Kordofan at the Heart of Sudan’s War: Army Advances, Drone Warfare, and the Arms Embargo Test

The latest military developments in North Kordofan appear to represent more than a limited battlefield contest between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). They point instead to a broader shift in the geography of Sudan’s war, in which control over towns, roads, and supply routes is becoming increasingly important to both sides’ ability to reposition forces and maintain links between their respective areas of influence. Against this backdrop, the army’s recapture of Al-Mazroub, days after retaking Sudri, constitutes another step in a wider effort to reshape the balance of power in Kordofan.

The Sudanese military announced on Friday that its forces and allied units had recaptured Al-Mazroub following what it described as fierce fighting, claiming that the RSF had suffered significant losses in personnel and vehicles. Although the scale of those losses could not be independently verified, the operation itself carries significance beyond the immediate military value of the town, given its geographical position and role within the movement and supply network of North Kordofan.

Located roughly 130 kilometers northwest of El Obeid, Al-Mazroub is an important livestock market in the region. During the war, however, it acquired additional strategic importance as a point along routes that can facilitate the movement of troops and supplies. Control of the town therefore concerns more than which side occupies its center. The decisive question is whether that side can secure the surrounding roads and maintain lines of communication toward western Kordofan.

The development follows the army’s recapture of Sudri and comes amid a broader series of military movements involving Umm Shurou, Bara, Jabra al-Sheikh, Umm Sayala, and other areas. Available battlefield reports suggest that the RSF has been moving toward areas farther west and northwest, including Umm Badr and Hamrat al-Sheikh, although the precise current deployment of its forces remains difficult to independently verify.

Kordofan as a Strategic Hub

Kordofan’s importance lies less in any individual town than in its geography. The region sits at the center of Sudan’s wartime geography and provides a corridor connecting central Sudan with Darfur to the west. Its road networks can therefore have a direct impact on the movement and resupply of military forces. Any shift in control over its key towns can consequently affect the ability of both sides to maneuver across operational fronts.

From this perspective, the army’s advances in North Kordofan can be understood as an effort to strengthen its position between central Sudan and Darfur while restricting the RSF’s ability to use certain routes as channels for movement and resupply. Yet the durability of these gains will depend on more than capturing individual towns. It will require sustained control of the roads and rural areas surrounding them.

Sudan’s war has repeatedly demonstrated that control of urban centers does not necessarily amount to full control of the surrounding territory. A force withdrawing from a town can redeploy to less exposed areas and use rural and desert routes to reorganize its operations. The real test of a military advance therefore lies not simply in capturing an urban center, but in the ability to consolidate forces, secure supply lines, and prevent the opposing side from re-entering the area.

Drone Warfare Opens a New Front

Alongside the ground operations, drones are becoming increasingly prominent in the conflict, reflecting an important transformation in the tools of warfare in Sudan. The Sudan Doctors Network reported that five people were killed and 47 wounded in a drone strike targeting student accommodation belonging to the University of Kordofan in El Obeid. The network accused the RSF of carrying out the attack, describing it as an escalation in attacks against civilian and educational facilities. The RSF did not immediately comment, and the identity of the party responsible for the strike could not be independently verified.

The significance of the incident lies not only in the number of casualties but also in the nature of the target. The expansion of drone strikes into civilian and educational facilities in El Obeid suggests that relatively low-cost aerial warfare is becoming an increasingly important component of the conflict in Kordofan.

Drones provide both sides with several military advantages, including the ability to strike relatively distant targets, gather intelligence, disrupt troop movements, and conduct attacks without deploying large numbers of personnel. Their increasing use in urban environments, however, also raises the risks to civilians and civilian infrastructure and makes the distinction between military and civilian space increasingly difficult to maintain.

The growing frequency of drone attacks in El Obeid also demonstrates that the war’s military center of gravity is no longer confined to Darfur or Khartoum. As long-range weapons become more widespread, areas previously considered relatively distant from the main battle lines are increasingly exposed to attack.

