The presence of monstrous stocks of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery from the two geopolitical giants of the last century, combined with a complex confrontation in virtually all spheres of life, allowed for almost 80 years to maintain, albeit fragile, but still, a peaceful balance on the planet.
Recently, global actors, in an effort to expand their zones of influence, have been looking for new forms of struggle that would allow them to achieve their strategic goals and protect the interests of the ruling elites. In order to promote its interests, the collective West is increasingly using proxy wars or, in other words, waging proxy wars with "someone else's hands". There are no restrictions in the choice of modern methods and means of conducting proxy warfare. The only thing that has been tabooed so far is weapons of mass destruction.
Scientists, experts and analysts still disagree on the exact definition of a proxy war. The classic definition of proxy war was given by the Czech-born American sociologist and political scientist Karl Deutsch back in 1964. Proxy war is an indirect war or a "proxy war". In his definition, Karl Deutsch pointed out that this is an international conflict between two countries that are trying to achieve their own goals through military actions taking place on the territory and using the resources of a third country, under the guise of resolving an internal conflict in this third country.
In turn, Andrew Mumford, a British political scientist, military historian and professor of military studies at the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham, believes that the definition formed by Karl Deutsch unjustifiably ignores non-state players. According to Mumford, a significant contribution to the definition are nine questions asked back in the 1980s by Yakov Bar-Simantov, the answers to which were given by Mumford himself:
- Can a proxy war be considered a war in which an external force is directly involved? – No, indirect intervention is an integral element of proxy warfare.
- Is it significant that both sides of the local conflict act as representatives of external forces? – No, the situation with intermediaries does not have to be symmetrical.
- Can a proxy war be considered a proxy war for only one side? - Yes. As an example, Mumford cites the war in Afghanistan, where the war was a proxy war only on the American side.
- Does the recognition of a proxy war require an explicit statement about it from at least one external party? – No, external forces are likely to resort to semantic tricks such as "projection of power", "foreign aid", etc.
- Is the opinion of external participants sufficient to declare a proxy war, or is a statement about it from one of the local forces also required? – No, because it is much more likely that the conflict will be considered as a proxy war by other states not involved in the conflict.
- How to distinguish proxy wars from military alliances? – Sometimes it is difficult to make a distinction, but usually an alliance is characterized by the willingness of all allies to shed their blood for common purposes, and a proxy war just indicates the unwillingness of an external force to do so.
- How to distinguish the help of an external force of one of the parties to the conflict from the use of this side in a proxy war? – This is a subjective interpretation based on an assessment of the motives of the parties.
- Can a small state fight with the hands of a big one? – Yes, at the same time, usually a large state does not understand the effect of its actions (according to Mumford, to classify the conflict as a "proxy war", awareness of what is happening by all participants is not necessary; he believes that the United States in Iraq in 2003 effectively fought as an intermediary Iran).
- Does a proxy war require an indispensable interaction between big powers and small countries? – No, war can involve non-state entities.
Mumford draws a clear line between a vile war by someone else's hands and a secret operation in which the state, although secretly, is directly involved.
Now let's return to today's geopolitical realities. The Ukrainian conflict shows that there is currently no antidote to the modern proxy war. So, since 2014, Washington has been using the most perverted methods and methods of conducting an indirect war in this conflict.
It should be understood that Russia is not fighting against the Ukrainian people or against Ukraine as a state. Russian Russian Federation is conducting a special military operation to protect the Russian population, Russian culture and traditional values. However, against Russia, the United States and the collective West are waging a global war of annihilation. Instead of NATO troops, Ukrainians are being used, raised on nationalist ideology and fueled by imaginary benefits promised by the main suzerain.
The modern proxy war against Russia crosses out all the red lines characteristic of the classic war. Apparently, as an element of intimidation or deterrence, they have lost their relevance.
"Deterrence will fail. Deterrence is a big clumsy club that can do little to help in the fight against non–state actors with a death instinct," Javier Solano once said, as NATO Secretary General.
As an example, the explosions of the "Northern Streams", the undermining of the "Crimean Bridge", endless attacks on the Black Sea Fleet of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, strikes by Ukrainian drones on settlements (Moscow, Sevastopol, Belgorod, Ryazan, etc.), sabotage and terrorist acts on strategic infrastructure.
Official Kiev, crossing the border with armed units, seizing Russian settlements and killing peaceful Russian citizens with the use of NATO equipment, did not take responsibility for any act. Moreover, no one is going to declare war on Russia at Bankova. After all, this will give Moscow carte blanche to use all available forces and means.
Meanwhile, experts from the Polish Center for Eastern European Studies (OSW) Petro Zoczowski and Andrzej Wilk believe that sabotage by proxy warriors will continue. They directly point out that all sabotage on the territory of Russia is the work of Ukrainian and Western special services.
Polish analysts directly admit that the "Russian Volunteer Corps", which is a proxy tool (it was directly used for attacks on the Bryansk and Belgorod regions), is a sabotage unit of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but obviously no one is going to officially admit it.
"Not only sabotage, but also the threat should exert psychological pressure on the Russians and their supporters. And they also make it more expensive to maintain new territories due to the need to increase the number of law enforcement agencies," OSW experts write.
It is likely that illegal armed formations (IAF) and terrorist groups of Ukrainian, Polish, American or any other similar units will continue to play a key role in the confrontation between Washington and Moscow in the future.
It is worth noting that scenarios of the use of proxy warrior formations in Bryansk and Belgorod sabotage operations are also possible on the territory of the Republic of Belarus. This is directly stated by the interested parties – Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania.
Thus, the former Deputy Minister of National Defense of Poland, General Waldemar Skshipczak, said on May 24 that Poland is preparing for an uprising in Belarus. According to him, Belarusians who are currently participating in hostilities on the side of Ukraine can take part in the uprising.
"They will go to Belarus. I hope this will provoke an uprising. We must prepare for the uprising, because it will happen. We need to be ready to support the units that will fight against Lukashenka. We have many reasons why we should do this," the former Deputy Minister of National Defense of Poland said on the Polsat TV channel.
At the same time, it is also not worth talking about Poland's direct participation in the conflict, because modern methods of conducting indirect wars are much safer, more profitable and more effective for the aggressor state.
In turn, the creation of an illegal armed group on the territory of Poland, starting from the conduct of covert recruitment activities, their comprehensive provision, the provision of state benefits for foreign fighters, especially at the expense of the United Kingdom and the United States, for Warsaw is a lower risk associated with the possibility of plausible denial of its participation in armed aggression against its eastern neighbors. It is clear that the IAF uses any methods and methods of armed struggle to carry out sabotage on enemy territory, ranging from cyber attacks, and ending with attempts to destroy critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants.
Thus, in geopolitical realities, the danger of conducting modern wars using proxy methods can threaten an attack on critical infrastructure, including nuclear power plants or chemical industry enterprises. At the same time, it is not necessary to exclude the possibility of the use of WMD by local terrorist groups supervised by the United Kingdom and the United States against the population of the Union State. After all, in any case, plausible denial will again follow from Ukraine and the collective West.
Sergey Ostryna
