Military Review

Does Russia need pocket armies?

33
Does Russia need pocket armies?



In Russian society, they again started talking about the possibility of the existence of private military companies in the country (PMCs). This is apparently due to the fact that Russia can take part in resolving some conflicts abroad, including Syria. It is no secret that many security tasks, when US troops acted in Iraq and Afghanistan, were solved by PMCs. Is it possible with the participation of PMCs from Russia?

Explaining the Kremlin’s position on the possibility of private security companies in the country, presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov did not rule out that the issue of allowing private military companies in Russia is being discussed in a number of departments, but this topic was not actively worked out in the presidential administration. He said that the presidential administration is currently intensively preparing for the UN General Assembly. Accordingly, more relevant geopolitical topics are being worked out.

Meanwhile, the question of PMCs among some experts and a number of politicians is still considered timely. As you know, in 2012, Vladimir Putin, who was then prime minister, supported the idea of ​​creating a system of private military companies in Russia that could provide security services and training foreign military abroad without the participation of the Russian state. In October, 2014, a bill on private military security companies was submitted to the State Duma. According to the author of the bill, State Duma deputy from “Fair Russia” Gennady Nosovko, the bill spells out social guarantees for employees of such companies, tasks that they can solve, and certain prohibitions.

However, the issue of creating PMCs was postponed. Apparently it was not by chance that the former Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia, Army General Yuri Baluyevsky, who had previously been involved in the development of amendments to the military doctrine, spoke on this topic in May 2015. Baluyevsky then bluntly stated that the creation of private military companies in Russia violated the country's constitution and the state’s monopoly on defense. He stressed that the basis for the creation of private military companies is the extraction of economic profits. “PMCs are essentially a pocket army, such companies are then turned into illegal armed groups,” he said. His statements were made when he took part in the presentation of the book by American journalist Jeremy Skahill called “Blackwater” about the activities of the same name of a private military company from the United States. Prior to 2009, Blackwater participated in the Iraq War under a contract with the US government, providing military and security services. The company has been repeatedly accused of killing civilians.

There is another aspect here that Baluyevsky did not mention. In any case, especially if PMCs take part in a particular war, they are usually financed by the state itself. It was according to this formula that the USPs operated in Iraq. If we now create Russian PMCs, and send them, for example, to Syria, then this will again be considered "as the hand of the Kremlin." So why make a fuss?

According to the Russian media, the State Duma is currently considering a draft law on private military companies. The first version of the document on PMCs was submitted by deputies from “Fair Russia” 22 in October last year, but on November X, the legal department of the State Duma considered it not to comply with Art. 13 Constitution and Art. 104 State Duma regulations. They require the mandatory conclusion of the government on bills envisaging expenditures from the budget (to this, the legal authorities attributed the licensing of PMCs to the Federal Security Service). Therefore, the Duma Defense Committee proposed to the Duma Council that the draft law be returned to the authors, which was done on November 105. In the new edition of the document several provisions have been changed. If in the first version, employees of PMCs could become persons who have reached 17 years, then in the second version, the age bracket has been raised to the 18 year. Norms that allow PMCs to “mediate or alternatively resolve armed conflicts outside the Russian Federation” and the opportunity to trade are also excluded from the project. weapons (in the first version, companies were only forbidden to do this without a corresponding license).

Thus, with such a consideration of the draft PMC policy, their formation in the Russian Federation really becomes irrelevant. To protect the business can not private security companies, and private security companies. And then PMCs for what, if the law prohibits their use in military conflicts?

Russia should realize its geopolitical interests with the support of its own state institutions - the army, the foreign ministry and the special services.
Author:
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Wolka
    Wolka 23 September 2015 05: 13
    -2
    PMCs existed before when the USSR was under the patronage of the KGB, will exist now, but it’s not accepted to talk about it aloud, whoever wants to will ...
    1. Finches
      Finches 23 September 2015 05: 50
      16
      The word "private" - I personally do not like it - in relation to the defense of the state! A mercenary, he is a mercenary - a man without honor and conscience in his mass ... A gang for solving dirty problems!
      1. Doctor Savage
        Doctor Savage 23 September 2015 06: 32
        +6
        Quote: Finches
        I don't like the word "private"


        And rightly so, I don’t like it!
        This tracing-paper (with Private Militare Company), as well as other tracing-paper people, thoughtlessly haws.

        But not all!

        Enter YOUR term - probably not enough brains.
      2. sir.jonn
        sir.jonn 23 September 2015 08: 04
        +1
        Quote: Finches
        The word "private" - I personally do not like it - in relation to the defense of the state! A mercenary, he is a mercenary - a man without honor and conscience in his mass ... A gang for solving dirty problems!

        War is blood and dirt and no matter what is written on the chevron of the one who kneads this mess. Scum without morality and professionals do not forget that they are people on both sides.
        And they are unlikely to allow them to be directly defended by the State. Ukrainian practice has shown disastrous results, nor any coordination with the actions of the Armed Forces.
      3. afdjhbn67
        afdjhbn67 23 September 2015 08: 29
        +2
        Russia should realize its geopolitical interests with the support of its own state institutions - the army, the foreign ministry and the special services.

        Kolomoisky’s pocket army’s experience in Ukraine must have explained a lot to Putin, too, oligarchs up to x and more .. if they don’t shake the country, they will go to defend Putin (the state), but the interests of the oligarch-breadwinner.
        The whole topic is clearly pushed at the suggestion of our oligarchs, because it is not our colleagues and I who will create them - our destiny is only to be "cannon fodder" ...
      4. yushch
        yushch 23 September 2015 09: 01
        +2
        Quote: Finches
        The word "private" - I personally do not like it - in relation to the defense of the state! A mercenary, he is a mercenary - a man without honor and conscience in his mass ... A gang for solving dirty problems!


        You and the author miss one very important point. Zinc coffins. As soon as they go home, the people will begin to strain. This is feared in any country in the world. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxons came up with PMCs. Problems are solved, but the state, as it were, is not at work.
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 23 September 2015 13: 49
          +1
          yushch (6)
          You and the author miss one very important point. Zinc coffins. As soon as they go home, the people will begin to strain. This is feared in any country in the world. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxons came up with PMCs. Problems are solved, but the state, as it were, is not at work.

          PMCs in the Russian Federation are needed precisely by modern OLIGARCHS as NEW RUSSIAN FEEDALS to continue raider seizures of other people's property in the country - both state and private.
          PMCs are a continuation of the PARASITISM of oligarchs on the SIMPLE PEOPLE in any country - wherever PMCs "work" - whether in their own country or abroad! First of all, oligarchs will fill their pockets with “gold”! And thugs from PMCs from the oligarchic table will not even have their “scraps”! Only crumbs and xivu!
          1. yuriy55
            yuriy55 24 September 2015 04: 26
            0
            First of all, oligarchs will fill their pockets with “gold”! And thugs from PMCs from the oligarchic table will not even have their “scraps”! Only crumbs and xivu!


            Will this "ksiva" mean anything to the law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation? Seeing her, they will have to fall "face in the ground" or put the owner ??? what

            stop Do not take episodes of the series Callsign "Pack" to heart.
            In this regard, it is better - "In August 44th" good
    2. Vadim-Skeptic
      Vadim-Skeptic 23 September 2015 06: 37
      +5
      This stuffing-article and others like it, this fap and drochevo on PMCs will later be called "public discussion". Not only will the law on PMCs contradict the law on weapons, but no one has yet said why PMCs are needed in Russia and what are the advantages for the state, which, as you know, is all of us, and not a bunch of oligarchs like Kolomoisky.
      1. Dembel77
        Dembel77 23 September 2015 07: 00
        +3
        PMCs - in my opinion - this is just a legitimate form of banditry! Russia does not need it !!!
        1. Slobber
          Slobber 23 September 2015 07: 33
          +2
          it's just a legitimate form of banditry

          I will support. Using PMCs instead of the army is the same as using a whore instead of a wife. It would be better if they were involved in the army. And besides, in Moscow alone there will be all kinds of private security companies for a small army.
          1. the polar
            the polar 23 September 2015 08: 39
            +1
            Quote: razgildyay
            it's just a legitimate form of banditry

            I will support. Using PMCs instead of the army is the same as using a whore instead of a wife. It would be better if they were involved in the army. And besides, in Moscow alone there will be all kinds of private security companies for a small army.

            It’s time to close all private security functions and transfer all security functions to private security. The huckster wants to protect his store, let him conclude an agreement with the private security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and does not contain his own semi-criminal ChOP gang.
            1. afdjhbn67
              afdjhbn67 23 September 2015 09: 09
              +1
              now it is happening exactly the opposite, the UVOs are sharply reduced, and their functions are transferred to private security companies, the "reform" of the police continues .. soon only press secretaries will remain in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, we will shine with our muzzles from the TV that everyone, the last bandit behind bars, sleep peacefully citizens wassat
            2. Nosgoth
              Nosgoth 30 September 2015 16: 31
              0
              You try in vain, "truth-tellers" do not notice such words (about private security companies) and try to stubbornly pretend that no one said anything :-)))))
        2. Nosgoth
          Nosgoth 30 September 2015 16: 30
          0
          then you have a poor understanding
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 23 September 2015 07: 41
      +1
      Let's proceed from the widespread postulate: he who pays calls the tune. If the state pays for PMCs, then why fence a conspiratorial garden? If this is really a "private military company" then what does the state have to do with it, even if common interests coincide? The truth is that this niche for business in Russia is still free. From here and draw conclusions.
    4. The comment was deleted.
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 23 September 2015 13: 46
        +2
        Quote: siberalt
        If the state pays for PMCs

        The state does not pay "for PMCs". The state hires PMCs (usually not directly, but through some buffer companies) to perform certain tasks outside the Russian Federation.

        Feel the difference yes

        Quote: siberalt
        If it really is a "private military company"

        This is a truly private military company. It provides a range of services. The state may hire PMCs .. or may not hire ..

        Quote: siberalt
        even if common interests coincide

        Um .. when I call plumbing, for some reason I don’t think if our interests coincide .. and with PMCs
    5. lukewarm
      lukewarm 23 September 2015 14: 21
      -1
      I would like examples.
  2. Dionis2019
    Dionis2019 23 September 2015 05: 50
    +4
    A Russian warrior must defend his homeland, and not die for money in a foreign country ...
    1. Nosgoth
      Nosgoth 30 September 2015 16: 52
      0
      Well, because they perished and will perish.

      Do you think it's better to go to crime? The same former military men, who were once again reduced / disbanded, since they, in your opinion, are so unreliable that even in the official office (PMC), which is under the control of the special services and strictly follows the laws of the state (otherwise they’ll just cover it without any noise), can do business?

      Or is double standards not only the prerogative of the United States, but ours too?

      Many of our military specialists in other countries (where there are no officially “ours”), they are also military advisers - these are the same mercenaries who, during their stay “there,” are not officially in the ranks of the armed forces, but receive salaries. And who should deal with logistics (deliver the specialists themselves, provide food, clothing, weapons, intelligence, etc.), who should pay the salary once they are no longer on duty, but on a business trip, and medical service, etc.? This is all money and they do not go directly but indirectly, through firms.

      This is essentially the same PMC since these people distance themselves from the state (in cases where the state does not directly want to attract attention to itself, acting officially on the side of one of the parties to the conflict), and such our "PMCs" were in Korea, and in Vietnam and in many other countries, where the USSR / Russia was not officially a party to the conflict.

      So your hypocrisy is just ridiculous.

      I understand that the local "immature minds" the word "private" immediately exalts to the skies as a concentrated EVIL (they go from fear to themselves), but this is just a status that simply allows these companies not to be tied to a particular state and its politics on the world arena. After all, if you call them State Military Companies (GVK), then the whole point will be immediately lost.

      Quote: Dionis2019
      A Russian warrior must defend his homeland, and not die for money in a foreign country ...


      Sometimes it is necessary to help the allies, and it is even easier to destroy a common enemy on foreign territory than to wait for it to crush resistance there, gain strength and come to us (the same Syria, Ukraine). In addition, it will also destroy our enterprises (oil, energy, etc.) and economic ties there. Are you happy for this?

