A Graph showing the number of Facebook posts related to the Thai-Cambodian conflict published by the official pages of the Royal Thai Army, the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters, and the Royal Thai Navy.

 A graph showing the frequency of the two main hashtags, #TruthFromThailand and #กัมพูชายิงก่อน (#CambodiaOpenedFire), comparing posts from the three main official military Facebook pages and unofficial pages. The graph shows that both hashtags were used most intensively during the first round of clashes, before declining and reappearing during the second round of fighting.

A graph showing the frequency of the hashtags #ไทยนี้รักสงบแต่ถึงรบไม่ขลาด (#ThaisLovePeaceButNeverFearWar), #อาชญากรสงคราม (#WarCriminal), #ยุทธบดินทร์ (#YutthabodinOperation), and #ทำลายให้สิ้นสภาพ (#DestroyCompletely). Among them, #ทำลายให้สิ้นสภาพ (#DestroyCompletely) was only detected during the second round of the Thai-Cambodian clashes, while the other hashtags had been in use since the first round of fighting.

Tensions, both online and on the ground gradually eased as ceasefire negotiations took shape, with Malaysia acting as a mediator to help Thailand and Cambodia agree to an unconditional truce. This eventually led both sides to begin withdrawing weapons from the frontline from November 1, 2025. Although the situation along the border calmed down, the Thai military continued to sustain wartime narratives online, however. Even after hostilities had subsided, #TruthFromThailand and #ไทยนี้รักสงบแต่ถึงรบไม่ขลาด (#ThaisLovePeaceButNeverFearWar) continued to appear in posts from the Royal Thai Army, the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters, and civilian pages that remained active.

The Second Shot: #DestroyCompletely and the Legitimation of Offensive Operations

Tensions flared again in early December as fighting spread across multiple areas. According to accounts from both sides, the renewed clashes were triggered by mysterious artillery rounds fired in late November, with each side claiming that the shells had originated from the other. The incident signalled the end of the temporary peace. Heavy artillery exchanges resumed on December 7, marking the beginning of another full-scale confrontation across all domains—land, sea, and air.

On the digital battlefield, posting activity surged dramatically. The hashtag #กัมพูชายิงก่อน (#CambodiaOpenedFire) was used most intensively, reaching nearly one hundred posts per day, particularly among civilian accounts. This was followed by #TruthFromThailand and #ไทยนี้รักสงบแต่ถึงรบไม่ขลาด (#ThaisLovePeaceButNeverFearWar), both of which were used most extensively by the Royal Thai Army.

More significantly, the second round of fighting saw the emergence of a new hashtag, #ทำลายให้สิ้นสภาพ (#DestroyCompletely). Its use was overwhelmingly concentrated among Army accounts, which virtually monopolised the phrase in the online sphere. Usage rose sharply between December 10 and 13, coinciding with Thai offensives that recaptured territory along several fronts.

By contrast, the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters and the Royal Thai Navy adopted a noticeably less aggressive tone in both their posts and hashtag usage. Their messaging increasingly emphasised diplomacy, particularly through the emergence of #PeaceBeginsWithTruth, which also appeared for the first time during the second round of fighting. When the frequency of posts and hashtags is compared with the timeline of military engagements, the graphs show a gradual decline in activity that broadly corresponds with the decreasing intensity and duration of the conflict.

The use of #ทำลายให้สิ้นสภาพ (#DestroyCompletely), driven primarily by the Royal Thai Army, virtually ceased immediately after Thailand and Cambodia reached a ceasefire agreement on December 27, 2025. Other hashtags also declined markedly. Nevertheless, the three official military pages continued to sustain wartime narratives, particularly through posts carrying #TruthFromThailand, #TeamThailand, and #PeaceBeginsWithTruth, albeit at a lower average frequency of around 20 posts per day.

As of April 2026, nearly four months after the ceasefire took effect, all three hashtags continue to be used regularly, even when the content of the posts is no longer directly related to sovereignty disputes. During this phase, however, the principal actor shifted to the Thai-Cambodian Joint Information Coordination Center (JIC), a body established by order of the Minister of Defence on January 8, 2026, to provide information and updates specifically on the situation along the Thai-Cambodian border.

When the posting patterns of the military pages are examined alongside developments on the battlefield, a striking pattern emerges. The timing of posts and the deployment of hashtags suggest a degree of strategic planning and a systematic division of labor among the armed services, particularly the Royal Thai Army, which played the leading role in conducting full-scale military operations.

More importantly, the digital battlefield extended beyond official military accounts. Civilian pages, influencers, and media outlets focused on security affairs also played important roles in amplifying narratives and facilitating the circulation of information during the conflict. Whether these relationships reflected deliberate coordination or simply parallel responses to unfolding events, however, remains a question that quantitative analysis alone cannot answer. The most direct way to verify or challenge this hypothesis is through the military's own account.

An example of the use of hashtags and memes featuring the phrase "รบพิเศษ" (Special Operations Forces) and the hashtag #ส่งด่วน (#ExpressDelivery), posted on June 7, 2025, prior to the first round of the Thai-Cambodian clashes. The meme plays on the then-popular Thai Netflix limited series Mad Unicorn (2025), which centres on the express delivery business, illustrating how military communication drew upon contemporary popular culture and entertainment formats to engage online audience. (Source: Facebook/กองทัพบก Royal Thai Army)

Figure 5. The Facebook page Khao Thahan (Military News), one of several unofficial social media pages focused on military affairs, cited content from the page SMART Soldiers Update and encouraged Thai users to use the hashtag #ทำลายให้สิ้นสภาพ (#DestroyCompletely) on December 9, 2025, during the second round of the Thai-Cambodian clashes. (Source: Facebook/ข่าวทหาร)

Figure 6. An example of the Thai military's use of hashtags and communication strategies during the second round of the Thai-Cambodian clashes in December 2025. The post claimed that the information was obtained from a notebook allegedly seized from a Cambodian soldier, containing coordinates of landmine placements and a hand-drawn diagram showing the locations of 36 landmines. (Source: Facebook/กองทัพภาคที่ 2)

Figure 7. An example of content amplification by a government agency. The Public Relations Department (PRD) reposted a message from the Second Army Region concerning the Thai military's claimed seizure of Prasat Khna, located along the Thai-Cambodian border between Naeng Mut Subdistrict in Kap Choeng District, Surin Province, and Oddar Meanchey Province in Cambodia. The repost also adopted hashtags previously promoted by the military during the second round of the Thai-Cambodian clashes in December 2025. (Source: X/@prd_official)

Figure 8. At the Joint Press Center on the Thailand-Cambodia Situation, held at Royal Thai Army Radio and Television Channel 5 on December 17, 2025, Col. Richcha Suksuwanon, Deputy Spokesperson of the Royal Thai Army, addressed comments by the Army Chief of Staff concerning the hashtag #ทำลายให้สิ้นสภาพ (#DestroyCompletely). He stated that Thailand's military operations were a response to Cambodia's initiation of hostilities and that the Thai military was exercising its right to self-defence in accordance with international principles.

Visible on the screen behind him are several hashtags promoted by the military, including #TeamThailand, #PeaceBeginsWithTruth, #TruthFromThailand, #CambodiaOpenedFire, and #ThailandSelfDefense.

Source: MCOT

The Online Front and Algorithms: The Primary Digital Battlefield

Figure 9. Maj. Gen. Winthai Suvaree, spokesperson for the Royal Thai Army. (File photo.)

"There are two principles behind the Army's communications. First, to convey what the Army wants to tell the public. Second, to respond to what society wants to know. The challenge is how to answer people's questions and ease their doubts as much as possible, while also communicating the Army's own messages. The rest is a matter of techniques and storytelling. Our main battlefield is online platforms, not the physical battlefield."

In an interview with the reporter in May, Maj. Gen. Winthai Suvaree, spokesperson for the Royal Thai Army, explained the Army's communication strategy. He acknowledged that online platforms have become the principal arena for media operations during wartime. According to him, the key principles guiding communications during the Thai-Cambodian clashes were "speed and informality," with all messages grounded in factual information.

