The delusions of greatness will see the military leader of Myanmar … and his future is getting more mysterious

Myanmar’s leader, General Min Aung Hlang, stood in February, along with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and announced that the Russian President was a “great Buddhist prophet”, a strange phrase.

Although exaggeration explains part of the phrase General Hulang, the incentive that made him say was clear, as the leader of the besieged military council in Myanmar was striving to obtain legitimacy from a great power, even if this required the launch of the phrase “courtesy”, but the problem is that his sayings and actions do not reflect his truth.

Min Aung Hlang heads a system that controls less than 30% of Myanmar, according to some estimates, while armed ethnic groups, led by the “Three Brothers” coalition, forced the Myanmar army to retreat on several fronts.

At the same time, the government of national unity is gaining international support, while the various opposition movements are increasingly coordinated.

Despite all of this, the state’s military governing council, which emanates from the coup that the army had made four years ago, is still adhering to the delusions of control, and provides promises to new elections this year, which it considers a few people, free, honest or even legitimate.

A calculated step

The words of General Hlang, which he launched in Moscow for the purpose of “tending”, were not only carefully calculated, as Russia remains one of the few reliable military suppliers to Myanmar, as weapons and diplomatic cover are offered to the United Nations.

And as a result of the use of “Buddhism”, a belief that has nothing to do with President Putin, Min Aung Hulang was trying to photograph Russia’s support as if it was an inevitable matter, transgressing the current political context.

For his part, Putin did not give anything mysterious assurances of continuous cooperation. The Russian leader, who is now drowned in the quagmire of Ukraine, was looking at Myanmar as a secondary priority, as a reliable partner.

Min Aung Hulang continues to stick to Moscow because he realizes that China, which is the main international supporter of the Myanmar military regime, plays a more international and commercial game. Although Beijing provides diplomatic and economic support, it maintains its relations with other ethnic opposition groups in Myanmar, to ensure its influence over everyone, regardless of who will eventually win.

This question is being increasingly raised in light of the increasing losses of the military council in the battlefield, forcing him to summon retired officers and provide a “expedited nationality” to foreigners wishing to join his army, in his ongoing war against opposition armed groups.

According to the security analyst in the Asia Times, Anthony Davis, the Myanmar army did not face in its entire history such armed resistance coordinated and organized in this way.

This has prompted the Association of Southeast Asian Countries (ASEAN), which has been criticized for its five -year consensus to resolve the crisis, to change its position amid increasing fears of a humanitarian crisis that leads to shock throughout the region.

It is interesting that the countries of the association, which forms a regional bloc, stopped calling for new elections, and instead called for an immediate ceasefire, as the only way to apply to achieve stability.

Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore were the most critical of military rule in Myanmar, as Jakarta was the first to mediate for secret talks aimed at stopping hostilities.

But Min Ong Hlang has no intention to agree to any ceasefire, perhaps because he sees the army’s control is the only way for him to stay. His recent rejection of the calls of “ASEAN” countries for the settlement indicates that the struggle in Myanmar will continue until 2026.

According to what the expert at the National War College in the American capital, Washington, Professor Zakaria Abuza says, “Maine Ong Hlang’s rejection of any settlement is not a result of a mistake in political accounts, but rather a guarantee of the continuation of Myanmar’s fragmentation.”

Fading symbol

While Main Ong Hlang’s war is escalating, the influence of the former prime minister, Aung San Suu Chi, who was previously seen as the leader of the democratic transitional phase in Myanmar, is still in prison, with minimal possibilities of a political renaissance without the collapse of the regime. Reports indicate that this woman, who is at the age of 78, suffers from a deterioration of her health, while the military council is held in almost complete isolation.

Indeed, the resistance movement has evolved until after “Soo Chi”, and it is now driven by younger and more radical factions, seeing in the armed struggle – unlike the peaceful protest that “Suchi” won the former Nobel Peace Prize – the only way to apply for political change.

The question remains strongly at the present time: Who will succeed Suqi, if any? Despite the emergence of figures within the government of national unity as new faces of the pro -democracy movement, none of them bears the power that the Suqi has around which everyone wraps.

Her absence led to a vacuum, which could contribute – in the long run – to accelerate the fragmentation of the opposition, which will serve the interest of the army. It seems that the future of Myanmar, now will most likely be formed by a generation of militant resistance leaders who have left the scorched earth conflict areas in Myanmar.

This fact is a two -edged sword for General Min Aung Hulang. On the one hand, Soo Chi’s influence gradually leads to weakening the traditional resistance. On the other hand, her absence eliminates the existence of the character that – at least in theory – is able to mediate for a settlement through the negotiations that Main Ong Hlang may need soon, especially in light of the losses that the army suffers in the battlefield.

Main Ong Hlang’s dilemma appears clear, as it is waging a war in which he cannot win, and raises the anger of the international community. He cannot also bear a loss and exacerbate a legitimate crisis that will not be resolved by his recent elections, later this year.

His attempts – at the same time – also failing to review his strength, whether through his “resonant” statements in Moscow, or his enthusiastic field speeches at home, in hiding the painful facts inherent in that the grip of the Myanmar army is constantly weakening, and that the military council is increasingly threatened, and the future of the great general is getting mysterious day by day, despite the delusions of the greatness that it becomes. On Asia Times

. The Myanmar Army has not faced in its entire history such coordinated armed resistance and organized in this way.