Editorial – Lex Opinion Team

The ceasefire agreement reached this morning between Cambodia and Thailand brings a necessary pause to months of tension along their shared border. As calm returns, it is important to place on record not competing narratives, but the observable sequence of events, and the choices made along the way.

From May through December, the pattern of violence along the border followed a consistent rhythm.

Each day the fighting began with Thai action, Cambodian forces did not initiate engagements.

Incidents typically started in the early morning hours or late at night, when Thai units opened fire or conducted strikes. Cambodian positions absorbed the initial impact. When responses occurred, they came after, not before, and were limited in scope. When Thai fire stopped, hostilities stopped.

This sequence repeated itself across everyday of the conflict.

From May to December, Cambodia’s conduct followed a consistent principle: restraint first, force only as a last resort.

The crisis began in May, when a Cambodian soldier was shot dead along the border. Cambodian forces did not retaliate. There was no counterattack, no escalation, and no attempt to turn an isolated but serious incident into a wider confrontation. Instead, Cambodia treated the incident as a matter to be contained.

By July, as tensions persisted, Cambodia formally renewed its calls for a peaceful settlement, emphasizing dialogue, existing mechanisms, and adherence to international norms. Throughout this period, its military posture remained defensive. The priority was stability, not leverage.

Even when the situation worsened, when civilian casualties occurred on Cambodian territory, Phnom Penh maintained restraint. Civilian harm marks a grave threshold in any conflict, yet Cambodia continued to exercise patience, choosing diplomatic engagement over immediate military response.

Only in December, after months of repeated incidents, did Cambodia issue a final warning: a 24-hour appeal for hostilities to cease. That window passed without de-escalation. Cambodia’s subsequent response came only after restraint had been exhausted and appeals had failed.

The sequence is clear and matters.

Cambodia did not rush into confrontation. It absorbed pressure over months. Its responses were delayed, conditional, and framed as defensive. This was not passivity, but a deliberate strategy aimed at preventing a localized dispute from becoming a wider conflict.

The ceasefire reached today should be understood in that light. It is not the result of sudden diplomacy, but the outcome of prolonged restraint finally giving way to the need for stabilization. This record simply documents Cambodia’s consistent effort to prioritize peace even when doing so carried costs.

Ceasefires endure when facts are acknowledged rather than obscured. Cambodia’s record from May to December shows a state that chose restraint repeatedly, and force only when restraint could no longer hold.

That record deserves to be clearly stated, not to inflame, but to remember.