Proxy war is risky and can have dire consequences, but for the foreseeable future it will continue to be a viable option for states to pursue their national interests abroad. It is especially attractive when the threat of a conflict to vital interests is low enough to make the cost of direct intervention too high and when the intervening state does not want to escalate to a full-scale war with another power. Even so, the risks and problems of proxy war remain substantial, making it important for policy makers and strategists to have a clearer understanding of the underlying dynamics of the process.
A key insight is that the success of an interfering state’s policy depends on its ability to sustain internal, external, and domestic coherence with respect to the proxies it selects and employs. In particular, an intervening state must ensure that the objectives of its proxy are compatible with its own and be willing to accept a level of compromise in order to achieve those objectives. Moreover, it must continuously monitor the capability of its proxy and how its character evolves over time.
Whether in Ukraine or Syria, the United States and its allies have often employed various local militias that it trains and equips to fight alongside its own forces. These local forces are less expensive than using its own military and are more likely to be accepted by the affected population. They also know the terrain better and can blend in to local fighting. However, they are also often corrupt and brutal, making them less palatable to their sponsors.