Myanmar's Unwinnable Civil War: Stalemate, Drones, and China's Long Game

Some civil wars decide who gets to rule a nation. Others decide whether a nation will survive at all. Ever since Myanmar’s military seized power in a coup in 2021, the country has been torn apart by a brutal conflict that increasingly looks like the second kind. After nearly five years of fighting, the verified death toll is creeping toward one hundred thousand people, with well over three million displaced and nearly thirty million trying to survive inside a combat zone.

The complexion of the war has shifted dramatically over those five painful years. What began as an intrepid fight for freedom, waged by ordinary people organized into a brilliant patchwork of allied rebel groups, has hardened into a dark and grinding stalemate. Battles are now decided by gruesome human-wave assaults. The skies are dominated by the high-pitched whine of drones.

Civilians, wherever they are, must live in fear of death from above. After almost five years of combat, Myanmar’s civil war has begun to resemble the invasion of Ukraine, fought instead in the jungles, the highlands, and the monsoons.

Key Takeaways

Myanmar’s civil war, ongoing since the 2021 coup, has reached an active stalemate: the verified death toll approaches one hundred thousand, more than three million people are displaced, and roughly thirty million live inside the combat zone.
The Tatmadaw has studied Ukraine closely, pairing relentless airstrikes with cheap mass-produced FPV drones, artillery, motorized-paraglider bombing runs, and human-wave assaults fueled by some sixty thousand conscripts.
China is the decisive outside actor. Beijing does enough to keep the junta from collapsing and to protect its pipeline, mines, and investments, but deliberately withholds the heavy support that could end the war, treating the conflict itself as a bargaining chip.
The junta’s bid for legitimacy failed: a tightly controlled three-phase election held only in regime-friendly areas was rejected outright by ASEAN in late January 2026, foreclosing sanctions relief and international recognition.
The rebels cannot win either. Limited manpower, fractured unity under a weak National Unity Government, an arms and ammunition deficit, and divergent goals between ethnic militias and pro-democracy fighters all block a decisive breakthrough.

But in the early days of 2026, something more troubling has come into focus. Myanmar’s war is not merely becoming more brutal; it is becoming unwinnable. The military government has failed to win legitimacy, international support, or even the full backing of its most important patron. The rebel alliance is fracturing, splitting its focus, running low on resources, and still waiting for someone, somewhere, to take notice. Territory is still changing hands, but lives are being spent for gains that shrink each week.

There is a real and growing chance that neither side can win this war. And if neither side can win, then Myanmar itself is at risk of destruction. That is the central, sobering thesis of this analysis: the country has fallen into an active stalemate that neither the junta nor the resistance can break, and the price of that deadlock will be measured in decades.

A War the World Overlooks

Although it draws far less attention than the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, or even Sudan, Myanmar’s conflict is among the truly major wars of the 2020s. To understand why it has stalled, you have to start with the country itself. Myanmar has never truly been at peace. It is one of the most ethnically diverse nations on Earth, a place where more than a hundred ethnic militias have long held sway over the homelands of their respective peoples.

At any given moment, at least a few of those militias could be expected to be fighting the central government.

That central government has had a long and fraught relationship with its own armed forces, the Tatmadaw. From 1962 through 2011, Myanmar lived under a military dictatorship, and the Tatmadaw earned a lasting reputation for abuse of power, repression, and corruption at the top. For most of the 2010s a civilian government held office, and from 2016 the country was led by its State Counsellor and de facto head of government, Aung San Suu Kyi.

That arrangement collapsed in early 2021. After a highly contentious election, the Tatmadaw overthrew the civilian government and cracked down hard on the public demonstrations that followed. In hindsight, the coup was a grave misstep. The military secured the major cities, but it drove tens of thousands of young people into the countryside, where they organized the pro-democracy People’s Defense Force to resist.

There, the current dictator, Senior General and President Min Aung Hlaing, would find his regime fighting on more fronts than it could manage.

How the Rebels Almost Won, Then Stalled

Once they reached Myanmar’s vast rural districts, the pro-democracy fighters joined forces with the country’s many ethnic militias, which already had the weapons, the know-how, and the will to return to war against the new dictatorship. Over the following years the united national resistance captured an enormous share of Myanmar’s territory. By some estimates, at the regime’s low point the Tatmadaw could exert direct control over less than a quarter of the country’s land area. Thousands of soldiers surrendered rather than fight, two major regional command centers fell to the rebels, and by the start of 2025 victory seemed within reach.

