Preface

This EdgeTheory report synthesizes geospatial, narrative attribution, and network analysis surrounding the 2025 Thailand-Cambodia border conflict, specifically focusing on pro-Chinese narratives that position Beijing as a stabilizing mediator amid escalating clashes. Drawing from multi-platform collection streams, including websites, social media actors, RSS feeds, and X posts, this brief maps how competing narratives about mutual blame, failed ceasefires, and geopolitical proxy elements propagate across the global information environment. The report uses EdgeTheory’s network-detection and narrative-amplification tools to trace how nationalist and diplomatic actors organize, interact, and reinforce messaging—particularly alarmist pro-Thai claims of Cambodian aggression versus skeptical pro-Cambodian depictions of Thai opportunism—providing a layered view of how information power shapes perceptions of regional instability and the risk of wider US-China rivalry.

Introduction

The Thailand-Cambodia border conflict in 2025 has not only resulted in military engagements but also a parallel "battle of narratives" amplified across digital platforms and media outlets. Originating from historical disputes over territories defined by French colonial maps (1904-1907) and the 1962 International Court of Justice ruling favoring Cambodia, the conflict reignited with a May skirmish and escalated into full clashes by July, involving rockets, drones, and airstrikes. By December, fighting had caused at least 80 deaths and widespread displacement, with ceasefires brokered by Malaysia (ASEAN chair) and supported by the US and China repeatedly collapsing. Amplified narratives reveal a mix of nationalist blame-shifting, geopolitical maneuvering, and opportunistic propaganda. Key vectors include social media (e.g., X posts), news agencies (Reuters, BBC, Global Times), and diplomatic statements. Tactics employed by actors—state-aligned media, influencers, and governments—include selective framing, misinformation (e.g., drone violations), and appeals to international sympathy to legitimize positions. Pro-Chinese narratives dominate amplification, positioning Beijing as a peacemaker while subtly undermining Western (US) efforts, aligning with broader Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) interests in regional stability. Russian-aligned sources follow, often echoing anti-Western sentiments. Competing narratives support Thailand (US ally) by emphasizing Cambodian aggression, while pro-Cambodian ones highlight Thai invasions, with pro-Chinese overlays portraying China as the constructive mediator.

Key Findings

1. Narrative Amplification Fuels Escalation Through Selective Framing and Deception 

Media coverage focuses on blaming the opposing side for drone activity and airstrikes, with many claims originating from New Delhi–based Indian outlets aimed at Thai audiences and spreading through 16 identified sources and eight destinations tracked by EdgeTheory. Chinese state media such as Global Times and Xinhua highlight China’s role as a neutral mediator hosting talks and delivering aid, while downplaying its strategic interests. Russian-aligned outlets frame the conflict as a Western-backed proxy struggle. Across platforms, emphasis on competing accusations—such as Thailand’s claims of over 250 Cambodian drone incursions and Cambodia’s allegations of Thai chemical weapon use—along with viral footage on X and selective use of historical disputes, creates confusion, fuels mistrust, and prolongs tensions despite mediation efforts by ASEAN, the United States, and China.

2. Competing Narratives Exploit Nationalist and Geopolitical Vulnerabilities to Polarize Audiences

Pro-Thai narratives frame Cambodia as the aggressor with provocations like rocket attacks and landmines, justifying superior military responses (F-16s, Western arms) as defensive amid domestic crises like PM ousting, amplified by influencers like @BK0N24 calling for boycotts and emphasizing scam hubs. In contrast, pro-Cambodian accounts depict Thailand as the opportunistic invader exploiting internal fractures for nationalist distraction, per ISEAS reports, with actors like @chaktomukINS and @pheaktra_neth highlighting cultural destruction and unilateral force. Emotion profiles reveal exploitation of anger (up to 95%) and fear (up to 90%) to rally support, with high-engagement X posts fostering outrage over failed Trump mediations while portraying Cambodia as the historical victim, effectively polarizing global views and complicating attribution in a fractured information environment.

