A high-stakes effort to contain the Thailand–Cambodia border conflict is unfolding against a backdrop of intensifying regional and global power dynamics, with scholars warning that the flare-up risks spiraling into a broader proxy confrontation between the United States and China. As mediation talks convened in Putrajaya, Malaysia, on July 28, 2025, the international spotlight focused on how external powers may shape, or frustrate, local negotiations. The discussions come amid a charged atmosphere in which nationalist sentiment and disputes over territory are driving military actions, even as international actors seek ways to prevent a broader, more destructive clash. The following analysis, drawn from prominent security and foreign affairs scholars, examines the geopolitics, military realities, and potential paths toward de-escalation that observers say are essential to avoid a protracted or escalating conflict.
Geopolitical dynamics and mediation cues
The Thai-Cambodian confrontation has drawn intense scrutiny from regional and global observers who warn that its trajectory could mirror a proxy struggle between the United States and China. At the heart of this scrutiny is a growing realization that external powers wield influence far beyond the immediate battlefield through framing, leverage, and strategic signaling. Analysts note that the United States has at times used economic tools, including tariffs and other trade measures, as levers in ceasefire negotiations. This approach aligns with a broader political strategy by the U.S. president to position the country as a global peacemaker, a posture intended to bolster influence across both economic and security domains. By intertwining economic policy with security considerations, Washington can project power in multiple spheres while sustaining domestic political narratives that emphasize decisive international leadership. In the Thai-Cambodian context, such leverage literature suggests that external actors may be able to shape the pace, terms, and sequencing of talks by tying economic incentives or constraints to security concessions, thereby keeping political momentum aligned with their broader strategic objectives.
Analysts point to the timing of China’s involvement as a pivotal factor in shaping regional dynamics. Cambodia’s decision to invite Beijing into mediation efforts early on is viewed by some scholars as a smart, perhaps opportunistic, move that altered the calculus for all parties involved. The early Chinese engagement appears to have triggered a sense of urgency in Washington to respond promptly, underscoring how rapid shifts in mediation sponsorship can escalate geopolitical complexity rather than simply facilitate dialogue. As Beijing deepens its role, the regional chessboard becomes more intricate, with both Bangkok and Phnom Penh balancing national interests against expectations from major external patrons. In this environment, the Thai government faces a delicate challenge: convey its stance clearly on the world stage—specifically, that it does not welcome external mediation as an outside imposition, while simultaneously endorsing a framework of coordinated cooperation that pursues practical, verifiable steps toward de-escalation.
To manage this balance, Thai negotiators have been urged to articulate, on international platforms, that their preference is for a negotiated outcome that is owned and guided by the parties directly involved, with external actors offering support rather than steering the process. Within this framing, analysts advocate for concrete preconditions that can anchor talks and test genuine commitments on the ground. Among the suggested preconditions are a temporary military freeze, the establishment of a safe zone to protect civilians, and a commitment for Cambodian troops to withdraw from contested areas as prerequisites for actual ceasefire negotiations. The emphasis on these measures reflects a broader understanding that without verifiable steps to reduce immediate violence and to create space for dialogue, talks risk stalling or collapsing under the weight of mutually reinforcing grievances and tactical advantages.
The discourse surrounding mediation in this crisis also underscores the risk that external powers, if not careful, may inadvertently prolong or complicate negotiations by pressing agendas that do not fully account for local realities. The Thai government’s emphasis on coordinated cooperation—rather than external imposition—speaks to a desire to preserve regional autonomy while leveraging international channels to advance a practical settlement. For observers, this tension between national sovereignty and broad-scale mediation illustrates the precarious nature of diplomacy in regions where great-power competition intersects with localized conflicts. The Putrajaya talks thus function not only as a venue for immediate ceasefire planning but also as a symbolic stage where regional actors demonstrate their willingness to maintain agency in a system of competing international interests.
