Proxy war has reemerged as an important policy option as global power competition intensifies. This form of indirect conflict involves states sponsoring local proxies in pursuit of their own interests, often in the context of international conflicts and regional instability. The sponsors’ motivations are usually security and diplomatic concerns, but ideological factors can also play a role. As these proxies evolve into fighting forces, their own goals and ambitions may become entangled with the sponsor’s objectives.
One of the primary advantages of proxy war is its ability to avoid direct military intervention by a major power. This is particularly true when the conflict in question does not clearly and overtly threaten a major state’s security, or is otherwise unjustifiable, prohibitively costly (politically, financially, and/or materially), avoidable, illegitimate, or impractical to respond to directly.
The main disadvantages of proxy war are its cost and its repercussions for regional stability and international cooperation. Indirect war can easily spiral into full-scale war between great powers, and it can exacerbate regional tensions and global insecurity. It can also create entrenched rivalries and resentment against foreign powers in local populations, making it harder to resolve future conflict. Finally, it can leave behind failed states or regions that become breeding grounds for terrorism and other violence. Moreover, sustaining a coherent proxy strategy requires significant resources and an intervening state to manage its leaders’ changing expectations, deal with emerging conditions (both self-inflicted and beyond control) that hinder policy coherence, and ensure the integrity of its strategic assets.