It did not arrive. After pushing the Tatmadaw out of hundreds of outposts, dozens of towns and small bases, and a handful of major encampments, the rebels had compressed the military into a zone small enough that it could finally concentrate its forces in a unified defense. Standing guard around Myanmar’s three largest cities, Yangon, Mandalay, and the capital Naypyidaw, the Tatmadaw was simply too well-armed to dislodge.

In the open countryside, tanks and artillery had been liabilities, vulnerable to being overwhelmed by guerrilla-style attacks, and the military had too few troops for too many fronts. On its own stronghold ground, that calculus reversed.

That left the rebel alliance with few options. Some of its most powerful fighting forces accepted temporary ceasefires with the government to win a reprieve or consolidate their own territory. Others were forced to withdraw from areas they had already captured, largely because of Chinese pressure to keep away from the infrastructure and energy projects Beijing had financed.

Then, in March 2025, a deadly earthquake struck. More than 5,500 people are known to have been killed, and some of the hardest-hit areas were rebel-held. Between censorship, the obscured real death toll, and the Tatmadaw’s efforts to obstruct humanitarian aid flowing to resistance zones, the disaster forced many ethnic militias to rethink their priorities and stretch already thin resources toward relief.

The junta’s decision to continue airstrikes against civilian targets in the immediate aftermath did not help, and as local rebel governments tried to use the moment for a bit of state-building before international audiences, their focus drifted further from the war.

An Active Stalemate

That brings us to the present, which is where the rest of this analysis stays. It would be wrong to call Myanmar a stalemate in the traditional sense, the kind where fighting dies down and both sides stare at each other waiting for someone to move first. It is better described as an active stalemate. The closest comparison is Ukraine, where thousands of combatants are still killed or wounded each week and territory still changes hands very slowly, yet neither side can land a decisive blow.

In some areas, like the western zones held by ethnic armies such as the Arakan and the Chin, there simply is not much more to capture in the places those forces actually care about. In other parts of the country, insurgents have been pressured by China to hand cities and bases back to the Tatmadaw without a fight, sometimes after costly battles to take them. Some ethnic militias have kept ceasefires in place far longer than their battlefield peers expected. Still others are simply too low on munitions, fighters, supplies, or all three.

So while neither side has any real momentum, it is the Tatmadaw that has at least been attempting offensive progress. Most importantly, it has begun to reclaim territory and shore up defenses outside Mandalay, easing pressure on the city that had looked most vulnerable, and doing Beijing’s bidding by protecting the Chinese elite that has run much of the city’s economy for decades. In the north, the Tatmadaw has fought the ethnic Kachin in the Battle of Bhamo for over a year, a long siege that has consumed immense resources and sustained focus from the rebels.

Shifting Tactics and Borrowed Lessons

The junta’s recent gains are easy to catalogue, though each came at a price. Closer to the central heartland, the Tatmadaw captured the important town of Kyaukme after a costly offensive; the militia defending it, the TNLA, was forced under pressure to sign a ceasefire and surrender other towns. The army then pushed on to Hsipaw, regaining full control of a critical road into China.

In the west, it has sustained a counteroffensive against the powerful Arakan Army, splitting that force’s attention between the besieged, Tatmadaw-held city of Sittwe and a separate thrust at the edge of Arakan territory. As a result, one of the country’s most fearsome rebel armies has been unable to commit its strength elsewhere. Against the eastern-central Karenni, the Tatmadaw recaptured the town of Demoso last August and parlayed that local momentum into a wider push.

Watch on WarFronts

Watch the full video analysis on the WarFronts YouTube channel, presented by Simon Whistler.

Just as important as the recapture of territory is the change in how the junta fights. The Tatmadaw has always prioritized airstrikes, raining heavy munitions on targets with little distinction between military and civilian. But while those strikes were always an effective terror tactic, they were once spread thin, used as a nagging threat in the rebels’ rear to keep fear high and morale low.

Now, able to focus on fewer distinct front-line zones, the leadership concentrates its air power far more often. Its counteroffensives are defined by relentless bombing from jets, backed by heavy use of cheap, mass-produced FPV drones for reconnaissance, small strikes, and kamikaze attacks.

The Tatmadaw has clearly studied Ukraine, pairing FPV drones with artillery in an approach that looks out of place in low-tech, humid Myanmar but would not surprise anyone watching the fight for Pokrovsk. It has added a local flourish: slow, easy-to-operate motorized paragliders that circle over battlefields and drop small bombs at will. These are tactics insurgents struggle to counter, let alone match, and they have helped force the rebels to give up captured ground rather than accept heavy losses.

