The 2025 Thailand–Cambodia Conflict — Displacement, Peace, and Strategic Stakes. In this episode, we sit down with U.S. Army combat veteran and infantryman Veesna Roeun to discuss the deeply troubling Thailand–Cambodia border conflict of 2025 from the perspective of concerned outsiders calling for peace and humanitarian awareness.

The conversation opens with an overview of how the conflict, rooted in long-standing territorial disputes and historical grievances, erupted into open hostilities in July 2025 and again later in the year, drawing in heavy artillery exchanges, airstrikes, and significant civilian displacement. Analysts estimate hundreds of thousands of civilians were forced from their homes amid the fighting, with mass evacuations occurring on both sides of the border and severe humanitarian needs emerging in displacement sites and host communities. We reference and unpack the Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) article, “The complex fault lines of the Thai–Cambodian armed conflict,” by Morgan Michaels and Evan A. Laksmana (August 2025). The IISS analysis highlights just how layered the conflict has become: beyond historical territorial claims — including contested areas near iconic temple complexes — there are intersecting geopolitical pressures, domestic political dynamics, and broader Southeast Asian security challenges that have made the dispute difficult to resolve through traditional diplomacy alone.
While the International Court of Justice has ruled Cambodia owns the Preah Vihear temple complex decades ago, ambiguity still surrounds the demarcation of the surrounding land, fueling nationalist sentiments and military postures on both sides.

The scale of displacement — with figures ranging into the hundreds of thousands — has overwhelmed local infrastructure and strained access to clean water, health care, and protection for vulnerable populations, such as children and women.

Who benefits from escalation?
Veasna and Ingrid Centurion explore how various actors may gain strategically from continued tensions:

• Nationalist political blocs within both countries may find rallying support through border narratives that deflect from internal governance issues.
• Military establishments benefit from heightened defense budgets, recruitment, and entrenched authority in national security matters.
• External powers and regional actors — including major states with competing strategic interests in Southeast Asia — may find leverage through diplomatic influence or defense ties when conflict persists. Some observers suggest that proxies in broader US–China strategic competition could be implicated in how each side perceives security incentives.

The discussion also touches on the need for law enforcement and international law adherence, emphasizing that while border disputes should be resolved through legal and diplomatic channels, enforcement of agreed mechanisms (such as cease-fire monitoring, observer missions, and de-escalation protocols) is essential to protect civilians and prevent future flare-ups. Finally, Veasna and Ingrid Centurion reflect on the human cost: displaced families yearning for peace, the importance of calling for humanity above politics, and the urgent need for robust regional conflict-management frameworks that prioritize people over territorial pride or power politics.