Sudan – and gold
Gold is currently selling at $4,038.05 an ounce. It has increased in value 121 percent in under five years.
It is also financing a civil war in Sudan which, according to the UN, has killed 150,000 civilians, displaced 25 million people and left 30 million facing acute hunger.
The two main Sudanese warring parties — the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) — now rely heavily on gold as a source of income.
In 2024, gold production reportedly generated $1.7bn for Sudan via official channels. But then there are the unofficial channels, and, according to a UN Sanctions Committee Report, illicit smuggled gold is worth many times more than that which leaves the country through legal official channels.
The conflict over gold isn’t just a domestic issue. It is tied into a regional ecosystem with armed Sudanese actors with both camps connected to smugglers, refineries and foreign governments. All of which allows the two armies to convert gold into cash to buy weapons, fuel, food and other war needs.
Gold is the ideal money source for Sudan’s warring parties. For a start, Sudan has a lot of it. It is in the world’s top five for gold production. And geologists reckon that because conflict has prevented full exploration, there could be a lot more glitzy minerals in the Sudanese hills.
Next, it is relatively easy to mine, especially if you have no compunction about using environmentally dangerous and toxic mercury. The Sudanese warlords are not known for their green credentials.
Then, there is the fact that it is easily transportable. You can melt it down and mould into any easily smuggable shape, paint it black and carry it out to the gold markets where there is a constant and strong demand which means that the gold can be quickly converted into cash.
The biggest market is Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. The Dubai Gold Souk has been a major gold trading hub for centuries. In addition to the traditional souk with its hundreds of bullion shops there is a major free trade zone known as the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre. There is also a major gold refinery—Emirates Gold. In 2024 $186 billion in gold passed through the UAE.
More than 97 percent of Sudan’s gold is sold on the Dubai markets after being smuggled out through Egypt or Chad. Some of it is perfectly legal—about $1.52 billion. Just how much is illegal can be guessed at, but Swissaid, which monitors gold transfers, reckons that 60 tonnes of illegal smuggled gold is sold in Dubai. This could be worth up to $7 billion.
The UAE authorities say they follow OECD Due Diligence Regulations for Responsible Mineral Sourcing to ensure that the gold that they sell is coming from legitimate sources and is not being used to fund war. But this is challenged by Swissaid, Chatham House and the Financial Action Task Force, which was set up to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.
If the UAE authorities can be persuaded to stop the flow of illicit gold then it will sever the pipeline which is financing the fighting in Sudan and—hopefully—lead to its end.
Ukraine
Details of Trump’s latest peace plan for Ukraine are starting to leak out. The plan basically calls for Ukraine’s surrender.
Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk would be “recognized as de facto Russian, including by the United States.”
“Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact,” the proposal states. “Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions.”
The proposal also states: “It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and NATO will not expand further.”
Trump’s proposal caps the Ukrainian military at 60,000 men and requires Ukraine to amend its constitution to prohibit it from joining NATO. It can, however, join the EU. “The Ukrainian forces,” says the plan, “will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarised buffer zone, internationally recognised as territory belonging to the Russian Federation…but Russian forces will not enter the demilitarised zone.”
The proposal refers to unspecified “security guarantees” by the US and provides Ukraine with compensation of $100 billion from frozen Russian assets. Russia would be allowed to re-join the Group of Seven which would again become the Group of Eight. Children who were forcibly taken from Ukraine would be returned.
The electricity which is produced by the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant—the largest in Europe—would be split with Russia.
Elections would be held in Ukraine within 100 days of the agreement being signed. They have been suspended because of martial law.
The proposal says that “after agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.
It concludes that if Russia reinvades Ukraine global sanctions would be reinstated and “recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked.”
Russia
The recent clash between an RAF jet and a Russian research vessel is just another incident in Russia’s undeclared shadow hybrid war against NATO.
It involves sabotage, shadow fleets, drones, disinformation, election interference and cyber-attacks.
