Modern Proxy Warfare in a Globalised World

Key Takeaways

• Proxy warfare has become a central tool of geopolitical competition, allowing states to pursue strategic objectives while avoiding direct military confrontation.

• Modern proxy conflicts are increasingly globalised and multidomain, spanning conventional battlefields, maritime chokepoints, cyberspace, and information environments.

• While proxies offer plausible deniability and cost efficiency, they significantly increase escalation risk, reduce accountability, and can draw major powers into wider conflicts unintentionally.

Why Proxy Wars Matter Today

Conflicts where major powers back other nations or non-state groups instead of fighting directly – otherwise known as proxy warfare – has re-emerged as a defining feature of global geopolitics. In an era wary of traditional warfare amongst global superpowers (especially nuclear confrontation), states increasingly pursue their aims indirectly. From the Middle East to Eastern Europe and cyberspace, proxies have become tools to wage influence without open war. Recent flashpoints underscore this trend. The war in Ukraine, clashes across the MENA region, Sub Saharan Africa and even cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure all reflect battles fought “in the shadows” via intermediaries. Diplomats warn that the era of direct warfare is yielding to “delegated engagements”, where conflicts are outsourced and accountability becomes elusive. Proxy wars allow powerful states to advance interests while minimising risks, but they also complicate global peace and governance. Understanding modern proxy dynamics is crucial as these shadow conflicts proliferate in today’s fragmented but globalised world.

Evolving Strategies in a Globalised World

Modern proxy strategies have evolved far beyond the Cold War template. During the Cold War, superpowers covertly armed allies in third countries to avoid direct clashes. Today’s globalised landscape, with multiple super and regional powers, has widened the practice. Sponsors now back proxies of all stripes, not just ideological allies. In some cases, the pretence of deniability is fading, with sponsors increasingly supporting their proxies openly and with high-end weaponry, as seen in Ukraine where NATO arms Kyiv and Russia overtly backs separatists. US Army analysis notes that “the Russo-Ukrainian war is emblematic” of this new dynamic, with external powers providing advanced missiles, drones, and intelligence, even at risk of escalation. In other conflicts, states still prefer ambiguity, but even then, strategic fingerprints are clear.

Technology and new domains have also expanded proxy warfare. Beyond supplying guns and tanks, sponsors provide cyber tools, drones, and real-time intelligence to proxies, blurring traditional battlefield lines. Cyber militias and information warriors act as proxies in the “grey zone” between war and peace, e.g. state-linked hacker groups launching attacks on airports or power grids in rival countries. As former US General David Petraeus observed, “open power projection is obsolete… strategic influence is exercised through layers of proxies” across multiple domains, including military, cyber, economic, and informational. In short, proxy conflict has become more multidimensional and sophisticated, reflecting a world where direct clashes between nuclear-armed powers are unthinkable, yet competition remains fierce.

Why States Use Proxies: Motives and Risks

Both major powers and regional players turn to proxies for strategic reasons. Geopolitical security is often the prime motive. Feeling threatened or seeking influence, states find it safer or cheaper to empower allies rather than deploy their own armies. By using local fighters, a sponsor can hurt its adversaries indirectly, tying them down without risking its own troops. Proxy warfare also offers plausible deniability and a way to meddle abroad while minimising political blowback and cost. As Dr Richard Haass, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, noted: “Great powers now employ proxies as instruments to achieve influence… maximising strategic effects while minimising political exposure and direct costs”. For example, Iran’s support to militias or Russia’s use of mercenaries allow these states to exert power while officially denying direct involvement.

Ideology and identity can play a role too as shared religion or political visions often bind sponsors to proxies (e.g. Iran and various Shi’ite militias). Yet interests typically trump ideology as today’s proxies are chosen pragmatically and alliances are often transactional. Economic considerations cut both ways – while fuelling a proxy war is cheaper than fighting yourself, protracted conflicts can disrupt trade and prosperity, so powers weigh these costs carefully.

However, proxy warfare comes with risks. Once armed and funded, proxies can go off script. They may pursue their own agenda, commit abuses that embarrass sponsors, or even “bite back” against their patrons (the classic blowback effect). “Once empowered, proxies rarely remain loyal; their trajectories often diverge, exacerbating regional turbulence”, warns analyst Michael Kofman. Escalation is another danger as rivals might counter by upping support to their own proxies, risking wider war. As well as this, when conflicts are fought through third parties, accountability is vague and civilian suffering often increases with little recourse, with international law being harder to enforce. Despite these drawbacks, the trend is clear: as superpower rivalry intensifies, proxy wars are proliferating, forcing the world to confront a growing number of these indirect battles.

