Thailand-Cambodia War: Why the Five-Day Conflict Revealed a Massive Military Disparity

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on July 29, 2025.

After five days of intense fighting along their shared border, Thailand and Cambodia have agreed to an unconditional ceasefire brokered in Malaysia. The brief but violent conflict, which erupted in late July following a border patrol incident that turned deadly, forced over two hundred thousand people to flee their homes and resulted in at least thirty-four confirmed deaths. While diplomacy ultimately prevailed, the fighting exposed a stark reality: Cambodia's military is vastly outmatched by Thailand's forces in nearly every measurable category, from air power to troop numbers to overall military professionalism. The ceasefire may have arrived just in time to prevent what would have been a decidedly one-sided war.

Key Takeaways

Thailand and Cambodia agreed to an unconditional ceasefire after five days of intense border fighting, brokered by Malaysia with pressure from the United States and China.

The conflict exposed a massive military disparity: Thailand outnumbers Cambodia five-to-one in active-duty personnel and nine-to-one including reservists.

Thailand achieved complete air supremacy with F-16s and Gripen jets conducting unopposed strikes deep into Cambodia, which possesses zero fixed-wing combat aircraft.

The conflict resulted in at least 34 confirmed deaths (including 21 civilians) and displaced over 200,000 people from border zones.

The war served domestic political purposes for Thailand's military establishment, allowing it to reassert dominance after criticism from the Prime Minister and restore its untouchable political position.

Cambodia demonstrated awareness of its military weakness by pushing for international mediation, while Thailand preferred direct negotiations to leverage its superior force.

The Path to War: Border Tensions and Political Blunders

The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has deep historical roots, with border disputes persisting since Cambodia gained independence. The two nations share a very long and sometimes bitter history, with Cambodia holding several patches of territory that Thailand also claims. Military patrols from both nations regularly come into contact in disputed border regions, though most encounters resolve peacefully.

The current crisis began in May when a routine patrol encounter escalated into a firefight that left a Cambodian soldier dead, with both sides claiming self-defense. What transformed a tragic but isolated incident into a full-scale conflict was a series of political missteps that inflamed nationalist sentiment on both sides. Thailand's now-suspended Prime Minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, was caught on a leaked audio call speaking deferentially to Cambodia's former leader and current de facto ruler, Hun Sen, while simultaneously criticizing a commander of the Thai military.

These were catastrophic political blunders in a nation where the military wields enormous power and where showing deference to Hun Sen is practically guaranteed to inflame nationalist anger. With nationalists in both Thailand and Cambodia beating the drums of war, the military establishments in both countries became emboldened to raise tensions. Both nations' civil administrations began cutting ties and imposing penalties on each other. When a land-mine explosion in a border zone injured multiple Thai soldiers, the two nations broke diplomatic ties entirely and prepared for imminent hostilities.

Five Days of Combat: The Fighting Unfolds

Hostilities commenced on July 24, with each nation accusing the other of striking first. In the thickly forested border zone between Thailand and Cambodia, where third-party observers cannot safely travel and global intelligence-gathering capabilities are limited, establishing the precise sequence of events proved difficult. Both participants sought to present versions of events that represented themselves favorably on the international stage.

Regardless of who fired first, the escalation was swift and severe. Thai F-16 fighter jets launched airstrikes across the border against multiple targets, while Cambodian multiple-rocket launchers rained projectiles into Thai territory. One particularly devastating strike hit a gas station where at least eight civilians died, including a young boy. Thailand opened a land and air offensive, and both sides initiated mass evacuations from the border zone, ultimately forcing well over a hundred thousand people to flee in opposite directions.

The following days saw the crisis intensify across multiple fronts. Thai forces engaged in direct assaults on portions of the hilly, treacherous border zone where Cambodian outposts provided high-ground advantages. Both sides accused the other of territorial incursions, with Cambodia allegedly infiltrating Thailand in several locations while Thailand launched assaults targeting Cambodia's Khloch region and multiple historic and culturally significant temples.

