Truth from Thailand — Cambodia’s Transition and the Thai-Cambodian Skirmishes

August 17, 2025

📝 Note: This article is prepared for academic purposes, strategic analysis, and policy communication. It is based on publicly available data and actual events. The author does not intend to defame, insult, or incite hatred against any individual, nation, religion, or culture. Any images of individuals used in this article are solely for contextual analysis and are not intended to convey negative implications or tarnish reputations in any way.

When conflict becomes a political tool, the border is no longer just a dividing line but a stage for power games.

The skirmishes between Thailand and Cambodia during the rise of Hun Manet as Prime Minister—while Hun Sen still exerts influence in the background—may not be coincidental. Rather, they reflect three strategic trends that warrant close attention.

The clashes along the Thai-Cambodian border in mid-2025 were far from ordinary military incidents. They unfolded amidst complex political dynamics, both within Cambodia and across shifting regional and international landscapes. This period marked the formal transfer of executive power from former Prime Minister Hun Sen to his son, General Hun Manet. Yet, in reality, the father’s influence continued to loom large across all dimensions of Cambodia’s power structure.

Hun Sen, who ruled Cambodia for more than 38 years, was known for his iron-fist approach outwardly and tight internal control—deploying force, manipulating state mechanisms, and forging strategic alliances with major powers such as China. The transfer of power to his son was therefore not merely a generational handover, but rather the continuation of a power system orchestrated behind the scenes by the same inner circle.

Viewed in this context, the clashes with Thailand were not random border disputes. Instead, they may have been deliberate manifestations of Cambodia’s strategic intentions—designed to legitimize the new leader and project an image of strength, even as leadership passed from father to son.

At the same time, Thailand itself was experiencing governmental transition, facing both internal and external pressures. Cambodia may have perceived this moment as a strategic vacuum, using the opportunity to test Thailand’s responses or divert attention away from its own domestic challenges.

Thus, the border conflict should not be seen as a short-term incident, but rather as a reflection of deeper structural trends shaping Cambodian politics—trends that inevitably affect regional stability. Above all, Hun Manet, as the heir to a long-standing dynasty, needed to prove himself as a “strong” and “credible” leader in the eyes of both the public and the military.

Three Strategic Trends Revealed

1. Creating a Crisis to Consolidate Power and Deflect Domestic Issues

Military confrontations with Thailand during Cambodia’s power transition may not be coincidental. Instead, they reflect a deliberate political strategy—particularly within a political system combining authoritarianism and façade democracy, where leaders must tightly manage transitions to prevent power vacuums that opposition forces could exploit.

Despite his modern profile and Western military education, Hun Manet faced multiple challenges. These included gaining trust within the old military hierarchy, securing the confidence of entrenched elites, and dispelling public doubts about whether he was merely “his father’s shadow.” Under such pressure, a border crisis became an effective strategic tool.

By escalating tensions with Thailand, several objectives could be achieved:

• Crafting the image of a strong leader: Hun Manet had to prove he was not just a “leader’s son,” but someone capable of commanding the military and defending Cambodia from “external threats.”

• Suppressing domestic questioning: External conflicts divert public attention from pressing domestic issues, such as economic hardship or political monopolization.

• Boosting historical legitimacy: To a population shaped by a legacy of conflict with Thailand, confronting Thailand is not controversial but often seen as a “national duty.”

This strategy mirrors tactics used by other regimes that exploit external conflicts to consolidate power—North Korea’s recurring threats toward South Korea and the U.S., or Russia’s security narratives against the West during election periods. Creating an external enemy becomes a national psychological tactic, transforming public dissatisfaction into support for the regime.

In Cambodia’s case, the Hun family likely viewed “threats from Thailand” as an easy way to ignite national sentiment, backed by deep historical grievances. Nationalist fervor also justified suppressing dissent under the banner of “national security.”

Given that Hun Manet had not yet secured full trust from either the public or the military, it is highly plausible that the confrontation with Thailand formed part of a pre-planned leadership test. It also allowed Hun Sen to re-enter the spotlight as a senior advisor defending the nation—preserving his influence while bolstering his son’s legitimacy.

Ultimately, this was an attempt to control the transition by managing an external conflict that, in truth, was rooted in internal political calculations—aimed at centralizing the Hun family’s power both domestically and internationally.

2. Using Conflict to Spark Nationalist Sentiment

In regimes where power is centralized, nationalism is often deployed as a political tool to legitimize leadership—particularly during times of economic decline, social inequality, or public dissatisfaction with dynastic succession.

For Cambodia, the border confrontation with Thailand was less about military necessity and more a calculated provocation to foster unity through concepts of “nationhood” and a “common enemy.” Such tactics wield powerful emotional impact.