This section highlights three critical threads shaping the mediation landscape: the strategic use of economic levers by the United States; China’s growing role as a mediator with broader geopolitical implications; and Thailand’s position seeking to balance external engagement with national autonomy. Taken together, they form a framework in which the Thai-Cambodian conflict could either drift toward a broader regional peace process with international support or become entangled in an ongoing struggle for influence among the world’s leading powers. The outcome hinges on whether external actors can respect the primacy of local ownership, adhere to verifiable security concessions, and support, rather than override, the negotiators on the ground. In short, the mediation dynamic is less about immediate incentives and more about setting a sustainable pathway for de-escalation that remains sensitive to the region’s complex security and political contours.
Military posture and humanitarian considerations
A central dimension of the crisis concerns the military realities on the ground, where the balance between survival, territorial calculus, and civilian protection is constantly negotiated in real time. For observers, the most pressing takeaway is that military considerations—particularly the imperative of national survival and territorial control—often trump purely economic concerns for both Thailand and Cambodia. This reality makes the prospect of a durable ceasefire more challenging: even when a ceasefire framework is proposed, fighting may continue as factions seek to secure advantageous territorial positions that translate into political leverage and long-term bargaining power.
Within this context, the deployment of heavy weapons by Cambodia has been cited as a key development influencing the conflict’s dynamics. Reports indicate that Cambodia has fielded weaponry such as the BM-21 rocket system, a capability that significantly elevates the potential for high-volume, long-range strikes. Such deployments raise concerns about civilian safety and compliance with humanitarian norms, as the use of heavy artillery in populated or contested zones increases the likelihood of civilian harm. The Thai response, in turn, has been described as a necessary defensive measure aimed at protecting national sovereignty and civilian lives, reflecting the blunt arithmetic that when confronted with escalatory tactics, options available to smaller states in a border dispute can be constrained by the asymmetries of military hardware and force projection.
Analysts emphasize that, in the immediate term, it is not simply a question of who has the stronger weapon or who occupies more terrain; it is also about how battlefield dynamics intersect with political objectives. If one side perceives that it can force concessions through sustained military pressure, it may persist in hostilities despite the human and economic costs. This dynamic is further complicated by the humanitarian dimension. Civilians are frequently caught in the crossfire of intermittent skirmishes and artillery exchanges, a reality that underscores the urgency of establishing physical safe zones and credible commitments to civilian protection as part of any broader ceasefire framework. The call for a temporary freeze and the withdrawal of troops from contested areas gains added weight in this humanitarian light, serving as a practical bridge between strategic deterrence and moral obligation to minimize civilian casualties and displacement.
Experts also point to the broader pattern observed in many conflicts worldwide: lasting peace is seldom achieved purely through negotiated terms alone. Instead, durable arrangements often follow significant losses or shifts in the cost calculus for continued fighting. The Thai-Cambodian encounter appears to be at a juncture where a tactical pause could yield space for diplomacy, but only if it evolves into a credible, enforceable, and monitored arrangement that both sides believe offers a real path to reducing violence and advancing legitimate security concerns. Conversely, any ceasefire that lacks verification, credible enforcement mechanisms, and civilian protection guarantees risks collapsing under renewed attacks or political brinkmanship. In this sense, the present moment tests the capacity of regional and international actors to translate short-term tactical pauses into longer-term strategic stability.
The analysis also stresses that the conflict’s current phase has not yet escalated into a full-blown proxy war occupying the theater of great-power confrontation. While nationalist sentiment and territorial claims remain dominant forces shaping the conflict, there remains a window of opportunity for de-escalation if the major external players refrain from taking sides in a manner that would harden positions on the ground. The possibility of achieving short-term calm exists, but it is inherently fragile and contingent on a convergence of regional diplomacy, verified security steps, and a commitment to humanitarian safeguards that goes beyond symbolic gestures or the mere signing of documents. The ongoing challenge for Thailand and Cambodia is to convert the momentum of international interest into substantive, verifiable improvements on the ground that reduce violence while preserving each side’s core red lines and strategic imperatives.
