Episode #300: Revolutionary Road
The Burmese nation’s struggle against the military junta captures the raw intensity of a people fighting not just for survival, but for a future built on justice and freedom. It is a story defined by extraordinary courage, in which ordinary citizens transform into revolutionaries, a grassroots resistance rising up against a heavily armed and entrenched regime, driven by an unyielding desire to reclaim their homeland.
This is the dramatic topic of today's panel discussion. It features a stellar and experienced group of guests: Anthony Davis, an international security analyst with decades of experience in conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Philippines; Azad, an internationalist from the United States who spent nearly a year working with resistance groups in Chin State after a stint fighting in northeastern Syria; and Marc, who has extensive field operations experience in Africa and Asia and has been providing tactical and logistical guidance to Myanmar’s resistance efforts since the conflict’s early days.
The conversation begins by exploring the layered nature of the conflict, including tactical, strategic, logistical, and socio-political dimensions. As Marc recalls, “In the early days, the resistance movement resembled a grassroots uprising with no central organization. People were coming together without clear communication or a shared strategy. This made it incredibly difficult to consolidate efforts or even establish trust among the various groups.” Indeed, the resistance started organically as peaceful protests; then as it morphed into an armed struggle following violent military crackdowns, it had to overcome a number of challenges, like disorganization, communication barriers, and an initial mistrust between various ethnic armed organizations and newly formed People's Defense Forces (PDF) stemming from decades of inter-ethnic strife.
Another significant issue was the lack of a unifying, revolutionary party or external state support. Unlike other post-World War II revolutionary movements, Myanmar’s resistance has not secured backing from neighboring countries; regional powers like China, India, and Thailand have remained cautious, prioritizing their own strategic interests over direct involvement. Nor have any global powers backed Myanmar struggle for democracy. This absence of international support has placed the burden entirely on the backs of the Burmese people, and forced the movement to self-organize with limited resources. This has further complicated efforts to consolidate under a single command structure, which the panelists also described below as a critical element for any successful revolutionary endeavor.
They also highlight how the nature of the Myanmar conflict stands out from other, more conventional conflicts. As Azad explains, “The philosophy of war here is deeply rooted in social and political dimensions, unlike the more mathematical, resource-driven approach in the West. For example, even acquiring something as basic as magazines becomes a monumental task, not just due to financial constraints but also the need to convince others of its importance. Every step forward requires social and material buy-in from multiple stakeholders.” Yet when the value of a purchase is recognized, it can reshape perspectives, as happened recently with regards to thermal optics. He notes, “When people saw its efficacy in the field, suddenly there was money for more.” Resistance forces have also adapted innovative technologies, such as encrypted communication and drones to bolster effectiveness. The collective advantages of these decisions, however, cannot overcome historical grievances and mistrust over resource distribution, which continue to hinder partnerships. But in the end, despite these challenges, the guests note how resistance forces have steadily increased their effectiveness on the battlefield. In contrast, the Burmese military has material superiority and control of the state apparatus, yet often fails to capitalize on their advantages due to poor training and low morale; in some instances, under pressure from resistance forces, soldiers melt away, abandoning their equipment.
The discussion then touches upon what the panelists all identify as the resistance’s critical weakness as was mentioned earlier—its lack of centralized command and control. Marc highlights how their origins as a grassroots uprising with no central organization still impact its ability to consolidate efforts, while Anthony emphasizes that fragmented groups operating without a unified structure diminish the potential for significant advancements against the junta. Finally, Azad adds that every step forward requires extensive social and material buy-in from multiple stakeholders, making coordination even more challenging. The panelists stress the need for improved communication and trust-building measures to foster unity. To effectively challenge the regime, they also stress that the resistance must shift from guerrilla tactics to semi-conventional warfare, which requires the formation of regular units capable of coordinated operations, a process still in its early stages. Transitioning from small, fragmented groups to larger, coordinated units remains a crucial step for the resistance’s success.
Concerning the role of the National Unity Government (NUG), Anthony notes how they face “a significant challenge in balancing its international diplomacy efforts with the urgent needs on the ground. While it has made strides in education and healthcare initiatives, its limited engagement with local resistance groups creates a perception gap. Bridging this gap will require more direct collaboration and a clearer strategy to unify disparate factions.” He adds that while the NUG strives to position itself as the legitimate representative of the people, its influence in ethnic regions remains limited. While it does provide some logistical support for resistance forces and helps rebuild essential services like schools and clinics in areas under resistance control, it has not really become involved in strategic collaboration with local resistance groups. This latter concern fosters a perception among some factions that the NUG prioritizes international diplomacy over the immediate needs of the resistance.
The humanitarian toll of the conflict stands as a major obstacle to achieving victory. Millions of civilians have been displaced, often living in dire conditions, and without access to adequate food, shelter, or healthcare. This widespread suffering not only devastates families but also places immense pressure on resistance group to divert resources to humanitarian efforts, yet at the same time, still having to engage on the battlefield. The junta exploits these vulnerabilities, trying to deepen divisions within the resistance, while using fear and deprivation as weapons against the people.
Meanwhile, as noted earlier, the lack of substantial, external support continues to limit the resistance’s capabilities, leaving them reliant on domestic solidarity and whatever support they can get from the global diaspora communities to sustain operations. This creates a fragile dynamic where every setback risks unraveling hard-fought progress. Beyond these immediate concerns, unresolved issues about federalism and power-sharing among Myanmar’s ethnically diverse population loom large. Questions about how to equitably balance autonomy with unity complicate discussions about the nation’s future, even as resistance factions press on.
Despite these formidable challenges, the resistance’s unwavering resilience shines through. Their determination offers hope that a free and inclusive Myanmar remains within reach. However, the panelists stress again that realizing this vision requires more than battlefield victories—it demands deliberate efforts to foster unity across factions and to address the humanitarian crises that weaken the broader struggle. Only through a cohesive, inclusive approach can the resistance transform the nation’s collective suffering into a foundation for lasting freedom and justice.
If you would you like to hear more from these knowledgeable and insightful panelists, Insight Myanmar has archived discussions with two of them. There’s our past interview with Anthony Davis in which he discusses the swift, generational uprising against military rule and the challenges of international and diplomatic understanding of its revolutionary nature. Azad has appeared twice. During his first interview, he addressed his move from Syria to Chin State, his perspective on the interconnectedness of revolutionary struggles, and insights into the Myanmar resistance's military and logistical dynamics. In his second interview, he focused on the unique challenges and strategies now being adopted in Chin State, the logistical hurdles of the resistance, the inefficiencies of the junta, and the disproportionate impact of violence on civilians.
And if you found this discussion of interest, we suggest checking out these other, relevant, past episodes from our archive:
· Matthew Arnold speaks about the strategic planning behind Operation 1027. He highlights how the coordination among ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) is one example of the broad level of cooperation that now exists between resistance groups, pro-democracy groups and EAOs, which connects to broader themes of strategic unity and resilience in the face of systemic challenges.
· Zach Abuza describes how his decades of expertise regarding insurgencies and Southeast Asian politics provide a foundation for analyzing the resistance’s the moral and logistical challenges, emphasizing the critical need for long-term strategy and ethnical coherence. His perspective underscores the importance of the resistance to develop a long-term strategy and maintaining the moral high ground.
· Erin Murphy shares how her background, including work as a CIA analyst and author, provides a unique lens through which to interpret Myanmar’s socio-political evolution and international relations. She explores how Western perceptions of Myanmar’s “exoticism” can hinder realistic engagement, echoing the broader need to ground international support in a nuanced understanding of the country, its many cultures, and its diverse peoples instead of an stereotypical, “exotified” narrative.
· Philip Annawitt discusses how his advisory role and research into Myanmar’s National Unity Government inform his analysis of its functional capacities as a governing body. He identifies how efforts in international diplomacy and grassroots organization illustrates the larger themes of building legitimacy and providing governance under extreme adversity.
· David Eubank shares his journey from a Special Forces captain to leading efforts in frontline relief, serving communities affected by conflict in Myanmar and beyond. His commitment to providing both aid and advocacy highlights the resilience of affected communities and the vital role of grassroots efforts in fostering solidarity in the face of systemic oppression.