This is the plot of dozens of bad action movies, but I’m thinking on a larger scale.
Some multi-billionaire with military connections decides to hire a bunch of mercenaries to fight in Ukraine on behalf of the Ukrainian government, and the Ukraine government accepts them and allows them passage into Ukraine on peacekeeping grounds with the idea that they’ll defend some civilian town.
The mercenaries are very well trained and number about 30,000 or so, and are equipped with weapons the Ukraine military can give them. In addition they brought their own fighter cover (about 50 or so aircraft mainly older MIG’s they bought from former Soviet states).
With these forces they are ordered to hold some important city (maybe Kyiv, maybe a smaller city) at all costs and the mercenaries are willing to fight hard because they believe in the Ukraine cause. Legally, could this happen? How would this effect Russian war plans? Could a mercenary group bring in so many fighter aircraft they could fight off Russian’s air force missions in Ukraine?
The International Brigade were not mercenaries. They were volunteers.
Mercenaries are paid, and the definition used by the Geneva Convention requires that they are paid more than they would normally be paid if they were part of a conventional military force. Forces acting at the behest of our notional billionaire would almost certainly fit the definition.
The answer would appear to be very messy. International law pretty much makes mercenaries illegal in most circumstances, but the illegality particularly pertains to countries that allow recruitment and organisation of mercenary forces on their land. Under the conventions they are expected to make it illegal. A big difficulty for mercenaries is that they do not have the protection of most aspects of the conventions covering war.
Most countries make it illegal for their citizens to go and fight in wars elsewhere, but mercenaries come under much heavier conditions. Organising mercenaries is also illegal, not just being one.
The hiring of foreign mercenaries to fight under a national flag was a common practice up through the 19th Century (von Blücher’s Prussian mercenaries were key to Wellington’s victory over Napoleon’s forces at Waterloo) and the hiring of independent contractors by the US Department of Defense as “security forces” that may engage in front line fighting was seen in the Iraq War and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. The key element of ostensible legality is that the mercenaries are fighting under some national flag with a legitimate stake in the conflict, versus purely private paramilitary forces with no state allegiance.
The story is that the American Revolution was an unpopular war back in England, so recruiting soldiers was difficult - it was simpler to hire a bunch of Hessians.
More interestingly is how you would acquire the necessary weapons. The key to this fight, I assume, is very modern anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. Not sure how easily those are available to the average billionaire wanabee-general.
I’m actually surprised that we haven’t seen fancier weapons sent in, like the radar computerized artillery that can trace an incoming shell back to it’s origin and accurately shell those guns. I would imagine that would be a prime weapon for the Ukrainians to want to use.
There’s a lot to unpack (perhaps literally). First, what exactly do you have in mind? Or what do you think they lack? It’s entirely possible they already have that capability to some extent, but what they lack is sufficiently mobile artillery to evade a response in kind. Because two can play at that game, and you don’t even need computers and radar to do it (though it certainly can speed things up a bit), but as soon as you engage in that kind of artillery duel, there is the risk that the other side can do it with greater accuracy, precision, and speed. I seem to recall the US was able to outmatch Iraqi artillery units quite effectively in this respect during the invasions of Iraq.
Anyway, if you have whole artillery systems in mind, including mobile guns, that’s a bit harder to load up (along with trained and proficient crews?) and deploy to the appropriate location than man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons of a point and shoot nature.
The US started delivering counter battery radars back in 2014. The were really useful for the fight they were already in.
The major issue with fancier systems is that they mostly take a lot of lead time to be used effectively. Operators and maintainers need to be trained. Tactics, techniques and procedures need to be adjusted to effectively use the new capability. That means even more training.
Once Russia started massing forces along the border it was way too late to field a lot of the systems that I think you are envisioning.
[Moderating]
The title asks whether this would be legal, but the body of the post seems to be more about whether it would be practical or effective. That’s a better fit for IMHO, so I’m moving it.
[quote=“md-2000, post:8, topic:960443, full:true”]
I’m actually surprised that we haven’t seen fancier weapons sent in, [/quote]
Sent in how?
