Myanmar ; the fallacy of “Freedom fighters” versus Junta.

Elections in the midst of the power struggle between Bamar NUG and Bamar Junta and the place of  SEOs in this conflict. 

Introduction

Debunking the US-West narratives

A look at to the Ethnic groups in Myanmar

Are all ethnic armies in official alliance with the US-Backed PDF?

The Civil War - in particular

Geopolitical aspect of civil war in general;  US-China Competition

The question of Legitimacy of Junta

The question of “the  legitimacy” of  Elections

Election and the results

States/Regions Where Elections Were Not Held

Conclusion

Major geopolitical events, especially those leading to civil conflict and potential regime change, are rarely accidents of history. Economic and political sanctions, financial pressure, NGO networks, media narratives, and agent cultivation are all well-documented modern paradigm for applying strategic pressure to states either in order to change the government with a proxy one or fragment - Balkanize  the country into easily manageable small  countries.

Long before the 2021 coup, Myanmar had a deeply embedded ecosystem of international NGOs, media development programs, and civil society networks funded by Western governments and foundations. US-West organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have funded Burmese media, labor, and advocacy groups for decades. This built a cadre of individuals and organizations aligned with liberal "democratic" norms and connected to international systems.

Targeted sanctions against the military dating back to the 1990s were designed to cripple the Tatmadaw's economic empire and isolate its leadership. This is not a passive policy; it is an active tool of economic warfare intended to create internal strain and incentivize fragmentation. The civil war in Myanmar didn't "happen in one morning". The “preconditions” for the civil war were set. A military with a constitutional veto right,  a civilian government (NLD) locked in a power struggle with it, both with a history of genocide, a deeply divided society, an already ongoing, decades-long civil war with EAOs, facilitated the work of networked NGOs prepare for organization and mobilization. The coup was the detonator. The explosive material - grievances, organizational networks, and geopolitical alignments -was already in place. The rapid formation of the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) and the NUG within weeks of the coup points to “pre-existing networks and organizational capacity”, not spontaneous generation. The immediate and sophisticated international media campaign favoring the NUG/PDF narrative indicates prepared channels and spokespeople long before the coup. This was confirmed with the swift freezing of Myanmar's assets by the West and the redirecting of financial flows to support the CDM/NUG is a classic tool of financial warfare in support of a political objective.

This is not a denial of the existence of indigenous forces with century-old grievances. Possibly with few exceptions, the EAOs are not creations of the West. Their decision to ally tactically at occasions with the NUG/PDF is a calculation to exploit the military's sudden weakness, not an adoption of Western democratic ideology.

Myanmar is a classic arena of great power competition. The NUG is, in this view, the most viable vector for the West to regain influence lost to China over the past decade.

Typical Western "freedom vs. tyranny" narrative that worked well in past, worked well in Myanmar too. This double standard narrative has been largely dismantled in the world but too late for Myanmar.

The 2021 coup triggered a pre-existing, complex national crisis. The domestic resistance that formed was organic in its popular anger but was rapidly and systematically leveraged, organized, and internationalized through pre-prepared networks and geopolitical scripts. The goal obviously is to replace a China-leaning military autocracy with a West-leaning political entity (the NUG). Whether that entity could ever be truly sovereign, given its dependencies and the formidable agency of EAOs cannot even be considered as a serious question. What went on in Myanmar is a standard operational playbook of 21st-century geopolitical confrontation for superpowers located thousands of miles away to find a proxy bordering its enemy. The "civil war" is both a genuine domestic struggle for power and the violent theater for this larger contest between the superpowers.

The reality is, especially for the ethnic minorities, Junta and NUG represents the "two sides of the same coin". To start with, externally instigated, promoted and supported  "democratic" experiments has historically and repeatedly  proven to be failure. Secondly, these imposed “democracies” confirmed to be transformed into war proxies for the distant superpowers at the expense of the local people, and the destruction of the proxy country. 

The track record of U.S./Western-backed exiled governments like NUG or opposition coalitions achieving stable, legitimate, and independent power in their home countries is “extremely poor” in the 21st century.

Libya (NTC) The National Transitional Council, recognized by the West, oversaw a transition into a failed state and perpetual civil war. The Western-built Islamic Republic in Afghanistan collapsed instantly and forced U.S. withdrawal, revealing its lack of organic roots. The exiled opposition in Iraq was implanted post-invasion; the resulting system remains deeply sectarian, unstable, and a client of external powers (US and Iran). The Syrian National Council (SNC), an anti-democratic government recognized as a legitimate representative by many Western states. Venezuela (Guaidó) & Iran (NCRI) are other examples  of which the recognition by Washington did not translate to domestic power or legitimacy; they function primarily as symbols and tools of external pressure and plots.

US-West has another problem in  Myanmar. The EAOs are not "pro-West proxies." They are historically autonomous, often ethno-nationalist, even Marxist-Leninist  entities with their own goals (federalism, self-determination). Their cooperation with the NUG is pragmatic. This makes the coalition inherently fragile, as their post-victory visions (a Bamar-led federal democracy vs. various forms of ethnic autonomy) may clash violently.  Based on this reality, the NUG fits the pattern of a government-in-exile formed with Western diplomatic, financial, and possibly clandestine support, awaiting a "day of implantation" that may never come, or if it does, would result in a fragile, client state, vulnerable not only the internal but external devastating war. The undeniable fact is that China cannot afford to have a US-Proxy state at its border especially with US military men and machines on its ground. Similarly, most ethnic armies cannot afford having a US-Proxy government in Myanmar.

Another objective reality- based on the stated facts in the article-is that without the US-Western lifeline, the NUG is  irrelevant, and thus makes  it a classic proxy. Because the NUG exhibits the classic dependencies of a US-Western-recognized exiled entity. Its "alliance" with EAOs is fraught with future conflict. Under current conditions and situation, the ultimate goal of powerful states is not democracy in Myanmar, but a “pliable government” aligned with their strategic interests—pro-West in the NUG's case, pro-China in the SAC's case.

The question is about “agency and sovereignty.”  If the NUG/PDF/EAO coalition wins primarily through its own sacrifice and strategy, EAOs may retain some autonomy. If its victory is contingent on decisive external intervention (which currently is a fantasy proven in Ukraine case), then Myanmar's future would indeed be that of a “client state”, merely switching  entirely to Washington.

Who, in the end, will control the political and military structures of a post-SAC Myanmar? The answer will determine whether this is a genuine revolution or a violent regime change operation with a new set of masters.

In conclusion, the civil war in Myanmar is, at its root, a schism within the Bamar national project. It is a fight over who gets to define and control the state. This internal rupture has two identical major reasons and consequences:1)   It has created a massive vulnerability that external powers (US/West vs. China/Russia) are exploiting for strategic influence, 2)  It has unleashed the agency of non-Bamar national projects (Rakhine, Shan, Kachin, etc.), who are using this Bamar crisis to advance their own historical goals with a speed and success previously was impossible.

Therefore, it is not a "national revolution" but a Bamar civil war occurring simultaneously with—and creating space for—a resurgence of long-standing non-Bamar national revolutions. The two are now militarily intertwined but remain politically and motivationally distinct. Therefore, the post-conflict scenario is highly problematic: the provisional tactical “alliance” formed against the junta obscures the fundamentally different and often contradictory ultimate goals of the Bamar democratic resistance and the ethnic national liberation movements. The fundamental character of the core conflict is Bamar. The end result of this “power struggle” between Bamar Elites, either way, will in no way be in the interests of the EAOs in the long run.

Erdogan A

February 9, 2026

NOTES