3. Pro-Chinese Narratives Dominate to Obscure Attribution and Advance Strategic Interests

Chinese-aligned sources identified by EdgeTheory as the primary amplifiers use deceptive framing to mask Chinese arms transfers, security assistance, and economic leverage in the region, while rejecting any proxy role. At the same time, these narratives exaggerate U.S. “opportunism” and portray Western mediation as ineffective, allowing Beijing to present itself as the only credible broker under the Global Security Initiative. Messaging from accounts such as @BeijingDai frames Chinese netizen support for Thailand as a rational response to Cambodia’s perceived alignment with Washington, cross-border telecom fraud, and alleged betrayals by the Hun family, selectively mixing verified incidents with unproven claims. This framing serves specific strategic interests: preserving Chinese influence over both parties, insulating Belt and Road infrastructure and trade corridors from scrutiny, limiting U.S. diplomatic and security access, and normalizing China’s role as the default regional security manager. By generating ambiguity and competing explanations, these state-backed narratives delay coordinated responses, deflect attention from Chinese economic exposure, and reinforce Beijing’s image as a stabilizing power even as escalation risks grow.

Narrative Infographics: GEOINT & Data Analytics

Geospatial Narrative sources (yellow) and targets (red)

The narrative initially emerged from New Delhi, headed for Bangkok. As it spread, the most frequent point of origin remained New Delhi, with Bangkok remaining the primary destination. There are a total of 16 points of origin, and 8 destinations. EdgeTheory’s Narrative Intelligence platform tracked narratives stemming from websites, social media actors, and RSS feeds. 

Sources include Indian media such as India Today, Times of India, and the Hindu, International Amplifiers such as BBC and Reuters, and Chinese Stata Media including Global Times, Xinhua, and CGTN.

The most frequently amplified content centers on renewed and escalating border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia, marked by failed ceasefires, military exchanges including airstrikes, and significant casualties and displacement. Both sides consistently blame each other for violations, fueling tension rooted in historical disputes. Diplomatic mediation efforts involving the US, ASEAN, Malaysia, and China are highlighted, though ceasefire attempts have repeatedly broken down. Concerns over regional stability and the potential for wider conflict underlie the narratives, with emphasis on the urgent need for dialogue and cooperation to restore peace and allow displaced civilians to return home.

EdgeTheory Global Cognitive Adversaries (GCA) Narrative Classifier

The primary sources amplifying this narrative are predominantly Chinese-aligned, closely followed by Russian-alignment. Amplified narratives reveal a mix of nationalist blame-shifting, geopolitical maneuvering, and opportunistic propaganda. Key vectors spreading narratives include Chinese state media (Global Times, China Daily, Xinhua) and diplomatic channels (FM Wang Yi, spokesperson Lin Jian), which dominate pro-Chinese messaging by framing Beijing as an impartial, constructive mediator under the Global Security Initiative—hosting trilateral talks in Yunnan, offering ceasefire monitoring, humanitarian aid, and demining while emphasizing dialogue over force and contrasting China's "pragmatic" approach with perceived US opportunism (e.g., Trump's failed truces).

Foreign media coverage and geopolitical influencers amplify competing narratives that implicitly justify support for either Thailand or Cambodia. International outlets such as Reuters, Bloomberg, AP, and Times of India frequently foreground Thai official statements accusing Cambodia of ceasefire violations, drone incursions, and cross-border shelling, reinforcing a Thailand-leaning narrative that frames Bangkok as acting defensively and with superior, Western-aligned military capabilities, while U.S. aid packages and long-standing U.S.–Thailand security ties are portrayed as stabilizing forces. In contrast, outlets such as Al Jazeera and The Guardian prominently relay Cambodian claims of Thai invasions, bombardment during peace talks, and cultural destruction, amplifying Phnom Penh’s framing of victimhood and legal entitlement. Beyond mainstream coverage, Russian diplomatic messaging and aligned commentary emphasize restraint, ASEAN-led dialogue, and denials of proxy involvement, framing Cambodia’s reliance on non-Western partners as legitimate resistance to Western encroachment. Chinese and Eurasian analytical sources—including EastAsiaForum, SpecialEurasia, and Carnegie—situate the conflict within broader regional stability concerns, highlighting China’s mediation role while underscoring risks to Belt and Road infrastructure and trade corridors. Together, these foreign sources do not merely report events but shape justification narratives: Western-aligned coverage tends to normalize Thailand’s defensive posture, while Chinese- and Russian-influenced narratives contextualize Cambodian grievances and elevate non-Western diplomatic alternatives, embedding the local dispute within wider great-power competition.

