&w=3840&q=100)
Thailand, Cambodia trade fresh attacks as allies call for ceasefire
Artillery and small arms fire were reported near several border villages, expanding the area of the fighting that flared Thursday after a land mine explosion along the border wounded five Thai soldiers. Cambodian and Thai officials blamed each other for starting the clashes.
Both countries recalled their ambassadors and Thailand closed its border crossings with Cambodia.
Cambodian authorities reported 12 new deaths on Saturday, bringing its toll to 13, while the Thai military said a soldier was killed, raising the number of dead to 20, mostly civilians.
Cambodia's Information Minister Neth Pheaktra said Saturday that the clashes have forced 10,865 Cambodian families, or 37,635 people, in three border provinces to evacuate to safe locations. Thai officials said more than 131,000 people have fled their border villages.
The 800-kilometer frontier between Thailand and Cambodia has been disputed for decades, but past confrontations have been limited and brief. The latest tensions flared in May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a confrontation that created a diplomatic rift and roiled Thailand's domestic politics.
On Saturday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he has talked with the leaders of Thailand and Cambodia and suggested he would not conclude a trade agreement with either country if the cross-border hostilities continued. He later said both sides have agreed to meet to negotiate a ceasefire.
Thailand's Foreign Ministry gave a politely hedged response to Trump's proposal, saying Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai thanked him for his concern and said he agreed in principle that a ceasefire is needed.
"However, Thailand would like to see sincere intention from the Cambodian side," the ministry said, reiterating Bangkok's desire for bilateral talks with Cambodia. The statement said Phumtham asked Trump to convey that position to the Cambodian side.
Fresh News, an online news agency close to the Cambodian government, reported that Prime Minister Hun Manet posted on social media that Cambodia agrees with the request for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire between the two armies.
However, as reported by Fresh News, Hun Manet appeared to misunderstand or misrepresent Thailand's position as Bangkok agreeing to an immediate ceasefire.
Trump's intervention followed increasing pressure on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to defuse the tensions between its two members.
During an emergency meeting on Friday, members of the U.N. Security Council called for a de-escalation and urged ASEAN to mediate a peaceful solution. The council didn't issue a resolution on the crisis, but Thai Foreign Minister Maris Sangiampongsa said Saturday that the group's 15 members called for restraint, an end to hostilities and a peaceful resolution.
The leader of Malaysia, ASEAN's current chair, has said Thailand and Cambodia are open to a ceasefire proposal. Malaysian media said Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has tasked the country's foreign minister with mediating peace talks, but no concrete plans have been announced.
Maris said earlier Saturday that his country has agreed in principle to ASEAN's ceasefire proposal, but insisted Cambodia must first cease hostilities. He said Thailand continues to engage with Malaysia on the matter.
Thailand reaffirms its commitment to resolving the conflict peacefully and in accordance with international law, he said, urging Cambodia to return to the negotiating table with sincerity and in good faith.
Cambodia's Defense Ministry condemned what it called an expanded Thai offensive early Saturday after five heavy artillery shells were fired into Pursat province. It said the attack was an "unprovoked and premeditated act of aggression.
Ministry spokesperson Lt. Gen. Maly Socheata said tensions flared in the coastal province of Koh Kong and expressed concern about the possibility of confrontations at sea.
Maly Socheata said seven Cambodian civilians and five soldiers have been killed in two days of fighting. Another man was reportedly killed when a pagoda he was hiding under was hit by Thai rockets.
The Thai army has denied targeting Cambodian civilians and accuses Phnom Penh of using human shields by positioning their weapons near residential areas.
In a statement Saturday, Thailand's navy accused Cambodian forces of initiating a new attack in the province of Trat, which shares a border with Koh Kong, saying Thai forces responded swiftly and successfully pushed back the Cambodian incursion at three key points." The navy warned that aggression will not be tolerated.
Thai authorities also alleged several Cambodian artillery shells damaged homes and property in neighboring Laos. Lao officials have not publicly responded to the claim.
Human Rights Watch urged the UN Security Council and other nations to press Thailand and Cambodia to abide by international humanitarian law and take all steps to protect civilians. Children have been harmed and Thailand has closed at least 852 schools and seven hospitals for safety reasons, the rights group said in a statement Saturday.
Both sides have fired rockets and artillery, and after initially denying Cambodian claims that internationally prohibited cluster munitions were being used, a Thai military spokesperson said Friday that such weapons can be utilized when necessary to achieve military objectives. Human Rights Watch condemned the use of cluster munitions in populated areas.
Neither Thailand nor Cambodia is party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans the use of the weapon. Thai authorities used them during a border dispute with Cambodia in February 2011 that left 20 people dead.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
25 minutes ago
- The Print
Buying Russian oil, misreading Trump—3 points will define India's next energy strategy
While public commentary has focused heavily on Trump, tariffs, and New Delhi's indignation, the more pressing task is to interrogate the rationale behind these choices. That balance is now under pressure from Donald Trump's 50 per cent tariff offensive, aimed selectively at India and leaving little ambiguity about his objectives—and in Trump's world, what he wants, he usually gets. Yet the national debate has taken too many assumptions for granted. It is worth applying a deconstruction approach to India's famous oil bargains with Russia—a decision once hailed as tactical brilliance, but one now risking entanglement in overlapping economic and diplomatic challenges. India's crude oil trade has evolved from a purely economic exchange into both a geopolitical test of strategic autonomy and a measure of the constraints in its energy policy. Over the past three years, India has gone from being a marginal buyer of Russian crude to one of its largest importers, carefully balancing ties with the US, Europe, and shifting global energy markets. To navigate the road ahead, India must revisit three fundamentals: why it embraced Russian oil, how it misread Trump's European recalibration, and where future India–Russia energy engagement should head. Clarity on these three points may well define the next chapter of India's energy strategy. Also read: Trump tariff forces India to shed illusion. Stop conflating status with power 50 shades of discounts Despite close political ties and deep defence cooperation, India and Russia were never bound by energy dependence. Even with India's heavy reliance on imports—currently 88 per cent of its daily crude requirement of 5.5 million barrels—its primary suppliers have traditionally been Gulf countries. The earlier chapter of India capitulating to Trump 1.0's sanctions on Iran and Venezuela is well known; today, however, the challenge is starker. Russia entered India's energy equation only after the geopolitical earthquake of President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. That act shattered the European order painstakingly built since the Second World War and crystallised after the Soviet Union's collapse. Central to this upheaval was Putin's weaponisation of energy: Europe's decades-long dependence on cheap Russian oil and gas became a vulnerability. In response, Europe diversified away from Russia, while the G7 imposed a $60 per-barrel price cap on Russian crude in December 2022. The logic was clear: as one of the world's top three oil producers, Russia could not be cut off overnight. The aim was instead to squeeze Moscow's revenues, which were funding its war machine, while keeping prices stable and securing alternative supplies for Europe. India saw opportunity in this upheaval. With vast import needs, it began rerouting Russian oil at supposedly lower prices, rejecting G7 sanctions and arranging direct and indirect deals through intermediaries. Early reports spoke of a 'free on board' discount of 30 per cent, though never confirmed. Brent crude fell from $86.51 in January 2022 to $80.92 in December, peaking briefly at about $90 in June 2023 before sliding again. While some credit India's purchases with stabilising prices, Russian oil for India almost always remained above the $60 price cap. The critical question is whether India ever bought below that threshold. Reports suggest an average discount of only $5 per barrel—hardly transformative—and potentially offset by hidden costs and middlemen's surcharges. Even so, large volumes (peaking at over 2 million barrels per day before dropping to 1.5 million) meant cumulative savings. But if cheap oil was the goal, why not join or informally align with the price cap, securing crude closer to $60 without the complications of shadow fleets and sanctions risks? In July 2025, the EU lowered the cap to about $47 while Brent traded around $65. This offered another opportunity for cheaper imports, yet India stayed outside the framework, maintaining minimal discounts and ultimately seeing one of its companies sanctioned—for 'strategic autonomy.' Government claims of passing benefits to consumers are unconvincing: petrol prices hit Rs 105 per litre in 2025 versus Rs 95 in 2022. Recent relief correlates more with global declines—12 per cent over the past six months—than with Russian discounts. Savings estimates of $25 billion are offset by projections of $9–10 billion in potential losses if imports shift away from Russia, and much of the gain may reflect global oversupply rather than uniquely favourable Russian terms. From a taxpayer's perspective, why not secure far greater savings by pressing Moscow for prices nearer the cap while sustaining high volumes? This would have preserved strategic autonomy while serving economic logic. Instead, India paid more, absorbed sanctions, and missed chances for deeper cost benefits. Now Trump's 50 per cent tariffs on India are unrelated to the EU's cap. His pivot on Ukraine has hardened US demands that India halt Russian oil imports—demands not pressed on others—hurting New Delhi disproportionately. The real question is why Trump would take such a stance toward a strategic partner his administration once called an ally. Also read: Trump is treating diplomacy like a failed casino deal Misreading Trump's re-pivot to Europe When Donald Trump returned to the White House, India was smug. His criticism of Europe, mocking remarks about Denmark and Canada, and public praise for Putin—especially his Oval Office dressing-down of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy—were interpreted in New Delhi as vindication: India stood to benefit from a US policy shift toward Russia. At first, the bilateral climate looked promising. The Trump administration's rhetoric suggested the Indo-Pacific would be his main strategic theatre. Anticipated