The Russian ship which was in UK waters this week—the Yantar—was believed to be mapping undersea cables that carry power and data. There are 152 operational submarine cables that land in the UK and Western Europe. Three more are in the planning stages.
The power cables carry enough electricity to power all of Spain and several smaller European countries. The data cables carry internet traffic and financial data worth $10 trillion daily.
The Yantar was mapping the routes and exactly locations of cables between the UK and the continent so that they could be cut at some future date.
The possibility of cut cables is not hypothetical. In December 2024 the Russian oil tanker Eagle S dragged its anchor for 60 miles along the floor of the Baltic Sea and severed four telecoms cables and the Estlink2 power cable between Estonia and Finland. The tanker was boarded and taken into custody where it was found to also be loaded with spy equipment.
In September of this year 19-23 drones entered Polish airspace. Four were shot down. Poland invoked Article 4 of the NATO treaty which calls for consultations. NATO concluded that the drones were probably testing NATO defences and decided to beef up Polish air defences with a system dubbed “Operation Eastern Sentry.”
Poland is not the only country to have its airspace invaded. In July Lithuania reported that a drone carrying an explosive entered its airspace from Belarus. And last month drones disrupted air traffic over military and civilian airports in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Germany.
Russian cyberattacks are a constant problem. According to Microsoft’s analysis, Russian cyber-attacks on NATO member states increased by 25 percent in 2025 Most of the attacks are coordinated by a Russian military intelligence unit called GRU Unit 29155.
There are also other groups which are known to have links to the Kremlin. These include “Cybervolk” which has claimed responsibility for 120 attacks against government offices, defense contractors and critical infrastructure operators. There is also a group called NoName057 (16) which conducted cyberattacks during a NATO summit. And XakNet which erased data from backup servers in Poland used by the Ukrainian military.
There are numerous case of election interference. They include outright vote-buying in Moldova and a GRU-organised disinformation campaign during the German election campaign. This claimed that the SPD and CDU were planning to send 500,000 German troops to Ukraine and bring 1.7 million Kenyans into Germany.
It is difficult to definitively link Russia to all of these and many other incidents. The Kremlin is conducting a “Shadow War” which is ambiguous and designed to provide deniability. But as Sherlock Holmes said in the “Sign of Four”: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
paul barker
Peter Chambers
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
Geoff Reid
29 Comments
Forgive me pointing out a significant typo – the 28-point pease plan calls for a 600,000 cap on the Ukrainian military rather than 60,000. While this figure is a cut on its current military strength, it would still be the second largest military in Europe.
As for the plan itself, it will lead now-where: Europe will persuade the USA to make changes to disadvantage Ukraine less and Russia will refuse to agree. Sadly, if Russia continues to advance on the battlefield at the current rate, the next peace plan will offer even harder terms for Ukraine to accept.
“There is a fantasy that if we just give more money, more weapons, or more sanctions, victory is at hand. Peace won’t be made by failed diplomats or politicians living in a fantasy land. It might be made by smart people living in the real world”
JD Vance on the latest Russian/Ukraine deal.
@Jenny Smith “pease” plan? Or should that be “appease plan”. Trump is clearly trying for the Chamberlain Appease Prize.
@Greg Hyde: There is a fantasy, among people like Vance, that giving in to Russia will lead to a lasting peace. We’ve seen this before, in Munich in 1938. It didn’t work then and it wouldn’t work now. People were saying the same sort of thing about Czechoslovakia, that it would have to accept the terms of the Munich agreement or get a worse deal later. We know what happened: they got the worse deal anyway as the Nazis marched into the rest of Czechoslovakia.
Putin is not concerned about his country’s losses. He has said his aim is to restore Russia to top table status whatsoever the cost. The war in Ukraine is the main front in his expansion plan but also Iran,the Baltic states,west Africa are also in his plan.
@ Alex Macfie I’m no fan of Neville Chamberlain, Alex, but I’m afraid you missed an important fact…….. that his policy bought time which enabled Britain to re-arm in order to face the increasing German threat.
Starting in 1934, under Macdonald, and later Baldwin, as PM (Chamberlain was Chancellor), the government initiated a series of expansion plans (schemes A to M) to match Germany’s growing air power. The number of squadrons increased from 42 to 157, and the number of aircraft increased from approximately 800 in 1934 to 3,700 in 1939. Many new airfields were constructed in the south and east of the country throughout the UK.
The RAF didn’t just increase the number of squadrons. It commissioned new more effective aircraft like the Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane, developed a new radar and Dowding System for defence, and dramatically improved training for both air and ground crews.
@Alex Macfie
Quite clever to pick up on my difficulties with spelling as a way of making your point. (I take no offence as you had no reason to know that I have dyslexia.) However, it is easy to suggest that any ‘peace’ plan that does not lead to Russia withdrawing to its 1991 borders, paying war reparations , and facing war crimes trials, is ‘appeasement’. It is also easy to insist that Ukrainians should continue to fight and die in a war they are gradually losing, rather than agree to a negotiated peace agreement, when it is not members of our families who are doing the fighting and paying the price with their blood.
Trump may be trying to find a way of ending the war due his selfish goal of gaining the Peace Prize, but if succeeds and ends the death and destruction, I will be absolutely delighted. I reject the idea that preferring to see the war ended by negotiation rather than by Russia grinding Ukraine down to an eventual defeat, is ‘appeasement’.
There seems to be a false assumption that Ukraine faces a binary choice of either this deal, or more war.
In reality, with greater commitment and resolve, particularly by the US when it comes to implementing sanctions, Russia could certainly be obliged to accept much less. The deal on the table gives Putin almost everything he wants, provides business opportunities for the US, but amounts to capitulation by Ukraine who are the only ones being asked to give up anything.
It’s difficult to imagine any US President other than Trump supporting a deal like this, and his administration clearly hasn’t been representing Ukraine’s interests at the negotiating table (if it even qualifies as a “negotiation”).
Thank you for the timely reminder about the appalling situation in Sudan. It’s disappointing and somewhat concerning that whilst the media, politicians and celebrities continuously draw attention to what’s happening in Gaza and Ukraine, Sudan (and other conflicts in Africa) hardly get a mention. Yet, the death, displacement and destruction in Sudan is worse than the other two. Doesn’t Africa matter any more? Can anyone help me to understand why there is this disparity?
@Jenny Smith: No I didn’t know, sorry about that. But yes, any “peace plan” that does not does not lead to Russia withdrawing to its 1991 borders, etc, WOULD BE appeasement. As for the idea that Ukraine is “gradually losing” the war, don’t forget that Putin originally thought it would be over in a few weeks, with Ukraine being forced to capitulate on the sort of terms that Trump has “negotiated” with Putin with Ukraine not in the room.
Would you also have preferred WW2
to have ended with “negotiation” as well?
Trump’s “peace” plan will not lead to peace: rewarding the aggressor never does. Give it 2 years max, then Putin would invade another neighbouring country (probably in the Baltics) on some flimsy pretext and then there would be full-scale war in Europe (when did that last happen?). It is not intended to bring about peace, it is a stitch-up between an actual tyrant and a wannable tyrant who admires him. Trump will not win the Nobel Peace Prize because he hasn’t done anything to achieve lasting peace anywhere, whatever imaginary wars he claims to have ended. Besides, the Nobel committee takes a very dim view of people “campaigning” for any of its prizes. The more he claims he “deserves” it, the less likely he is to be in the running for it.
2021 – 23 June – BBC continues: ‘HMS Defender is part of the Carrier Strike Force, spearheaded by the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. It peeled off earlier this month to make this Black Sea visit while the rest of the force exercised in the Mediterranean.’
2021 – 21 June – on board HMS Defender the UK and Ukraine signed a naval cooperation agreement for the UK to construct a base on the Sea of Azov. (Which is surrounded by Russia and Russian-occupied land. The probable site for the base was Mariupol.)
2021 – 23 June – Boris Johnson sent HMS Defender through Crimean waters to demonstrate the West’s refusal to recognise Russian sovereignty. (Russians have been the main ethnic group with their lowest point in the 2001 census, showing 60% Russian, 24% Ukrainian and 16% other.)
2021 – 12 July – Putin responding argued for the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians. The article signalled a change in Putin’s thinking.
2021 – 17 December – Russia massed troops near Ukraine’s borders and issued demands to the West including a ban on Ukraine ever joining the NATO military alliance.
2022 – 24 February – Russia attacked Ukraine
2022 – 24 February – Russia starts 3-month long siege of Mariupol.
2022 – 17 August – Mail Online: ‘The Pope declares the war in Ukraine is driven by the interests of several ’empires’ and not just Russia and that the war was’ perhaps in some way provoked’ by NATO.
https://freedombooksandplays.com/ukraine.html
Has it occurred to anyone else that Trump’s “peace” plan for Ukraine is exactly the response he would hope for after an armed US occupation of Canada and Greenland ?
To all those posting against the terms in the 28 point plan, do you honestly believe that Ukraine will be in a stronger position a year from now if it chooses to fight on? Most of the analysis I read suggests that at current rate of advance, Russia will likely capture the entirety of the Donbas, possibly the city of Zaporizhzhia and a significant amount of territory in the Kharkiv oblast. If that turns out to be accurate Russia may well be willing to agree to freeze the frontlines – something the West is demanding now – but will have control of more territory than suggested in the draft 28 point plan. So, I repeat the question – who posting against the draft 28 point plan genuinely believes that Ukraine will end up in a stronger position militarily if it chooses to fight on rather than agree a deal now?
Despite what we hear from Putin’s supporters it’s unlikely Russia can sustain the years of effort it would require to fully occupy the Donbas at the current glacial pace of advance.
This isn’t a peace plan. It is part of a Russian military strategy. The goal is to consolidate gains, regroup forces, and dismantle key Ukrainian defensive positions in Donetsk Oblast. This would create favourable conditions for renewed offensives into southern Kharkiv Oblast and the eastern portions of Zaporizhzhia and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts, potentially opening new axes of attack while Ukrainian forces remain fixed in place.
@ jenny smith
A prisoner condemned to death asked the King to give him a year to teach the King’s horse to sing hymns. The King agreed. One of his fellow prisoners said “You’re mad. You will never teach the horse to sing.” He replied ” Well, in a year, much may happen. The King might die. I might die. And who knows, maybe the horse will learn to sing”
@Jenny Smith – that very much depends. With adequate support, including more economic pressure from the US, then Ukraine could be in a stronger position a year from now.
The Russian advance is glacial and expensive in Russian lives. Their economy is struggling and vulnerable.
A question for you – if Ukraine accepts the deal in it’s current form, will the Europe collectively be more or less secure in say 3 years time?
@Nick Baird
A fair question. My view is that if the alternative to a deal being reached now is that Russia will be in a stronger position a year from now, it is in Europe’s interests to have a deal done now. A stronger Russian negotiating position a year from now would certainly not be in Europe’s interests.
Of course, if you believe that Russia will not be able to continue to advance for the next year, or may even be forced to retreat/implode politically, then fighting on makes more sense.
Sadly, the Russian economy has proved far more robust in the face of international sanctions than expected, and Russia is replenishing the ranks of its soldiers at the rate of its losses without having to introduce forced conscription, so I see no evidence to suggest that Russia will be unable to maintain its current tempo of advances for at least the next year.
@ Jenny Smith. Sorry, Jenny, but as I understand it Russia does have conscription for men aged 18 – 30.
@Jenny Smith: what you don’t get is that Russia can’t be trusted to keep its side of any deal. Give Putin an inch, he’ll take a mile. Cede any Ukrainian territory to Russia, and its army will soon march into Kyiv to claim the rest. And Ukraine won’t be able to stop the Russian army because its defences will have been hobbled as per the agreement. But it wouldn’t matter anyway because Putin will have installed a puppet regime in what’s left of Ukraine, We saw this after the Munich agreement with Czechoslovakia. And it won’t be long before Putin has his sights on other ex-Soviet countries, including NATO members.