Russian-aligned outlets amplify anti-Western angles, speculating on proxy elements disrupting BRI projects. Social media influencers and monitors (@WW3_Monitor, war accounts) spread real-time footage of strikes and raids, often highlighting military mismatches (Thai F-16s vs. Cambodian Chinese arms). Thai government sources (@MFAThai) push sovereignty and self-defense claims, accusing Cambodia of drone violations and landmine use. Cambodian advocates (@jacobincambodia) portray Thailand as the aggressor invading historical territory. Tactics include blame-shifting (mutual accusations of initiating fire, toxic gas, or civilian targeting), selective evidence (viral videos of damaged temples like Preah Vihear or destroyed statues to rally nationalism), misinformation (unverified claims of chemical weapons or proxy wars), diplomatic framing (China's soft-power humanitarian offers vs. Thailand's bilateral insistence), historical exploitation (colonial maps and ICJ rulings), and narrative adaptation (Thailand shifting from temples to scam hubs/landmines). Competing narratives frame the conflict in opposing ways. Pro-Thailand messaging emphasizes self-defense against Cambodian encroachments and provocations, such as anthem-singing at disputed sites, and highlights Thailand’s possession of superior, Western-aligned military capabilities. In contrast, pro-Cambodia narratives portray Thailand as the aggressor, focusing on alleged territorial invasions and cultural destruction while drawing on Chinese and Russian support to reinforce claims of victimhood and legal entitlement. Pro-Chinese narratives predominantly amplify Beijing's stabilizing role, subtly undermining US efforts to position China as the reliable regional peacemaker amid BRI stakes.

Across the summaries in the EdgeTheory GCA Narrative Classifier, source reliability and factual fidelity generally range from moderate to high, predominantly scoring between 6 and 8, reflecting grounded reporting from established outlets. Incitement levels remain consistently low across most items (1-3), suggesting minimal intent to provoke hostility, with only isolated cases reaching a moderate 3. The highest-scoring items for reliability and fidelity (7-8) come from state-aligned Chinese media such as Xinhua News Agency and China Xinhua News, which report specific diplomatic developments—like the Thailand-Cambodia ceasefire agreements signed at border checkpoints and confirmed by both nations' defense ministers—with direct attribution to official statements and timelines, lending them strong credibility despite inherent bias. Similarly, Times Now earns solid marks (6-7) for aligning closely with verifiable events surrounding the joint ceasefire announcement. In contrast, lower-scoring entries, such as the Firstpost live update (reliability 5, fidelity 6) and The Star Online report (both at 6), show slightly reduced reliability due to broader interpretive framing of escalating clashes and mutual blame, while still maintaining reasonable factual accuracy. Overall, the amplified narratives lean toward credible, event-based reporting focused on diplomatic progress and ceasefire efforts, with low incitement and only modest variations driven by outlet perspective rather than inflammatory or unsubstantiated claims.

Edge Theory NARINT sources tracing primary sources

Gemini table of competing Twitter network narratives on the Thailand-Cambodia Border Conflict

The largest network in the table is the "Sustainable Peace Architects" cluster, comprising 22 users and representing a pro-Chinese narrative that champions subtle, regionally led diplomacy—such as China's Yunnan-hosted trilateral meetings—as superior to Western interventions, positioning China as a stabilizer fostering genuine trust and organic resolutions to border issues. Its impact is significant due to its size and high betweenness centrality scores among leaders like the official @MFA_China account, enabling efficient narrative amplification across state media and regional outlets; this could sway public opinion toward viewing China as a constructive peacemaker in Southeast Asia, potentially marginalizing U.S. critiques, boosting China's soft power in ASEAN discussions, and influencing real-time perceptions of the conflict by framing failures like the Kuala Lumpur Accords as evidence of external coercion, thereby reinforcing anti-Western sentiments in online discourse as of late 2025.

Edge Theory Emotion Profile Classifier

Across the emotion profiles in the Trending and Western Sentiment dashboard for the Thailand-Cambodia border conflict on December 27-28, 2025, sentiments overwhelmingly emphasize negative emotions like anger (ranging from 9% to 95%) and fear (2% to 90%), with minimal joy (0-1%), sadness (1-12%), or surprise, creating a charged atmosphere that exploits outrage and anxiety to fuel narratives. These profiles reveal how anger is leveraged to justify the warring parties' actions: for Thailand, high anger in headlines such as "Bangkok and Phnom Penh Trade accusations over border attacks" (anger 95%) and "Thailand vs Cambodia LIVE: Thai-Cambodia Border Clashes Erupt Again; Ceasefire Breaks" (anger 46%, fear 52%) underscores mutual blame to rationalize airstrikes and raids as defensive responses to alleged Cambodian provocations like drone incursions. For Cambodia, fear-dominated entries like "Thailand-Cambodia Tensions: Did Trump Mediation FAIL? Thailand Strikes Cambodia Again!" (fear 90%, anger 9%) and "Renewed tension sees uptick in border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia" (anger 81%, fear 4%, sadness 12%) portray Thai aggression as existential threats, justifying calls for international aid and portraying Cambodia as the victim defending historical territories. External supporters exploit these sentiments strategically: US involvement under Trump is critiqued through anger and sadness in "Trump Brokered Thailand-Cambodia Ceasefire Fails: How That Plays Out" (anger 81%, sadness 1%) to highlight mediation collapses, indirectly bolstering pro-Chinese narratives that exploit fear of escalation to position Beijing as a stabilizing mediator via humanitarian aid and Global Security Initiative talks; overall, the profiles show a pattern of amplifying anger for nationalist justification and fear for urgency, with low incitement in neutral tones but clear bias toward undermining Western efforts amid geopolitical rivalries.

Thailand-Cambodia Border Conflict 

Competing narratives sharply divide along nationalist lines, with pro-Thai accounts portraying Cambodia as the initial aggressor through rocket attacks, mine-laying, and drone incursions, justifying Thailand's superior military responses—such as airstrikes and raids—as defensive measures against a weaker but provocative neighbor, often amplified by influencers emphasizing sovereignty and scam hub threats to rally domestic support amid internal political unrest like the ousting of PM Paetongtarn Shinawatra. Conversely, pro-Cambodian narratives frame Thailand as the opportunistic invader exploiting colonial-era disputes over territories like Preah Vihear to divert attention from its own crises, accusing Bangkok of unilateral aggression, cultural destruction (e.g., statue demolitions), and hosting the true regional scam ecosystem, while positioning Phnom Penh as the victim seeking justice through legal channels and international mediation. Pro-Chinese overlays dominate the discourse, particularly in social media from Beijing-aligned users, who support Thailand as a proxy punishing Cambodia's pivot toward the US, telecom fraud victimization of Chinese citizens, and betrayal of alliances under Hun Sen's family, thereby amplifying Beijing's image as a stabilizing force via humanitarian aid and the Global Security Initiative, subtly undermining US efforts like Trump's failed ceasefires and revealing geopolitical maneuvering to safeguard BRI interests amid mutual blame and escalating casualties.

There are several implications: 

• Escalation of Thailand-Cambodia border clashes and external mediation efforts: The intensifying conflict and China's active mediation highlight geopolitical competition that can be exploited through narrative manipulation, affecting neighboring countries’ political climates, including influencing election narratives in the region.
• Use of disinformation and blame-shifting by both sides: Mutual accusations of ceasefire violations and civilian targeting serve as fodder for synthetic social media posts and overt fake news campaigns, demonstrating tactics that can similarly be employed to interfere subtly in Moldovan elections by fostering division and mistrust.
• International responses and calls for peace amid ongoing violence: U.S. and ASEAN diplomatic engagement underscores the role of major powers in shaping narratives. Monitoring their messaging and potential amplification via AI-driven synthetic content is vital, as it may be mirrored or adapted to influence voter perceptions in Moldova’s election context.

EdgeTheory connections entity-graph

The EdgeTheory entity-graph centers on the Defense Ministers of Thailand and Cambodia as the main hub, showing how one diplomatic event links to a network of first-degree connections (31 of 470 nodes displayed). For Thailand, the top node "Defense Ministers of Thailand" (56 connections) ties to narratives of self-defense against Cambodian incursions, connecting to US-aligned themes of failed Trump mediation and sovereignty protection. For Cambodia, key nodes like "Chinese foreign minister to meet with Cambodian..." (17 connections) and "China will continue efforts to rebuild peace..." (15) highlight dependence on Chinese diplomacy, framing Cambodia as the victim of Thai aggression in historical disputes. Chinese nodes dominate overall, including "China's normal defense cooperation with Thailand..." (14), bridging both sides to promote Beijing's mediation, aid, and Global Security Initiative. This reveals China's central role in amplifying its image as the key peacemaker while countering US influence in the conflict.

The X post from @BK0N24 advances a strongly pro-Thailand narrative that flips the victim-aggressor dynamic in the border conflict. It accuses Cambodia of initiating violence by firing rockets that killed innocent Thai civilians and laying landmines, while portraying Cambodia as hypocritically playing the victim despite these alleged first strikes. The post emphasizes Thailand's superior military strength not as a tool for aggression but as a justified deterrent against Cambodian provocations. It pairs this claim with embedded content calling for international boycotts of Thai products and tourism to pressure Thailand, framing such actions as selfish and heartless given Cambodia's supposed role as the initial aggressor. Overall, the narrative seeks to delegitimize pro-Cambodian sympathy, rally nationalist support for Thailand's military response, and reject mutual-blame accounts by insisting Cambodia bears primary responsibility for the escalation.

