Wind of Change: Inside the Defection Wave and the Future of Myanmar’s Security Sector
People’s Goal launches new research examining military defections, institutional change, and the future of Myanmar’s security sector.
People’s Goal is pleased to announce the launch of Wind of Change: Inside the Defection Wave and the Future of Myanmar’s Security Sector, a new research report examining the changing dynamics within Myanmar’s military and the experiences of those who have left the institution.
The report explores an important question in Myanmar’s ongoing conflict: what drives military personnel to leave, what prevents others from doing so, and what do these dynamics mean for the future of Myanmar’s security sector?
Drawing on in-depth interviews with former military personnel and military family members, the research looks beyond the number of defections to examine the human and institutional factors behind them. Respondents described how violence against civilians, declining trust in military leadership, corruption, abuse of authority, battlefield pressure, and growing institutional disillusionment shaped decisions to leave.
At the same time, the findings show that dissatisfaction does not automatically lead to defection. Concerns over family safety, surveillance, economic dependence, uncertainty over safe exit routes, and insecurity after defection continue to prevent some personnel from leaving.
A Changing Pattern of Defection
The research also highlights how the nature of military departure has evolved since the early post-coup period.
While the initial wave of defections was closely associated with the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM), respondents described a changing environment in which battlefield defections and surrenders have become increasingly important, particularly amid intensified armed conflict and major battlefield developments.
This shift suggests that understanding military defection requires looking beyond formal CDM participation to consider the wider effects of battlefield pressure, declining morale, and changing calculations among military personnel.
Military Capacity and Institutional Cohesion Are Not the Same
Another important finding is the distinction between the military’s ability to continue operating and the strength of its internal cohesion.
The military retains mechanisms for recruiting and deploying personnel and sustaining military operations. However, respondents also described declining morale, distrust between different levels of the institution, battlefield stress, reluctance to deploy, and weakening confidence in military leadership.
The research does not suggest that these pressures necessarily mean immediate institutional collapse. Instead, it points to an institution that may retain operational capacity while simultaneously experiencing deeper challenges to morale, trust, and cohesion.
What Happens After Defection Matters
For many respondents, leaving the military brought a sense of moral and personal relief. Yet defection also created new challenges.
Former personnel reported difficulties related to livelihoods, legal status, employment, family separation, healthcare, security, and psychological wellbeing.
These experiences have implications beyond the lives of those who have already defected. Military personnel who remain inside the institution may observe what happens to those who leave. The credibility of post-defection support can therefore influence whether others believe that leaving is a realistic option.
The report highlights the importance of moving beyond short-term emergency assistance toward sustainable reintegration, including legal documentation, livelihood opportunities, vocational training, employment pathways, family reunification, and psychosocial support.
Looking Beyond Defection
Wind of Change goes beyond the question of why and how military personnel leave the existing institution. It also examines how former military personnel understand the future of Myanmar’s security sector.
Respondents emphasized institutional transformation, civilian oversight, accountability, vetting, retraining, and appropriate pathways for the reintegration of eligible personnel. These perspectives contribute to a broader discussion about building security institutions that are accountable to civilian authority and compatible with a future federal democratic system.
The findings also underline that security sector transformation cannot be treated only as a future issue. Questions around accountability, institutional design, civilian oversight, transitional justice, and reintegration require sustained discussion and preparation.