• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Landmines and Mercenaries

Michael McMahon

Michael McMahon

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
2,395
Reaction score
122
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Russia's use of outlawed landmines and mercenaries poses problems for the international community in terms of future enforcement. On the one hand these underhand tactics can prove counterproductive for the army that uses them. A landmine could backfire and detonate on your own troops as a form of friendly fire. The rationale for banning landmines is their ability to kill civilians even after a war is long over owing to the way they're concealed. Mercenaries might lack the motivation to risk their own life in a firefight since they're not fully motivated by the cause. After all no amount of money will be useful to you if you're dead. So the dilemma of mercenaries is much like conscription where troop morale and loyalty are at risk of being undermined. Mercenaries are illegal because they could join with the wealthy bad side much like they did in colonial times.

However I don't think it's the worst war crime. For example there are grey areas in defining a mercenary. Is a foreign legion deemed a legitimate force simply because it's partially assimilated into the main military? Is British recruitment of Nepalese Gurkha soldiers far removed from hiring mercenaries due to it being a long historical tradition even if there's a cultural mismatch? Is a foreign volunteer who gets non-contractually compensated afterwards for bravery the same as a mercenary? Is a mercenary joining with the good side really a terribly immoral act? Is an evil mercenary much worse than an evil soldier when the crimes they end up committing are equally atrocious? I suppose there's an argument that it could be a slippery slope since an authoritarian regime will feel less accountable for mercenaries than their own troops. If a mercenary commits a separate war crime like executing a civilian then who gets most of the blame? Furthermore retaliation against mercenaries will have less deterrence than if the other side attacked the native recruits directly. In other words a nation might be willing to expend far more mercenaries than they would their own citizen-soldiers.

So while I agree in principle with banning mercenaries and landmines, I think there might be an exception to the rule if it's not being in any way reciprocated. With the amount of funding Ukraine is receiving they could almost hire a mercenary army themselves. I'm not advocating any policy and am merely using Ukraine as a hypothetical example. I think it'd be like the problem of excessive self-defence where proportionality is an important factor in terms of how culpable the resulting violence would be. The Allied bombing of Germany in WW2 would be a major war crime due to the heavy civilian losses were it not in the context of defending against a total war. Technically I believe it still is a war crime and we shouldn't redefine it. Nonetheless there were mitigating factors at play in WW2 as they'd say in a court case.


"Russian forces fighting in Ukraine have used banned antipersonnel mines in the eastern Kharkiv region, Human Rights Watch said today."
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/29/ukraine-russia-uses-banned-antipersonnel-landmines

"Russia has deployed up to 20,000 mercenaries from Syria, Libya and elsewhere in its new offensive in Ukraine’s Donbas region, sent into battle with no heavy equipment or armoured vehicles, according to a European official."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...loyed-20000-mercenaries-ukraine-donbas-region
 
Last edited:
I consider the use of the word 'mercenary' to be for the most part, propaganda. It's a meaningless term... mercenaries and soldiers are both human beings who are being paid by one party to kill or destroy on their behalf. While the word 'mercenary' is a bit more dark and menacing sounding than 'proxy' or 'surrogate' they are roughly equivalent, so I tend to ignore that bit in reporting.

Land mines I wish were outright banned, and the deployment of them considered a war crime. Civilians ALWAYS end up paying the price.
 
phoenix2020 said:
It's a meaningless term... mercenaries and soldiers are both human beings who are being paid by one party to kill or destroy on their behalf.
Click to expand...

If both sides used mercenaries then you might end up with a never-ending gladiatorial fight between random foreign groups!


"Ferocious mercenaries and warriors from all brute nations bent on merciless destruction."

Gladiator Barbarian Horde Battle Scene
 
Last edited:
phoenix2020 said:
I consider the use of the word 'mercenary' to be for the most part, propaganda. It's a meaningless term... mercenaries and soldiers are both human beings who are being paid by one party to kill or destroy on their behalf. While the word 'mercenary' is a bit more dark and menacing sounding than 'proxy' or 'surrogate' they are roughly equivalent, so I tend to ignore that bit in reporting.

