Hey, if Kiev can afford it...which thanks to the IMF they can, Academi has the training and equipment. I doubt the US explicitly sent them to the Ukraine, but equally I doubt they would have stopped them anyway.
Mercenaries in warzones are hardly a new thing, I recall a lot of the 1970s African brush-wars had British mercenaries, some government owned, some freelancers, it's good money if you survive, and with so many armed forces in the west cutting back in the recession, it's a logical choice for an ex-soldier or ex-special forces to join a PMC.
I think that there's only a handful of people in this thread, if that, that truly think that the Kiev regime is a band of angels, it's a real alien vs predator situation but most wars are like that, both sides get their hands dirty and have questionable motives. Whoever wins then writes the history. C'est la guerre.
Still, on the up side for Putin, at least Russia got more Eurovision points than the UK...which means that the UK is hated more in Europe than Russia...and neither are hated as much as the French, just as it should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapuc
I wonder how reliable that is. American "soldiers" either directly or indirectly involved in the unrest in eastern Ukraine. This would increase the tension in the area.
Markus
|
About as reliable as Russian 'soldiers' being either directly or indirectly involved in the unrest in eastern Ukraine. War is a dirty business, and technically Academi is not a legal branch of the US military, it is a Private Military Company which means they are mercenaries, which are defined as:
Quote:
Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
|
(Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77) )
The problem comes in ascertaining whether a mercenary has taken an active role in the conflict, if they have then they may be treated as a common criminal and face execution if captured. If they are not then they may qualify as civilian contractors and then they are protected under the Geneva Convention III
Honestly though, PMCs are becoming an increasingly bothersome legal matter, and there's a LOT of grey area...which is mostly where they operate.
Also, since copy and pasting that definition my text layout has gone all funky, probably an FSB plot... 