10 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

No chance that's there's no chance that the Chinese will not. The world is pear shaped at the moment. What a great way to have the Thai's kiss your feet by backing Cambodia.

The Chinese being Chinese, they very well may back both, selling military hardware to both, and making money. What do they care????

That’s not how regional politics actually works.

China isn’t playing some cartoon villain game of backing Cambodia to humiliate Thailand. Thailand matters far more to

Thailand will be economically, strategically, and diplomatically more powerful than Cambodia ever will be. Undermining Bangkok to score points via Phnom Penh would be self-sabotage.

China is really quite annoyed with Cambodia regarding the open abuse of Chinese citizens via the scam centres and Cambodia's refusal to use effective means of detaining the masterminds behind them.

China’s real approach is hedging its bets here, not picking sides.

Keep everyone talking, keep trade flowing, keep leverage spread out. Stability beats drama. Always has been.

Anyway, that's the way I see it, and I'll leave it at that. I'm off to the Gym.

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

That’s not how regional politics actually works.

Really?

It works that way in The Middle East. Backing the Sunni against the Shia, and vice versa, when it suits.

You have no idea.

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

China isn’t playing some cartoon villain game of backing Cambodia to humiliate Thailand.

Show me where I said that?

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Thailand will be economically, strategically, and diplomatically more powerful than Cambodia ever will be.

Once again, it depends who backs who with military hardware.

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

China is really quite annoyed with Cambodia regarding the open abuse of Chinese citizens via the scam centres and Cambodia's refusal to use effective means of detaining the masterminds behind them.

Oh, they are annoyed, are they. 😂

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

China’s real approach is hedging its bets here, not picking sides.

And how do you do that? You back both sides, with both sides knowing that at any time they can back one side more than the other.

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Keep everyone talking, keep trade flowing, keep leverage spread out. Stability beats drama. Always has been.

Not when you are empire building, and that's what China is doing.

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Anyway, that's the way I see it

You are entitled to see it your own way, I just find you view on it quite narrow,

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

China’s primary objective in the region is stability, access, and influence, not symbolic dominance over individual states.

Thailand is a far more economically, militarily, and diplomatically valuable partner than Cambodia.

Undermining Thailand to gain leverage via Cambodia would be counterproductive to China’s long-term regional interests.

You don't get it, do you.

China will undermine both, to gain leverage with both. They want to be the puppet masters. Thailand and Cambodia know at any time China controls the destiny of any conflict, thus, they own them.

Wake up.

It's not a fair world out there.

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Russia has plenty more on its mind than Cambodia at the moment.

Russia has plenty more room left in it's mind for more global influence.

They sent fighter jets to Myanmar.

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Nothing wrong at all in my statement, repeated below:-

And let’s be honest, this isn’t about a few temples or a sliver of land. It’s about the broader rot undermining the region, a black economy built on scam centres that Hun Sen’s regime permits, protects, and profits from.

That's simply rubbish because a lot of corrupt Thai's profit from the same, and you know it.

13 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

The idea that China would strategically “back Cambodia to make Thailand submit” misunderstands Chinese foreign policy behaviour in Southeast Asia.

The claim that China would back both sides purely to sell weapons isn't reality.

Arms sales are part of foreign policy, but they are not the driver.

China would not destabilise the region and threaten trade routes, supply chains, and Belt and Road investments for short-term profits.

It's not about short term profits.

It's about forcing a country / region to chose a side. America, or China. Chose China, we'll look after you. Chose America, we'll drum up a skirmish that will cripple your economy, especially easy as tourism is around 21% of Thailand's GDP, and all it take is a "Do Not Travel" warning for no travel insurance and BOOM, it's Covid like conditions for Thailand's tourism industry.

They can control the conflict at any time. Geez, they can even do false flag operations.

You have no idea.

9 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's not about short term profits.

It's about forcing a country / region to chose a side. America, or China. Chose China, we'll look after you. Chose America, we'll drum up a skirmish that will cripple your economy, especially easy as tourism is around 21% of Thailand's GDP, and all it take is a "Do Not Travel" warning for no travel insurance and BOOM, it's Covid like conditions for Thailand's tourism industry.

