សង្គ្រាមកម្ពុជា-ថៃ៖ ការវិភាគយោធាយុទ្ធសាស្ត្រ សេវាសង្គម ដំណឹងសង្គ្រាម

 Below is a comprehensive analysis of the Cambodia-Thailand War of 2025, focusing on strategic military aspects, social services, war news, and psychological warfare. This response assumes the conflict in question is the border dispute that escalated on July 24, 2025, based on the available context.

Analysis of the Cambodia-Thailand War (2025)

The Cambodia-Thailand War of 2025, which erupted on July 24, 2025, along their contested border, is a complex conflict with deep historical roots and wide-ranging implications. This analysis explores the strategic military dynamics, the impact on social services, the role of war news, and the use of psychological warfare.

Strategic Military Analysis

The military engagement between Thailand and Cambodia reveals a significant disparity in capabilities. Thailand boasts a larger and more advanced military, with 361,000 active-duty personnel compared to Cambodia’s 124,300. Thailand’s arsenal includes modern assets such as U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets, Swedish Gripen aircraft, and Chinese VT-4 tanks, giving it a clear edge in air and ground operations. Cambodia, while outmatched, relies on Soviet-era and Chinese-supplied equipment, including BM-21 multiple rocket launchers, and benefits from a strategic alliance with China, which could provide additional support.

The conflict began with heavy artillery exchanges and Thai airstrikes targeting Cambodian positions near disputed border sites, such as the Prasat Ta Muen Thom and Preah Vihear temples. Cambodia has retaliated with artillery and rocket barrages, though its air capabilities remain limited. Both sides have reportedly used cluster munitions—banned by much of the international community due to their indiscriminate effects—leading to mutual accusations of war crimes. The fighting has resulted in at least 38 deaths and displaced over 270,000 civilians, with Thailand reportedly capturing key positions like Phu Makeua. A fragile ceasefire, brokered by Malaysia on July 28, 2025, has offered temporary respite, but tensions persist as diplomatic relations have deteriorated, with ambassadors expelled and bilateral agreements suspended.

Historically, the dispute traces back to a 1907 French colonial map, with the Preah Vihear temple—awarded to Cambodia by the International Court of Justice in 1962—remaining a flashpoint. Thailand’s military superiority is tempered by Cambodia’s defensive positioning and potential Chinese backing, creating a volatile strategic landscape.

Social Services and Humanitarian Impact

The war has triggered a severe humanitarian crisis, displacing over 270,000 civilians and placing immense pressure on social services in both countries. In Thailand, the closure of at least 11 border hospitals has severely limited healthcare access, while evacuation centers struggle to provide adequate shelter, food, and medical care. Cambodia faces similar challenges, with displaced populations in provinces like Pursat and Oddar Meanchey overwhelming local resources. The use of heavy weaponry near civilian areas has worsened the situation, with reports of injuries and deaths among non-combatants. Both governments are grappling with the logistical nightmare of supporting these displaced persons, and the lack of functioning medical facilities has left many vulnerable. International organizations, including the United Nations, have raised alarms about the need for humanitarian aid and civilian protection, but the scale of the crisis continues to grow.

War News and Media Coverage

Media coverage of the conflict is sharply divided along national lines, reflecting deep-seated biases and nationalist sentiments. Thai media outlets have framed Cambodia as the aggressor, citing alleged drone surveillance and artillery provocations as the conflict’s spark. Cambodian media, conversely, accuses Thailand of initiating hostilities through airstrikes and troop incursions, portraying it as a regional bully. International outlets like CNN and the BBC offer more neutral perspectives, focusing on the humanitarian toll and the risk of broader escalation, though their coverage varies depending on editorial leanings.

Social media, particularly platforms like X, has amplified these narratives, with users and officials from both sides posting claims and counterclaims. This flood of information—often unverified—has made it difficult to discern fact from propaganda, further polarizing public opinion. The war news landscape is thus a critical battleground, shaping both domestic morale and international perceptions.

Psychological Warfare

Psychological warfare has emerged as a potent tool in this conflict, with both nations deploying propaganda to undermine the enemy and bolster their own support base. On social media, Thai sources have accused Cambodia of using refugees as human shields and positioning artillery near civilian zones to deter airstrikes, aiming to paint Cambodia as ruthless and manipulative. Cambodian narratives, in turn, allege that Thailand is exploiting civilian homes as firing positions, hoping to provoke retaliatory strikes that can be spun as Thai victimhood. These accusations, often unsubstantiated, are designed to sway international opinion and justify military actions.

Official statements have also fueled this psychological campaign. Both governments have accused each other of war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons and cluster munitions, to discredit their opponent’s legitimacy. This war of words taps into historical grievances—such as the Preah Vihear dispute—and nationalist fervor, deepening mistrust and complicating diplomatic resolution. The result is a conflict where perception is as fiercely contested as territory.

Conclusion

The Cambodia-Thailand War of 2025 is a multifaceted crisis driven by a historical border dispute and amplified by military, social, and psychological factors. Thailand’s superior military might gives it an edge, but Cambodia’s alliances and resilience prevent a decisive victory. The humanitarian toll—over 270,000 displaced and critical services disrupted—demands urgent international intervention. War news, skewed by bias and propaganda, fuels the conflict’s intensity, while psychological warfare deepens the divide. For a lasting resolution, the international community, including powers like the U.S. and China, must prioritize mediation and aid to address both the immediate suffering and the underlying territorial tensions.

This analysis provides a self-contained overview of the conflict, structured for clarity and informed by the strategic, social, and psychological dimensions requested in the query.