Outlook: de-escalation, potential outcomes, and regional stability
Looking ahead, experts acknowledge a delicate balance between the risk of escalation and the potential for meaningful de-escalation. A central insight from current assessments is that, while the conflict has not yet become a full-fledged proxy confrontation between the United States and China, the signs of rising geopolitical complexity are unmistakable. The dynamics of nationalism and territorial claims continue to drive actions on both sides, complicating the path toward durable peace. In this context, a critical question for regional security architecture is whether the United States and China can resist taking sides in a way that would entrench positions and prolong hostilities, or whether a carefully calibrated, non-partisan approach could yield a more rapid, stable de-escalation.
Analysts suggest that a short-term ceasefire or temporary calm is within reach if the triggers that sustain fighting—such as disputed border zones, artillery exchanges, and troop movements—are addressed through credible, externally facilitated, but locally owned mechanisms. Such a trajectory would require robust verification, transparent reporting, and a commitment to civilian protection. It would also demand a willingness from all parties to test and adjust the terms of disengagement as new information about battlefield developments becomes available. The possibility of a longer-term peace settlement, however, remains constrained by the fact that nationalism and territorial ambitions continue to shape the strategic calculus for both sides. Without significant changes in incentives, it is uncertain whether a substantive peace agreement can endure beyond the emergence of temporary gains secured through short-term truces.
The discourse surrounding regional stability emphasizes that even if tensions subside in the near term, the underlying frictions—unclear borders, historical grievances, and competing sovereignty claims—will still need to be addressed to prevent relapse into outright conflict. In this sense, the immediate objective is to stabilize the situation long enough for sustained diplomacy to gain traction, while simultaneously building confidence between Bangkok and Phnom Penh through continuous dialogue, risk-reduction measures, and humanitarian channels. Absent such confidence-building arrangements, the region risks slipping back into episodic clashes that undermine economic development, regional confidence, and people’s security.
Observers also stress that the present moment is an inflection point for regional security governance. If major powers choose to respect the autonomy of regional negotiations and support a structured process that foregrounds the concerns of the affected states, it may be possible to prevent a broader escalation and foster a framework for multi-lateral engagement that reduces the likelihood of future flashpoints. Conversely, should external actors overstep or attempt to dictate terms, the risk of protracted conflict increases, potentially altering the security calculus for neighboring states and complicating regional cooperation on other critical challenges.
Notably, the scholars underscore that peace in conflicts of this type rarely arises from a single breakthrough moment. Instead, lasting resolution tends to emerge from iterative, evidence-based progress—incremental concessions, verified de-escalation, and a shared commitment to civilian protection and border normalization. The path to such an outcome is likely to be imperfect and non-linear, reflecting the stubborn realities of nationalism, security concerns, and the legacies that shape the border dispute. Nonetheless, the possibility of achieving short-term calm—an achievable and meaningful objective—offers a pragmatic route for stabilizing the region while diplomacy proceeds.
Conclusion
The Thailand–Cambodia border crisis, unfolding amid high-level mediation efforts in Putrajaya and a broader backdrop of US–China strategic competition, presents a complex file where local, regional, and global interests intersect. Scholarly analyses emphasize that while the conflict has not become a full proxy war, the risk remains that external actors could escalate or complicate efforts unless diplomacy stays firmly grounded in local ownership, credible security guarantees, and humanitarian safeguards. The US approach of linking economic tools to security negotiations, the early and active Chinese mediation, and Thailand’s insistence on coordinated cooperation rather than external imposition together shape a delicate balance of influence and restraint that will determine the trajectory of engagement in the coming weeks and months.
Crucially, the path forward hinges on tangible steps: a credible, verifiable ceasefire framework; a safe civilian space and the withdrawal of forces from contested zones; and a sustained commitment by all parties to engage in constructive dialogue with a clear preference for de-escalation over further escalation. While observers are cautious about forecasting a lasting peace, they remain hopeful that a temporary calm can be achieved and transformed into a durable de-escalation, provided major powers acknowledge the primacy of regional ownership and support measures that reduce violence without imposing external dictates. In this environment, the Thai and Cambodian leaderships’ ability to maintain open channels of dialogue, implement mutually agreeable security measures, and uphold humanitarian norms will be decisive in shaping the region’s stability for the foreseeable future.
