Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
PurpleTree

Thailand/Cambodia border clashes

20 posts in this topic

"At least 12 Thai nationals, most of whom are civilians, have been killed in clashes with Cambodian troops in a disputed border area between the two countries. While there have been sporadic clashes over the years, the latest tensions ramped up in May after a Cambodian soldier was killed in a clash. Both sides have accused the other of firing the first shot on Thursday morning, and Thailand has now closed its border with Cambodia after telling all its nationals there to leave"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the most random war I've ever heard of from my perspective. You would think that 2 countries that are barely even mentioned (well, Thailand is mentioned in some very specific topics, lol) would have enough common sense to know that their geopolitical and economic situation should not warrant any conflict, it's like this border clash between Kosovo and Serbia except even less known about


Blind leading the blind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's now escalated.
 



Very difficult to get a more neutral, encompassing take at this early stage

Some say a temple was the cause, some say revealed comments, others, instability or a more general border dispute. Its one where everyone seems to have their own opinion with no consensus. I'll wait for a strategic overview. My gut said that's either another war of opportunity because everyone's busy and the bar for starting a war is so low these days, or another proxy war. 

 

4 hours ago, ArcticGong said:

More conflicts😢. 

Conflict breeds conflict.

Globally more arms are made and spare for trade, more resources are spent on war, people expect it more, leaders are elected with anything from more tolerance to war to seeking it outright. More careers require war, more industries are retooled for it. As more money becomes involved, more interests benefit from war, the media aparatus supports this by swaying the population, more nationalist and imperailists are educated and born, more social groups to reinforce this form, meaning more leaders are elected to support this shift, and institutions are created to support the militarisation etc.

To put it simply, we become what we focus on.

It's why I argued so damned hard at the start of each conflict, but I can't stop the tide, only show it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating enough, these are both Buddhist countries. I thought Buddhism was supposed to be this peaceful religion and only the Abrahamic religions were violent? 


أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن ليو رسول الله

Translation: I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Leo [Gura] is the messenger of Allah.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن ليو رسول الله

Translation: I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Leo [Gura] is the messenger of Allah.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NewKidOnTheBlock Are you American? That's such a funny comment.

"You're too irrelevant to start a conflict, be quiet" 

xD 

I don't know why they're doing it it but I predict many more conflicts like this will pop up in the next decade. Our era is changing and becoming very chaotic. Wait til military robots get thrown into the mix and there's no political backlash from mothers having to burry their sons from these conflict. 


Owner of creatives community all around Canada as well as a business mastermind 

Follow me on Instagram @Kylegfall <3

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Fascinating enough, these are both Buddhist countries. I thought Buddhism was supposed to be this peaceful religion and only the Abrahamic religions were violent? 

It's not about a religion, or any isolated factor like that. We as men are just inherently violent. That's something that simply cannot be unadressed


Blind leading the blind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LordFall said:

@NewKidOnTheBlock Are you American? That's such a funny comment.

"You're too irrelevant to start a conflict, be quiet" 

xD 

I don't know why they're doing it it but I predict many more conflicts like this will pop up in the next decade. Our era is changing and becoming very chaotic. Wait til military robots get thrown into the mix and there's no political backlash from mothers having to burry their sons from these conflict. 

Some major points:

1, The geopolitical reality is in flux. There are two competing central powers. BRICS and NATO. This shifting dynamic is causing conflicts and will forever until people realise that having two competing global powers is destructive or we have a larger war. Proxy wars are rife.

2, Conflict breeds conflict. I've touched on this above so I won't repeat it. Opportunism is rife, weapon stockpiles are high, and tolerance is low.

3, Changing technological reality. Drones are almost equal to tanks and cost a fraction of the cost. This is more significant than people give it credit for. You are right about robots, but don't realise its already started. Smaller armies can do a lot of damage against traditional forces.

4, Unstable Masculinity. In the attempt to reinforce masculinity, the global collective has chosen to express it outwardly, rather than build it on internal order and discipline. This leads to the rise of conflict and fascism or hard right politics - The term 'Heroic masculinity' is a core concept of fascism, an overexaggerated, overcompensated outward expression of it just like you'd see in the most chaotic or destructive kind of feminist. 