From the point of view of Ukraine, its army might as well continue fighting because if it surrenders to an appeasement deal it won’t exist anyway. Appeasement doesn’t stop aggressors, it emboldens them.
Those who are against the Trump proposal need to explain how you get to Ukraine’s negotiating position – which looks almost impossible. It’s barely holding a line at huge costs three years on from it’s spring offensive despite hundreds of billions being spent on some of the West’s best artillery and tanks – many of which end up as burning hulks in Donbas. It’s only the West’s air defence systems that is saving Ukraine from catastrophic losses…
@Greg Hyde: It’s not just about Ukraine, it’s about the security of all of Europe in the face of a tyrant who wants to recreate the old Soviet Union. That is why western powers are involved. The Trump proposal is essentially about appeasement. Do you and @Jenny Smith seriously believe that Putin will hold to his side of the bargain? O(f course he won’t. One thing that the war is doing is keeping the Russian army busy. What’ll happen if the Trump proposal is ratified is that there’ll be a superficial “peace” for maybe a few months. During that time the Russian army will have some breathing space to regroup and rebuild, while Ukraine will be banned from doing the same. So when Russian tanks roll into what’s left of Ukraine, there’ll be nothing to stop them. And Putin will look at taking Moldova, then the Baltic states, maybe even Finland. For the sake of Europe’s security Putin has to be defeated.
Alex ….Then you need to explain how Ukraine is going to get to it’s stated aim – which you’ve reiterated and thats the borders of 1991.
It’s utter fantasy to think it can roll back that Russian advance all the way to the Crimea.
Three years in from the much heralded spring offensive it’s barely holding a line at huge costs. Hopefully Trumps proposal will end that utter fantasy.
Trunp is quite right Ukraine does not have the cards,,,
What he conveniently chooses to ignore that he?the USA DOES HAVE THE CARDS! He refuses to play them as he wants eventually to join the Dictators Club that Putin is a part of.
@David Raw
“ Sorry, Jenny, but as I understand it Russia does have conscription for men aged 18 – 30.”
Since 2008, Russian men have had to do a year of National Service – it was even longer before that. Though conscription for national service has continued since the invasion of Ukraine, these conscripts have not been sent to fight in Ukraine itself – only contracted soldiers do that – they do man positions within the Russian Federation (which frees up contracted soldiers) and some did get involved in fighting when Ukraine invaded the Kursk region of Russia.
Tom Arms started his review with a report about Sudan. The fact that no one has reflected on that or respondrd to the point I raised rather proves my point!
@Jenny Smith @David Raw – Russia has avoided conscription to the front lines by paying large signing-on bonuses to volunteers, which were over 2 million rubles in some regions recently. However these are getting unaffordable and it is likely to prove harder for Russia to maintain the flow of volunteers without conscription if the war continues.
Greg Hyde: Only when you explain why you think Putin’s fantasy of a Greater Russia will end with the Trump appease plan. This piece of paper is Putin’s Christmas wish-list fulfilled, but it will not stop there, it is a mere stepping stone towards Russian occupation of the whole of Ukraine.
@Richard Cripps
Apologies for not responding to your valid point. My answer would be that I, personally, have more interest and concern about what is happening in Ukraine because I believe that conflict has immediate threat to the security of Europe, and a danger of escalation towards nuclear conflict, that the terrible situation in Sudan does not have. As for Gaza, I feel that our government – whatever party wins power – is responsible for what is happening to the Palestinians because it actively defends and supports Israel. This makes me angry and disgusted in equal measure.
@Greg Hyde – “Hopefully Trumps proposal will end that utter fantasy.”
Trumps proposal is a tact admission that America is too weak to stand up to Putin. His stance with respect to Europe and thus NATO also indicates the US is also too weak to discharges its NATO obligations …