Numbers, Morale, and the Limits of Chinese Help

The Tatmadaw has also shored up its numbers, morale, and foreign support. Military morale cratered during the great rebel push of 2023 and 2024, largely because of what ordinary soldiers endured: stuck in small, far-flung outposts at constant risk of being overrun, then driven into retreats where they were harassed without let-up, chased from their rear positions, and made to watch comrades surrender en masse. Once the front stabilized and troops could set their backs against the country’s three great cities, their situation was no longer hopeless.

Then the ranks swelled with some sixty thousand conscripts. Inexperienced as they were, they have helped turn the tide through sheer numbers, gradual training toward combat readiness, and their ability to hold rear territory and fill non-combat roles, freeing experienced troops to return to the front. With that flood of new bodies, the military began to prioritize meat-wave assaults, again borrowing from Russia’s conduct in Ukraine.

Paired with drones, artillery, and concentrated air power, that volume of human bodies has been hard to absorb in areas where rebels are chronically short of ammunition and lack the hardware to compete. The leadership has improved as well: while corruption and incompetence persist, many of the previous generation of ground commanders, promoted for loyalty or connections, have been replaced with experienced officers.

Chinese support has been far less than the junta wanted, but Beijing has responded in critical ways. It has restricted the flow of dual-use civilian drones the rebels relied on and sent jamming technology to the Tatmadaw. It has forced resistance groups to leave certain areas, closed border gates, detained resistance leaders, and demanded that its partners in the pro-Beijing, autonomous Wa State stop selling arms and ammunition to the rebels. China still refuses to help the Tatmadaw in the substantial ways that would end the war, but it has plainly decided that it would like to help the junta not to collapse.

The Resistance Still Lands Blows

None of this means the junta is going to win; it means that, for now, it is not going to lose. And the resistance has notched victories of its own. It has captured or recaptured villages and military posts and held the Tatmadaw in high-cost, low-progress engagements on multiple fronts for months at a time.

In December 2025 a new coalition of nineteen ethnic groups formed the Spring Revolution Alliance, a pro-federalist, pro-human-rights alignment of more than ten thousand troops. In the territory of the ethnic Chin, several Chin fighting forces merged into the Chin People’s Army. And just weeks before this analysis, a highly influential rebel leader from the Shan ethnic group captured a few global headlines by condemning the world’s indifference to the Tatmadaw’s air campaign.

Still, the scale of the war has fundamentally changed. The junta has more ground momentum than the rebels, but it is not doing now what the rebels did in 2023 and 2024. The entire conflict has shrunk from a back-and-forth of major territorial exchanges to something far closer to the Ukrainian front line. If a rebel offensive once captured ten kilometers, a Tatmadaw offensive today captures one, often at far greater cost in time, munitions, resources, and lives on both sides.

Operations are more grinding, both sides pour effort into localized front-line action, and breakthroughs, when they happen, take months. In 2023 and 2024 the rebels were taking five, ten, fifteen percent of Myanmar’s entire territory at a time. Today, nobody captures ground on that scale. It is just not that kind of war anymore.

Failures of the Regime

For a war this size to be unwinnable, two things must hold at once: neither side is likely to collapse, and neither is likely to achieve victory. Because the Tatmadaw holds both the greater momentum and, technically, state legitimacy, its predicament comes first.

The military’s weakness is best understood through the rebels’ strengths, chiefly the fact that a large share of Myanmar’s territory lies simply beyond the regime’s ability to recapture. The rebels struggle for major population centers and against coordinated military pushes, but in the open countryside they remain the far stronger force. There they travel light, strike from all directions, draw on local support, and stage endless hit-and-run attacks until they bleed the regime dry. In many regions they hold complete control and have built the defensive infrastructure to keep it when the military comes calling.

All of that rests on one fundamental reality: whatever it does, the Tatmadaw cannot overextend. To retake a town or outpost, it must commit forces to a long, focused offensive with protected supply lines, secured flanks, and ideally air cover. The regime lacks the manpower to run more than a few such offensives at once, and it can avoid overextension only by keeping its goals limited.

If it captures territory, that territory had better sit close to ground it already holds. Thrusting troops or equipment deep into rebel-held areas invites disaster, from the loss of those troops to the still more galling prospect of weapons and heavy armor falling into rebel hands. So the military cannot take most major targets, cannot launch coordinated multi-pronged offensives against rebel power centers, and cannot justify the daring attacks that might turn the tide but could also end in catastrophe.

