The U.S. government has cautioned that Russia’s plans to establish a naval base in Sudan, a country struggling with conflict, could have “serious consequences.” This warning was prompted by recent news of the base’s development, according to sources who spoke with Digital.

A State Department representative stated to Digital, “We advise all nations, including Sudan, to refrain from engaging in transactions with Russia’s defense sector.”

The Kremlin is eager to join the global powers’ “naval club” in the Horn of Africa, as evidenced by its approved plans for a base capable of hosting warships and nuclear-powered submarines at Port Sudan. This location is near Djibouti, which already hosts U.S. and Chinese military bases. If the current Syrian government forces the Russians to leave their base in Tartus, Port Sudan would become Russia’s sole overseas naval base.

Rebekah Koffler, a strategic military intelligence analyst, informed Digital that “Moscow sees Sudan as a strategically advantageous location to expand Russia’s influence in Africa, a region Putin considers crucial for geopolitical competition with the United States and China.”

She added, “Russia considers the U.S. and China its main rivals, with whom it may eventually engage in armed conflict. Therefore, Putin desires intelligence and military assets stationed near the U.S. base in Djibouti and Chinese facilities.”

Koffler further noted, “Given the existing naval presence off the Horn of Africa, Russia is considering Port Sudan as a logistical center for weapon transfers, military hardware storage, and various war-fighting capabilities.”

John Hardie, deputy director of the Russia Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told Digital that “a potential Russian naval logistics facility in Sudan would bolster Russian power projection in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.” He also mentioned that “this matter has become more important for Moscow, considering the uncertainty surrounding the future of its Tartus naval logistics facility.”

A Russian naval base in the Indian Ocean carries significant military implications, providing relatively quick access to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, a vital waterway through which approximately 12% of global shipping and 61% of global oil tanker traffic pass. Koffler warns that this poses a substantial security risk.

“If Russia anticipates an escalation against it, perhaps in Ukraine – such as the potential deployment of NATO forces or severe economic sanctions aimed at crippling the Russian economy – I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that Putin might authorize disruptive actions to exploit this choke point, destabilizing or disrupting global shipping as a means of deterring Western actions that threaten Russia.”

The agreement allowing Moscow to construct a military base has been approved, despite significant logistical challenges. Koffler explained that “the agreement between Sudan and Russia was finalized in February, following a meeting in Moscow between Sudan’s Foreign Minister Ali Yusef Sharif and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.”

This context clarifies the strong statements made to Digital by the State Department: “The United States is aware of the reported agreement between Russia and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) to establish a Russian naval facility on Sudan’s coast. We urge all countries, including Sudan, to avoid any transactions with Russia’s defense sector, which could lead to serious consequences, including potential sanctions on entities or individuals involved in those transactions.”

“Proceeding with such a facility or any other form of security cooperation with Russia would further isolate Sudan, exacerbate the current conflict, and risk further regional destabilization.”

Regarding the dire situation on the ground in Sudan, U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Tom Fletcher described the situation around the city of Al Fasher and the adjacent Zamzam refugee camp in the Darfur region as “horrifying.”

The conflict in Sudan, between the government’s SAF and the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF), recently passed its second anniversary. Tens of thousands have died, and an estimated 13 million people have been displaced. The U.N. has declared it the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, while UNICEF describes it as “hell on earth.”

Sudan researcher Eric Reeves told Digital this week that “there can be no overstating the brutality and destructiveness of the RSF assault on Zamzam (refugee camp).” He added, “The camp that has existed since 2004 is no longer, even as it had grown to more than 500,000 people.”

Reeves ominously stated that “the real dying has only just begun. Nearly the entire population of Zamzam has fled, and the threat of RSF violence persists in all directions. This creates a level of insecurity that prevents humanitarian organizations from reaching these scattered people. Many will die from RSF violence or from lack of food, water, and shelter.”

Reports indicate that another 30 people were killed on Tuesday in a renewed RSF attack on Al Fasher. Additionally, the RSF rebels recently announced the establishment of their own government. The State Department told Digital, “The United States is deeply concerned about the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and aligned actors’ declaration of a parallel government in Sudan. This attempt to establish a parallel government is unhelpful for the cause of peace and security and risks a de facto partition of the country.”

“It will only further destabilize the country, threaten Sudan’s territorial integrity, and spread wider instability throughout the region. The United States has made clear that our interest is in the restoration of peace and an end to the threats the conflict in Sudan pose to regional stability. The best path to peace and stability is an immediate and durable cessation of hostilities so that the processes of establishing a civilian government and rebuilding the country can begin,” the spokesperson said.

Caleb Weiss, editor of the FDD’s Long War Journal and a Defections Program Manager at the Bridgeway Foundation, partially blamed the Biden administration for the failure to end the Sudanese war. He told Digital that it “stopped short of seriously facilitating any sort of meaningful peace talks/mediation/or being tough on outside backers of various groups to really get them to be serious in previous negotiation attempts. This is where the Biden administration failed.”