Stalin's Proxy War against Japan, 1937–45: One Principal and Two Agents

The chapter is structured as follows: first, attention is be paid to the issue of theorising proxy wars. The chapter defines proxy wars by observing how they differ from cases of third-party military intervention. Here, the focus is on differentiating the Proxy Agent from third parties such as mediators or auxiliaries. Second, the chapter addresses the question of ‘Why do states engage in proxy wars?’, and attempts an examination of contenting and competing explanations. These two aims are then put to the empirical test. By using two recent and ongoing cases of proxy wars, the theoretical discussion is brought into the empirical realm. The chosen cases are, first, the situation in Ukraine emerging from the 2013 protests and culminating with the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and, second, the collapse of the Syrian state and the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Because proxy wars have generally been linked to the Cold War period and, thus, came to be associated with a superpower practice of avoiding direct interaction, the chapter moves away from discussing classic proxy wars such as the 1954 Guatemalan coup d’etat, the civil war in Angola (1975–2002), or the Ogaden War between Ethiopia and Somalia (1977–1978). A view from a post-Cold War security standpoint significantly expands our understanding of this ever-present security problem.

The conflict in Syria quickly escalated into a complex and prolonged civil war where states outside the conflict fueled rebel groups to fight. The onset of multiple proxy wars befell Syria. Proxy war happens when a ruler of a state devises and facilitates the provision of support to a rebel group that is engaged in carrying out violent activities in another state. Thus, an external state can influence the outcome of a civil war without having to bear the heavy costs of sending its army forces. States that wage proxy wars risk a potential conflict escalation, and gamble with provoking retaliation by either the offending state or its allies. Furthermore, inadvertent conse quences of backing rebel forces are also possible such as international condemnation. So, why does a state choose to form a relationship with a proxy group, instead of intervening directly? Why invest money and military power in a third party that could lead to a prolonged conflict? The analysis highlights that the political survival of regimes in the Middle East caused leaders to support rebel groups in Syria. I present a causal mechanism that is based on transnational threats to explain the phenomenon of proxy war in the Syrian civil war. Keywords: Syria, proxy war, Middle East, qualitative analysis, foreign policy.

The influence and impact of non-state actors, particularly humanitarian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in conflict management and in contemporary proxy wars, has been at the core of several scholarly debates. Peace research scientists developed knowledge about actors and conditions influencing conflict management and peacebuilding at the global and regional level. They have demonstrated that proxy wars survived the Cold War and developed new features. In particular, non-state actors like NGOs, private foundations, and non-profit associations, slowly but firmly entered the conflict management system, providing expertise and new input. International relations scholars investigate the main drivers of global humanitarian phenomena and give empirical reflections suitable for adaptive policymaking. It is commonly agreed that conflicts should be solved, human rights violations stopped, and the most inhumane implications reduced, but questions remain about the effectiveness of intervention and the legitimacy of some actors and tools. The relevance of non-state actors and their roles in conflict management have found in the international relations and peace research an ideal place to develop theoretical and practical implications. Scholars emphasized the various types of actors involved (NGOs, local community representatives, diplomats), and the diverse techniques and approaches developed within and beyond the “traditional” track diplomacy, to conflict transformation. Starting from the assessment of the state of the literature in the current international relations and peace research theoretical debate on civil and proxy wars, those actors who manage conflicts and the methods and techniques they use are explained further. In particular, it is first sustained that nongovernmental actors are engaged in the management of proxy wars in shared agency with governmental ones. Second, conflict transformation is introduced as an interactive technique to manage proxies.

There are two dominant perspectives in the literature regarding the concept of proxy war, which was forgotten in the post-Cold War era but is now regaining popularity. The group led by Karl Deutsch defines proxy war as the intervention of other states in a civil war in a country, and the situation where the civil war in question gains an interstate conflict nature. The other group argues that proxy war was a common form of warfare even before 1945. This study problematizes two perspectives. Accordingly, a new conceptual framework of proxy wars is constructed, aiming to eliminate the conceptual ambiguity caused by these two perspectives.

It has been almost three years since the eruption of the civil war in Yemen by March 2015, leading to high political instability and severe humanitarian crisis. This article elaborates on the civil war in Yemen by focusing on the interests of main actors, who are involved in the ongoing conflict. The article also evaluates the nature of civil war in Yemen, mainly questioning the liability of describing the tension as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. In recent years, there has been a tendency to explain Yemeni conflict through the lens of a religious struggle between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi’a Iran in order to reinforce their control over the region. It is argued in this study that it would be misleading to call Yemen’s ongoing crisis as a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The tension did not emerge as a result of clash of interests by these two countries. Rather it would be fair to suggest that involvement of Saudi Arabia and Iran in Yemen’s civil war further triggered and complicated the already existing tensions in the country.  The outcome is a complex pattern of conflict which the author of this article argues is indeed different from a proxy war.

