A lot of it is, so to speak. Prior to this year, the U.S. government didn’t just give weapons, it also provided $22.9 billion in direct budget support to the Ukrainian government. That wasn’t tanks or missiles, that was straight-up money.
From a pure monetarily standpoint (assuming the legal issue of PMCs being solved,) there isn’t a reason the U.S. government couldn’t earmark, say, a few billion dollars to pay private mercenaries to fight for Ukraine, in a way that would involve first routing the money into Ukraine’s coffers then letting the Ukrainian government technically be the ones to pay the mercs.
You’re literally just pointing to treaties being enforced. You seem to suggest that if treaties are enforced by sovereign states then that means they are not being enforced as law. But laws are normally enforced by sovereign states; the fact that treaties are being enforced by sovereign states tends to suggest that they are law, not that they aren’t.
Sure, the ICJ does not exist independently of the sovereign states that established it. But you could make a similar point about the Supreme Court of the US, or any other court.
Unlikely that Russia (or, to be fair, most other states) would accept the legitimacy or efficacy of a grant of temprorary citizenship for the purpose of allowing mercenaries to engage the protections the Geneva Conventions afford to combatants, when the whole point of Protocol 1 is to deny these protections to mercenaries.
Yes, but what I meant was, there’s no reason the U.S. couldn’t earmark additional funds (except, of course, for lack of political will.) A lot of aid to Ukraine has been in the form of a metaphorical suitcase of money, so to speak.
Sure, but without going into graphic detail, it’s not like a country like Russia was going to honor the Geneva Conventions to begin with. If they captured soldiers - Ukrainian or not, mercs or not - they’d be doing what they’ve already done to POWs in this war thus far.
All of this assumes that there is a significant number of skilled, experienced mercenary fighters (and not just cannon fodder) who are out there somewhere, and even could be hired.
This isn’t just a Russia thing; I don’t think any country would accept that their opponent in a war could engage Geneva Convention protections for the mercenaries it deploys with an award of “temporary citizenship”.
And, no fan of Russia either in this war or in general, but they do in fact treat regular Ukrainian POWs a lot better (i.e. less badly) than those captives whom they characterise as mercenaries.
According to this article: (note that “personnel” is not the same as “can fight in battle;” only a small fraction could.)
United Resources Group (Australian) has 1,200 personnel
Aegis Defence Services (British) has 5,000 personnel.
Triple Canopy (American) has 8,000 personnel.
Erinys (British) has 16,000 personnel.
Olive Group (British) has 20,000 personnel.
Academi (American) has 20,000 personnel.
G4S (British) is by far the largest and has 620,000 personnel.
And even without the private contractors, there must be a significant number of Iraq-war, Afghanistan-war veterans out there who have been discharged from the US military and still retain a lot of battle skill and experience.
I haven’t mentioned the United Nations at any point. A position which requires you to make up opinions and attribute them to me is probably not a strong one.
Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict
Ukraine does allow Foreigners to join it’s military. AFAIK they get the same pay as nationals.
You can, certainly. The French Foreign legion for example. Art 47 covers soldiers that are NOT a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict. In other words sign them up as part of your army- Okay, fine. Have them be a separate special unit- not okay. But note there is the Wagner group, which is mercenaries, but russia didnt agree with art 47.
And Illegal under International law. But Russia doesnt give a crap.
The proposal was the flat out hiring of mercenaries in vast numbers, at pay rates higher than what soldiers get now (Ukrainians recruits ain’t getting $2000 a month) not volunteers joining the army.
Playing around with grey areas of international law isn’t going to do Ukraine any favors. Russia is supported only by criminal regimes, failed states, and fascist pieces of shit. Ukraine is being kept alive by decent and civilized nations because it’s the decent and civilized thing to do, and giving away moral legitimacy is not something they should do lightly.