‘Perspectives’ provides a platform for discussion articles and varied points of view. Here, Ronnie Smith draws attention to the privatised armed groups which are playing an increasing role in our dangerous and warming world
As a result of the war in Ukraine, the world has become more aware of the growth and influence of Private Military Contractors (PMCs) in those aspects of international affairs that are deemed to require military involvement.
At present, Russia’s Wagner Group holds centre stage in terms of attracting attention and comment - and not just because of its activities in Ukraine and now Belarus. Wagner has and remains involved, at various levels, in conflicts in Syria and sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.
The PMC phenomenon is by no means limited to this example. Relatively recently, we have become more aware of the global presence of PMCs in conflicts involving major western countries. A quick check online shows us that there are active PMCs registered in the USA, France, Germany, the UK, Turkey, South Africa, Poland, Australia, and Peru as well as Russia.
Some PMCs are entirely private and work on a purely business-contract basis for their clients. Others are firmly connected to official state armed forces and large corporate enterprises, providing a range of services from security consultancy, the provision of equipment maintenance and logistics, all the way up to full combat interventions by ex-military personnel.
The popular mind has become familiar with a lionised version of private military activities through popular action movies such as ‘The Expendables’, ‘Extraction 1 and 2’, ‘6 Underground’ and various ‘sniper/shooter’ variations. In these fictional scenarios, PMCs can either be characterised as heroes or villains, depending on the actors involved and the objectives of their clients.
The realities of PMC’s activities have remained largely secret or highly classified, except to those who fall victim to their operations. Then, occasionally, following specific events, they become known to those of the general public who have an interest in such things.
In September 2007, members of the US Blackwater PMC became involved in a fire fight with Iraqi government forces in the centre of Baghdad, resulting in the deaths of 20 Iraqis including women and children. Multiple international and US inter-agency investigations took place and, as the haze cleared, a profound uncertainty arose over the company’s legal right to be conducting military operations on behalf of the US government in a second country.
It should be noted that the size of the Blackwater operation in Iraq at the time numbered around 160,000 operatives, roughly similar to the official US military post-war engagement.
It is also worth noting that since this incident, Blackwater has rebranded itself as ‘Academi’ and was then incoporated into a company called Constellis.
There were also concerns regarding the level of oversight exercised by the US government of the company’s activities in Iraq and elsewhere.
To understand PMCs, we can raise the following general questions – and these are not confined to the USA:
● To what extent are PMCs active in conflict zones, including direct combat, alongside or instead of the official forces of states around the world?
● Who or which department within the governments concerned is responsible for hiring and specifying the operational parameters of PMCs? In whose interest are they contracted to act?
● Which departments or agencies within the governments concerned are responsible for co-ordinating and directing the contracted PMCs and official state forces to achieve objectives? What relationships develop between the PMCs and these departments and agencies such as the CIA?
● To what extent do the rules of engagement applied to PMCs active in direct combat differ from those governing the states’ official forces?
It is clear that PMCs contracted at least to fully constituted states who are members of the United Nations, falling under its conventions and resolutions, and signatories to The Hague and Geneva Conventions, should conduct themselves accordingly.
Returning to the Russian Federation, it is fair to say that ‘PMC Wagner’ is known throughout the world. It is currently active in a number of live military conflicts around the world, prosecuting the interests of the Russian State and its leading actors.
Until the apparent attempted coup in June 2023, Wagner could be said to have followed the Western model of a semi-independent PMC. While it had a number of contracts with the Russian state, most notably with regard to prosecuting Russia’s war in Ukraine, Wagner could not be said to be owned by the Russian state or by any other large Russian corporate entity.
However, Wagner’s independence placed it in direct competition with the Russian Ministry of Defence, who controls the distribution of ammunition and equipment to the armed forces and other external contractors engaged in the war. Competition turned into open conflict at the highest level, and it is not clear if Wagner’s brief rebellion was aimed at the Russian government or the senior military command at the Ministry of Defence. The coup’s failure and its CEO’s disappearance* saw Wagner placed under the control of Russia’s National Guard, which reports directly to Vladimir Putin. (It was widely reported that Yevgeny Prigozhin died in a plane crash - but ‘sightings’ of him have been reported on social media. Conspiracy theories?)
Molfar, a Ukrainian intelligence research company, estimates that there are around 37 PMCs registered in the Russian Federation. Many of them are engaged in the war in Ukraine and others have active around the world. All of these companies have direct and indirect links to the Kremlin, because it is illegal not to, but they are privately financed by some of the wealthiest oligarchs in Russia and they can operate independently.
We know what Private Military Contractors are doing today but what kind of operations can we identify for them in the future? I present two scenarios as examples.
Scenario A - The Russian Federation
Russia’s current president is widely accepted as being an autocratic ruler, despite the Russian constitution requiring him to stand for election, now every 6 years.
There are other very powerful and very wealthy people in Russia, with backgrounds in corporate ownership, KGB/GRU/FSB secret services and the military for whom Putin acts as a form of Super Managing Director. It’s fair to say that the civil-legal and regulatory business framework in Russia is only what the oligarchy wants them to be at any given time. There is no ‘rule of law’ in the western sense.
Putin will, one day, certainly pass to the great dictatorship in the sky -
even if there is a succession plan in place from within the highest ranks of the oligarchy, his death will spark a period of intense competition for position and wealth.
There is the possibility that the competition will be violent to the point that we may even be looking at a civil war centred on Moscow, but spreading across the regions of the largest country on Earth. It is inconceivable that many if not all of the Russian PMCs will become engaged - private armies acting on behalf of their respective owners and their interests.
Scenario B - The world during advanced climate change
Almost daily we see more and more evidence of the effects of climate change around the world; storms, floods, droughts and rising temperatures show that climate change is already here – and its consequences will become more severe in the future. Perhaps our most immediate threat is an increasing shortage of fresh drinking water, a crisis that is already affecting many countries.
Water is only the first vital resource that will run out. Obviously, food supplies and other materials will be affected and let’s not forget that carbon-based energy cannot last forever. The likely resulting dynamics of conflict will see particular groups and interests competing ever harder to secure the Earth’s resources for themselves. Normally that would mean conflict between states with the wealthiest and most developed nations coming out on top - but only for a while.
These days, there are individuals and corporations that control the vast majority of the world’s wealth including people and companies who are even building their own spaceships (to escape?). I do not doubt that these people will do everything they can to protect their commercial resource interests and their huge profits. And will enter into direct conflict with their competitors and with smaller countries, using PMCs to conduct their wars.
As a final point, it’s worth remembering that PMCs/mercenaries are not new. For example, the Pope’s very own, historic PMC is known as ‘The Swiss Guard’. The great engine of domination and extraction which shaped the British Empire across India, South-East Asia, Africa and latterly China, was not the British Army and not even primarily the Royal Navy. It was the East India Trading Company, established from the year 1600 as a huge commercial concern which built its own private army and navy to protect its enormously profitable business interests. In contemporary forms, this model is likely to be revived in the face of climate change’s threat to current mechanisms and forms of global trade.
Published 20 September 2024