The Army spokesperson elaborated that in times of conflict, the first task is to provide explanations to society as quickly as possible. This requires teams capable of operating around the clock in smaller, decentralised units. He said the Army maintains media networks capable of disseminating information widely in order to ease public anxiety. Communication plans are developed in advance, determining what should be posted under specific circumstances, how stories should be framed, who the target audience is, and which actors are best positioned to further amplify public awareness. Once information is complete or official state-level communication is required, the Army's communication apparatus assumes responsibility for formal briefings, with a corresponding increase in the level of officiality.

Maj. Gen. Winthai further explained that the primary audience in the online sphere is the domestic population. At the state level, the military and the government already possess mechanisms for international cooperation and diplomacy. Communicating with citizens, however, requires another layer of strategy, particularly an understanding of social media algorithms. "If we can generate enough momentum to turn something into a trend, then we have won the digital battlefield," he said.

A military officer who serves on the Army spokesperson's team rejected the characterisation of the military's activities as information warfare or Information Operations (IO). She argued that what the military was doing did not constitute information warfare because its target audience was the domestic population. In the context of the conflict, she said, the people of the country were not "the enemy" but citizens seeking answers: What was happening on the front line? Would Thailand prevail? How were frontline soldiers living? The military therefore had a responsibility to answer these questions with facts.

"At the time, public sentiment strongly favoured military action. People wanted us to advance, seize territory, and destroy the enemy completely. But we must not forget that there is nothing good about war. Especially for the families of soldiers on the front line, no one wants a father to die on the battlefield. That is why the military needs to provide explanations to society every day in order to ease public anger and resentment," she said.

An analysis of the Army spokesperson's remarks suggests that the military's communication strategy bears similarities to corporate branding and marketing. If the Army is viewed as an organisation promoting legitimacy for certain actions, its communicative grammar differs little from that employed by the private sector. This is especially evident in its use of memes, hashtags, and accessible language to engage with online trends.

A growing body of research suggests that modern militaries around the world have adapted their information warfare strategies by adopting techniques commonly associated with branding and marketing. Such approaches include producing content designed to foster trust, strengthen emotional bonds with civilians on the home front, and collaborating with influencers to reinforce the credibility of the armed forces (Pysarenko, N. V., 2025).

Analayo Korsakul, a member of the editorial team behind the website and Facebook page ThaiArmedForce.com and a prominent influencer on military and security affairs in Thailand, said that traffic to the page surged dramatically during both rounds of fighting. At its peak, live streams attracted more than 100,000 viewers per session. Analayo acknowledged that both he and the page shared the same fundamental position as the Thai military: that Thailand should not lose "even a single square inch" of territory to its adversary. He said he and his team were willing to act as a mouthpiece for the military and were often approached with information or asked to help explain issues that had generated public questions. Drawing on the page's audience and credibility, the editorial team would discuss among themselves which stories to pursue and whether to "use the hook" provided by the military, since both sides ultimately stood to benefit.

"Our team has a principle: we will not cross the line of humanity. We do not insult or dehumanise those we disagree with, even if they are enemies. The hooks we utilise is information that genuinely benefits viewers and helps answer their questions. We get content to work with, and we get the views," he said.

Analayo noted that the military normally maintains dedicated channels for communicating with both traditional media and influencers. During the two rounds of fighting, however, large numbers of photos and videos circulated before they could be screened by military authorities. He believes much of this material originated from soldiers' Line chat groups, where troops shared updates with friends or among themselves. From the perspective of operational security (OPSEC), he argued, such behaviour represented a serious breach because it risked revealing strategic positions to the opposing side. Yet, in terms of audience engagement and public awareness, the impact was enormous.

He further speculated that the military was aware of these leaks and might choose to "turn a blind eye" so long as the resulting content benefited the institution's public image, only intervening when such information posed a threat beyond its control.

