Opinion: Why It Is Illogical for Cambodia to Open Fire First on Thailand

Opinion: Why It Is Illogical for Cambodia to Open Fire First on Thailand

The Phnom Penh Post | Tensions along the Cambodian-Thai border have escalated into a deadly armed conflicts with casualties on both sides. Both countries have blamed each other for firing first; however, it is both strategically and logically implausible for Cambodia to have initiated aggression or “fired first” against Thailand. As a much smaller and less developed nation in terms of economy, population and military capability, Cambodia has nothing to gain and much to lose by firing the first shot. This article analyses the geopolitical, economic and military standpoint to demonstrate that it would have been wholly irrational for Cambodia to initiate hostilities, by using statistics and facts such as Cambodia’s push for international mediation and solutions.

Economic Disparity Between Cambodia and Thailand

Probably the most obvious difference between Cambodia and Thailand lies in both countries economic power. According to the World Bank, Thailand’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2024 was approximately $526 billion, which dwarfs Cambodia’s GDP of only around $46 billion. This means Thailand’s GDP is approximately 11.4 times larger than Cambodia’s GDP. These statistics alone already reflect a greater financial means available to Thailand in the event of a military conflict. In addition, as Cambodia’s economy heavily relies on garment exports, tourism and agriculture, a war would be economically catastrophic. Cambodia continues to focus on education, healthcare and infrastructure in phase one of the Pentagonal Strategy of the government, a military conflict would divert Cambodia’s limited resources away from these crucial sectors. In contrast, Thailand has a more diversified and robust economy. Therefore, a quick economic analysis would reject any notion that Cambodia would start a conflict with Thailand.

Population Differences

Thailand is one of the most populous countries in ASEAN. The population was estimated to be around 71 million in 2024 while Cambodia was only around 17 million. This significant disparity, with Thailand having more than 4 times the population, reflects the size of both nations’ respective armed forces, and ability to mobilise and sustain an armed conflict. Cambodia’s smaller population means it has less manpower for military conscription. A larger population gives the Thais major advantages which is another reason why it is completely unreasonable to assume that a country with fewer people and fewer soldiers would choose to escalate a border tension into a deadly border conflict.

Military Equipment and Technological Imbalance

Perhaps, one of the most compelling reasons why Cambodia would not fire first on Thailand is the absolute stark contrast in both nations’ military capability. According to the 2025 Global Firepower Index, which ranks the nations of the world based on their available firepower, Thailand ranks 25 and is the third most powerful armed forces in Southeast Asia after Indonesia and Vietnam, two other powerhouses of ASEAN. Cambodia, on the other hand, ranks 95, well below Thailand. According to the same index, Thailand possesses modern military equipment on the ground, air and sea.

Thailand army possesses newer tanks and armoured vehicles, while its air force is equipped with American jets like the F-16s and Swedish Gripen fighter jets. Thailand also possesses a strong navy with frigates, corvettes and submarines. Cambodia’s military, by contrast, is modest and primarily consisted of older military equipment. Cambodia’s defence posture is also largely defensive while its navy centred around coastal patrol and anti-terrorism. Cambodia also has a much smaller air force compared to Thailand. Therefore, it is completely illogical for Cambodia to provoke a conflict in which it is in a disadvantaged. The asymmetry in military equipment and technology is a proof that Cambodia cannot be the first to fire.

Cambodia turns to international institutions

Cambodia is well aware of the hardships brought by an armed conflict. Since the beginning of the renewed tensions along the border, the government of Cambodia has turned to international institutions and mechanisms for resolution. Cambodia has many times urged Thailand to go to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to settle the disputes on the border but to no effect, as Bangkok has previously rejected the ICJ decisions rulings and the Thais prefer bilateral talks through the established JBC mechanisms.

It is important to note that the last Cambodia-Thailand Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) meeting was held on June 14 in Phnom Penh, the first JBC session in 13 years since a 2012 meeting in Bangkok. However, the meeting was not fruitful, which is why Cambodia insisted on taking the dispute to the ICJ to settle it once and for all. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Hun Manet and former Prime Minister Hun Sen, the Cambodian government has regularly called and advocated for peaceful dispute resolution and international cooperation through various international institutions such as ASEAN. This commitment to and logic of peace and not war is another argument why any Cambodian military actions are likely to be acts of self-defence or responses to foreign aggressions, rather than deliberate or calculated incursions.

In summary, from almost every logical, rational, and strategic perspective from the economic size, population size, military capabilities, technological strength and Cambodia’s commitment to peaceful resolutions, it is completely illogical for Cambodia to have been the aggressor in the current border conflict. The differences are too wide, and the cost of conflict is just too high for Cambodia, a nation that just revived itself from decades of wars and conflicts. Claims of Cambodia being the one who “fired first” are just profoundly illogical and serve to only justify Thai military escalation and political narratives.

Ly Kimlong is currently pursuing a Master’s Degree at the International Relations at the University of Suffolk, UK. The views and opinions expressed are his own.