# Khartoum’s War Turns to Drones: Sudan Army Push Pressures RSF Into Destructive Remote Strikes *Tuesday, June 9, 2026 at 6:09 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk* **Published**: 2026-06-09T06:09:47.035Z (4h ago) **Category**: conflict | **Region**: Africa **Importance**: 7/10 **Sources**: OSINT **Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/6707.md **Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries --- **Deck**: As Sudan’s army regains initiative on some fronts, Rapid Support Forces are resorting more heavily to drones and scorched‑earth tactics in Kordofan, Darfur and Blue Nile. The shift is trapping civilians between advancing troops and remote strikes — and shows that both sides are investing in battlefield gains, not negotiations. Sudan’s civil war is entering a more destructive phase as the national army regains initiative on several fronts and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) lean harder on drones and scorched‑earth tactics to compensate. Fighting has intensified in Kordofan, Darfur and the Blue Nile region, with both camps focused on territorial control and military leverage rather than serious talks, according to Sudanese crisis expert Amin Ismail. Ismail describes a battlefield where the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) have clawed back ground from the RSF, shifting momentum after months in which the paramilitary group appeared ascendant. In response, RSF units are increasingly deploying commercially adapted drones for reconnaissance and attack roles and resorting to more destructive strikes on infrastructure and urban areas. While precise frontline maps are hard to verify, the pattern across multiple regions points to a widening, not narrowing, radius of violence. For civilians in Kordofan, Darfur and Blue Nile, this shift is devastatingly tangible. Towns that once faced mainly small‑arms clashes now endure overhead buzzing from drones and indiscriminate shelling as forces attempt to dislodge each other from key roads and population centers. Families already displaced once are being uprooted again as drone‑directed artillery and looting strip away what little security remained. In rural zones, farmers weigh the risk of working their fields against the likelihood of being caught in the path of units eager to secure food, fuel and vehicles. Strategically, the increased use of drones by the RSF marks another step in the diffusion of relatively cheap unmanned systems into Africa’s civil wars. Drones allow lightly equipped forces to harass supply lines, target command posts and intimidate communities without always putting fighters at immediate risk. The SAF’s recent gains suggest that drones alone cannot replace boots on the ground, but they can slow advances, inflict damage and deepen the war’s cost for whoever governs the territory next. The army’s regained initiative poses its own dangers. SAF commanders, many with deep ties to pre‑war political and business networks, are likely to see military improvements as proof that they can win more concessions — or even outright victory — by force rather than compromise. That calculation makes meaningful ceasefire negotiations harder, even as humanitarian agencies warn that millions face acute food insecurity and collapsing health services if fighting continues at current intensity. If both sides double down on the battlefield, pressure will mount on neighboring states and external actors to pick winners rather than push for inclusive settlement. Regional powers have already backed different factions, seeing Sudan’s conflict through the lenses of port access on the Red Sea, Islamist influence, and competition for gold and other resources. As drones and heavy weapons proliferate, the tools available to spoilers become more lethal and easier to move across porous borders. For now, Ismail’s assessment is blunt: debate over conflict resolution has reopened in diplomatic circles, but on the ground neither the army nor the RSF is acting like a side preparing for compromise. Instead, both are consolidating positions, recruiting, and seeking external support in money, arms and political cover. That leaves civilians squeezed between blockades, rising prices and the threat of sudden violence — and international mediation efforts struggling to gain traction. ## Key Takeaways - Sudan’s national army has regained initiative on several fronts against the RSF, according to a Sudanese crisis expert. - The RSF is increasingly relying on drones and destructive tactics in Kordofan, Darfur and Blue Nile as it seeks to blunt SAF advances. - Civilians are caught between shifting front lines and remote strikes, facing renewed displacement and damage to already fragile infrastructure. - Both sides remain focused on military gains rather than negotiations, despite growing humanitarian risks. - The conflict is accelerating the spread of armed drones into African civil wars, raising the lethality and complexity of future fighting. ## Outlook & Way Forward If the SAF continues to make gains, it may feel less incentive to negotiate, betting instead on outlasting the RSF militarily. That could yield short‑term territorial consolidation but at the cost of further destroying Sudan’s economic base and deepening ethnic and regional grievances that will outlast any battlefield win. Absent sustained, coordinated pressure from regional and international actors with leverage over both sides, the most likely trajectory is a grinding conflict marked by localized offensives, drone strikes and the slow disintegration of state services. For outside powers, the choice is narrowing: invest in a more assertive diplomatic and economic push now, or prepare for a more entrenched, fragmented conflict on the Red Sea’s doorstep that will be harder and costlier to address later.