The Thai–Cambodian historical narrative is marked by recurring tensions over borders, culture, and historical interpretation—most notably the Preah Vihear temple dispute, which fueled intense nationalism between 2008–2011. At that time, the Cambodian government successfully used the issue to rally public support and deflect attention from domestic crises such as falling rice prices, land disputes, or media suppression.

In 2025, as Hun Manet formally assumed leadership, reviving nationalism became a shortcut to building his image as a protector against external threats—a powerful image in societies still scarred by colonialism or perceived invasions.

State-controlled media framed Thailand as the aggressor, with the Cambodian government defending sovereignty and peace. This generated an emotional “rally-round-the-flag effect,” prompting citizens to unite behind the government regardless of domestic grievances.

This psychological phenomenon empowers authoritarian leaders, suppresses rational debate, and aligns public sentiment with the state’s narrative. The Cambodian government understood that nationalism could be easily stoked and controlled—especially when the “historical enemy” was Thailand.

Even if Cambodia itself violated agreements, state-controlled media ensured public perception remained favorable. When citizens believe the state’s version of events, they willingly accept military expenditures rather than questioning whether their own lives are improving.

Thus, the Thai clash served not only a strategic purpose but also generated a nationalist shield that protected the new government from criticism—particularly within state structures and among skeptical sectors of society.

3. Testing the Strength of Thailand’s Government

In international relations, especially between neighbors with unresolved historical tensions, government transitions are never purely domestic matters. They often serve as tests of strength observed closely by surrounding states. In some cases, they become testing grounds for assessing a new leader’s resilience.

As Thailand transitioned to a new government—whether through party changes or prime ministerial shifts—uncertainty arose in policy direction, decision-making, and national unity. For Cambodia’s leadership, particularly the politically astute Hun family, this moment may have appeared as a strategic vacuum where Thailand lacked firm footing.

In such circumstances, minor border skirmishes could test three key elements:

• Thailand’s response: Would Bangkok react firmly or pursue diplomatic avoidance? The answer would signal Thailand’s readiness to confront strategic challenges.

• Internal cohesion: If divisions emerged between Thailand’s military, foreign ministry, and political leadership, Cambodia could interpret Thailand as “unprepared for the long game.”

• Public and media reaction: If Thai society exerted little pressure for retaliation, Cambodia might assume Thailand would “tolerate provocations,” emboldening future aggression.

Conversely, if Thailand demonstrated resolve, unity, and effective coordination across diplomacy, the military, and media, it would send a clear signal: “Thailand is not a target to test.” Missteps during such fragile periods risk underestimation and the escalation of conflict.

This dynamic underscores a broader truth: wars often begin not from deliberate intent, but from misjudgments. If Cambodia believed Thailand would “not retaliate” or “lacked cohesion,” it might seek expanded regional influence—militarily, diplomatically, or through shaping international opinion.

Beyond immediate clashes, the situation also tested Thailand’s ability to stand firm in the geopolitical arena amid Southeast Asia’s shifting power balance. Regional powers like China and Vietnam, as well as global players, were closely observing how Thailand managed Cambodia.

Failure to show strength, even in minor incidents, could erode Thailand’s credibility in international affairs—especially if border disputes escalated into broader international concerns.

Conclusion: This Conflict Is Not Merely About Borders—It Is a Power Game

The Thai-Cambodian clashes of 2025 cannot be dismissed as mere “border incidents” arising by chance. They reflect deep strategic calculations by Cambodia’s leadership—particularly the Hun dynasty—using conflict as a political tool to legitimize power, fortify the regime, and stir nationalism during a time of transition.

In other words, these incidents are not the “end result” of tension but the starting point of a deliberately designed power strategy.

A Conflict Designed for Power Interests

Analysis of the three core themes—crisis creation to consolidate power, stirring nationalism, and testing Thailand—points to a single conclusion: this confrontation was not accidental, but a calculated, goal-driven, and well-timed maneuver.

In political systems where power is centralized within a family or clique, a leader’s stability depends not only on governance but also on ensuring the public feels the government is “still strong” and “always has enemies to fight.” This diverts attention from internal injustices or structural weaknesses.

Thus, the Thai clash became a strategic mission serving multiple purposes simultaneously—political, security-related, and image-building for Cambodia’s new leadership.

Regional Stability Is the Ultimate Goal

Finally, it must be remembered that bilateral conflict between Thailand and Cambodia can easily escalate into regional instability if not managed wisely. The information warfare employed by Cambodia alongside military maneuvers underscores the need for Thailand to respond with intellect—not just force.

Featured Articles:
Article Categories