Middle East Flashpoints: Iran, Israel, and Yemen

The Middle East today offers vivid examples of modern proxy conflict. The Iran-Israel rivalry in particular has largely been a “shadow war” fought through proxies across the region. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has long armed and trained groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon (formed to fight Israeli forces) and various militias in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Through these allies, Tehran projects power against Israel and US-aligned states without direct conventional war. For instance, Iranian-supplied Hezbollah fighters have fought with Israel, and Iran-backed Hamas struck Israel from Gaza in 2023, sparking a major war. Israeli leaders openly acknowledge this proxy dynamic, conducting airstrikes on Iranian arms depots in Syria and assassinating Iranian military advisers, trying to weaken Iran’s network. This tit-for-tat has at times edged toward direct conflict. For example, in early 2024, an alleged Israeli strike killed Iranian officers in Damascus, and Iran retaliated by launching “over three hundred” drones and missiles directly at Israel (an unprecedented direct attack in their decades-long proxy feud). Such incidents show how a proxy war can risk spilling into open war when red lines are crossed.

Another focal point is Yemen and the Red Sea, where Iran’s support for the Houthi rebels has wide repercussions. The Houthis, an Iran-aligned militia, seized large parts of Yemen and have fought a Saudi-led coalition since 2015. They also became a proxy thorn in Israel’s side during the Gaza crisis. In late 2023 and into 2024, Houthi forces began targeting international shipping in the Red Sea, ostensibly “in solidarity” with Palestinians against Israel. Using Iranian-provided missiles and drones, the Houthis attacked cargo ships and even US naval vessels in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. This campaign forced shippers to reroute vessels around Africa and stoked fears of the Israel-Hamas war widening into a regional conflict. The United States and Britain carried out strikes on Houthi missile sites in response, underscoring how a local proxy (the Houthis) can drag outside powers into confrontation. The Houthis also fired rockets toward Israel (over 1,500 km away), though these caused little damage. Still, it marked a rare case of a non-state proxy engaging a distant adversary at its patron’s behest – a sign of how bold and far-reaching proxy actions have become.

Proxy Battlefields in Europe: The Ukraine War

While proxy wars are often associated with the developing world, Europe is not immune. The clearest case is the war in Ukraine, which many view through a proxy-war lens. In 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but the conflict quickly took on aspects of a Russia vs West proxy battle. The United States and European NATO members, eager to stop Russian aggression without entering direct war, became Ukraine’s arsenal and economic lifeline. Billions of dollars in advanced Western weapons, from HIMARS rocket systems to air defences, have been provided to Kyiv, allowing Ukraine to blunt Russia’s offensive. Western intelligence and satellite data guide Ukrainian strikes, all while no NATO soldiers officially fight on the front lines. Moscow has accused NATO of “waging a proxy war against Russia” in Ukraine, claiming that Ukraine is being used as a pawn to weaken Russia. Indeed, without external backing, Ukraine could not sustain the fight at its current intensity.

On the flip side, Russia itself has a history of proxy tactics in Ukraine. The war’s origins trace back to 2014, when Russia covertly armed and organised separatist militias in eastern Ukraine (Donbas) as proxies to destabilise the pro-Western government in Kyiv. For years, Russia denied direct involvement, framing the fight as a local rebellion. Even now, Moscow supplements its regular forces with mercenaries like the Wagner Group and Chechen paramilitaries – private armies that give Russia plausible deniability for some of its operations. The result is a highly lethal conflict that is both an open interstate war and a proxy confrontation. Powers on both sides have been drawn in indirectly, making Ukraine a battleground of broader geopolitical stakes. This dynamic heightens the risk of miscalculation as any direct clash between Russia and NATO (even accidental) could escalate disastrously. As a result, Europe’s worst fighting since World War Two also exemplifies how proxy involvement by powerful states can magnify conflicts.

Asian Theatre: Myanmar and Regional Proxies

In Asia, proxy dynamics play out in subtle but significant ways, often tied to regional rivalries. One prominent example is Myanmar’s ongoing civil strife after the 2021 coup. Multiple ethnic armed groups and resistance forces are battling Myanmar’s military regime, with neighbouring powers quietly pulling strings. According to analysts, China has covertly backed ethnic militias in Myanmar as part of its strategy to gain leverage. Several rebel groups along the China-Myanmar border have historical ties to Beijing, which supplies resources, or at least political cover, in order to keep the junta dependent and to secure Chinese interests. For instance, during heavy fighting in 2023-2024, observers noted Chinese-made weaponry in rebel hands and even suggested China “greenlighted” certain rebel offensives. Meanwhile, Russia has armed the Myanmar military, and Western nations have sanctioned it while offering moral support to the opposition government in exile. The result is a proxy-infused conflict: Myanmar’s war has become a chessboard where China, India, Thailand, and others seek influence by supporting different sides of the conflict. This external meddling fuels Myanmar’s violence, making peace harder.

Beyond Myanmar, Asia sees “grey zone” proxy tactics in maritime and territorial disputes. China’s maritime militia (ostensibly “fishing” fleets that are actually state-directed) operate as proxies in the South China Sea, harassing other nations’ vessels to assert Chinese claims while Chinese navy ships remain in the background. Similarly, China’s use of coast guard and civilian boats to swarm disputed waters around Japan and Taiwan blurs the line between civilian and military, a proxy strategy to advance claims without conventional combat. In South Asia, Pakistan has long utilised militant groups as proxies against India, and India in turn has supported rebel factions in neighbouring states in past decades, illustrating that regional powers everywhere find proxy warfare an attractive, if double-edged, tool. As the Indo-Pacific becomes a centrepiece of superpower competition (US vs China, India vs China, etc), these indirect contest-by-proxy tactics are likely to grow.

