Despite U.S. President Donald Trump's public assertion that Thailand and Cambodia had "agreed to cease all shooting," military operations continued along multiple stretches of the border Saturday morning. Cambodia's Defence Ministry reported that Thai forces conducted a naval artillery strike into Koh Kong province beginning around 2:00 a.m., firing 20 shells from a warship, and alleged Thai F-16 sorties dropped seven bombs across multiple targets. Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul stated there was no ceasefire and vowed to continue operations until perceived threats are removed.
The disconnect between Washington's mediation narrative and the military decisions unfolding in Bangkok and Phnom Penh reveals a structural failure in the crisis architecture: the absence of credible third-party monitoring, binding arbitration mechanisms, and synchronized sequencing for de-escalation. As fighting widened and humanitarian displacement surged, the limits of external mediation without enforcement tools became starkly evident.
Divergent positions block truce implementation
Thailand has conditioned any halt to military operations on Cambodia withdrawing forces from disputed border areas and removing landmines. Thai officials characterized Saturday's actions—spanning multiple provinces and military sectors—as necessary retaliation to Cambodian heavy weapons fire. Anutin's explicit rejection of a ceasefire left no ambiguity: Bangkok considers its operations defensive and ongoing until Phnom Penh meets specific withdrawal and demining benchmarks.
Cambodia, meanwhile, has not publicly confirmed any agreement with Trump and instead emphasized its pursuit of peaceful resolution consistent with the October Kuala Lumpur joint declaration framework. Cambodian authorities reported that Thai strikes impacted bridges, buildings, and military positions, citing the naval artillery barrage in Koh Kong and F-16 operations as evidence that escalation continues. The divergence in what "ceasefire" means—immediate cessation versus conditional withdrawal—has created a conditionality mismatch that prevents synchronization.
Trump's claim, posted to social media and referenced in press comments, lacked immediate buy-in from either capital. Neither Anutin nor Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet issued statements confirming an agreement in the hours surrounding Trump's announcement. This gap between mediation messaging and ground-level military decision-making underscores the fragility of facilitative diplomacy when verification and accountability infrastructure is absent.
Humanitarian toll widens across six provinces
At least 11 civilians have been killed and 59 injured, according to the latest consolidated tallies from authorities in both countries. Evacuations have been reported across Cambodia's Koh Kong, Preah Vihear, and Oddar Meanchey provinces, with over 127,000 people displaced on Cambodia's side of the border according to Cambodian authorities, while reports indicate more than half a million people have been displaced overall due to the border clashes. The U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh continues to advise avoiding travel within 50 kilometers of the border, noting limited ability to provide emergency services in affected areas.
The displacement figures reflect the geographical widening of clashes since early December, when fighting expanded beyond the Preah Vihear Temple complex to include the Ta Muen and Khnar temple areas and coastal sectors. Competing claims over civilian harm persist without independent verification capacity, hardening domestic positions on both sides and reducing room for compromise.
Members are reading: Why the lack of neutral monitors and binding arbitration turns every incident into a trust-eroding narrative battle.
What stabilization requires
Immediate deconfliction measures—temporary buffer zones, incident hotlines with investigative authority, and protection protocols for medical facilities, schools, and heritage sites—would reduce the risk of further civilian harm and create space for sequenced de-escalation. Credible third-party verification, whether through ASEAN observers with investigative mandates or an international monitoring mission, is essential to adjudicate competing claims and prevent each incident from hardening positions.
The economic interdependencies that bind Thailand and Cambodia—cross-border trade, migrant labor flows, and integrated supply chains—create strong incentives for de-escalation. Yet those incentives cannot override sovereignty disputes in the absence of institutional mechanisms that make compliance verifiable and defection costly. The longer the verification gap persists, the greater the risk that displacement becomes protracted, trade corridors fragment, and diplomatic costs compound across ASEAN and beyond.
Without synchronized sequencing for withdrawal, mine clearance, and observer deployment, the current disconnect between external mediation narratives and ground-level military decisions is likely to recur. Building credible accountability architecture remains the prerequisite for translating ceasefire claims into durable de-escalation.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
