Episode #357: From Russia With Anxiety
RELEASE DATE: JUNE 24, 2025
Wai Yan Phyo Naing’s journey to Moscow in September 2015 to study gave him a unique perspective on – of all things – the Myanmar military.
A professional whose expertise spans Myanmar history and politics, China-Myanmar relations (the topic of his PhD thesis), social development, and migrant issues, Wai Yan Phyo Naing currently applies his skills at the Raks Thai Foundation. He discusses his experiences in Russia and the unique window he gained into the psyche of Myanmar’s military, as well as his understanding of the complexities of his homeland’s political landscape and the broader geopolitical currents shaping its destiny.
Wai Yan Phyo Naing’s academic career began with a mechanical engineering degree in Myanmar. His real ambition was to study abroad, but because the financial requirements were onerous, scholarships became his sole hope. Then, from among his numerous applications, a Russian scholarship materialized.
Study in Russia was usually reserved for military students; his friends were skeptical that it was the place for him. However, he envisioned himself as a civilian student, and charting a new course: "If I succeed, I would be the very first Myanmar PhD student for international relations within forty years there," he muses, as most military students pursued sciences, not social sciences or humanities. So he embarked on a six+-year-odyssey: two for acquiring a Master’s, one for a preparatory course, and three and a half for his PhD.
Entering the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, he saw that his friends’ initial concerns were based on fact. The university hosted literally hundreds of Myanmar military students. This unexpected immersion into the world of potential Myanmar military officers provided him a rare, firsthand glimpse into the Myanmar military's internal dynamics and their perception of the world.
He distinguishes between two types of Burmese military students that he met in Russia. One group was insular, preferring the company of other military personnel, and largely confining themselves to a special classroom designated for Myanmar students. This limited their interaction with the wider international and Russian student bodies. The other group was more inquisitive, viewing their time in Moscow as an invaluable opportunity. They actively sought out interactions with international students and embraced a broader worldview. It was among this more open group that Wai Yan Phyo Naing found what he describes as “outstanding students,” those who he felt might bring a level of sophistication and nuance to their thinking. The difference between these two groups hinted at the potential for cracks in the military's monolithic ideology, suggesting that exposure to a broader worldview, even within an authoritarian setting, can inspire new perspectives.
However, when the 2021 coup plunged Myanmar into chaos, Wai Yan Phyo Naing found himself in a precarious position. There had been a job awaiting him back home, but the coup threw everything into a state of heightened uncertainty. When the few civilian students in Moscow reached out to him, seeking his advice on protesting the junta in front of the Myanmar Embassy and the Russian Foreign Ministry, he cautioned them, acutely aware of their vulnerability. He warned them, “We are not in America or other countries promoting democracy, we are in Russia which is a risky place for us. We are not also a large group of 700 or 800 military students; we are only 20 civilian students.” They settled on publishing a public statement, which he drafted himself, intentionally using very diplomatic terms to mitigate risk, even at the protest of fellow students who felt his language was too soft.
In spite of Wai Yan Phyo Naing’s caution and diplomacy, rumors that he actively organized the protests reached Myanmar, causing immense worry for his parents. He describes how the defense attaché at the Myanmar Embassy in Russia confronted him, expressing anger at his participation in the published statement and demanding support for the junta. However, despite the pressure, Wai Yan Phyo Naing refused to be intimidated.
His relationship with military students after the coup was complex. Some, fearing for his safety, urged him to stop voicing anti-military sentiment. Others just warned him to be careful. But to Wai Yan Phyo Naing’s chagrin, a few were vocal supporters of the coup, demonstrating a deeply ingrained belief in their presumed role as protectors of the country. He saw a wide, ideological chasm among the students.
Regardless of this ideological divide, however, he observed no initial interest in defection. Only much later, after the coup had worsened, did he hear of some defecting; a few even contacted him seeking advice. But he actually encouraged one to remain in the military, hoping he could be "a force for change as a military general," reflecting Wai Yan Phyo Naing’s persistent belief in internal reform.