*Not to say people can't be a feminist or a masculinist, but there are definitely unhealthy versions of it.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/07/2025 at 0:31 AM, BlueOak said:

Very difficult to get a more neutral, encompassing take at this early stage

Some say a temple was the cause, some say revealed comments, others, instability or a more general border dispute. It’s one where everyone seems to have their own opinion with no consensus. I'll wait for a strategic overview. My gut said that's either another war of opportunity because everyone's busy and the bar for starting a war is so low these days, or another proxy war. 

Wow, enforcers videos are amazingly good at granular analysis - first time seeing them.

All the above - I think it’s temple/land dispute, internal politics and external realpolitik of great power meddling to de-rail China’s BRI / regional development and rise. So it’s not an either or situation but a this and situation.

This guy I follow is a ex Marine living in Thailand and does great geopolitical analysis. I initially thought he overweighted US’s role and that could be his bias (overlooking internal politics / agency) but a older video of his came with some receipts on how the US intervenes in those “internal” politics:

The first 20 min and from 30 minutes onwards is good.

IMG_7589.jpeg

IMG_7590.jpeg
 

The latest video is covering the current flare up with Cambodia:

 

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2025 at 6:29 AM, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Fascinating enough, these are both Buddhist countries. I thought Buddhism was supposed to be this peaceful religion and only the Abrahamic religions were violent? 

That's a common misconception. In this regard, Buddhism isn't much different from any other religion. Take, for example, the Dzungars, who were Buddhists. Those mf's were far from peaceful. They waged fierce wars against the Qing Empire and the Kazakhs, seeking to expand their territory and influence across Central Asia
I don't see how Buddhism would prevent Thais from waging full-scale war against Cambodia. After all, they did it in the past and were relatively successful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRI’s Pan-Asian high speed railway network bypasses the Malacca straight and integrates the region economically. The US want to “contain and encircle” China just like Russia - whether by land or sea. That’s the great game grand strategy at play in the backdrop of granular internal politics that can be endlessly observed, analysed and kept track of.

The China containment pivot began with Obama and has continued through Biden and till Trump - continuity of agenda of Empire / Deep State policy which no “Democratic vote” will or can ever change - that is above the “people’s” pay grade who only ever get to vote for candidates that differ on social-cultural issue's but rarely on national security / foreign policy issues that their own citizens must die for.

Western Empire is trying to strong arm countries to de-couple from China and force them to pick loyalty to either or, in order to prevent China and the regions rise. As a side note - China’s high speed rail scaling to the continent just makes the US look bad: what have they done in their neck of the woods for South America except be a market for drugs that empower a cartel dark state?

China acts as an example of empire that isn't imperial but influential, and that other countries partner with, rather than be predated upon and extracted from. The example of an empire that empires better than the US is itself a threat to an empire acting imperially.

 

IMG_7594.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, zazen said:

 

China acts as an example of empire that isn't imperial but influential, and that other countries partner with, rather than be predated upon and extracted from. .

I mean?

Also the US did build up and integrate countries and stuff (for their own gaib too) after ww2, marshall plan in Europe, Japan, South Korea and even China with building all the factories there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@PurpleTree That example always gets brought up. A key characteristic of imperialism is that it's exploitative, coercive, and has no respect for sovereignty. China offers loans to fund infrastructure at the request of Sri Lanka - they offer much lower interest rates than Western finance, build infrastructure that stays and is used in the country to provide benefit to that country - and without concessions to subvert their sovereignty by installing a military base or demand political alignment. In fact they restructured the deal into a 99 year lease (ie not ownership) as they were struggling to repay due to Western based debt - so it actually helped them out of a prickly situation. One or two bad deals which are bound to happen in business doesn't negate that many countries are doing many projects willingly with China - on terms much less subversive than the West could ever offer.

