PHNOM PENH: Bangkok cannot demand reassurance over Cambodia’s defensive capabilities while repeatedly advertising its own readiness to use overwhelming military force.
Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul has claimed that China assured Thailand that Chinese-made tanks supplied to Cambodia would not be used against Thailand.
According to his account, the procurement agreement predated the recent conflict, although delivery was temporarily delayed because of the fighting, and Beijing eventually fulfilled an existing contract.
Yet China’s official account of the meeting contained no public reference to tanks or to any special restrictions placed on Cambodia’s military equipment.
Instead, President Xi Jinping called on Thailand and Cambodia to settle their dispute peacefully through dialogue and consultation, while offering China’s constructive assistance.
That distinction matters. The alleged “assurance” is, at present, a statement attributed to China by the Thai prime minister — not a commitment publicly announced by Beijing.
It should therefore not be transformed by Thai political or media narratives into evidence that Cambodia represents a military danger requiring international containment.
More fundamentally, the episode exposes an extraordinary contradiction: why is Thailand so alarmed by Cambodian tanks when Thailand possesses a substantially larger military and continually publicises the readiness of its fighter aircraft, surveillance systems, ground forces and other advanced weapons?
Reuters has described Thailand as significantly superior to Cambodia in personnel and military equipment.
Nevertheless, Thai authorities repeatedly present Cambodia’s comparatively limited defensive capabilities as an imminent strategic threat.
In June 2026, Thailand’s Joint Information Centre announced that Thai forces were conducting continuous intelligence monitoring, ground patrols and aerial surveillance.
It emphasised that response measures were ready for every level of confrontation and specifically publicised the ability of F-16 and Gripen fighter aircraft to conduct operations and employ weapons in all weather conditions.
Days later, the Royal Thai Air Force described nighttime F-16 flights near the Cambodian border as exercises demonstrating round-the-clock readiness.
These flights occurred alongside what Thailand’s defence minister called increased military “area-control measures”.
Thailand cannot reasonably describe its own fighters, surveillance missions, military reinforcements and area-control operations as routine national defence while portraying every Cambodian tank as evidence of aggression.
Security concerns cannot operate according to two different standards: one permitting Thailand unlimited military preparedness and another requiring Cambodia to justify every piece of equipment it possesses.
The record makes Thailand’s anxiety harder to defend
Thailand’s militarised rhetoric did not begin with the latest tank delivery. In June 2025, the Thai military publicly announced that it was prepared to conduct a “high-level military operation” and reported that its army, navy and air force had increased their combat readiness.
That rhetoric was later followed by actual air operations. In December 2025, the Royal Thai Air Force confirmed that it had conducted a deep strike against a weapons facility in Cambodia’s Battambang province, describing the attack as necessary to reduce Cambodia’s military capability.
In both armed confrontations in 2025, the Thai military initiated the fighting after repeatedly provoking tensions along the border.
Thailand did not merely display its advanced military arsenal; it openly advertised its readiness for war and later confirmed carrying out airstrikes deep inside Cambodian territory.
Against that background, Bangkok’s demand for reassurance about Cambodian tanks appears less like genuine fear and more like an attempt to preserve strategic asymmetry.
Thailand appears comfortable when it possesses overwhelming air power, superior resources and the ability to threaten escalation.
It becomes anxious when Cambodia acquires sufficient defensive capability to make military coercion more difficult or costly.
That is not necessarily fear of a Cambodian invasion. It is more plausibly fear of effective Cambodian deterrence.
Defence is not aggression
Cambodia is a sovereign state. It does not require Thailand’s political permission to modernise its armed forces or lawfully acquire equipment for national defence.
The UN Charter is based on the sovereign equality of states. It obliges countries to settle disputes peacefully, prohibits the threat or use of force against another state’s territorial integrity, and recognises the inherent right of self-defence if an armed attack occurs.
International law therefore does not determine aggression by counting how many tanks a country purchases.
The proper questions are whether force has been threatened or used, whether territorial integrity has been violated, whether ceasefire obligations have been respected and whether disputes are being addressed through peaceful mechanisms.
Weapons in storage are not equivalent to fighter aircraft crossing a battlefield. Defensive procurement is not equivalent to military occupation.
A tank delivery does not, by itself, alter a border or threaten a neighbouring population.
Thailand is entitled to monitor developments affecting its security. Cambodia is equally entitled to monitor Thailand’s F-16s, Gripens, artillery, troop movements and military installations.
Legitimate concern must be reciprocal. It cannot become a doctrine under which Thai military power is considered normal while Cambodian defensive capability is automatically portrayed as dangerous.
Manufacturing a Cambodian threat
A plausible political explanation for Thailand’s fixation on Cambodian equipment is that the “Cambodian threat” narrative serves purposes beyond border security.
It places the Thai military at the centre of domestic political life. It allows every Cambodian defensive movement to be portrayed as a national emergency.
It conditions the Thai public to view military mobilisation as necessary and diplomatic compromise as weakness. It also shifts attention away from questions about Thailand’s own conduct along the border.
Cambodia has alleged that Thai forces continue to occupy civilian areas and have barricaded some locations using barbed wire and shipping containers, preventing thousands of Cambodian families from returning home.
Thailand rejects those allegations and maintains that its troop positions comply with the December ceasefire.
Precisely because the parties dispute the facts, the solution must be impartial verification, border negotiations and peaceful legal mechanisms — not unilateral military control accompanied by demands that Cambodia weaken its capacity to defend itself.
A state genuinely confident in its legal position should welcome transparent demarcation and credible observation. It should not need fighter demonstrations, threats of high-level operations or permanent military facts on the ground.
Peace requires reciprocal restraint
China’s publicly stated message was straightforward: Thailand and Cambodia should remain committed to dialogue, consultation and a peaceful settlement.
China offered to play a constructive role; it did not publicly demand Cambodia’s disarmament. Thailand should embrace that message in both words and conduct.
It should stop treating Cambodian defence procurement as an international crisis while celebrating its own fighter aircraft and military readiness.
It should refrain from inflammatory war rhetoric, respect the ceasefire, avoid unilateral changes along the border and return fully to peaceful bilateral mechanisms.
Cambodia, like Thailand, has a responsibility to exercise restraint. But restraint must be mutual.
Peace cannot mean that Thailand retains overwhelming air power, publicises its capacity to strike in all conditions and strengthens military control on the ground — while Cambodia is expected to apologise for possessing tanks.
The real question is therefore not why Cambodia has acquired military equipment. The real question is this:Why does a country that constantly advertises its military superiority appear so threatened when its smaller neighbour becomes better able to defend itself?
Thailand cannot brandish its own weapons while demanding that Cambodia remain strategically vulnerable. It cannot preach peace abroad while normalising military intimidation at home.
Peace between neighbours must be based on sovereign equality, reciprocal restraint and international law — not on one country’s expectation of permanent military dominance. - The Phnom Penh Post/ANN
[Roth Santepheap is described as a Phnom Penh-based geopolitical analyst. The views and opinions expressed are his own.]
