Trump Solves Thai-Cambodian Conflict - Or Does He?

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, vinapu said:

is not matter of believing, rather than remembering what happened to Malaysian aircraft over Ukraine 

There is no similarity. The Russian-Ukrainians who brought down MH17 were using high range surface-to-air missiles. No such missles are used in the Thai-Cambodian conflict. MH17 was at 33,000 ft when the missile reached it and exploded beside it. Cambodia does indeed have missiles that can reach that height but they require ground equipment in place to fire them. No such equipment exists nor do they have the need to use them in what is an ultra low level Thai border regional conflict. Further, checks on Flight Radar make it clear no aircraft flies anywhere near that border dispute region.

The Russian-Ukrainians had imported the delivery system from Russia the day of the crash and returned it immediately after the crash. Those who fired the missile also believed they were shooting down a Ukrainian Air Force transport plane. ICAO in April had already issued a warning to commercial carriers about flying over south-eastern Ukraine. Minutes after the accident, Ukraine closed all its air space to commercial carriers.

 

[khaolakguy]

An interesting if rather dry article on the potential impact of this conflict and who has most to lose if it continues or expands. 

 

Quote

The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia exposes the limits of ASEAN mediation and directly threatens Southeast Asia’s stability and the security of the Strait of Malacca, a strategic hub for both the PRC and the United States. Any escalation could disrupt regional and global supply chains, damage land and sea logistics networks, slow BRI-related economic corridors, and increase the vulnerability of ports, critical infrastructure, and transit hubs, with potential repercussions on international trade.

https://www.specialeurasia.com/2025/12/13/cambodia-thailand-china-clashes/

[PeterRS]

46 minutes ago, khaolakguy said:

An interesting if rather dry article on the potential impact of this conflict and who has most to lose if it continues or expands. 

I really do believe that is a load of nonsense. The dispute has been going on since the 1950s and never expanded outside the two countries. Neither country has been particularly affected in that time - apart from occasional flare-ups of violence and sadly some casualties - and so nothing is likely to change in terms of other countries in future. This is nothing like the 1969 border dispute between China and the Soviet Union in 1969 which seriously threatened to go nuclear.

[khaolakguy]

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

An interesting if rather dry article on the potential impact of this conflict and who has most to lose if it continues or expands. 

That then points to the Chinese as both having the most to lose and the most influence. Although in the geo-political context they may not be disappointed to see another Trump headline shot down in flames!

From afar, it seems to me that the Thai Government is whipping this up unnecessarily for some purpose. Possibly internal political benefit, perhaps creating "the enemy" without when there are far more enemies of democracy within. This is usually useful in the run up to an election giving Anutin the opportunity to appear as a "strong man" leader.

Possibly a private commercial dispute with vested and powerful Thai interests relating to the casinos and scamming centres that seem to be much targeted. Possibly revenge against the Cambodians for leaking an embarrassing phone call.........

Perhaps a confluence of factors.

As to the risks of expansion of the conflict it does seem that on this occasion the extent of the bombing is more extensive compared to the normal and historic token retaliations. The Thai navy, such as it is, has also unusually been involved in launching attacks from the Gulf of Thailand.

 

Quote

Thais bomb three Cambodian border casinos deemed military threats

Thailand and Cambodia have also been digging trenches, unspooling barbed wire and engaging in gritty foxhole-to-foxhole clashes

 

Details of the conflict are interesting. https://asiatimes.com/2025/12/thais-bomb-three-cambodian-border-casinos-deemed-military-threats/

[khaolakguy]

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

This is nothing like the 1969 border dispute between China and the Soviet Union in 1969 which seriously threatened to go nuclear.

Not sure why you are dragging this in, particularly as you state it is nothing like the current conflict.  Nor could it be as neither of the parties have nuclear weapons!

[Suckrates]

Trump and "solved" in the same headline is just WRONG !

[unicorn]

14 hours ago, PeterRS said:

And that is never going to happen. A tiny border skirmish that has been going on since the 1950s? I can just see the reaction of Iceland's people after its PM declares, "We have to get involved to stop this"!