Algorithms and the Rise of War Influencers: Chasing Engagement and Monetising the Battlefield

"Frontline creators" emerged as one of the new phenomena of the conflict, as soldiers' daily lives and battlefield operations were documented and shared across virtually every social media platform. In addition to their personal devices, some units were equipped with action cameras to record significant moments during combat. At the same time, many frontline soldiers wanted to preserve important moments in their own lives and share their experiences with the public. During the early stages of the fighting, operational security (OPSEC) measures were not yet strictly enforced. Combined with the fact that many soldiers already maintained social media accounts, images and stories from the front began to flow into the public sphere.

The emergence of these "frontline creators" altered the military's traditional control over media narratives. Some soldiers took advantage of platforms that allowed users to monetise their own content, particularly footage of daily life and combat operations. At the time, many people were eager for authentic images from the battlefield. As posting became more frequent and audiences grew, some creators who had enabled monetisation saw their earnings increase alongside their viewership.

Content originating from these frontline sources was also repackaged and redistributed by numerous civilian pages seeking to increase their own traffic and engagement. As a result, information circulated rapidly across platforms. Data collected for this report show that posts by unofficial pages outnumbered those from official military accounts during the ceasefire following the first round of fighting. Their activity then surged dramatically during the second round of clashes in early December 2025.

Figure 10. A Facebook user identified as a soldier from the 26th Ranger Regiment, Pak Thong Chai Camp, posted a short video filmed from a first-person perspective resembling action-camera footage on December 10, 2025, during the second round of the Thai-Cambodian clashes. The post illustrates the emergence of "frontline creators."

Source: Facebook/Kanchit Kaewpikul

Figure 11. Based on open-source analysis conducted by the reporters, a Facebook user appears to be a soldier from the 13th Artillery Battalion, 3rd Artillery Regiment. He posted a short video recounting an incident in which BM-21 Grad multiple-launch rocket systems fired from the Cambodian side struck near an artillery emplacement. The clip was published on May 3, 2026, approximately five months after the second round of fighting.

Source: Facebook/Warodom Foithong

Figure 12. Based on an examination of the page's published content, the Facebook page "Khrua Woy Wai" (ครัวโวยวาย) appears to operate in areas under the responsibility of the Suranaree Task Force, Second Army Region, along the Thai-Cambodian border. On March 3, 2026, the page republished footage originally recorded during the second round of the Thai-Cambodian clashes on December 26, 2025. The case illustrates the phenomenon of "frontline creators," who share images captured during military operations with the public through social media.

Source: Facebook/ครัวโวยวาย

Figure 13. Gun Jompalang, or Guntouch Pongpaiboonwet (seated with his back to the camera), posted a photograph on March 27, 2026, while positioned on a line of shipping containers along the Thai-Cambodian border near Thmar Da Commune in Veal Veng District, Pursat Province, Cambodia, and Ban Tha Sen crossing in Laem Klat Subdistrict, Mueang District, Trat Province, Thailand. The area has been disputed by the two countries. At present, the Thai military controls the casino complex and surrounding areas and has constructed additional defensive positions. Gun Jompalang's team has supported the construction of fences and defensive structures at several locations along the Thai-Cambodian border.

With more than 10 million followers on Facebook, Gun Jompalang has been one of the influencers publishing photographs, videos, and updates from the Thai-Cambodian border since before the outbreak of hostilities. His content is frequently shared across social media platforms and amplified by mainstream media outlets, making him an example of a "frontline creator" with significant influence over public perceptions of the conflict.

In his Facebook bio, he provides information on how to support the Gun Jompalang Chuay Su Foundation, which assists children, women, low-income individuals, disaster victims, and people with limited access to assistance or the justice system through donations to a Kasikornbank account. He also provides a Line contact, "@gun1," for purchases of "Khao Jompalang" rice. The case illustrates how influencers can mobilize resources and humanitarian assistance through their large follower networks.

Source: Facebook/Gun Jompalang

This phenomenon has been described through the concept of the "war influencers"—soldiers and civilians who narrate war through either firsthand footage from the battlefield or secondhand information repackaged into new content. What these actors share is a tendency to present war in an entertaining manner, prioritising accessibility and audience reach over depth of content, while adapting their presentation styles to the logic of platform algorithms (Divon, T., & Eriksson Krutrök, M., 2025). Hashtags, in particular, play a central role, and such influencers often become influential actors in shaping public sentiment and directing online conversations about war.

The military itself is well aware of this phenomenon. Maj. Gen. Winthai Suvaree, spokesperson for the Royal Thai Army, explained that soldiers on the front line who wish to tell their own stories can ultimately benefit the institution, since the public gains a better understanding of the realities of war and of what the military is doing. Such content also helps generate momentum around hashtags and narratives that the Army seeks to promote. According to Maj. Gen. Winthai, the military does not prohibit or compel soldiers to publish content. Rather, it provides guidance, emphasising that personnel who choose to share stories from the front through personal channels should maintain stricter standards regarding dress, conduct, and the Army's public image.

The success of the online battlefield has become a global phenomenon. Civilians on the home front are able to follow developments at the front almost minute by minute, to the extent that war itself has increasingly become a form of everyday entertainment. The danger lies in the normalisation of violence and military affairs within daily life. War and its brutality are compressed into content that can be consumed through screens, transforming extraordinary destruction into something ordinary and endlessly scrollable.

The Online Front Falls Silent, but the Real War Never Ends

Supalak Kanjanakhundi, a veteran journalist and former adviser to the House Committee on Military Affairs, argues that the military communication strategies employed by the armed services during both rounds of fighting resembled earlier forms of psychological warfare. In wartime, he said, "the public" has always been the primary target of military communication. Armies require public consent to wage war and must continually maintain their legitimacy in the eyes of civilians.

According to Supalak, one way to secure public acceptance is to present warfare as transparently as possible, including by showing authentic images from the battlefield and emphasising stories of hardship, perseverance, and sacrifice among frontline soldiers. He compared these methods to the United States' use of media coverage during the Vietnam War, when newspapers were initially filled with stories of deprivation endured by American troops before journalists later exposed atrocities committed against civilians.

Supalak argues that the Thai military's approach is not fundamentally new. Communication technologies have accelerated the speed at which information travels, but the grammar of war remains largely unchanged. In this case, however, the military acted as a setter of algorithmic agendas through the deployment of hashtags that evolved with each phase of the conflict. Even after the fighting subsided, he argued, the military continued to maintain a sense of tension. As long as instability persists, perceptions that the military remains indispensable and that war remains justified can be continually reproduced.

The veteran journalist stressed that the more troubling question concerns the aftermath. He pointed to the persistence of hatred toward the opposing side, the gradual desensitisation of civilians to images of violence consumed through smartphone screens, and the relative absence of stories about those directly affected by the conflict—from border communities and displaced civilians to soldiers left disabled by the fighting. As a journalist, Supalak argued that these are the stories that deserve greater attention, because they reflect the lives of ordinary people forced to live with a war that, in many ways, never truly ends.

Judging solely by the dynamics of the digital battlefield, the Thai military's communication strategy can be considered highly successful. Branding techniques more commonly associated with commercial products spread rapidly and proved capable of shaping public sentiment with relatively little opposition to military operations. More importantly, the incentive structures and algorithms of social media platforms encouraged civilians themselves to become participants in the circulation and amplification of wartime narratives.

Although the guns have fallen silent and the front lines have stabilised, the consequences that remain largely unexamined are the long-term damage to diplomatic relations with neighboring Cambodia and the economic costs borne by communities living along the border. In that sense, the online front may have grown quiet, but the real war—and its consequences—have yet to end.

References
1. Pysarenko, N. V. (2025). Military branding: Shaping the image of the army and the state by means of digital marketing. Bulletin of the Academy of Labor, Social Relations and Tourism. Series: Economics, Psychology and Management, (3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.54929/3041-2390-2025-03-01-06

2. Divon, T., & Eriksson Krutrök, M. (2025). The rise of war influencers: Creators, platforms, and the visibility of conflict zones. Platforms & Society, 2, 1–18. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/29768624251325721