An exclusive Brown Land News interview and investigation. Top Russian analysts and Sudanese officials speak candidly about military cooperation, economic ties, the legacy of the Wagner Group, and the postponed naval base on the Red Sea—unveiling a rising alliance shaped by war, sovereignty, and shifting global power dynamics.

Sudan’s Strategic Wealth and Geopolitical Positioning

With an annual output exceeding 90 million tons and an estimated market value of nearly $5 billion, Sudan ranks as Africa’s second-largest gold producer. The country’s potential as a world breadbasket is underscored by its approximately 216 million acres of arable land and one of the continent’s most substantial livestock populations. These resources are not just abundant, but strategically vital, shaping the global competition for influence, resources, and maritime access.

Beyond its immense agricultural and mineral endowments—including silver, copper, and uranium reserves—Sudan’s Red Sea coastline holds significant geopolitical importance. This strategic location provides access to key maritime routes, making it a crucial point for global trade and military operations. This confluence of natural wealth and strategic geography situates Sudan at the center of intensifying global competition for influence, resources, and maritime access.

Diplomacy, Defense, and Direction: Russia’s Evolving Alliance with Sudan

While diplomatic ties between Sudan and Russia date back to the Soviet era, shifting global alignments have imparted a new strategic weight to this relationship. As the eastern axis—anchored by Moscow and Beijing—extends its reach across emerging regions, Africa has re-emerged as a decisive theatre in the global contest for influence.

Asma Al-Husseini, Editor-in-Chief of Al-Ahram newspaper and a distinguished authority on African affairs, underscores the dynamic:“There is an escalating rivalry between Russian and Western actors in several African states—Sudan, Libya, the Central African Republic, Mozambique, and Mali. This is a struggle over influence, access, and resources at its core. In particular, Sudan’s Red Sea coastline has drawn

the ambitions of global and regional powers—chiefly Russia and Turkey—seeking to establish military footholds to project power across the African and Arab spheres.”

Lana Badvan, a specialist in international and European relations at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, affirms this analysis:

“Russia is actively consolidating its strategic presence in Sudan—whether through initiatives to establish a military base on the Red Sea or through the sustained transfer of arms and materiel to reinforce its broader African posture.”

Yet Badvan is careful to distinguish ambition from adventurism. Russia, she notes, is not pursuing direct involvement in Sudan’s internal war.

“On the contrary,” she observes, “Russia’s priority is preserving order and stability in its partner zones. That principle underpins its engagement strategy.”

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov echoed this stance and reiterated Moscow’s preference for political dialogue over military entanglement, stressing that the protection of the Sudanese people must be pursued through diplomacy, not through armed intervention.

Charting a New Course: Sudan’s Ambassador Advocates a Strategic Alliance with Russia

As global alliances recalibrate, Sudan seeks to elevate its relationship with the Russian Federation to a strategic partnership. Ambassador Mohamed Seraj, Sudan’s envoy in Moscow, affirmed this ambition in an interview with the Russian daily Izvestia.

“We are looking forward to expanding our relations and reaching the stage of a strategic partnership,” Seraj stated, describing Russia as “a friendly nation in every sense of the word.”

Ambassador Seraj emphasized Khartoum’s desire for a multidimensional alliance that extends beyond diplomatic symbolism and enables Russia to assume a tangible role in Sudan’s national reconstruction.

“We are seeking an important and vital partnership with Russia across all sectors,” he noted, “a relationship that would allow Moscow to make a clear and direct contribution to the rebuilding of Sudan.”

Ambassador Seraj also lauded Moscow’s recent intervention at the United Nations Security Council, where Russia exercised its veto to block a British-drafted resolution on Sudan. In Ambassador Seraj’s view, the proposed measure sought to override Sudanese sovereignty under the guise of international engagement.

“Russia’s firm stance at the Security Council stood as a bulwark against attempts to erode Sudan’s autonomy,” he declared, expressing Sudan’s deep appreciation for Moscow’s consistent and unapologetic support. “It was a principled stand that prevented the legitimization of foreign interference in Sudan’s internal affairs.”

Rewriting the Wagner Narrative: From Mercenary Legacy to State Control

As speculation lingers over the Wagner Group’s presence in volatile African regions, including Sudan, questions persist about the role of its remaining operatives. In this exclusive, Russian political analyst Andrey Ontikov responds to the allegations, shedding light on the group’s transformation, its integration into official state structures, and Russia’s evolving state policy in Africa.

