Full Analysis Summary
Sudan military offensive plans
Sudan’s Armed Forces (SAF) are publicly stepping up preparations for a full-scale offensive to retake the Kordofan and Darfur regions from the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) as the civil war enters its third year.
Officials say the military has reassessed RSF capabilities, reorganized and redeployed formations, and is readying what it describes as a campaign more extensively planned than last year’s recapture of Khartoum.
Both Al Jazeera and iwcp.net report that the SAF has already conducted air and drone strikes and claims to have retaken some territory in Kordofan as part of these preparations.
Coverage Differences
Narrative emphasis
Al Jazeera (West Asian) frames the developments as active preparatory moves and describes specific military actions — including air and drone strikes and territory retaken — while iwcp.net (Other) largely echoes the SAF’s claims but frames them as part of a wider report citing Al Jazeera reporting from Khartoum. The two sources thus align on facts reported, but Al Jazeera’s piece presents more on-the-ground detail while iwcp.net emphasizes the SAF’s official statements and readiness posture.
Sudan military strikes update
SAF statements quoted by both outlets claim substantial battlefield effects from recent strikes.
The military says about 240 combat vehicles were destroyed, hundreds of RSF fighters killed, and ground forces have pushed RSF elements out of large areas.
Al Jazeera characterizes the air and drone strikes in both Kordofan and Darfur as apparent preparations for a wider offensive.
iwcp.net relays the SAF's assessment that many formations have been put on high readiness and troops repositioned across Kordofan ahead of a planned full-scale offensive described as more complex than March's recapture of Khartoum.
Coverage Differences
Tone and attribution
Al Jazeera (West Asian) reports the SAF’s claims and situates them as tactical moves that 'appear to be preparatory' — giving room for independent interpretation — whereas iwcp.net (Other) repeats the SAF’s language about force posture and complexity of the planned offensive, stressing the military’s own assessment. This shows Al Jazeera providing slightly more cautious framing, while iwcp.net emphasizes official SAF characterization.
Security gains versus skepticism
Officials point to local security gains.
Darfur’s governor said recent actions averted an RSF siege of North Kordofan’s capital, el-Obeid.
Al Jazeera notes residents are unconvinced and want visible RSF withdrawals before returning home.
iwcp.net similarly reports that despite official statements, people in Kordofan remain unconvinced about the safety and permanence of SAF gains.
Coverage Differences
Contradiction between official claims and local accounts
Both Al Jazeera (West Asian) and iwcp.net (Other) record the governor’s and military’s claims (for example, that an RSF siege was averted), but each also highlights civilian skepticism. The sources thus present an internal contradiction: officials assert tactical success and prevention of a siege, while residents demand visible RSF withdrawals before feeling safe — a gap both outlets emphasize.
SAF claims and reporting
Taken together, the two pieces present a consistent official narrative: the SAF says it has assessed RSF capabilities, placed formations on high readiness, repositioned troops, and prepared an operation described as more complex than last year's Khartoum campaign.
Both outlets report these claims largely as SAF statements and relay local doubt, leaving independent verification of battlefield assertions unclear.
Readers should note much reporting is drawn from SAF statements and Al Jazeera's field reporting cited by iwcp.net, and the true extent of territorial control or RSF losses remains ambiguous.
Coverage Differences
Omission / verification
iwcp.net (Other) leans on the SAF’s official phrasing about readiness and complexity and cites Al Jazeera reporting from Khartoum, while Al Jazeera (West Asian) not only reports SAF claims but situates them alongside on-the-ground observations and civilian reaction. Both, however, stop short of independent verification of the SAF’s casualty and equipment claims — an omission that leaves the factual picture uncertain.