friction over India's protectionism and trade deficit was being managed, with both sides pursuing a deal. Public displays of camaraderie continued—until 'Operation Sindoor.' That alone, however, was not the turning point. Trump's push to end the war in Ukraine faltered despite carrots for Russia and sticks for Ukraine. In fact, Russian attacks on Ukraine have doubled since Trump took charge in January. Frustrated, he shifted tone, endorsing the Lindsey–Blumenthal bill to sanction countries buying Russian oil, a measure with strong Senate backing. Simultaneously, the April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs targeted nations with trade deficits with the US, India among them. Trump re-engaged with Europe, supplying Ukraine with weapons and extracting costly commitments: 5 per cent of GDP on defence, a trade deal with 15 per cent tariffs, and pledges of about $600 billion in US investment. Japan followed with similar concessions. Meanwhile, Trump prematurely claimed to have mediated Operation Sindoor, clashing with India's account. The fallout strained personal communication between Modi and Trump—tensions that might have been eased with a symbolic 'thank you' or diplomatic courtesy for facilitating the 'ceasefire.' Also read: India's export basket has no irreplaceables. It's a vulnerability in Trump's power politics What next for India and Russia Now, as India's NSA Ajit Doval visits Moscow in a show of solidarity, the moment calls for more than optics. Three issues must shape discussions with Russia: First — Payments. Confusion surrounds the currency used in the oil trade. The rupee–ruble mechanism has stalled, with billions of rupees stuck in Russian accounts. Russia's war economy leaves little incentive to reinvest in India despite earlier promises. Payments in dirhams have become harder after UAE banks shut Russian accounts under US pressure, and India hardly holds dirham reserves. Yuan payments are strategically risky for India, and gold settlements are not yet viable. Trade experts must directly address these bottlenecks. Second — Discounts. India avoided joining the sanctions regime, yet the discounts it received rarely justified the political and economic risks. With Russian imports already being cut and US crude purchases jumping 51 per cent in days, it is clear the 'discounted' oil was not cheap enough to offset sanctions or tariffs. Russia should now match its discounts to the new $47 price cap for ongoing purchases. Third — Parity with China. China remains Russia's largest energy buyer and reportedly enjoys deeper discounts. India must demand equal treatment for its remaining purchases. The stakes are high: India–US trade totals $212 billion, with $85 billion in Indian exports—40 per cent still exempt from tariffs. Finding workarounds while pursuing overdue structural reforms is essential. Strategic autonomy must be anchored in economic logic, ensuring national interest prevails over symbolic defiance—before multipolarity turns into 'messier-polarity.' Swasti Rao is a Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)
India Today
25 minutes ago
- India Today
US tariff surge could stall India's manufacturing momentum, warns Moody's
India's goal to become a global manufacturing powerhouse could take a hit, thanks to a sharp rise in tariffs from the US. A recent report by Moody's Ratings has warned that the recent decision by the US to double tariffs on Indian exports may reduce India's competitiveness, especially in the electronics Thursday, US President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that adds a 25% tariff on Indian goods. This move comes in response to India's continued import of oil from Russia, which Washington sees as going against efforts to isolate Moscow over the Ukraine war. The new tariffs will apply to goods imported into the US 21 days after the order was says the wide tariff gap between India and other Asia-Pacific countries could hurt India's recent progress in attracting global manufacturers. This could slow the country's manufacturing growth and weaken its position in the global supply chain. India's annual GDP growth may slow by about 0.3 percentage points, Moody's warned, with Goldman Sachs offering a similar ratings agency added that if the issue isn't resolved quickly, India's annual GDP growth may slow by about 0.3 percentage points, with Goldman Sachs offering a similar real worry, however, lies in the long-term impact. India could lose its manufacturing momentum just when it has started gaining attention as an alternative to China. The tariff hike could push global companies to look at other countries in the region for setting up their factories and supply tariffs may have long-term effects, possibly weakening India's position in global manufacturing. This calls for strong diplomatic and economic moves to reduce the damage and protect future now, all eyes are on how India adjusts its trade policies to tackle the challenge.(Disclaimer: The views, opinions, recommendations, and suggestions expressed by experts/brokerages in this article are their own and do not reflect the views of the India Today Group. It is advisable to consult a qualified broker or financial advisor before making any actual investment or trading choices.)- EndsTune InMust Watch
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Hey Bibi, Stop Lying': Trump YELLS At Netanyahu In Heated Phone Call Over Gaza Starvation
/ Aug 08, 2025, 03:25PM IST Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump had a heated phone call over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The argument followed Netanyahu's claim denying starvation in Gaza, which Trump publicly rejected, insisting children were starving. During the call, Trump reportedly shouted at Netanyahu, demanding the issue not be dismissed as fake news. NBC News revealed the details, citing unnamed senior US officials. Both the White House and Israeli officials declined to comment. The exchange highlights growing tensions between the two leaders amid worsening conditions in Gaza and ongoing debates over humanitarian aid.#Netanyahu #Trump #GazaCrisis #HumanitarianCrisis #Gaza #Israel #USPolitics #BreakingNews #MiddleEast #Conflict
