វិភាគ៖ យុទ្ធសាស្ត្រថៃវាយប្រហារកម្ពុជា

 Analyzing Thailand’s potential strategies to attack Cambodia in the context of the July 2025 border conflict requires examining its military capabilities, strategic objectives, and constraints, while considering the historical and geopolitical context. The conflict, centered on disputed areas like Prasat Ta Muen Thom, was a limited engagement, and Thailand’s actions reflected a strategy of controlled escalation. Below is a detailed analysis of Thailand’s strategies, drawing on its military strengths, the conflict’s dynamics, and the broader implications, while ensuring the response aligns with the principles of limited warfare observed in the five-day war (July 24–28, 2025).

Thailand’s Strategic Context

Thailand’s objectives in the conflict appear to have been to assert control over disputed border areas, deter Cambodian incursions, and reinforce its sovereignty claims without triggering a full-scale war. Its strategies leveraged its superior military and economic resources while navigating domestic pressures, international scrutiny, and Cambodia’s defensive resilience and Chinese backing.

Thailand’s Strategies to Attack Cambodia

1. Air Superiority and Precision Strikes

-Description: Thailand capitalized on its advanced air force, equipped with 28 F-16 jets, 11 Swedish Gripen aircraft, and 258 helicopters, to conduct targeted airstrikes. During the conflict, the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) bombed Cambodian command posts (e.g., 8th and 9th Infantry Divisions on July 24, 2025) and strategic locations like Ta Muen Thom and Ta Kwai.

-Rationale: Air superiority allowed Thailand to disrupt Cambodian military operations with minimal ground troop exposure, targeting key infrastructure to weaken Cambodia’s defensive capabilities. Precision strikes aimed to limit collateral damage while asserting dominance.

-Effectiveness: The destruction of command posts and a Cambodian PHL-03 rocket launcher demonstrated Thailand’s ability to neutralize critical targets. However, civilian casualties, such as the attack near Phnom Dongrak hospital, drew international criticism, highlighting the risks of escalation.

-Constraints: Cambodia’s acquisition of Chinese QW-3 Vanguard air defense systems posed a threat to Thai aircraft, and the rugged border terrain limited the effectiveness of air operations in some areas.

2. Artillery Bombardment and Ground Maneuvers

- Description: Thailand deployed its extensive artillery arsenal, including 2,600 pieces (e.g., 56 155mm howitzers), to shell Cambodian positions. Ground forces, including 245,000 army personnel and Thahan Phran units, captured strategic locations like Phu Makeua and Ta Krabey.

-Rationale: Artillery provided a cost-effective means to weaken Cambodian defenses and support ground advances. Capturing high-ground positions strengthened Thailand’s territorial claims and tactical positioning.

-Effectiveness: The capture of Phu Makeua and Ta Krabey showcased Thailand’s ability to execute coordinated ground operations. However, Cambodia’s defensive terrain and BM-21 rocket counterattacks slowed Thai advances, and stray artillery shells landing in Laos risked regional spillover.

-Constraints: The mountainous border terrain and Cambodia’s entrenched positions complicated ground operations, requiring significant logistical support that strained resources.

3. Use of Controversial Weapons (Cluster Munitions)

-Description: Thailand reportedly used cluster munitions, banned by many nations, to target Cambodian positions, as noted in attacks on July 25, 2025, across seven locations.

-Rationale: Cluster munitions offered a high-impact, area-denial capability to disrupt Cambodian troop concentrations and fortifications, maximizing damage with limited resources.

-Effectiveness: These weapons likely contributed to Thailand’s claim of killing 100 Cambodian soldiers in the Phu Phi area. However, their use sparked accusations of war crimes, risking international condemnation and potential sanctions.

-Constraints: The humanitarian and diplomatic fallout limited Thailand’s ability to rely on such weapons, as global pressure mounted for accountability.

4. Psychological Warfare and Media Campaigns

-Description: Thailand used media and social media platforms, including X, to accuse Cambodia of initiating hostilities (e.g., alleged UAV incursions) and using civilians as human shields. Official statements emphasized Cambodia’s aggression to justify Thai actions.

