Certainly! Here's the rewritten version of the article with added details while maintaining the original semantic content:
---
A single phone call ignites the destinies of two nations.
The call in May was initially meant to defuse tensions along the border. However, Hun Sen deliberately leaked his recorded conversation with Peethongtarn. What began as a geopolitical maneuver on a chessboard suddenly unfolded into a public spectacle.
It was anticipated to undermine Peethongtarn, yet she had an ace up her sleeve! The incident's origins were simple, but the backdrop was complex.
On that day, two soldiers clashed in the Emerald Triangle area along the Thai-Cambodian border, resulting in the death of a Cambodian soldier. Thailand claimed self-defense, enraging Cambodia. This led to troop reinforcements, border closures, and bans on agricultural imports.
Hun Sen intervened, stating, \"We don't want war, but we won't swallow our pride.\" Thailand's military also warned, \"Action will be taken if necessary.\"
Both countries' media and citizens joined the fray. What started as a minor skirmish escalated into a national-level political event. As Prime Minister, Peethongtarn's initial response was to calm the situation, referring to Hun Sen as \"uncle,\" regardless of his actions.
She made a call, urging restraint from the military. However, the leaked call triggered a firestorm. Public outrage in Thailand exploded; television debates centered on the call, protests filled the streets, and parliamentarians bickered endlessly. The ruling coalition, \"Proud Thai Party,\" withdrew, shaking the government's foundation.
Everything crumbled due to one phone call. After the leak, Thailand was in turmoil. Hun Sen claimed he shared the recording with about 80 people, but someone leaked it.
Thai citizens were furious, feeling Peethongtarn insulted their military leaders and humiliated Thailand. Major media outlets launched attacks: \"She lacks leadership,\" \"She insults our nation.\"
After the Proud Thai Party withdrew, the government's ambitions were laid bare. Simultaneously, Hun Sen's revelation that Yingluck and Abhisit had both requested his mediation in border disputes and that the Thai side withdrew was voluntarily agreed upon, but Cambodia publicized it as a Cambodian withdrawal.
This statement caused public opinion to flip again. The phone call, which was originally dismissed as a private chat, became a public embarrassment once exposed.
The Constitutional Court of Thailand saw an opportunity to \"legally overthrow the cabinet.\" On July 1, they issued an order to suspend Peethongtarn, formally retiring her powers. This was a semi-coup, executed not with tanks or soldiers but through institutional means, legitimizing the cleansing of a government.
Why suspend her? Because the situation couldn't continue. Allowing Peethongtarn to remain in power would damage national interests without any sense of disharmony. Delaying would only intensify the political turmoil surrounding the recording incident and border conflict.
Replacing a political coup with a suspension was a low-cost, dignified solution. Throughout the entire event, it was not merely a small border conflict between two countries but a strategic national game.
Hun Sen's publicizing of the recording sparked Cambodian nationalism and raised his stature. In Thailand, public resentment against Peethongtarn grew, and the government teetered.
Hun Sen used the opportunity to warn Thailand to carefully consider its negotiation tactics. Cambodia announced the resumption of mandatory military service starting in 2026, clearly strategizing military resources along the border.
Border conflicts continued intermittently, each side testing their resilience. However, Hun Sen's calculations were wrong. He believed the recording could defeat Peethongtarn, but in reality, the Thai royal family supported her, and the military remained temporarily aloof. Thus, the situation rebounded.
Comparing Hun Sen and Peethongtarn, we see two individuals expressing similar ambitions for their countries and power. However, their methods differ. Hun Sen represents an old-fashioned aristocratic power in Cambodia, relying on experience, territorial influence, and family ties to reach where he is today.
In Thailand, he and Yingluck have been political allies and competitors for decades. The friction from border clashes between the two non-military forces eventually led to cracks.
Peethongtarn attempted to use \"youth\" to change tradition but faced systemic backlash. When confronting Hun Sen, she forgot the strong self-preservation mechanisms within the system.
She regarded Hun Sen as a family member, only to be betrayed. Hun Sen used the recording as leverage, magnifying it into a national discourse.
They fought openly because they stood at the top of their respective countries' aristocratic power systems, both wanting to use this event to gain an advantage in their system and influence.
In reality, neither of them is the \"spokesperson\" for the entire country. Their direct confrontation revealed a regional political drama.
However, neither side anticipated Hun Sen's final move, betting heavily on it, and the system could not break down. Peethongtarn was suspended, but the royal family's support remains behind the scenes.
Returning to the headline \"Hun Sen slapped his thigh in anger, calculated thousands of calculations, and didn't expect Peethongtarn to have a move,\" it actually reflects the cycle and helplessness of the system.
Hun Sen believed the recording was a killer move, but it was exposed prematurely. Peethongtarn believed that youth could break through, but she was \"suspended by law.\"
Who wins? Who loses? Strictly speaking, neither wins.
Hun Sen lost to his opponent, was abandoned by the system, and Peethongtarn lost her position but temporarily survived the reputation. This visible struggle reflects the political game of strategy between Thailand and Cambodia's system-level operations, and a political system that continues to self-repair is playing the game of \"change and return.\"
Hun Sen and Peethongtarn have gone further, but they have not stepped out of the framework of this game rule. They are restricted to their respective positions and roles by this framework.
In fact, no matter who wins or loses in this game, innocent people are still the ones harmed.
