Thai Military Aggressiveness: Motivations and the Sword’s Appetite at the Heart of the Conflict Against Cambodia

Despite a fragile cease-fire negotiated in July 2025 under the auspices of Donald Trump, Thailand resumed military operations against Cambodia in early December — launching air strikes, triggering massive evacuations, and sowing grave uncertainty over the future of peace between the two nations.

This escalation — embedded in an age-old border dispute over temples such as Preah Vihear and Ta Muen Thom — roots itself in a chain of mutual provocations, where Bangkok accuses Phnom Penh of repeated violations and of laying anti-personnel mines. The two countries, historically bound and members of ASEAN, are sinking into a cycle of violence that threatens regional stability, with civilians caught in the crossfire and border economies destabilized.  The Thai military — a pillar of power — emerges as the dominant actor, driven by a blend of sovereignty, prestige and political survival.

Historical Context: An ancestral dispute revived by the generals

The Thailand–Cambodia border conflict is far from new. It dates back to the Franco-Siamese treaties of 1904–1907, and was crystallized by a 1962 ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which awarded the temple of Preah Vihear to Cambodia, while leaving some adjacent zones contested. Sporadic clashes between 2008 and 2011 caused about twenty deaths, before a relative calm settled.

But in 2025, tensions exploded. After several mine explosions injuring Thai soldiers near Ta Muen Thom, roughly in July, a cease-fire was agreed on July 28. A broader deal, mediated in Kuala Lumpur in October involving Trump, the Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Chinese mediators, aimed to de-escalate hostilities.

Yet incidents persisted: in September, cross-fire erupted again near Chong Ahn Ma, each side blaming the other; meanwhile, belligerent statements by the Thai 2nd Army commander, Boonsin Padklang — threatening seizure of temples such as Ta Krabey and the closure of Ta Muen Thom — have severely undermined trust. These tensions — amplified by an information war (rumours of chemical weapons, spy drones) — have turned the truce into a precarious pause, one that the Thai army appears ready to exploit to consolidate its authority.

The immediate trigger: mines, ultimatums and aerial superiority

Mid-December marked a breaking point: a Thai soldier died in the so-called Emerald Triangle (a contested zone near Ubon Ratchathani), killed by what Bangkok attributes to a Cambodian-laid mine — the seventh PMN-2 mine explosion since May.

In response, on December 7, the Royal Thai Army (RTA) and the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) hit Cambodian positions in Oddar Meanchey and Preah Vihear with F-16 fighter jets, evacuated 400,000 civilians from provinces like Surin, and declared these areas “war-catastrophe zones.”

The Thai chief of staff, Chaiyaphleuk Duangpraphat, issued an ultimatum demanding Cambodian withdrawal by 6 pm, under threat of “full military force,” claiming the aim was to “incapacitate the Cambodian army to prevent future threats.” Phnom Penh denies any recent mine-laying, decries indiscriminate attacks that killed four civilians, and argues that its actions were in self-defence.  Meanwhile, Thai drones now patrol the border, and Bangkok promises “proportional strikes,” marking the air force’s first combat engagement in decades.

Thai Military Aggressiveness: The Hallmark of Nationalist Generals

The Thai aggression peaked during operations such as “Yuttha Bodin,” launched by Phana Khlaeoplotthuk — involving coordinated air and ground assaults that destroyed Cambodian tanks and artillery (PHL-03, BM-21 Grad) in Khao Sattasom and Prasat Ta Krabey.

Boonsin Padklang embodies this hardline posture: in July, he defied civilian orders to uphold the cease-fire, engaged in six hours of combat, and later lamented not having retaken Prasat Ta Krabey — considered a sensitive “Thai point.”  The RTA reinforced its presence: heavy artillery, cluster munitions, martial law in eight border districts, and a categorical refusal of any mediation.

Beyond immediate military aims, these actions — mass evacuations, border closures, official briefings painting Phnom Penh as violator — serve a wider narrative: the army casts itself as heroic protector, shaping public opinion against civilians perceived as pro-Cambodian, and consolidating its grip over power under the guise of national defense.

Deep motivations: Power, Image and Political Consolidation

Beyond tactical incidents, the Thai military appears driven by structural motives. The dismissal of Paetongtarn Shinawatra in August — following leaks in which she branded the generals as an “opposition” while appealing to Cambodia’s former leader Hun Sen — installed an interim government (led by Phumtham Wechayachai and Anutin Charnvirakul) aligned with the generals, halting the Malaysian-led joint declaration from November.

The RTA — historically an autonomous and influential body — now exploits the conflict to tighten its hold: rallying anti-Khmer nationalist sentiment against supposedly “soft” elites, restoring prestige after political criticism, and presenting itself as national savior rather than a political player.

Boonsin — as face of this strategy — uses sovereignty and national pride to bolster his image: his incendiary remarks over Ta Muen Thom (under Thai control) stir nationalist fervor, blur the civil–military divide, and pressure civilians to adopt a hardline stance. Economically, despite a collapse in border commerce (estimated at 1.5 billion USD), 168,000 displaced persons and a 4.17% stock-market drop, the army prioritizes strategic high-ground over immediate economic cost, riding the turbulence to cement a post-coup power structure.

Without an ASEAN+ summit or UN resolution, hundreds of deaths and a looming humanitarian crisis threaten — as Thai generals, led by Boonsin, transform national defense into conquest, risking regional peace.