Blog · Batch 05

Sentiment Landscape Exploration on Social Media During the Thailand–Cambodia Tension #5 (24 Jul–3 Aug 2025)

Published on October 11, 2025
Authors Abhidech Tepin and Krongkan Karanet

Sentiment Landscape Exploration on Social Media During the Thailand-Cambodia Tension (Batch #5) collected data between July 24 and August 3, 2025, gathering a total of 284,003 posts from the X platform related to the situation. Data collection during this period focused on tracking reactions and narratives reflecting emotions, unfolding events, and the responses of various sectors to the continuously evolving border situation.

The Batch 5 dataset spans a period in which tensions in the area escalated into direct armed clashes between Thai and Cambodian forces, through to the point at which both countries reached an immediate and unconditional ceasefire agreement. The details are as follows.

Message Over Time

Key Events During the Data Collection Period

1. 25 July
   • Armed clashes continued along the Thailand-Cambodia border.
   • Phumtham Wechayachai, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, serving as Acting Prime Minister following the Constitutional Court's suspension of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, held a press conference asserting that Cambodia had initiated the attack first and had committed war crimes.
   • Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a formal letter to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to clarify the facts of the situation and affirm that Thailand had no intention of inflicting harm on civilians.
   • Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, in his capacity as Chair of the ASEAN, offered to serve as a mediator to help facilitate talks aimed at de-escalating the conflict.
2. 27 July
   • Armed clashes continued along the Thailand-Cambodia border.
   • U.S. President Donald Trump telephoned Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet, calling for an immediate ceasefire and warning that the United States would suspend ongoing trade negotiations with both countries if the fighting continued.
   • Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement condemning Cambodia for using heavy weaponry to attack civilians in Surin province.
   • Thailand submitted a formal letter to UNESCO regarding Cambodia's registration of Prasat Ta Muen Thom as a World Heritage Site, and condemned Cambodia's actions against Thai civilians.
3. 28 July
   • Reports emerged of intense fighting shortly before the ceasefire deadline, with Cambodian forces launching an artillery bombardment, prompting Thailand to deploy F-16 fighter jets in response.
   • Clashes continued along the border on a daily basis, resulting in the deaths of two additional Thai soldiers near Prasat Ta Muen Thom in the evening hours shortly before the ceasefire took effect.
   • The Governor of Surin province declared designated areas as temporary shelters for displaced civilians.
4. 28 July
   • Thailand and Cambodia signed a ceasefire agreement.
5. 29 July
   • A spokesperson for the Royal Thai Army condemned Cambodia for violating the ceasefire agreement.
   • The Royal Thai Army reported that Cambodian forces continued military operations and fired into Thai territory overnight in multiple areas.
   • The Commander of the Royal Thai Army's Second Army Region held a joint Regional Border Committee (RBC) meeting with Cambodian military counterparts at the Chong Chom border crossing in Surin province to establish ceasefire conditions and a prohibition on troop movement.
   • The Thai government issued a statement disputing Cambodia's account and asserting that Cambodia had violated the ceasefire agreement, while sending formal letters of protest to the Chair of ASEAN, the United States, and China, and ordering all branches of the armed forces to hold their positions to defend national sovereignty.
6. 31 July
   • The situation along the border began to stabilize, with no clashes reported, though monitoring continued from July 30 onward.
   • The Ad Hoc Center for Managing the Thailand-Cambodia Border Situation clarified reports involving an audio recording related to 18 captured Cambodian soldiers, explaining that their detention had been carried out in accordance with the laws of armed conflict. The Center affirmed that the bodies of Cambodian soldiers killed in the fighting had been returned with dignity, consistent with international humanitarian principles.
   • Diplomatic missions and military attachés from 24 countries, along with Thai and international media, visited affected areas to inspect the damage caused by Cambodian attacks.

Between July 24 and August 3, 2025, online conversation shifted clearly in line with the sequence of military and diplomatic developments, with two major peaks in posting volume: the outbreak of armed clashes and the announcement of the ceasefire agreement.

On July 24, posting volume reached its highest point at 55,309 posts, coinciding with the most severe armed clash since 2011 at Prasat Ta Muen Thom. The incident resulted in deaths and injuries among both soldiers and civilians, along with the evacuation of residents from border areas. Both Thailand and Cambodia issued statements accusing the other side of initiating the attack, with Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemning Cambodia and downgrading diplomatic relations. Online, this period saw the spread of casualty reports, videos of the explosions, fundraising campaigns for those affected, and messages of support for the Thai military.

On July 25, posting volume declined to 19,766 posts, though it remained high. Content centered on the continuing clashes, government and military press briefings, Thailand's statement to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and the proposal for Malaysia, in its role as ASEAN Chair, to mediate the dispute. Between July 26-27, daily volume ranged between 13,000-14,000 posts, with content focused on aid for those affected, morale-building for personnel stationed at the border, and Thailand's reaffirmation to the international community of its commitment to civilian protection and calls for a ceasefire.

Posting volume rose again on July 28 and 29, reaching 68,343 and 67,637 posts respectively, corresponding to the signing of the ceasefire agreement between Thailand and Cambodia in Malaysia. This increase coincided with reports of ceasefire violations, the spread of online campaigns such as #TruthFromThailand, and statements issued by the governments and militaries of both countries.

After July 30, posting volume declined steadily, from 19,855 posts down to just 2,730 posts by August 3. Content during this period shifted away from combat-related issues toward diplomatic developments, site visits by diplomatic missions and military attachés, the handling of prisoners of war, and preparations for the General Border Committee (GBC) meeting.

However, the declining volume of posts between July 30 and August 3 did not reflect a genuine de-escalation of the situation, but rather a shift in focus from clashes on the ground toward an "information battlefield" online. Following the ceasefire, data, news, and statements from both countries became the central arena for a contest over meaning, with each side citing evidence, photographs, and online campaigns to assert its own legitimacy. Communication increasingly emphasized image-building on the international stage rather than field reporting, reflecting a transition from physical conflict to an information war aimed at capturing public perception and trust.

The analysis of Batch 5 data found that the narratives could be grouped into 7 main topics. The details are as follows.

Emerged Topics

Overall, the structure of online conversation during July 24 - August 3, 2025 shows that Thai social media was dominated by clearly nationalist narratives supportive of Thailand, while humanitarian and domestic political issues receded sharply once the situation escalated into full-scale armed conflict. Discussion became markedly more concentrated, with most content directly tied to the border situation and the military clashes, in contrast to the previous period (Batch 4), when conversation remained more diverse and gave greater attention to humanitarian issues and everyday civilian life.

The largest topic was Pro-Thai narratives (54.22%), encompassing narratives affirming the view that Cambodia had initiated the attack, violated international agreements, and targeted Thai civilians. Frequently recurring language and hashtags included phrases such as "ทำคนไทยตาย" (killing Thai people), "#hunsenwarcriminal," "#TruthfromThailand," "#CambodiaBreaksCeasefire," "#CambodiaStartedTheWar," and "#CambodiaViolatesOttawaConvention." This communication carried a distinctly nationalist tone, tending to frame Thailand as the "victim" that had no choice but to respond in order to defend its sovereignty.

The next largest topic was Situation Updates (26.53%), consisting of ongoing reports of developments along the border, divisible into three main groups: (1) Thai-language reporting aimed at domestic audiences, (2) English-language reporting aimed at the international community, and (3) reporting from the military focused on operational details such as areas of clashes, territorial control, and post-ceasefire developments.

The topic of Patriotic and Heroic Mobilization (11.23%) played a significant role in shaping and sustaining nationalist sentiment during the crisis. Its main content consisted of (1) mourning and tributes to fallen soldiers, (2) expressions of support for troops and those affected, and (3) mobilization of resources or donations to assist the injured and bereaved families. The language used emphasized gratitude toward soldiers, celebration of sacrifice, and calls for the public to contribute through blood donation or supplies.

The topic of Life and Humanity (2.82%) declined in share compared to the previous period, with most content reflecting fear and insecurity among the public, such as images and audio clips of gunfire, explosions, or conditions inside evacuation shelters. This differed from the previous period, when humanitarian content more often related to mutual assistance, coexistence along the border, and everyday life under normal conditions.

Pro-Cambodia narratives (2.31%) featured a mirror-image pattern of communication to the Thai side, focused on accusing Thailand of initiating the attack, using weapons against civilians, and bullying a smaller neighboring country. These narratives emphasized the defense of Cambodian sovereignty and were communicated in English, aimed at the international community.

The topic of Domestic Politics (1.96%) linked the border situation to domestic political issues, including criticism of the government's handling of the crisis, questions over its management of the situation, and the use of the crisis to undermine the legitimacy of the executive branch.

Finally, General News (0.93%) covered general news unrelated directly to the border situation but occurring within the same timeframe, such as accident reports or general social news, making up a very small share compared to the dominant border-related content.

Viewed through the lens of narratives of violence, the dominant narrative set during Batch 5 played a significant role in transforming border tensions into a narrative centered squarely on national dignity. These narratives were not confined to the state or military level, but spread through ordinary users and online communities who took part in reproducing emotional symbols such as sacrifice, courage, and mourning for the fallen.

The blending of collective emotion with moral reasoning caused violence to be interpreted as a "duty to the nation" rather than as human loss, fostering a nationalist consciousness that sharply reinforced the divide between "us" and "them" within the online space. These narratives also contributed to framing the use of force as legitimate and necessary for defending the nation's "truth."

These nationalist narratives fused grief, anger, and pride into an emotional force that drove public consensus around military retaliation. Mourning and "honoring" fallen soldiers, celebrating the "brave," and sharing online campaigns became shared rituals of nationhood. At the same time, voices questioning the violence or attempting to raise humanitarian concerns were drowned out. The online landscape thus became not merely a space reflecting the conflict, but a mechanism reproducing the legitimacy of violence under the banner of patriotism.

Sentiment Distribution

The overall sentiment of online conversation during the border clashes showed that Negative posts held the highest share at 52.63%, followed by Neutral posts at 40.28%, and Positive posts at just 7.09%.

This reflected an atmosphere of tension, anger, and blame that accompanied the real-world violence. Most negative posts consisted of accusations against the opposing side, political criticism, and emotional venting over civilian losses. Positive posts, meanwhile, largely centered on expressions of support for soldiers, celebration of sacrifice, and calls for unity in the face of crisis. Neutral posts mostly consisted of event reporting or the relaying of information without a clear emotional stance.

Sentiment Distribution by Topic

Breaking sentiment down by topic revealed clear differences in emotional tone across each category. The topic with the highest share of negative posts was Domestic Politics (84.01%), consisting mostly of criticism of the government's performance and its handling of the border situation, along with questions about the transparency and competence of political leadership. This was followed by Situation Updates (59.54%) and Pro-Cambodia narratives (57.07%), reflecting dissatisfaction, anger, and concern arising from the clashes, the losses incurred, and mutual accusations between the two countries.

Also showing high levels of negative sentiment were Life and Humanity (53.70%) and Pro-Thai narratives (53.35%), partly reflecting public grief and panic in response to the sounds of explosions and images of evacuation. At the same time, these categories contained language blaming Cambodia as the cause of the violence, such as claims that Cambodia "fired first" or "violated the ceasefire agreement," giving the content a mixed character combining sympathy for those affected with anger directed at the "enemy."

By contrast, the topic with the highest share of positive posts was Patriotic and Heroic Mobilization (25.94%), consisting mostly of expressions of admiration, gratitude, or mourning for soldiers on duty, along with campaigns to assist those affected, such as blood donation drives or fundraising for bereaved families. Although broadly positive in tone, some of this content also reflected a process of turning "loss" into a symbol of national courage and dignity.

Meanwhile, the topic of General News (71.27% neutral) consisted of general reporting unrelated directly to the clashes, such as social or domestic news, making it the most neutral category overall.

The emotional tenor of online conversation during Batch 5 reflects how the Thailand-Cambodia clashes created a communication environment saturated with anger, grief, and a sense of national defense. At the same time, the topic of Patriotic and Heroic Mobilization stood out as the sole space where positive sentiment was significantly reproduced and amplified. This raises an important question: was the positive sentiment within this topic genuinely "positive"? Viewed through the lens of narratives of violence and cultural violence, sentiment that appeared to celebrate courage, sacrifice, and patriotism may not simply have expressed hope or solidarity, but instead functioned as a force that made the use of violence more accepted and legitimate. Mourning and expressing gratitude toward fallen soldiers, then, was not merely an expression of grief, but part of a process reproducing a narrative in which "defending the nation through force" became noble and righteous. Positive sentiment in this context may therefore be understood as "positivity that sustains violence," concealed beneath language of pride and national unity.

Hate Speech Distribution

Following the armed clashes between Thai and Cambodian forces, the sentiment analysis found a significant surge in negative posts, totaling 149,476 posts (compared to just 15,638 in Batch 4). Examining this group through the lens of hate speech, Type 3 emerged as the most prevalent category, accounting for 56.98% of all negative posts, followed by Type 1 at 30.86%, Type 4 at 11.09%, Type 5 at 0.70%, and Type 2 at 0.37%.

This distribution reflects a heightened intensity of public emotion following the armed clashes. Compared to earlier periods (Batches 1-4), where Type 1 typically dominated, this period saw a marked rise in Type 3. This shift suggests that online hatred evolved from sarcasm, insults, and othering (Type 1) toward attacks that strip away the targeted group's humanity (Type 3). There was also a rise in symbolic and ideological "othering," aimed at portraying the opposing side as illegitimate actors, through language such as "uncivilized" or "barbaric," and through the invocation of historical grievances to reinforce one's own side's image as "the victim" while calling on the international community to condemn the other.

Notably, the rise in Type 3 occurred alongside a rise in Type 4, reflecting the simultaneous drawing of ethnic or national boundaries during this period, part of a broader framework of division constructed to legitimize one's own side or to justify calls for retaliation.

The use of vulgar language online also continued to serve as a general outlet for anger, fear, or intense dissatisfaction with the Thailand-Cambodia conflict (Type 1), aimed at attacking the opposing side. At the same time, this pattern may also indicate that such insults and derision had become normalized, no longer viewed as isolated emotional outbursts tied to specific events, but instead as an ingrained part of everyday conversation about the conflict.

Type 5, though appearing in a small proportion, showed a slight increase from the previous period, consisting mostly of content endorsing or supporting real-world violence, such as calls to "wipe them out completely" or sarcastic demands for "revenge" or "payback."

Although Type 2 appeared in the smallest proportion, it carries high potential to incite real-world violence, particularly in an atmosphere already charged with tension, anger, and social distrust. Targeted intimidation, including the disclosure of personal information, addresses, or the faces of individuals accused of being "spies" or "suspects," can directly lead to harassment and endanger personal safety.

Beyond overt expressions of hatred, this period also showed a trend toward more subtle forms of hate speech, less direct but no less corrosive, such as posts paired with hashtags implying the opposing side's violation of agreements, the construction of a "victimized" self-image, and conversations framed around moral superiority to bolster one's own image on the world stage. This extended into the domestic political context as well, with hate speech directed at the Prime Minister and the government, reflecting dissatisfaction with the handling of the conflict, showing how the international conflict became an outlet for venting domestic political discontent and a tool for undermining the government's legitimacy.

Hate speech during this period also extended beyond simple us-versus-them divisions to include attacks on ideology, attitude, or stance, particularly around issues of violence and peace. Specifically, those who supported diplomatic negotiation, a halt to the use of force and armed attacks, or humanitarian assistance to those affected were themselves framed as "the opposing side" and became targets of attack. This reflects the spread of anger and hatred across the digital space, to the point of steering online public sentiment toward endorsing or calling for violence.

In summary, the landscape of hate speech following the clashes was not confined to ethnic prejudice or the construction of a cross-border enemy image, but expanded into opposition against those holding differing views, particularly supporters of peaceful approaches or humanitarian assistance. This kind of language not only reinforced an atmosphere of hatred but also undermined the legitimacy of compromise, continuously narrowing the space for peaceful or humanitarian-minded approaches. This shift may accelerate the evolution of hate speech into an ideological tool within information warfare, rather than remaining simply an outlet for individual emotion.

You can view the interactive dashboard at neomomentum.co/c-map