The Thailand-Cambodia border conflict, reignited in 2025, has escalated into one of the deadliest clashes in over a decade, with at least 14 Thai civilians and soldiers killed and thousands displaced. Centered around disputed territories like the Ta Muen Thom and Preah Vihear temples, the conflict stems from a century-old disagreement over colonial-era maps. Both nations accuse each other of initiating hostilities, but the involvement of global powers—China’s ties with Cambodia and the West’s alignment with Thailand—raises questions about whether this is a localized dispute or a proxy battle between the U.S. and China.
Who Provoked the 2025 Clashes?
The latest escalation began on May 28, 2025, when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a skirmish in the Emerald Triangle, a disputed border region between Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos. Tensions exploded on July 24, 2025, near the Ta Muen Thom temple, with both sides trading gunfire, rocket attacks, and Thai airstrikes. Thailand claims Cambodian forces initiated the conflict by deploying drones and firing rockets into civilian areas, killing 14, including a five-year-old. Cambodia counters that Thai soldiers violated a prior agreement by advancing on the temple and firing first.
Local accounts add complexity. Cambodian commander Pok Sophal claimed Thai troops opened fire during a scheduled meeting, while Thai officials reported Cambodian troops digging trenches and laying landmines, which injured five Thai soldiers on July 23. Neither side’s narrative fully aligns, and the lack of independent verification fuels mutual accusations. Nationalist sentiments, amplified by social media and political rhetoric, have intensified the conflict, with both governments facing domestic pressure to appear resolute.
From Skirmishes to Deadly Escalation
The 2025 clashes mark a significant escalation from earlier disputes, which began in 2008 over the Preah Vihear temple’s UNESCO listing. The current conflict’s intensity is evident in its human toll: at least 14 Thai deaths, 46 wounded, and over 40,000 civilians evacuated from border areas. Cambodia has not reported casualties, but its use of BM-21 rocket launchers and Thailand’s F-16 airstrikes indicate a shift toward heavier weaponry.
Compared to the 2008–2011 clashes, which killed around 34 people and displaced 45,000, the 2025 conflict has rapidly approached similar levels of destruction in a shorter timeframe. The spread of fighting to six border areas, including Surin and Oddar Meanchey provinces, and the targeting of civilian infrastructure like hospitals and petrol stations suggest a broader and more aggressive engagement. Cambodia’s call for an urgent UN Security Council meeting and Thailand’s rejection of International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction further complicate de-escalation efforts.
Cambodia and China: A Strategic Partnership
Cambodia’s alignment with China is well-documented. Beijing has invested heavily in Cambodian infrastructure, including a major airport, government buildings, and the Ream Naval Base, where Chinese warships now dock. China’s “Golden Dragon” military exercises with Cambodia since 2016 and its role as Cambodia’s largest trading partner ($12.4 billion in bilateral trade in 2024) underscore this relationship. Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Cambodia, where officials called China their “greatest friend,” reinforces this bond.
China’s support provides Cambodia with economic and military leverage, but its role in the conflict is nuanced. Beijing has publicly urged dialogue and offered to mediate, emphasizing an “objective and fair” stance. However, posts on X suggest Cambodia’s military, while backed by China, is less equipped than Thailand’s, limiting its capacity for sustained conflict. China’s interest lies in maintaining regional stability to protect its Belt and Road Initiative investments, not escalating a proxy war.
Thailand and the West: A U.S.-Aligned Military Power
Thailand, a major non-NATO U.S. ally, benefits from extensive Western support, particularly in military training and equipment. The Thai military, equipped with U.S.-supplied F-16 jets, has conducted joint exercises like Cobra Gold with the U.S. for decades. In 2024, U.S.-Thailand trade reached $60.7 billion, and Washington has supported Thailand’s political stability amid domestic turmoil. The West’s influence is also evident in Thailand’s rejection of ICJ jurisdiction, aligning with U.S. skepticism of international courts.
