Thailand’s attacks on Cambodia are tied to a long‑running border dispute, recent landmine incidents, and internal political calculations in both countries, with each side claiming it is acting in self‑defense. There is no single agreed “why,” but rather overlapping territorial, security, and domestic political reasons that have escalated into open conflict.
Immediate triggers
Recent fighting has centered on disputed stretches of the Thai‑Cambodian border near temple complexes such as Prasat Ta Muen Thom and Preah Vihear, where the boundary line and control of surrounding land remain contested. Clashes intensified after Thai soldiers were injured by landmines; Thailand alleged the mines were newly laid by Cambodian forces, while Cambodia denied this and said Thai troops had entered known Cambodian minefields off agreed patrol routes.
Following these incidents, Thailand accused Cambodia of firing rockets and artillery into Thai territory, including civilian areas, and says its airstrikes and other attacks are defensive responses to those cross‑border attacks. Cambodia, for its part, has told the UN that Thai attacks were “unprovoked” and targeted Cambodian positions and sites near temples on Cambodian soil, framing Thailand as the aggressor.
Longstanding border dispute
The deeper cause is an unresolved, decades‑old territorial dispute along an 800‑kilometer border that was originally demarcated using French colonial‑era maps. While the International Court of Justice confirmed Cambodian sovereignty over the Preah Vihear temple area and ordered Thailand to withdraw troops from there, other adjacent areas were left ambiguous, keeping the dispute alive.
This ambiguity has led to periodic flare‑ups, notably in 2008–2011 and again in 2025, as both sides deploy troops, build positions, or change patrol patterns in disputed zones that the other side then treats as incursions. Nationalist sentiment in both countries often rises around these disputes, making compromise politically costly for leaders in Bangkok and Phnom Penh.
Domestic political factors
Analysts note that elites in both Thailand and Cambodia may be using the border conflict to bolster support or distract from domestic problems. In Cambodia, long‑time power broker Hun Sen still wields influence after handing formal leadership to his son Hun Manet, and some experts argue that a tough stance against Thailand helps shore up the son’s nationalist credentials.
In Thailand, leaders facing political pressure and internal divisions have also been portrayed as taking a hard line on the border to demonstrate strength and defend national sovereignty. These domestic incentives on both sides can reduce willingness to de‑escalate quickly, even when fighting becomes costly and international actors call for a ceasefire.
How each side explains it
Thailand says it is attacking only in order to defend its territory and population from Cambodian rocket, artillery, and landmine attacks along the border. Cambodian officials insist their actions are defensive responses to Thai incursions and airstrikes, and they describe Thailand as the party undermining their territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Because both governments present themselves as acting in self‑defense and blame the other for starting each round of clashes, outside observers emphasize the need for independent investigations and regional mediation rather than accepting either narrative at face value.
