The Role of Heavy Weaponry in the 2025 Thailand-Cambodia Conflict

 

The Role of Heavy Weaponry in the 2025 Thailand-Cambodia Conflict

The latest escalation in the long-standing border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, which came to a head in July 2025, was defined by a significant and unprecedented use of heavy weaponry. The five-day conflict marked a dramatic and devastating departure from previous skirmishes, which typically involved small-arms fire and localized troop movements. The use of modern, high-impact firepower not only caused a humanitarian crisis but also drew international condemnation and complicated diplomatic efforts.

Escalation and the Use of High-Impact Arms

The direct armed conflict, which erupted on July 24, 2025, followed months of simmering tensions and a series of smaller incidents, including a fatal skirmish in May and landmine incidents that injured Thai soldiers. On the day the conflict broke out, both nations accused the other of firing first. The fighting quickly escalated, with both sides deploying heavy, high-impact military assets.

Thailand’s response was particularly defined by its use of air power and artillery. Thai forces deployed F-16 fighter jets to conduct airstrikes against what they designated as military targets within Cambodia. On the ground, they also utilized artillery barrages to strike Cambodian border posts and civilian settlements. The Thai army has since confirmed the use of both cluster munitions and white phosphorus shells. While Thai officials maintained these weapons were used in a manner compliant with international law and were restricted to military targets, the use of such armaments sparked international concern, particularly from human rights organizations. In turn, Cambodia was also accused by Thailand of launching indiscriminate attacks on Thai territory using BM-21 rockets.

Humanitarian and Economic Impact

The humanitarian toll of this heavy firepower was severe. The intense fighting reportedly killed at least 38 people, with both sides reporting a high number of civilian casualties, including children. The use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated zones caused immediate harm and long-term damage to critical infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. The conflict displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians from their homes on both sides of the border, with some estimates placing the number of displaced at over 300,000.

Beyond the human cost, the conflict caused significant economic disruption. The closure of key border checkpoints sharply reduced import-export volumes, with cross-border trade in June falling by 23% year-on-year. Economic forecasting centers estimated that the full closure of the five major border points alone cost Thailand approximately 11 billion baht per month in lost exports. This economic fallout highlighted the interconnectedness of the two economies and the high stakes of the military confrontation.

Diplomatic Fallout and International Response

The escalation prompted swift and concerned reactions from the international community. The United Nations Security Council convened an urgent, closed-door meeting on July 25, during which all 15 member states called for de-escalation, maximum restraint, and a peaceful resolution. The conflict also tested the cohesion of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Malaysia, as the ASEAN Chair, stepped in to mediate a ceasefire proposal, which was reportedly accepted by both sides, albeit with some initial reluctance from Thailand.

Despite the ceasefire taking effect on July 28, the diplomatic dispute has continued. Cambodia has appealed to the UN and ASEAN, alleging ongoing ceasefire violations and human rights abuses by Thai forces. Thailand, in turn, has denied these claims and has stated its intention to sue Cambodian leaders for violating its sovereignty. The conflict has not only strained diplomatic relations but has also revealed a deep-seated mistrust, fueled by historical grievances and competing claims over colonial-era maps and ancient temples. The involvement of external powers, including the United States and China, who both have significant influence in the region, was crucial in pushing for a truce, underscoring the broader geopolitical implications of the conflict.

The clash serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences when long-standing border disputes, compounded by domestic political tensions, escalate into modern warfare. While a fragile ceasefire is in place, the path toward a lasting solution remains uncertain, contingent on sustained dialogue and a willingness to move past the entrenched positions of the past.