Cambodia can't win the war—so why won't it stop?

Cambodia’s military capability only a third of Thailand’s

Cambodia maintains approximately 75,000 active-duty soldiers and around 200 tanks. In contrast, Thailand has 130,000 professional troops and over 100,000 conscripts, along with 400 tanks, a modern air force equipped with advanced fighter jets, and a navy with clear and overwhelming superiority.

Given this disparity, Cambodia’s leadership has continued to order unrelenting military operations, despite heavy losses and no prospect of long-term strategic gains. Realistically, Cambodia has no chance of permanently occupying Thai territory or seizing historical landmarks.

This suggests that the Cambodian leadership is seeking a different kind of victory.

It is widely assumed that Cambodian leaders aim to project an image of military struggle and national suffering as propaganda, portraying themselves as victims of aggression by a more powerful country.

This narrative evokes comparisons to past instances where overwhelming air power—whether from Myanmar, Russia, or Israel—was used against weaker targets, creating confusion in public perception about who holds the moral high ground.

The tactic is proving effective, particularly among foreign audiences unfamiliar with the regional context. When presented with stark contrasts between Cambodia’s military losses and Thailand’s superior arsenal and economic strength, many are inclined to sympathise with Cambodia as the underdog.

Moreover, Cambodia’s leadership has a long track record of exploiting propaganda, defying international norms, and rapidly crafting emotional narratives. They excel at pushing these messages through social media platforms—knowing that today’s audiences are increasingly distracted and less inclined to verify facts or seek nuance.

Importantly, even false information can be disseminated effectively by professional lobbying firms that have long promoted Cambodia’s image abroad. 

What is the “Firehose of Falsehood” strategy?

In modern politics, a social media strategy focused on speed, reach, and emotional impact—often at the expense of factual accuracy—has become a defining 

feature of the post-truth era. Known as the “Firehose of Falsehood” approach, this tactic aims to flood the public sphere with an overwhelming volume of information, making it increasingly difficult for consumers to distinguish between truth and fabrication.

Prioritising speed over accuracy

Driven by the 24/7 news cycle and the instant-feedback nature of social media platforms, political figures often rush to publish statements or narratives. The objective is not necessarily to be correct, but to be first—to shape the story, grab attention, or respond to events before all the facts are known.

Emotional appeal and sensationalism

Content under this strategy is crafted to provoke strong emotional reactions—anger, fear, outrage, or national pride. This emotional intensity makes messages more compelling and memorable, increasing their chances of being widely shared. In the process, nuance is lost, and complexity is abandoned in favour of striking, simplistic narratives that dominate online conversation.

Repetition and saturation

Even falsehoods, when repeated persistently across multiple platforms and accounts, can begin to appear credible. This continuous exposure creates what is known as the “illusory truth effect”—the psychological phenomenon where repeated misinformation feels more truthful over time simply due to familiarity.

Exploiting echo chambers

Content is deliberately tailored to appeal to the existing biases and beliefs of specific online communities. Algorithms on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook tend to amplify emotionally charged content within these echo chambers, reinforcing false narratives and reducing exposure to contradictory facts. The more insular the community, the less likely its members are to question or critically examine the information they receive.

Bypassing traditional gatekeepers

This strategy allows political actors to bypass traditional media outlets, which typically verify facts and provide contextual analysis. By communicating directly with their base via social media, politicians can create a perception of authenticity while simultaneously fuelling distrust in mainstream news sources. 

The “liar’s dividend”

The proliferation of deepfake technology and widespread online disinformation has given rise to the “liar’s dividend”—a tactic whereby political figures facing damaging but true revelations can simply dismiss them as “fake news” or AI-generated fabrications. This erodes confidence in legitimate reporting and creates a climate of doubt and ambiguity.

Ultimately, the Firehose of Falsehood strategy contributes to deeper political polarisation, declining public trust in institutions, and a fragmented understanding of shared reality. It poses a serious challenge to constructive public discourse and meaningful civic engagement.

Kritsada Boonruang / Independent Scholar

July 29, 2025