Obviously, international involvement doesn't mean that every single country from Eswatini to Bahrain must be involved. However, the absence of ICJ involvement has obviously not worked. The international community can and should be involved. If not the ICJ, what would be another suggestion for a fair and effective resolution?

[floridarob]

5 hours ago, Suckrates said:

Trump and "solved" in the same headline is just WRONG !

Trump "Caused" probably more apt for any headlines with his involvement 

[Suckrates]

1 hour ago, floridarob said:

Trump "Caused" probably more apt for any headlines with his involvement 

It seems since Trump has been in power over the last 10 years, the entire world has been filled with Hate , Chaos & turmoil......  Coincidence much ?   🤔

[PeterRS]

8 hours ago, unicorn said:

However, the absence of ICJ involvement has obviously not worked. The international community can and should be involved. If not the ICJ, what would be another suggestion for a fair and effective resolution?

But as a member pointed out above. the ICJ has been involved - twice! Once in 1962 and again in 2013. It has clearly stated that the temple and its immediate vicinity belongs to Cambodia and has instructed Thailand to withdraw troops. The ruling was based on maps drawn up by the French and approved by Thailand in 1904. That Thailand has not followed the ICJ ruling for more than 60 years has clearly had almost zero effect on other ICJ members!

https://www.icj-cij.org/case/45 

[vinapu]

whole thing it's ploy of Thai military establishment wanting to show how indispensable they are. First they got out Shinawatras from premiership , now they are stocking nationalistic fervor ahead of elections in February .

Certainly is not about national pride or sovereignty as they claim. Certainly not about some piles of old stones on the border  , no matter how impressive. 

[unicorn]

14 hours ago, PeterRS said:

But as a member pointed out above. the ICJ has been involved - twice! Once in 1962 and again in 2013. It has clearly stated that the temple and its immediate vicinity belongs to Cambodia and has instructed Thailand to withdraw troops. The ruling was based on maps drawn up by the French and approved by Thailand in 1904. That Thailand has not followed the ICJ ruling for more than 60 years has clearly had almost zero effect on other ICJ members!

https://www.icj-cij.org/case/45 

Well, if the ICJ has ruled on the matter, the matter is settled and the question is how to enforce the ruling. If not militarily, certainly other UN members can put economic pressure on Thailand. This speaker believes that China could pressure Thailand all by itself. Or maybe an economic blockade?

 

[jimmie50]

I am not really 'in the know' about Thai politics, but those of you who live there and have been following the political situation in Thailand for years...do you think this current situation is related to the recent decision by the prime minister to dissolve parliament and call for new elections early next year?  In other words, is this setting the stage for a military intervention once again?  Just curious what everyone thinks.  

[vinapu]

54 minutes ago, jimmie50 said:

I am not really 'in the know' about Thai politics, but those of you who live there and have been following the political situation in Thailand for years...do you think this current situation is related to the recent decision by the prime minister to dissolve parliament and call for new elections early next year?  In other words, is this setting the stage for a military intervention once again?  Just curious what everyone thinks.  

I think military establishment counts that trumping up nationalistic fervor will help conservatives to get votes. Last election resulted in election results getting stolen by Supreme Court and Pita instead of being Pm got 10 years ban from politics. After that two PM in row were removed by Supreme Court as and all that in span of 2 or 3 years .

Calling Thai politics "den of vipers" is like calling Charles Manson "somewhat unruly"

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, jimmie50 said:

I am not really 'in the know' about Thai politics, but those of you who live there and have been following the political situation in Thailand for years...do you think this current situation is related to the recent decision by the prime minister to dissolve parliament and call for new elections early next year?  In other words, is this setting the stage for a military intervention once again?  Just curious what everyone thinks.  

I cannot believe the dissolution of parliament sets the stage for a military coup. The snake Anutin might then find himself very quickly out of a job and he has been angling after that top job for many years. I suspect it is more likely that Anutin wants a larger majority to consolidate his Premiership and hopes he will get one.

