Cambodia and Thailand conflict: how do their militaries compare?
Here is a look at the defence forces and arsenals of two countries, according to data from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies:
Cambodia had a defence budget of $1.3 billion in 2024 and 124,300 active military personnel. The armed forces were established in 1993 from the merger of the country's former Communist military and two other resistance armies.
Of this, the Cambodian army is the largest force, with some 75,000 soldiers, backed by more than 200 battle tanks and around 480 pieces of artillery.
Thailand, which the U.S. classifies as a major non-NATO ally, has a large, well-funded military, with a defence budget of $5.73 billion in 2024 and over 360,000 active armed forces personnel.
The Thai army has a total of 245,000 personnel, including an estimated 115,000 conscripts, around 400 battle tanks, over 1,200 armoured personnel carriers and some 2,600 artillery weapons.
The army has its own fleet of aircraft, comprising passenger planes, helicopters such as dozens of U.S.-made Black Hawks, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Cambodia's air force has 1,500 personnel, with a relatively small fleet of aircraft, including 10 transport planes and 10 transport helicopters.
It doesn't possess any fighter aircraft but has 16 multi- role helicopters, including six Soviet-era Mi-17s and 10 Chinese Z-9s.
Thailand has one of the best equipped and trained air forces in Southeast Asia, with an estimated 46,000 personnel, 112 combat capable aircraft, including 28 F-16s and 11 Swedish Gripen fighter jets, and dozens of helicopters.
The Cambodian navy has an estimated 2,800 personnel, including 1,500 naval infantry, with 13 patrol and coastal combat vessels and one amphibious landing craft.
Thailand's navy is much larger, with nearly 70,000 personnel, comprising naval aviation, marines, coastal defence and conscripts.
It has one aircraft carrier, seven frigates, and 68 patrol and coastal combat vessels. The Thai fleet also contains a handful of amphibious and landing ships capable of holding hundreds of troops each and 14 smaller landing craft.
Thailand's naval aviation division has its own fleet of aircraft, including helicopters and UAVs, besides a marine corps that has 23,000 personnel, backed by dozens of armed fighting vehicles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
As the world hurtles ever closer to nuclear oblivion, where is the opposition?
Nuclear weapons – their lethal menace, dark history and future spread – are back in the headlines again and, as usual, the news is worrying, bordering on desperate. Russia's decision last week to formally abandon the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty banning medium- and short-range nuclear missiles completes the demolition of a key pillar of global arms control. It will accelerate an already frantic nuclear arms race in Europe and Asia at a moment when US and Russian leaders are taunting each other like schoolboys. Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, has repeatedly threatened the west with nuclear weapons during his war in Ukraine. Last November, Russian forces fired their new Oreshnik hypersonic, nuclear-capable intermediate-range missile at Dnipro. It travels 'like a meteorite' at 10 times the speed of sound and can reach any city in Europe, Putin boasted – which, if true, is a clear INF violation. Moscow blames its decision to ditch the treaty on hostile Nato actions. Yet it has long bypassed it in practice, notably by basing missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian exclave on the Baltic sea, and Belarus. That said, Russia has a point about Nato. Donald Trump first reneged on the INF treaty way back in 2018. The subsequent huge buildup of mainly US-produced nuclear-capable missiles, launchers, planes and bombs in European Nato states has understandably alarmed Moscow. It should alarm Europeans, too. In the 1980s, deployments of US Pershing and cruise missiles sparked passionate protests across the continent. In contrast, today's ominous tick-tocking of the Doomsday Clock, closer than ever to catastrophe at 89 seconds to midnight, is mostly accompanied by eerie silence. Trump's melodramatic claim last week to have moved US nuclear submarines closer to Russia came in response to crude threats from the former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, a notorious Putin stooge. It was another chilling moment. But this puerile standoff will have served a useful purpose if it alerts slumbering European public opinion to the growing risk of nuclear confrontation. Maybe people have grown complacent; maybe they have too many other worries. Maybe governments such as Britain's, suspected of secretly stashing US nuclear gravity bombs at an East Anglian airbase, are again failing to tell the truth. (The UK government refuses to say whether or not American nukes are now at RAF Lakenheath.) Whatever the reason, it falls to the children of the cold war – to the daughters of Greenham