# Sudan’s Army Gains Ground as RSF Turns to Drones, Leaving Civilians Trapped Between Fire and Famine *Tuesday, June 9, 2026 at 6:15 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk* **Published**: 2026-06-09T06:15:49.784Z (4h ago) **Category**: conflict | **Region**: Africa **Importance**: 8/10 **Sources**: OSINT **Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/6732.md **Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries --- **Deck**: A Sudan conflict expert says the national army has seized the initiative while RSF rebels lean on increasingly destructive drone strikes in Kordofan, Darfur and Blue Nile, with neither side seriously pursuing talks. The shift leaves civilians in contested regions exposed to both bombardment and state collapse, and pushes the war deeper into a stalemate that threatens to fragment Sudan for years. Sudan’s war is entering a darker phase: the regular army is clawing back ground, the Rapid Support Forces are answering from the air with crude but destructive drones, and millions of civilians are stuck in territory that neither side seems ready to govern or to surrender. Sudanese crisis specialist Amin Ismail says recent fighting shows the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) gaining battlefield initiative, while the RSF has turned increasingly to drone attacks and scorched‑earth tactics in regions including Kordofan, Darfur and Blue Nile. The escalation has reignited debates over how — and whether — this war can be resolved, but Ismail’s assessment is blunt: both factions remain more focused on consolidating their positions than on any serious political negotiations. Territorial control is shifting, yet the political horizon is not. For civilians across these regions, the consequences are immediate and brutal. Drone strikes and artillery duels do not respect the boundaries of camps, markets or villages. Families that fled RSF abuses in Darfur or SAF bombardments in Khartoum now face renewed displacement as front lines creep into what were once tenuous safe zones. Health facilities, schools and water points in contested areas are either damaged, emptied of staff or cut off by insecurity, leaving communities to navigate a landscape where basic services disappear just as needs spike. Strategically, the SAF’s reported gains have not translated into a clear path to victory. Control over towns and roads in Kordofan or Blue Nile increases the army’s leverage, but the RSF’s use of drones and mobile columns allows it to hit supply lines, terrorize civilians, and maintain relevance even as it loses fixed positions. The pattern resembles other contemporary conflicts where non‑state or quasi‑state actors use cheap unmanned systems to offset conventional disadvantages, prolonging wars long after a decisive outcome might once have been expected. The longer this dynamic persists, the more Sudan risks fragmenting de facto into zones of influence anchored by violence rather than governance. In Darfur, where ethnic massacres and village burnings have already drawn international alarm, the RSF’s blend of territorial control and aerial harassment leaves communities at the mercy of commanders whose incentives skew toward resource extraction and coercion. In army‑held areas, military checkpoints and emergency laws can morph into durable systems of political exclusion if not paired with credible civilian authority. Regional and international actors face a narrowing window to influence this trajectory. Neighboring states are already absorbing refugees and grappling with arms flows across porous borders. The more drones, artillery pieces and fighters circulate between Kordofan, Darfur, Blue Nile and Sudan’s frontiers, the higher the risk that today’s front lines mutate into tomorrow’s cross‑border insurgencies. Existing mediation tracks struggle to gain traction when commanders on both sides believe they can still improve their positions by force. What changes if the SAF continues to gain territory while the RSF doubles down on drones and sabotage? Humanitarian access, already degraded, will erode further as aid convoys face both banditry and aerial attack. Agricultural cycles in fertile belts may be disrupted for multiple seasons, translating battlefield maneuvers into food insecurity for millions far beyond the immediate conflict zones. For urban populations, power outages, price spikes and service breakdowns will increasingly trace their origins back to a rural war they did not choose. Several decision points loom. The SAF leadership must decide whether to convert military gains into a political process that brings in civilian forces, or to entrench a more militarized order that risks renewed uprisings later. RSF commanders must confront whether continued reliance on drones and local terror can sustain their project in the face of international isolation and eventual resource depletion. External powers — from Gulf states to Western governments — must determine whether to increase pressure and incentives for a negotiated settlement, or accept a drawn‑out, low‑intensity conflict that quietly destabilizes the region. ## Key Takeaways - Sudanese expert Amin Ismail says the national army is gaining the upper hand while RSF rebels increasingly rely on destructive drone tactics in Kordofan, Darfur and Blue Nile. - Both the Sudanese Armed Forces and RSF remain focused on strengthening battlefield positions rather than engaging in serious political negotiations. - Civilians in contested regions face intensified bombardment, renewed displacement, and collapsing basic services as fighting spreads. - The evolving balance of power risks fragmenting Sudan into militarized zones of influence anchored by violence, not governance. - Prolonged conflict and the spread of drones and heavy weapons raise the chance of regional spillover and long‑term instability. ## Outlook & Way Forward Without a major shift in incentives for both warring parties, Sudan is likely to see more of the same: incremental army advances, RSF drone strikes and ground raids, and a steadily worsening humanitarian map. Diplomatic efforts will need to grapple with the reality that neither side currently sees a negotiated compromise as preferable to continued fighting. For regional and global actors, the choice is between investing in a harder, longer push for a political settlement — backed by targeted sanctions, arms controls and robust support to civilian mediators — or watching from the sidelines as Sudan’s conflict hardens into a chronic crisis. For ordinary Sudanese, especially in Kordofan, Darfur and Blue Nile, the war is no longer an abstraction centered on Khartoum; it is a daily calculation of how to survive in areas where drones, artillery and armed checkpoints define the contours of life.