From a Local Battle to a Struggle Over Sudanese Space

In Khartoum, army commander and Sovereign Council Chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhan emphasized the national role of the armed forces while addressing new batches of military academy cadets. He called on them to transcend political, tribal, and regional affiliations. The message reflects another dimension of the conflict: the army’s effort to reinforce its image as the central national institution capable of preserving the unity of the state.

Yet the army’s political and institutional narrative is unfolding alongside a more complicated battlefield reality. The war continues to involve multiple centers of power, local, tribal, and regional alliances, and external flows of military support. Rebuilding the state’s monopoly over the use of force therefore depends not merely on advances along individual fronts, but on restoring control over transportation and supply networks, resources, and major population centers.

Kordofan consequently matters beyond its administrative boundaries. The region could become either a buffer between competing areas of control or a strategic corridor allowing one side to project power deeper into the other’s territory. The longer the war continues, the greater the strategic value of such intermediate geography becomes.

The Arms Embargo Faces a New Test

These developments come as the United Nations Security Council prepares for a new round of discussions on the sanctions regime imposed on Sudan, including the arms embargo currently applicable to Darfur. In September, the Council extended the regime for only a limited period after members failed to reach agreement on a U.S. proposal to expand the embargo nationwide.

The debate has acquired additional importance because the nature of the war itself has changed. The arms embargo was originally established in the context of a Darfur conflict whose geography, military tools, and actors differed significantly from those of the current war. Today’s conflict has spread across large parts of Sudan, while long-range weapons, drones, and related technologies have become increasingly important to military operations.

According to the available information, Washington is also seeking tighter restrictions on the flow of weapons, drones, related technologies, and foreign fighters. Russia and China, meanwhile, have expressed reservations about expanding the geographical scope of the embargo. The Sudanese government opposes a nationwide arms embargo, arguing that it could constrain the army’s ability to defend the state, and instead calls for measures specifically aimed at preventing weapons and external support from reaching the RSF.

This presents the Security Council with a central dilemma: how to restrict the flow of weapons that prolong the conflict without creating restrictions that could affect one side’s military capacity disproportionately. The issue is therefore not simply whether an embargo should exist, but how it should be enforced, how broadly it should apply geographically, and which actors are capable of complying with or circumventing it.

Geography Could Redefine the Course of the War

If the army succeeds in consolidating its gains in North Kordofan, the RSF may be compelled to reassess its deployment routes and movement between Kordofan and Darfur. Turning these gains into a lasting strategic shift, however, would require more than capturing a chain of towns. It would require the sustained ability to protect roads, secure supply lines, prevent counterattacks, and administer territories newly brought under army control.

At the same time, the RSF’s ability to redeploy across open terrain and employ drones or other long-range firepower could reduce the military significance of some territorial gains. The war is therefore increasingly evolving toward a model that combines direct territorial control with remote warfare, meaning that the loss of a town does not necessarily eliminate the withdrawing force’s ability to influence the area.

The recent developments in Kordofan also highlight the widening gap between the changing nature of the war on the ground and the international mechanisms designed to contain it. While the Security Council debates an arms embargo originally developed in response to circumstances in Darfur, the battlefield itself has expanded into new regions, while military technologies and methods have evolved rapidly.

In this context, the battle for Al-Mazroub is part of a broader struggle to redraw the strategic geography of Sudan’s war. Control over towns and roads in Kordofan could shape movement between central and western Sudan, while the growing use of drones could redefine the very concept of the “front,” making cities far from traditional lines of contact potential targets.

Ultimately, the future of the fighting in Kordofan will depend not simply on which side captures more towns, but on each side’s ability to turn temporary territorial control into sustainable influence, secure supply networks, preserve military and human resources, and operate within the broader regional and international environment surrounding the conflict. At the same time, the Security Council’s debate over the arms embargo will test the international community’s ability to adapt its response to a war that has expanded geographically and technologically beyond the framework within which many of its existing mechanisms were originally designed.