At 9:40 AM on 24 December 2025, the Thai military fired artillery shells into a Cambodian civilian area in Koun Trei Village (near National Road No. 5), Koub Commune, Ou Chrov District, Banteay Meanchey Province, resulting in two civilians, including one child, sustaining serious injuries.

#News

At 9:40 AM on 24 December 2025, the Thai military fired artillery shells into a Cambodian civilian area in Koun Trei Village (near National Road No. 5)

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

Both China and the United States, if they do not want to be seen as a threat in their talks with Thailand, must first understand the customs of this nation clearly. Otherwise, they will surely be humiliated, because Thailand will definitely take the blame for itself, blame Cambodia for its abuse, and refuse to enter the negotiation table. Therefore, to protect their honor, the two superpowers must use their influence to put more pressure on Thailand than just diplomatic mechanisms, so that Thailand will find it difficult to refuse. I understand that the Thai side's shooting at Cambodia for the past 13 days has certainly made both superpowers see clearly who the real victims are. The Cambodian people firmly believe that they will get justice through their common sense.

credit by kosal chum

#News

Both China and the United States

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

l am proud to witness the enduring strength of the Khmer nation at a time when our country is facing difficulties due to the invasion by the neighboring country. His Majesty the King, national leaders, government officials at all levels, and Cambodian citizens of all faiths and religions, both at home and abroad, have demonstrated a strong sense of national solidarity in support of our heroic armed forces and the national police, who are carrying out their missions with bravery to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cambodia. May the great strength of the Khmer nation continue to serve as a powerful force that supports and strengthens our heroic armed forces and the national police as they continue to carry out their mission to defend the nation's territory. The Royal Government stands with the people, as well as with our heroic armed forces and the national police, at all times.

#News

l am proud to witness the enduring strength of the Khmer nation at a time when our country is facing difficulties due to the invasion by the neighboring country

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

When Language Escalates Conflict and Process Prevents It

Words carry weight in times of conflict. They can calm tensions or harden them. But words alone cannot establish responsibility, and emotion cannot replace verification.

Recent reactions to President Donald Trump’s description of a landmine incident along the Thailand–Cambodia border as a “roadside accident” have focused on perceived disrespect toward Thai soldiers and national dignity. The emotional response is understandable. Injured soldiers are not abstractions. They are individuals with families and communities whose suffering deserves seriousness.

Yet diplomacy depends on precision, not sentiment. Especially when tensions are active and escalation remains a risk.

The key issue is not whether the phrase was inelegant. It likely was. The more consequential question is whether language should be treated as a verdict before facts are independently established.

Landmines are not matters of interpretation. They are weapons governed by international law, subject to investigation, mapping, clearance obligations, and verification mechanisms. Determining who planted them, when, and under what authority requires transparent processes and credible evidence, not repetition of claims.

So far, public discourse has relied heavily on assertion. Claims of deliberate placement, references to previous incidents, and accusations of inaction have been presented as settled conclusions rather than disputed facts. That approach may satisfy domestic audiences, but it does little to persuade neutral observers or external mediators whose confidence is essential for de escalation.

History should also be handled with care. Thailand and the United States share a long and consequential relationship. That history explains heightened expectations of attentiveness, not immunity from inquiry. Durable alliances are built on the ability to disagree, to question, and to examine facts openly, especially under pressure.

Calls for a ceasefire based on truth are legitimate. But truth in conflict zones is not declared unilaterally. It is established through joint investigation, third party monitoring, and procedures that both sides accept as binding even when politically inconvenient.

This is where ASEAN’s role matters. Its credibility will not rest on moral rhetoric, but on whether it can facilitate verification, restraint, and mechanisms that prevent incidents from being instrumentalized by any party. Regional stability depends less on narrative dominance than on agreed process.

The greater risk now is not an imprecise phrase. It is allowing language to lock positions before facts are fully known. Once that happens, even sincere appeals for peace lose credibility.

Respect for soldiers, civilians, and national dignity is not undermined by investigation. It is protected by it.

Peace does not begin with agreement on blame.

It begins with agreement on process.

Midnight

 

#News

When Language Escalates Conflict and Process Prevents It Words carry weight in times of conflict

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

Why “Chinese Made Weapons” Suddenly Matter in the Thailand Cambodia Conflict

When China publicly stated that its arms trade with Cambodia and Thailand is unrelated to the current border conflict, it was not intervening in the dispute. It was drawing a boundary. That boundary matters, because the statement did not emerge from mediation efforts or ceasefire negotiations, but from a growing attempt to associate the conflict with external suppliers, specifically China, through repeated references to Chinese made weapons appearing in battlefield reporting and in Thai claims of captured equipment.

