The war in Sudan has now escalated to an even more deadly stage, one where drones are used extensively instead of traditional forms of fighting, such as land-based attacks. According to an eye-opening report by UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk, more than 1,000 civilians have lost their lives due to drone attacks within just the first five months of 2026. This drastic increase in civilian deaths has made it apparent that the tactics used during the war have changed significantly.
The warning made by the UN at a highly publicized press conference on June 15, 2026, reveals the scope of the problem in terms of both casualties and the systematic nature of the problem. Türk accused the increasing use of combatant unmanned aerial vehicles of increasing and broadening the violence, which might result in additional displacement and disruption of crucial humanitarian aid deliveries. What is more, his warning can be considered not only an appeal of humanitarian character but also potentially a legal warning: such actions are often considered to be war crimes.
The Numbers Behind the Crisis
As indicated by information provided by UN, more than 1,000 civilians were murdered during drone attacks in the period between January and May 2026. Although it is difficult to provide accurate figures for each region or month because of limited access to information, there are obvious tendencies according to which drone attacks have emerged as one of the main weapons used against civilians. In some months, the death toll from individual drone attacks was reported to be in dozens; for instance, in February 2026, there were 57 civilian deaths in four different states within only two days, among whom 15 were children.
There have been cases where the number of fatalities from drones has reached alarming levels. An attack on Al Safiya Market in Sudari by the Sudanese Armed Forces, using a drone, killed 28 people. In other parts of Kordofan, at least 100 people, including 43 children, died from various drone strikes since December 4, 2025. From this example, it can be concluded that the use of drones increases overall fatalities but does so in a way that even affects those who are least connected to the war.
Volker Türk’s Stern Warning: “Horrific” and “Devastating”
Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has been vocal in his condemnation of the drone campaign. In his June 15 briefing, he described the conflict as “horrific” and emphasized that there has been a
“sharp increase in the use of drone warfare”.
His language was not just descriptive but accusatory: he warned that the killings are a reminder of “the devastating consequences” of drone warfare, which targets civilians and civil infrastructure in Sudan.
The remarks of Türk, therefore, extend far beyond just numbers of victims. According to him, violations of sexual as well as other human rights were associated with the Sudan war, and he stated that civilians, especially women and children, were the main victims of the war and drone strikes. His comments can be explained by the fact that drone warfare is seen not only as tactical but also ethical and legal failure. The UN had been calling for accountability of those committing rights abuse and access to humanitarian assistance, especially with the increase in market and hospital bombings.
Drone Warfare as a Weapon of Civilian Targeting
What makes drone strikes particularly dangerous in Sudan is their use against civilian areas. Unlike traditional artillery or ground forces, drones can be deployed remotely, often without warning, and can strike with precision that paradoxically increases the risk to non-combatants. In Sudan, drones have been used to target markets, health facilities, and residential neighborhoods—places where civilians gather daily.
There have been various cases documented by the UN, whereby civilian structures have been attacked using drones. In February 2026, for example, at least 50 civilians died from the drone attacks in four states in Sudan within two days. Of the 50 civilians who were killed, there were 15 children among the dead. The attacks on civilians cannot be considered accidental, because they are part of a wider strategy, whereby civilian structures are considered legitimate targets of attack.
Geographic Scope and Humanitarian Impact
The drone campaign is not confined to one region. It spans multiple states, including Khartoum, North Kordofan, and others where the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has intensified. In Khartoum, the capital, drone activity has increased alongside ground combat, leading to a surge in civilian harm. In Kordofan, a region already devastated by years of fighting, drone strikes have become a leading cause of death.
The humanitarian consequences of this situation are disastrous. The UN has stated that the escalation of the conflict will result in increased displacement and disruption of the flow of aid. Already having suffered massive displacement and malnutrition, the introduction of drone attacks in the mix will result in the collapse of Sudan’s humanitarian efforts. Markets, which are essential to the distribution of food and supplies, are under attack. Healthcare facilities, necessary for treating injuries and diseases such as cholera, are also constantly under threat.
International Response and Legal Concerns
The warning from the United Nations has garnered the attention of human rights organizations as well as legal scholars, many of whom are calling for an investigation on whether the drone attacks in Sudan amount to war crimes. Based on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, an attack that intentionally targets civilians or any type of civilian infrastructure is considered a war crime. There have been cases wherein the drones attacked marketplaces and clinics.
However, accountability remains elusive. Both the SAF and RSF have been accused of using drones, but neither side has faced significant international pressure to cease their use. The UN has called for accountability for rights abuses and for humanitarian access to be restored, but enforcement mechanisms remain weak. The international community’s response has been limited to statements and appeals, with no concrete action to halt drone warfare or protect civilians.
The Role of Technology and Strategic Shifts
The development of the use of drone strikes by the SAF and RSF in Sudan is indicative of changing dynamics in the modern wars. For starters, drones are relatively cheap and easy to deploy when compared to conventional aircrafts. Also, drones are unmanned, which means that the operators can control the drones from far distances and thus minimize any danger that would result from the operations. Both the SAF and RSF have developed their capacities for drones in Sudan, which they are deploying against military personnel as well as civilians in various regions across Sudan.
These changing dynamics can also be seen in various other countries. For example, the use of drones in places such as Ukraine and Yemen have followed a similar trend. However, in the case of Sudan, the casualties among the civilians from drone strikes are a major problem. According to statistics from the UN, drone attacks are responsible for the largest numbers of civilian deaths, even more than ground forces.