Even some of its biggest recent wins owe more to Chinese pressure than to its own action: when Beijing tells rebels to leave an area, they leave, because China is wielding its influence, not because nearby junta forces could force the issue.

The Diminishing Returns of Air Power

The Tatmadaw is also learning the limits of air power. Its bombing of civilian targets deep behind the lines was always meant as terror rather than a strategically decisive contribution, and rebel forces have grown fully accustomed to it. The strikes remain costly and horrific, but they are expected, and they routinely fail to force rebel compliance. Nor has it proven easy to use air power at the front.

Rebels occasionally bring down combat jets and can often melt into the landscape to avoid strikes, while the Tatmadaw’s paraglider operators suffer very high fatality rates. Air power also costs money and is difficult to sustain for months or years on the regime’s limited resources.

That ties into a larger problem. To take any territory at all, the military must pour hardware, money, and lives into its offensives, and that pattern cannot be sustained long enough to retake the zones where the rebels are strongest. In some places the Tatmadaw may not even be able to reach those strongholds, especially in the west and southeast, where the Arakan, the Chin, and the Karen look secure in control of most of their territory.

A Hollow Election and a Closed Door

Away from the battlefield, the Tatmadaw made a major bid for international legitimacy across late 2025 and early 2026 with a three-phase election meant to display popular support for its rule. The world saw through it almost immediately: a tightly controlled, shambolic vote, guaranteed to be neither free nor fair. It was held only in Tatmadaw-controlled territory and in areas where friendly militias could serve the regime’s goals.

Popular parties were excluded, and a quarter of all seats were reserved for the military. In many places voting took place under a heavy police presence, with reports of blatant forced voting and other violence rippling out from numerous locations. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of citizens were arrested for basic criticism of the election or the military under laws that threatened punishments as severe as the death penalty.

All of this sat atop the broader reality of life under the Tatmadaw, a force that has carried out beheadings and mutilations of resistance fighters, routinely weaponizes sexual violence, destroys entire villages, and is known for the relentless use of torture in its detention centers. Unsurprisingly, the regime’s preferred candidates and parties swept the vote.

The election was never about granting the Tatmadaw more power; it already held all the power it wanted in the areas it controls. It was about the veneer of legitimacy, something that might make regional leaders more willing to tolerate junta rule and welcome it back into the fold. The most important audience was ASEAN, the eleven-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which counts Myanmar among its members.

The wider West and much of the international community tend to follow ASEAN’s lead on Southeast Asian affairs, much as the world now tends to follow the African Union on issues across the African continent. Had ASEAN treated the elections as sufficient justification for support, the rest of the world might well have followed. In late January, ASEAN dashed those hopes for good.

The bloc refused outright to recognize the elections, let alone endorse them, with leaders across the bloc signaling that their position was unlikely to change. That does not stop the Tatmadaw from governing as it pleases, but it means international intervention, sanctions relief, and the other steps that might have tilted the war toward the regime are simply not coming.

China Calls the Shots

Myanmar’s far more powerful neighbor continues to complicate the junta’s life. China’s foreign policy in Myanmar, as in every country where it invests heavily, seems to follow one blunt principle: do not, ever, touch China’s assets. That principle has particular force here.

The Chinese diaspora commands substantial wealth, Chinese industry sources many of its rare-earth minerals from Myanmar, and a critical pipeline runs through the country, providing what would be China’s only overseas supply of oil and natural gas if a hypothetical war blockaded the South China Sea. Chinese firms have invested the equivalent of billions of dollars, building everything from seaports to highways, and Beijing maintains its own vassal in the aforementioned Wa State. Ultimately, China does not care who wins the civil war.

It cares that neither side damages its holdings, whether by accident or on purpose.

Beijing has come off the sidelines over the past year and a half, pressuring resistance groups to give up key towns and territory and especially to keep away from that pipeline, near which displaced families often camp precisely because they know China’s influence keeps the area relatively safe. In one instance a Chinese envoy described the tactics used against a troublesome rebel group as the “five cuts”: cutting off electricity, water, internet access, the movement of people, and trade, until the rebels gave in. From the Tatmadaw’s perspective, though, China has left much to be desired.

Beijing does only enough to keep its own assets safe and shows little concern for the regime elsewhere. It sends bombs for the jets and jammers against rebel drones, but it withholds the heavy equipment, offensive machines, and mercenary or Chinese personnel that could end the war. Instead it lets the junta muddle through its own offensives, occasionally barking orders when Min Aung Hlaing and his allies fail to show enough concern for Chinese assets.

