Myanmar Spring Chronicle – July 22 Viewpoint
(MoeMaKa, July 23, 2025)
Peace, Ceasefire and Total Victory – Three Distinct Paths
The terms “peace, ceasefire, and total victory” are often used in the context of Myanmar’s civil war, but each carries very different meanings.
Peace
The term peace implies more than the mere absence of war. Some definitions describe it as a condition of harmony, justice, and coexistence, while others define it more narrowly as a lack of active conflict or violence. Peace can refer to a situation where there is no war, no unrest, and no confrontation between parties within a country or society.
By that definition, Myanmar’s current situation—marked by ongoing armed conflict, widespread violence, injustice, and instability—is nowhere close to peace. The country is entrenched in turmoil, and thus, “peace” remains an inapplicable term.
Ceasefire
A ceasefire, in contrast, is not peace. It is a temporary suspension of hostilities, often agreed upon by warring factions. Ceasefires do not imply reconciliation, justice, or mutual understanding. Resentments may remain, protests may persist, and grievances may go unaddressed. A ceasefire can exist in the absence of peace and without fulfilling calls for accountability or reparations.
Total Victory
“Total victory” is the most clear-cut of the three. It denotes the complete defeat of one party by another, typically in armed conflict. In Myanmar’s case, it implies that one side—the junta or resistance—seeks to utterly eliminate the opposing side.
Myanmar’s ongoing conflict arguably involves all three terms, depending on the actor and their narrative.
Some militarily dominant forces may invoke terms like “peace” or “ceasefire” as rhetorical tools, while their real intent is to secure complete military victory. These words can serve as strategic pauses or public relations tactics, used to deflect scrutiny or exhaustion from the general population.
For example, when one group has captured more territory than expected, it might begin to promote “peace” or “ceasefire” in name only, while consolidating control and imposing governance on the population—often including taxation and resource extraction. The human cost—in lives lost, displacement, or destruction of property—is rarely acknowledged by those pursuing military advantage.
The resistance groups, especially some ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), have over the last two years reached such positions of control that they may now begin to use the language of “ceasefire” strategically. Whether they account for civilian suffering or not, these groups might prefer pause and entrenchment over continued combat once their military objectives are secured.
The number of combatants killed or wounded, and the scale of civilian suffering, often go unacknowledged until long after the battles end. These costs may only come to light through future historical documentation.
Despite the commonly stated goal that the military junta is the shared enemy, real-time developments show that conflicts of interest between resistance groups themselves are emerging. These rivalries have the potential to create new fronts and new enemies, undermining unity.
This leads to further questions:
-
Is “total victory” defined by the capture of specific territories, or does it require defeating the junta in every area?
-
Will the emergence of conflicting interests among resistance forces produce new rivalries even before the junta is defeated?
Such questions highlight the need for critical self-reflection within the Spring Revolution. As the armed resistance matures and the political landscape evolves, it becomes essential to clearly define alliances, shared principles, and the basis for solidarity. Are these based on ideology, shared political goals, or mutual material benefit?
In conclusion, Myanmar’s civil war has moved beyond the initial battle cries. It now stands at a strategic crossroads where every faction must evaluate:
-
What their end goals are,
-
What kind of Myanmar they are fighting for, and
-
Whether short-term gains and rivalries are worth sacrificing long-term unity and justice.