The existence of Chinese origin weapons in Cambodian inventories is not the central question. Cambodia, like Thailand, has purchased arms from China for years, just as both have sourced equipment from multiple external partners. What matters is why weapon origin is being emphasized now, during an active escalation, and what strategic function that emphasis serves at this specific moment.

Looked at structurally, Thailand’s emphasis on weapon origin performs several roles at once. It shifts the conflict away from a traditional border dispute rooted in historical ambiguities and contested maps toward a security narrative centered on civilian protection. Once advanced or long range systems are mentioned, especially when linked to a major external producer, the justification for air power, deeper strikes, or broader defensive measures becomes easier to articulate. The focus moves from contested terrain to potential threats against civilian infrastructure. In that frame, escalation is no longer framed as aggression, but as prevention.

Beyond domestic framing, the same emphasis operates outward. Thailand does not need to accuse China of direct involvement. Repeated proximity is sufficient. Weapons, origin, battlefield. For international audiences, the implication forms on its own, especially through global news circuits that compress complex disputes into simple cause and effect stories. China’s response, warning against speculation and malicious hype, is best understood as a reaction to this implication rather than to any formal accusation.

The weapons narrative also does not stand alone. It appears alongside practical pressure tools that shape the battlefield without firing a shot, particularly fuel and transit constraints. Reuters has reported Thailand cutting a fuel route through a Laos border point because of fears supplies were being diverted to Cambodia, and also reported Thai consideration of blocking fuel exports and labeling areas near Cambodian ports as high risk. These are not separate stories. They are part of the same architecture, where capability and sustainment are treated as legitimate security targets.

Inside Thailand, the political function of this framing is equally important. Governments escalate within political constraints, not in isolation. Presenting military action as protection against advanced threats stabilizes public support and limits internal dissent. When civilian sites are named and external suppliers implied, restraint can be portrayed as negligence, while firmness appears prudent. In this sense, the narrative serves internal legitimacy as much as external positioning.

The effect on Cambodia is more constraining than confrontational. Once its military posture is described through the lens of externally sourced capability, its defensive explanations face heightened scrutiny regardless of when the weapons were acquired or how they are employed. The timing of the narrative matters more than the timing of procurement. Cambodia is pushed into a reactive posture, forced to manage optics as much as actions, and forced to answer insinuations even when the underlying facts are not fully established.

Seen in this context, Beijing’s response is procedural rather than emotive. China is not denying that it sells weapons. It is rejecting the leap from trade to authorship. That distinction is central to China’s regional posture. If arms exports are allowed to imply responsibility for downstream conflicts, neutrality collapses and arms trade becomes a permanent diplomatic liability. China is therefore drawing a red line early. Procurement origin does not equal battlefield intent.

There is also a balance calculation at work that is easy to miss if you only look at Cambodia. Thailand itself has been a significant importer of Chinese arms in recent years, which makes any simple story of China backing only one side structurally weak. This is precisely why Beijing moves quickly to flatten the narrative before it hardens into a proxy label. Beijing is protecting its relationships on both fronts and preserving room to influence outcomes without becoming the story.

Equally significant is China’s concern with precedent. This is not only about this border conflict. It is about future insulation. If weapon origin becomes a default proxy for political responsibility, then every future conflict where Chinese systems appear will generate the same blame structure, regardless of when the sale occurred or what the buyer chose to do years later. Beijing’s language is aimed at preventing that norm from forming.

Crucially, the most consequential details remain unresolved, and readers should understand why that matters. There is no publicly verified timeline for when the highlighted weapons entered Cambodian inventory. Independent confirmation of seizure claims remains limited in open reporting. There is no visibility into private diplomatic exchanges between Beijing, Bangkok, Phnom Penh, or ASEAN intermediaries. These gaps are not incidental. They are the terrain on which the next phase of narrative contestation will unfold, because whoever fills the gaps first will shape what the world believes happened.

Taken together, this episode signals a shift. The conflict is no longer defined solely by troop movements or territorial control. It is increasingly shaped by legitimacy, escalation permission, and international perception. Labels now travel faster than facts, and implications harden before verification. This is why short statements and captured images can carry strategic weight far beyond their technical meaning.

Thailand’s emphasis on Chinese made weapons should therefore be understood as a strategic framing instrument, not proof of a proxy war. China’s rejection of that framing is reputation management, not denial of trade. Both moves are calculated. Neither resolves the underlying dispute.