He had also been a journalist in Myanmar before his studies in Moscow, which had gained him access to various political factions, including the NLD. However, he never harbored full trust in political parties because he believes that harmony in Myanmar's domestic political situation is essential. He criticizes the NLD's constant, strong disagreement with the junta, arguing that actions should prioritize the country's welfare over party or organizational interests. His perspective suggests a pragmatism rooted in Myanmar's long history of military rule, a belief that true progress necessitates some accommodation, however imperfect, with existing power structures.
The role of Buddhist monks in Myanmar’s political landscape is a topic he finds deeply distressing. Wai Yan Phyo Naing volunteered at the first Buddhist center in Moscow – which he had helped set up under the guidance of Dhammaduta Sayadaw, a highly influential Buddhist monk in Myanmar who was on a visit to Moscow. When Dhammaduta Sayadaw returned to Myanmar and was sought out by military officers to enlist his support, Wai Yan Phyo Naing realized how politically influential figures attempted to use monastics for political ends. He acknowledges the criticism leveled against revered monks like Sayadaw for not publicly condemning the military junta. However, having known him personally for decades and considering him a “second father,” Wai Yan is able to offer a more compassionate, if still questioning, interpretation. For example, he believes that Sayadaw remained silent after the coup for strategic reasons, possibly to prevent more violence and protect his young followers—a view he acknowledges that other Burmese dismiss as naïve or even apologist thinking. He adds here that he once heard that Sayadaw privately asked military leaders not to harm civilians, although notes that it’s not clear it resonated. Wai Yan Phyo Naing highlights a pattern where both politicians and the military cozy up to monks when it serves their agenda, only to later criticize them later as the cause of Myanmar's social and economic problems.
His complex and nuanced perspective about monastics has had some fallout in his personal life: former younger disciples of his teacher criticize Dhammaduta Sayadaw for not more vocally standing up against military junta atrocities, which causes Wai Yan Phyo Naing deep sadness. He believes they don't fully understand the complexities of being in an influential religious position under the military junta, emphasizing that while he may critique his own elders and teachers, he still pays them full respect by not blaming them directly. He sees this as a broader societal issue in Myanmar, where people struggle to separate opinion from status. Wai Yan Phyo Naing accepts that his own view may be biased due to his profound connection with Dhammaduta Sayadaw, and the intensity of the criticism from those he considers his “second family” deeply saddens him, creating rifts he hopes will eventually heal.
Recently, Wai Yan Phyo Naing began working with migrant laborers at Raks Thai Foundation, and this has shifted his view about the relative importance of politics, as he has since come to realize that “politics is not the only solution for us.” He believes that the specific nature of politics in Myanmar, characterized by decades of military rule, and even under the more open era of the NLD government, has caused the nation to “lose the opportunity to promote public education and development and social science.” Wai Yan Phyo Naing argues that this intense political focus, prioritizing control and stability above all else, has historically diverted essential resources away from social sectors and led to tight state control over information. This environment, where even cultural norms can be leveraged or neglected by the state, can create persistent taboos around important topics like sexual health, thereby undermining public well-being and hindering progress.
For Wai Yan Phyo Naing, this highlights his conviction that a holistic approach to national development, extending far beyond mere political struggle, is essential for Myanmar's future, and he feels a deep longing for trust to be rebuilt within its fractured society. He also notes a significant shift in the junta’s alignment to a developing distrust of China, with whom ties had once been very close, and a growing partnership with Russia. The large number of Myanmar military students sent to Russia annually, coupled with the junta leader's preference for Russian military equipment, suggests a deliberate balancing act vis-a-vis its neighboring giant. He explains that Russia historically viewed Myanmar not as a strategic political partner per se, but more a “strategic customer” because of its significant military equipment purchases and student exchanges. However, that is changing in the current international climate, with Europe’s strong stance against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and as the Myanmar regime now more directly aligns itself with Russia.
In the end, Wai Yan Phyo Naing expresses a deep, personal anguish over the ongoing conflict in his country: “I really hope fighting and killing each other is not the real solution for my country.”