Shaken, scratched and left with just the clothes he is wearing, Ezzeldin Hassan Musa describes the brutality of Sudan's Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the wake of the paramilitary group taking control of el-Fasher city in the Darfur region.

He says its fighters tortured and murdered men trying to flee.

Now in the town of Tawila, lying exhausted on a mat under a gazebo, Ezzeldin is one of several thousand people who have made it to relative safety after escaping what the UN has described as "horrific" violence.

On Wednesday, RSF leader Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo admitted to "violations" in el-Fasher and said they would be investigated. A day later a senior UN official said the RSF had given notice that they had arrested some suspects.

About an 80km (50-mile) journey from el-Fasher, Tawila is one of several places where those lucky enough to escape the RSF fighters are fleeing to.

"We left el-Fasher four days ago. The suffering we encountered on the way was unimaginable," Ezzeldin says.

"We were divided into groups and beaten. The scenes were extremely brutal. We saw people murdered in front of us. We saw people being beaten. It was really terrible.

"I myself was hit on the head, back, and legs. They beat me with sticks. They wanted to execute us completely. But when the opportunity arose, we ran, while others in front were detained."

Ezzeldin says he joined a group of escapees who took shelter in a building, moving by night and sometimes literally crawling along the ground in an effort to remain hidden.

"Our belongings were stolen," he says. "Phones, clothes - everything. Literally, even my shoes were stolen. Nothing was left.

"We went without food for three days while walking in the streets. By God's mercy, we made it through."

Those in Tawila told the BBC that men making the journey were particularly likely to be subjected to scrutiny by the RSF, with fighters targeting anyone suspected of being a soldier.

• Reports of mass killings in Sudan have echoes of its dark past
• New videos show executions after RSF militia takes key Sudan city
• A simple guide to what is happening in Sudan

Ezzeldin is one of around 5,000 people thought to have arrived in Tawila since the fall of el-Fasher on Sunday.

Many have made the entire journey on foot, travelling for three or four days to flee the violence.

A freelance journalist based in Tawila, working for the BBC, has conducted among the first interviews with some of those who made the journey.

Near to Ezzeldin sits Ahmed Ismail Ibrahim, his body bandaged in several places.

He says his eye was injured in an artillery strike, and he left the city on Sunday after receiving treatment in hospital.

He and six other men were stopped by RSF fighters.

"Four of them - they killed them in front of us. Beat them and killed them," he says, adding that he was shot three times.

Ahmed describes how the fighters demanded to see the phones of the three who were left alive and went through them, searching their messages.

One fighter, he says, finally told them: "OK, get up and go." They fled into the scrub.

"My brothers," he adds, "they didn't leave me behind.

"We walked for about 10 minutes, then rested for 10 minutes, and we continued until we found peace now."

In the next tent in the clinic run by medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Yusra Ibrahim Mohamed describes making the decision to flee the city after her husband, a soldier with the Sudanese army, was killed.

"My husband was in the artillery," she says. "He was returning home and was killed during the attacks.

"We stayed patient. Then the clashes and attacks continued. We managed to escape.

"We left three days ago," she says, "moving in different directions from the artillery areas. The people guiding us didn't know what was happening.

"If someone resisted, they were beaten or robbed. They would take everything you had. People could even be executed. I saw dead bodies in the streets."

Alfadil Dukhan works in the MSF clinic.

He and his colleagues have been providing emergency care to those who arrive - among them, he says, are 500 in need of urgent medical treatment.

"Most of the new arrivals are elders and women or children," the medic says.

"The wounded are suffering, and some of them they already have amputations.

"So they are really suffering a lot. And we are trying to just give them some support and some medical care."

Those arriving this week in Tawila join hundreds of thousands there who fled previous rounds of violence in el-Fasher.

Before its seizure by the RSF on Sunday, the city had been besieged for 18 months.

Those trapped inside were bombarded by a barrage of deadly artillery and air strikes as the army and the paramilitaries battled for el-Fasher.

And they were plunged into a severe hunger crisis by an RSF blockade of supplies and aid.

Hundreds of thousands were displaced in April when the RSF seized control of the Zamzam camp close to the city, at the time one of the main sites housing people forced to flee fighting elsewhere.

Some experts have expressed concern at the relatively low numbers arriving at places like Tawila now.

"This is actually a point of worry for us," says Caroline Bouvoir, who works with refugees in neighbouring Chad for the aid agency Solidarités International

"In the past few days we have about 5,000 people who have arrived, which considering we believe there were about a quarter of a million people still in the city, that is obviously not that many," she says.

"We see the conditions that those who have arrived are in. They are highly malnourished, highly dehydrated, or sick or injured, and they are clearly traumatised with what they have seen either in the city or on the road.

"We believe that many people are stuck currently in different locations between Tawila and el-Fasher, and unable to move forward - either because of their physical condition or because of the insecurity on the road, where militias are unfortunately attacking people who are trying to find safe haven."

For Ezzeldin the relief of having reached safety is tempered by the fears for those still behind him on the journey.

"My message is that public roads should be secured for citizens," he pleads, "or humanitarian aid sent to the streets.

"People are in a critical state - they can't move, speak, or seek help.

"Aid should reach them, because many are missing and suffering."

More BBC stories on the conflict:

• Sudan's years of war - BBC smuggles in phones to reveal hunger and fear
• A pregnant woman's diary of escape from war zone
• El-Fasher siege: My son's whole body is full of shrapnel
• Sudan's fertile region where food is rotting amid famine and war

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

Donald Trump came away from his meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping full of bombastic optimism.

He called it a "great success" and rated it 12, on a scale of 1 to 10. China was less enthusiastic. Beijing's initial statement sounds like an instruction manual, with Xi urging teams on both sides to "follow up as soon as possible".

Trump is after a deal that could happen "pretty soon", while Beijing, it appears, wants to keep talking because it's playing the long game.

There was a more detailed second Chinese statement that echoed what Trump had said on board Air Force One.

Among other things, the US would lower tariffs on Chinese imports, and China would suspend controls on the export of rare earths, critical minerals without which you cannot make smartphones, electric cars and, perhaps more crucially, military equipment.

There is no deal yet, and negotiators on both sides have already been talking for months to iron out the details. But Thursday's agreement is still a breakthrough.

It steadies what has become a rocky relationship between the world's two biggest economies and it assures global markets.

But it is only a temporary truce. It doesn't solve the differences at the heart of such a competitive relationship.

"The US and China are going in different directions," says Kelly Ann Shaw who was an economic advisor to President Trump in his first term.

"It's really about managing the breakup in a way that does a limited amount of damage, that preserves US interests, and I think from China's perspective, preserves their own interests. But this is not a relationship that is necessarily going to improve dramatically anytime soon."

'Struggle, but don't break'

There is an art to doing a deal with Donald Trump.

It involves flattery, and most countries have tried it, including on his trip to Asia so far. South Korea gave him an enormous golden crown, while Japan's prime minister nominated him for a Nobel Peace prize.

But the Chinese leader offered only a meeting at a South Korean air base, where he and Trump would cross paths - as one flew in to the country, and the other departed.

It didn't feel out of step with China's guarded but defiant response from the start of Trump's trade war. Just days after the American president increased tariffs on Chinese goods, Beijing retaliated with its own levies.

Chinese officials told the world that there would be no winners in a trade war. Like Trump, Xi too believed he had the upper hand – and he seemed to have a plan.

He decided to use the country's economic weight - as the world's factory, as a massive market for its goods - to push back.

Unlike Trump, he does not need to worry about elections or a worried vote base.

That doesn't mean that Xi faces no pressures - he certainly does. He needs China's economy to grow, and create jobs and wealth so the Chinese Communist Party's power is not challenged by instability or discontent.

And yet, despite the country's current challenges - a real estate crisis, high youth unemployment and weak consumer spending - China has shown it is willing to absorb the pain of Trump's tariffs.

Beijing would "fight until the bitter end" was the message from various ministries.

"China's main principle is struggle, but don't break," says Keyu Jin, author of The New China Playbook.

"And it has escalated to de-escalate, which is a very new tactic."

Xi had a plan

That is, China hit Trump where it hurt. For the first time it limited exports of rare earths to the US - and China processes around 90% of the world's rare earth metals.

"The nuance often missed in the rare earths debate is that China has an overwhelming position over the most strategic bit of the rare earth supply chain: the heavy rare earths used in advanced defence systems," says Jason Bedford, macroeconomics expert and investment analyst.

"That advantage is far harder to dislodge than other parts of the rare earths industry."

So getting China to relax those export controls became a priority for Washington - and that was a key bit of leverage for Xi when he sat down with Trump.

China had also stopped buying US soybeans, which was aimed at farmers in Republican states - Trump's base.

Reports this week say Beijing has already started buying soybeans from the US again.

"If the US thinks that it can dominate China, it can suppress China, I think has proven to be wrong," Ms Jin says.

"This is really signalling to the world, especially the United States, that China needs to be respected, that it will not kowtow or give too many political or economic concessions."

Trump's team has found itself dealing with a stronger China compared to his first term. Beijing has learnt lessons too.

It spent the last four years finding new trade partners and relying less on US exports - nearly a fifth of Chinese exports once went to the US but in the first half of this year that figure dropped to 11%.

Xi showed up in South Korea, after officially confirming the meeting with Trump just the day before, to take part in political theatre that seemed to underline a position of strength.

As usual, he was in front of Trump for the handshake. He stood unblinking as Trump leaned forward to whisper in his ear - the kind of ad lib moment China abhors.

At the end of the meeting Trump ushered Xi to his waiting car where the Chinese leader was immediately surrounded by his security team. The US President was then forced to wander off camera to find his vehicle alone.

And yet there are many positives to take away from this superpower summit, the first of Trump's second term in office.

"China wants to be in a position of strength when it comes to negotiations, but it won't break the relationship, because that is in nobody's interest, including China's, Ms Jin says.

For starters, businesses, the markets and other countries caught in between the rivals will welcome the calm. But observers are not sure it will last.

"I think over the medium to long-term, the US and China have very serious differences, and I would not be surprised to see some more destabilisation in the next three to six months," says Ms Shaw.

Has Trump got the bigger, better deal with China he always wanted? Not yet.

Even if he does get a deal, and the two sides put ink on paper, Beijing has now shown that it is not willing to bend to Washington - and that it is more resilient.

The rivalry between the two sides is likely to continue, if or even when there is ever a done deal.

Hamas has handed over to the Red Cross in Gaza two coffins which the Palestinian group says contain the bodies of hostages, according to the Israeli military.

They will be transferred to Israeli forces, who will take them to Israel's National Institute of Forensic Medicine for identification.

Hamas's armed wing announced earlier that it had recovered the bodies of Israeli hostages Amiram Cooper and Sahar Baruch.

On Tuesday, Israel accused Hamas of violating the Gaza ceasefire deal after the group handed over a coffin containing human remains that did not belong to one of the 13 deceased Israeli and foreign hostages still in Gaza.

The Israeli government said forensic tests showed they belonged to Ofir Tzarfati, a hostage whose body had been recovered by Israeli forces in Gaza in late 2023.

The Israeli military also released footage filmed by a drone that showed Hamas members removing a body bag containing the remains from a building in Gaza City, reburying it, and then staging the discovery in front of Red Cross staff.

The Red Cross said its staff were unaware that the body bag had been moved before their arrival and that the staged recovery was "unacceptable".

Hamas rejected what it called the "baseless allegations" and accused Israel of "seeking to fabricate false pretexts in preparation for taking new aggressive steps".

Hours later, the Israeli government accused Hamas of another ceasefire violation, saying the group's fighters had killed an Israeli soldier in an attack in an area of southern Gaza.

Hamas claimed it was not involved in the incident in the Rafah area, but Israel's prime minister ordered a wave of air strikes across Gaza on Tuesday night in response. The Israeli military said it attacked "dozens of terror targets and terrorists".

Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry said 104 Palestinians were killed, including 46 children and 20 women, making it the deadliest day since the ceasefire took effect on 10 October.

US President Donald Trump maintained "nothing" would jeopardise the ceasefire agreement, which his administration brokered along with Qatar, Egypt and Turkey, but he added that Israel should "hit back" when its soldiers were targeted.

Under the deal, Hamas agreed to return the 20 living and 28 dead hostages it was holding within 72 hours.

All the living Israeli hostages were released on 13 October in exchange for 250 Palestinian prisoners and 1,718 detainees from Gaza.

Israel has also handed over the bodies of 195 Palestinians in exchange for the bodies of the 13 Israeli hostages so far returned by Hamas, along with those of two foreign hostages - one of them Thai and the other Nepalese.

Eleven of the 13 dead hostages still in Gaza are Israelis, one is Tanzanian, and one is Thai.

All but one of the dead hostages still in Gaza were among the 251 people abducted during the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, during which about 1,200 other people were killed.

Israel responded by launching a military campaign in Gaza, in which more than 68,600 people have been killed, including more than 200 since the ceasefire took effect, according to the territory's health ministry.

President Donald Trump has announced the US will start testing nuclear weapons in what could be a radical shift in his nation's policy.

"Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis," Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, as he was about to meet the Chinese president on Thursday.

"That process will begin immediately."

The world's nuclear-armed states - those acknowledged as belonging to the so-called nuclear club and those whose status is more ambiguous - regularly test their nuclear weapons' delivery systems, such as a missile that would carry a nuclear warhead.

Only North Korea has actually tested a nuclear weapon since the 1990s - and it has not done so since 2017.

The White House has not issued any clarifications to the commander-in-chief's announcement. So it remains unclear whether Trump means testing nuclear delivery systems or the destructive weapons themeselves. In comments after his post, he said nuclear test sites would be determined later.

Six policy experts have told the BBC that testing nuclear weapons would raise the stakes in an already dangerous moment where all signs showed the world was heading in the direction of a nuclear arms race - even though it has not yet begun.

One of the six did not agree that Trump's comments would have a major impact - and another did not think the US was provoking a race - but all said the world faced a rising nuclear threat.

"The concern here is that, because nuclear armed states have not conducted these nuclear tests in decades - setting North Korea aside - this could create a domino effect," said Jamie Kwong, fellow in the nuclear policy programme at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"We're at a very concerning moment where the US, Russia and China are potentially entering this moment that could very well become an arms race."

Darya Dolzikova, Senior Research Fellow for Proliferation and Nuclear Policy at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) - a London-based defence and security think tank - said Trump's comments would change the situation massively.

But, she added, "there are other dynamics globally that have raised the risks of nuclear exchange and further proliferation of nuclear weapons levels higher than they have been in decades".

Trump's message, she said, "is a drop in a much larger bucket, and there are some legitimate concerns of that bucket overfilling".

The experts pointed to escalating conflicts where one or more of the warring parties is a nuclear power - the war in Ukraine, for instance, in which Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened at times that he could use nuclear weapons.

And then there were flare-ups - if not full-fledged conflicts - such as the one between Pakistan and India this year, or Israel - which has a policy of neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons - attacking Iran - a country the West accuses of trying to build nuclear weapons (a charge Tehran denies).

Tensions on the Korean peninsula and China's ambitions in Taiwan add to the overall picture.

The last existing nuclear treaty between the US and Russia that limits their amounts of deployed nuclear arsenals - warheads ready to go - is set to expire in February next year.

In his announcement, Trump said the US had more nuclear weapons than any other country - a statement that does not match figures updated regularly by another think tank that specialises in the field, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri).

According to Sipri, Russia has 5,459 nuclear warheadsm followed by the US with 5,177, an China coming a distant third with 600.

Other think tanks reported similar numbers.

Russia announced recently it had tested new nuclear weapons delivery systems - including a missile the Kremlin said could penetrate US defences and another that could go underwater to strike the US coast.

The latter claim may have led to Trump's announcement, some of the experts suspected, even though Russia said its tests "were not nuclear".

Meanwhile, the US has been watching China closely - with increasing concern that it will reach near-peer status, too, and posing a "two-peer nuclear risk", experts said.

So a resumption of US nuclear testing could prompt China and Russia to do the same.

A Kremlin spokesman said that "if someone departs from the moratorium, Russia will act accordingly".

In its response, China said it hoped the US would fulfil its obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - which both countries have signed but not ratified - and honour its commitment to suspend nuclear testing.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said a US resumption of nuclear weapons testing would be "a mistake of historic international security proportions".

He said the risk of nuclear conflict "has been steadily rising" over several years and, unless the US and Russia "negotiate some form of new constraints on their arsenals, we're likely going to see an unconstained, dangerous, three-way arms race between the US, Russia and then China in the coming years".

Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said the average person should be "very concerned" because there has been an increase over the past five years in nuclear warheads for the first time since the Cold War.

The last US nuclear weapons test - underground in Nevada - was in 1992.

Kimball said it would take at least 36 months to get the Nevada site ready for use again.

The US currently uses computer simulations and other non-explosive means to test its nuclear weapons, and therefore does not have a practical justification to detonate them, multiple experts said.

Kwong said there were inherent risks even with underground testing, because you must ensure there is not a radioactive leak above ground and it does not affect groundwater.

While blaming Russia and China for ratcheting up the rhetoric, Robert Peters, senior research fellow of strategic deterrence at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that, while there may not be a scientific or technical reason for testing a warhead, "the primary reason is to send a political message for your opponents".

"It may be necessary for some president, whether it's Donald Trump or whomever, to test nuclear weapons as a demonstration of credibility", he said, arguing it was "not an unreasonable position to hold" to be prepared to test.

While many others the BBC spoke to disagreed, all offered a fairly dire assessment of the current situation.

"My sense is that, if the new nuclear arms race hasn't already begun, then we're currently heading towards the starting line," said Rhys Crilley, who writes on the subject at the University of Glasgow.

"I worry every day about the risks of a nuclear arms race and the increasing risk of nuclear war."

The US tested the first atomic bomb in July 1945 in the desert at Alamogordo, New Mexico.

It later became the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons in warfare after dropping two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of the same year during World War Two.

The US government shutdown has entered its fifth week and there is no clear end in sight.

With Democrats and Republicans deadlocked over passing a spending plan that would reopen federal agencies, millions of Americans are feeling economic pain that could soon grow worse.

The fiscal fight means millions of Americans may not receive food aid, thousands of troops could have to work without pay, and millions may go without heat.

Here’s how the shutdown has affected everyday people.

Food assistance

More than 40 million Americans use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) to feed themselves and their families.

While that programme had enough funding to survive the first four weeks of the shutdown, the Trump administration has said the money will run out on 1 November.

By Saturday, Snap benefits, also called food stamps, could lapse for the first time in the programme's history.

Snap is a critical lifeline that keeps families out of poverty, Hannah Garth, a Princeton University professor who studies food insecurity, told the BBC.

Groups that provide food for people in need are already under strain and the loss of Snap will make the situation worse, she added.

On Thursday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul declared a state of emergency so the state could “help the three million New Yorkers losing food assistance” because of the shutdown.

People enrolled in Snap have been stockpiling food and visiting aid organisations, as they wait for the impasse to lift on Capitol Hill.

Half the states and the District of Columbia have sued President Donald Trump's administration over the food aid freeze.

The administration, in turn, has blamed Democrats for the funding running dry and said it will only draw from a Snap contingency fund in an emergency such as a natural disaster.

The federal government distributes Snap benefits through programmes run by the states.

Some states, such as Virginia, have said they will be able to make up for any lack of funds in November, but others like Massachusetts have said they can't cover the shortfall.

Military pay

If the Trump administration does not intervene, more than a million members of the US military will miss their paycheques on Friday.

About a quarter of military families are considered food insecure, and 15% rely on Snap or food pantries, according to the research firm Rand. Meanwhile, the Military Family Advisory Network estimates that 27% of families have $500 (£380) or less in emergency savings.

The Pentagon says it has accepted a $130m gift from a wealthy donor to help pay salaries during the shutdown, but that only works out to $100 for each of the 1.3 million active-duty service members expecting to be paid.

The White House plans to pay the troops on 31 October by using money from a military housing fund, a research-and-development account, and a defence procurement fund, according to Axios, a political news outlet.

Earlier this month, the administration made payroll by moving $6.5bn from military research.

More than 160 families told the National Military Family Association, an advocacy group, that they have been underpaid during the shutdown, some by hundreds of dollars and others by thousands.

Heat amid the winter chill

Around six million Americans use a federal assistance initiative called the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Liheap) for help paying utility bills.

The government usually sends Liheap funds directly to utility companies in mid-November.

The temperature is already dropping in northern areas, where Americans heat their homes with propane, electric and natural gas.

Many states bar natural gas and electric companies from cutting off service to people who do not pay their bills, but those rules do not apply to propane or heating oil.

Experts say thousands could face deadly conditions unless the government reopens or the government finds another resolution, such as a nationwide moratorium on cutting off heat in the shutdown.

Federal civilian workers

Thousands of Americans work for the federal government as civilian employees and many of those folks will miss a paycheque this week.

It has been a slow burn for many, with the side effects of the shutdown getting worse.

Some civilian employees were able to get a week or two of compensation, while others have not seen a dollar since 1 October.

Among those going without pay beginning this week are congressional aides on Capitol Hill.

Food banks and food pantries across the US have already said they have seen an increase in the number of federal workers asking for help - particularly in Washington, DC.

If the shutdown continues until 1 December, some 4.5 million paycheques will be withheld from federal civilian employees, making for about $21bn in missing wages, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Furloughed employees are typically paid after shutdowns end, although Trump has threatened to withhold pay and is currently trying to fire thousands of workers, which is being challenged in court.

Air traffic controllers

Thousands of air traffic controllers missed their first paycheques this week.

Because they are considered essential workers, they must continue to do their jobs without pay during the shutdown. Since 1 October, numerous controllers have called in sick and now many report they are getting second jobs.

In turn, thousands of US flyers have faced widespread delays.

“The problems are mounting daily,” Nick Daniels, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said at a press conference this week.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has said many of the flight delays in recent days and weeks have been the result of absence by air traffic controllers.

Duffy has warned controllers could be fired if they fail to show up for work.

Emerging evidence of systematic killings in the Sudanese city of el-Fasher have prompted human rights and aid activists to describe the civil war between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the military as a "continuation of the Darfur genocide".

The fall of el-Fasher, in the Darfur region, after an 18-month RSF siege brings together the different layers of the country's conflict – with echoes of its dark past and the brutality of its present-day war.

The RSF emerged from the Janjaweed, Arab militias who massacred hundreds of thousands of Darfuris from non-Arab populations, in the early 2000s.

The paramilitary force has been accused of ethnic killings since its power struggle with the army erupted into violence in April 2023. The RSF leadership has consistently denied the accusations - although on Wednesday its leader Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo admitted to "violations" in el-Fasher.

The current charges are based on apparent evidence of atrocities provided by the RSF fighters themselves.

They have been sharing gruesome videos reportedly showing summary executions of mostly male civilians and ex-combatants, celebrating over dead bodies, and taunting and abusing people.

• New videos show executions after RSF militia takes key Sudan city
• A simple guide to what is happening in Sudan

Accounts from exhausted survivors also paint a picture of terror and violence.

"The situation in el-Fasher is extremely dire and there are violations taking place on the roads, including looting and shooting, with no distinction made between young or old," one man told the BBC Arabic service. He had escaped to the town of Tawila, a hub for those displaced from el-Fasher.

Another woman, Ikram Abdelhameed, told the Reuters news agency that RSF soldiers separated fleeing civilians at an earthen barrier around the city and shot the men.

And satellite images collected by Yale University's Humanitarian Research Lab show evidence of what seem to be massacre sites – clusters of bodies and reddish patches on the earth that the analysts believe could be blood stains.

El-Fasher "appears to be in a systematic and intentional process of ethnic cleansing of… indigenous non-Arab communities through forced displacement and summary execution", the Yale researchers say in a report.

There is a clear ethnic element to the battle for el-Fasher, because local armed groups from the dominant Zaghawa tribe, known as the Joint Force, have been fighting alongside the army.

The RSF fighters see Zaghawa civilians as legitimate targets.

That is what many survivors of the paramilitary takeover of the Zamzam displaced persons camp next to el-Fasher reported earlier this year, according to an investigation by the medical charity Doctors Without Borders (MSF).

The army has also been accused of targeting ethnic groups it sees as support bases for the RSF in areas it has recaptured, including the states of Sennar, Gezira and some parts of North Kordofan.

"Whether you're a civilian, wherever you are, it is not safe right now, even in Khartoum," says Emi Mahmoud, strategic director of the IDP Humanitarian Network which helps coordinate aid deliveries in Darfur.

"Because at the flip of a hat, the people in power who have the guns, they can and will continue to falsely imprison, disappear, kill, torture, everyone."

Both sides have been accused of war crimes - ethnically motivated revenge attacks are part of that.

It was Sudan's military government in 2003 that weaponised ethnicity – enlisting the Janjaweed to put down rebellions by black African groups in Darfur who accused Khartoum of politically and economically marginalising them.

The pattern of violence established then has been repeated in Darfur now, says Kate Ferguson, the co-founder of NGO Protection Approaches.

This was most evident in the 2023 massacre of members of the Masalit tribe in el-Geneina in West Darfur, which the UN says killed up to 15,000 people.

"For more than two years, the RSF have followed a very clear, practiced and predicted pattern," Ms Ferguson said at a press briefing.

"They first encircle their target town or city, they weaken it by cutting off access to food, to medicine, to power supplies, the internet. Then when it's weakened, they overwhelm the population with systematic arson, sexual violence, massacre and the destruction of vital infrastructure. This is a deliberate strategy to destroy and displace, and that's why I feel the appropriate word is genocide."

The RSF has denied involvement in what it has called "tribal conflicts", but Gen Dagalo, widely known as Hemedti, appeared to be hearing expressions of mounting international outrage, including from the UN, the African Union, the European Union and the UK.

He released a video saying he was sorry for the disaster that had befallen the people of el-Fasher in a war that had been "forced upon us" and admitted there had been violations by his forces, promising they would be investigated by a committee that has now arrived in the city.

Any "soldier or any officer who committed a crime or crossed the lines against any person… will be immediately arrested and the result [of the investigation] to be announced immediately and in public in front of everyone," the general pledged.

However, observers have noted that similar promises made in the past - in response to the accusations over el-Geneina, and alleged atrocities during the group's control of the central state of Gezira - were never fulfilled

It is also not clear how much control the RSF leadership has over its foot soldiers – a loose mix of hired militias, allied Arab groups, and regional mercenaries, many from Chad and South Sudan.

"The reality is that the way that the RSF is, it's very, very hard to believe that a command is going to be given by Hemedti, and then people on the ground are going to follow it," says aid co-ordinator Ms Mahmoud. "By that time, we'll have lost many, many people."

Aid groups and activists warn that if the pattern of the past two years is allowed to continue, it could happen again. They stress that the el-Fasher killings were entirely predictable, but the international community failed to act to protect civilians despite ample warning.

"The reality is that we laid these options out multiple times over six meetings with UN Security Council elements, with the US government, with the British government, with the French government, basically saying they had to be ready for a protection kinetic option [direct military action] in the summer of last year," says Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab.

"This cannot be something settled by a press conference. It has to be something settled by immediate action."

In particular, activists are urging pressure on the United Arab Emirates, which is widely accused of providing military support to the RSF. The UAE denies this despite evidence presented in UN reports and international media investigations.

"This is exactly like the siege of Sarajevo," says Ms Mahmoud, referring to the Srebrenica massacre during the Bosnia war, which galvanised international action. "This is the Srebrenica moment."

More BBC stories on Sudan:

• Sudan's years of war - BBC smuggles in phones to reveal hunger and fear
• A pregnant woman's diary of escape from war zone
• El-Fasher siege: My son's whole body is full of shrapnel
• Sudan's fertile region where food is rotting amid famine and war

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

US presidential trips abroad have traditionally been an opportunity to display the power of the American nation on the world stage. Donald Trump's five-day swing through eastern Asia, on the other hand, has been a display of the power of Trump - but also, at times, of that power's limitations.

Trump's stops in Malaysia, Japan and South Korea over the course of the first four days were an exercise in pleasing a sometimes mercurial American president. It was an acknowledgement that Trump, with the flick of a pen, could impose tariffs and other measures that have the potential to devastate the economies of export-dependent nations.

His sit-down with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday, however, was something entirely different.

It was a meeting of equals on the global stage, where the stakes for both nations – for their economies, for their international prestige, for the welfare of their people - were enormous.

With China, Trump may flick his pen, but such actions come with consequences. They come with a cost.

• Trump hails 'amazing' meeting with Xi but no trade deal agreed
• Xi and Trump find temporary truce as China plays longer game

For the first four days, Trump's most recent foray into global diplomacy was smooth sailing.

Each stop was punctuated by a blend of traditional trade negotiations – deals made under the shadow of Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs – and personal accommodations that at times bordered on the obsequious.

In Malaysia, Trump secured access to critical minerals and made progress toward finalising trade arrangements with south-east Asian nations. He also presided over a treaty that should ease border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia – the kind of "peace deal" the American president loves to tout.

In Japan, Trump's Marine One flew past a Tokyo Tower lit red, white and blue – with a top in Trumpian gold.

Newly elected Prime Minister Sanai Takaichi detailed $550bn in Japanese investments in the US and offered the American president a gift of 250 cherry trees for America's 250th birthday, and a golf club and bag that belonged to Shinzo Abe, the assassinated former prime minister who bonded with Trump in his first term.

She also became the latest foreign leader to nominate Trump for his much-desired Nobel Peace Prize.

Not to be outdone, South Korea welcomed Trump with artillery firing a 21-gun salute and a military band that played Hail to the Chief and YMCA – the Village People song that has become a Trump rally anthem.

President Lee Jae Myung held an "honour ceremony" for Trump during which he gave the American leader his nation's highest medal and a replica of an ancient Korean dynastic crown.

Lunch with Lee featured a "Peacemaker's Dessert" of gold-encrusted brownies. Later that day, the Koreans served Trump vineyard wine at an intimate dinner in Trump's honour with six world leaders attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference summit.

In the US, Trump may be the subject of "No Kings" demonstrations by Americans who disapprove of his boundary-testing expansions of presidential power, but during his East Asia swing he was treated like royalty.

And like the kings of old, Trump arrived in Korea seeking tribute – in the form of $200bn in cash payments, $20bn a year, from South Korea to the US, to be invested at the direction of Trump's government. Agreement on the terms of those payments helped ensure that the tariff rate on South Korean exports to the US would drop from 25% to 15%.

The main event of Trump's Asia trip came in its final hours, however, as he met with Xi.

There, the power dynamic between leaders of the world's two largest economies was decidedly different than the interactions Trump had with his foreign counterparts in previous days.

Missing were all the pomp and the pageantry. No military bands, no honour guards, no carefully crafted menus celebrating mutual national affection. Instead, the two leaders and their top aides sat across a long white negotiating table in a nondescript military building just off the runway of Busan's international airport.

It was perhaps a reflection of the high stakes that when Trump shook hands with Xi in Busan, he appeared tense. It was a far cry from his relaxed attitude when he told me the day before that he was optimistic he would have a good meeting.

"I know a little bit about what's going on because we have been talking to them," he said. "I'm not just walking into a meeting cold."

For months, Trump had been threatening higher tariffs on Chinese exports to the US – as a source of revenue for the American treasury as well as to pressure China to open its markets and control the export of chemicals used to make the drug fentanyl.

China, unlike many of America's other trading partners, responded with escalation, not concessions.

If tariffs were a source of economic hardship for China, then Beijing would target America's vulnerabilities. It suspended purchase of US agricultural products and proposed export controls on its large supply of critical minerals - resources that the US, and much of the world, rely on for high-tech manufacturing.

Trump's mood was upbeat after the meeting, which he described as "amazing" and graded a 12 on a scale of 1-10. The president appeared in a good mood even as the plane jostled from rough turbulence as it climbed into the sky.

But it was a battle of wills and economic pain set the two nations on a path that ultimately led to Thursday's meeting and an agreement on both sides to de-escalate.

The US lowered its tariffs, while China eased access to critical minerals, and pledged to resume importing US agricultural products and increase purchases of US oil and gas.

While it may not have been a breakthrough, it was an acknowledgement by both sides that the existing situation was unsustainable.

The international order that will take its place, however, is far from clear. As Xi acknowledged in his opening remarks at the bilateral meeting, China and the US "do not always see eye to eye with each other".

"It is normal for the two leading economies in the world to have frictions now and then," he said.

That may represent an improved outlook after months of tension, but it was also an sign that "frictions" are here to stay.

China has global and regional ambitions and a growing willingness to expand its influence.

Trump, for his part, has attempted to reorder American priorities abroad, using US economic might to pressure allies and adversaries alike. And it is those American allies – nations like Japan and South Korea that have long relied on American political, economic and military support - that are scrambling to adjust to the new reality.

Some of that scrambling comes in the form of a bend-backward willingness to accommodate Trump in forms large and small. Gifts and dinnertime honours are easy, but multibillion dollar payments, increased military spending and permanent tariffs take a toll.

And they could ultimately prompt a reevaluation of relations with America – and, as a result, with China.

Trump may have received a king's welcome in South Korea, but, in what could be viewed as a bit of on-point symbolism, as he departed, it was Xi who was arriving. And the Chinese leader's Korean hosts had promised a diplomatic reception equal to that received by the Americans.

Xi is fully participating in the Apec leaders meetings – proceedings that Trump chose to skip. If there is a vacuum created by America's international manoeuvres, it is a void China appears more than willing to fill.

Trump may be returning to America with everything he wanted from this trip. But, in a twist on the Rolling Stones song that he used to play at his political rallies, it's not yet clear that he got what America needs.

Prince Andrew has been stripped of his "prince" title and will leave his Windsor mansion, Royal Lodge, Buckingham Palace announced on Thursday.

The King has "initiated a formal process" to remove his titles, it said, and Andrew now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

Andrew, 65 - the King's younger brother - has continued to face more questions about his private life in recent months.

His links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein have caused problems for the Royal Family. The prince, who relinquished his titles earlier this month, has always strongly denied any wrongdoing.

What did Buckingham Palace say?

"His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew," Buckingham Palace said in a statement on Thursday evening.

"Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor."

It also addressed the place where he lives, Royal Lodge.

"His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence.

"Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.

"Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse."

The language of Buckingham Palace's statement was "very brutal," royal historian Kelly Swaby told the BBC.

"Ordinary people don't care about the semantics, they want to see punishment, and public opinion is very much against Andrew, the Palace knows that, and the language very much reflect that".

The decision was made, and action taken, due to serious lapses in Andrew's judgement, it is understood.

It is also understood that the wider Royal Family and the government was consulted, and made clear it supports the decision.

• Follow live updates

Where will he live?

It is understood Andrew will be relocated to the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, but details about his specific housing have not been released.

The wider Sandringham estate covers approximately 20,000 acres (8,100 hectares) with 600 acres (242 hectares) of gardens - and the Palace has not said which property he will stay in.

One of the options previously suggested as where he could move to was Wood Farm, located on the estate surrounds, a cottage privately owned by the monarch.

Described as "small and intimate" by former housekeeper Teresa Thompson, the cottage has strong associations with Andrew's parents.

His father, the late Duke of Edinburgh, chose the secluded property as his permanent home when he retired from public life in 2017.

It is understood that Sarah Ferguson, 66, Andrew's ex-wife, will also move out of Royal Lodge and will make her own living arrangements.

Formal notice was given to surrender the lease at the Royal Lodge on Thursday and it is understood that Andrew's move to Sandringham will take place "as soon as practicable".

Will he get money from the King?

It is understood Andrew's accommodation will be privately funded by the King.

And the King will make "appropriate private provision" for his brother as he moves out of his home.

Royal sources have previously said the King has tried to apply pressure, and last year cut off Andrew's funding last year.

Andrew also cultivated his own independent sources of funding since leaving public life, including business connections with China, the Gulf States and a recently curtailed project with a Dutch start-up company.

Earlier this week, Parliament's spending watchdog, the Public Accounts Committee wrote a letter detailing the "considerable and understandable public interest in the spending of public money" relating to Andrew.

The letter asked what the Crown Estate's plan was to ensure value for money in any future agreements with Andrew.

How will his titles be removed?

Andrew is understood not to have objected to the King's decision to remove his titles - and it will take place with immediate effect.

His birth certificate will not need to be changed as the title change will not apply respectively.

The titles being stripped are: Prince, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh. And he will no longer have the right to be called His Royal Highness. The honours of Order of the Garter and Knight Grand Cross of the Victorian Order will also be removed.

To remove the titles, the King will send Royal warrants to the Lord Chancellor - who is David Lammy - to officially remove them.

It comes just weeks after Andrew voluntary gave up his other royal titles, including the Duke of York.

On 17 October, Andrew said he would stop using the titles because the "continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family". "I vigorously deny the accusations against me," he said.

Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice will retain their titles, as they are the daughters of the son of a Sovereign. This is in line with King George V's Letters Patent of 1917.

Until this month, Ferguson kept the title Sarah, Duchess of York - but she reverted to her maiden name of Ferguson after Andrew was stripped of his Duke of York title.

Andrew still remains eighth in line to the throne.

What led up to this?

Andrew's links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are at the centre of this latest announcement.

In recent weeks, pressure has increased on the monarchy to resolve the issue of Charles's brother, with the King heckled earlier this week by a protester.

Although Andrew denies the accusations, the Royal Family considers there have been "serious lapses of judgement" in his behaviour.

Earlier this month, emails from 2011 re-emerged, showing Andrew in contact with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein months after he claimed their friendship ended.

In her posthumous memoir, Nobody's Girl Virginia Giuffre repeated allegations that, as a teenager, she had sex with Andrew on three separate occasions – claims he has always denied.

Earlier this month, emails from 2011 re-emerged, showing Andrew in contact with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein months after he claimed their friendship ended.

What happens next?

Historians tell the BBC Andrew will continue to be frozen out of royal public life.

He is already not invited to attend royal public events., and his recent appearances have been limited to private, family events, such as funerals or memorials.

This fiasco will continue to dog the royal family, says historian and author Andrew Lownie.

"They're finally getting ahead of the story, but this isn't the end of it," Lownie told the BBC.

The Palace is "finally taking some decisive action" - but it "won't completely satisfy the public disquiet".

Campaigners against the monarchy say there should be a wider investigation into what the Royal Family might have known about Prince Andrew's links to Epstein.

"This isn't just about family. It's not a private matter," says Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic.

Buckingham Palace has announced that Prince Andrew is to lose his prince title and will be leaving his Royal Lodge home in Windsor.

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor - as he is now to be known - gave up his other royal titles earlier this month, including the Duke of York, after more questions and allegations about his private life.

The palace said the former prince has agreed to leave Royal Lodge as his links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein continue to cause controversy.

The decision was made due to serious lapses in Andrew's judgement, it is understood, and he continues to deny the accusations against him.

It is also understood that he did not object to the King's decision to remove his titles.

• Get the latest on this story

The statement from Buckingham Palace in full:

His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew.

Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence.

Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation.

These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.

Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has released a string of emails, as pressure builds over her breaking housing rules.

The chancellor rented out her south London family home when she moved into Downing Street - but it emerged this week she did not have the correct rental licence from her local council.

The house falls in an area where Southwark Council requires private landlords to obtain a selective licence at a one-off cost of £945.

She has apologised and initially said she was not aware a licence was necessary.

But on Thursday, Reeves said her husband had found emails that showed the letting agent had told them a licence was needed - and that the agent would apply on their behalf.

She has published the two chains of emails dated between 17 July and 13 August 2024, in which Nicholas Joicey, Reeves' husband, and the Harvey & Wheeler letting agents correspond about the necessary steps to rent out the property.

Here are selected parts of the emails

On 17 July, the letting agent tells Reeves's husband that electrical tests need to be carried out on their property, before adding: "Once we have that to hand we will need to apply for a licence under the Selective Licensing Scheme via Southwark Council."

One email from the letting agent also appeared to confirm the company was taking charge of applying for the licence.

In an email dated 22 July, the letting agent tells Reeves's husband "I can arrange the Selective Licence once the tenants move in - would you like me to arrange this for you as well after move in?"

Four days later, on 26 July, Reeves's husband asks how much the the selective licence and some other things will cost, adding: "Subject to this, I would be grateful if you could arrange these."

The letting agent responds the same day to advise that the cost is £900 and offers to arrange for the electric test needed to get the licence too.

On 13 August, Reeves's husband belatedly gets back and says "yes please, do go ahead" and arrange for the licence.

In a response the same day, the letting agent says "I will do the Selective Licence".

Letting agents Harvey & Wheeler said the property manager responsible for applying for the licence on her behalf had "suddenly resigned" before the tenancy began.

In a statement, owner Gareth Martin said: "Unfortunately, the lack of application was not picked up by us as we do not normally apply for licences on behalf of our clients; the onus is on them to apply.

"We have apologised to the owners for this oversight.

"At the time the tenancy began, all the relevant certificates were in place and if the licence had been applied for, we have no doubt it would have been granted.

"Our clients would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for. Although it is not our responsibility to apply, we did offer to help with this.

"We deeply regret the issue caused to our clients as they would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for."

A spokesperson for the Conservatives said that - regardless of assurances received from the estate agent - Reeves and her husband were "responsible" for ensuring a renting licence had been granted.

They have called for Sir Keir Starmer to conduct a "proper investigation" into the incident.

In her updated statement on Thursday, Reeves said: "As I said to you today, I am sorry about this matter and accept full responsibility for it.

"You rightly expect the highest standards from ministers serving in your government and I have therefore shared the correspondence between my husband and the agency with the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, and I am happy to answer any further questions required."

The revelations come at a politically awkward time for Reeves, who is preparing for a Budget next month amidst speculation the government could break a manifesto commitment not to raise income tax.

Shaken, scratched and left with just the clothes he is wearing, Ezzeldin Hassan Musa describes the brutality of Sudan's Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in the wake of the paramilitary group taking control of el-Fasher city in the Darfur region.

He says its fighters tortured and murdered men trying to flee.

Now in the town of Tawila, lying exhausted on a mat under a gazebo, Ezzeldin is one of several thousand people who have made it to relative safety after escaping what the UN has described as "horrific" violence.

On Wednesday, RSF leader Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo admitted to "violations" in el-Fasher and said they would be investigated. A day later a senior UN official said the RSF had given notice that they had arrested some suspects.

About an 80km (50-mile) journey from el-Fasher, Tawila is one of several places where those lucky enough to escape the RSF fighters are fleeing to.

"We left el-Fasher four days ago. The suffering we encountered on the way was unimaginable," Ezzeldin says.

"We were divided into groups and beaten. The scenes were extremely brutal. We saw people murdered in front of us. We saw people being beaten. It was really terrible.

"I myself was hit on the head, back, and legs. They beat me with sticks. They wanted to execute us completely. But when the opportunity arose, we ran, while others in front were detained."

Ezzeldin says he joined a group of escapees who took shelter in a building, moving by night and sometimes literally crawling along the ground in an effort to remain hidden.

"Our belongings were stolen," he says. "Phones, clothes - everything. Literally, even my shoes were stolen. Nothing was left.

"We went without food for three days while walking in the streets. By God's mercy, we made it through."

Those in Tawila told the BBC that men making the journey were particularly likely to be subjected to scrutiny by the RSF, with fighters targeting anyone suspected of being a soldier.

• Reports of mass killings in Sudan have echoes of its dark past
• New videos show executions after RSF militia takes key Sudan city
• A simple guide to what is happening in Sudan

Ezzeldin is one of around 5,000 people thought to have arrived in Tawila since the fall of el-Fasher on Sunday.

Many have made the entire journey on foot, travelling for three or four days to flee the violence.

A freelance journalist based in Tawila, working for the BBC, has conducted among the first interviews with some of those who made the journey.

Near to Ezzeldin sits Ahmed Ismail Ibrahim, his body bandaged in several places.

He says his eye was injured in an artillery strike, and he left the city on Sunday after receiving treatment in hospital.

He and six other men were stopped by RSF fighters.

"Four of them - they killed them in front of us. Beat them and killed them," he says, adding that he was shot three times.

Ahmed describes how the fighters demanded to see the phones of the three who were left alive and went through them, searching their messages.

One fighter, he says, finally told them: "OK, get up and go." They fled into the scrub.

"My brothers," he adds, "they didn't leave me behind.

"We walked for about 10 minutes, then rested for 10 minutes, and we continued until we found peace now."

In the next tent in the clinic run by medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Yusra Ibrahim Mohamed describes making the decision to flee the city after her husband, a soldier with the Sudanese army, was killed.

"My husband was in the artillery," she says. "He was returning home and was killed during the attacks.

"We stayed patient. Then the clashes and attacks continued. We managed to escape.

"We left three days ago," she says, "moving in different directions from the artillery areas. The people guiding us didn't know what was happening.

"If someone resisted, they were beaten or robbed. They would take everything you had. People could even be executed. I saw dead bodies in the streets."

Alfadil Dukhan works in the MSF clinic.

He and his colleagues have been providing emergency care to those who arrive - among them, he says, are 500 in need of urgent medical treatment.

"Most of the new arrivals are elders and women or children," the medic says.

"The wounded are suffering, and some of them they already have amputations.

"So they are really suffering a lot. And we are trying to just give them some support and some medical care."

Those arriving this week in Tawila join hundreds of thousands there who fled previous rounds of violence in el-Fasher.

Before its seizure by the RSF on Sunday, the city had been besieged for 18 months.

Those trapped inside were bombarded by a barrage of deadly artillery and air strikes as the army and the paramilitaries battled for el-Fasher.