Cambodia accused Thailand of using cluster munitions in violation of international laws of war, though neither nation has signed the relevant treaty. Thailand accused Cambodia of attempting an assault using armored divisions. According to Thai sources, fighting occurred at such close quarters that the Thai Air Force could not safely conduct airstrikes for fear of hitting its own soldiers. Cambodia claimed Thailand shelled an elementary school during the fighting, while Thailand claimed to have killed roughly a hundred Cambodian soldiers in one particular zone.

The Thai Navy became involved in supporting operations along the coast, and Thailand's Swedish-made Gripen fighter jets saw combat for the first time. Numerous reports from up and down the front lines indicated that Cambodia had made efficient use of small consumer-grade drones, at least for surveillance purposes if not for launching small explosive attacks.

International Intervention and the Road to Ceasefire

By Sunday, July 27, efforts to establish peace were already underway. Thailand had initially refused calls for international mediation in the earliest days of fighting, insisting that direct negotiations between the two nations were the best path to resolution. However, mounting international pressure forced both sides to the negotiating table.

Although reports of ongoing gunfire and shelling suggested the conflict continued in border regions, the leaders of both Thailand and Cambodia made their way to the Malaysian city of Putrajaya, not far from Kuala Lumpur. The negotiations were mediated by Malaysia's Prime Minister, with involvement from American and Chinese diplomats. US President Donald Trump indicated that the prospect of future trade deals was used as leverage against both nations.

By the end of Monday, local time, the Thai and Cambodian Prime Ministers had each agreed to an unconditional ceasefire, shaking hands in a photo-op as the announcement was made public. The agreement included three key results: a full and unconditional ceasefire, the reopening of lines of communication between the two nations, and the pullback of troops from the brink of further conflict. After reports of sporadic gunfire and explosions in the waning hours of fighting, the conflict appeared to have concluded.

Casualties and Humanitarian Impact

In the wake of the five-day exchange, obtaining an accurate count of casualties from either nation remains difficult. Third-party sources are scarce in this particular combat zone, and both Thailand and Cambodia have incentives to downplay their own losses to create a perception of victory. In both countries, where the military in Thailand and Hun Sen in Cambodia act as autocrats with the backing of strong nationalist elements, a peace is more likely to hold if everyone can claim victory, regardless of the actual truth.

Officially, thirty-four people are confirmed dead at the time the ceasefire was announced, including eight civilians from Cambodia and thirteen civilians from Thailand. In Cambodia, a Major General was confirmed to have died in an artillery strike. Dozens of civilians and soldiers are listed as wounded on both sides. Over two hundred thousand people are believed to have been temporarily evacuated from their homes in the border zones, although those whose homes remained intact were expected to begin resettlement in the coming weeks.

The Military Imbalance: Numbers and Capabilities

Even before the conflict began, the military disparity between Thailand and Cambodia was well-documented and stark. The active-duty Thai military outnumbers the active-duty Cambodian military by a factor of roughly five to one, a disparity that grows to approximately nine to one when reservists are factored into the equation.

The equipment gap is even more pronounced. The Royal Thai Army has access to over a hundred modern main battle tanks and nearly five hundred additional older-model and light tanks. By contrast, Cambodia's best tanks went into serial production under Mao Zedong in China in the 1960s, representing technology that is more than half a century old.

The air power disparity is perhaps the most dramatic. Thailand's Air Force operates nearly fifty American-made F-16s, about a dozen highly modern Gripen fighter jets from Sweden, several kinds of attack aircraft, airborne early warning aircraft, and soon, an air-to-air refueling tanker. Cambodia, by contrast, has a grand total of zero fixed-wing combat aircraft to its name.

The naval imbalance follows the same pattern. The Thai Navy operates a submarine, a helicopter carrier, seven frigates, and five corvettes. Cambodia's largest and most formidable naval vessel could easily be mistaken for a fishing trawler upon casual inspection.

Combat Performance: Theory Meets Reality

What the five days of conflict revealed about the military disparity between Thailand and Cambodia proved even more disheartening for the Cambodian Armed Forces than the raw numbers suggested. Cambodia's air defenses, consisting mostly of point-and-shoot anti-aircraft guns, proved entirely incapable of stopping Thailand's Gripens and F-16s, which flew deep into Cambodian territory to carry out airstrikes rather than using long-range standoff weapons. This complete failure of air defense meant Thailand enjoyed total air supremacy throughout the conflict.