However, Thailand’s alignment with the West is not absolute. Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s visit to Beijing in February 2025 and Thailand’s deportation of 40 Uyghur asylum seekers at China’s request signal a pragmatic balancing act. Thailand’s military, while Western-trained, operates with significant autonomy, often clashing with civilian leadership, as seen in Paetongtarn’s suspension over a leaked call with Cambodia’s Hun Sen.
Is Cambodia vs. Thailand Actually China vs. U.S.?
The notion of the Thailand-Cambodia conflict as a China-U.S. proxy war is a compelling but oversimplified narrative. Posts on X and some analysts suggest a geopolitical undercurrent, with Cambodia’s Chinese-backed regime pitted against Thailand’s U.S.-trained military. Historical context supports this view: during the Cold War, Thailand supported the Khmer Rouge with Western backing, while China backed Cambodia’s current ruling elite.
Yet, several factors challenge this framing. First, both nations have strong economic ties with China, which is Thailand’s largest trading partner ($135 billion in 2024). Thailand’s engagement with China, including joint military exercises, suggests it is not a straightforward U.S. proxy. Second, China’s call for de-escalation and mediation aligns with its regional strategy of avoiding direct confrontation with the U.S. Third, the conflict’s roots—colonial-era maps and nationalist fervor—are deeply local, predating modern great-power rivalries.
The U.S. has remained relatively silent, with no public statements on the 2025 clashes, likely to avoid escalating tensions with China. ASEAN, led by Malaysia, has taken a more active mediation role, reflecting regional preference for local solutions. While global powers influence military capabilities and diplomatic posturing, the conflict’s immediate drivers—border disputes and domestic politics—suggest it is not primarily a China-U.S. proxy war.
Domestic Politics and Nationalism
Domestic dynamics play a critical role. In Cambodia, the conflict bolsters Prime Minister Hun Manet’s legitimacy, with public support surging after the May 28 soldier’s death. His father, Hun Sen, a dominant figure, has used nationalist rhetoric to strengthen the Cambodian People’s Party’s grip, especially amid economic challenges from looming U.S. tariffs. In Thailand, the military’s hawkish stance and Paetongtarn’s suspension reflect a power struggle between civilian and military elites, exacerbated by nationalist protests against perceived concessions to Cambodia.
The leaked call between Paetongtarn and Hun Sen, where she called him “uncle” and criticized Thai military leaders, ignited a political firestorm, highlighting Thailand’s fragile civil-military relations. Nationalist groups like the Yellow Shirts have long used anti-Cambodian sentiment to rally support, as seen in 2008 protests over Preah Vihear. Similarly, Cambodian media have framed Thailand as the aggressor, stoking patriotic fervor to distract from domestic issues.
Hidden Agendas and Regional Implications
The conflict’s escalation may serve hidden agendas. For Cambodia, provoking tensions could deflect attention from economic woes and consolidate Hun Manet’s leadership. For Thailand, military assertiveness may aim to undermine Paetongtarn’s civilian government, reinforcing the army’s political influence. Externally, China’s mediation offer could enhance its regional clout, while the U.S.’s silence preserves its strategic focus on countering China elsewhere, like the South China Sea.
Regionally, the conflict threatens ASEAN unity, already strained by Myanmar’s crisis. The failure of bilateral talks and Thailand’s rejection of ICJ jurisdiction complicate resolution efforts. The economic impact is significant: border closures disrupt $3.5 billion in annual trade, and tourism, a key revenue source for both nations, faces cancellations.
A Complex Web of Local and Global Forces
The Thailand-Cambodia conflict of 2025 is a volatile mix of historical grievances, nationalist fervor, and domestic politics, with neither side clearly provoking the initial clash. Cambodia’s Chinese support and Thailand’s Western ties add a geopolitical layer, but the dispute is not a direct China-U.S. proxy war. Local issues—disputed borders, political instability, and economic pressures—drive the conflict’s intensity, amplified by modern weaponry and media. As ASEAN and China push for dialogue, the path to peace hinges on both nations prioritizing de-escalation over nationalist posturing, lest the region slide into broader instability.