They can control the conflict at any time. Geez, they can even do false flag operations.

You have no idea.

So,

Everyone has' no idea except YOU '

10 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

That's simply rubbish because a lot of corrupt Thai's profit from the same, and you know it.

You making such a statement doesn't detract from the facts.

10 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Russia has plenty more room left in it's mind for more global influence.

They sent fighter jets to Myanmar.

Russia's desire for “more global influence” doesn’t mean it has unlimited resources.

It’s already heavily committed in Ukraine, politically, militarily and economically. That’s not a side project, that’s the main event.

Selling fighter jets to Myanmar isn’t proof of strategic expansion into every regional dispute. Russia has long sold arms to whoever will buy them. That’s revenue and leverage, not a pledge to jump into a Thai–Cambodian spat.

Arms sales are a business. Direct involvement is something else entirely. Conflating the two doesn’t make the argument stronger; it just makes it louder.

@KhunHeineken

You’re giving China far more control than it actually has.

Thailand isn’t some junior partner waiting for instructions. It has long-standing military ties with the US, regional relationships through ASEAN, and its own economic weight.

Cambodia may lean heavily toward Beijing, especially on projects like the Ream Naval Base, but even Phnom Penh has its limits.

No country hands over its sovereignty wholesale just because it buys kit or takes infrastructure money.

Selling arms or backing both sides is not some masterstroke of puppet mastery either. It creates instability right on China’s doorstep, which is the last thing Beijing wants.

Their priority is influence and trade stability, not a live conflict spiralling in Southeast Asia

Local politicians still make local decisions. Nationalism, domestic politics, and regional diplomacy drive these disputes more than some invisible hand in Beijing pulling strings.

The world isn’t fair, agreed. But it’s also not a chessboard run by one player.

Why is it that everyone on this board doesn't ' get it ' unless they are in agreement with your lop-sided view on life, especially regarding China?

10 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's not about short term profits.

It's about forcing a country / region to chose a side. America, or China. Chose China, we'll look after you. Chose America, we'll drum up a skirmish that will cripple your economy, especially easy as tourism is around 21% of Thailand's GDP, and all it take is a "Do Not Travel" warning for no travel insurance and BOOM, it's Covid like conditions for Thailand's tourism industry.

They can control the conflict at any time. Geez, they can even do false flag operations.

You have no idea.

You’re stacking hypotheticals and calling it strategy.

If China deliberately sparked conflict to punish Thailand for choosing the “wrong” side, it would be detonating its own trade routes, supply chains and regional investments. Southeast Asia isn’t a chessboard square to burn for leverage. It’s central to China’s economy.

Travel warnings aren’t issued by Beijing on behalf of the West. The US, UK, Australia and others make their own calls. China cannot press a red button and switch off Thailand’s tourism industry. That’s not how the system works.

And false flag operations as a routine tool of economic coercion between major regional players? That’s the stuff of spy novels, not standard statecraft between countries that are economically intertwined.

Competition between America and China is real. But the idea that Thailand’s destiny can be remotely controlled at will is a stretch too far.

That’s my view.

Off to the Gym.

I'm not entering into this anymore; you have your view, and I have a different one, and not enough time to sit here all day arguing about something that neither you nor I have any certainty about.

12 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

You’re stacking hypotheticals and calling it strategy.

No, you are calling strategy, hypotheticals.

It's simply a game of chess for the big playing countries. Forget morality and ethics. They don't exist in this high stakes "game."

12 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

If China deliberately sparked conflict to punish Thailand for choosing the “wrong” side, it would be detonating its own trade routes, supply chains and regional investments. Southeast Asia isn’t a chessboard square to burn for leverage. It’s central to China’s economy.

Once again, you miss the point. China would not be sen to be doing it, a third party would be, albeit, most likely Chinese intelligence agencies through a proxy.

12 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Travel warnings aren’t issued by Beijing on behalf of the West. The US, UK, Australia and others make their own calls. China cannot press a red button and switch off Thailand’s tourism industry. That’s not how the system works.