Thailand's troops, well-funded and trained in the style of a modern Western military, proved capable of both defending and seizing positions with competency. Video footage from the front lines revealed telling details about the Cambodian forces: a noted disdain for shirts of any kind and a clear preference for sandals over combat boots. These visual indicators suggested a lack of basic military professionalism and readiness.

While both sides were alleged to have targeted civilian or cultural targets, it was Cambodia that repeatedly sent rockets crashing into civilian areas. This pattern suggests one of three possibilities, none particularly promising: Cambodia was either deliberately targeting civilians, unable to properly target its rockets, or operating based on shoddy real-time intelligence.

With complete Thai air supremacy over the conflict zone and Thai soldiers facing Cambodian counterparts who did not appear prepared for the rigors of modern warfare, the brief conflict demonstrated quite clearly that Bangkok should expect to prevail in any future war, while Phnom Penh appeared seriously out of its depth.

Cambodia's Awareness of Its Weakness

Cambodian authorities appeared well aware of the military disparity between themselves and Thailand before fighting ever broke out. Even before direct conflict seemed inevitable, Cambodian leaders were pushing hard for international intervention to draw down tensions, while Thailand consistently indicated it wished to settle its issues with Cambodia directly.

This disagreement represents a far broader truth about the relationship between these two nations. Cambodia, the obviously weaker and poorer nation, has a history of rulings in its favor in international courts regarding disputes with Thailand, including territorial disputes over the very same border zones where the initial violent confrontation between Thai and Cambodian patrols occurred. Cambodia understands that its best chance of achieving favorable outcomes lies in international forums where military power is irrelevant.

By contrast, Thailand prefers a direct approach without international mediators, precisely because that is where the power disparity between these two nations is most meaningful. As Thailand's military understands, it can do as it sees fit with Cambodia, as long as the international community does not decide to intervene on Cambodia's behalf.

Why Thailand Agreed to a Ceasefire

Given the results of battle that indicated Thailand held overwhelming advantages over its regional rival, the question arises: Why did Thailand agree to a ceasefire? The answer involves both international pressure and domestic political calculations.

The international community did intervene, with Malaysia, the current head of the Southeast Asian regional bloc ASEAN, and the United States both exerting pressure on Thailand to cease hostilities. Thailand depends on the United States to receive around fifteen percent of its overall international exports, while American tourism and oil are very important to the Thai economy. Thailand has considerably more to lose if the US were to suddenly change its trade relationship than Cambodia does with the same international partner.

However, trade concerns may not tell the whole story. Thailand's armed forces are well-funded, well-trained, and constitute a relatively powerful force in the region, but they are not a tool of conquest. The Thai military and its leaders are very influential at home, regularly putting their fingers on the scale in domestic political matters. The military and the Thai monarchy are basically untouchable in a system designed to protect their interests and autonomy.

The recent flare-up between Thailand and Cambodia became a threat to the Thai military's position, but not because of the Cambodian armed forces themselves. A Thai Prime Minister was heard on tape directly criticizing the Thai military at the same time as a nationalist uproar from Cambodia challenged the pride of Thai nationalists and their armed forces. For Thailand's powerful generals, this was a major problem, but the solution was not necessarily to conquer a sovereign nation.

After these few days of conflict, the Thai military appears to have checked all the necessary boxes to protect its position. It reasserted its military dominance over Cambodia, it is now working with an acting Prime Minister who recently served as Minister of Defense, and for Thailand's own nationalist wing, it can claim victory over an enemy that killed Thai civilians and even children indiscriminately. With the honor and political invulnerability of the Thai military restored, and with the Cambodian government well aware it cannot defeat Thailand in a prolonged conflict, neither side appears to have any enduring incentive to continue the war.

The Future of Regional Stability

With any measure of fortune, these five days of open conflict between Cambodia and Thailand will be recorded as an isolated incident, a one-time explosion of violence that will not be repeated. The ceasefire represents a critical reprieve for the region and a diplomatic triumph for the regional leaders and American backers who oversaw the effort.

