Myanmar Spring Chronicle – January 23 Scene
January 24, 2026
The Risk of Western Bloc Fragmentation and Its Impact on the Myanmar Cause
Eighty years after World War II, we are now seeing signs and signals that could overturn the global order that has existed for nearly eight decades: shifting patterns of relations among major powers, changing interests, the possibility that established military blocs may fracture, great-power bullying, and increasingly open talk of ambitions to seize resources and territory. These changes also raise an important question: how might such global shifts affect Myanmar’s democracy movement and democratic struggle?
In other words, the civil war unfolding inside Myanmar, the push for a federal democratic system, armed resistance, and foreign interference are all likely—at least to some degree—to be influenced by global movements, realignments, and unexpected changes in alliances. Even if world conditions are not the sole निर्णiner of Myanmar’s fate, diplomatic backing, moral support, the influence of the junta’s allies, and shifts in those allies’ political, military, and economic strength will inevitably affect the revolution happening inside the country to a certain extent.
So what is happening in the world? The era in which the post–World War II bipolar rivalry between two superpowers—the United States and Russia—dominated everything can be said to have ended. We are now in a landscape where multiple major powers have emerged, and military, economic, and technological power is no longer concentrated in the hands of just two countries, but spread across many. This means the age when two superpowers alone could control and manipulate the entire world has passed, and the world is transforming into one in which militarily, economically, and technologically strong countries can exert regional dominance.
Up to this point, one might argue the situation is not yet catastrophic. However, recent developments—desperate grabs for colonial-style possessions, allies trampling one another, disregarding international agreements, abducting a country’s president, and becoming willing to launch attacks on flimsy pretexts in order to seize resources—have begun to resemble the atmosphere of the pre–World War II era.
Recent statements and actions by the United States—such as abducting the president of Venezuela, insisting it must obtain Greenland by whatever means, and threatening to attack Iran—do not merely reveal clear intentions to control resources, territory, and geopolitically strategic areas; they are also being stated openly. This gives rise to a sense that the entire set of rules governing political and diplomatic “gameplay” has collapsed.
It would be difficult to dismiss these events as merely “Trump’s madness.” Just as the rise of industrial capitalism once evolved into imperial expansion, today too there are powerful forces behind politicians—major international corporations and oligarchs willing to finance and drive expansionist agendas. When colonial powers seized Southeast Asian countries, India, and places like Myanmar, they were backed by giant companies such as the East India Company. In the present era, it is similarly natural to see major oil companies standing behind politicians when it comes to the pursuit of petroleum resources.
The darker side of capitalism—rash territorial seizures justified by weak excuses, military expansion, and rising defense spending—creates conditions comparable to those of the 1930s.
After World War II, military alliances like NATO were formed to compete against communist states. Now, tensions among Western allies are emerging to the extent that even the possibility of NATO’s fragmentation is being discussed. U.S. statements that it will obtain Greenland by any means have disappointed Western European NATO members such as Denmark, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. Likewise, blunt intervention in matters involving Iran and Venezuela highlights how desperately the United States is pursuing oil resources.
Another alarming sign is the attempt to sideline the United Nations—created after World War II—by forming a rival “peace council” to be chaired by U.S. President Trump, with the aim of wielding influence over international affairs. Because this would replace a rules-based system grounded in equality among nations with an organization built around domination and exploitation, it is viewed as an attempt to end a long-standing stabilizing institution in global relations.
For a long time, the United States has treated the UN’s authority and mandate instrumentally—using it when convenient, and disregarding it when it conflicts with U.S. preferences, sometimes acting as if it does not even exist. Even so, many did not expect moves as drastic as building a parallel organization to the UN, or withdrawing from UN bodies such as the WHO.
Now, however, all of these unexpected conditions have materialized. In this situation, expectations that Western countries will actively support the Myanmar cause, or that the UN will be able to exert effective pressure on Myanmar, have become unrealistic.
For Myanmar, it is crucial to understand and analyze the strategies, power, goals, and policies of neighboring countries—and to ensure that Myanmar does not become merely a pawn to be used by global powers against one another. It is also important to recognize that the best outcome is to find solutions to Myanmar’s internal problems within Myanmar itself. And there is an unavoidable historical lesson to take: during World War II, Myanmar’s decision to cooperate with fascist Japan—whose plan was to invade Southeast Asia—in order to fight against British colonial rule is a lesson that must be studied and learned from.