The Rapid Support Forces launched a coordinated drone attack on five power stations in Sudan’s eastern and southeastern regions, knocking out electricity across large parts of three army-controlled states, a government official said. The strikes hit two stations in Al-Jazira state, two in Gedaref and one in White Nile, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The power operator also reported that drone strikes had cut power across southeast Sudan, while multiple syndicated reports described mass outages after the RSF attacks.
A coordinated strike on civilian infrastructure
According to the account carried by the Guardian and regional outlets including Ahram, the drones struck the five facilities in a single operation. The official said the attacks resulted in power outages across large parts of Al-Jazira, Gedaref and White Nile. The three states are controlled by the Sudanese army, making the power grid another front in a war that has already devastated the country’s infrastructure.
“The drones hit two power stations each in the states of Al-Jazira and Gedaref and one in White Nile state, resulting in power outages across large parts of these three states,” the official said.
The reports could not be independently verified, and there was no immediate public comment from the RSF. The lack of named sources and independent confirmation is significant in a conflict where both sides have an interest in shaping the narrative. Still, the consistency of the accounts—from a government official, the power operator and multiple outlets—suggests a serious disruption to the grid serving millions of people.
Why power stations matter in Sudan’s war
Sudan has been convulsed by civil war since April 2023, when fighting erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF. The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people, displaced millions and pushed parts of the country into famine-like conditions. Drone warfare has become increasingly central, allowing both sides to strike targets far from front lines. Power stations, water-pumping facilities, hospitals and communications networks are especially vulnerable because they are fixed, hard to defend and essential to civilian life.
In eastern Sudan, the immediate effect of the blackout is likely to be felt across households, markets, clinics and water systems. Electricity is needed to pump water, refrigerate medicines and vaccines, power hospital equipment and keep communications running. When the grid fails, the consequences can cascade within hours. Businesses close, food spoils, and aid operations that depend on cooling and connectivity are interrupted. For families already displaced by fighting, a prolonged outage adds another layer of hardship.
A humanitarian crisis compounded by climate stress
The strikes come as Sudan’s humanitarian emergency is being worsened by extreme weather. Climate change has brought more intense heat, erratic rainfall, droughts and floods, straining water supplies and agriculture. Drone attacks and infrastructure sabotage deepen that vulnerability by cutting the very services—electricity, water and health care—that help communities cope. A power outage during a heatwave can be deadly; a blackout at a hospital can be catastrophic; a failure at a water station can force families to drink unsafe water.
This is why the story is being framed in two ways. Security-focused reports emphasize the RSF’s drone capabilities and the targeting of army-controlled infrastructure. Humanitarian and climate-focused coverage emphasizes the cumulative toll on civilians. Both perspectives converge on the same point: in a war already marked by displacement, hunger and disease, damage to the power grid is not a secondary inconvenience. It is a direct threat to public health and survival.
Escalation and accountability
If confirmed as deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure, the strikes would raise serious questions under international humanitarian law, which prohibits attacks on objects indispensable to civilian survival. Power stations can be dual-use in some conflicts, but the burden is on commanders to distinguish military objectives from civilian necessities and to take precautions against disproportionate harm. Independent monitors and human rights investigators will need access to the sites and to grid data to establish what was hit and why.
The attack also signals the RSF’s continued ability to project force through drones, even in areas controlled by the army. That has implications for the war’s trajectory: it makes rear areas less safe, complicates repairs and forces authorities to divert resources to protect infrastructure. It may also deepen the isolation of affected communities if electricity cannot be restored quickly.
The immediate priority is restoration of power and protection of civilians. Beyond the technical repair, the strikes underline a broader truth about Sudan’s war: the most damaging attacks are often those that hit the systems people rely on to survive. As fighting continues, the international community will be judged on whether it can help secure civilian infrastructure—and whether it can do so before the next blackout becomes another preventable catastrophe.
