The Art of War: Mastering Proxy Warfare

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on August 19, 2023.

Throughout history, the world's most powerful nations have often shied away from direct conflict, seeking instead to advance their interests through subtle and strategic means. The art of proxy warfare, where major powers manipulate and influence smaller actors to fight on their behalf, has become a hallmark of international relations. From the Ottoman Empire's proxy wars against European powers to the modern-day entanglements in Sudan, Egypt, and beyond, this phenomenon has reshaped the global landscape. Consider the Spanish Civil War, where the Luftwaffe, backed by Germany and Italy, clashed with the forces of the Second Spanish Republic, supported by the Soviet Union. Or recall the brutal proxy conflict in Finland, where the Finnish White Guard, aided by Germany, battled the Red Guards, backed by Soviet Russia. As we examine the evolution of proxy warfare, we must confront a pressing question: what are the implications of this strategy for global stability, and how will it shape the future of international relations?

Key Takeaways

The Ottoman Empire employed proxy forces to extend its influence into Sudan and Syria during the 19th century.
The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) saw Germany and Italy back the Nationalists against the Second Spanish Republic, supported by the Soviet Union.
The Finnish Civil War (1918) featured the Tsarist Russians backing the Red Guards against the Finnish White Guard, aided by Germany.
The Korean War (1950) was one of the earliest significant proxy conflicts during the Cold War, with the Soviet Union supporting North Korea.
Russia's intervention in Syria, supporting the Assad regime, resulted in extensive civilian casualties, including nearly 2,000 children killed by Russian forces.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been framed by Russian President Vladimir Putin as a proxy conflict.

Origins of Proxy Warfare

To many of the most powerful nations throughout history, the idea of war has appeared unpalatable, uncivilized, or simply just…inconvenient. Major nations, big global players, have disagreements all the time, over trade or borders or ideology, some of which are too important or too irreconcilable to fix over the negotiating table. But if every failed negotiation led to the world’s best fighting forces taking up arms…well, the world order would never know peace. But there’s a hell of a lot of grey space between polite conversation, and all-out war, and if you’re going to be operating in that grey space, then it helps to have some friends who can go to war for you. From brief skirmishes between virtually-unknown tribes, to decades-long wars that claimed the lives of millions, countless conflicts across history have attempted to squash the beef between major powers, while ensuring that those major powers weren’t the ones getting their hands dirty. In today’s installment of our Art of War series, we’ll dig into the theory and practice of proxy warfare—why it happens, how it works, and some of the many, many times, that proxy conflicts have rewritten history. The Method. At its most basic level, a proxy war is a contrast to a traditional war—a war in which Nation A and Nation B are mad at each ither, so Nations A and B gather up their respective militaries and go fight it out. A proxy war, then, is a war in which Nations A and B /don’t/ go head-to-head, but instead, lean on a third-party to do the fighting for them. Those third-parties could be allied nations, formal or informal protectorates, non-state groups, insurgencies, or even civilian protestors. But in general, a proxy conflict will take one of three basic forms. If we imagine that Nation A’s smaller, subsidiary ally is Nation A-1, and Nation B’s ally is Nation B-1, then we might see Nation A fighting Nation B-1, Nation A-1 fighting Nation B, or Nation A-1 fighting Nation B-1. The whole point, is that Nation A and Nation B never meet directly in open conflict. Now, that’s not to say that either Nation A or Nation B would ignore a proxy conflict; far from it. Instead, these major powers partner together with the minor powers; the minor power is the one sending troops into the battle, but the major power could be providing anything from financial support, to weapons, to training, to safe haven—or, in some cases, taking away their own troops’ uniforms and sending them into battle to help out. This way, the major powers involved in a proxy conflict do end up spending their resources on a war, and both sides will typically give their all to attain victory, but neither of the major powers should ever be able to hold each other directly responsible for the damage that the war brings. It’s not a secret that both major powers are involved, at least not usually, but that isn’t the point. The point is that neither of the major powers actually want to bear the costs of going to war with each other, but both sides are able to stomach the significant, but lesser damage of a side conflict. Now, there’s a few key reasons why major powers would generally elect to pursue a proxy war.

The Evolution of Proxy Warfare: Historical Context

The strategic use of proxy forces has been a recurring theme throughout history, driven by a combination of political, economic, and military considerations. One of the earliest and most notable examples is the involvement of the Ottoman Empire in various conflicts across Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. The Ottoman Empire frequently employed proxy forces to extend its influence and control over distant territories. For instance, during the 19th century, Muhammad Ali, the Ottoman governor of Egypt, used proxy forces to expand Egyptian control into Sudan and Syria. This strategy allowed the Ottomans to maintain a presence in these regions without committing their own troops, thereby conserving resources and minimizing direct casualties. The British, another major power, also extensively used proxy warfare to maintain their colonial empire. In Sudan, the British employed local tribal leaders and mercenaries to suppress rebellions and maintain order, as seen in the campaigns against the Mahdist State in the late 19th century. Similarly, in Egypt, the British supported the Khedive against internal threats, ensuring their interests were protected without direct military involvement. The Finnish Civil War (1918) provides a stark example of proxy warfare in the early 20th century. Following the Russian Revolution, Finland declared independence from Russia. The ensuing civil war pitted the Finnish White Guard, supported by the Tsarist Russians and later the Germans, against the Red Guards, backed by Soviet Russia. The Whites received military support, including weapons and advisors, from Germany, which saw an opportunity to expand its influence in the Baltic region. The Reds, on the other hand, were supplied with arms and volunteers by the Bolsheviks, who sought to spread the communist revolution. The conflict resulted in a White victory, but the involvement of external powers set the stage for future tensions and proxy conflicts in the region. World War I and World War II further demonstrated the extensive use of proxy warfare by major powers. During World War I, the British and French employed local forces in their colonial territories to fight against the Central Powers. For example, in the Middle East, the British supported Arab rebellions against the Ottoman Empire, most famously led by T.E. Lawrence. This strategy allowed the Allies to tie down Ottoman forces and divert resources away from the Western Front. Similarly, during World War II, the Axis powers used proxy forces to extend their influence and control over occupied territories. In Spain, the Nationalists, led by Francisco Franco, received significant support from Germany and Italy. The Luftwaffe provided aerial support, while Italian and Portuguese volunteers fought alongside the Nationalists. The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) became a proxy conflict between the fascist powers and the democratic forces of the Second Spanish Republic, which received aid from the Soviet Union and volunteers from various countries, including France, Spain, and Uruguay. The use of proxy warfare in these conflicts highlights several key advantages for major powers. Firstly, it allows them to avoid the political and economic costs of direct military intervention. For instance, during the Spanish Civil War, Germany and Italy could test new weapons and tactics without committing their own troops to a full-scale war. Secondly, proxy warfare enables major powers to leverage local knowledge and resources, making it easier to navigate complex political and geographical landscapes. Finally, it provides a means to advance ideological or political goals without the risk of direct confrontation. The Spanish Civil War, for example, became a battleground for the ideologies of fascism and communism, with both sides seeking to gain an advantage in the broader geopolitical struggle. In each of these historical examples, the use of proxy forces allowed major powers to achieve their strategic objectives while minimizing their own risks and commitments.

The Interwar Period and the Spanish Civil War

The interwar period, spanning the years between the end of World War I in 1918 and the start of World War II in 1939, witnessed a resurgence of proxy warfare as major powers sought to advance their interests without direct confrontation. This era saw the Spanish Civil War emerge as a stark example of proxy conflict, with Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union playing significant roles. The Spanish Civil War, fought from 1936 to 1939, began as a coup d'état by Spanish Nationalists against the democratically elected Second Spanish Republic. The conflict quickly escalated into a full-blown civil war, drawing in international actors who saw it as a critical battleground for their ideological and geopolitical interests. The Nationalists, led by Francisco Franco, received substantial support from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Germany, under Adolf Hitler, saw the Spanish Civil War as an opportunity to test new military tactics and equipment. The Luftwaffe, Germany's air force, conducted extensive bombing campaigns, most notoriously the bombing of Guernica in April 1937, which resulted in widespread civilian casualties and destruction. The Condor Legion, a unit composed of volunteers from the German Air Force and Army, provided aerial support and ground troops to the Nationalists. Italy, under Benito Mussolini, also played a significant role, sending the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (CTV), a volunteer corps, to fight alongside the Nationalists. The CTV consisted of approximately 50,000 troops at its peak, providing crucial ground support and helping to turn the tide of the war in favor of the Nationalists. Portugal, under the authoritarian regime of António de Oliveira Salazar, also supported the Nationalists, allowing volunteers to cross the border and providing logistical support. On the opposing side, the Second Spanish Republic received aid from the Soviet Union, which saw the conflict as an opportunity to spread communist influence and test its military capabilities. The Soviet Union provided weapons, advisers, and volunteers, including members of the International Brigades, which consisted of thousands of foreign volunteers from countries such as France, Uruguay, and Egypt. The Red Guards, a paramilitary organization of the Communist Party of Spain, also played a significant role in the Republican forces. The Spanish Civil War served as a prelude to World War II, providing a testing ground for new military technologies and tactics. The Luftwaffe's bombing campaigns in Spain laid the groundwork for the Blitzkrieg tactics that would be employed during the early stages of World War II. Similarly, the Soviet Union gained valuable experience in modern warfare, which it would later use to great effect against the Axis powers. The conflict also highlighted the risks and complexities of proxy warfare. The involvement of foreign powers exacerbated the violence and prolonged the war, resulting in an estimated 500,000 deaths. The Spanish Civil War demonstrated how proxy conflicts can escalate into broader regional or even global conflicts, drawing in multiple international actors and leading to unintended consequences. The interwar period also saw other examples of proxy warfare, such as the Finnish Civil War in 1918. During this conflict, the Finnish White Guard, supported by Germany, fought against the Red Guards, who were backed by the Soviet Union. The Finnish Civil War was a brief but intense struggle that reflected the broader geopolitical tensions of the time, with major powers using local conflicts to advance their interests. The interwar period underscored the enduring appeal of proxy warfare as a tool for major powers to achieve their objectives without direct engagement. However, it also highlighted the inherent risks and uncertainties of relying on local allies and non-state actors to fight on one's behalf.

