Myanmar Spring Chronicle – November 4 Overview
(MoeMaKa, November 5, 2025)
The Strategies of the Revolutionary Forces and the Military Junta
The term “revolutionary forces” generally refers to the diverse coalition opposing Myanmar’s military dictatorship — including ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), armed resistance groups formed in predominantly Bamar regions after the 2021 coup, the National Unity Government (NUG), and also non-military activists and politicians who stand against the junta.
The phrase “revolutionary forces” is not an official designation; rather, it is a media and analytical shorthand used broadly to refer to all groups resisting the military regime. No single organization has defined it precisely or set clear criteria for inclusion.
In general, however, the term encompasses:
-
Ethnic armed groups that have not signed or no longer adhere to ceasefire agreements with the junta;
-
Former border guard forces that have reverted to independent control; and
-
New resistance armies formed after the February 2021 coup to fight the military dictatorship.
It also includes activists and political leaders who work against the regime in nonviolent ways.
🔹 Do the Revolutionary Forces Have a Unified Grand Strategy?
Some groups may have their own strategic plans, depending on their organizational capacity and leadership. But overall, there is no single, unified grand strategy collectively agreed upon by all anti-junta forces.
Many analysts and activists have long argued that the revolution cannot succeed unless the various groups unite under a single command or joint military council, operating with coordinated orders and objectives. Yet, nearly five years after the coup, no such unified command has been realized.
Without a formal joint command, the next question arises:
Can these forces at least follow a common overarching strategy?
So far, the answer appears to be no.
There have been regional alliances — for example, the Brotherhood Alliance (comprising three EAOs) that coordinated the Operation 1027 offensive. Elsewhere across the country, many instances of cooperation exist between EAOs and local PDFs, though most are short-term tactical alliances, not lasting or strategic partnerships.
🔹 The Junta’s Side: A Centralized System with Its Own Strategy
In contrast, the junta’s military forces, administration, intelligence, and police all operate under a single command structure. Their strategy is clear: maintain control through coordination, fear, and self-preservation.
For the junta and its loyal institutions, “strategy” means aligning the army’s interests with their own personal survival and benefit — protecting each other’s power and privileges. This mutual dependence allows them to contain internal conflicts and maintain stability within the regime.
🔹 Internal Contradictions Among Revolutionary Groups
Within the revolutionary movement, there are diverging interests and goals among organizations — and sometimes even between resistance groups and the local populations they operate among. As the struggle drags on, these differences have led to friction, misunderstandings, and internal disputes.
Historically, various opposition forces in Myanmar have at times chosen coexistence or parallel arrangements with the military — tacitly agreeing not to attack each other in exchange for space to operate. Such mutual non-aggression pacts have often allowed the military to persist while civilians continue to suffer the consequences.
In these dynamics, it is often ordinary civilians — the local villagers and residents — who bear the heaviest cost, losing their homes, livelihoods, and lives, while armed groups on both sides prioritize their own survival or influence.
🔹 Toward a Genuine People-Centered Strategy
For the revolution to truly succeed, its grand strategy must align the objectives of all participating organizations with the well-being of the civilian population. The revolution’s purpose should be to serve the people — not to replace one set of power-holders with another.
If the revolutionary movement fails to center itself on the interests and safety of ordinary citizens, it risks devolving into the same pattern as the junta — where the pursuit of power and the preservation of armed authority take precedence over justice and the people’s welfare.
In the end, a revolution that does not face toward the people will merely reproduce another system of self-serving elites — a mirror image of the very dictatorship it set out to overthrow.