Full Analysis Summary
Government returns to Khartoum
Sudan’s government has formally returned to Khartoum after nearly three years of operating from Port Sudan following the outbreak of war with the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in April 2023.
Officials, including Prime Minister Kamil/Kamel Idris, described the move as a turning point and dubbed the administration the Government of Hope, pledging to rebuild services and institutions as the capital begins to tentatively re-open after the army retook the city last March.
Sources report the return as gradual, with cabinet meetings already held in Khartoum and public life restarting in some areas as security allows.
Coverage Differences
Tone and emphasis
West Asian outlets (Anadolu Ajansı, TRT World, Arab News PK) foreground the official narrative and optimistic language from the prime minister about a ‘Government of Hope’ and rebuilding, while other sources (Xinhua, newscentraltv) emphasize the logistical and security aspects of the return and describe it as gradual. The variation reflects source focus: government statements and reconstruction promises versus reportage of the administrative and security timeline.
Government return to Khartoum
The return follows an exodus of central government bodies to Port Sudan in April 2023 amid fierce fighting that caused widescale damage to institutions and services.
Reports say the Sovereign Council, the Council of Ministers and several ministries were moved as security deteriorated.
The army later declared Khartoum State cleared of RSF forces in May 2025, enabling a cautious restoration of public life.
International and local reporting stresses the scale of destruction and displacement: tens of thousands killed, millions displaced, and government buildings and public services left in ruins.
Coverage Differences
Narrative detail and casualty framing
Xinhua presents the sequence as a deterioration of security that led to relocation and later a declaration that Khartoum State was cleared, emphasizing institutional impacts; Al Jazeera and newscentraltv emphasize humanitarian consequences—displacement numbers and scenes of devastation—while Middle East Eye highlights accusations of mass atrocities and even genocide attributed to the RSF. These differences result from source selection of official timeline (Xinhua) versus humanitarian and rights-focused reporting (Al Jazeera, newscentraltv, Middle East Eye).
Khartoum and Darfur crisis
Despite reports of relative calm in parts of Khartoum, humanitarian and security challenges remain acute.
UN teams found el-Fasher in North Darfur largely deserted and described it as a "crime scene."
Survivors report ethnically motivated killings and mass detentions.
The RSF has continued drone strikes targeting infrastructure.
Large numbers have returned to Khartoum since the army retook the city, but returnees frequently encountered destroyed homes and barely functioning services.
Returnees also found makeshift graves that authorities are now exhuming, and the full death toll in the capital remains unknown.
Coverage Differences
Severity and rights language
Al Jazeera and Middle East Eye emphasize severe rights violations and use strong language—‘crime scene’ (UN teams) and accusations of ‘genocide’—whereas West Asian outlets (TRT World, Anadolu) report the same problems but frame them alongside government pledges to rehabilitate services, reflecting different emphases: humanitarian/legal condemnation versus reconstruction-focused reporting.
Territorial control reporting
The geography of control and the contested nature of claims remain central to reporting, with outlets noting the RSF's advances in Darfur and Kordofan and the SAF's counterclaims of battlefield successes that are sometimes unverified.
Al Jazeera reproduces SAF claims that air and ground operations destroyed about 240 combat vehicles, killed hundreds of RSF fighters and drove RSF forces from wide areas, but it notes the RSF did not immediately respond and the claims could not be independently verified.
Middle East Eye highlights allegations of RSF backing by foreign states and accuses the RSF of controlling five Darfur states, underscoring divergent emphases between investigative and rights-oriented reporting and state-focused or reconstruction narratives.
Coverage Differences
Claims verification and external involvement
Al Jazeera reports SAF battlefield claims while noting lack of independent verification and RSF non-response; Middle East Eye adds allegations of foreign backing for RSF and accusations of genocide, introducing an international-implication narrative that some West Asian mainstream sources do not emphasize. This produces differences in how responsibility and external factors are presented.