កម្ពុជា និងថៃ៖ តក្កវិជ្ជានៃសង្គ្រាមមានកំណត់?

 Cambodia and Thailand: The Logic of Limited Wars ?

The Cambodia-Thailand conflict of July 2025 serves as a clear example of a limited war, where both nations engaged in a brief, intense border dispute without escalating into full-scale war. Limited wars are defined by constrained objectives, restricted use of resources, and a deliberate effort to avoid broader conflict, often driven by a mix of strategic, diplomatic, and domestic considerations. This five-day clash (July 24-28, 2025) over the Prasat Ta Muen Thom temple area reflects the logic of limited wars through its historical roots, military restraint, diplomatic resolution, and broader implications. Below, we explore how this conflict embodies the characteristics of limited wars across multiple dimensions.

---

"Historical Context and Constrained Objectives**

The conflict stems from a long-standing border dispute originating with a 1907 French colonial map, which has fueled tensions over territories like the Prasat Ta Muen Thom temple. Previous clashes, including the 2008-2011 Preah Vihear dispute, and the 1962 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling favoring Cambodia, failed to resolve these issues. In 2025, Thailand aimed to assert control over disputed areas and deter Cambodian actions, while Cambodia sought to defend its sovereignty and rally international support. Neither side pursued expansive goals like regime change or large-scale territorial annexation. This focus on specific, limited objectives—rather than total victory—aligns with the essence of limited wars, where the stakes are deliberately kept manageable.

---

# Military Dynamics: Restraint Despite Disparity**

Thailand’s military, boasting 361,000 active personnel and advanced technology such as F-16 jets and VT-4 tanks, outmatched Cambodia’s 124,300 personnel and older equipment, including BM-21 rocket launchers. During the conflict, Thailand employed targeted airstrikes and artillery, while Cambodia relied on defensive positions and rocket counterattacks. Notably, both sides avoided using their full military potential—Thailand did not deploy its navy, and Cambodia refrained from escalating with rumored Chinese-supplied drones. Incidents like the attack on Phnom Dongrak hospital occurred, but civilian centers were not systematically targeted. The use of controversial cluster munitions by both sides was limited in scope, reflecting a calculated restraint to prevent the conflict from spiraling into a broader war. This selective engagement is a hallmark of limited wars, where military superiority does not translate into all-out aggression.

---

### **Diplomatic Resolution and External Influence**

The conflict’s rapid resolution through diplomacy underscores another feature of limited wars: openness to external mediation. Malaysia, backed by the United States (via tariff threats) and China (leveraging its regional influence), brokered a ceasefire on July 28, 2025. Both nations, despite initial Thai reluctance, participated in talks, signaling their intent to cap the conflict’s scope. The involvement of ASEAN and global powers like the US and China highlights how limited wars often attract third-party intervention to maintain regional stability. Unlike total wars, which might end in decisive military outcomes, this conflict’s conclusion via a fragile ceasefire reflects the preference for diplomatic off-ramps in limited engagements.

---

### **Humanitarian and Economic Pressures**

The human toll—38 deaths, over 130 injuries, and 270,000 displaced civilians—alongside economic damages estimated at 308 million USD, placed significant pressure on both governments. The closure of border hospitals and attacks on civilian infrastructure strained resources, particularly in Cambodia, with its smaller economy. These costs likely acted as self-imposed limits, discouraging prolongation of the conflict. In limited wars, the humanitarian and economic fallout often serves as a brake on escalation, as both sides seek to avoid domestic instability and international backlash. Here, the relatively short duration of the conflict suggests that both nations recognized these constraints.

---

### **Psychological Warfare with Boundaries**

Both Cambodia and Thailand employed media and social media to amplify nationalist narratives—Thailand accused Cambodia of using human shields, while Cambodia claimed Thailand targeted civilians. Yet, this psychological warfare remained controlled, stopping short of inciting mass mobilization or an all-out propaganda campaign. This restraint in leveraging public sentiment is typical of limited wars, where the goal is to gain tactical advantages without triggering a societal push for total war. The measured use of information warfare reflects the broader logic of keeping the conflict contained.

---

### **Geopolitical Context and Alliances**

The involvement of external powers like the US (aligned with Thailand) and China (supporting Cambodia) shaped the conflict’s limited nature. Their mediation roles, alongside ASEAN’s efforts through Malaysia, suggest that both nations faced pressure to avoid drawing their allies into a military quagmire. The regional stakes, including proximity to Laos and ASEAN’s stability, further reinforced the preference for a contained conflict. In limited wars, alliances often deter escalation by raising the specter of broader geopolitical consequences, a dynamic evident in this case.

---

### **Fragility and Unresolved Tensions**

Despite the ceasefire, post-conflict clashes and mutual accusations of violations reveal a key limitation of limited wars: they rarely resolve underlying issues. The 1962 ICJ ruling and its 2013 clarification did not prevent this flare-up, indicating that legal frameworks alone cannot substitute for political will. Limited wars, while preventing total war, often leave grievances simmering, requiring ongoing diplomatic efforts to prevent recurrence. The Cambodia-Thailand case exemplifies how such conflicts can stabilize temporarily but remain prone to future instability without deeper reconciliation.

---

### **Conclusion**

The Cambodia-Thailand conflict of July 2025 illustrates the logic of limited wars through its constrained objectives, military restraint, diplomatic resolution, and sensitivity to humanitarian, economic, and geopolitical factors. Both nations pursued specific goals without seeking total victory, used advanced but limited force, and accepted mediation to halt escalation. However, the fragile ceasefire and persistent historical disputes highlight the challenges of achieving lasting peace through such engagements. For Cambodia and Thailand, the logic of limited wars offers a way to manage tensions without catastrophic escalation, but it also underscores the need for sustained efforts to address root causes and build trust—lest these limited conflicts become a recurring cycle.

--- 

**Sources:**

- Wikipedia: 2025 Cambodia–Thailand border conflict

- The New York Times: What to Know About the Thailand-Cambodia Clash (July 24, 2025)

- Al Jazeera: Thailand and Cambodia agree to ceasefire (July 28, 2025)