Over the years, the changing nature of strategic competition can be observed across various regional landscapes. The actions of states are not limited to overt displays of force to show their power. On the contrary, they adopt a multi-layered strategy that combines precise violent actions, proxy networks, and a long-term plan of economic domination. This mixed strategy is the result of a well-thought-out conviction that the ultimate power lies in controlling the main economic routes of the entire region. So-called routine investment or development very often has a deeper strategic purpose behind it. Thus, the regional order is transformed quietly.
These days kinetic actions are seldom the first step in a war. They are rather used to convey a message in a very calculated way. A small-scale air strike, a single naval operation, or a precise raid conducted in the hope of getting a favorable political outcome is not aimed at sparking full-blown conflict. These measures possess a strategic aspect of punctuation rather than being the main plot. They maintain a façade of restraint while simultaneously shifting the operational environment. Hence, the decision-makers find themselves in a situation where the force applied has more of a symbolic than a decisive character, yet it is still a major factor in the battle of perceptions regarding the strength of the parties involved.
Simultaneously, proxy conflict remains a significant means for states to assert their influence without the expenditure of a formal war. By backing armed groups or political factions, states can easily interfere in the internal affairs of neighboring countries with minor investments and without being held responsible. These proxies can be used to secure supply lines, weaken rivals’ influence, and seize territories that may later be exchanged. Nonetheless, the effects of this tactic last for a long time. Proxy wars have a negative impact on already weak and corrupt regimes that are forced to evacuate their areas, and regional trade is rendered even more difficult. They create situations where it is hard to determine whether there is war or peace.
Despite the visibility of military actions and clandestine operations, economic power is the true revolutionary force. Today, many governments prioritize using economic pressure to gain future strategic advantage. While activities like infrastructure development, port acquisition, establishing supply lines, and offering strategic loans are formally justified as development, they can actually be a trap, potentially limiting the recipient country’s choices for decades. Consequently, a country that accepts assistance with its transport, power supply, or IT systems may find its influence diminished, much like a defeated nation with a lingering occupying force.
The attractiveness of being the world’s biggest economy is unequivocal. It does not receive an international outcry as military actions do. It does not even get the financial exhaustion that is the hallmark of wars. More importantly, it gets into the political bloodstream of the other countries covertly but steadily. Once it gets implanted, it is hard to reverse the process without incurring huge political and economic costs.
In many current situations, economic interests are the primary driver of military or proxy involvement. Security is essential for investments. No rival influence should be allowed to impede the opening of the infrastructure corridor. Proxies may even receive extra support in their efforts to either gain control of or disrupt regions that are important for planning new economic projects. The connection is mutually reinforcing: economic power gives rise to political influence, which in turn creates room for strategic investments. These two factors together create a cycle that is both astute and robust.
Policymakers who still perceive security solely from the point of view of military might run the risk of not recognizing the profound change that has taken place. Today, security is no longer associated with only tanks, naval vessels, and missiles. It includes the flow of goods, supply chains, data networks, and even governing institutions.
Hence, the very first thing to be done is to expand the national security framework to include economic decisions that are perceived as part of the strategic environment. The finance ministries, planning departments, development agencies, and national security institutions must coordinate their assessments, not operate in isolation. Decisions must be made in such a way as to correspond with the integrated nature of competition in the twenty-first century.
The second step is to offer smaller states in the region viable economic alternatives. Warnings regarding strategic dependency do not help these states if no options are available; they would rather choose alternatives that offer immediate relief than partners that are more vulnerable. Regional investment banks, resilience funds, transparent financing mechanisms, and cooperative infrastructure development can provide states with a realistic choice. If no credible options are available, partners will continue to gravitate towards the one with the strongest influence.
Third, traditional deterrence has to be redefined and, at the same time, reinforced. The very first thing that should be done is to establish a believable deterrent posture to counter kinetic threats. However, deterrent measures should now be considered additional to financial regulation, digital governance, and political resilience. Intelligence sharing is one factor that would assist in detecting proxy networks. Collaborative development projects can make unstable countries more resilient. Individual sanctions applied to those who promote proxy violence can deter infiltration by making it more expensive. In that case, deterrence becomes an all-inclusive strategy that engages the entire government and the whole region.
Ultimately, the public perception of state institutions, rather than their mere existence, will determine long-term stability. Resistance intensifies when the community believes an economic partnership is a means to strip them of their sovereignty. Conversely, when communities are marginalized in decision-making, proxy influence can grow. Investments in education, civil society, and free media not only create a robust social fabric but also make society less vulnerable to external influence.
The new regional order will be shaped not by decisive battlefield victories, but by the subtle synchronization of economic, political, and security aspects. Countries that primarily base their power and influence on economic means view it as a less risky and more reliable path than wars. If decision-makers continue to ignore this reality, they will face a changed world with outdated methods.
Global power is now being exerted through trade route architecture, infrastructure networks, and financial dependencies. In seeking to maintain political non-interference, geographical stability, and military autonomy, states must understand that modern competition is simultaneously fought on the fronts of economics, politics, and the limited but precise use of force. Meeting this challenge requires a clear purpose, coordinated policymaking, and a long-term vision commensurate with the ambitions of those who are altering the regional environment.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of the South Asia Times.