What this moment ultimately reveals is that the conflict has entered a phase where narrative control directly affects military and diplomatic options. Recognizing that shift is the difference between reacting to headlines and understanding the structure beneath them. China did not speak because it chose a side. It spoke because it refused to be written into a story that would constrain every move it makes next.

Midnight

-----------

Sources used for verification include Reuters on China’s statement and on Thailand’s fuel and maritime pressure measures, plus Thai reporting cited in the same news cycle, and arms transfer context drawn from SIPRI linked summaries.

 

#News

Why Chinese Made Weapons” Suddenly Matter in the Thailand Cambodia Conflict When China publicly stated that its arms trade with Cambodia and Thailand is unrelated to the current border conflict

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

The agreement to involve ASEAN observers is a procedural shift, not a resolution.

In Phase 1, this works. Meetings and observers lower headline pressure and move the conflict from bilateral narrative control into a multilateral setting. That contains escalation in the short term and buys time.

Whether it works beyond that depends on Phase 2 and Phase 3.

In Phase 2, observers must become operational: real access, regular reporting, and mutual verification. If observers remain symbolic or restricted, the process risks becoming delay rather than de-escalation.

Phase 3 depends on accountability. Once ASEAN places its credibility behind the process, prolonged vagueness carries a cost not only for the parties, but for ASEAN itself. At that point, procedure either hardens into constraint or quietly stalls.

So this is containment, not peace yet.

It works temporarily. Long-term success depends on whether mechanisms replace conditions and whether observers move from optics to function.

Midnight

 

#News

The agreement to involve ASEAN observers is a procedural shift, not a resolution. In Phase 1

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

When Categories Replace Facts | Why Distinctions Matter in Conflict

In contemporary conflicts, pressure is rarely applied only through force or diplomacy. It is increasingly applied through categorization. Countries are quietly reframed as “risk environments,” “problem spaces,” or “security concerns,” not through formal findings, but through repetition, proximity, and implication.

This matters because once a category sticks, facts no longer need to be proven. Procedures are replaced by impressions. Acts are replaced by character.

Cambodia’s current position is clear and verifiable. The central issue before the region and the international community concerns military actions affecting Cambodian territory and the urgent need for de-escalation through established diplomatic and legal mechanisms. These questions are governed by international law, observation frameworks, and regional processes designed to prevent escalation and protect civilians.

It is precisely because this position is structurally strong that unrelated narratives begin to surface alongside it.

In recent weeks, discourse around transnational online crime and platform enforcement has appeared in close proximity to a territorial dispute. These issues are real and regional in nature. They are addressed through law-enforcement cooperation, financial oversight, and technical enforcement across multiple jurisdictions in Asia-Pacific. But their sudden prominence at this moment, and their rhetorical linkage to an ongoing conflict, deserves careful attention.

This is not about denying the existence of transnational crime. It is about refusing narrative migration.

International practice distinguishes criminal enforcement from questions of territorial integrity precisely to prevent politicization and escalation. Criminal activity is handled through investigative and judicial channels. Territorial disputes and military conduct are addressed through diplomacy, ceasefire mechanisms, and international law. When these domains are conflated, accountability weakens rather than strengthens. Verifiable actions are displaced by generalized suspicion, and resolution becomes harder rather than closer.

Such framing has consequences beyond headlines. Risk language travels downstream into compliance systems, transport controls, financial scrutiny, insurance decisions, and travel advisories. What begins as commentary can quietly become friction. This is why precision matters. Urgency does not require confusion, and resolution does not benefit from haste that abandons procedure.

Cambodia’s response, therefore, must remain disciplined. Broad denials invite endless rebuttal. Emotional defense erodes procedural authority. Prolonged engagement with peripheral narratives elevates issues that were never central to begin with. Classification, not confrontation, is the appropriate response.

Transnational cybercrime should continue to be addressed through existing regional and international mechanisms. Cambodia has participated in such cooperation and remains open to technical engagement through proper channels. None of these matters alters the legal and diplomatic requirements governing military actions across recognized borders. The purpose of maintaining these distinctions is not abstraction, but civilian protection and regional stability.

The international community understands this separation. It notices who insists on relevance and who benefits from confusion. It understands the difference between platform moderation reports and jurisdictional findings, between crime prevention and territorial legitimacy.

Clarity does not come from multiplying narratives. It comes from holding firm to what is material, verifiable, and consequential. The priority remains unchanged: restraint, de-escalation, and respect for territorial sovereignty, supported by observation and diplomatic process.

Clarity serves peace. Confusion serves escalation. Cambodia will continue to speak where relevance exists, and to remain disciplined where it does not.

Midnight

 

#News

When Categories Replace Facts Why Distinctions Matter in Conflict

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

 One community does not guarantee one destiny!