-Rationale: Shaping domestic and international narratives aimed to bolster public support, isolate Cambodia diplomatically, and pressure it into concessions. This aligned with Thailand’s goal of maintaining legitimacy while escalating militarily.

-Effectiveness: Nationalist rhetoric strengthened domestic resolve but deepened mistrust, complicating ceasefire talks. International media, such as BBC and Al Jazeera, provided more neutral coverage, diluting Thailand’s narrative control.

-Constraints: Cambodia’s counter-accusations, including claims of Thai chemical weapon use (denied), neutralized some of Thailand’s psychological gains, creating a propaganda stalemate.

5. Rapid Escalation with Limited Objectives

-Description: Thailand launched Operation Trat Phikhat Phairi 1 on July 26, 2025, to secure strategic border points while declaring martial law in eight districts to control the conflict zone. The rapid escalation was paired with limited goals, such as capturing specific areas rather than pursuing total territorial conquest.

-Rationale: A swift, decisive show of force aimed to deter further Cambodian actions and reinforce Thailand’s border claims without committing to a prolonged war that could strain its economy and invite external intervention.

-Effectiveness: The capture of key positions and the declaration of Surin as a War Disaster Zone signaled Thailand’s control over the conflict’s tempo. However, the rapid ceasefire on July 28, 2025, suggests Thailand faced pressure to de-escalate.

-Constraints: Economic costs ($308 million USD in damages) and the displacement of 138,000 Thai civilians limited Thailand’s ability to sustain operations, as did diplomatic pressure from Malaysia, the U.S., and China.

Strategic Strengths Supporting Thailand’s Approach

-Military Superiority: Thailand’s 360,850 active personnel, $5.89 billion defense budget, and advanced weaponry (e.g., F-16s, VT-4 tanks) enabled precise, high-impact strikes.

-Economic Capacity: A $570 billion GDP and $224.47 billion in reserves provided financial resilience to fund operations and manage humanitarian fallout.

-Geopolitical Alliances: As a U.S. non-NATO ally, Thailand benefited from access to advanced technology and diplomatic support, though tempered by U.S. tariff threats during the conflict.

-Terrain Advantage: Control of high-ground positions like Phu Makeua enhanced tactical positioning.

Strategic Weaknesses and Challenges

-Terrain Limitations: The rugged border region restricted ground operations, forcing reliance on air and artillery strikes vulnerable to Cambodia’s air defenses.

-International Backlash: The use of cluster munitions and civilian casualties (e.g., gas station attack) drew condemnation, risking sanctions and isolation.

-Domestic Pressures: Political instability and the need to manage 138,000 displaced civilians strained resources and public support.

-Cambodia’s Resilience: Cambodia’s defensive positions, BM-21 rockets, and Chinese support (e.g., QW-3 systems) prevented decisive Thai victories.

Influence on the Conflict

Thailand’s strategies—air strikes, artillery, and limited ground advances—leveraged its military superiority to achieve tactical gains, such as capturing Phu Makeua and Ta Krabey. However, Cambodia’s defensive tactics and Chinese backing ensured no decisive victory. The rapid escalation and subsequent ceasefire on July 28, 2025, reflect Thailand’s intent to assert dominance without triggering a broader war, constrained by economic costs, humanitarian fallout (270,000 total displaced), and diplomatic pressure from ASEAN, the U.S., and China. Psychological warfare amplified nationalist support but complicated de-escalation.

Conclusion

Thailand’s attack strategies in the 2025 Cambodia conflict were designed to maximize its military and economic advantages while pursuing limited objectives. Air superiority, artillery barrages, and rapid ground maneuvers aimed to secure border areas, while psychological warfare sought to justify actions domestically and internationally. However, terrain challenges, Cambodia’s resilience, and global scrutiny limited Thailand’s success. The ceasefire, mediated by Malaysia, underscores the necessity of diplomatic off-ramps in such conflicts. For future stability, Thailand must balance its military dominance with efforts to address the underlying border dispute and mitigate humanitarian impacts to prevent recurring clashes.