The Debate

From Damascus to Naypyidaw: The Perils of Backing Failing Regimes

Recent Features

The Debate | Opinion

From Damascus to Naypyidaw: The Perils of Backing Failing Regimes

The sudden and unexpected fall of Bashar al-Assad could foreshadow the fate of Myanmar’s besieged military junta.

From Damascus to Naypyidaw: The Perils of Backing Failing Regimes

A billboard of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on a building in Hama, Syria.

Credit: ID 60679802 © Gert Van Santen | Dreamstime.com

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has sparked a surge of hope among Myanmar’s resistance forces. Since the February 2021 coup, these forces have steadily gained ground against a brutal and heavily armed military junta. The junta, once perceived as an unshakable power, has lost control of more than half the country. Ethnic resistance organizations and a coalition of armed groups now dominate the border regions.

What began as peaceful protests against the coup quickly escalated into armed resistance following the junta’s ruthless crackdown. Protesters were met with violence, while elected leaders faced persecution and imprisonment. Early on, many international analysts and junta loyalists dismissed the armed resistance as futile, declaring the military “too big to fail.” They underestimated the extent of corruption within the Myanmar military – a dysfunction strikingly similar to that which afflicted Assad’s forces.

Corruption of this magnitude is more than a moral failing; it is a strategic vulnerability. The junta’s inability to maintain effective combat operations underscores this reality. Key territories and regional headquarters have fallen to resistance forces. Ground battles are consistently being lost, defections are rising, and morale among troops has plummeted. Despite its superior firepower, the junta teeters on the brink of collapse. Air power remains its last stronghold, and has been used increasingly to target civilians, through the bombing of schools, clinics, religious sites, and displacement camps. These atrocities have only deepened the population’s hatred and rejection of the military.

China’s growing support for the military junta has thrown the regime’s fragility into sharper relief. Beijing seeks stability in Myanmar but appears more inclined to back an authoritarian regime than explore democratic alternatives. Historically, however, the military junta has been the primary driver of instability. Its legacy is one of division, destruction, and repression. No other group possesses the capacity to wreak havoc on a comparable scale.

China’s engagement with the Myanmar military junta reflects a miscalculation. Its focus on cultivating ties with the junta’s elite overlooks the broader dynamics shaping Myanmar’s society. This elite-centered approach, rooted in China’s authoritarian playbook, blinds Beijing to the deep-seated animosity among the Myanmar people. By supporting the military junta – widely despised even among its own former allies – China has inflamed anti-Chinese sentiment across the country. Ironically, the junta has long used China as a scapegoat to justify its grip on power. Beijing may find itself mired in a quagmire of its own making.

The parallels with Syria are striking. Just as Russia became entangled in Assad’s faltering regime, China could well face a similar predicament in Myanmar. It, too, may discover the perils of backing a corrupt and isolated autocracy. Russia’s intervention in Syria aimed to bolster Assad’s faltering regime, just as China is now propping up Myanmar’s junta. Both powers overestimated the strength of the regimes they supported and underestimated the resilience of the opposition forces. In Syria, Russia’s commitment to Assad alienated much of the international community and eroded its regional influence. Similarly, China’s unwavering support for Myanmar’s junta risks damaging its broader strategic interests in Southeast Asia and beyond.

Both Russia in Syria and China in Myanmar find themselves entangled in protracted conflicts fueled by corrupt, authoritarian regimes. The costs of these alliances – financial, political, and reputational – continue to rise. As with Assad’s forces, Myanmar’s military junta appears increasingly incapable of delivering the stability its backers seek. Instead, these regimes drag their patrons deeper into a web of instability and hostility, amplifying resistance both domestically and internationally.

The lesson is clear. Backing a deeply corrupt and isolated autocracy often leads not to strategic gains but to enduring complications.