#News

One community does not guarantee one destiny!

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

 A meaningful message from school children to the brave Cambodian army heroes

#News

A meaningful message from school children to the brave Cambodian army heroes

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

 A meaningful message from school children to the brave Cambodian army heroes

#News

A meaningful message from school children to the brave Cambodian army heroes

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

 To the frontline soldiers! Stay strong, Khmer! From Rattanak

Source: Facebook

#News

To the frontline soldiers! Stay strong, Khmer! From Rattanak

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

In order to uphold the dignity of Cambodia, as well as that of Russia and other foreign nationals who have been accused, I would like to clearly state that Cambodia does not have any Russian nationals or other foreign nationals participating in combat operations on the battlefield or serving as military advisors to the Cambodian armed forces.

#News

In order to uphold the dignity of Cambodia, as well as that of Russia and other foreign nationals who have been accused

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

We acknowledge that there are currently many foreign nationals of various nationalities residing in Cambodia, including tourists, investors, technical experts, and individuals working for foreign or local companies. However, these individuals are not involved in military affairs or combat operations.

#News

We acknowledge that there are currently many foreign nationals of various nationalities residing in Cambodia

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

On December 16, 2025, the Thai army continued firing 155mm artillery shells into Cambodian civilian areas, causing severe damage to civilian homes in Teuk Kraham Village, Teuk Kraham Commune, Choam Khsant District, Preah Vihear Province, at a distance of about 20 kilometers from the border.

#News

On December 16, 2025, the Thai army continued firing 155mm artillery shells into Cambodian civilian areas

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

We have not had foreign troops on Cambodian soil since UNTAC withdrew from Cambodia in 1993. We acknowledge that in the past, foreign military forces have entered Cambodia to conduct multinational or bilateral joint military exercises on Cambodian territory, particularly foreign naval forces arriving through the seaport of Preah Sihanouk Province. This is a normal practice that many other countries have also undertaken within the framework of defense cooperation.

#News

We have not had foreign troops on Cambodian soil since UNTAC withdrew from Cambodia in 1993

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

 Day 10 of the Thai military invasion of Cambodia! Cambodia's brave soldiers and police heroes have continued to stand strong, brave, and fiercely fighting the invading enemy on all battlefields to protect the territorial integrity and people of Cambodia at all costs.

#News

Day 10 of the Thai military invasion of Cambodia Cambodia is brave soldiers and police heroes have continued to stand strong

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

  Dear Mr President Donald J. Trump I really thanks many thanks to you for what you have done Yesterday for my Country 

#News

Dear Mr President Donald J. Trump I really thanks many thanks to you for what you have done Yesterday for my Country

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

-You crawled, walked and ran forward while nearly half a million civilians fled and ran behind.
-Your courage is a shield for the Cambodian nation and the Khmer people.
-You sacrificed to protect our poor homeland, our ancestral land, our history and our future.
-You have continued to fight so that Cambodia can continue to have a tomorrow.
And so, the entire Cambodian nation thanks you, is grateful to you and is indebted to you…

#News

You crawled, walked and ran forward while nearly half a million civilians fled and ran behind.

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

When Maps Become Weapons: Why Thailand's 1:50,000 Border Claims Has No International Legal Effect

In Southeast Asia, borders are not merely lines on maps. They are legacies of colonial rule, postcolonial state-building, and the fragile promise that law, not force, will govern relations between neighbors. Nowhere is this more evident than along the Cambodia–Thailand frontier, where Thailand’s continued reliance on unilateral 1:50,000 scale maps threatens not only bilateral relations but the integrity of the international legal order itself.

The violence that began in May 2025 was initiated by Thailand, not the result of a mutual border skirmish. Cambodian forces did not respond militarily. What followed was a sustained escalation by Thailand that expanded beyond May and continued into December 2025, driven by its attempt to enforce unilateral territorial claims. At the heart of this crisis lies a simple but consequential question: which maps have legal authority?

Read more : https://traju.org/.../when-maps-become-weapons-why.../

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ayotX8upQ/?mibextid=wwXIfr

#News

When Maps Become Weapons Why Thailand is 150000 Border Claims Has No International Legal Effect

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......

Painting by His Excellency Dr. Hangchuon Naron, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Education, Youth and Sports. Painting by Professor Hang Chuon Naron, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, Youth and Sports, at a time when more than 1,000 schools were closed, nearly 250,000 students were unable to study due to the invasion of Siamese soldiers.

#News

Painting by His Excellency Dr. Hangchuon Naron, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Education, Youth and Sports

0 comment

Like comment

Write a comment......