UAE: Shady Role and Western Indifference

The Price of Indifference: El-Fasher's Fall and the West's Balance Sheet

The fall of el-Fasher on October 26th wasn't just a battlefield defeat; it was a ledger entry. The estimated death toll of "several thousand civilian lives" – a number that, let's be honest, will likely be revised upwards as the dust settles – represents a cost, and the UN Security Council's "grave concern" is, frankly, an underperforming asset.

The EU's pledge to use "all our diplomatic tools, including restrictive measures" sounds like a robust strategy. But what's the ROI on diplomatic tools when facing the barrel of a gun? Kholood Khair, the Sudanese analyst, hit the nail on the head: "Western countries issue condemnation after condemnation, but do nothing." It’s a classic case of moral hazard – all the downside, none of the upside.

The article doesn't specify which Western countries are being so feckless, or what the diplomatic tools are comprised of. But I can guess.

The UAE's Investment in Instability

The real story here, as the title suggests, is the UAE's "shady role." The article doesn't go into detail (subscriber-only content, naturally), but the implication is clear: the UAE is backing the RSF. Why? That's the million-dollar question, or perhaps the several-billion-dollar question, given the scale of geopolitical maneuvering. Is it about resources? Influence? A proxy war with another regional power? Details remain scarce, but the effects are not.

I've looked at enough financial statements to know that when revenue streams are murky, you need to follow the money. In this case, the money likely flows through shell corporations and opaque investment vehicles, making it difficult to trace directly. The article mentions General Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, known as "Hemedti." He's the key player here – the one calling the shots on the ground. He's the CEO of this particular brand of chaos.

And here's the part that I find genuinely puzzling. The West knows this. They have to know this. So why the "culpable indifference"? Sudan: The UAE's shady role and Western nations' 'culpable indifference'. Are they afraid of upsetting the UAE? Are there strategic considerations at play that outweigh the humanitarian cost? (The cost being several thousand lives, and counting). The silence is deafening.

Buying Time, Selling Souls

The West's response (or lack thereof) is a calculated risk. They're betting that the situation in Sudan won't spiral out of control to the point where it directly threatens their interests. It's a gamble, and the stakes are human lives. It's like a hedge fund manager who knows a stock is toxic but holds onto it anyway, hoping to offload it before the crash.

Are there any good guys in this scenario? I'm not seeing them in the data. Just different shades of gray, each with their own agenda and their own price.

The West's Moral Bankruptcy