Home

Featured Articles

Feb 17, 2026
Khushi Mishra & Dr. A. Adityanjee

India’s Quiet Diplomacy in the New Phase of the Thailand-Cambodia Conflict

Introduction History rarely ends when a ceasefire is signed. It merely lowers its voice and the noise. As a matter of fact, history never ceases to exist; it is created daily. When fighting reignited between Thailand and Cambodia in 2025, the world briefly turned its attention toward the border near Preah Vihear. Images of displaced civilians and military escalation dominated headlines. But as quickly as the violence rose, media interest faded once the truce was announced. Claims were made by the US President Donald Trump of negotiating the ceasefire in his narcissistic quest for the Nobel Peace Prize. What followed subsequently has received far less attention: the delicate, slow work of preventing another collapse into conflict. This is where India’s diplomacy began to matter in a deeper way. If the earlier phase of the crisis tested military limits, the post-conflict phase tested political maturity. Borders remained tense, nationalist rhetoric lingered, and trust between the two neighbours was fragile. There were frequent breakdowns in the ceasefire agreement. The real question was no longer how to stop fighting, but how to prevent its full-scale return. And unlike louder global actors like the US and China, India stepped into this moment without noise, without taking credit, and without choosing sides. Sometimes influence is strongest when it refuses to hog the spotlight. From Crisis Response to Conflict Management In our earlier analysis, India’s role was defined by quiet engagement and historical trust. The recent phase has pushed that approach further. India has moved from being a concerned observer to becoming a steady background stabiliser. After the ASEAN-backed truce of July 2025, international diplomacy entered a sensitive phase. Ceasefires are fragile agreements built more on caution than trust. A single miscalculation, a military patrol gone wrong, or domestic political pressure can undo months of negotiations. There were, indeed, several violations of the ceasefire agreement. India’s strategy remained deliberately restrained. Instead of dramatic interventions and grandstanding to the audience, New Delhi focused on maintaining open channels with both Bangkok and Phnom Penh, encouraging dialogue while respecting ASEAN’s central role. This was not diplomatic inertia or passivity; it was strategic patience. The message was clear- peace must belong to the region itself. Why India Is Heard Even When It Speaks Softly India’s strength in Southeast Asia lies less in power projection and more in perception as a benign civilisational ally. Indeed, both Thailand and Cambodia view India through a long civilisational lens. Shared religious and cultural histories mean India is rarely seen as a strategic intruder. This matters because border disputes are deeply emotional; countries are far more receptive to voices they do not perceive as threatening. In recent months, this perception translated into practical outcomes. India expanded cooperation with Cambodia through cultural restoration, development partnerships, and capacity-building initiatives. Simultaneously, defence engagement and strategic dialogue with Thailand continued steadily through existing frameworks. The balance is subtle but powerful: reassure one partner without alarming the other. That is diplomacy at its most difficult and most effective. The Lesson Hidden in the 2025 Escalation The clashes revealed an uncomfortable aspect of modern geopolitics. Even local conflicts quickly become entangled in larger rivalries. Cambodia’s close ties with China and Thailand’s broader security partnerships made the crisis vulnerable to external narratives. India’s approach stood apart precisely because it avoided turning the conflict into a geopolitical contest. While major powers like the US and China often arrive with solutions that reflect their own strategic interests, India has not asserted its national interests in this conflict. China’s mediation efforts have been dictated by its economic and strategic considerations and its desire to counter US influence in the region. More recently, China has spearheaded a track II trilateral dialogue between academics from China, Thailand and Cambodia. Thailand is a treaty ally of the US, whereas Cambodia has string economic, strategic and security relationship with China. The US, while supporting ASEAN efforts in negotiating the initial ceasefire, had threatened to use coercive tariffs and trade sanctions. In early 2026, the US pledged $45 million in aid to support the ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia. India offered something rare: space. Space for regional institutions to function, space for leaders to step back from confrontation, and space for diplomacy to breathe. India has consistently supported quiet mediation efforts through regional institutions like ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum) and MGC (Mekong Ganga Cooperation) in an effort for de-escalation of the conflict. MGC includes India and five ASEAN countries: Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. In an era of loud diplomacy practised by both the US and China, India practised silent leverage. One of the parties to the conflict, Thailand, frowns upon any external intervention and prefers a bilateral approach, whereas Cambodia has repeatedly tried