The general meaning of “proxy war” is the pursuit of one’s interests exploiting other actors. Measures to this end can be implemented in two ways: through hard and soft power. As far as countering the activities of terrorist organizations is concerned, it can be seen that self-interest is placed above efforts against terrorism. The civil war in Syria and the activities of terrorist organizations have become grounds for greater involvement of global powers in the struggle for gaining influence in the country. This paper aims to show the actions of global and regional powers and other state actors taken in an attempt to assert power and influence under the guise of the fight against terrorism. The paper is divided into two parts: theoretical and practical. The theoretical part discusses aspects related to Josepha Nye’s concept of “smart power” and the notions of “proxy war” and “proxy activities”. The practical part discusses the activities of international actors pursuing their interests through official involvement in the fight against Daesh in the Syrian territory. Keywords: proxy war, Middle East, soft power, hard power, Daesh, Syria

Proxy war is the intervention of a third party in one of the factions to fight another faction. The Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War as well as the lone wolf attack IS (Islamic State) are one of its manifestations. In the future, proxy war will be a method commonly used in conflict. This is because the progress of information and communication technology has facilitated the implementation of proxy war. The progress of information and communication technology also made this era an era of proxy war. The following study aims to outline the threats and challenges facing Indonesian Muslims in the era of proxy war. The results of the study are expected to broaden the perspective of Islamic studies by raising the subject of studies that have not yet been studied but are also expected to have positive implications in proxy war discourse. The method used in the study is literature review. The results of the study indicate that proxy-forming narratives are a threat as well as the main challenges faced by Indonesian Muslims in the era of proxy war. To deal with it, Indonesian Muslims are required to have deeper religious knowledge and broad religious insights.

This paper will argue the concept of ?Arab Spring? which has been used as a tool for perception management to cover up a multi-dimensional Proxy War that is ongoing within the borders of Middle East.Being an allusion to 1848 revolutions, which is known as ?Spring of Nations?, Arab Spring is ought to be a grassroots movement. It is accepted as a breaking point for Arab Peninsula by western scholars, intellectuals and policy makers. However Liberte-Eqalite under the concept of democracy seems to be the subject matter of the process, the debate was rounding about establishment of legitimate governments immediately.Therefore, until the government of Syria?s unexpected resistance to so called social movements, Western countries insisted on the existence of the uprisings autonomous character in Middle East. After the challenge of Syria it became harder to claim autonomy or civility for the movements at the region. The direct intervention of western countries to the process made it even harder. In light of these developments building an intellectual argument on what is happening or expected in Middle East became more and more blurry. To clarify the process we propose a new point of view which suggests to rethink the Arab Spring starting from scratch. Can the so cold autonomous revolt against authoritarian regimes in Middle East be a proxy war which is sponsored by international actors?The Western Governments? publicly discussions of some vital issues which includes direct violations of a ?sovereign states? sovereignty rights such as weapon supplying to rebellions, can be considered as an indicator for such a hidden agenda. Likewise the refugee inflow to other countries can be a supporting indicator of this theory. The people who were so determined to take over the authoritarian regimes in their countries by revolution are now fleeing to Europe. What has changed and why those revolutionist are not holding the lines. Were they ever? This process is either a Global Civil War, which seems unlikely since nation states still exists and international law protects their existence, or more likely a Proxy War which makes it possible to fight war in a foreign country without any declaration. The ongoing Proxy War in Middle East is an example of post-modern warfare. The new wars will not seem to be fought by national armies. To ovoid the political and legal consequences of modern war, using proxies seems to be the future of new warfare.

After the Arab Spring that started in the Middle East in 2011, a civil war broke out in Syria. Syria has become a proxy war zone due to many global and regional actors intervened in the crisis. The most important regional actor supporting the Bashar al-Assad regime against the opposition in Syria is Iran. Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad was Iran's only ally in the region. For this reason, the most important router of the proxy war in Syria has been Iran. The purpose of this article is to explain the reasons why Iran, which supports the reflections of the Arab Spring and changes of authority in other countries, changed its stance after the protests spread to Syria and implemented a proxy war policy in order to protect the Bashar al-Assad regime. The dynamics that enabled Iran-Syria relations to continue at an almost smooth level from 1979 until the end of the Assad regime in December 2024 are included in the article. In this regard, the proxy war implemented by Iran in Syria has been explained. Iran's proxy war policy in Syria has been analyzed based on the arguments of defensive realism.

