How Bangkok Is Winning the Narrative War: Thailand’s Disinformation Arsenal in the Border Conflict

The confrontation between Thailand and Cambodia has shifted from the border trenches to the world’s screens and news feeds. As deadly exchanges of fire continue along their disputed frontier, Bangkok has crafted an influential communication strategy in which disinformation, rapid responses, and privileged access to global media outlets are deployed as strategic tools.​

A Dual Front: Military Clash and Information Warfare

Since the first skirmishes erupted in July 2025, analysts have described the crisis as a two-front conflict: not only a military clash, but also an intensely fought information war. Cambodian commentators note that major Thai media have quickly adopted a narrative framing Phnom Penh as the aggressor, effectively reversing the traditional victim–attacker roles in the eyes of international audiences.

Studies from regional think tanks confirm that social media and digital platforms have become key battlegrounds, but the two countries are leveraging them in markedly different ways. Thailand emphasizes nationalistic mobilization and controlled messaging, while Cambodia’s efforts remain more disjointed and less technically sophisticated.

An Integrated Influence Ecosystem

Thailand’s narrative strategy relies on a tightly coordinated ecosystem of state actors and media:

• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and official spokespeople conduct structured briefings for diplomats and foreign press, providing prepared materials, guided site visits, and clear talking points.

• The Royal Thai Army maintains active official social accounts, operates relay accounts, and distributes visual content that is readily picked up by mainstream news outlets.

• Large private media, often aligned with state security priorities, frame the conflict consistently as a defense of Thai national sovereignty.

This coordinated mesh ensures the Thai version of events flows seamlessly from official channels to public platforms, creating a coherent and dense narrative that Cambodian media struggle to match.

Staged Transparency and International Outreach

A key element of Thailand’s advantage is its ability to present controlled transparency to international audiences. Bangkok has organized guided visits for diplomats, international organizations, and foreign journalists to areas such as zones allegedly mined by Cambodian forces. These so-called “truth tours” generate images and testimonies that feed international coverage—yet are carefully orchestrated by Thai authorities.

At the same time, Thailand has used multilateral forums, including mine-related conventions, to make structured legal accusations against Cambodia, bolstering its narrative in Western diplomatic circles.

Digital Mobilization and Mass Nationalism

Online, Thailand’s approach hinges on what some researchers call a “state-driven participatory nationalism.” Military and government-linked groups promote viral hashtags like “Cambodia fired first” or “Thailand loves peace but will not back down,” shaping discussions on platforms such as X, Facebook, and TikTok. This strategy turns pro-government citizens into amplifiers of official narratives, creating the impression of spontaneous public support when, in reality, much of it is institutionally coordinated.

By contrast, Cambodian digital output is described as less reactive and more fragmented, with far fewer high-impact communications circulating internationally.

Blurring Reality and Misinformation

Although Thailand portrays itself as defending truth against Cambodian “fake news,” regional media watchdogs and NGOs see a more ambiguous reality. Some pro-military pages have circulated misleading images, out-of-context videos, and exaggerated figures designed to amplify the perception of a Cambodian threat. Fact-checking groups have noted confusion generated by multiple army-affiliated channels posting conflicting accounts, creating an information fog favorable to Thailand’s security narrative.

This environment makes real-time verification challenging for independent media and normalizes questionable content within the broader discourse.

Why Thailand’s Message Resonates with International Media

Several structural advantages help Thailand reach international audiences more effectively than Cambodia:

• A longstanding openness to foreign correspondents, with established media infrastructure and experienced English-speaking spokespeople.

• A more diverse domestic press that serves as a source for international editors, even when coverage aligns with state security priorities.

• A proactive diplomatic corps that swiftly briefs Western and Asian embassies with maps, fact sheets, and talking points before Cambodian counterparts can organize responses.

Cambodian outlets, by contrast, lack private news agencies with international desks, permanent foreign correspondents, and wire services capable of supplying rapid, multilingual dispatches—a gap that slows Phnom Penh’s entry into the global news cycle.

Narrative Deficit and Its Consequences

Observers argue that this structural imbalance has accelerated what some describe as a “narrative defeat” for Cambodia. Because Thai narratives often reach screens first and shape interpretive frameworks, Cambodian perspectives struggle to gain equal international traction.

Risks of a One-Sided Strategy

However, Thailand’s information dominance carries risks. Communication scholars warn that the surge of nationalist hashtags and influencer rhetoric has fueled online calls for violence against Cambodians living in Thailand, including filmed attacks circulated on social media. This polarization could make political de-escalation more costly by forcing leaders to implicitly uphold weeks of accusatory messaging.

Long-term credibility could also erode if independent investigations expose significant manipulations, potentially opening space for Cambodian counter-narratives and more intrusive international mediation.

A Narrative Battle That Is Far From Over

Ultimately, Thailand’s communication strategy in the border conflict rests on three pillars: a coordinated state-army-media ecosystem, mass nationalism amplified through social platforms, and privileged access to international diplomatic and media arenas. As long as this architecture remains intact, Bangkok is positioned to shape the global narrative of the conflict—even if the complex and tragic reality on the ground resists simple slogans and staged press appearances.