And they were plunged into a severe hunger crisis by an RSF blockade of supplies and aid.

Hundreds of thousands were displaced in April when the RSF seized control of the Zamzam camp close to the city, at the time one of the main sites housing people forced to flee fighting elsewhere.

Some experts have expressed concern at the relatively low numbers arriving at places like Tawila now.

"This is actually a point of worry for us," says Caroline Bouvoir, who works with refugees in neighbouring Chad for the aid agency Solidarités International

"In the past few days we have about 5,000 people who have arrived, which considering we believe there were about a quarter of a million people still in the city, that is obviously not that many," she says.

"We see the conditions that those who have arrived are in. They are highly malnourished, highly dehydrated, or sick or injured, and they are clearly traumatised with what they have seen either in the city or on the road.

"We believe that many people are stuck currently in different locations between Tawila and el-Fasher, and unable to move forward - either because of their physical condition or because of the insecurity on the road, where militias are unfortunately attacking people who are trying to find safe haven."

For Ezzeldin the relief of having reached safety is tempered by the fears for those still behind him on the journey.

"My message is that public roads should be secured for citizens," he pleads, "or humanitarian aid sent to the streets.

"People are in a critical state - they can't move, speak, or seek help.

"Aid should reach them, because many are missing and suffering."

More BBC stories on the conflict:

• Sudan's years of war - BBC smuggles in phones to reveal hunger and fear
• A pregnant woman's diary of escape from war zone
• El-Fasher siege: My son's whole body is full of shrapnel
• Sudan's fertile region where food is rotting amid famine and war

Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica

President Donald Trump has announced the US will start testing nuclear weapons in what could be a radical shift in his nation's policy.

"Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis," Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, as he was about to meet the Chinese president on Thursday.

"That process will begin immediately."

The world's nuclear-armed states - those acknowledged as belonging to the so-called nuclear club and those whose status is more ambiguous - regularly test their nuclear weapons' delivery systems, such as a missile that would carry a nuclear warhead.

Only North Korea has actually tested a nuclear weapon since the 1990s - and it has not done so since 2017.

The White House has not issued any clarifications to the commander-in-chief's announcement. So it remains unclear whether Trump means testing nuclear delivery systems or the destructive weapons themeselves. In comments after his post, he said nuclear test sites would be determined later.

Six policy experts have told the BBC that testing nuclear weapons would raise the stakes in an already dangerous moment where all signs showed the world was heading in the direction of a nuclear arms race - even though it has not yet begun.

One of the six did not agree that Trump's comments would have a major impact - and another did not think the US was provoking a race - but all said the world faced a rising nuclear threat.

"The concern here is that, because nuclear armed states have not conducted these nuclear tests in decades - setting North Korea aside - this could create a domino effect," said Jamie Kwong, fellow in the nuclear policy programme at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"We're at a very concerning moment where the US, Russia and China are potentially entering this moment that could very well become an arms race."

Darya Dolzikova, Senior Research Fellow for Proliferation and Nuclear Policy at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) - a London-based defence and security think tank - said Trump's comments would change the situation massively.

But, she added, "there are other dynamics globally that have raised the risks of nuclear exchange and further proliferation of nuclear weapons levels higher than they have been in decades".

Trump's message, she said, "is a drop in a much larger bucket, and there are some legitimate concerns of that bucket overfilling".

The experts pointed to escalating conflicts where one or more of the warring parties is a nuclear power - the war in Ukraine, for instance, in which Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened at times that he could use nuclear weapons.

And then there were flare-ups - if not full-fledged conflicts - such as the one between Pakistan and India this year, or Israel - which has a policy of neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons - attacking Iran - a country the West accuses of trying to build nuclear weapons (a charge Tehran denies).

Tensions on the Korean peninsula and China's ambitions in Taiwan add to the overall picture.

The last existing nuclear treaty between the US and Russia that limits their amounts of deployed nuclear arsenals - warheads ready to go - is set to expire in February next year.

In his announcement, Trump said the US had more nuclear weapons than any other country - a statement that does not match figures updated regularly by another think tank that specialises in the field, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri).

According to Sipri, Russia has 5,459 nuclear warheadsm followed by the US with 5,177, an China coming a distant third with 600.

Other think tanks reported similar numbers.

Russia announced recently it had tested new nuclear weapons delivery systems - including a missile the Kremlin said could penetrate US defences and another that could go underwater to strike the US coast.

The latter claim may have led to Trump's announcement, some of the experts suspected, even though Russia said its tests "were not nuclear".

Meanwhile, the US has been watching China closely - with increasing concern that it will reach near-peer status, too, and posing a "two-peer nuclear risk", experts said.

So a resumption of US nuclear testing could prompt China and Russia to do the same.

A Kremlin spokesman said that "if someone departs from the moratorium, Russia will act accordingly".

In its response, China said it hoped the US would fulfil its obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - which both countries have signed but not ratified - and honour its commitment to suspend nuclear testing.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said a US resumption of nuclear weapons testing would be "a mistake of historic international security proportions".

He said the risk of nuclear conflict "has been steadily rising" over several years and, unless the US and Russia "negotiate some form of new constraints on their arsenals, we're likely going to see an unconstained, dangerous, three-way arms race between the US, Russia and then China in the coming years".

Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said the average person should be "very concerned" because there has been an increase over the past five years in nuclear warheads for the first time since the Cold War.

The last US nuclear weapons test - underground in Nevada - was in 1992.

Kimball said it would take at least 36 months to get the Nevada site ready for use again.

The US currently uses computer simulations and other non-explosive means to test its nuclear weapons, and therefore does not have a practical justification to detonate them, multiple experts said.

Kwong said there were inherent risks even with underground testing, because you must ensure there is not a radioactive leak above ground and it does not affect groundwater.

While blaming Russia and China for ratcheting up the rhetoric, Robert Peters, senior research fellow of strategic deterrence at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that, while there may not be a scientific or technical reason for testing a warhead, "the primary reason is to send a political message for your opponents".

"It may be necessary for some president, whether it's Donald Trump or whomever, to test nuclear weapons as a demonstration of credibility", he said, arguing it was "not an unreasonable position to hold" to be prepared to test.

While many others the BBC spoke to disagreed, all offered a fairly dire assessment of the current situation.

"My sense is that, if the new nuclear arms race hasn't already begun, then we're currently heading towards the starting line," said Rhys Crilley, who writes on the subject at the University of Glasgow.

"I worry every day about the risks of a nuclear arms race and the increasing risk of nuclear war."

The US tested the first atomic bomb in July 1945 in the desert at Alamogordo, New Mexico.

It later became the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons in warfare after dropping two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of the same year during World War Two.