China’s conduct suggests that it mostly sees the war itself as a bargaining chip, useful for keeping both the Tatmadaw and the rebels exactly where it wants them. A truly stable, united Myanmar would serve Beijing better, but it is unlikely to exist anytime soon. A Myanmar mostly controlled by the junta, or mostly controlled by a rebel-backed civilian leadership, is more plausible, and either option would be both unstable, given the risk of another coup or continued insurgency, and less predictable than the current war, in which China can steer the fighting away from sensitive areas.

Better still for Beijing, both sides understand how much power it holds over them, and both have learned to fall in line when told. The status quo is horrendously violent and could fuel years or decades of fighting, but China does not particularly mind, so long as the fighting spares its assets.

Rebels, Relenting

The fact that the Tatmadaw probably cannot win does not mean the rebels can. If anything, their position looks worse. It starts with manpower.

On the offensive, the combination of ethnic militias and pro-democracy units was a great strength: the militias knew their lands intimately, leveraged local economies, and harnessed local populations, while the pro-democracy factions supplied flexible manpower that could shift between many fronts. That flexibility matters far less on defense. When the rebels meet the Tatmadaw head-on in 2026, they tend to face overwhelming localized force in battles where the military can afford far more losses than they can.

The Tatmadaw conscripts tens of thousands of new fighters a year. The rebels, experienced and well-entrenched as they are, cannot draw in recruits at anything like that rate, especially now that pro-democracy youth in the big cities live under constant threat. Escaping to the countryside is far harder than it used to be, between pervasive urban surveillance, more checkpoints and patrols along the routes out of regime strongholds, and crackdowns that comb digital footprints for evidence of escape plans.

Forced to fight with limited numbers, the resistance must keep its fights shorter, hold territory with fewer fighters, and pick its battles to keep casualties low.

Limited manpower badly erodes the rebels’ ability to attack, now that they are no longer operating in the open countryside where terrain, asymmetry, remoteness, and surprise all favored them. To take the targets available today, well-fortified large towns and military bases woven into a broader Tatmadaw defensive architecture, they would have to spend thousands of lives they cannot spare. Worse, many ethnic militias have grown less willing to contribute forces as the fight moves away from their own homelands.

It is a great victory for a militia to liberate its own people alongside pro-democracy forces, and those militias will remain grateful for that help, but it is far harder to justify leaving home to return the favor. Doing so leaves their homelands exposed and risks precious soldiers in distant battles, and many of these militias are small. The resistance would have to convince ten, fifteen, or twenty militias to each send what they could just to mass the force for a modest offensive, and because each one assumes the others will not agree, none sees much point in being the exception.

The Problem of Unity

Beneath all of this lies a deeper problem: unity. The resistance operates under the banner of the opposition National Unity Government, but its mishmash of ethnic forces and pro-democracy groups is not meaningfully led by it. The movement is decentralized and asymmetric, which was an asset early in the war, when the resistance could run dozens of localized operations at once with minimal coordination.

Now it makes the movement hard to organize for coordinated warfare, and harder still to persuade some groups to fight at all. Many ethnic militias do not care about a united Myanmar or a federal civilian government; some fear that a strong civilian government would actually obstruct the autonomy they want. There is a genuine gap in objectives between groups that want the Tatmadaw overthrown and groups that just want it to leave them alone.

Even among those that seek the regime’s downfall, there are deep disagreements about what should replace it, and support for the National Unity Government is limited at best. That makes recruiting even harder. It is difficult to ask someone to become a pro-democracy rebel when the rebels cannot articulate a democratic vision they are likely to realize.

The hardware gap compounds everything. Myanmar has become a major arms-smuggling market, and many rebels now wield far more powerful weapons than the single-shot hunting rifles of the early days, but they remain far behind the Tatmadaw. They lack consistent access to tanks and infantry fighting vehicles and are sorely short of air defense and jamming technology, leaving them few options against drones and airstrikes.

Even more critically, they lack the supply lines and the funds to replenish munitions, so they are perpetually rationing small-arms ammunition, explosives, mortar and artillery shells, and everything else a heated battle consumes. The military knows this and has tuned its tactics accordingly. The rebels cannot stop the drones, so it uses drones more.

The rebels cannot reliably resupply, so it forces grinding, attritional battles that make them either burn through scarce munitions or retreat to fight another day.

Local Concerns, Criminal Economies, and a World Looking Away

There are practical concerns too. After nearly five years of continuous fighting, many ethnic groups are managing humanitarian crises among their own people, especially after the 2025 earthquake. Others have achieved most of their war aims and turned toward reconstruction, self-governance, and at times self-enrichment.

Some pushed the Tatmadaw off their land not to build democracy but because of deep ties to organized criminal syndicates and the illicit narcotics trade, where the absence of a military presence creates room to thrive. Some have been more willing than others to strike ceasefires with the junta and have enjoyed the resulting quiet for as long as it held. And even where a militia’s military leaders want to keep fighting, local civilian leaders may not, using clan connections, economic leverage, and other tools of local power to pull their young men and women home from the front.

International support has eluded the rebels just as it has the junta, and again China is central, not only because it interferes directly but because it deters anyone else from stepping in. On Myanmar’s borders, India has been destabilized by the war, but New Delhi is not especially friendly to many of the country’s rebel groups and cannot risk a proxy war it would likely lose to China. Thailand is focused on neighboring Cambodia, Bangladesh is consumed by its own vast internal problems, and Laos is practically irrelevant in regional military affairs.

Any meaningful intervention would have come not from a neighbor but from a powerful state with both the economic might and the geopolitical incentive to challenge China in the Indo-Pacific, perhaps the United States, Japan, or even South Korea. It cannot be said with absolute certainty that none of China’s rivals are involved; a hidden hand could conceivably be smuggling weapons, providing cash, or even fielding a small detachment, and outside powers, particularly Japan, did build relationships with land-holding ethnic groups across the 2010s. But as of now there is no evidence that any of China’s rivals are making the effort, and it is not hard to see why.

The insurgency is so complex, and so lacking in a dominant guiding force on the ground, that any foreign power would struggle to get rebel groups aligned without making its involvement obvious. The rewards are too thin, and the war sits too deep within China’s sphere of influence. Given Beijing’s economic and strategic stake, its connections to both the junta and many rebel groups, and its awareness of events on the ground, outsiders have likely concluded that even striking Chinese assets would not be worth the geopolitical firestorm to follow.

When the Rebels Tried to Squeeze Beijing

The rebels did test that last idea. In Shan State, where much of the country’s rare-earth mining takes place, rebel groups tried in 2025 to leverage China-dependent mines, seizing direct control and attempting to force Beijing to the negotiating table for concessions. China’s response laid bare the gulf between the rebels and the world’s greatest rising superpower. Rather than negotiate or even retaliate, Beijing built massive new mines with astonishing speed in areas held by friendlier militias.

Those new mines are now open for business, and the ones the rebels tried to commandeer are practically useless.

Nor have the rebels been willing to attack or hold China’s most valuable single assets, like the major highways running to the border or the all-important pipeline. China’s leverage has clearly been enough to force compliance: the pipeline is essentially secured, and the rebels pull back from key highways when told. The “don’t touch our assets” logic of China’s strategy would seem to hand the rebels a path to leverage by threatening those very assets, but their actions say otherwise.

The Future of Myanmar

Combine the Tatmadaw’s near-total inability to reconquer the country with the obstacles that keep the rebels from victory, and the conclusion is bitter. At least in the short term, over months and probably the next few years, the war is unwinnable. The fighting continues, and tens of thousands can be expected to die each year, but those lives are being thrown at a tactical and strategic stalemate, spent to trade territory and advantages at the margins rather than to turn the tide.

The young freedom fighters who left their cities and families years ago, dreaming of returning as liberators, have had to accept that they will be exiled for the foreseeable future. The conscripts filling the Tatmadaw’s ranks, perhaps hoping to serve briefly and then be left alone, have had to recognize that their nation will be at war for a very long time. And the civilians scattered across the countryside, who once hoped their local militias might secure a future free of airstrikes on schools and hospitals, now face a choice: keep supporting a resistance that cannot guarantee victory, or settle into their impoverished, devastated homelands and hope the Tatmadaw turns its attention elsewhere.

On its current course, the country could keep fighting this war for decades.

Rather than offer a single forecast, it is more honest to lay out the range of possible futures. Some unlikely options can be set aside quickly. A foreign rescue of the rebels is highly improbable if it has not happened already.

The one conceivable exception is Japan, which is opening a new foreign intelligence service as it remilitarizes for the first time since World War II and might see the war as a chance to gain overseas intelligence experience, though even Tokyo is unlikely to engage at a level that would shift the conflict. A direct Chinese intervention is just as unlikely, given how pointedly Beijing avoids foreign wars and how confident it is that it already holds all the leverage it needs. And neither side is going to peacefully capitulate: neither fears imminent collapse, the mutual bitterness makes compromise nearly unthinkable, the fractured rebels could not speak with one voice long enough to surrender, and Beijing might not even allow the Tatmadaw to capitulate if it wanted to.

Disruption or Stagnation

Within the more plausible outcomes lie two basic categories: disruption, where something fundamentally changes the conflict, or stagnation. Among the disruptive paths, a breakthrough remains possible. It would be hard for either side but is somewhat more achievable for the resistance, where, under the right conditions, a unifying leader or organization could rally Myanmar’s many fighting forces for a concentrated push.

Getting into any part of the junta’s stronghold would be difficult and costly, but with enough massed manpower and hardware it could happen. A large, coordinated rebel force might carve out Mandalay, or seize China’s pipeline to win real leverage over Beijing. Either would demand far greater unity and a more cohesive strategic vision than the resistance currently has, but neither is impossible.

On the other side, the Tatmadaw could gain unexpected new backing, most likely from Russia or North Korea. Moscow is now fully dependent on its war economy, and should it agree to a peace deal in Ukraine, it will need to sustain that economy somehow; the Tatmadaw, perhaps with Chinese financing, could invest in arms purchases on a scale that might turn the tide. North Korea, having made much of its troop deployments to Russia and judged that experiment a success, could increasingly send soldiers into conflicts where China prefers not to act directly. Because Myanmar sits so deep within China’s sphere, with no real avenue for outsiders to object, it could become an ideal proving ground for North Korean-led intervention on Beijing’s behalf.

Off the battlefield, the regime-managed economy could collapse. Myanmar’s currency lost half its value in 2024 alone, staple prices are soaring, and international sanctions bite. The Tatmadaw is now printing money to stay afloat and has taken unconventional steps to control commerce directly, even as its elite enriches itself through constant graft.

Here too China matters: its economy is roughly 250 times the size of Myanmar’s, so if Beijing wants to keep the junta solvent, it can. Myanmar’s value to China lies in its critical minerals, its usefulness as a legal grey zone, its capacity to host Chinese investment, and its geopolitical closeness, so propping up the economy may be worth the cost. Even so, complete collapse remains possible with or without China, and a Tatmadaw that cannot pay its soldiers, replenish its munitions, or guarantee basic economic safety to its supporters is a Tatmadaw the rebels might be able to overthrow.

A parallel danger exists on the rebel side: the bond between the ethnic militias and the pro-democracy fighters could grow more distant or break entirely. The two are driven by very different incentives, the militias seeking local autonomy and the safety of their own people, the pro-democracy resistance pursuing a free Myanmar under a civilian federal government. For now both have ample reason to cooperate, battling junta counteroffensives and eyeing towns like Sittwe, Hakha, or Loikaw that sit surrounded by resistance territory.

But if, over the coming months or years, the junta and the rebels each consolidate their own zones, the incentive to cooperate will fade. Once powerful groups like the Chin, the Shan, or the Karen reclaim their ancestral homelands, they will have little reason to send fighters elsewhere. They will defend their borders, and if the pro-democracy rebels want to keep fighting, they may have to do it alone.

Nature’s Wild Card and a Return to the Start

Nature itself is a destabilizing variable. Myanmar was reminded in 2025 of the devastation earthquakes can bring, and while no one can predict the next, the country is highly geologically active. The fault that slipped in 2025, the Sagaing Fault, is Myanmar’s most active earthquake source, and depending on where a quake strikes it could be catastrophic for the Tatmadaw or the rebels. The 2025 quake hit relatively close to Mandalay, most intensely in the north of the city, rippling through both regime and rebel areas but falling disproportionately on the rebel-held north.

Next time could be entirely different. The Sagaing Fault runs deep into junta territory, including beneath the capital, Naypyidaw. Where, when, and whether another major quake strikes is unknowable, but either side could find itself severely compromised.

Finally come the futures defined by stagnation, where after a few more months or years of killing and minimal front-line progress, the two sides settle into an uneasy but manageable approximation of peace. That might take the form of a formal settlement, a ceasefire, or simply a gradual decline in fighting that is never properly acknowledged. It might mean everyone lays down their arms, but if Myanmar’s history is any guide it will more likely mean that most of the country is at peace while minor localized conflicts persist. Either way, Myanmar would drift into a peacetime status quo, with the Tatmadaw holding the big cities, the ethnic groups holding the countryside, and all sides trying to manage daily affairs without violence.

If the Tatmadaw gets its way, that could resemble a confederacy, in which regional groups accept limited autonomy but broadly defer to a weak federal government that manages the economy, controls the big cities, and enjoys the benefits of trade and diplomacy while leaving its subjects alone enough that no militia takes up arms. Depending on how genuinely the junta leaves the regional governments be, some might find that acceptable, working with it to secure humanitarian aid and development funds while keeping enough fighting strength that neither side wants war. In essence, that outcome would legitimize the Tatmadaw’s control, and so long as the regional governments got what they wanted, the regime might also be free to repress the pro-democracy fighters who had laid down their arms.

At the opposite end, a strong outcome for the resistance would mean true regional autonomy, with the Tatmadaw technically representing Myanmar abroad but, in practice, governing only the territory it directly controls. The other regional governments might win a measure of international recognition, especially for humanitarian work as they rebuild. Each would have to pursue its own economic development, an uphill climb for many, but they would do so free of the constant threat of airstrikes or interference from federal bureaucrats.

That scenario carries its own problems: the Tatmadaw would be unlikely to accept rubber-stamping the acts of autonomous, potentially separatist governments, and the arrangement would be inherently unstable. With so many regional groups out for themselves, limited conflicts grow more likely, whether against the Tatmadaw or against one another, and the chance that foreign actors could build influence with various factions under China’s nose would push Beijing to oppose this outcome.

There is a middle ground, and in a bitter irony it is essentially the system that governed Myanmar before the war began. Under military or civilian rule alike, the country’s life has always been a push and pull between semi-autonomous regional governments representing ethnic groups and the ruling elite running the federal government. It was messy, complicated, and tense, a state of affairs in which neither the center nor most of Myanmar’s ethnic groups ever got what they wanted.

The nation stayed poor, fractured, and beset by some limited localized conflict, but it was a kind of equilibrium that all of Myanmar’s factions could grit their teeth and live with. Nobody liked the pre-war status quo; the Tatmadaw staged its coup precisely to change it, while the pro-democracy movement was deeply underwhelmed by the improvements made before the coup. Yet after five years of fighting and nearly one hundred thousand lives known to have been lost, there is a real possibility that Myanmar ends up exactly where it started, in the same status quo that brought it to this point.

It is impossible to say with any certainty how Myanmar’s civil war will end. But it is possible to say how it will not: with true, total victory for either side. If such a triumph was ever possible, for the Tatmadaw or for the rebels, it is not possible now. This war is unwinnable, and the bloodshed in Myanmar today or tomorrow will not change that.

What was once a fight over freedom against repression, plurality against domination, and democracy against authoritarianism has become a fight over the scraps, in a war where everybody is going to lose in the end.

Presented by

Simon Whistler

Simon Whistler is one of YouTube's most prolific educational creators. WarFronts is his deep dive into military history and conflict analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many people have been killed or displaced in Myanmar’s civil war?

After nearly five years of fighting since the 2021 coup, the verified death toll is creeping toward one hundred thousand people. More than three million have been displaced, and nearly thirty million are trying to survive inside the combat zone.

Why can’t the Tatmadaw simply reconquer the country?

The military cannot overextend. Each offensive demands protected supply lines, secured flanks, and ideally air cover, and the regime lacks the manpower to run more than a few at once. Pushing deep into rebel-held countryside risks losing troops and heavy equipment, sometimes into rebel hands, so the army can only take targets close to ground it already holds. Many rebel strongholds in the west and southeast are effectively beyond its reach.

What role does China play in the war?

China is the decisive outside actor. It does enough to keep the junta from collapsing, sending bombs for its jets and jammers against rebel drones, while pressuring rebels away from its pipeline, mines, and other investments. But it withholds the heavy equipment and personnel that could end the war, apparently preferring a manageable conflict it can steer away from its assets. Its guiding principle is that neither side damage its holdings.

Why was the junta’s election rejected internationally?

The three-phase vote held in late 2025 and early 2026 was conducted only in Tatmadaw-controlled or friendly areas, excluded popular parties, reserved a quarter of seats for the military, and was marred by forced voting, a heavy police presence, and mass arrests. In late January 2026, ASEAN refused outright to recognize it, and because much of the world follows ASEAN’s lead on Southeast Asia, that foreclosed recognition and sanctions relief.

Why can’t the rebels win despite holding so much territory?

They are strong in the open countryside but weak against fortified towns and bases. They face limited manpower, a deep arms and ammunition shortfall, no reliable resupply, and little air defense. Crucially, they lack unity: the movement is decentralized under a weak National Unity Government, and ethnic militias seeking local autonomy often diverge from pro-democracy fighters seeking a federal civilian state, making large coordinated offensives extremely difficult.