Proxy Warfare During the Cold War

The Cold War era, spanning from the late 1940s to the early 1990s, was a period marked by intense geopolitical tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. This tension manifested predominantly through proxy warfare, where both superpowers supported and armed various factions in conflicts around the globe. This strategy allowed them to pursue their interests without direct confrontation, thereby avoiding the catastrophic potential of a full-scale nuclear war. The Korean War, which began in 1950, was one of the earliest and most significant proxy conflicts. The Soviet Union supported North Korea, providing military advisors, weapons, and even pilots who flew Soviet aircraft under North Korean markings. The United States, in turn, backed South Korea, leading to a direct but indirect confrontation where American troops faced off against Soviet-equipped and -trained forces. The war resulted in a stalemate, with the Korean Peninsula remaining divided along the 38th parallel. The Vietnam War, another pivotal proxy conflict, saw the United States supporting the South Vietnamese government against the North Vietnamese forces, which were backed by the Soviet Union and China. The war, lasting from 1955 to 1975, was a costly and divisive struggle for the United States, ultimately resulting in the fall of Saigon and the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule. The conflict highlighted the limitations of proxy warfare, as the United States' extensive involvement led to significant domestic unrest and a reevaluation of its foreign policy. In Africa, the Cold War played out in numerous proxy conflicts, including the Congo Crisis and the Ethiopian Civil War. The Soviet Union supported various communist and leftist movements, while the United States backed anti-communist factions. The Congo Crisis, beginning in 1960, involved the Soviet Union supporting Patrice Lumumba, the elected prime minister of the Congo, against the secessionist state of Katanga, which was backed by Belgium and later by the United States. Lumumba's assassination and the subsequent power struggle led to decades of instability in the region. The Ethiopian Civil War, which lasted from 1974 to 1991, saw the Soviet Union supporting the Marxist Derg regime against various rebel groups, including the Eritrean People's Liberation Front and the Tigray People's Liberation Front, which received support from the United States and other Western countries. The conflict resulted in the overthrow of the Derg and the establishment of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. In Latin America, the Cold War proxy wars were characterized by the United States' support for anti-communist regimes and the Soviet Union's backing of leftist revolutionary movements. The Cuban Revolution in 1959 marked a significant turning point, as the Soviet Union gained a strategic ally in the Western Hemisphere. The United States responded with the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the United States supported authoritarian regimes in countries like Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala to prevent the spread of communism. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union provided aid and training to revolutionary groups in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Colombia. The Afghan Civil War, which began in 1978, was another critical proxy conflict. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to support the pro-Soviet government against the Mujahideen rebels, who were backed by the United States, Pakistan, and other Islamic countries. The war, lasting until 1989, was a significant blow to the Soviet Union, leading to substantial casualties and economic strain, and is often cited as a contributing factor to the Soviet Union's eventual collapse. The Cold War's proxy conflicts shaped the global political landscape, influencing the rise and fall of regimes, the spread of ideologies, and the development of military strategies. The United States and the Soviet Union's use of proxy warfare allowed them to pursue their geopolitical interests without direct confrontation, but it also led to prolonged conflicts, significant human suffering, and the destabilization of numerous regions. The legacy of these proxy wars continues to be felt today, as many of the conflicts and tensions they created persist in various forms.

Theoretical Frameworks and Strategic Calculations

Throughout history, major powers have often resorted to proxy warfare as a strategic means to further their interests without direct military engagement. This approach involves supporting and influencing local actors in conflicts, allowing external powers to exert control and achieve objectives with minimized risk. The strategic calculations behind proxy warfare are multifaceted, encompassing ideological, economic, and geopolitical dimensions. The ideological component is perhaps the most evident in the Finnish Civil War (1918), where the Tsarist Russians backed the Red Guards, while the Germans supported the Finnish White Guard. This conflict was a microcosm of the broader European power struggle, with the Bolsheviks seeking to spread their revolutionary ideology and the Germans aiming to secure their eastern flank. The outcome had profound implications for Finland's future alignment and the balance of power in Northern Europe. Economic factors also play a crucial role in proxy warfare. During World War I, the British and the Ottomans clashed in Sudan and Egypt, with both sides seeking to control vital trade routes and resources. The British, with their superior naval power, aimed to protect their interests in the Suez Canal, a critical artery for their empire. The Ottomans, backed by the Germans, sought to disrupt British supply lines and weaken their hold on the region. This economic dimension underscores how proxy conflicts often revolve around the control of strategic resources and trade routes. Geopolitical considerations are equally significant. The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) serves as a prime example. The Spanish Nationalists, led by Francisco Franco, received support from Germany and Italy, who saw an opportunity to test their military doctrines and equipment. The Luftwaffe, in particular, used the conflict to refine its bombing techniques, which would later be employed in World War II. On the other side, the Second Spanish Republic received aid from the Soviet Union, which viewed the war as a means to spread communism and counter fascist influence in Europe. The war's outcome had far-reaching geopolitical consequences, shaping the balance of power in Europe on the eve of World War II. The Cold War era saw an escalation in proxy warfare, with the United States and Soviet Russia supporting opposing factions in numerous conflicts around the world. In Uruguay, Samoa, and other regions, both superpowers engaged in covert operations and provided military aid to local allies. The Soviet Union, for instance, backed various revolutionary movements in Latin America, while the United States supported authoritarian regimes to maintain stability and prevent the spread of communism. This period highlighted how proxy warfare became a central strategy in the broader geopolitical struggle between the two superpowers. In the post-Cold War era, proxy warfare has continued to evolve. The Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, is a stark example of how multiple global powers have used local conflicts to pursue their interests. The regime of Bashar al-Assad received support from Russia, Iran, and China, who viewed Syria as a strategic ally in the region. Conversely, Western powers like the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union backed various opposition groups, hoping to promote democratic reforms and counter Iranian influence. The conflict has since become a complex web of proxy wars, with different factions and external powers vying for control. The rise of the Islamic State further complicated the situation, as various proxy wars unfolded against the backdrop of a direct conflict against the terrorist organization. In conclusion, the theoretical underpinnings of proxy warfare are deeply rooted in ideological, economic, and geopolitical considerations. Major powers engage in proxy conflicts to achieve their objectives with minimal direct involvement, using local actors as pawns in a larger geopolitical game. The strategic calculations behind these engagements are complex and multifaceted, reflecting the evolving dynamics of global power struggles.