The X post from @chaktomukINS advances a pro-Cambodia narrative that directly counters Thai claims of Cambodian aggression. It accuses Thailand of unilateral force to seize disputed border areas and links the conflict to Thailand's domestic political crisis, alleging that the Thai monarchy and military elite use the war to rescue their faltering popularity amid internal unrest. The post flips common Thai justifications—such as clearing scam centers—by asserting that Thailand itself hosts the regional scam ecosystem, per ISEAS reports, and is now exploiting the border issue as a pretext for invasion. It mocks pro-Thai arguments as projection of domestic failures onto Cambodia, urging critics not to "confuse the world" with narratives portraying Thailand as the victim. Paired with a viral video clip demanding an end to the conflict, the overall message reframes Thailand as the true aggressor and regional scam hub, while positioning Cambodia as the unjustly targeted party fighting for justice and peace.

The X post from @BeijingDai promotes a pro-Thailand and explicitly pro-Chinese nationalist narrative that explains why many Chinese netizens support Thailand in the border conflict. While not a "mass-market" influencer with millions of followers, the account functions as a bridge between domestic Chinese sentiment (from Weibo/Douyin) and the English-speaking world. The post you shared, garnering over 90k views and hundreds of interactions, suggests it has high "viral" potential among nationalist circles. The account frequently acts as a "translator" for the most aggressive viewpoints on Chinese platforms like Weibo. It argues that Thailand's military actions against Cambodia are justified as retribution for three key grievances: first, the conflict originated from a leaked phone call scandal involving former Cambodian PM Hun Sen that humiliated a female Chinese politician; second, Cambodia has hosted numerous telecom fraud operations that heavily victimized Chinese citizens; and third, while Cambodia was once a close Chinese ally under Hun Sen, his sons have shifted the country toward the United States, betraying Beijing's interests. Accompanied by a family tree graphic of the Hun family to emphasize the generational pivot away from China, the post frames the war as a morally legitimate response to Cambodia's anti-China behavior, scam hub role, and alignment with Washington. Overall, it reflects and amplifies a sentiment among some Chinese online communities that Thailand is effectively punishing Cambodia on China's behalf, thereby garnering widespread domestic support for Bangkok in the clash.

X post with a pro-Cambodia narrative

The X post from @pheaktra_neth shares a pro-Cambodia narrative by promoting an interview with Raoul Jennar, a French scholar and advisor to the Cambodian government. The post frames the border conflict as a deliberate Thai strategy driven by internal political and military crises, asserting that Thailand's elite uses aggression against Cambodia as a pretext to divert public attention from deep societal fractures, rally nationalist sentiment, and rebuild unity through external confrontation. It accuses Thailand of historically shifting domestic tensions onto the border to inflame anger and mobilize support, while dismissing Thai claims of self-defense as politically motivated fabrications. Hashtags like #TruthFromCambodia, #JusticeForCambodia, #Thailandfirefirst, and #Thailandlying reinforces the message that Thailand is the instigator and liar, positioning Cambodia as the victim of opportunistic militarism rather than mutual dispute. Overall, the narrative undermines Thailand's justifications by linking its actions to domestic weakness and a pattern of nationalist distraction.

Conclusion

The 2025 Thailand-Cambodia border conflict underscores the role of amplified narratives in shaping geopolitical realities, where digital platforms transform historical grievances into modern proxy battles, with pro-Chinese voices emerging as dominant amplifiers of stability amid BRI vulnerabilities. As ceasefires remain precarious and casualties mount, the analysis reveals a critical need for transparent multilateral dialogue—beyond blame-shifting and misinformation—to address root causes like colonial borders and economic disparities. Ultimately, without genuine cooperation from ASEAN, the US, and China, such conflicts risk wider regional escalation, emphasizing that narrative intelligence tools like EdgeTheory are essential for dissecting influence operations and fostering informed peacemaking in an interconnected world.

Lead Analyst:

Ellie Munshi is an analyst at the EdgeTheory Lab. She is studying Strategic Intelligence in National Security and Economics at Patrick Henry College. She has led special projects for the college focused on Anti-Human Trafficking, Chinese influence in Africa, AI influence on policymakers, and is also an intelligence analyst intern at the Department of War.