      Or is it better for you to send young boys there, many of whom will come home to their mothers or the disabled or in zinc? Moreover, thereby (spraying forces), the defense of one’s own country will weaken, including a decrease in the rating of confidence in the authorities, and as a result, an increase in the likelihood of some sort of color revolution.
  3. ArcanAG
    ArcanAG 23 September 2015 07: 52
    0
    If only under the full control of the state. Those. according to the documents, a private, but in fact some kind of special team.
  4. Million
    Million 23 September 2015 08: 10
    +3
    The army should be popular, not private. Private is just a gang
  5. deleter24
    deleter24 23 September 2015 08: 15
    +1
    I completely agree with the author. If the army is not in state hands, even if only partially, then this will come out sideways for us. An example is education, medicine. Article plus.
  6. akudr48
    akudr48 23 September 2015 08: 47
    +4
    Private military companies,

    Private health care

    Private education

    Private ownership of mineral resources and resources,

    Private prisons

    Private cemeteries

    Private law enforcement system

    Private government

    .................................


    And what the hell do we need such a state for!
    1. Gorinich
      Gorinich 23 September 2015 10: 02
      0
      Absolutely right. Only after all, the bourgeoisie strive to ensure that there is no state. And would TNCs rule the whole ball?
  7. ARES623
    ARES623 23 September 2015 09: 07
    0
    There is no need for PMCs, there are private security companies and private security companies. Under the tasks of PMCs it is necessary to "comb" the Federal Law on private detective and security activities.
  8. Arzoo
    Arzoo 23 September 2015 09: 56
    +2
    Perhaps they will be useful in certain circumstances.
  9. iouris
    iouris 23 September 2015 11: 32
    0
    First of all, as the ancients said: let's agree on concepts. It is necessary to legally define what is meant by a PMC. Everything that can become a source of threat to the independence and existence of Russia should be under the strict control of the one whose occupation is "the owner of the Russian land." Seven bankers or seven boys in this situation is unacceptable. Such a sovereign will become synonymous with the state, and in this sense, the entire military organization of the Russian Federation will become a PMC. The idea of ​​PMCs in our country is being promoted by "super-professionals", essentially a military clique that wants to sell for much more money than any modern contract guarantees them. These "wild geese" must be closely monitored.
  10. Vladimir 1964
    Vladimir 1964 23 September 2015 12: 47
    +1
    Dear colleagues, if you consider the issue of PMCs from a different angle.
    Immediately make a reservation, I am not a supporter of the creation of PMCs, because I vaguely understand the mechanism for their use in the realities of modern Russia, and to be honest, I don’t understand how to formalize all this legislatively.
    But if, as an option, we consider the fact that the death of mercenaries does not bring the same degree of tension in society as the death of servicemen of the Armed Forces, this topic is of interest. The death of a person who deliberately chose this type of "employment" will be taken for granted. And it was not me who came up with this, this system has been perfected for decades, in particular by the French Foreign Legion. There is of course a fair amount of cynicism in this. But the fact remains that the French Foreign Legion is still used all over the world today, and French mothers do not mourn their dead sons. I can argue that the Legion is not a PMC, but I agree, but it is built on the same principles.

    Well, such an alternative thought was born. request
  11. Cat man null
    Cat man null 23 September 2015 13: 36
    +1
    There is another aspect here that Baluyevsky did not mention. In any case, especially if PMCs take part in a particular war, they are usually financed by the state itself. It was according to this formula that the USPs operated in Iraq. If we now create Russian PMCs, and send them, for example, to Syria, then this will again be considered "as the hand of the Kremlin." So why make a fuss?

    The author either does not understand how PMCs work, or he deliberately distorts. In any case, the author is wrong.

    As it really is:

    - let's say the state of the Russian Federation wants to hire a certain PMC for action .. yes in the same Syria, for example
    - for this, the PMC concludes a contract with a certain (preferably operating in Syria) company "Horns and Hooves" to paint the sky blue .. or to protect something .. it doesn't matter
    - on the basis of this contract PMC operates in Syria
    - the Russian state "helps" the company "Horns and Hooves" in paying for the services of this PMC. Unofficially wink

    Who actually hired her and why, of course, you can get to the bottom of it .. but it’s much more difficult to link the actions of this PMC to the state of the Russian Federation than the actions of the Russian army on the territory of the same Syria, if you use the army there, and not PMCs.