to involve the International Court of Justice. The Human Dimension One of the least discussed outcomes of the conflict has been the humanitarian and economic stress on border communities. Schools closed, trade stalled, and livelihoods evaporated almost overnight. The border is not just a line on a map; it is a living space where ordinary people pay the price of political tension. India’s post-conflict engagement increasingly reflects this reality. Development partnerships, training programs, and cultural projects quietly help restore normalcy without politicising aid. This softer engagement may lack headlines, but it strengthens the social foundations of peace. Wars begin with nationalism. Peace survives through everyday stability. Preah Vihear: From Flashpoint to Symbol The temple at the heart of the dispute continues to embody the deeper challenge of the conflict. For Cambodia, it represents sovereignty. For Thailand, historical memory. For the region, it is a reminder that heritage can both divide and unite. India’s historical role in preserving regional heritage gives it a unique moral position. By focusing on conservation rather than ownership, India demonstrates an alternative way of engaging with contested history, not by deciding who owns the past, but by ensuring the past survives. While promoting peace quietly, India did not fail to notice and condemn the destruction of Bhagwan Vishnu’s statue by Thailand’s army in December 2025. That quiet symbolism matters more than it appears. A Different Kind of Power The follow-up phase of the Thailand–Cambodia conflict highlights an emerging truth about international diplomacy: middle powers matter most when they resist the temptation to dominate. India’s role has been less about resolution and more about resilience. It has helped keep diplomatic doors open, supported regional leadership, and maintained trust with both sides without slipping into strategic competition. This model challenges traditional ideas of strategic influence. Power does not always speak through the threat of military or economic force. Sometimes it speaks through patience and consistency. The Road Ahead The border dispute is far from solved. Historical grievances do not disappear with a ceasefire, and domestic politics in both countries can quickly revive tensions. But the probability of immediate escalation has reduced, mainly because regional diplomacy has been allowed to function without external disruption. India’s challenge now is to sustain this quiet credibility. As the “Act East” policy deepens, India will increasingly be judged not by how loudly it enters regional crises, but by how steadily it helps prevent them from escalating further. In the end, diplomacy is not measured only by moments of peace agreements or handshakes for cameras. It is measured by what does not happen: wars avoided, tensions managed, and trust preserved. And in the fragile yet tempestuous calm after 2025, India’s quiet hand may have been one of the reasons the silence held. However, India needs to take a more active diplomatic involvement in the resolution of this conflict without coercive diplomacy. Further escalation of this conflict is not in the larger interests of the regional countries, as it will give carte blanche to Western imperialistic powers and neo-colonialist and expansionist Asian powers to take advantage of the unstable geopolitical situation. There is a need for India to continue to engage both countries diplomatically and using smart power, perhaps in conjunction and collaboration with another Asian country like Japan, to address the developmental needs of both countries without playing favourites to either of them. The need of the hour for India is to use all the appropriate tools in the diplomatic toolbox without public exhibition of hard power. Time is not to shy away from discharging our duty and responsibility towards maintaining harmony and peace between two fellow Asian nations that are joined to India by the umbilical cord of Dharma, culture and civilisation. References 1. Adityanjee: India's Soft-Power: Call Comes from the East! Vivekanand International Foundation Feb 18th, 2011, https://www.vifindia.org/article/2011/february/16/India-s-Soft-Power-Call-Comes-From-The-East 2. Khushi Mishra and Dr. Adityanjee: Exercising Soft Power: Diplomatic Role of India in the Thailand-Cambodia Conflict https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/exercising-soft-power-diplomatic-role-of-india-in-the-thailand-cambodia-conflict 3.‘Hurts global sentiments’: India condemns demolition of Bhagwan Vishnu statue at Thailand–Cambodia border https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/hurts-global-sentiments-india-condemns-demolition-of-bhagwan-vishnu-statue-at-thailandcambodia-border 4. Omkar Bhole: CHINA'S MEDIATION IN THE THAILAND-CAMBODIA CONFLICT Between Regional Influence and Global Ambitions https://orcasia.org/article/1535/chinas-mediation-in-the-thailand-cambodia-conflict#:~:text=China's%20expanding%20role%20as%20a,and%20towards%20active%20conflict%20management. 5. Sebastian Strangio: US Pledges $45M Assistance to Support Cambodia-Thailand Ceasefire https://thediplomat.com/2026/01/us-pledges-45m-assistance-to-support-cambodia-thailand-ceasefire/ 6. China's mediation helps advance Cambodia–Thailand peace process, says a PKU scholar https://news.cgtn.com/news/2026-02-14/China-s-mediation-helps-advance-Cambodia-Thailand-peace-process-1KJISfRlkic/index.html

