It clearly Political and Social Dynamics Rather than the General Narrative

Many Thai citizens and political actors sometimes blame foreign leaders—such as Hun Sen—instead of questioning their own leaders because of a mix of political convenience, nationalism, and media influence.

First, blaming an external figure is politically useful.
When governments face internal problems—economic inequality, corruption, military dominance, or democratic backsliding—it is easier to redirect public anger toward an outside “enemy.” A foreign leader becomes a convenient symbol that absorbs frustration which might otherwise be directed at domestic leadership failures.

Second, nationalism simplifies complex issues.
Conflicts and tensions are often far more complicated than “good versus bad.” Nationalist narratives reduce these complexities into emotional stories: our country is right; the other side is wrong. In this framing, foreign leaders like Hun Sen are portrayed as threats, which discourages critical reflection about Thailand’s own political structure and decision-making.

Third, military and elite interests benefit from external blame.
In Thailand, the military has long justified its political role by claiming to protect the nation from external and internal enemies. Pointing fingers at neighboring leaders helps legitimize military influence and silence calls for reform, accountability, or civilian rule.

Fourth, media framing and information control matter.
When media outlets repeat official narratives without strong investigative journalism, public opinion becomes shaped by selective information. Over time, blaming outsiders feels “normal,” while criticizing domestic leaders may be portrayed as unpatriotic or destabilizing.

Finally, self-criticism is emotionally harder than external blame.
It is psychologically easier for any society to believe problems come from outside rather than confront uncomfortable truths about its own leadership, institutions, or historical choices.