What a ridiculous comment.

https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/asia/thailand?gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23230144998&gclid=EAIaIQobChMImPPVg9PWkgMVl6lmAh03BjzGEAAYASAAEgKdVvD_BwE

I started a thread in the insurance forum on the above travel warning because I would like to go to the MotoGP in Buriram.

"We continue to advise do not travel to areas within 50 kilometres of the Thailand-Cambodia land border in the provinces of Sa Kaeo, Buriram, Si Saket, Surin, Ubon Ratchathani, Chanthaburi and mainland Trat. This is due to ongoing armed clashes between Thai and Cambodian forces, which has included military strikes, violence and the presence of landmines. The security situation along the Thailand-Cambodia border remains unpredictable. Follow the advice of local authorities, monitor local media for updates and pay close attention to your personal security (see 'Safety')."

Say a few missiles a lobbed into tourists areas. No, the same travel warning from the Australian government state "Do Not Travel to Thailand." There go ALL your Aussie tourists to Thailand because no travel insurance.

That's how easy the conflict can be manipulated when tourism is 21% of Thailand's GDP.

Wake Up.

12 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

And false flag operations as a routine tool of economic coercion between major regional players? That’s the stuff of spy novels, not standard statecraft between countries that are economically intertwined.

Yeah, of course they are.

It was the Burmese. The Burmese did it. 🤣

12 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Competition between America and China is real. But the idea that Thailand’s destiny can be remotely controlled at will is a stretch too far.

Thailand's destiny was controlled during the Vietnam War, was it not? Thailand enriched themselves from that war. They are still using airports built during that war.

What another narrow minded comment.

12 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

I'm not entering into this anymore; you have your view, and I have a different one, and not enough time to sit here all day arguing about something that neither you nor I have any certainty about.

Your view is based on opinion, not historical facts. You are entitled to your opinion, or view, but you are not entitled to you own facts.

11 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

No, you are calling strategy, hypotheticals.

It's simply a game of chess for the big playing countries. Forget morality and ethics. They don't exist in this high stakes "game."

Once again, you miss the point. China would not be sen to be doing it, a third party would be, albeit, most likely Chinese intelligence agencies through a proxy.

What a ridiculous comment.

https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/asia/thailand?gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23230144998&gclid=EAIaIQobChMImPPVg9PWkgMVl6lmAh03BjzGEAAYASAAEgKdVvD_BwE

I started a thread in the insurance forum on the above travel warning because I would like to go to the MotoGP in Buriram.

"We continue to advise do not travel to areas within 50 kilometres of the Thailand-Cambodia land border in the provinces of Sa Kaeo, Buriram, Si Saket, Surin, Ubon Ratchathani, Chanthaburi and mainland Trat. This is due to ongoing armed clashes between Thai and Cambodian forces, which has included military strikes, violence and the presence of landmines. The security situation along the Thailand-Cambodia border remains unpredictable. Follow the advice of local authorities, monitor local media for updates and pay close attention to your personal security (see 'Safety')."

Say a few missiles a lobbed into tourists areas. No, the same travel warning from the Australian government state "Do Not Travel to Thailand." There go ALL your Aussie tourists to Thailand because no travel insurance.

That's how easy the conflict can be manipulated when tourism is 21% of Thailand's GDP.

Wake Up.

Yeah, of course they are.

It was the Burmese. The Burmese did it. 🤣

Thailand's destiny was controlled during the Vietnam War, was it not? Thailand enriched themselves from that war. They are still using airports built during that war.

What another narrow minded comment.

Your view is based on opinion, not historical facts. You are entitled to your opinion, or view, but you are not entitled to you own facts.

There’s a difference between influence and control.

Thailand aligned with the US during the Vietnam War. That’s not the same as being controlled.

And unless there’s direct evidence that China is directing Thai–Cambodian tensions, it remains an assumption, not a historical fact.

I have told you for the last time to stop trying to state your opinions as facts; it doesn't wash with me. You then up the rhetoric, trying to imply, I don't get it, as though, WITH A STATEMENT LIKE THAT, yours is the only opinion on here, when it isn't. It is simply your view, not a fact.

You jump from one conflict to another in a desperate attempt to make your accusations hold credibility.

Hosting US bases during the Vietnam War does not equal foreign control of Thailand’s destiny. It reflects Cold War alliance choices.

The Thailand–Cambodia border dispute has roots in colonial-era mapping and sites such as the Preah Vihear Temple. That history exists independently of China’s current regional relationships.

Claiming China is “behind” the conflict requires evidence of coordination or direction, not just geopolitical suspicion.

Saying China is acting through proxies requires evidence of coordination or material support, not just suspicion.

If there’s credible evidence of proxy activity, I’m open to looking at it. Otherwise, it’s an assumption, not a documented fact.

12 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

The Thailand–Cambodia border dispute has roots in colonial-era mapping and sites such as the Preah Vihear Temple.

The international court passed judgement that the temple is in Cambodia. Do you agree, or disagree with this historic FACT?

If you agree, why is Thailand causing conflict over its ownership?

12 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

If there’s credible evidence of proxy activity, I’m open to looking at it.

China use Korea to stir the pot sometimes.

I merely suggested that China can back a side, or back both sides.

America have been doing similar for decades.

Look at Russia and the Cuban missile crisis.

It's a global game of chess for power and influence.

12 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

The international court passed judgement that the temple is in Cambodia. Do you agree, or disagree with this historic FACT?

If you agree, why is Thailand causing conflict over its ownership?

China use Korea to stir the pot sometimes.

I merely suggested that China can back a side, or back both sides.

America have been doing similar for decades.

Look at Russia and the Cuban missile crisis.

It's a global game of chess for power and influence.

This is from Google.

While all 193 UN member states are parties to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute

, approximately 118 nations have not accepted its compulsory jurisdiction (as of June 2025). Major nations that do not accept this jurisdiction or have withdrawn from it include China, Russia, the U.S., India, Israel, and several others. 

• Compulsory Jurisdiction: Only about 74 nations have filed declarations accepting the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the Statute.

• Key Absences: Many countries, especially across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, have never formally accepted the court's compulsory jurisdiction.

• Withdrawals/Refusals: The United States withdrew in 1986, while others, like Thailand, have not accepted it since 1960. 

It is important to distinguish the ICJ (World Court) from the International Criminal Court (ICC), as the latter has different membership, including the notable absence of countries like China, India, Russia, and the U.S.. 

On 2/15/2026 at 4:18 AM, Scouse123 said:

This is from Google.

So, it must be correct, right? 😂

Let's say they stopped fighting and it went back to Court again, for the third time. What is Thailand hoping for? It's been deemed to be in Cambodia, twice.

If they want it, invade, conquer, and occupy, or accept it's in Cambodia and therefore not Thailand's to exploit as a tourist attraction.

What's next? Thailand say Angkor Wat is there's as well?

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

So, it must be correct, right? 😂

Let's say they stopped fighting and it went back to Court again, for the third time. What is Thailand hoping for? It's been deemed to be in Cambodia, twice.

If they want it, invade, conquer, and occupy, or accept it's in Cambodia and therefore not Thailand's to exploit as a tourist attraction.

What's next? Thailand say Angkor Wat is there's as well?

“From Google, so it must be correct” is not the legal standard used by the International Court of Justice.

The Court ruled that the Preah Vihear Temple itself is in Cambodia, which Thailand accepted. The dispute has always been about the surrounding border land and map interpretation, not suddenly pretending Cambodia doesn’t exist.

And no, nobody is claiming Angkor Wat.

In 2013, the Court clarified that Cambodia has sovereignty over the temple and its immediate area, but it did not magically erase every border ambiguity in the wider area.

Borders drawn from early 1900s colonial maps are messy. They’re more “sketch on a napkin” than a laser-measured survey.

18 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

“From Google, so it must be correct” is not the legal standard used by the International Court of Justice.

You presented it, not me.

19 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

The Court ruled that the Preah Vihear Temple itself is in Cambodia

Yes, they did.

19 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

which Thailand accepted

It appears they have never accepted it, hence, long ongoing conflict.

19 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

The dispute has always been about the surrounding border land

Thailand basically want "the car park" to the temple, to make money.

No end to Thai greed.

This was the second time. The Court ruled the land around the temple is in Cambodia.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/11/455062#:~:text=In%20a%20June%201962%20judgment,its%20vicinity%20on%20Cambodian%20territory.

Now here they are again fight, and for what? Twice to Court, twice lost. If they want it that bad, invade.

24 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

And no, nobody is claiming Angkor Wat.

The Thai's would, if they could. 🙂

25 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

In 2013, the Court clarified that Cambodia has sovereignty over the temple and its immediate area, but it did not magically erase every border ambiguity in the wider area.

Borders drawn from early 1900s colonial maps are messy. They’re more “sketch on a napkin” than a laser-measured survey.

Judgement November 2013.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/11/455062#:~:text=In%20a%20June%201962%20judgment,its%20vicinity%20on%20Cambodian%20territory.

"In April 2011, Cambodia requested the ICJ to interpret the 1962 Judgment, arguing that while Thailand recognizes Cambodia’s sovereignty over the temple itself, it does not appear to recognize the sovereignty of Cambodia over the vicinity of the temple."

"In its decision today, the Court declared unanimously that the 1962 Judgement decided that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear, and that Thailand is obligated to withdraw its forces from that territory."

Yet, they keep sending in their forces. For what?

It's been judged as being in Cambodia, twice. If the Thai's want it so bad, declare war and take it, or accept the Court's ruling and withdraw.

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Judgement November 2013.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/11/455062#:~:text=In%20a%20June%201962%20judgment,its%20vicinity%20on%20Cambodian%20territory.

"In April 2011, Cambodia requested the ICJ to interpret the 1962 Judgment, arguing that while Thailand recognizes Cambodia’s sovereignty over the temple itself, it does not appear to recognize the sovereignty of Cambodia over the vicinity of the temple."

"In its decision today, the Court declared unanimously that the 1962 Judgement decided that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear, and that Thailand is obligated to withdraw its forces from that territory."

Yet, they keep sending in their forces. For what?

It's been judged as being in Cambodia, twice. If the Thai's want it so bad, declare war and take it, or accept the Court's ruling and withdraw.

Thailand is not a signatory to the Optional Clause, accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and has not done so since 1960

While a UN member, Thailand maintains a policy of resolving territorial disputes, such as with Cambodia, through bilateral negotiations rather than binding ICJ rulings.

This, as previously stated, applies to many other countries as well.

16 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

While a UN member, Thailand maintains a policy of resolving territorial disputes, such as with Cambodia, through bilateral negotiations rather than binding ICJ rulings.

That's because the ruling didn't go their way. 🙂

16 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

This, as previously stated, applies to many other countries as well.

But we are not discussing other countries, are we?

If Thailand want's it, declare war and annex it, but they will not do that because tourism would fall off a cliff, like it did during covid, so what's Thailand's end game with this boarder skirmish with Cambodia?

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

That's because the ruling didn't go their way. 🙂

But we are not discussing other countries, are we?

If Thailand want's it, declare war and annex it, but they will not do that because tourism would fall off a cliff, like it did during covid, so what's Thailand's end game with this boarder skirmish with Cambodia?

Why you asking me, it's you that has all the answers!

On 2/20/2026 at 1:59 PM, Scouse123 said:

Why you asking me

I'm asking you because you put forward that Thailand actually has a legitimate claim to the area.

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm asking you because you put forward that Thailand actually has a legitimate claim to the area.

I've better things to do than go backwards and forwards with you all day, someone who obviously has little else to do.

You are now resorting to making statements about claims that I haven't made.

Have Generals Prawit and Prayut et al. volunteered yet?

4 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:

Have Generals Prawit and Prayut et al. volunteered yet?

Great idea, but Prawit would probably fall asleep whilst guarding the border, and Prayut would be planning a coup to replace Anutin and the Thai political fiasco.

On 2/21/2026 at 8:23 PM, Scouse123 said:

I've better things to do than go backwards and forwards with you all day,

If you have better things to do than going backwards and forwards with members of this forum, than I suggest you stop posting BS. 🙂

11 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

If you have better things to do than going backwards and forwards with members of this forum, than I suggest you stop posting BS. 🙂

No problem with any other members, it's just you're stalking and BS, get a life apart from AN, obviously you feel your views are more important than anyone else here on the forum.