoing war since the two sides failed to provide them with a clear and convincing reason for it.

They are indifferent to which side wins, concerned instead with its duration and the scale of the suffering it produces. All they want is for the danger to end and a return to calm and security for their homeland.

People are apprehensive about members of the defunct regime taking advantage of the war's outcome to claim power or settle scores with the revolution.

Read more: Sudanese intellectuals weigh in on Sudan's never-ending war

The resistance committees --  the largest revolutionary youth bloc leading the movement on the ground -- have explicitly stated that the war is not their concern and warned against any attempts by the former regime to exploit it for their gain.

Several ceasefires have been declared since the beginning of the conflict due to the critical humanitarian conditions it has created.

The most recent showed greater commitment from both sides than previous ones. There is some hope that the timing will help, coming around the festive period at the end of Ramadan. But mediators have not yet secured a permanent truce and a return to talks for a full and peaceful resolution.