Accusations of ceasefire violations between Thailand and Cambodia in November, 2025 have stirred public anger and revived fears that both sides may descend once again into conflict. As statements grow sharper and political pressure intensifies, some voices in politics suggest abandoning the agreement altogether. This sense of alarm is understandable, but it also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what ceasefires are and how they function.

Rather than treating a breach as proof of failure, it is more accurate and more constructive to view it as an expected part of the peace process. Ceasefires rarely work perfectly the first time. Their fragility is not a sign that peace is impossible, but a reminder that peace must be built through persistence, learning, and patience.

The Nature of Ceasefires: Fragile, Imperfect, and Necessary

Globally, ceasefires almost always begin in intensely fragile environments. The parties may have agreed to pause violence, but the underlying conditions, distrust, fear, historical grievances, pressure from hard-line supporters, and volatile local dynamics still exist. In such an atmosphere, even a minor incident, whether intentional or accidental, can trigger renewed tension.

Yet, this fragility does not mean the ceasefire is meaningless. It means it is alive. Ceasefires are not stable structures; they are temporary breathing spaces created in the midst of instability. Their purpose is not to eliminate risk, but to provide a foundation for managing risk together.

When societies expect a ceasefire to operate flawlessly, any breach is interpreted as betrayal. But if we understand that fragility is normal, we respond more calmly and avoid escalating a situation that could otherwise be contained.

What the Research Shows: Failure as a Pathway to Success

This understanding is strongly supported by global research. Jason Quinn and Madhav Joshi of the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute studied 196 conflicts between 1975 and 2011. Their findings reveal a pattern that defies common assumptions. Multiple failed ceasefires precede most peace processes that ultimately succeed. These early collapses play a critical role: They expose weak points, clarify misunderstandings, and allow negotiators to refine communication and monitoring systems.

One of the strongest predictors of a durable ceasefire is not how well the first couple attempts hold, but rather whether the parties had prior agreements, even if those agreements had  collapsed. In other words, each failure becomes part of the learning curve that eventually stabilizes the process.

When viewed through this lens, a ceasefire breach is not a catastrophe. It is part of the education of peace.

Leadership in Times of Fragility

Moments of ceasefire tension test leadership more than any other time. Responsible leaders must prevent panic and remind the public that such incidents are expected. They must also calm their own security forces, who may feel angered or threatened and are under pressure from “cheerleaders” who demand a harder line.

Good leadership requires stepping forward to explain that early instability is typical and that recommitment, not retaliation, is what prevents escalation. Without such leadership, societies can easily be drawn into cycles of anger and confrontation, even when no one truly wants the conflict to flare up again.

Ceasefires Create Space for Peace, But Do Not Guarantee It

A ceasefire, by itself, cannot resolve the political and social grievances that fuel conflict. If underlying issues remain unaddressed, such as mistrust, unclear communication channels, insecure borders, or a lack of community engagement, then pressure will build beneath the surface. Expecting the ceasefire itself to deliver peace is unrealistic.

Instead, we should see the ceasefire as one tool among many. It provides space for negotiators to work on deeper problems: political arrangements, economic needs, local security concerns, and mechanisms for preventing escalation. If these elements are not strengthened, even the best ceasefire will remain fragile.

Starting Again, as Many Times as Needed

The key to effective ceasefire management is accepting from the beginning that failure is likely. This mindset does not promote pessimism; it promotes resilience. When a breakdown occurs, the question should not be, “Is peace impossible?” but rather, “What does this teach us about what must be strengthened next?”

Countries around the world have needed multiple ceasefire attempts before reaching a stable peace. Thailand and Cambodia may be no exception. What matters is not whether the ceasefire holds perfectly, but whether both sides remain committed to returning to dialogue after setbacks.

A ceasefire may falter many times. It may cause frustration or disappointment. But it remains a crucial step toward peace, and each attempt brings the parties closer to understanding how to prevent violence more effectively.

The Real Failure Is Giving Up

A failing ceasefire does not mean the peace process has failed. It means the process is underway. What determines the future is not whether clashes occur, but how governments, militaries, and societies respond to them.

If we interpret every breach as a reason to abandon dialogue, then conflict will return. But if we view each incident as part of a long, complicated learning process, then we can respond with the patience and maturity needed to keep the journey moving forward.

We do not fail when a ceasefire breaks. We fail only when we decide that a few breaches is enough to give up on peace.

Keywords: Thailand, Cambodia, ceasefire, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, border conflict, Thai-Cambodian border