The conflict in Yemen seems forgotten considering the worldwide severe humanitarian catastrophes. Nevertheless, since the conflict escalated around four years ago, it became one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history and has no end in sight. Thousands of people were killed even more displaced and the country is facing tremendous food insecurity as well as the world’s largest cholera outbreak. It is no longer just a civil war between the Houthi- and Hadi-Faction. International interests play a major role and made it a proxy war between Saudi Arabia (and its allies) on one side and Iran on the other. This all happens at the expense of the civilian population. Therefore, it is urgent to analyse the actors involved, their interests within the conflict and furthermore searching for possibilities to overcome it.

This article considers the causes of the ‘Contra War’ in Nicaragua during the 1980s. This conflict has often been portrayed as an American ‘proxy war’ fought by Somoza's former National Guard against a regime supported by most common Nicaraguans. This article proposes an alternate view. The Managua regime, with the advice and assistance of the Soviet bloc, pursued a model of political consolidation and economic development followed by other Third World Marxist‐Leninist states. As in other ‘states of socialist orientation’ in the 1970s and 1980s, this one encountered considerable popular resistance. The conflict in Nicaragua, thus, was a civil war caused by Sandinista policies.

This article describes about rivalry two great powers between the United States and Iran in Syria’s conflict. The rivalry that occurs between the US and Iran is due to motive of interest in Syria. These interests make them have to confront by taking advantage of political destabilization that has occurred in Syria. The US and Iran used the civil war in Syria for their national interests, especially political influence and natural resources. In this study, the author uses the theory of proxy war to analyze the US-Iran rivalry. Then the method used is descriptive analytical. This study seeks to answer the question of what is the background of the Syrian conflict and its impact on US-Iran involvement? The conclusion in this study is the occurrence of the Arab Spring in Syria due to public dissatisfaction with the leadership of the Bashar al-Assad regime. The group that did not like Assad then formed a stronghold of the government opposition. This opposition stronghold was then exploited by the United States which had an interest in overthrowing Assad. Seeing this situation, Iran, which is Syria's partner, took a stand to support the pro-government camp. As a result, the confrontation of the two countries through a proxy war in Syria is inevitable. Not only the US-Iran, this conflict also involves their allied countries. Finally, the conflict from civil war to proxy war in Syria is inevitable

This book seeks to shed more light on the US strategy of proxy warfare in modern times with the Syrian Civil War as a case study. The two authors combine Modern History with International Relations and Strategic Studies in order to offer an up-to-date and critical analysis of this unique partnership between a state (USA) and a non-state actor (Syrian Kurds) against another non-state actor (ISIS) - amidst a wider civil war. They argue that this partnership ended up as a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it defeated ISIS at a minimum cost in treasure and blood in comparison to the Iraq War, but, on the other hand, it ensnared the USA into a tangled web of competition and conflict with other powers with no easy way-out. In other words, proxy warfare - as the two authors show-case - may prove a not-so-cheap investment in the end.

The research examines the development of geopolitical circumstances, humanitarian effects, and local changes within the Syrian Civil War from 2018 to 2025. Changes in foreign policy allowed the government of Assad to recover territorial power from the rebel groups, and the conflict came to an end. This research examines external factors, including Russia alongside Iran and Turkey, and America, that have influenced post-war Syria and discusses the hurdles to the return of refugees, accountability for war crimes, and rebuilding infrastructure under the sanctions. This research uses qualitative content analysis and policy review methods to examine the shift in format for action from active conflict in Syria to the current divided authoritarian regime's pursuit of stability. This study aims to contribute to the debates on proxy wars, post-conflict government arrangements, and regional stability in the Middle East. Keywords: Syrian Civil War, Proxy war, Non-state actors, Humanitarian crisis, Authoritarian resilience, UNHCR and humanitarian law, Chemical weapons in Syria, ISIS and HTS militias

Due to its hostile behavior in the Middle East, Iran has been sanctioned severely by the international community. Despite isolation attempts by the international community, Iran is nevertheless regarded as a powerhouse in the regional power constellation, owing to its actions in the Middle-Eastern proxy wars. Acknowledging the anomaly of Iran’s capabilities in spite of heavy sanctions, this research arguably shows how Sino-Iranian relations paves the way for Iran to circumvent sanctions. Subsequent to learning about China’s support for Iran, this research questions if the aforementioned support has an impact on Iran’s actions and status within the regional power constellation. Furthermore, this research also questions the influence of Iran and China’s relations towards the former’s ability in pursuing its aims through the Syrian proxy war against Israel in the account of international sanctions and condemnations. Guided by the concept of balancing by Stephen M. Walt and an exploitative model of proxy warfare theory, this research finds the Sino-Iranian relations as having a significant effect towards improving Tehran’s capabilities and acquisition of power in the Middle-East power constellation. Moreover, concerning the Iran-Israel proxy war, China’s actions are proven to mainly affect Iran and the Syrian civil war within the political sphere.