In Proxy war, powerful countries use groups and smaller nations to fight on their behalf without directly engaging in a full-scale conflict with each other. They do so because direct fighting often produces catastrophic results such as famine, population displacement, and cultural devastation. They also do so because proxies are cheaper to support than direct military action and, in some cases—notably guerrilla forces such as those of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War—are better accepted by local communities, making it easier for them to gain intelligence and reduce nationalistic backlash that can accompany foreign intervention. However, this independence can create tensions as proxies seek to become more independent and threaten to turn to other patrons if they feel unsupported.

Meddling offers an attractive option when the intervening state sees a desirable change in the status quo, but such a change is unlikely to cause any significant damage to vital or desirable interests. It is also a viable option when the risk of escalation with a peer or near-peer competitor is high and significant constraints (internationally and domestically) prevent it from directly attacking that competitor.

However, executing a proxy war policy is difficult because an intervening state must be aware of its proxy’s autonomy and the need to maintain strategic coherence. This requires careful consideration of the convergence and divergence between an intervening state’s objectives and its proxy’s, while also anticipating how the character of a conflict will evolve over time.