The armed conflict in Myanmar, exacerbated after the military coup in 2021, has led to a prolonged civil war, multifaceted and deeply rooted in historical ethnic, social, and political tensions. This article explores the complex nature of the conflict, the severe humanitarian crisis resulting from it, the geopolitical positioning of external actors—particularly China and Russia—and the deficit of effective action by the international community. In this framework, it is argued that Myanmar constitutes a blind spot in the regional security architecture of Southeast Asia and a paradigmatic case of the failure of multilateralism in the face of prolonged and asymmetric conflicts.
When the spotlight of international politics shines on Israel, Iran, Ukraine, Gaza, or Taiwan, Myanmar remains in the shadows. Far from being at peace, the country is experiencing a complex, persistent, and multifaceted civil war, where unresolved ethnic disputes, fierce civil resistance, and an entrenched military junta converge.
A civil war that exceeds the political dichotomy
Reducing the situation to a confrontation between the military regime and the former democratic government led by Aung San Suu Kyi is as tempting as it is incomplete. Myanmar is a country of over 50 million inhabitants, fragmented into about twenty ethnic groups with their own political, cultural, and armed identities. Some of them—such as the Kachin, Karen, Shan, or Rakhine—have sustained conflicts with the central State long before the 2021 coup.
The current resistance is not homogeneous: it consists of both the PDF (People’s Defence Forces), militias that emerged after the coup, and ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), some with decades of combat experience. This unusual convergence has given rise to a multi-front war, in which the central State no longer controls large areas of the country. The logic is not that of a linear rebellion, but that of a positional war, with no clear exit or dominant actor.
The conflict in Myanmar, as mentioned earlier, cannot be understood from a simplistic dichotomy between military authoritarianism and representative democracy. While the coup triggered the current confrontation, the roots of the conflict are structural, dating back to the process of building the Burmese State in the 20th century.
The invisible humanitarian emergency
The prolongation of the conflict has resulted in a humanitarian crisis of enormous scale. It is estimated that over three million people are internally displaced, while hundreds of thousands have sought refuge in neighboring countries such as Thailand, India, and Bangladesh. Health and educational infrastructure has collapsed in vast rural areas, and access to food, drinking water, and medicine is severely restricted.
To the absence of effective assistance is added the systematic blockade of humanitarian corridors by the military junta. International aid, when it manages to enter, is often insufficient, delayed, or directly manipulated by the actors in the conflict. Meanwhile, international organizations report the systematic use of sexual violence, forced recruitment, and bombings in civilian areas.
The geopolitical chess: the ambivalent role of China, Russia, and ASEAN
Despite the relative diplomatic isolation of the military regime, Myanmar is not a peripheral actor on the Asian geopolitical board. On the contrary, its strategic location makes it a vital point for the ambitions of regional powers such as China and India.
China has adopted an ambiguous stance: while it has avoided openly condemning the coup, it has maintained commercial, financial, and diplomatic ties with the junta. Through the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, Beijing seeks to secure land access to the Indian Ocean and protect its investments in energy, transportation, and telecommunications infrastructure. This relationship is based on a pragmatic stabilization logic and the need to avoid state collapse on its southwest border.
Russia, for its part, has intensified military and technological cooperation with the junta, in line with its strategy of diversifying alliances in Asia. Moscow finds in Naypyidaw a partner not conditioned by democratic values and a strategic client for its defense industry.
In contrast, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has failed to articulate an effective response. The structural limitations of the bloc—especially its principle of non-interference—have hindered the implementation of pressure or mediation mechanisms with real capacity to influence the conflict.
The battle for the narrative
As clashes intensify, so does the control of information. The military government has restricted internet access, shut down independent media, and criminalized dissent. At the same time, the diaspora and digital activists have managed to sustain a counter-narrative on social media, leaking videos, testimonies, and reports documenting abuses and human rights violations.
Why does Myanmar seem "too difficult"?
The lack of international political will to intervene in Myanmar is partly explained by the complexity of the conflict. There is no unified opposition, nor a force capable of negotiating credibly on behalf of the whole. There are also no minimum guarantees that a potential political transition would lead to stable democracy. The past experience, in which Aung San Suu Kyi was a global symbol but later passively defended the genocide against the Rohingya, left a bitter taste in the West.
To this is added the fear that a poorly calibrated intervention could provoke even greater fragmentation, with destabilizing effects in a region that already faces migration pressures, climate threats, and geopolitical tensions.
Projections and possibilities
In the short term, the most likely scenario is the prolongation of the conflict. The junta shows no signs of ceding power, and the resistance—while growing—lacks a unified national strategy. The only viable exit seems to be an internationally mediated negotiation process, with guarantees of plural representation, real pressure on the junta, and long-term commitments.
But for that to happen, it is necessary for Myanmar to get back on the international radar. It must be understood that its fate is not an exclusively local issue but a key piece in the architecture of Asian stability.
Meanwhile, each day of silence translates into more truncated lives, more rights trampled, and greater distance between Myanmar and a possible future.
The situation in Myanmar poses a threat not only to the local population but also to the stability of Southeast Asia as a whole. The fragmentation of territory, the collapse of the state, the radicalization of armed actors, and the proliferation of non-state external actors configure a scenario of systemic risk. Without an articulated international strategy—combining diplomatic pressure, humanitarian aid, and effective accountability mechanisms—the country will continue to sink into a cycle of violence, impunity, and silent devastation.
Comments