Implications and Consequences of Proxy Warfare

Proxy warfare, while offering a means to pursue strategic interests indirectly, carries profound implications and consequences that extend far beyond the immediate conflict zones. The impact on local populations is often devastating. In Syria, for instance, Russia's intervention, ostensibly to support the Assad regime, resulted in extensive civilian casualties, with estimates suggesting nearly 2,000 children were killed by Russian forces. The financial burden on Russia was immense, costing millions of dollars per day, and the experience gained by Russian troops in Syria has since been deployed in the Ukrainian theater, either through direct military engagement or via the paramilitary Wagner Group. The Finnish Civil War, fought between the Finnish White Guard and the Red Guards in 1918, provides another stark example. The intervention of the German Empire and the Tsarist Russians on behalf of the White Guard, and the Soviet Russia's support for the Reds, led to a brutal conflict that left deep scars on Finnish society. The war resulted in the deaths of over 36,000 people, with many more suffering from the aftermath of the conflict, including widespread famine and displacement. The Spanish Civil War, which raged from 1936 to 1939, further illustrates the human cost of proxy warfare. The Spanish Nationalists, backed by Germany and Italy, clashed with the Second Spanish Republic, which received support from the Soviet Union and international volunteers, including the famous Abraham Lincoln Brigade. The conflict saw widespread atrocities, including the bombing of Guernica by the Luftwaffe, which resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths and became a symbol of the war's brutality. The war left Spain divided and traumatized, with the Franco regime's victory leading to decades of authoritarian rule. The potential for escalation is another critical consequence of proxy warfare. In Libya, the Second Libyan Civil War has become a geopolitical quagmire, with major powers aligning on different sides. Iran, the United States, and Britain have found themselves on the same side, while France, breaking ranks with the European Union, has aligned with Russia. Israel and Saudi Arabia have also cooperated in this conflict, despite their broader regional rivalries. The battle for Libya's oil reserves has turned the country into a patchwork of militia-controlled territories, with foreign funds and support sustaining the various factions. The Yemeni Civil War offers another example of escalation, with a Saudi Arabia-led coalition, including support from the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, battling against the Houthis, who receive backing from Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, and Russia. This conflict is part of a long-standing proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which has played out in various theaters, from Lebanon to Iraq to the Caucasus and the Balkans. The Russian invasion of Ukraine further complicates the landscape of proxy warfare. The initial phase of the conflict in Ukraine's Donbas region was clearly a proxy war, with Russian-backed separatist movements fighting the Ukrainian state. Since the full-scale invasion, the conflict has become a direct confrontation between Russia and Ukraine. However, the role of NATO's support for Ukraine and China's growing support for Russia raises questions about whether the war can still be considered a proxy conflict. The financial and military aid from the West has significantly bolstered Ukrainian defenses, making it a crucial factor in the ongoing conflict. Conversely, the war is fundamentally a struggle between Ukrainian independence and Russian annexation, with the two principal actors engaged in direct combat. The long-term effects of proxy warfare on international relations and global stability are profound. Proxy conflicts often lead to prolonged instability and violence, as seen in Syria, Libya, and Yemen. They can also strain relations between major powers, as alliances shift and realign based on regional interests. The use of proxy forces can also backfire, as controlling these groups can be challenging. In Sudan and Egypt, for example, local militias backed by foreign powers have often pursued their own agendas, leading to further instability. Similarly, in Uruguay and Samoa, external interventions have had unintended consequences, shaping local politics in ways that were not anticipated by the intervening powers. Proxy warfare, therefore, is a double-edged sword. While it allows countries to pursue their strategic interests indirectly, it also carries significant risks and consequences. The impact on local populations, the potential for escalation, and the challenges of controlling proxy forces all underscore the need for a nuanced understanding of this complex and often dangerous form of conflict.