Ukraine has ports on the Black Sea, but I believe the Russians have blockaded those.
The Ukraine airports are being attacked by the Russians; I’d think that big cargo planes would be sitting (flying) ducks for their military. And where would they fly from? Ukraine is surrounded on 3 sides by Russia or Russian puppets. Most of that whole area is a no-fly zone right now.
I suppose truck convoys or trains from Poland, Hungary, or Romania are feasible, assuming that those governments would look the other way. But that would only work once or twice; after the Russians find out – railroads or truck convoys are pretty easy to destroy with modern airpower.
Also, regarding mercenaries – in modern times, the kind of people who become mercenaries are not the best or most trustworthy people. Some of the mercenary forces in Africa, or the US ones in Blackwater in Iraq, for example. The tendency is for the mercenaries to begin regarding all the ‘natives’ as potential enemies, and treat them that way. So lots of reports of mistreatment of innocent people, and often they (and their paymaster) end up being hated by both sides in the conflict.
I think you don’t have a really good idea of what more modern mercenaries actually do/did. People didn’t generally go out and hire 30,000 mercenaries. What they did was hire a small number of mercenaries who would arm and train local troops in modern small unit tactics. Think more like how the Special Operations Forces were used in Afghanistan, living amongst the Northern Alliance people, rather than 30,000 mercenaries attacking an enemy position.
Don’t the Russians have exclusively entire companies of armed mercenaries who’s sole job is to act like a vanguard for their primary units? They used them all the time in Syria.
Not that I recall, unless you are thinking of the Wagner Group. While ostensibly civilian, mostly they are thought to be an arm of the Russian army and they carry out Russian military objectives.
the same international law that Putin violated by invading Ukr.?
Probably the easiest solution if billionair Elon Doe likes to hire 30.000 special forces … is to send the 10 billion that go with that to ukr and have them hire them and do the visa, HR-requirements, sick leave and maternity leave .
So Elon would also stay out of the heat and not catch any retaliatory action from .ru hackers and the rogue sniper
throwing in a dash of irony here … I would do the first round of interviewing in kiev … that filters out all the dead wood that would apply for the job - and couldnt make it in the country …
2nd round of interviewing is in Kherkov … you need to find your way to the undisclosed location on your own and if you make it you get a guaranteed contract.
job requires frequent travelling
you will be working with a young and motivated team
beanbags, fruit-baskets and flipper-machines in the lobby, copious amounts of sunflower seeds
bring your own balistics equipment
we are an EOO and also encourage violent womenfolk to apply
Well, not exactly the same one, but near enough.
The point is of course that Putin violating one international law does not provide license for others to violate other laws. It is expected that all countries will prevent their own soil being used to recruit and mass mercenaries.
As is noted here, whenever international law is brought up, there is no enforcing body. Eventually any country can (and does on occasion) flout international laws as it suits them. This includes the USA. Local laws passed to implement the terms of a convention a country signs up for are locally enforced. If nobody enforces them, well, that is about as far as it goes. A protest to an international oversight body has no teeth. If, politically, the noise can be ignored, it will be. Putin is doing just that. The UN has no teeth at all when Russia (or any other permanent member of the security council) is involved, so it is business as usual.
For the purpose of the OP’s question, even traditional mercenaries, if they fought with the blessing of the Ukrainian government, would not come under the definition of a mercenary for the purposes of the conventions. Whether the Russian troops would accord them the protections demanded by convention is another matter.
reinforcing the point that the International Brigades were volunteers, not mercenaries
During the Boer War, Canadian millionaire railway baron Donald Smith, aka Baron Strathcona and Mount Royal, raised Lord Strathcona’s Horse regiment and sent them to fight in the Boer War
The International Brigades were provided with food, lodging, transportation, uniforms, ammunition, and medical care. I think it unlikely that they didn’t get paychecks as well.
If they fight for the side you support, you call them “volunteers”.
If they fight for the side you oppose, you call them “mercenaries”.
.