The Digital Domain: Cyber and Informational Proxies

Not all proxies carry guns – some wield keyboards and propaganda. In 2026, cyberspace and information warfare are rife with state-sponsored proxies operating in the shadows. These range from hacker collectives and hacktivists doing a state’s bidding to troll farms and media outlets that amplify a sponsor’s narrative abroad. Because cyber-attacks are hard to attribute in real time, they offer perfect cover for proxy action. State-linked cyber units have attacked financial systems, power grids, and government networks of rival states, often using front groups as cover. Iran and North Korea are also notorious for using criminal hackers as proxies to steal funds or sabotage adversaries’ infrastructure. In these cases, governments tacitly sponsor or tolerate the actors, who provide deniability by acting like independent “rogue” groups.

Information warfare proxies similarly allow states to influence public opinion in target countries indirectly. During elections and conflicts, disinformation campaigns are often run through fake social media personas or foreign media partners rather than official state channels. A notable example was Russia’s Internet Research Agency, a troll farm that acted as a proxy to interfere in US and European political discourse. China, for its part, has cultivated a network of foreign-language media outlets and online influencers to promote Beijing’s viewpoint, muddying the source of the messaging. These informational proxies operate in the “grey zone”, below the threshold of overt conflict, yet weakening societies from within. The 2025 Israel-Hamas war and subsequent Israel-Iran tensions saw a flood of online propaganda and hacking incidents. Iran-backed groups launched cyberattacks on Israeli and US targets in the Middle East, while Israeli hackers retaliated, all under the cloak of hacktivism and deniability. Such digital combats, though less visible than shooting wars, are now a core part of proxy competition. They can aggravate crises (for instance, if a hacked pipeline causes an explosion) and complicate attribution, as a misattributed cyber strike could even trigger unintended escalation between states. As technology advances (AI-generated fake videos, cyber weapons, etc), the digital proxy arena is poised to become even more consequential in global security.

Implications for Global Stability and Escalation

The growing reliance on proxies by both super and regional powers carries mixed implications for global stability. On one hand, proxy warfare can be seen as a pressure release valve as it allows adversaries to contest each other’s interests without resorting to direct war, particularly nuclear-armed rivals who dare not fight head-on. This indirect conflict arguably helped avoid US-Soviet confrontation in the past, and today it may similarly reduce the chances of an immediate superpower shooting war. However, the proliferation of proxy conflicts worldwide also makes the international system more volatile and unpredictable. With so many actors involved (e.g. states, militias, hackers, private armies), the risk of miscalculation or escalation by proxy is ever-present. A local feud stoked by rival patrons can rapidly turn into a regional crisis, as seen in the Middle East where multiple proxy clashes now intersect. Each sponsor tries to calibrate violence just enough to weaken foes without sparking a bigger conflagration, but such fine control can fail. Indeed, when wars are delegated, control is delegated too, increasing the chance that a proxy’s action crosses a red line that the sponsors never intended to breach.

For forecasters and policymakers, the current trends pose tough challenges. Traditional diplomacy and deterrence are less effective when adversaries hide behind third parties. Intelligence agencies now must track myriad proxy links, from arms flows to money trails to cyber signatures, to attribute attacks and warn of brewing crises. Global institutions (UN, etc) struggle to hold sponsors accountable since culprits can deflect blame to their proxies. The drawn-out nature of proxy wars means conflicts smoulder at low intensity rather than end decisively, entrenching instability in places like Yemen and Ukraine. Humanitarian crises deepen as wars drag on with external fuel. Furthermore, the entanglement of multiple powers via proxies raises the stakes. For instance, analysts note that over 70% of regional conflicts now involve proxy dynamics, making them harder to resolve and legally thorny. Each proxy war carries the danger of escalation into a direct clash if a sponsor’s forces become overtly involved or if tit-for-tat retaliations spiral out of control. A pertinent example is NATO and Russia, who have so far kept their war-by-proxy in Ukraine from turning into a direct NATO-Russia war – but the margin for error is thin.

In sum, modern proxy warfare is a double-edged sword slicing through global stability. It reflects a fragmented world where power is decentralised as even mid-sized states and non-state groups can wage war by proxy to punch above their weight. Moving forward, a key question is whether international norms or agreements can adapt to this “shadow warfare” reality. Some experts call for new frameworks to regulate proxy use, akin to arms control, to prevent the worst abuses. Major powers, too, face a choice: continue exploiting proxies for short-term gains, or recognise that unchecked proxy conflicts can boomerang and erode long-term security. Ultimately, curbing the destabilising effects of proxy wars will require greater transparency and accountability. As one commentator put it, if the world fails to rein in proxy warfare, we risk “a world where conflict is endless, accountability diffused, and sovereignty eroded”. In this globalised age, finding ways to manage proxy dynamics is becoming essential to prevent tomorrow’s proxy wars from igniting into full-scale conflagrations.