Proxy warfare

The Syrian conflict is as a multi-layered struggle involving many actors and interests. Structural factors present within the country created tensions when the revolutionary wave of the Arab Spring invested the frustrations of many segments of the Syrian society. The brutal repression perpetuated by the regime sparked widespread violence, dissolving the delicate previous order.
In a troublesome area such as the Middle East, with regional and international actors sharing various interests, this instability created the conditions for external meddling, as external state and non-state actors have seen in Syria the ground for their proxy wars, ranging from sectarian rifts to strategic considerations.
The deadly stalemate created by these dynamics make the solution of the Syrian crisis very unlikely in the short run, with the population suffering the hardest consequences.

This article analyses how Hezbollah’s gradually growing role in the Syrian conflict has been paralleled by its adversaries’ decision to wage lawfare against this pivotal player supporting the Asad regime, in order to raise the political cost for Hezbollah’s military engagement in Syria. Compared to earlier steps taken by Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 2013, the resolutions adopted in 2016 by three Arab and Islamic regional organisations targeting the militant group are more assertive and potentially effective, in particular if considered in combination with complementary steps such as the US HIFPA (Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act) and a media campaign aimed at undermining Hezbollah’s reputation. However, it remains debatable to what extent the
terrorist designation will effectively constrain Hezbollah’s financial and operational capabilities, let alone motivate its retreat from the Syrian war zone.

This well researched piece of investigative journalism by David Axe chronologically examines the evolution of drone technology and its increasing application in US proxy wars in the late 20th century until the start of 2013.

A point of note is that the author identifies the full scale and direct troop deployment in the recent Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts (the most high profile conflicts of the still ongoing 'War on Terror') as anomalies in recent US foreign policy interventionism. 

It is worth noting here that the Bush administration and (Neoconservative driven) occupation of Iraq was largely fought using 'private security contractors' via companies such as the formerly named Blackwater, despite the public perception that official state sponsored troops were the largest deployment in this now troubled region.  ...

The geopolitical location of Yemen makes the country an area that has always drawn the attention of external actors interested in expanding their influences in the Arabian Penin-sula. During the period of the Cold War, the territory of today's Yemen was a theater of geopolitical rivalry, where the interests clashed between both superpowers and regional actors. During the conflict in North and South Yemen, external entities played an im-portant role as they drove the dynamics of these conflicts counting on achieving their own strategic objectives. The purpose of this article is to seek answers to the questions: who, how and why was engaged in armed conflicts in the territory of North and South Yemen during the Cold War era, and what long-term consequences of this commitment can be observed today?

Konflikt zbrojny na wschodzie Ukrainy przez jednych jest postrzegany jako konflikt wewnętrzny, w którym siły rządowe walczą z separatystami. Dla innych, jest to międzynarodowy konflikt rosyjsko-ukraiński. Głównym problemem badawczym tego artykułu jest poszukiwanie odpowiedzi na pytanie: w jaki sposób Federacja Rosyjska jest zaangażowana w konflikt zbrojny w Donbasie? Celem niniejszego artykułu jest próba wyjaśnienia konfliktu na wschodzie Ukrainy w oparciu o teorię wojny zastępczej, oraz ukazanie praktycznego za-stosowania tej strategii przez Federację Rosyjską.

For some, armed conflict in eastern Ukraine is considering as a civil war where government fights against separatists. For others, it is an interstate war between Ukraine and Russia. The main question of this research is how Russia is involved in armed conflict in Donbass? The aim of this paper is attempt to explain situation in eastern Ukraine base on proxy war theory and to present practical adoption of this strategy by Russia.

Minsk II: Anniversary yang tidak bahagia untuk Ukraina dan Uni Eropa

Sejak bulan Maret 2014 perang kembali mengamuk di jalur Eropa, berubah secara progresif menjadi semacam yang tidak disaksikan secara kontinyu sejak Perang Rusia-Georgia tahun 2008, meski jauh lebih dalam lingkup, kehancuran, dan lamanya. Pada Konferensi Keamanan Munich baru-baru ini (MSC), Ukraina kembali tampil menonjol dalam agenda tersebut.

Secara khusus, ketakutan dari pejabat Rusia dan Barat disuarakan sehubungan dengan perang yang tidak terkendali jika tertinggal pada lintasannya saat ini. Terlepas dari ritual "passing of the buck" yang berkaitan dengan perang, dan kepada siapa atau apa kesalahannya harus ditetapkan, MSC tidak boleh dipandang sebagai konsekuensi atau terobosan kebijakan; Sementara pejabat Rusia dan Ukraina bertemu, pertemuan yang direncanakan dengan angka berlawanan Jerman dan Prancis (menciptakan kembali Normandia Format) dibatalkan oleh pihak Prancis karena "konflik penjadwalan".

Solusi tidak mungkin dan konflik mengamuk melanda rawa-rawa konflik bersenjata lainnya. Ukraina adalah perang di kaki Eropa. Ini adalah Gajah Hitam di dalam ruangan.

The decrease in interstate warfare since WWII demonstrates that sovereignty norms have acquired a durable, institutional embeddedness insofar as they constrain state behavior. Yet states circumvent these norms through proxy warfare to project power across their borders and achieve a favorable outcome related to domestic security, regional hegemony, or ideological territorial claims. Non-violation of sovereignty occurs because states understand both the material and normative costs of behaving otherwise. Alternatively, varying configurations of sovereignty create a permissive environment for different types of proxy warfare. We examine three contrasting cases. Sudan and Chad’s involvement in each other’s affairs is restricted by the sovereignty norms on which both countries rely and is driven by regime security imperatives. Pakistan’s proxy war in Kashmir is rooted in contested sovereignty claims constrained by India’s empirical control of an unsettled territorial boundary. Syria and Iran’s support of Hezbollah is driven by ideological opposition to Israel and instrumental interests in establishing regional hegemony, seizing on the juridical ambiguity and empirical interstitiality of Lebanese territory.

What is ViTTa? NSI's Virtual Think Tank (ViTTa) provides rapid response to critical information needs by pulsing a global network of subject matter experts (SMEs) to generate a wide range of expert insight. For the Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) Future of Global Competition and Conflict project, ViTTa was used to address 12 key questions provided by the project's Joint Staff sponsors.

This paper examines state recourse to paramilitary force and its consequences for the security apparatus using the case of the janjaweed militias in the Darfur region of the Sudan. Advancing a model of weak and failed state behaviour, it is suggested that a threatened regime wishing to maintain its hold on power may turn to paramilitary groups to shore up domestic influence and conduct counterinsurgency operations thus neglecting or shutting out state security forces. This approach, while often successful in suppressing domestic insurrection where the regular military has failed, is also used as a means to sideline internal opposition and prevent the rise of competing elites within the government structure. Having committed to such a strategy, however, the regime is forced into its perpetual use in order to keep newly promoted client militias as well as internal and external opponents weak and unable to challenge its authority. This condition of chronic paramilitarism therefore leads to the disintegration of state institutions, traditional patronage networks, and domestic human security as government accountability falls to the wayside and the remnants of the state function only to perpetuate the power of the regime. The evidence shows that regimes become locked into path-dependencies when they forsake traditional security mechanisms for a more diffuse system of support in the form of largely unaccountable semi-autonomous militias. Effective resolution of this problem, therefore, must not only aim to halt violence, but also seek substantial change ranging from security sector reforms to regime transition.