Feb 16, 2026
Shubhi Malhotra & Dr Adityanjee

Annexing Greenland with “Americanese” Characteristics

Introduction After controlling the oil sales from Venezuela, it is Greenland’s turn for the United States. Since the beginning of 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump has made repeated statements to acquire Greenland by any means for national security reasons. Although it is not new and has leapt from the realm of historical speculations, it has now highlighted emerging crisis diplomacy, accompanying geopolitical tensions, public protests and a looming threat to Greenlandic sovereignty and International Law. There is a clear clash of ideologies between the countries. The United States is mostly focused on its roots of expansionist ideology, while Greenland is based on cultural self-determination and follows the established international norms. The United States attempts to annex Greenland dwells on a broader question: How do superpowers engage with small countries in this rapidly changing global order? Historical Context American interest in Greenland is not new. In the 19th century, Secretary of State William H. Seward, the architect of the Alaska Purchase, seriously considered acquiring Greenland and Iceland as part of U.S. territorial expansion, seeing strategic value comparable to Alaska’s geography. In 1867, the U.S. government commissioned surveys anticipating economic and strategic benefits from Greenland’s fisheries, minerals and position. Denmark rejected these early overtures. During World War II and the early Cold War, Greenland’s importance crystallised. The United States signed a Defence of Greenland agreement in 1941, and from 1951 onward maintained bases - notably the Thule Air Base (renamed Pituffik Space Base) under formal bilateral accords with Denmark, integrating Greenland into U.S. missile early warning and Arctic defence infrastructure without changing sovereignty. Greenland’s Identity A vast, autonomous and self-governing Arctic island within the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland is a sovereign and independent nation. After the U.S. claims, Denmark’s government reiterated that “you cannot annex another country,” Greenland’s premier denied any deal to surrender sovereignty, and allied nations warned against undermining NATO unity. Crucially, the people of Greenland, around 57,000 and predominantly Inuit, have been vocal in opposing any scenario that would see them absorbed into another state. Leaders of Greenland’s parliamentary parties jointly condemned U.S. annexation, showing unity in times of adversity. Both Greenland and Denmark are witnessing large-scale protests with slogans like “Greenland is not for sale.” These movements reflect anxiety and fear of external interference in their culture and language, to gain strategic or economic interests. Why Greenland Matters Strategically Various strategic factors make Greenland more attractive for superpowers to invest and multiply their vested interests. Strategically, Greenland signifies stronger Arctic geopolitics. Amid the rising Russian and Chinese activity, the Arctic has assumed greater military importance. Greenland, sitting on the crossroads of Iceland and the United Kingdom, serves as an important corridor for naval and air operations between the Arctic and the North Atlantic. Additionally, the missile defence and space bases contribute immensely to the early warning systems and space-oriented military infrastructure. Moreover, Greenland is a treasure island, offering rare earth and critical minerals, which are of increasing economic and technological interest for countries globally. For the U.S., Greenland could further enhance national defence and act as a natural barrier for Chinese or Russian influence. It can also help in economic development if placed under Washington’s control, as then the U.S. will have control over all of its resources, whether natural or man-made. However, critics argue that these claims of enhanced security are too selfish and a cover for strategic hegemony, conflicting with international law and self-determination. American Exceptionalism and Expansionism The U.S. has long been known for its ambitious plans based on strategic realpolitik, whether we talk about the Monroe Doctrine or the 19th-century territorial expansionism. A country that started as a union of thirteen colonies now has fifty states and eight overseas territories and colonies. The US’s lust for expansion may not end at Greenland as the current administration has consistently floated the idea of acquiring Canada as the 51st state, renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, reclaimed physical control of the Panama Canal and claimed hegemony over the entire Western hemisphere under the newly re-articulated Donroe doctrine. Unfortunately, the domestic opinion in the US borders on rationalisation and hyper-nationalism. Trump’s acolytes like Senator Lyndsey Graham have reinforced this imperialistic dominance and acquisitions by statements like, “Who gives a sxxx who owns Greenland?”! These acquisitive actions were conducted in the past for national security, political ambitions, and economic growth, as justified by the U.S., even when the impacts on local populations were secondary or adverse. In this complex global order of the 21st century, America continues to act on its own imperial impulses, as we have seen in its actions regarding Greenland annexation plans. However, unlike past expansions, there are various constraints in the present scenario that put a barrier on any attempt to redraw borders for strategic gains. These include strong international legal frameworks, multinational alliances like NATO, and a heightened emphasis on human rights and indigenous autonomy. Conclusion There is yet no diplomatic end to this chaos. Reports indicate ongoing talks between the U.S. and Denmark about new agreements about expanded military access, parallel to other global U.S. base arrangements, though full annexation remains out of reach under existing international law. The rules-based liberal world order, carefully crafted following World War II is over. The discourse around annexing Greenland with Americanese characteristics illuminates fundamental tensions at the heart of 21st-century geopolitics: strategic competition in the Arctic, the rights of smaller nations and peoples to self-determination, and the limits of superpower ambition under international law. Invoking non-existent Chinese and Russian threats to Greenland has become a fig leaf for the naked expansionist ambitions. While Greenland’s strategic value to the United States is clear from both historical precedent and contemporary defence considerations, the idea of annexation clashes with Greenlandic identity, Danish sovereignty, and international norms. The path forward, if any shift in status were ever to occur, would need to be grounded in mutual consent, respect for local choice, and adherence to legal frameworks that protect sovereignty and human rights. Nationalism is something that cannot be taken out of the roots of the citizens of that nation. Similarly, Greenlanders desire to be seen not as Americans or Danes, but as Greenlanders, asserting their democratic autonomy and indigenous identity. References The 1951 agreement allowing the US military in Greenland. (2026, January 15). HISTORY. https://www.history.com/articles/1951-agreement-that-allows-us-military-presence-in-greenland Here’s why Greenland is strategically important to the U.S. (2025, January 23). National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/greenland-us-purchase-history-wwii A milestone in Arctic sovereignty? Trump’s new Arctic strategy is shaping Greenland’s future as an independent state. (n.d.). Avaleht | Sisu@UT. https://sisu.ut.ee/defactostates/a-milestone-in-arctic-sovereignty? US and Denmark discuss Greenland 'military access' in more conventional talks. (2026, January 24). Le Monde.fr. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/01/24/us-and-denmark-discuss-greenland-military-access-in-more-conventional-talks Why is the U.S. interested in Greenland? (2026, January 23). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Why-Is-the-US-Interested-in-Greenland?

India’s Biopharma Moment: Government Vision and BIRAC’s Evolution Powering a Global R&D and Manufacturing Hub

The Unbeatable Pole: Why the 2026 Election is the DMK’s to Lose

Fostering a Time-Tested Strategic Partnership: Redefining a Multi-Polar World

Featured Articles

India’s Quiet Diplomacy in the New Phase of the Thailand-Cambodia Conflict

Annexing Greenland with “Americanese” Characteristics

Reports View All

India approves $8.7 billion Israeli precision strike weapons package to strengthen air power

Decision on Jammu and Kashmir statehood expected soon, says Union Minister Meghwal

India, France announce ‘Special Global Strategic Partnership’, PM Modi and Macron inaugurate innovation year 2026

Adani to invest $100 billion in AI-ready data centres in India by 2035

Delhi High Court says it cannot allow India to be maligned globally in UK academic’s OCI case

‘You won’t be able to eliminate Iran’: Khamenei warns Trump as nuclear talks resume in Geneva

Search

Top Authors

Archives

Featured Articles

Reports View All

Search

Podcast / Videos

Popular Posts

Top Authors

Archives