Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at a UNSC Briefing on Sudan
Mr. President, Mr. Minister,
We are grateful to Mr. Tom Fletcher and Ms. Rosemary DiCarlo for their briefings. We have also closely listened to the statement by civil society representative Eva Khair.
Russia aligns itself with the assessments voiced by the briefers regarding the difficult humanitarian situation in Sudan. The armed confrontation, which has continued for more than three years, has resulted in significant loss of life. According to UNICEF, in the first half of 2026 alone, at least 330 children were killed or injured.
The situation in North Kordofan is particularly alarming. The state capital, El Obeid, remains one of the main targets of the rebels, who are incessantly striking residential areas, schools, markets, medical facilities and infrastructure in the city. At the same time, people continue to flood into El Obeid, which is controlled by government forces, in search of safety and protection. Temporary shelters are overcrowded, with many of them providing little more than one liter of water per person per day.
Against the backdrop of this dire situation, the developments in the Persian Gulf are creating additional pressure. Sudan is heavily dependent on fertilizer imports from countries of that subregion. Fertilizer shortages, coupled with rising diesel prices, are hitting Sudanese farmers in the midst of the planting season and could jeopardize the future harvest.
We are concerned that the Sudanese conflict is increasingly affecting neighboring countries. Egypt, Chad and South Sudan are facing a particularly heavy burden. Limited capacity to support Sudanese refugees may exacerbate instability throughout the region.
The conflict has also triggered severe food insecurity, with millions of Sudanese facing acute food shortages. The magnitude of needs exceeds the capacity of humanitarian organizations. With the OCHA Humanitarian Response Plan being currently only 40 per cent funded, the lack of financing is already forcing humanitarian actors to cut food rations and cash assistance to the population. Against this backdrop, it is important to step up support for humanitarian agencies and expand bilateral assistance.
However, for ordinary Sudanese to see tangible benefits, this assistance must be delivered in close coordination with the Government of Sudan. It is precisely the Government that bears responsibility for protecting the country’s population, is aware of the most pressing needs and has extensive capacity to distribute humanitarian supplies. Attempts to act in circumvention of Khartoum or without its consent are unacceptable. In this extremely complex internal conflict, UN agencies are well advised to work with the Sudanese authorities to find mutually acceptable solutions to emerging problems, harnessing the tools of so-called humanitarian diplomacy. In this regard, we note OCHA’s reports of positive developments in its dialogue with Khartoum on ensuring humanitarian access. We trust that this engagement will continue.
On the political track, we note that ambitious mediation efforts have stalled. There has been no tangible progress in the work of the Quintet comprising the UN, EU, African Union, League of Arab States and IGAD. The activities of the Sudan Quartet – the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE – have likewise stagnated. We regard such an outcome to be inevitable, since in seeking to find common ground between the antagonists, the Quartet’s actions have essentially boiled down to pressure, blackmail and arm-twisting aimed at forcing the Government of Sudan to make unacceptable concessions. We continue to believe that any mediation efforts should be conducted under UN auspices and should convey a constructive and clear message to the Government of Sudan.
Recently, we hear increasingly alarming assessments being voiced regarding the expanding use of combat drones in the context of the Sudanese conflict, with calls being made for a complete ban on the supply of such systems and related technologies to the country. We do agree that strike UAVs pose a serious threat. However, we would like to stress that one of the parties to the conflict – the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – uses them not merely indiscriminately and chaotically, but often with the aim of inflicting maximum damage on civilian infrastructure and the civilian population. By contrast, the Sudanese Armed Forces seek to be precise when targeting. More broadly, we consider unacceptable the notion that the parties to the conflict bear equal responsibility for the consequences of the use of weapons, given that one side is sowing chaos and violence, while the other is essentially conducting an operation to neutralize those who are, in essence, insurgents destroying the country.
We would also like to draw particular attention to the increasingly intensified sanctions pressure on Sudan. In July, the European Union imposed a ban on imports of Sudanese gold. Almost simultaneously, Washington expanded its own restrictions, including, in particular, a ban on international financial institutions providing Sudan with credit, financial and technical assistance. We consider such steps unacceptable and hostile towards the country’s Government. At a time when Sudan’s economy is suffering from years of conflict and the State’s need for resources to restore healthcare, water supply, agriculture and other basic infrastructure is greater than ever, such a policy of economic strangulation raises serious questions. Ultimately, the consequences of these new restrictions will place a heavy burden on ordinary Sudanese. It is in this same light that we view any attempts to expand the existing UN Security Council sanctions regime against Sudan.
We are convinced that the path towards alleviating the suffering of the Sudanese people lies not in further bloodletting of the Sudanese economy, but in ending hostilities, expanding humanitarian assistance and supporting the country’s recovery.
Thank you.
