Sudan’s War Shifts as Army Gains Ground and RSF Turns to Destructive Drone Attacks
An expert on Sudan says the national army is regaining the initiative while RSF rebels lean more on drone attacks and scorched‑earth tactics in Kordofan, Darfur and the Blue Nile. For civilians trapped between front lines and aerial explosives, the shift makes a negotiated exit from the conflict feel even farther away.
Sudan’s civil war is sliding deeper into a destructive phase where neither side is seriously talking peace, and new tools—especially drones—are giving rebels fresh ways to punish territory even when they cannot hold it.
Sudanese crisis expert Amin Ismail said in comments published on 9 June (UTC) that the balance of the conflict has shifted, with the national army gaining the initiative against Rapid Support Forces (RSF) rebels. He pointed to a recent escalation of violence in Kordofan, Darfur and the Blue Nile region, noting that while territorial control remains crucial, RSF units are increasingly resorting to destructive drone tactics as they come under pressure on the ground. According to Ismail, both sides remain focused on strengthening their battlefield positions rather than engaging seriously in conflict‑resolution efforts.
For civilians across western and southern Sudan, the change is painfully concrete. Towns in Kordofan and Darfur that once feared RSF ground columns now face sudden, high‑explosive strikes from above, with little warning and no effective air defenses. Families who have already fled one front line may find that drones can reach the displacement camps and urban neighborhoods they thought were temporary havens. In the Blue Nile region, where communities have endured cycles of conflict over land and identity, the spread of aerial attacks compounds the dangers of road ambushes and militia raids, limiting people’s ability to seek food, medical care or escape routes.
Strategically, the army’s reported gains in some areas may reflect its ability to leverage heavier weaponry, formal command structures and what institutional cohesion remains after months of war. If the RSF calculates that it can no longer reliably seize and hold key towns, shifting to more mobile and aerial harassment tactics is a grimly rational adaptation. Drones can be procured, improvised and operated by relatively small teams, enabling strikes on ammunition depots, markets or administrative centers without exposing large numbers of fighters.
This evolution carries serious implications for any future negotiations. As the cost of continued fighting is increasingly borne by civilians through indiscriminate or poorly targeted drone strikes and shelling, local communities’ trust in both the army and the RSF erodes further. The more infrastructure—schools, clinics, markets, power stations—is destroyed, the higher the price tag for eventual reconstruction and the harder it becomes for any future national government to reassert authority in war‑torn regions.
Ismail’s assessment that neither side is yet prioritizing talks suggests that international mediation efforts lack leverage on the actors who matter most on the ground. Regional powers with influence in Sudan, including neighbors and Gulf states, face their own dilemmas: pushing too hard on one side risks driving it toward alternative backers, while a hands‑off approach leaves armed groups free to test new methods of violence with little consequence.
Key Takeaways
- A Sudanese crisis expert says the national army has gained the initiative against RSF rebels.
- As they lose ground, RSF forces are reportedly relying more on destructive drone tactics in Kordofan, Darfur and the Blue Nile.
- Both sides remain focused on improving their battlefield positions rather than pursuing negotiations.
- Civilians face increasing risk from aerial attacks that can reach displacement sites and urban centers far from front lines.
- The shift toward drone warfare raises the long‑term cost of reconstruction and complicates future governance in affected regions.
Outlook & Way Forward
If the Sudanese army consolidates its advantage without a parallel political track, RSF leaders may double down on asymmetric tactics, using drones and hit‑and‑run raids to make large swaths of the country ungovernable. That trajectory would deepen humanitarian crises, displace more people into neighboring states and open further space for other armed actors to flourish.
A credible path out of the conflict will require more than battlefield momentum. External actors who have sway with either the army or RSF will need to align on basic red lines—particularly around the use of drones against civilian areas—and be prepared to tie financial and political support to concrete steps toward talks. Without that pressure, the war risks hardening into a long‑running, low‑trust struggle where remote‑controlled explosives become the weapon of choice and civilians remain the primary targets.
Sources
- OSINT