Proxy Warfare in the Modern Era

The strategic landscape of the 21st century continues to be shaped by the enduring relevance of proxy warfare, a tactic that has proven instrumental in contemporary international relations. As major and regional powers enhance their military capabilities, the allure of proxy conflicts as a less devastating alternative to direct confrontation has grown. This shift is evident in the increasing pragmatism with which nations approach proxy warfare, viewing it as a necessary tool in their strategic arsenal. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, for instance, has been framed by Russian President Vladimir Putin as a proxy war with the West, despite the dubious ethics of invading a sovereign neighbor. This incident underscores the need for a more focused development of proxy-warfare doctrine among Western nations, ensuring that they are prepared to navigate these complex conflicts effectively. Historical examples provide a wealth of tactics and strategies for modern proxy warfare. The Finnish Civil War (1918) saw the Finnish White Guard, backed by The Germans, clash with the Red Guards, supported by Soviet Russia. This conflict, occurring in the aftermath of World War I, demonstrated the use of external support to influence internal struggles. Similarly, the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) became a proxy battleground for the ideologies of fascism and communism, with The Spanish Nationalists receiving support from Germany, Italy, and Portugal, while the Second Spanish Republic was aided by France, Spain, Uruguay, and Samoa. The Luftwaffe's Condor Legion played a pivotal role in this conflict, providing aerial support to the Nationalists and testing new tactics and technologies that would later be employed in World War II. These historical examples illustrate the deep-rooted nature of proxy warfare and its enduring relevance in modern conflicts. The geopolitical landscape is evolving, with new actors and technologies reshaping the proxy warfare arena. China, traditionally more inclined towards diplomatic mediation, is increasingly asserting its influence globally. As China transitions into a hegemonic power, its involvement in proxy conflicts is likely to grow, potentially leading to a new arms race in proxy warfare tactics. This shift is already evident in the Middle East, where Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel continue to engage in proxy wars to assert their regional dominance. The United States and Russia, both experienced in proxy warfare, are likely to remain key players in this strategic game. As Russia faces increasing isolation on the global stage, it may rely even more heavily on proxy conflicts to exert its influence abroad. This dynamic underscores the need for a robust proxy-warfare doctrine, ensuring that nations are prepared to navigate these complex and often shadowy conflicts. The future of proxy warfare is uncertain, but one thing is clear: it will remain a central component of international relations in the years to come.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who were Muhammad Ali and Francisco Franco?

See the full article for details on Who were Muhammad Ali and.

What is the role of The Ottoman Empire?

See the full article for details on What is the role of.

What happened during The Finnish Civil War?

See the full article for details on What happened during The Finnish.

What is the significance of The Art of War: Proxy Warfare?

See the full article for details on What is the significance of.

What are the key facts about The Art of War: Proxy Warfare?

See the full article for details on What are the key facts.

Related Coverage

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →