Sudan’s War Turns to Drones and Scorched Earth as Army Gains Ground and RSF Lashes Out
Fighting in Sudan’s Kordofan, Darfur and Blue Nile regions is intensifying as the national army regains the initiative and RSF rebels turn to destructive drone attacks. While talk of a political settlement resurfaces, both camps are still racing for territory — leaving civilians, farms and towns in the line of fire.
The front lines of Sudan’s war are shifting, but not toward peace. As the national army claws back ground in key regions, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are answering with a destructive new weapon of choice: drones aimed not just at soldiers, but at towns, infrastructure and livelihoods.
On 9 June, Sudanese conflict expert Amin Ismail described a sharp escalation in violence across Kordofan, Darfur and the Blue Nile region. Speaking about the latest phase of fighting, he said the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have seized the initiative, pressing RSF units and reclaiming some territory. In response, the RSF has reportedly turned increasingly to drone warfare and destructive tactics, striking at civilian areas and infrastructure as it attempts to slow the army’s advance and retain leverage.
For families living in these regions, the shift is brutal but familiar: new technologies layered on top of old patterns of violence. In towns and villages across Darfur and Kordofan, communities already scarred by past massacres now face the threat of explosives falling from small, hard‑to‑detect aircraft. Farmers risk losing crops and herds not just to ground fighting but to targeted destruction from the air. Displaced people who had taken shelter in what they hoped were safer areas are once again on the move, driven by rumors of approaching columns or buzzing drones overhead.
Strategically, Ismail’s assessment suggests the SAF has overcome some of the paralysis and fragmentation that marked the war’s earlier stages. Regaining territory in Kordofan and Blue Nile would give the army better control over central supply lines and key agricultural and mining zones. For the RSF, whose power has often rested on mobility and control of trade routes, the loss of ground pressure is being offset by the use of drones to hit back asymmetrically and to punish communities seen as loyal to the army or hostile tribes.
Despite renewed international discussion about possible conflict resolution, the expert stressed that neither side is acting like a movement heading toward negotiations. Instead, both SAF and RSF appear focused on strengthening battlefield positions to improve their bargaining power later — or to avoid meaningful talks altogether. For civilians, that means the language of peace conferences and envoys remains abstract while the immediate reality is checkpoints, air raids, looting and the slow collapse of basic services.
The RSF’s reported shift to destructive drone tactics also raises fears of an even more indiscriminate phase of warfare. Cheap, commercially adapted drones have proliferated across recent conflicts, from Ukraine to Yemen, allowing irregular forces to strike fuel depots, markets or water tanks with relatively low cost and high psychological impact. In Sudan’s fragmented environment, where local militias, tribal groups and criminal networks often blur into larger armed movements, the spread of such tools could widen the war beyond the direct control of SAF and RSF commanders.
If the army’s offensive continues, the RSF may feel cornered in its core strongholds, including parts of Darfur and urban neighborhoods it still holds. That could incentivize scorched‑earth tactics — burning villages, destroying fields, and wrecking infrastructure — to deny SAF the benefits of retaken areas. Such patterns were seen in earlier phases of Darfur’s conflicts and could now be amplified by drone‑delivered munitions.
Internationally, the renewed intensity will test the limited leverage of outside actors. Regional powers that have backed different sides — whether with arms, funding or political cover — face the risk that their clients’ tactics will draw broader condemnation, especially if evidence mounts of systematic attacks on civilians using drones. Humanitarian agencies, already struggling to access large parts of the country, may confront new no‑go zones if both sides treat aid corridors and warehouses as potential targets or bargaining chips.
Key Takeaways
- Sudanese expert Amin Ismail reports that the Sudanese Armed Forces have recently gained the initiative against the RSF in Kordofan, Darfur and Blue Nile.
- In response, the RSF is increasingly relying on destructive drone tactics, targeting towns and infrastructure as well as military positions.
- Both sides remain focused on strengthening battlefield positions rather than entering serious negotiations, despite renewed debate about conflict resolution.
- Civilians in affected regions face heightened risks from air attacks, displacement, and the destruction of agriculture and basic services.
- The proliferation of drones in Sudan’s conflict raises the risk of more indiscriminate violence and loss of central command control over local actors.
Outlook & Way Forward
Unless there is a decisive external push paired with incentives that both SAF and RSF find compelling, the trajectory points toward a grinding war of attrition with higher technological lethality. The army may aim to convert its current momentum into control over key corridors and cities, gambling that battlefield gains can later be translated into political dominance. The RSF, unable to match the SAF in conventional confrontations, will likely double down on drones, guerrilla raids and economic disruption.
For mediators, the window to prevent a deeper humanitarian catastrophe is narrowing. Any credible plan will need to include restrictions on drone use, guarantees for aid access and some form of local security arrangements in contested regions, not just elite power‑sharing in Khartoum. Without that, even a nominal ceasefire risks breaking down into localized wars fought with increasingly cheap and accessible airpower.
For Sudan’s civilians, the war’s evolution means that nowhere is reliably safe: not the open fields where drones can see everything, nor the dense neighborhoods where a single strike can reverberate through crowded markets and shelters. As long as both sides believe more violence can improve their negotiating position, those caught in between will pay the highest price for every incremental gain on the map.
Sources
- OSINT