Full Analysis Summary
Recapture of Kadugli
Sudanese army forces say they entered Kadugli, the capital of South Kordofan, on February 3, 2026, claiming to have broken a siege by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) that had lasted more than two years after heavy fighting on the city’s outskirts and along the Dilling–Kadugli road.
Multiple reports relay the army’s account that troops manoeuvred around defensive positions before moving into the centre and that the advance followed days of intense clashes with RSF and allied militia, with the military claiming to have inflicted heavy losses on the besiegers.
The operation is reported as part of the broader nearly three-year war that began in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF and their local allies.
Coverage Differences
Narrative emphasis
Some sources foreground the army’s operational claims and battlefield details, often citing anonymous military sources, while others emphasise the humanitarian consequences of the siege and cite UN findings. For example, Dabanga (Other) reports that troops “manoeuvred around defensive positions north of the city before moving into the centre,” while TRT World (West Asian) notes the army’s claims via AFP and that “the UN confirmed a famine last year,” and Al-Jazeera (West Asian) stresses the siege’s duration and heavy losses reported by military sources. These differences reflect source selection: local/other outlets tend to carry granular military descriptions, while West Asian outlets mix operational reporting with humanitarian context.
Source attribution
Some outlets explicitly attribute claims to anonymous army or AFP sources (TRT World, EWN), while others present the army statements more directly (Dabanga, Newsday). This influences how readers view the assertions about inflicted losses and the scale of the victory.
Army advance and road reopening
The army’s advance is reported as a continuation of recent operations that also relieved Dilling in late January.
Some outlets say government forces moved roughly 100 km from Dilling to Kadugli and reopened the key Kadugli-Dilling road.
Reports describe fighting along the main road, with government statements framing the action as decisive.
The army called it a campaign that routed the RSF and allied militia on the Dilling-Kadugli road and said it reopened access between the towns after heavy battles.
Videos and statements from military leaders accompanied the announcement, while the RSF did not immediately comment in several accounts.
Coverage Differences
Tone and phrasing
Western Alternative and Local Western outlets often reproduce more emphatic, celebratory army language (for example, Newsday’s and thenationalnews’s use of “heroic battle”), whereas West Asian reporting (TRT World, Al-Jazeera) tends to attribute strong claims to AFP and anonymous military sources and presents operational detail alongside cautionary context. This affects tone: some pieces read like direct military communiqués, others like attributed reportage.
Detail emphasis
Some sources emphasize movement and tactics (Dabanga’s description of manoeuvres around defensive positions), while others highlight logistics and strategic gains such as disruption of RSF supply lines (thenationalnews reports Reuters’ suggestion about Libyan supply lines). Those differences show local military detail vs. broader strategic analysis.
Siege impact and relief prospects
Humanitarian reporting across outlets stresses the severe impact of the siege.
Multiple sources note that the UN confirmed famine conditions in Kadugli last year.
Thousands were forced to flee toward the White Nile and Al‑Ubayyid.
Coverage links the lifting of the siege to the possibility of relief for civilians who endured months of scarcity and displacement.
Some pieces estimate large proportions of the town’s prewar population fled and warn many remain at risk of starvation.
Eyewitness material and videos of residents welcoming troops appear in some accounts, underlining the immediate civilian response as well as lingering humanitarian needs.
Coverage Differences
Humanitarian emphasis vs military emphasis
West Asian outlets (Al-Jazeera, TRT World) and EWN foreground the UN’s famine findings and the humanitarian crisis, while local and alternative Western outlets (thenationalnews, Newsday) combine those facts with reporting on population flight and the army’s narrative of relief. The net effect is that some pieces read as humanitarian updates and others as both humanitarian and military victory stories.
Quantitative emphasis
Some outlets stress percentages or population figures (thenationalnews cites UN figures on how many fled), while others focus on risk estimates and broad crisis metrics (EWN, Al-Jazeera). This produces variation in perceived scale and immediacy of relief the army’s advance might provide.
Kadugli operation context
Analysts and reports place the Kadugli operation within the wider war between army leader Gen. Abdel Fattah al‑Burhan and RSF commander Gen. Mohamed Dagalo, a conflict that has produced tens of thousands of deaths and displaced roughly 11 to 12 million people according to different outlets.
The front in South Kordofan is described as strategically important, forming a corridor between army-held areas and RSF-controlled Darfur.
Some outlets warn the fighting could shift back toward Darfur, risking further escalation and greater humanitarian suffering.
The army's reported gains in Kadugli and Dilling are therefore presented both as immediate tactical successes and as potentially consequential for the broader balance of control in Kordofan and Darfur.
Coverage Differences
Statistics and scale
Sources differ on displacement and death toll figures: EWN, TRT World and Al-Jazeera cite about 11 million displaced and "tens of thousands" killed, while thenationalnews puts displacement at "at least 12 million" and Newsday cites the U.N. figure of more than 40,000 killed. These numerical differences reflect different reporting choices and possibly different updates or rounding by outlets.
Strategic framing
West Asian and African outlets emphasise Kordofan’s strategic importance between army and RSF zones (Al-Jazeera, EWN), while Western Alternative sources extend the analysis to supply‑line factors and possible wider shifts toward Darfur (thenationalnews). The framing changes the suggested implications of the army’s advance.
Kadugli situation update
Uncertainty remains because several reports note the RSF had no immediate comment on the army's claims, and independent confirmation of battlefield losses and the longer-term security situation is limited.
Some outlets cite anonymous army or AFP sources for the breakthrough, while others foreground UN humanitarian findings or include local video and statements from military leaders.
Given those differences in sourcing and emphasis, the immediate picture is that the army reports a significant operational success and civilians may gain relief from months of siege and famine.
However, independent verification of all claims and the durability of the army's hold on Kadugli remain unclear.
Coverage Differences
Verification and sourcing
West Asian outlets (TRT World, Al-Jazeera) typically attribute the breakthrough to AFP and anonymous army sources, making clear the origin of claims, while Local Western and Western Alternative outlets (Newsday, thenationalnews) often present the army’s language more directly and include local reactions; this affects how definitively each outlet portrays the event. Multiple sources also state the RSF had no immediate comment, underlining the lack of a second-party confirmation.
Humanitarian verification
Humanitarian assertions (famine, displacement) are largely backed by UN references in West Asian and African reporting (TRT World, Al-Jazeera, EWN), while some local accounts emphasise immediate civilian reactions captured on video — together these produce a consistent humanitarian frame but still leave open questions about access for relief and sustained security.