    That's something like yes
  12. lukewarm
    lukewarm 23 September 2015 14: 35
    0
    Many experts and bloggers raise questions about PMCs. It is enough to look at the blogs of T. Volkova and General Kanchukov. The latter stands for the creation of a PMC. I did not find "For" explicitly at Volkova. IMHO. PMCs are a reflection of the balance of power, "balance" between transnational corporations and the state. Sobsno PMCs are a sign that corporations are "wringing out" these monopoly on warfare and armed forces from the state. Essno, under a plausible pretext, "do not shine" the state. In this incarnation, PMCs are attractive. And the rest? Pts slippery topic, where you can slip and break your head "supsam to death". How will the state control these PMCs? A controlling stake? By law? And what if the private army kicks up and puts on the law with the device? And, yes, there was already a clever thought above. If there is a Russian PMC - one x .., "free" media will immediately scream about the "hand of Moscow". However, the elephant walks. Nobody canceled the Overton window. The issue is already being discussed, so PMCs somehow entered our life and did not make it more beautiful. Especially if you remember that there was a topic about permission for foreigners to serve in the RF Armed Forces. Something like this. As usual, they won't ask us.
  13. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 23 September 2015 17: 20
    0
    No one should have armies except the state. Otherwise - a mess.
  14. trak
    trak 23 September 2015 19: 15
    0
    I read the comments of PMC opponents. It seems that these are all people of a very respectable age. "Forever yesterday". Locked in the world of their ideas and do not want to recognize any realities of the 21st century. It's a pity. In general, they are good people, they love their homeland. But they only love her the way they think she should be. Sorry for them. After all, it has been said that whoever agrees with life, it leads, and who does not agree, it drags.
  15. arrows
    arrows 23 September 2015 20: 40
    0
    All kinds of armies are important, different armies are needed !!!
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. arrows
    arrows 23 September 2015 20: 46
    -1
    It looks like son, you are forever after tomorrow and not a second today. I feel sorry for you, so young and so many sexually transmitted diseases.
  19. trak
    trak 23 September 2015 21: 30
    0
    Good luck arrow. The day after tomorrow is written together. It seems you - my friend, and in your bright yesterday were not friendly with good luck. And it’s also said, about what and about whom a person would argue, he always tells others about himself. Why are you talking about sexually transmitted diseases here? What is this topic close to you, what is treasured? I thought at first that it was in the order of evil humor, but I rejected this conjecture. Painfully dull and stupid for humor, then ...
  20. trak
    trak 23 September 2015 21: 48
    0
    Again for Strelokudachi. And your last comment was actually addressed to me, or did I not understand something?
  21. ML-334
    ML-334 24 September 2015 06: 45
    0
    Let there be not PMCs, but PEOPLE PEOPLE. The guys showed their best side. And they are.
  22. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 24 September 2015 08: 22
    0
    Aha! We will legitimize each oligarch with his own army (which, by the way, they already have!) And what will happen? It is necessary to make changes to the constitution - once, as by itself, illegal territorial formations will arise (such as: -this is mine and do not climb here), friction in the little things already arises - hunters scandal with the owners of plots located on the banks of the reservoir, they block the passage to the coast .The emergence of PMCs (legitimizing them) threatens the beginning of internal internecine conflicts and it will no longer be boring for everyone, who set the teeth on edge, the so-called raider seizures. Supporters of the creation of PMCs "pour water" on those who want to disintegrate and decentrolize Russia. The army should be united, defense issues should be decided only by the state! Only it can allow its power structures to create temporary power units to resolve issues of state defense, including in order to provide armed assistance to friendly regimes outside the country.
  23. ML-334
    ML-334 24 September 2015 08: 25
    +1
    Your minus will not get anywhere specialists fighting for money. Specialists who have passed everything that can and can do well are just that. Remember the 90s when many went to crime.
  24. ML-334
    ML-334 24 September 2015 08: 54
    +1
    PMCs under the auspices of the state play the role of a lightning rod at the right moments. I will never believe that US PMCs perform tasks separately from US policy and are not controlled by the State Department. I will not have to use conscripts where SPECIALS will work.
  25. trak
    trak 24 September 2015 14: 01
    +2
    The accusations that allow the private security committees, and all the oligarchs will create armies for themselves and tear the country into destinies, to me personally seem like a foolish delusion. I won’t even explain why, the weak-minded will not understand anyway, and they will not listen. Therefore, simply ask a simple question, and where, in which countries that have allowed private security companies, this happened? The oligarchs of America have already torn it with their PMCs? Waiting for an answer, like a nightingale of summer ...