Land mines I wish were outright banned, and the deployment of them considered a war crime. Civilians ALWAYS end up paying the price.
Click to expand...

If we abstract out a bit, the other option - unpaid - being conscripts. But I wouldn't. Being a mercenary has an additional negative connotation that being a soldier in a country with a 'volunteer' army. The former tends to consider themselves outside the law, with some dependence on who hired them.

Plus who knows about mercenary discipline.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Russia's use of outlawed landmines and mercenaries poses problems for the international community in terms of future enforcement. On the one hand these underhand tactics can prove counterproductive for the army that uses them. A landmine could backfire and detonate on your own troops as a form of friendly fire. The rationale for banning landmines is their ability to kill civilians even after a war is long over owing to the way they're concealed. Mercenaries might lack the motivation to risk their own life in a firefight since they're not fully motivated by the cause. After all no amount of money will be useful to you if you're dead. So the dilemma of mercenaries is much like conscription where troop morale and loyalty are at risk of being undermined. Mercenaries are illegal because they could join with the wealthy bad side much like they did in colonial times.

However I don't think it's the worst war crime. For example there are grey areas in defining a mercenary. Is a foreign legion deemed a legitimate force simply because it's partially assimilated into the main military? Is British recruitment of Nepalese Gurkha soldiers far removed from hiring mercenaries due to it being a long historical tradition even if there's a cultural mismatch? Is a foreign volunteer who gets non-contractually compensated afterwards for bravery the same as a mercenary? Is a mercenary joining with the good side really a terribly immoral act? Is an evil mercenary much worse than an evil soldier when the crimes they end up committing are equally atrocious? I suppose there's an argument that it could be a slippery slope since an authoritarian regime will feel less accountable for mercenaries than their own troops. If a mercenary commits a separate war crime like executing a civilian then who gets most of the blame? Furthermore retaliation against mercenaries will have less deterrence than if the other side attacked the native recruits directly. In other words a nation might be willing to expend far more mercenaries than they would their own citizen-soldiers.

So while I agree in principle with banning mercenaries and landmines, I think there might be an exception to the rule if it's not being in any way reciprocated. With the amount of funding Ukraine is receiving they could almost hire a mercenary army themselves. I'm not advocating any policy and am merely using Ukraine as a hypothetical example. I think it'd be like the problem of excessive self-defence where proportionality is an important factor in terms of how culpable the resulting violence would be. The Allied bombing of Germany in WW2 would be a major war crime due to the heavy civilian losses were it not in the context of defending against a total war. Technically I believe it still is a war crime and we shouldn't redefine it. Nonetheless there were mitigating factors at play in WW2 as they'd say in a court case.


"Russian forces fighting in Ukraine have used banned antipersonnel mines in the eastern Kharkiv region, Human Rights Watch said today."
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/29/ukraine-russia-uses-banned-antipersonnel-landmines

"Russia has deployed up to 20,000 mercenaries from Syria, Libya and elsewhere in its new offensive in Ukraine’s Donbas region, sent into battle with no heavy equipment or armoured vehicles, according to a European official."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...loyed-20000-mercenaries-ukraine-donbas-region
Click to expand...
Mercenaries are not illegal, nor are they "underhanded" whatever that means in this context. But lucky for you Wagoner Group isn't really a mercenary company, they are a deniable branch of the Russian military, so that's a moot point.
 
phoenix2020 said:
I consider the use of the word 'mercenary' to be for the most part, propaganda. It's a meaningless term... mercenaries and soldiers are both human beings who are being paid by one party to kill or destroy on their behalf. While the word 'mercenary' is a bit more dark and menacing sounding than 'proxy' or 'surrogate' they are roughly equivalent, so I tend to ignore that bit in reporting.

Land mines I wish were outright banned, and the deployment of them considered a war crime. Civilians ALWAYS end up paying the price.
Click to expand...
Mercenaries are by definition not part of or subject to either party involved in the conflict. They aren't invested. They aren't fighting for freedom or their rights or their country or anything like that. They're fighting for the paycheck and the adrenaline.
 
Mr Person said:
If we abstract out a bit, the other option - unpaid - being conscripts. But I wouldn't. Being a mercenary has an additional negative connotation that being a soldier in a country with a 'volunteer' army. The former tends to consider themselves outside the law, with some dependence on who hired them.

Plus who knows about mercenary discipline.
Click to expand...
I do agree that conscripts / draftees are certainly different and should be in a category of their own. I should have recognized and mentioned them previously.

As to topics of adherence with law, discipline, etc. I believe these could be shades of gray. That is to say, do we have a specific reason to believe that mercenaries would be less disciplined? Sure, in movies they're always portrayed that way, but in practice I imagine these are fairly well organized, well trained, disciplined groups with crystal clear chain of command, not dissimilar to an army?
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Mercenaries are by definition not part of or subject to either party involved in the conflict. They aren't invested. They aren't fighting for freedom or their rights or their country or anything like that. They're fighting for the paycheck and the adrenaline.
Click to expand...
Yes, much like many of the Russian soldiers invading Ukraine, we have since come to learn -- they weren't invested, they weren't fighting for freedom or their rights or their country -- they were fighting because they are in the paid employ of the Russian army, and their bosses told them to go do certain things.
 
phoenix2020 said:
I do agree that conscripts / draftees are certainly different and should be in a category of their own. I should have recognized and mentioned them previously.

As to topics of adherence with law, discipline, etc. I believe these could be shades of gray. That is to say, do we have a specific reason to believe that mercenaries would be less disciplined? Sure, in movies they're always portrayed that way, but in practice I imagine these are fairly well organized, well trained, disciplined groups with crystal clear chain of command, not dissimilar to an army?
Click to expand...
Depends on who you hire.
 
Isn't there a military subforum where this would be on topic?
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Mercenaries are by definition not part of or subject to either party involved in the conflict. They aren't invested. They aren't fighting for freedom or their rights or their country or anything like that. They're fighting for the paycheck and the adrenaline.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with fighting for a paycheck?
 
Rucker61 said:
Isn't there a military subforum where this would be on topic?
Click to expand...

Unless you were a multi-millionaire where you hired a mercenary unit for foreign holidays and planted a minefield outside your mansion for you own personal self-defence!
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Dynalectron/Dyncorp, Executive outcomes, various smaller outfits and some private contracts. Why?
Click to expand...

It sounds like you might've been an "anarchist" doing some of the Pentagon's dirty work.
 
Michael McMahon said:
If both sides used mercenaries then you might end up with a never-ending gladiatorial fight between random foreign groups!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was called the 30 years war, and it killed a quarter of the population of Germany, mostly through starvation.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
For money., don't forget that part.
Click to expand...

Money isn't important to the point, which is that warring for a government is antithetical to being an anarchist.
 
Antiwar said:
Money isn't important to the point, which is that warring for a government is antithetical to being an anarchist.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. At various times I was contracted by many different governments and once NATO (or K-FOR for NATO which is basically the same thing with added deniability) and even a revolutionary group in the Comoros. Anarchy.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
You're missing the point. At various times I was contracted by many different governments and once NATO (or K-FOR for NATO which is basically the same thing with added deniability) and even a revolutionary group in the Comoros. Anarchy.
Click to expand...

anarchy: [noun] absence of government. a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.
 
Antiwar said:
anarchy: [noun] absence of government. a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.
Click to expand...
OOh! The "anarchy is utopia" theory.

Sadly, that's not usually how it works. I'm a realist as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom