Read on Twitter
1/ Recent foreign policy moves by bifurcated Sudanese government show there is a 'moral hazard' at play both domestically and internationally where the civilian part of the government assumes all the risk, whether or not they design/own said foreign policy
2/ On the Russian naval base, a deal that can only serve the military part of the government, the civilian government will earn the ire of the US - which has yet to show #Sudan value in banking on it's bureaucratic processes on SST rescission
3/ On normalisation with Israel quid pro quo for SST rescission, Burhan had (not so discreetly) met with Netanyahu and kick started the process, but it was Hamdok who got the blame for pursuing the rescission deal. Civilian government is in an unenviable place
4/ In the absence of a unified foreign policy, there is therefore little to no incentive for the military to consult or align its foreign policy with the civilian side. But, despite the power dynamic between the 2 sides, what would a big-picture unified foreign policy look like?
#Sudan doesn't have the luxury of choosing sides + with v many internal competing interests, they wouldn't have to. On Russian naval base: a better deal could be struck for Sudan, where any *public* interest is reflected. On SST, get new pals Israel to lobby US on Sudan's behalf
