NAKHON RATCHASIMA, THAILAND – Thai and Cambodian forces reported heavy clashes, large evacuations and rising casualty claims along their shared border as fighting entered a fifth day.
Second Army claims high Cambodian losses along 13 fronts
Thailand’s Second Army released a new overview of operations on 11 December, saying there had been intense combat on 13 front sections in the provinces of Ubon Ratchathani, Si Sa Ket, Surin and Buri Ram since 7 December. According to the command, Cambodian troops first opened fire near Phu Pha Lek in Si Sa Ket, wounding two Thai soldiers, and later expanded the use of artillery and BM‑21 multiple rocket launchers along almost the entire frontier. Thai reports said homes, farmland and medical facilities were severely damaged, but the claims could not be independently verified.
The Second Army said it then moved civilians into designated shelters and responded “proportionally” with direct and indirect fire against Cambodian positions it viewed as a threat to the population. Over five days, Thai figures listed 89 Cambodian soldiers killed, four destroyed armoured vehicles and more than 60 downed drones, and a later update raised the reported toll to 125 dead and 64 drones shot down; Cambodia has not confirmed any of these numbers, which remain unverified.
Border fighting spreads, including airstrikes and contested hills
Thai security forces reported clashes on 11 December at 13 sectors in four border provinces, citing local gains, the destruction of one base and continued exchanges in areas including Chong An Ma, Sam Tae, Chong Rayi, Khna and Prasat Ta Khwai. In heavily mined areas, they said it was not yet possible to establish secure lines of control, and in some locations counter‑attacks and resistance were continuing.
Earlier assessments from the Second Army had pointed to key battlefields such as Chong Bok and Chong An Ma in Ubon Ratchathani, several sectors around the Preah Vihear area in Si Sa Ket, the Ta‑Kwai and Ta Muen Thom areas in Surin and Chong Sai Taku in Buri Ram. Thai authorities also reported that air force F‑16 jets had dropped four bombs on Cambodian trench systems near Ban Sam Lang in Trat province, and on the morning of 11 December Thai aircraft were said to have hit a casino building and nearby fuel facilities at Chub Koki on the Cambodian side; no confirmed information on damage or casualties was available.
More than half a million displaced as new evacuations ordered
Thai authorities reported a sharp rise in civilian displacement as shelling and rocket fire spread along the frontier. Media accounts said that more than 500,000 people had fled their homes in the broader border region, while the Thai government cited 219,521 people staying in 750 temporary shelters across four border provinces and one additional province inside the country.
According to official figures for Thailand, there were 31,948 evacuees in Ubon Ratchathani, 106,444 in Sisaket, 74,192 in Surin, 6,004 in Buri Ram and 333 in Nakhon Ratchasima. In Buriram’s Chong Sai Taku area, officials reported that over a dozen BM‑21 rockets had landed on farmland, causing extensive damage and prompting the evacuation of two more districts as fighting intensified nearby.
Cambodia reports civilian dead and mass displacement
Phnom Penh issued its own account on 11 December, saying Thai military attacks had killed ten civilians and forced more than 192,000 people to leave their homes. Cambodia’s defence ministry reported that 192,173 people had sought refuge in provisional shelters across six provinces, without providing further detail on the locations or circumstances of the alleged strikes.
Cambodian authorities also said their armed forces had recorded around 102 fatalities, reported the destruction of six tanks at Phanom Prasittho, one multiple rocket system and 64 drones, and claimed that an anti‑drone system at Huai Ta Maria had been destroyed. These figures, like the competing Thai claims of military losses on the Cambodian side, could not be independently verified.
Thai military reports securing Hill 677 and night‑time battles
Thai officials said troops had captured Hill 677, closing what they described as a previously unsecured section near Chong An Ma in Ubon Ratchathani. One non‑commissioned officer and one soldier were reported injured by artillery shrapnel during the operation and flown by helicopter to hospital for treatment; no details were given on their condition.
The operations centre of the Second Army also reported that the situation along the border had been calm for a time before new overnight clashes erupted late on 10 December. According to that account, Cambodian forces shelled Thai positions shortly before midnight and used unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance, after which Thailand said it struck several Cambodian positions in what it called self‑defence; these battlefield claims could not be checked independently.
Casualties on Thai side and repatriation of fallen soldiers
Amid the intensifying fighting, Thai authorities acknowledged further losses among their own forces. Previous statements said that nine Thai soldiers had been killed in the current border conflict, including a 21‑year‑old private who reportedly died from mortar shrapnel near the historic Prasat Ta Muen Thom complex, and a 22‑year‑old soldier who was said to have been killed by a mortar round in the Ta Phraya area of Sa Kaeo.
On 11 December, the Royal Volunteer Command Center of the 25th Military District reported that it had assisted in repatriating the bodies of a staff sergeant from the 3rd Infantry Battalion of the 16th Regiment and a soldier from the 4th Infantry Battalion of the 23rd Regiment to their hometowns for religious funeral ceremonies. Officials said they would support the bereaved families with organisational arrangements during the mourning period.
Cultural heritage sites damaged near the frontline
Fighting continued to affect historic temples along the frontier. Thailand’s Department of Fine Arts said the damaged Ta‑Kwai Temple on the border could be fully restored once the security situation stabilised. Its regional office reported that Cambodian soldiers had used the site as a position during recent clashes and that the upper part of the structure had been destroyed by sustained shelling.
A committee was appointed to examine all affected ancient sites along the border, but officials said it could not yet enter the area. The department added that the Ta Muen Thom and Kna temples might also have suffered damage and stressed that any restoration would follow standard procedures but could only start after conditions on the ground improved.
Thai and Cambodian narratives diverge
Both sides continued to dispute responsibility for the escalation. Thai military communiqués have repeatedly described Thailand as reacting under established rules of engagement and in defence of civilians, pointing to alleged Cambodian rocket fire, artillery strikes and drone operations against Thai territory since 7 December. Cambodia, for its part, has accused Thailand of attacks that caused civilian deaths and damage and has publicised its own casualty figures and equipment losses.
Thais and Cambodians also issued contrasting claims over the extent and targets of air and artillery strikes, including reports of attacks on casinos and other buildings used as military positions, as well as on anti‑drone systems and command facilities. None of these accounts, nor the casualty figures cited by either military, could be independently confirmed against neutral sources.
Bangkok warns of information risks and possible air operations
Inside Thailand, the armed forces urged tighter control of information during the crisis. The army warned its personnel to exercise caution on social media and not to share sensitive data, citing the risk of surveillance by Cambodian actors. Thai commanders also reported the arrest of a woman in Aranyaprathet in Sa Kaeo province on suspicion of passing information to Cambodian contacts, without giving further details.
Thai air‑force officers meanwhile said they were ready to strike targets in Cambodia if those were assessed as decisive or as a direct threat to Thailand. The service listed command‑and‑control centres, drone control hubs and weapons depots as monitored sites that could be treated as security threats, and stated that any deep‑strike operations would depend on intelligence indicating an imminent danger.
Displacement, livestock evacuation and cross‑border movements
The humanitarian impact widened beyond human displacement inside both countries. The Thai government reported that more than five million farm animals in six provinces were affected by the fighting and said it had launched measures to evacuate livestock, urging farmers to request assistance around the clock via the DLD 4.0 application.
Thai agencies also described movements in the opposite direction across the frontier: on 11 December, police, border guards and immigration officers in Sa Kaeo province processed the departure of more than a thousand Cambodian nationals who left the Rong‑Kluea market area and other locations to return home via the Khlong Luek checkpoint. Officials said many cited ongoing tensions as their reason for hurrying back.
Competing casualty claims from Phnom Penh and Bangkok
Cambodian and Thai authorities continued to issue diverging assessments of the military balance. Phnom Penh’s defence ministry said its forces had suffered about 102 deaths and reported the destruction of several pieces of military equipment, including tanks, a multiple‑rocket system, drones and an anti‑drone installation. Thai Second Army and later Thai army updates, by contrast, claimed that between 89 and 125 Cambodian soldiers had been killed, alongside numerous destroyed vehicles and drones.
None of these casualty or damage assessments could be independently verified. Both governments presented their figures without providing underlying evidence accessible to outside observers, and international actors were described only as urging both sides to end the violence and protect civilians.
Calls to protect cultural sites and halt use of heritage as cover
Beyond immediate military concerns, Thai commanders raised legal issues over the use of historic sites in the fighting. The regional command of the Second Army said it had called on Cambodia not to employ cultural heritage sites along the border as military locations. In its statement, the command argued that such actions would violate humanitarian law and endanger protected monuments, though it did not specify which sites it believed had been used in this way.
Officials said they had not yet received any responses from the Cambodian side on this point, and the unstable security situation was preventing heritage experts from reaching temples and other ancient structures to assess the full extent of the damage.
Thai premier insists country was attacked first
Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul reiterated his government’s position that Thailand had been the initial target of aggression and that its actions were aimed at defending national territory and dignity. He told reporters that there had so far been no direct contact with US President Donald Trump, despite earlier media reports suggesting a possible call, and that such talks between heads of government were routine when seeking ways to resolve conflicts.
“Thailand was attacked first and must protect its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national dignity.”
said Anutin Charnvirakul, Prime Minister.
Anutin said a potential conversation with Trump would allow him to explain the situation in detail, and added that Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow had already provided diplomatic briefings. He also noted that he had spoken with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, while stating separately that he did not regard the current moment as the right time for negotiations with Cambodia.
Domestic support operations and front‑line strain
Inside Thailand, military and civilian agencies highlighted efforts to support both troops and civilians affected by the fighting. The Second Army’s regional command reported receiving large quantities of in‑kind donations from the public, including food, drinks, consumer goods and nets, provided by a sugar producer, individuals, an agricultural firm, local businesses and the customs office in Chumphon; the army said it planned to use the items for logistics tasks in the border area.
Thai authorities also acknowledged the burden on front‑line personnel after days of continuous hostilities. A widely shared social‑media statement described soldiers in forward positions as heavily strained and said their night‑time duties were aimed at protecting units in the rear, though officials did not officially confirm the remarks or link them to specific locations.
Cambodian media cases and alleged intelligence leak
In Phnom Penh, Cambodian officials focused on information security and the portrayal of military developments online. On 11 December, state bodies said they were seeking a person alleged to have filmed troop movements and posted the footage on social networks, arguing that the publication had revealed military activities and potentially provided the Thai side with indications of current deployments.
Separately, a video that emerged in June 2024 and was attributed to the Cambodian military re‑circulated on social media. The footage appeared to show an armed drone described as being suitable for combat use, with some operating steps explained, but there had been no official confirmation of the system or technical details; observers questioned both the authenticity of the material and the identities of those appearing in it, and the information could not be verified.
Information war and verification challenges
Across the region, the flow of competing military claims underscored the difficulty of obtaining an independent picture of the fighting. Both Thai and Cambodian authorities framed their operations as defensive and accused the other side of escalation, while casualty numbers and descriptions of damage to military and civilian targets varied widely.
Many of the reports relied heavily on statements from army commands, social‑media posts and local officials, often accompanied by explicit caveats that the details could not be checked against neutral sources. With access to frontline areas restricted and both governments emphasising security and information control, independent verification of battlefield events, losses and the humanitarian impact remained limited.