“I’ve seen and heard these accusations about Wagner’s continued involvement, but there is no confirmed or verifiable evidence to substantiate such claims at this time,” Ontikov stated.

From Private Force to State Authority

Ontikov explained that following the death of Wagner’s former leader, the group entered a critical phase of internal restructuring—a process with broad implications for its current operations.

“There was a clear need to reconstitute and integrate the group. That process takes time,” Ontikov noted. “Wagner has effectively been brought under the control of the Russian Ministry of Defense, marking a transition from a private military entity to formal components operating within state structures.”

He emphasized that this shift is more than administrative—it reflects a deliberate reorientation toward state oversight and national interest.

“We now witness a gradual but firm transition from irregular operations to actions embedded within the official Russian defense establishment. These structures operate strictly following national priorities and established state policy.”

Residual Forces and Strategic Realignment

As for lingering concerns about Wagner-affiliated operatives, Ontikov urged caution against overstatement.

“If some Wagner-associated elements are still active on the ground, their legal and operational status is being addressed. It will take time to sort through the remnants. But these allegations will lose their relevance once the restructuring is complete.”

Wagner and the RSF: Distinguishing Fact from Statecraft

As speculation continues over alleged coordination between remnants of the Wagner Group and Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia, Russian political analyst Andrey Ontikov urges a sharp distinction between rumor and official policy.

“It is evident that there is deepening and productive cooperation between the Russian and Sudanese governments,” Ontikov affirmed.

“This partnership spans multiple sectors—trade, economic development, investment, and military cooperation. These institutional relationships far outweigh the significance of unverified reports that occasionally surface in the media.”

Ontikov emphasized that credible analysis must be grounded in the formal stance of the Russian state, not conjecture or third-party narratives.

“When assessing Russia’s engagement with Sudan, our primary frame of reference must be the declared policies and actions of the Russian state, not speculative commentary or loosely sourced reporting.”

Ontikov’s message is unambiguous: While the shadow of Wagner may still linger in international discourse, it should not obscure the structured, state-led cooperation now defining Russian–Sudanese relations.

Red Sea Naval Base: Strategic Vision or Deferred Ambition?

Moscow’s long-anticipated proposal to establish a Russian naval facility along Sudan’s Red Sea coast—officially designated as a “Naval Logistics Center”—remains a subject of intrigue, anticipation, and geopolitical calculation. Though publicly welcomed by segments of the Sudanese population, the project’s implementation has stalled amid shifting political landscapes and unresolved procedural hurdles.

Providing historical context, Russian political analyst Andrey Ontikov remarked:

“The idea of this base dates back to the era of former President Omar al-Bashir,” he explained.

“Subsequent political developments in Sudan may have delayed its realization, but the fundamental understandings between the two nations remain intact.”

Ontikov underscored the enduring strategic value the base holds for both sides.

“For Russia, Sudan serves as a crucial eastern gateway to the African continent—offering a platform for expanded diplomatic, military, and commercial cooperation with other African states aligned with Moscow.”

He further clarified that the facility’s purpose extends beyond symbolic military presence.

“Given the scale of Russia’s growing partnerships across Africa, this base would function primarily as a logistical hub, facilitating the movement of essential supplies and equipment to allied states. It’s less about power projection and more about sustained operational reach.”

Ontikov concluded that the current delay should not be mistaken for abandonment.

“This is a recalibration, not a retreat. The project remains strategically sound. What it awaits now is the right political moment.”

U.S. Sanctions on Sudan: Geopolitical Leverage or Pursuit of Justice?

Responding to the latest round of U.S. sanctions imposed on Sudan—allegedly in connection with the use of chemical weapons by the Sudanese Armed Forces—Russian political analyst Andrey Ontikov cast the measures as symptomatic of a broader geopolitical strategy rather than a principled stand on international law.

“It is no secret that the United States, along with several of its Western allies, routinely uses sanctions as a coercive tool against countries that pursue independent, sovereign policies,” he asserted.

“These punitive actions are rarely about justice or accountability. They are instruments of geopolitical leverage.”

Ontikov argued that the underlying concern driving Washington’s actions is not Sudan’s conduct but its growing alignment with strategic rivals—chiefly Russia.

“The United States is deeply unsettled by Sudan’s increasing cooperation with Russia. Washington perceives any expansion of Russian influence on the African continent as a direct threat to its long-standing regional interests.”

He also recalled prior attempts to bypass Sudanese sovereignty through international mechanisms.

“Just months ago, there was an effort to push through a Western-backed resolution that effectively excluded the Sudanese government from determining its future. Russia vetoed that resolution at the UN Security Council—affirming its commitment to Sudan’s sovereignty.”

Ontikov concluded that the current sanctions should be viewed in the same light as part of a broader strategy to isolate states that resist alignment with the Western order.

Prospects for Sudanese–Russian Relations and the Maritime Logistics Center

Reflecting on the trajectory of Sudanese–Russian relations, particularly in light of ongoing efforts to establish a naval logistics center on the Red Sea, Russian analyst Andrey Ontikov underscored the growing depth and breadth of cooperation between the two nations.

“In recent months, we’ve seen a marked increase in mutual visits and diplomatic exchanges at various levels,” Ontikov observed.

“The relationship now extends far beyond military cooperation.”

He pointed to active engagements in multiple sectors, including energy, natural resources, and humanitarian aid.

“Russian delegations have visited Sudan to explore large-scale initiatives in the energy and resource sectors. At the same time, joint humanitarian projects are gaining traction, further reinforcing a partnership grounded in long-term mutual benefit.”

Ontikov emphasized that while bureaucratic procedures remain, both governments appear aligned in their strategic outlook.

“The significance of this partnership is well understood on both sides. As administrative and legislative steps move forward—particularly regarding the logistics center—we see the foundation being laid for structured, durable cooperation that advances the core interests of both countries.”

Naval Base Talks: Awaiting Political Momentum and Bilateral Coordination

Addressing the frequently delayed yet strategically significant proposal to establish a Russian naval base on Sudan’s Red Sea coast, Russian political analyst Andrey Ontikov acknowledged the persistence of technical complexities and political sensitivities.

Referencing recent remarks by Abbas Mohammed Bakhit—head of the Sudanese delegation at the International Meeting on Security in Moscow—Ontikov noted:

“We are addressing technical aspects of establishing the naval base between the two countries. The new recognition is that, despite the foundational agreements, the project has experienced prolonged delays, without any clearly stated justification.”

Ontikov explained that although both sides remain committed, the project’s realization hinges on high-level political decisions and formal legislative procedures.

“Establishing the maritime logistics center requires approval at the highest political level, including ratification by the Sudanese parliament. Until then, several bureaucratic and bilateral steps must be taken.”

He stressed that while the timeline remains uncertain, the underlying strategic alignment is precise. Both governments understand the stakes and appear aligned in their vision for structured, enduring cooperation.

As for the proposed Red Sea facility, Ontikov stressed the shared strategic vision.

“Russia has a vested interest in securing a strategic foothold along the Red Sea, and Sudan likewise stands to benefit from a reliable and stabilizing Russian military presence. What is needed now is continued negotiation and coordination.”

Ontikov concluded optimistically:

“Given the convergence of interests, I believe the realization of this project is not a question of if, but when.”

Dr. Adel Abdel Aziz Al-Faki: “Our Strategic Opportunity Lies with the Russian Federation”

Dr. Adel Abdel Aziz Al-Faki, a senior Sudanese strategist, describes the current geopolitical moment as a rare and valuable opportunity for Sudan to forge a strategic alliance with the Russian Federation.

“We are currently presented with a golden opportunity to establish a comprehensive strategic alliance with the Russian Federation,” he stated.

“Russia is facing a global confrontation driven by an international coalition led by the United States and supported by European Union powers. Similarly, Sudan faces a coordinated regional axis seeking to reshape its national identity and gain control over its wealth.”

He emphasized that Russia’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council offers significant diplomatic leverage that could serve Sudan’s sovereignty and long-term interests.

“Moscow’s veto power holds immense value for Sudan. In coordination with Khartoum, it can be used to block efforts that undermine our national sovereignty and to advance the shared interests of both states.”

Dr. Al-Faki noted that Russia had officially requested logistical access to a Red Sea port for naval supply purposes—an initiative Sudan has endorsed in principle.

