![]() A definition that emphasizes the direct and equal involvement of two powers supporting opposite sides limits what would constitute as a “proxy war.”Ĭonversely, a definition that includes any war with the involvement of an outside actor acting on behalf of a specific agenda would encompass significantly more conflicts. In the absence of two clear global powers competing within a bipolar system, the application of one definition over another can significantly alter the analysis of a conflict. Out of the context of the Cold War, however, proxy wars are much more difficult and controversial to define. The appeal of proxy wars today, especially for global powers, is two-fold: firstly, they avoid the possibility of going head-to-head with another power with nuclear capabilities and secondly, they allow for a power to be involved and ensure the protection of interests without the costs that a direct war would entail. ![]() The end of the Cold War did not bring the end of proxy wars, however. ![]() These wars were essential in the concept of nuclear deterrence, allowing the Soviet Union and the United States to compete against each other indirectly and without the involvement of nuclear weapons, via conflicts such as the Vietnam War. The role of proxy wars are best known from the Cold War, when conflicts played out in the context of competing ideologies: communism and democracy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |