Myanmar Spring Chronicle – August 11 Scene
MoeMaKa, August 12, 2025
News of KIA–Military Dialogue Offer Sparks Debate
On August 11, BBC Burmese published a report titled “If the military genuinely wants peace talks, it should come to Myitkyina.” The core of the report stated that Myanmar’s military regime had conveyed, through the Peace Creation Group (PCG), an intention to hold online talks with the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) following a recent peace conference. The KIA reportedly responded by saying it would only consider talks if the military was willing to meet in person in Myitkyina.
Though there was no official response from the military at the time of reporting, BBC cited a source saying that Lieutenant General Yar Pyae, chairman of the Peace Negotiation Coordination Committee, had instructed his team to delay further communication until the military could respond after intense fighting in Bhamo.
Following BBC’s article, KIA Deputy Commander Gun Maw publicly posted a detailed clarification on social media about the questions asked by the outlet and the answers KIA provided. This sparked widespread criticism of BBC Burmese, with many alleging that the report implied KIA’s position had weakened due to the prolonged Bhamo battle, thus prompting the offer of peace talks.
After more than eight months of fighting over Bhamo, both sides have suffered significant casualties. Recently, however, reports emerged that the military regained some positions lost earlier, aided by reinforcements and logistical support through waterways. One report claimed the military had retaken a heavy artillery battalion, and on the day prior to this article, news broke that it had also recaptured the Bhamo airfield.
For KIA, the Bhamo battle represents the longest and most difficult engagement among the recent offensives. While it has swiftly taken over other towns, regions, and military camps, Bhamo has proved to be a prolonged and challenging front.
Offering peace talks in the midst of battle does not always mean a side is weakening. Not all dialogue proposals are sincere. Many are tactical—intended to buy time, regroup, or secure resupply of weapons, manpower, and logistics. Such overtures are often made in the guise of ceasefire or peace negotiations.
That said, it is not always easy to distinguish whether a peace offer is genuine or manipulative. Armed groups often operate under a culture of secrecy and deception regarding their military strategies.
This commentary is not intended to argue against peace talks or ceasefires in general. Rather, it seeks to explore the underlying dynamics behind the recent reported offer of talks between KIA and the military.
Military conflict is usually a tool for achieving political aims when peaceful methods fail. However, some armed struggles lose sight of their original political goals, focusing instead on total military victory or territorial gains, sidelining political resolution altogether.
Throughout such armed struggles, ordinary civilians are rarely granted a voice in ceasefire negotiations or peace processes. This raises the question: who truly represents the people’s voice and interests? Should it be civil society, religious leaders, or political parties? Often, during intense conflict, the voices of civil groups are muted. Political parties without armed wings are also reluctant—or lack the courage—to speak on behalf of the public.
Media platforms, which should amplify the people’s voices, are often constrained. Many merely echo the statements of military or armed leaders, or censor themselves by only highlighting mainstream narratives likely to draw public attention or avoid controversy.
As a result, ordinary civilians have few opportunities beyond fleeing the fighting to escape harm. It is a sad reality that, in such times, the people’s options become more limited than ever.