Common, to the heirs of ban-the-bomb protesters, to CND's indefatigable campaigners – to more loudly warn: this way lies extinction. Yet why is it that they alone sound the tocsin? It's all happening again, only this time it's worse, and everyone's a target. If unchecked, today's vastly more powerful nukes could turn the planet into a universal killing field. Last week's ceremonies marking the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings should be seen as a warning as well as a reminder. The nuclear weapons buildup in Europe proceeds apace. The US already stores nuclear bombs in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. Now the UK, too, has offered facilities – and is buying nuclear-capable fighter jets. Germany will host Tomahawk cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles next year. The US is expanding missile bases in Poland and Romania. Nato countries such as Denmark and Norway have joined missile exercises aimed, for example, at establishing 'control' of the Baltic. All this is justified in the name of self-defence, principally against Putin's Russia. Likewise, Nato's decision in June to raise national defence budgets to 5% of GDP. The global picture is no less disturbing. The nine nuclear-armed states – Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the US – spent $100.2bn, or $3,169 a second, on nuclear weapons last year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) reported. That's up 11% on 2023. Under Trump's proposed 2026 budget plan, the US, already by far the biggest spender, will increase funding for its nuclear forces, including the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, by 26% to $87bn. Doing its bit for global insecurity, China has more than doubled its nuclear stockpile since 2020, to 500 warheads. Who can doubt where all this is leading? For the first time since the cold war, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are being transformed into potential nuclear battlegrounds, with the difference, now, that atomic bombs and missiles are viewed not as deterrents but as offensive, war-winning weapons. The proliferation of lower-yield, tactical warheads supposedly makes 'limited' nuclear warfare possible. Once that red line is crossed, an unstoppable chain reaction may ensue. The collapse of arms-control agreements – the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start) will be next to lapse in February 2026 – is destroying safety nets. Signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are bound 'in good faith' to gradually disarm; instead, they are rapidly rearming. Dehumanised AI systems may raise the risk of accidental Armageddon. Rogue states such as Israel and North Korea constantly push the boundaries. Trump's impetuosity and Putin's psychosis increase the sense of living in a global shooting gallery. It might have been very different. In June 1945, a group of University of Chicago nuclear physicists led by James Franck told President Harry Truman that an unannounced atomic bomb attack on Japan was 'inadvisable'. Detonating the new weapon would trigger an uncontrollable worldwide arms race, they predicted. Their warnings were rejected, their report suppressed. Now, the UN is trying again. In line with the 2021 treaty outlawing nuclear weapons, a high-powered, international scientific panel was tasked last month with examining 'the physical effects and societal consequences' of nuclear war 'on a local, regional and planetary scale'. The challenge is formidable, the outcome uncertain. But someone, somehow, somewhere must call a halt to the madness. It is still just possible to hope that, unlike in 1945, wiser counsels will prevail. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Top US diplomat in Brazil summoned to foreign ministry over Bolsonaro trial comments
Brazil's foreign ministry has summoned the US chargé d'affaires after the embassy posted comments about the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro, as relations between the two countries continue to deteriorate. On Thursday, the embassy published a social media post in Portuguese criticising the supreme court justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing the cases against Bolsonaro, who is on trial over an alleged coup attempt. The post read: 'Minister Moraes is the chief architect of the censorship and persecution of Bolsonaro and his supporters. His flagrant human rights violations have led to sanctions under the Magnitsky Act, imposed by President Trump. 'Moraes's allies in the judiciary and elsewhere are hereby warned not to support or facilitate his actions. We are monitoring the situation closely.' The message was a translated repost of a statement by Darren Beattie, the US's senior official for public diplomacy. The Brazilian government viewed the message as a direct threat to the other supreme court justices presiding over Bolsonaro's trials and – given that Trump has yet to appoint an ambassador to Brazil – summoned the acting head of mission, chargé d'affaires Gabriel Escobar. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion It was the third time Escobar had been summoned since Donald Trump began publicly defending Bolsonaro, even citing the former Brazilian president's prosecution over the 2022 coup attempt as one of the justifications for the steep tariffs imposed on Brazilian goods. According to a source at the ministry, the interim secretary for Europe and North America, Flavio Goldman, expressed to Escobar the Brazilian government's 'deep indignation' over the tone and content of recent posts from the embassy and the US state department, which Brasília viewed as 'interference in domestic affairs and unacceptable threats against Brazilian authorities'. The US embassy did not comment on the meeting. Before Friday's summons, Escobar had attended a meeting on Thursday with Brazil's vice-president, Geraldo Alckmin, who has been leading the Lula administration's thus far unsuccessful efforts to reverse the tariffs. Brazil says it has been seeking to open negotiations with the US since April, but has received no response. This week, Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, told Reuters: 'The day my intuition says Trump is ready to talk, I won't hesitate to call him. But today my intuition says he doesn't want to talk. And I won't humiliate myself.'
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
NHS to spend more on US drugs as Britain bows to Trump
Ministers are preparing to boost NHS spending on US drugs in a race to avoid a future tariff hit from Donald Trump. The Government told drugmakers last week that it would agree to boost spending on medicines to comparable levels with the US. The promise to increase the GDP share allocated to medicines is understood to have been made as part of talks with drug bosses over the NHS drugs spending cap. It follows demands from the US president that other countries stop 'freeloading' on American innovation and pay more for its medicines. In the US-UK trade agreement, signed earlier this year, ministers said the NHS would review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president'. The UK's expenditure on new innovative medicines currently stands at just 0.28pc of GDP, around a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even in Europe, the UK lags other countries, with Germany spending 0.4pc of its GDP and Italy spending 0.5pc. Ministers are understood to have offered to take steps to get the UK level closer to the US proportion. However, sources said the Government did not provide details on timing or concrete actions as to how the NHS would increase medicine spending. One insider claimed the proposal was 'a lot of jam and a lot of tomorrows'. The offer comes weeks after the US president told the world's biggest drugmakers that they needed to lower prices for Americans, suggesting they pay for this by charging higher fees abroad. In a letter sent to the bosses of 17 pharmaceutical companies, Mr Trump demanded they 'negotiate harder with foreign freeloading nations' for their medicines, suggesting he would use tariffs to push through higher prices if countries resisted. Earlier this year, the Telegraph revealed that the White House was already pressing for the NHS to spend more on American drugs. US officials are particularly concerned by an arrangement that allows the NHS to spend less on medicines than other countries by forcing drugmakers to pay rebates. The UK's voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (known as VPAG) makes sure that the NHS does not overpay for medicines. It does this by requiring pharmaceutical companies to pay sales rebates back to the NHS if its medicine bill rises faster than expected, essentially keeping a cap on drug costs. Earlier this year, the Department of Health launched a review of the scheme under pressure from Mr Trump and the pharmaceutical industry. Since then, ministers have been in negotiations with drug companies over how much the NHS should be able to claw back in rebates. Drug company chiefs are expected to vote on whether to accept the latest offer next week. The offer follows years where drug bosses have called for the UK to spend more on medicines. Albert Bourla, the chief executive of US drug giant Pfizer, said in June: 'We represent in the UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices.' He said countries were other countries were 'free-riding' on the US. A government spokesman said: 'The VPAG review is one of many ways in which we are taking decisive action to unlock innovation and drive investment in the UK's world-class pharmaceutical sector including the Life Sciences Sector Plan. 'We will make sure the next game changers in medicine are developed here in Britain, for the benefit of our health at home and abroad. 'We continue to work closely with industry, including Associated of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, on the VPAG review and the outcome will be announced in due course.' The Government previously argued it would 'only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading'.
