Cambodia & Thailand: What Scenarios to Exit the Crisis?

The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia reached a critical point in 2025. Beyond a territorial dispute, it is a geopolitical, political, and human maelstrom tearing the region apart. Let us explore the deep reasons behind Thai aggressiveness, recent episodes, humanitarian issues, and possible scenarios for the future.

---

2025 will remain a dark year in the history of relations between Thailand and Cambodia, with unprecedented intensification of tensions at the borders. This dispute, centered on control of the Preah Vihear temple, has become much more than just a territorial dispute: it crystallizes geopolitical ambitions, internal political calculations, and intersecting economic interests.

Resolute Posture

If Bangkok shows a resolute posture, it is because it defends what it considers a sacred symbol of national sovereignty, refusing any concession that could be seen as an affront to its territorial integrity.

In a overheated office in Bangkok, Anutin Thamrongvej, Prime Minister of Thailand, does not hesitate to wield strong rhetoric. "Thailand will tolerate no violation of its sovereignty," he proclaims with determined resolve. According to him, Cambodian incursions are nothing but irresponsible provocations, threatening "regional peace." This defensive position masks a more complex political reality: a military power struggling to maintain its popular base amid a divided opinion. The stakes are high for the Bangkok government, which is playing on this conflict to reposition itself on the national stage.

Appeal to the International Community

On the other side, in Phnom Penh, the Cambodian Senate headquarters houses another face of power: Samdech Hun Sen. Longtime Prime Minister, he is now President of the Senate, guardian of the Parliament, and spokesperson for national aspirations. In an interview granted in October 2025, he speaks bluntly:

"Thailand continues to pursue an unjustified aggressive policy. We demand the immediate halt of bombings and the end of militarization of our borders."

His tone is as much a message to the Cambodian public as it is an appeal to the international community, aware of the diplomatic and humanitarian stakes.

The economic stakes are not to be overlooked. Every controlled border crossing, every suspended commercial or tourist flow, feeds the tension. "This conflict is also a battle for economic control of the region," comments an expert in regional geopolitics.

Thailand’s maneuvers are part of a larger game where great powers, notably the United States and China, observe and influence the power balances.

The dark turning point came in July 2025: Cambodian artillery fire hit the Thai province of Si Saket, causing civilian casualties. The Thai response was immediate and intense, with the army deploying rocket launchers and aviation. The battlefield turned into a human nightmare: at least 33 dead, more than 200,000 displaced. A fragile ceasefire was signed in October, but peace remains precarious; in November, the explosion of a landmine reignited violence.

No Release

At the heart of the crisis, the issue of prisoners of war remains sensitive. Thailand currently holds 18 Cambodian soldiers captured during the July clashes. According to Thai authorities, these prisoners are treated according to international standards, receiving medical care and decent detention conditions.

On the Cambodian side, the detention of these soldiers raises strong humanitarian concern and repeated calls for their immediate and unconditional release. Phnom Penh sees their release as essential for a budding reconciliation, while Bangkok, despite promises of progressive release, delays their return, symbolizing persistent mistrust between the two countries and further complicating diplomatic efforts to ease tensions.

Dark Veil

But there is a dark veil over these hostilities: serious accusations weigh on Thai soldiers, accused of rape and sexual violence against Cambodian civilians in rural areas. This taboo subject rekindles pain and complicates peace. Human rights organizations demand an international inquiry, while Bangkok denies or minimizes these allegations. The fracture between the populations deepens.

This human suffering is compounded by growing isolation. Massive refugee movements, border post closures, and economic blockade of border areas amplify the crisis. While ASEAN and the UN call for restraint, ceasefire violations persist, paralyzing any diplomatic progress.

Several paths open today to try to escape this deadlock threatening the stability of the entire region....

Scenario 1: Diplomatic De-escalation and Peaceful Resolution

International pressure, combined with the high human and material cost of the conflict, is gradually pushing the Thai and Cambodian governments to seek a way out through dialogue. In October 2025, a peace agreement signed in Kuala Lumpur marked a first step toward stabilization, with mechanisms for ceasefire control and bilateral dialogue put in place. This first agreement, though fragile, gives rise to renewed willingness from both parties to prioritize diplomacy.

The contribution of regional organizations like ASEAN and the quiet support of other international actors are felt in implementing a negotiation framework supported by economic and political pressures. These interventions play a key role in encouraging trust and ensuring monitoring of commitments made.

Nevertheless, this peaceful path remains tense: the political landscape of both countries, deeply marked by internal divisions and mutual distrust, complicates the progress of negotiations. Long-term stability will depend on leaders’ ability to manage national expectations while respecting the terms of the agreement.

Scenario 2: Intermittent Conflict Worsening the Humanitarian Crisis

The second scenario is one of intermittent war, where clashes alternate with periods of relative calm but without a definitive resolution. Sporadic skirmishes, often related to minor incidents or local provocations, regularly reignite hostilities and weaken ceasefire implementation.

This permanent instability exacerbates an already deep humanitarian crisis: displaced populations, infrastructure destruction, limited access to humanitarian aid, and catastrophic living conditions in border areas. Fear and uncertainty become the daily life of civilians trapped in this deadlock.

In this context, the international community is struck by its inability to impose lasting peace, confronted with actors with divergent interests. The fault lies in a fragile balance where every incident can restart violence, deepening the spiral of suffering and limiting prospects for peace.

Scenario 3: Major Military Escalation with Regional Implications

A serious incident, whether accidental or deliberate, could trigger an uncontrollable escalation of the conflict, turning this border quarrel into an open war. This situation would have devastating effects, with a multiplication of military operations, massive use of force, and the risk of involving regional allies.

In a tense geopolitical context, Thailand could, by strategy or necessity, rely on its alliance with the United States, while Cambodia could find reinforced support from China. This power play would undermine the fragile balance of all Southeast Asia, threatening regional security and economic stability.

Major escalation would explode human and material costs, cause a refugee crisis of large scale, and could impose international forces’ intervention to contain the conflict. This scenario is dreaded by diplomats but remains a real risk as long as tensions are not eased....

Scenario 4: Imposed Regional Mediation and Conflict Freeze

Faced with the deadlock, a strong regional mediation could be imposed by a third influential actor, whether a neutral state, a regional coalition, or an international organization. This scenario would see the establishment of a conflict freeze, with non-aggression guarantees and strengthened monitoring mechanisms.

Mediation would aim to create a climate conducive to resuming negotiations within a strict framework, with the possibility to impose sanctions in case of non-compliance. This constrained framework could reduce violence but cannot bring a complete resolution as long as the root causes remain untreated.

However, this external intervention is questionable: it requires a difficult regional consensus to obtain and cooperation from both parties, often reluctant to abandon their position in a conflict seen as existential. Its success will thus depend on unwavering commitment from regional actors.

Scenario 5: Conditional Reconciliation and Internal Reforms

This optimistic scenario assumes significant political evolution in Cambodia and/or Thailand, with leaders willing to undertake reforms to overcome confrontation logic. This opening could offer a chance for sincere dialogue, based on mutual recognition and the desire for lasting cooperation.

The establishment of an agenda including civilian protection, border area rehabilitation, and joint economic projects would foster a pacified climate. It would also rely on transforming public discourse and reconciling national opinions.

Far from utopian, this path would however require precise political timing and international support to back leaders in this transition, easing tensions and consolidating the foundations of lasting peace. This scenario remains a horizon to cultivate with determination.

This crossroads of potential outcomes underscores the urgency of constant engagement, both political and humanitarian, so that diplomatic voices prevail over the force of arms, and that peace triumphs over division and suffering.