“This is Sudan’s sovereign right. The port remains under full Sudanese ownership. Responding favorably to Russia’s request within a mutually beneficial framework would align with the win-win model that governs relations between responsible states.”

Economic Power and Existing Agreements

Dr. Al-Faki pointed to Russia’s global economic stature—its GDP exceeds $4 trillion, ranking sixth globally—and its resilience despite Western sanctions.

“Despite economic contractions caused by sanctions in 2022, Russia’s technological and industrial capabilities remain robust,” he noted.

He recalled several important agreements already signed between the two countries:

* The application of Russian technology to convert petroleum gases into liquid fuels—a unique innovation that could transform Sudan’s energy sector;

* Agreements for gold and mineral exploration;

* Aerial mapping projects covering both land and sea;

* The importation of advanced bakery technology enables bread production from flour blends of wheat and corn.

Priority Areas for Future Cooperation

1. Advanced Military Technology

“Sudan stands to benefit significantly from cutting-edge Russian military systems,” Dr. Al-Faki stated.

“This includes the T-90A main battle tank, equipped with Kontakt-5 reactive armor and a countermeasures system capable of neutralizing TOW and Shtora-1 missiles. Also of interest are the TOS-1 Buratino 220 mm rocket launchers and the 152 mm 2A65 Msta-B howitzers—both advanced and cleared for export.”

2. Satellite Navigation: GLONASS and AeroGLONASS

Russia has proposed Sudan’s integration into the GLONASS satellite navigation system and its AeroGlonass applications. This presents a critical opportunity for Sudan to establish a national rapid-response system, build integrated command and control platforms for its armed forces and police, and enhance resource monitoring and vehicle tracking.”

He further emphasized:

“GLONASS ranks second globally, behind the American GPS system and ahead of Europe’s Galileo and China’s BeiDou. Moreover, the U.S. GPS system is partially restricted for Sudan, making GLONASS a vital sovereign alternative.”

3. Grain Storage and Food Security: Gedaref and Port Sudan

“Food security is among the most urgent national priorities,” Dr. Al-Faki stressed.

“Sudan must modernize and expand its grain storage capacity. The major silos in Gedaref and Port Sudan—originally built by the Soviet Union in the 1960s—should be upgraded from their current capacity of 150,000 tons to 600,000 tons. In parallel, we must construct new silos capable of storing an additional one million tons.”

He added:

“This initiative is strategic on two levels: it strengthens Sudan’s food resilience and carries deep symbolic weight. Having Russia, the successor of the Soviet Union, lead the modernization of these silos reaffirms a historic partnership spanning generations.”

4. Expanding Trade Ties

“Trade between Sudan and Russia remains surprisingly limited—at just $110 million annually,” he noted.

“This figure is negligible compared to Russia’s $640 billion global exports. Given current tensions in Russia’s relations with the West, Sudan has a unique opportunity to expand its agricultural exports to Russia, especially in meat, vegetables, and fruits.”

Strategic Imperative: A Window Sudan Must Not Miss

Dr. Al-Faki concluded with a decisive call to action:

“This is the time to act. A strategic partnership with Russia—grounded in mutual respect and shared interests—could redefine Sudan’s regional posture, economic resilience, and technological advancement. We must not allow this historic window to close.”

Conclusion: Sudan and Russia — Sovereign Pivot, Strategic Realignment, or Diplomatic Calculus?

This exclusive interview transcends protocol—it delineates the contours of an emerging Sudan–Russia axis forged in the crucible of armed conflict, contested sovereignty, and recalibrated global alignments. From the shadow of Wagner to the foundations of enduring military and economic engagement, Sudan’s evolving partnership with Moscow reflects a deliberate recalibration of national strategy.

In a moment defined by the erosion of unipolar certainties and the reconfiguration of global influence, Khartoum’s pivot toward Russia is neither incidental nor improvised—it is a sovereign exercise in geopolitical calculus. Whether this alliance crystallizes into a platform for autonomous development and regional ascendancy—or precipitates new asymmetries of power—will depend on the discipline, vision, and strategic maturity with which both states manage this convergence.

The opening is real, but it is not indefinite. What Sudan chooses to inscribe in this chapter—opportunity or entanglement—will shape not only its foreign policy trajectory but also the very integrity of its statehood in a rapidly fragmenting international order. The stakes are high, and so too is the promise.