Context and chronology

A return flight to Khartoum signalled a limited restoration of movement, but it did not alter the strategic logic that keeps combatants fighting. The conflict has evolved from an intra-security struggle into a nationwide contest where control over revenue streams and territory determines survival. Civilians pay the cost: 12 million people displaced and roughly 25 million facing acute food stress underscore the scale of disruption. Expect episodic normality — markets, flights, brief truces — layered over entrenched hostility rather than genuine peace.

Drivers of the stalemate

The conflict is anchored in a militarised economy where security actors control extractive rents and logistics corridors, creating powerful incentives to continue fighting. The paramilitary leader commonly called Hemedti has converted battlefield authority into economic clout, while the national army protects institutional revenue and status. Local ethnic alignments and access to resources have been repurposed into recruitment pools and spoils-sharing networks, which make demobilisation costly. Any negotiation that ignores resource allocation and command-level impunity will be brittle.

The air domain and the Kordofan front

Fighting has shifted into south‑central Kordofan, a theatre now central to control of routes linking Darfur, the Nile valley and access to resource sites such as gold pits and oilfields. Daily aerial strikes have struck markets, clinics and convoys, producing acute civilian harm and intense pressure on local health systems; independent monitors have reported roughly 50 civilian deaths over concentrated periods and described siege conditions that approach famine in some towns. Both sides are employing a layered air environment: higher‑end UCAVs provide extended reach and persistent ISR, while low‑cost commercial drones and modified quadcopters are proliferating through porous cross‑border supply chains and local markets, used for reconnaissance and improvised explosive delivery. This multi‑tiered threat has degraded humanitarian access and made logistics routes into contested battlefields.

Regional leverage, arms flows and contested claims

Outside capitals remain active patrons rather than neutral mediators, supplying materiel, political cover and logistical lifelines that lengthen the fight. Gulf and regional actors have intermittently backed different sides, diluting unified diplomatic leverage. The SAF has publicly claimed success in degrading RSF air defences and disrupting cross‑border resupply — a narrative that, if accurate, would constrain RSF sustainment. Yet on-the-ground evidence of persistent aerial strikes and the continued arrival of both high‑end and inexpensive drones indicates the air domain remains contested. That discrepancy — official claims of tactical degradation versus continuing operational aerial effects — highlights the opacity of supply chains and repair hubs that keep platforms flying.

Outlook and immediate implications

A humanitarian truce can provide short-term relief but will not solve the underlying distributional and accountability problems that fuel combatant incentives. Expect protracted bargaining, periodic escalations near border zones, and growing regional spillover risks unless patron states recalibrate interests. The arrival of cheap drones lowers the marginal cost of offensive operations and shifts the fight toward sustainment — whoever secures maintenance, spare parts and secure basing will gain disproportionate leverage. For policymakers, the leverage window is to couple reputational pressure with targeted supply‑chain interdiction, counter‑UAS and relief‑protection measures, and concrete transition finance that alters the calculus of armed patrons.