That's true - US did build countries up post WW2 - they largely built them in exchange for leading the global ''rules based order'' and into their own hegemonic architecture via using the US dollar. That has given them the exorbitant privilege and position which they have weaponized and abused over the decades and has eroded much of the good will and image  the US had in its earlier days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, zazen said:

@PurpleTree 

That's true - US did build countries up post WW2 - they largely built them in exchange for leading the global ''rules based order'' and into their own hegemonic architecture via using the US dollar. That has given them the exorbitant privilege and position which they have weaponized and abused over the decades and has eroded much of the good will and image  the US had in its earlier days.

The same as China is trying to do now no? With the BRI all these ports, infrastructure and so on. Countries will benefit from the construction and so on but then they’re kind of held hostage by the power. Often China even brings their own construction workers to the countries so not even much jobs it creates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@PurpleTree

Their building a different kind of order that doesn't insist on ordering others - BRICS is multi-polar rather than uni-polar, and not coercive or systematically exploitative (yet). Their's no central country demanding ideological obedience or demanding others trade only in their currency (yuan) - countries are all settling trade in their own currencies instead. Countries can opt out or renegotiate terms (as Sri Lanka did), retain their sovereignty and autonomy. It's basically a open house party for anyone to join in on a project by project basis, despite differences (between India and China for example). There's no BRIC-ism and no ones getting sanctioned or couped for not being part of it.

BRI definitely helps China gain leverage - asymmetrical gains aren't the same as imperial subjugation. If that leverage becomes non-consensual, ideological, or enforced by punishment or through the threat of punishment - then it becomes imperialism which is what we need to keep an eye on and resist when that time comes. Just as it was right to resists Soviet Imperialism, Hitler, or Japanese imperialism.

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zazen said:

@PurpleTree

Their building a different kind of order that doesn't insist on ordering others - BRICS is multi-polar rather than uni-polar, and not coercive or systematically exploitative (yet). Their's no central country demanding ideological obedience or demanding others trade only in their currency (yuan) - countries are all settling trade in their own currencies instead. Countries can opt out or renegotiate terms (as Sri Lanka did), retain their sovereignty and autonomy. It's basically a open house party for anyone to join in on a project by project basis, despite differences (between India and China for example). There's no BRIC-ism and no ones getting sanctioned or couped for not being part of it.

BRI definitely helps China gain leverage - asymmetrical gains aren't the same as imperial subjugation. If that leverage becomes non-consensual, ideological, or enforced by punishment or through the threat of punishment - then it becomes imperialism which is what we need to keep an eye on and resist when that time comes. Just as it was right to resists Soviet Imperialism, Hitler, or Japanese imperialism.

At what point would you say China is no good, they overpower others too much? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

At what point would you say China is no good, they overpower others too much? 

Yeah, exactly that. Power by itself isn't bad, its the misuse and abuse of it - which the word overpower captures. Once it starts acting out in ways characteristic of imperialism: using force or the threat of it, coercion, domination and subjugation, denying others sovereignty. Concretely that would be things like: weaponizing the yuan in trade, sanctions, demands that subvert or take away another countries sovereignty such as accepting military bases, engineering coups and regime changes, going to war obviously and trying to secure resource rich regions through feet on the ground or political subservience.

Like say someones the biggest at the dining table - physically the most powerful and dominant. That's not a issue if they got that way farming their own food, bulking and lifting. It's a issue if they're stealing other peoples food at the table, not sharing dishes, gorging and demanding they get to put first. Their not just powerful but overpowering the table. 

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zazen said:

Yeah, exactly that. Power by itself isn't bad, its the misuse and abuse of it - which the word overpower captures. Once it starts acting out in ways characteristic of imperialism: using force or the threat of it, coercion, domination and subjugation, denying others sovereignty. Concretely that would be things like: weaponizing the yuan in trade, sanctions, demands that subvert or take away another countries sovereignty such as accepting military bases, engineering coups and regime changes, going to war obviously and trying to secure resource rich regions through feets on the ground or political subservience.

So they already use their power to go against Uyghurs in Europe. Is that misuse? Ask gpt if you want it laid out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0