Welcome back to Global Insider’s Friday feature: The Conversation. Each week a POLITICO journalist will share an interview with a global thinker, politician, power player or personality. This week, POLITICO’s Ari Hawkins talks to the former Sudanese ambassador to the U.S. Nureldin Mohamed Hamed Satti, about prospects for stability in his country.

Follow Ari on Twitter | Send ideas and insights to [email protected]

Sudan’s army and rival paramilitary force are facing mounting international pressure to commit to a cease-fire amid the seventh day of vicious fighting that has killed at least 400 people.

The conflict centers Gen. ABDEL-FATTAH BURHAN, the country’s de facto leader and head of the Sudanese military against Gen. MOHAMED HAMDAN DAGALO, who leads the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. The RSF said it agreed to a temporary cease-fire Friday morning, which would allow people to gather for Eid, the Muslim holiday that marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan. But Burhan did not mention the potential ceasefire in his first public remarks amid the conflict.

Sudan has spent the last week battling for control over strategic sites like airports and Sudan’s defense headquarters. U.S. Secretary of State ANTONY BLINKEN spoke with both generals on Thursday to push for a 72-hour ceasefire. U.N. chief ANTÓNIO GUTERRES also called for a three-day halt to fighting.

Burhan and Dagalo worked together to seize control of the country in a 2021 military coup that derailed a democratic transition. In December, the military and the RSF signed a preliminary deal to restart the process to establish a democratic government and integrate their forces. That’s now devolved into a bloody power struggle between their two camps.

On Tuesday, just as an earlier attempt at a ceasefire was beginning to crumble, I spoke to NURELDIN MOHAMED HAMED SATTI, who served as Khartoum’s ambassador to Washington under the transitional government, to understand the dynamics and whether there’s a path to stability in Sudan. Satti, who was forced to resign his ambassadorship when Burhan and Dagalo seized control, has also served as a U.N. senior official and worked in conflict resolution across the Middle East and Africa. He’s currently at the Wilson Center’s Africa Program as a Global Fellow.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How likely is it that Sudan will slip into a full-blown civil war? Is there a diplomatic solution?

It’s quite likely that Sudan will descend into chaos and complete lawlessness. The ingredients are there. Both sides are adamant to continue this war to the finish. They do not seem to be compromising. They are continuing the fight, and are bringing in new elements and forces for battle, especially over strategic positions in the capital

Since many of the Rapid Support Forces have infiltrated residential areas, the army resorted to bombing and shilling those areas, which is unthinkable, including using the air force. You can imagine, this is where my own family is living, and they are surrounded by all kinds of shelling and bombing. Some of them have had to abandon their residences and move to other cities.

What can the U.S. do? Do Western nations have any leverage to stop the fighting?

The U.S. played an important role in negotiating a humanitarian pause and opening safe corridors for humanitarian purposes. And it has helped partially, and is useful in the sense that some hospitals that were lacking supplies, started getting them, and things like that. Of course, this is not enough.

The leverage is really the crux of the matter. In such situations, leverage can be built as collective action. I think building the basis for a consensus on what needs to be done from the international community, which includes the U.S. and of course the U.N., humanitarian NGOs, the African Union, the European Union and other partners from the region.

There are some that can play a diplomatic role, there are those who can play a political role, and there are those who can have a direct impact in the region because they share some direct link.

What have your interactions with the rival generals been like? Is there an example of an interaction that’s telling about how they operate or their intentions?

My interactions with them come from when I was a member of the High Council for Peace. Even at that time, I noted that they were too carried away with their feeling of power. They were intransigent about a certain number of things. For example, General Hemeti [Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo] insisted he lead the talks with armed groups in Juba. He was not qualified to do that and should not have been allowed. General Burhan insisted he play the role of head of state while he was supposed to be the head of a nominal sovereign council.

Their behavior, even at that time, showed that they were not going to let the civilians rule. My own impression from dealing with them is that they never had the intention of relinquishing power. And they always wanted to continue to stick to power and allow others to play only a nominal or symbolic role in government, making sure they keep the reins to themselves.

The 2021 military coup forced your resignation. What’s your take on how Burhan and Dagalo have ruled since then?

The government has failed to rule since that time. Since day one, we expected them to fail, and they failed miserably to govern the country and manage political, financial and social affairs, because they are not qualified to rule. They went against the will of the people, and hijacked Sudan at that time when the country was bracing itself for real democratic change. They staged that coup to stop that process.

Is there any hope in persuading the two generals to transfer power to a civilian led government?

This is going to be very difficult because each side imagines themselves winning the war and imposing their conditions with a full grip on power. They would like to have some relations, create some space for the civilians, but it depends how. The two sides have their own preferences about how the civilians are going to pick and choose a side, and who is going to support them. This will result in a skewed relationship between the military and the civilians.

We’re going back to the days when the military are calling the shots and the civilians are just following them, in many cases blindly. So the possibility of going back to civilian rule is very limited to my mind, but I still say it can be done, and it depends on pressure from the international and regional communities on one side, and the determination of the people of Sudan.

How do you expect this conflict to affect Sudan’s relationship with other countries?

Sudan will now be seen as a dangerous player in the region, an unstable country, not a country to work with and it will take a long time to regain that confidence and support.

Is there a ceasefire in sight?

This is not easy to respond to, for the simple reason that the two sides are deeply entrenched. They seem to want to fight it to the finish. And each of them think that they’re going to prevail. But I still think a ceasefire is possible if we apply the right kind of pressure and if we see to it that this pressure is effective, and to make it effective, there has to be a very strong message sent to the two sides.

We have been talking about sanctions for quite some time now. And there is a debate whether they’re going to be useful. But in my mind of course, one thing that should be done — and which has been considered for a very long time — is following the money, and monitoring who is getting access to weapons from outside the country. We need to think about how this can be monitored in a way to stop the supply for the war.

What else is important for us to know about the conflict?

The humanitarian situation is drastic. But there is a new trend in the fighting that we have never known in the history of Sudan. That is the targeting of foreign nationals, and this is really the most dangerous development. Some of the ambassadors’ residences have been ransacked, the humanitarian coordinator of the European Union was shot in the back, and many NGOs’ headquarters and offices have been looted. There seems to be an intention to scare away the international community from Sudan.

This is to make sure the field will be open for some forces to do whatever they want with all impunity. To me, there are two culprits to this. One of them is the remnants of the former regime, who would like to do away with any foreign any oversight. The other is the undisciplined and unruly elements of the Rapid Support Forces, which have had the habit for many years to do many things with impunity.

Thanks to editor Heidi Vogt and producer Andrew Howard.

SUBSCRIBE to the POLITICO newsletter family: D.C. Playbook | Brussels Playbook | London Playbook | Paris Playbook | Ottawa Playbook | EU Confidential | D.C. Influence | EU Influence | London Influence | Digital Bridge | U.S. China Watcher | Berlin Bulletin