Amid sweeping advances by the Arakan Army (AA) in Myanmar’s Rakhine State and increasing instability in the region, a new wave of misinformation has emerged: that the United States is conducting a covert proxy war against China and the Myanmar military through ethnic armed groups, particularly the AA.
These allegations, circulating widely on social media and fringe online platforms, have alarmed analysts and scholars. Yet, according to respected regional experts and research institutions, these claims are unsubstantiated and risk distorting the complex, internally driven nature of Myanmar’s ongoing civil war.
The Military Retreat in Rakhine: A Power Shift
Since late 2023, the Arakan Army—an ethnic Rakhine armed organization—has rapidly taken control of vast areas of Rakhine State and parts of Chin State, including major towns such as Kyauktaw, Mrauk-U, and Minbya. With Myanmar’s junta overstretched on multiple fronts due to escalating offensives by other resistance coalitions (e.g., the Three Brotherhood Alliance and PDF forces), the Tatmadaw (Myanmar military) has abandoned many key outposts, resulting in a near-collapse of military governance in western Myanmar.
Analysts believe this is not the product of external engineering but rather the consequence of Myanmar’s post-coup fragmentation. Since the military coup of February 2021, the country has descended into a state of multi-front civil war, with dozens of armed organizations challenging central rule.
Claims of a U.S.-Backed Proxy War
Despite the deeply local and ethnic nature of the conflict, social media platforms—particularly in South Asia—have recently seen a surge of posts accusing the U.S. of engineering a proxy war in Rakhine to undermine Chinese influence, citing the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor and the Kyaukphyu deep-sea port.
Some posts even claim that the U.S. plans to use Bangladesh as a staging ground for a “humanitarian corridor” into Rakhine State, under the guise of relief aid or refugee protection.
Other unverified allegations include:
- The construction of Turkish drone bases inside Bangladesh.
- The recruitment and deployment of foreign fighters to assist Myanmar’s ethnic armies.
- U.S. intelligence operations coordinating with the Arakan Army.
None of these claims have been substantiated by credible journalistic reporting or independent research organizations.
Fact-Checking the Narrative: What the Experts Say
The Lowy Institute, a leading Australian think tank, addressed these rumours in a recent publication, stating:
“Assertions of U.S. involvement in Myanmar’s armed resistance are not supported by evidence. The military losses in Rakhine are the result of shifting internal dynamics, not external intervention.”
Similarly, Andrew Selth, an internationally recognized scholar of Myanmar security affairs and a fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute, argues that these claims are rooted in regional paranoia:
“Myanmar is a magnet for conspiracy theories. The opacity of the conflict and the collapse of press freedom allow misinformation to flourish.”
He adds, “While foreign powers have interests in Myanmar, there is no credible evidence that the United States is funding, arming, or coordinating military action through the Arakan Army or any other group.”
Even China, often the target of such speculations itself, has made no official accusations of a U.S. military presence or interference in the Rakhine conflict, despite being a key strategic player in the region.
Bangladesh: Caught in the Crossfire of Rumours
The theory of a “humanitarian corridor” through Bangladesh gained traction after unconfirmed reports in early August claimed that Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina briefly took shelter in India during a moment of political volatility. While these reports were never verified and likely stemmed from politically motivated disinformation, they fed into wider narratives about U.S. designs on the region.
In reality, Bangladesh’s government has taken a cautious and defensive posture, concerned more about the possible refugee spillover from Rakhine than any military involvement. Dhaka has consistently refrained from supporting any faction in the Myanmar civil war and is more focused on the repatriation of over one million Rohingya refugees, not military adventurism.
Geopolitical Realities: Where the U.S. Stands
The U.S. has long been critical of Myanmar’s junta and has imposed sanctions on military leaders and entities. However, its strategy has focused on:
- Diplomatic isolation of the military regime.
- Support for civil society and humanitarian actors.
- Pressure through ASEAN and the UN, not armed intervention.
The idea that the U.S. would risk direct military engagement in a country dominated by China’s sphere of influence, and at the cost of violating the sovereignty of Bangladesh, appears implausible to most strategic observers.
Moreover, U.S. foreign policy has been primarily preoccupied with the war in Ukraine, tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and developments in the Middle East—leaving little bandwidth for covert wars in remote Southeast Asia.
The Role of China and the Local Complexity
If any country has exercised deep influence in Myanmar’s borderlands, it is China, not the U.S. Beijing maintains relationships with multiple armed groups, including those operating along the border, such as the United Wa State Army and Kokang forces, some of whom launched their own coordinated offensives in 2023. China also plays a key economic and security role in Rakhine through its Belt and Road investments.
Importantly, the Arakan Army has at times cooperated tactically with Chinese-backed militias and appears to be operating independently rather than at the behest of any global power.
Beware Simplistic Narratives
Myanmar’s conflict is enormously complex. Ethnic nationalism, anti-junta resistance, military fragmentation, and decades of unresolved grievances define the landscape. To attribute recent military losses by the junta to a U.S. conspiracy is to ignore the deeply rooted local dynamics at play.
Misinformation about U.S. involvement in Myanmar does more than obscure the truth—it undermines genuine analysis, stokes regional paranoia, and distracts from urgent humanitarian concerns affecting millions of civilians.
In a volatile information environment, responsible media, informed scholarship, and critical public discourse are crucial. The civil war in Myanmar is tragic, but it is, above all, a conflict born of Myanmar’s own political failures—not a proxy battlefield in a great-power game.