However, several concerning realities remain. The conflict demonstrated just how easily tensions can spiral out of control between these two nations. It revealed how politically expedient it was for the Thai military to start and then wrap up this crisis on its own terms. Most importantly, it showed just how easy it would be for Thailand to restart hostilities if ever that served Thailand's own interests.

The power imbalance between these two Southeast Asian neighbors is now undeniable and publicly demonstrated. While diplomacy has prevailed for now, the world may soon watch as the balance of power in the region shifts decisively into Thailand's favor. The question is not whether Thailand could defeat Cambodia in a prolonged conflict—the answer to that is now abundantly clear. The question is whether international pressure and Thailand's own domestic political calculations will continue to prevent such a conflict from occurring again.

Related Coverage

FAQ

What triggered the Thailand-Cambodia conflict?

The conflict originated from a May border patrol encounter that escalated into a firefight, killing a Cambodian soldier. Tensions exploded when Thailand's Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was caught on leaked audio speaking deferentially to Cambodia's Hun Sen while criticizing Thai military commanders—catastrophic political blunders that inflamed nationalist sentiment. A subsequent landmine explosion injuring Thai soldiers led to broken diplomatic ties and the start of hostilities on July 24.

How long did the fighting last and what were the casualties?

The conflict lasted five days, from July 24 to July 29. At least 34 people were confirmed dead, including 8 Cambodian civilians, 13 Thai civilians, and a Cambodian Major General. Dozens more were wounded on both sides. Over 200,000 people were evacuated from border zones, though exact military casualties remain unclear as both nations have incentives to downplay losses.

What is the military disparity between Thailand and Cambodia?

Thailand's active-duty military outnumbers Cambodia's by approximately five-to-one, growing to nine-to-one with reservists. Thailand operates nearly 50 F-16s and a dozen Gripen jets while Cambodia has zero fixed-wing combat aircraft. Thailand has over 100 modern main battle tanks versus Cambodia's 1960s-era Chinese tanks. Thailand's navy includes a submarine, helicopter carrier, seven frigates, and five corvettes, while Cambodia's largest naval vessel resembles a fishing trawler.

How did the ceasefire come about?

The ceasefire was brokered in Putrajaya, Malaysia, mediated by Malaysia's Prime Minister with involvement from American and Chinese diplomats. Despite initial Thai resistance to international mediation, mounting pressure—including US President Trump using future trade deals as leverage—forced both sides to negotiate. By July 29, both Prime Ministers agreed to an unconditional ceasefire, reopening communication lines and pulling troops back.

Why did Thailand agree to a ceasefire if it had overwhelming military advantage?

Thailand agreed due to international pressure (particularly US trade leverage representing 15% of Thai exports) and domestic political calculations. The Thai military achieved its objectives: reasserting dominance over Cambodia, working with a new acting Prime Minister who previously served as Defense Minister, and restoring its honor after the previous PM's criticism. The conflict served to protect the military's untouchable political position rather than pursue territorial conquest.

What weapons and tactics were used during the conflict?

Thailand deployed F-16 and Gripen fighter jets for airstrikes deep into Cambodia, along with ground assaults on border positions and naval support along the coast. Cambodia used multiple-rocket launchers that struck civilian areas including a gas station killing eight civilians, attempted armored division assaults, and efficiently deployed small consumer-grade drones for surveillance and possibly small explosive attacks. Cambodia was accused of using cluster munitions, though neither nation signed the relevant treaty.

What did the conflict reveal about Cambodia's military capabilities?

The conflict exposed severe weaknesses: Cambodia's air defenses (mostly point-and-shoot anti-aircraft guns) completely failed to stop Thai aircraft. Video footage showed Cambodian soldiers lacking basic military professionalism—many without shirts and wearing sandals instead of combat boots. Cambodian rockets repeatedly hit civilian areas, suggesting either deliberate civilian targeting, inability to properly aim weapons, or poor intelligence—none promising for military competency.

Why does Cambodia prefer international mediation while Thailand prefers direct negotiations?

Cambodia, as the weaker and poorer nation, has historically won favorable rulings in international courts regarding disputes with Thailand, including over the same border zones where fighting occurred. International forums neutralize military power disparities. Thailand prefers direct negotiations precisely because that's where its overwhelming military superiority is most meaningful, allowing it to leverage force without international interference.

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →