បទវិភាគ៖ សង្គ្រាមកម្ពុជា-ថៃ - ការគណនាជម្រៅយុទ្ធសាស្ត្រ

 Analysis: The Cambodia-Thailand War - Strategic Depth Calculation

The Cambodia-Thailand War, escalating in 2025, provides a compelling case for examining strategic depth, a military concept defined as the distance between a nation’s front lines and its critical assets—such as capitals, industrial centers, or population hubs—coupled with its ability to absorb an attack while maintaining operational capability. This analysis calculates the strategic depth of Cambodia and Thailand in the ongoing conflict, considering geographical, military, political, and operational factors.

Geographical Context and Strategic Depth

The Cambodia-Thailand border spans approximately 800 kilometers, with contested sites like Ta Muen Thom, Ta Kwai, and Preah Vihear Temple marking key flashpoints. Geographically:

The Cambodia-Thailand border spans approximately 800 kilometers, with contested sites like Ta Muen Thom, Ta Kwai, and Preah Vihear Temple marking key flashpoints. Geographically:

-Cambodia: Its capital, Phnom Penh, is about 150 kilometers from the border. This proximity suggests a relatively shallow strategic depth, making key assets vulnerable to rapid enemy advances or long-range strikes.

-Thailand: Bangkok lies roughly 250 kilometers from the border, granting Thailand greater strategic depth and more time to respond to incursions.

The border terrain, featuring mountains and dense forests, offers natural defensive advantages. For Cambodia, this could mitigate its shallow depth by slowing Thai ground advances, though it does little against air attacks. Thailand benefits from the same terrain as a buffer, enhancing its ability to protect deeper assets.

Military Capabilities and Their Impact

Military strength significantly shapes strategic depth in this conflict:

Thailand: With a 2024 defense budget of $5.73 billion and 360,000 active personnel, Thailand boasts a robust military, including an air force with 28 F-16s and 11 Gripen jets. Airstrikes on Cambodian targets like Ta Kwai and Preah Vihear Temple demonstrate Thailand’s ability to project power deep into enemy territory, effectively shrinking Cambodia’s strategic depth.

Cambodia: With a $1.3 billion defense budget and 124,300 personnel, Cambodia’s military is smaller and less advanced, relying on older Soviet-era equipment and limited Chinese-supplied systems. Its use of rocket artillery (e.g., PHL-03) and drones aims to disrupt Thai operations, but its shallow depth and weaker defenses leave it exposed.

Thailand’s superior air power allows it to target Cambodian infrastructure and military assets, reducing Cambodia’s operational space. Cambodia’s retaliatory strikes on Thai civilian areas seek to stretch Thailand’s resources, but its limited capabilities hinder significant impact.

Political and International Dynamics

Political motivations and external actors influence strategic depth calculations:

-Cambodia: The Hun family, led by Prime Minister Hun Manet, may be leveraging the war to bolster domestic support, risking overextension despite limited depth. China’s diplomatic ties could offer support, potentially extending Cambodia’s resilience.

-Thailand: The Shinawatra faction’s leadership may prioritize military dominance over mediation, using Thailand’s depth to sustain pressure on Cambodia. As a U.S. treaty ally, Thailand could benefit from indirect support, while rejecting third-party mediation (e.g., from Malaysia) prolongs its strategic advantage.

International involvement has not yet decisively altered the battlefield, but it adds complexity to each side’s planning.

Operational Developments

The conflict’s timeline highlights a fluid strategic depth:

-July 24, 2025: Clashes escalated from small-arms fire to artillery and airstrikes. Thailand’s capture of Ta Krabey temple pushed the front lines into Cambodia, compressing its depth further.

-Cambodian Response: Rocket attacks on Thai civilian areas (e.g., schools, hospitals) aim to disrupt Thailand’s logistics and morale, though Cambodia’s pre-conflict reinforcements have struggled against Thai advances.

-Thailand’s offensive operations reduce Cambodia’s buffer zone, while Cambodia’s limited counterattacks test Thailand’s deeper reserves.

Logistics and Civilian Impact

Logistics underpin strategic depth:

-Thailand: Superior infrastructure and resources enable sustained operations, supporting its greater depth.

-Cambodia: Airstrikes on supply routes weaken its logistical capacity, shrinking its effective depth.

Civilian displacement—tens of thousands evacuated on both sides—strains resources. Cambodia’s smaller capacity to manage this fallout heightens its vulnerability, while Thailand’s larger economy better absorbs the cost, preserving its strategic flexibility.

Conclusion

In the Cambodia-Thailand War, strategic depth decisively influences the conflict’s trajectory:

-Thailand leverages its greater geographical distance (250 km to Bangkok), advanced military, and robust logistics to compress Cambodia’s depth through airstrikes and territorial gains. Its ability to absorb and respond to attacks gives it a clear advantage.

-Cambodia faces a shallower depth (150 km to Phnom Penh), compounded by weaker forces and limited resources. Defensive terrain and retaliatory strikes offer some resistance, but its operational space is steadily eroding.

As of 2025, Thailand’s strategic depth provides a stronger foundation for sustained conflict, while Cambodia’s constrained depth leaves it at a disadvantage. The interplay of military power, geography, and political will suggests that Thailand holds the upper hand, though Cambodia’s resilience—potentially bolstered by external support—could prolong the struggle. Future developments, including escalation risks or international mediation, may yet reshape these calculations.