In a recent escalation of the ongoing conflict in Sudan, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) issued a strong condemnation of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on Sunday, October 5, 2025, accusing them of launching drone strikes targeting civilian facilities in North Kordofan State, located in southern Sudan. The army’s statement detailed the alleged attacks, which took place in the state capital, El-Obeid, on Saturday evening, claiming that the RSF deployed suicide drones to strike critical civilian infrastructure, including Al-Dhaman Hospital, residential neighborhoods, and other non-military facilities. The statement highlighted the damage caused to these sites, though, notably, no casualties were reported as a result of the strikes.
The Sudanese army described the RSF’s actions as a “moral defeat” and a clear violation of international humanitarian law, accusing the paramilitary group of deliberately targeting innocent civilians and undermining efforts to maintain peace and stability in the war-torn nation. The army’s statement further underscored what it perceives as the RSF’s persistent disregard for the safety and well-being of Sudanese civilians, framing the attack as part of a broader pattern of aggression that prioritizes military objectives over humanitarian principles.
As of the time of the statement, the RSF had not issued an official response to the army’s allegations, leaving the accusations unaddressed by the paramilitary group. This silence has become a recurring feature in the ongoing conflict, with both sides frequently trading accusations of misconduct while offering little in the way of direct rebuttals or engagement in meaningful dialogue to resolve the crisis.
The drone strikes in El-Obeid come at a critical juncture in the Sudanese conflict, which has seen significant shifts in territorial control in recent weeks. According to reports, the RSF has experienced a rapid contraction of its influence, with the Sudanese army making substantial gains in key regions. The army has expanded its control over large swathes of Khartoum, the national capital, as well as White Nile and North Kordofan states. These advances have significantly reduced the RSF’s territorial footprint, limiting their presence to isolated pockets in West Kordofan, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile states, alongside four of the five states in the Darfur region.
The conflict between the Sudanese army and the RSF, which erupted in mid-April 2023, has proven to be one of the most devastating crises in Sudan’s recent history. What began as a power struggle between the two factions has spiraled into a full-scale war, marked by widespread violence, displacement, and a worsening humanitarian catastrophe. Despite numerous attempts by regional and international mediators to broker a ceasefire or negotiate a lasting peace, all efforts have so far failed to bring the warring parties to the table or halt the fighting. The continued hostilities have left millions of Sudanese citizens caught in the crossfire, facing acute shortages of food, water, medical supplies, and other essentials.
The recent drone strikes in North Kordofan underscore the evolving nature of the conflict, with both sides increasingly turning to advanced weaponry, such as drones, to gain a tactical advantage. The use of suicide drones, in particular, represents a troubling development, as these weapons are capable of precise and destructive strikes, often targeting civilian infrastructure with devastating consequences. The attack on Al-Dhaman Hospital, a critical healthcare facility in El-Obeid, is particularly alarming, as it further erodes the already fragile medical infrastructure in Sudan, where hospitals and clinics have been repeatedly targeted or caught in the crossfire since the war began.
The Sudanese army’s accusation that the RSF’s actions constitute a violation of international humanitarian law points to a broader concern about the conduct of both parties in the conflict. International humanitarian law, which includes the Geneva Conventions, explicitly prohibits attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, and residential areas. By targeting Al-Dhaman Hospital and residential neighborhoods, the RSF—if the army’s claims are substantiated—would be in clear breach of these principles, further exacerbating the suffering of Sudan’s civilian population.
The lack of casualties in the El-Obeid attack, while fortunate, does little to mitigate the broader impact of such strikes. Damage to hospitals and residential areas disrupts essential services, displaces families, and instills fear in communities already grappling with the daily realities of war. The destruction of civilian infrastructure also complicates efforts to deliver humanitarian aid, as relief organizations struggle to operate in areas where basic facilities have been rendered inoperable.
The shrinking territorial control of the RSF, as highlighted by the Sudanese army, suggests that the paramilitary group may be resorting to increasingly desperate measures to maintain its relevance in the conflict. The loss of key strongholds in Khartoum and other strategic areas has placed significant pressure on the RSF, potentially pushing them to adopt riskier and more aggressive tactics, such as drone strikes, to disrupt the army’s advances and assert their presence. However, these actions are likely to further alienate the civilian population, many of whom have borne the brunt of the conflict’s violence and instability.
The war in Sudan has not only caused immense human suffering but has also deepened the country’s political and economic crises. The fighting has displaced millions of people, both internally and across borders, creating one of the largest displacement crises in the world. The destruction of infrastructure, coupled with the collapse of essential services, has left Sudan teetering on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. International organizations, including the United Nations and various non-governmental organizations, have repeatedly called for an end to the violence and for increased access to deliver aid to those in need. However, the lack of progress in peace negotiations and the continued escalation of hostilities have hindered these efforts.
The international community’s response to the Sudanese conflict has been marked by frustration and limited success. Regional powers, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, have attempted to mediate between the SAF and the RSF, as have international bodies like the African Union and the United Nations. Despite these efforts, both sides have shown little willingness to compromise, with each accusing the other of violating ceasefire agreements and obstructing peace talks. The failure of these mediations has only prolonged the suffering of Sudan’s people, who continue to face the consequences of a war that shows no signs of abating.
As the Sudanese army consolidates its territorial gains and the RSF struggles to maintain its foothold, the conflict appears to be entering a new phase. The use of advanced weaponry, such as suicide drones, signals a shift toward more technologically sophisticated warfare, which could further complicate the dynamics of the conflict. For civilians in North Kordofan and other affected regions, the immediate priority remains survival, as they navigate the daily threats of violence, displacement, and scarcity.
The Sudanese army’s accusations against the RSF, while serious, are but one chapter in a much larger and more complex conflict. The targeting of civilian infrastructure, such as Al-Dhaman Hospital, serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of this war and the urgent need for accountability and adherence to international humanitarian standards. As the fighting continues, the prospects for peace remain dim, with both sides entrenched in their positions and the civilian population paying the ultimate price.
In conclusion, the Sudanese army’s condemnation of the RSF’s alleged drone strikes in North Kordofan highlights the ongoing challenges of a conflict that has devastated Sudan for over two years. The targeting of civilian facilities, the shrinking territorial control of the RSF, and the failure of mediation efforts all point to a deeply entrenched crisis with no easy resolution. As the war drags on, the international community must redouble its efforts to pressure both sides to cease hostilities, protect civilians, and work toward a sustainable peace that addresses the root causes of the conflict. Until such steps are taken, Sudan’s people will continue to endure the devastating consequences of a war that has already claimed far too much.