2 hours ago, vinapu said:

Calling Thai politics "den of vipers" is like calling Charles Manson "somewhat unruly"

How absolutely correct! @vinapu hits the nail on the head again.

[PeterRS]

14 hours ago, unicorn said:

Well, if the ICJ has ruled on the matter, the matter is settled and the question is how to enforce the ruling. If not militarily, certainly other UN members can put economic pressure on Thailand. This speaker believes that China could pressure Thailand all by itself. Or maybe an economic blockade?

In theory you may be right. In practice, nothing ever works that way! You have to accept that this is the tiniest of a tiny fraction of the world's border disputes. And given how large many of the others are, not one nation is going to do anything to help Cambodia and Thailand sort out their little mess.

Examples:

1. India/Pakistan: the state of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh is claimed by both countries. A UN-mandated ceasefire to demilitarise the region was technically put into effect in 1949. Neither party agrees to it and three further wars have broken out. There remains no solution.

2. India/China: two large and several smaller parts of the border are claimed by both countries. A border war took place in 1962. Since then there have been two more wars and regular skirmishes and deaths on both sides. There remains no solution.

3. Morocco/Algeria: folowing years of fighting, the long 1,427 kms border region was closed to all traffic and personnel in 1994.

4. The Spratley Islands: these islands are claimed by China, Vietnam, The Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. The primary reason is the reserves of oil and gas believed to be below the surface. The basis of claims is complicated, but China has musled in and started to build miltary bases. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not cover the sovereignty of disputed territories, and so this stand-off with occasional skirmishes will certainly continue for quite some time.

I could cite dozens more. Many, as with Thailand/Cambodia, are the result of ineffective and disputed effects of colonialism.

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...Examples:

1. India/Pakistan: the state of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh is claimed by both countries. A UN-mandated ceasefire ...

Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're listing examples of conflicts in which the ICJ has not ruled and delineated a specific border. According to a prior post, the ICJ has, in fact, delineated a specific border, but Thailand just doesn't want to comply with their ruling. Also, if at least one of the UN members is a military superpower/nuclear weapons owner, enforcing such a ruling could be very problematic. Neither of these applies to the Thai/Cambodian conflict. It would be far easier for China (or any number of other countries) to pressure Thailand, than for Thailand to pressure China (or India or Pakistan). 

[Keithambrose]

As a matter of interest, is it conceivable that the dispute was engineered to help Anutin's re-election campaign? Or am I too cynical?

[floridarob]

1 hour ago, Keithambrose said:

As a matter of interest, is it conceivable that the dispute was engineered to help Anutin's re-election campaign? Or am I too cynical?

Yes and definitely yes 

[vinapu]

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

How absolutely correct! @vinapu hits the nail on the head again.

thank you for boost to my fragile ego but I haste to say I rather be wrong. I'm afraid things may be boiling slowly under the surface and in one opportune moment may burst all of the sudden like they did in Bangladesh,  Madagascar and Nepal recently. And it won't be pretty. Nationalist fervor caused with war with Cambodia may delay it although not necessarily so.

On Oct 6th 1989 whole East Berlin was celebrating joyfully 40th anniversary of German Democratic Republic  paying homage to it's leader Erich Honecker, yet 3 weeks later Berlin Wall fell and Honecker was on his way to Chile.

[vinapu]

9 hours ago, PeterRS said:

 And given how large many of the others are, not one nation is going to do anything to help Cambodia and Thailand sort out their little mess.

................................

I could cite dozens more. Many, as with Thailand/Cambodia, are the result of ineffective and disputed effects of colonialism.

and fact that disputed territories are indeed tiny it makes that war even more idiotic. If would be laughable if not fact that people are being, lives ruined and properties destroyed.

........................

whole Africa has postcolonial borders but somehow they are respecting them to great degree knowing in full that attempts to change may engulf whole continent in carnage.

Sample of that we see in Russian attempt to resurrect their old empire , piece by piece starting with what they think is biggest prize.

[vinapu]

5 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

As a matter of interest, is it conceivable that the dispute was engineered to help Anutin's re-election campaign? Or am I too cynical?

you are and you may be right because of that.

It may be some muddy political dealings in Cambodia as well. Old ruler is formally aside but still call the shots and his son put in his place  doesn't  have  charisma and stature of his father so little of flag waving may boost his position.

we are speculation but that the fruit of situation which is extremely idiotic when one comes to think about it with Thailand  risking losing world's goodwill and sympathy simply for fact that is involved in war with country much smaller and much less  developed. If Italy invades San Marino nobody will be asking whose fault it was but in unison we condemn Italy for being school yard bully.

[PeterRS]

9 hours ago, vinapu said:

thank you for boost to my fragile ego but I haste to say I rather be wrong. I'm afraid things may be boiling slowly under the surface and in one opportune moment may burst all of the sudden like they did in Bangladesh,  Madagascar and Nepal recently. And it won't be pretty. Nationalist fervor caused with war with Cambodia may delay it although not necessarily so.

With all respect, you outline a scenario which will not happen. Of course that is just an opinion, but when you look at Thai/Cambodian relations since this tiny border conflict started, relations between the two countries have actually been quite  good. When Pol Pot's forces massacred a million (or was it much more?) of its own citizens, even with the border dispute Thailand set up camps near the border to house hundreds of thousands of Cambodian refugees. Had these not been in existence, who knows how many of those refugees would have been killed?

9 hours ago, vinapu said:

On Oct 6th 1989 whole East Berlin was celebrating joyfully 40th anniversary of German Democratic Republic  paying homage to it's leader Erich Honecker, yet 3 weeks later Berlin Wall fell and Honecker was on his way to Chile.

Tempting as it is to make such a comparison, in reality they are worlds apart. First, the Soviet Union's hold on its satellite states was crumbling badly. In May 1989 Hungary had basically opened its borders, torn down its fence with Austria and allowed its people free movement. This enabled East Germans to travel to Hungary and then get to West Germany via Austria. Soon there were massive demontrations in East Germany starting in Leipzig. To suggest that these were "joyful" is, with respect, nonsense. The chanting began with "Gorby, help us! Gorby, save us!" They were demontrations solely to get rid of the East German regime and introduce democracy. East Germany then tried to close all its borders. Honeker paid no attention to Gorbachev's warnings. At a meeting of the East German Politburo on 17 October Honeker was forced out of office and Egon Krenz took his place. 

The Fall of the Berlin Wall was basically an accident on the part of the authorities. Almost certainly it would have eventualy fallen, but the impetus was a mistake. Krenz intended to permit East Germans to visit West Germans on a new travel visa which civil servants started preparing. The task of announcing this was given to the editor of the Neues Deutschland newspaper who was Party leader for Berlin, Günter Schabowski. Sweating and tired, Schabowski erred when answering a question from an American journalist. The speech which he had in his hand made it clear the travel visas would start to be issued on the 10th. Asked when it would start Schabowski replied "immediately, without delay." This news travelled fast around the world. By 8:00 pm the East German broadcaster ARD announced, "East Germany has opened its borders." By 11:30 pm the border guards who had still received no orders opened the bridges and the floodgates opened. Through that error the Politburo lost much needed time.

Krenz resigned on 6 December. He was eventually sentenced to 6 and a half years in jail for his part in the killing of those who had earlier tried to escape via the Wall. The dictator Honeker died in Chile in 1993.

[vinapu]

32 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

With all respect, you outline a scenario which will not happen.

 I remember my maternal grandfather telling me story from his days as Austro-Hungarian soldier fighting in beginning of Great War. His colleague told him that one day  whole Empire will collapse. My grandpa told him ' this will never happen, it's impossible". To end of his days   and he lived till 90 he was marvelling at how far sighted his friend was foreseeing something which he believed is pure fantasy. 

I can hear  somebody saying in 1985 that in 10 years there will be no USSR any more and you telling him "With all respect, you outline a scenario which will not happen"

[PeterRS]

Just now, vinapu said:

I can hear  somebody saying in 1985 that in 10 years there will be no USSR any more and you telling him "With all respect, you outline a scenario which will not happen"

That was probably Erich Honecker! LOL