« Calling things by the wrong name adds to the affliction of the world. » Albert Camus.
I have opened the news feed today to see the following headline by Politico: Maduro’s gift to Putin: 2 mercenaries who fought for Ukraine extradited to Russia.
The headline, in itself, is a lie.
I am not going to link to the Politico slander piece; The New York Times article covers this with impartiality that befits a reputable news outlet. What I will talk about is why calling soldiers enlisting in Ukraine’s Foreign Legion mercenaries is misinformation, where it comes from, and what we can do about it.
The article and its title refer to two Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) servicemen who hold Colombian citizenship. While traveling home, they made a stopover in Caracas, and were kidnapped by Venezuela’s illegal regime led by self-proclaimed president Maduro. The news is that they were handed over to Russia, where the two soldiers will face a farce trial for “mercenarism”.
They were regular soldiers, just like everyone else fighting for Ukraine, and whatever Russia does to them is a crime, committed with the intent to scare away volunteers from all the world from joining the fight on the side of Ukraine, as many have already done.
The two soldiers in question were enlisted in the 49th Assault Batallion “Carpathian Sich”. The unit has distinguished itself on the battlefield; and its Colombian recruits have proudly shared a message to Ukrainians:
Here we are with 100% courage, and glory, and spirit, with energy at 100%. That is why why we want to give a message of happiness and joy to all the Ukrainian people: that here we are, Colombians, fighting for you.
The article calls these soldiers mercenaries.
By using this word, Politico has slandered the soldiers.
A mercenary, to according Merriam-Webster, is: noun : one that serves merely for wages; adjective : serving merely for pay or sordid advantage : VENAL, also : GREEDY. Pause here for a moment, and contrast this with the Colombians’ message above.
Being a mercenary has grave implications in military justice. Unlike soldiers, mercenaries are not considered legitimate combatants, and can be treated as criminals. Consequently, no mercenaries are fighting for Ukraine, nor are allowed by Ukraine’s laws.
Ukraine’s Foreign Legion, like the French Foreign Legion, is a part of the armed forces of the country it fights for, and is not a mercenary group by any common definition. These servicemen have all the obligations of people who join UAF voluntarily by signing a contract. They are legal residents of Ukraine over the duration of contract, are eligible to apply for citizenship, and cannot terminate their contracts during combat deployment – like all the other UAF soldiers. They are paid exactly the same as other Ukrainian soldiers. And, like all UAF soldiers, these two Colombians are entitled to all the rights and protections under the Geneva convention as Ukrainian combatants.
Having foreigners serve in the armed forces is neither unusual nor unprecedented; it would be more unusual to find wars where citizens of other countries were not involved. The US Armed Forces allow people without US citizenship in their ranks, without forming a special detachment. The only country that implies there is a problem with Ukraine’s foreign legion – and the only regime that uses the word mercenaries to refer to all and any foreigners in Ukrainian Armed Forces apriori – is Russia.
The Geneva Convention is pretty clear in its definition of the word .
As defined by Article 47 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, a mercenary is any person who:
- Is specially recruited locally or abroad,
- Does, in fact, participate directly in the hostilities,
- 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
- Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
- Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
- Has not been sent by a State that is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
All six criteria must be met for someone to be called a mercenary. The two Colombian citizens kidnapped by Maduro for Russia meet none that matter.
Most importantly: they are excluded because a mercenary is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict (#5), and they are – as the Politico article eagerly acknowledges. Equally important is that the soldiers receive the same pay as other UAF members, so #3 does not apply either. And Ukraine grants its foreign soldiers residence (and a simplified path to citizenship), so #4 is out as well.
Of course, # 1, #2, and #6 apply to all soldiers fighting in Ukraine, including those recruited under the mobilization law. These are the only criteria that apply to the Colombian soldiers as well. So they should be referred to the same way as other Ukrainian soldiers – and nothing else. They have earned that right by enlisting.
There are good reasons why Geneva’s definition appears to rather strict. The entire point of the word is to describe someone for whom money is the only motivator, who would switch sides for higher pay. This is what’s bad about the concept; the merc– part that’s in both mercenary and mercantile. The question to ask isn’t where someone is from. The question is: would someone join the other side if they paid more?
In the case of the Colombian soldiers – and anyone fighting in Ukraine, for that matter – the answer is a big, fat NO. We know this, among other reasons, because Russia, in fact, does pay foreigners more than Ukraine does. Ukraine’s contract soldiers’ pay starts at about $600 a month; Russia’s – at $2000, three times as much. The choice to join Ukraine cannot be one motivated by money alone.
The commentary on the International Humanitarian Law says:
It is clear that the category of “mercenary” cannot be extended to cover some grey area regarding voluntary combatants who do not share the nationality of the belligerents and decide to take part in a conflict.
This, however, is not clear to Russia – or the Politico staff.
Nor it is clear to Politico that calling someone guilty before the trial is bad – even if we’re talking about a sham “trial” in Russia. According to the IHL, the determination of mercenary status is to be done by a “competent tribunal” of the detaining power, but this status has yet to be conferred on them even by one of Russia’s incompetent ones.
All of this matters.
Mercenaries are not entitled to the status of combatant, prisoner of war, or any of the categories of protected persons provided for by the Geneva Conventions, unless they are wounded or sick. The consequences of mislabeling Ukrainian soldiers are mercenaries are deadly both on the battlefield and in captivity.
By adopting Russian propaganda-speak, Politico condemns the soldiers to unjust treatment – and minimizes the crimes Russia and Venezuela regimes have committed in detaining these Ukrainian soldiers (who happen to be Columbian citizens).
By simply labeling these soldiers “mercs”, Politico helps Russia in preventing people for volunteering in Ukraine’s Foreign Legion by denigrating their status to “mercenaries”, a term which people risking death for Ukraine would be very sensitive to, with full awareness of the implications.
I am led to conclude that this was done with intent. Towards the end of the article, Politico further compounds the issue by bringing up Russia’s usage of mercenaries:
Russia, meanwhile, is itself actively recruiting mercenaries abroad for its own war effort against Ukraine, including in Cuba and India, with promises of sky-high salaries and fast-tracked Russian citizenship. The Russian state also maintains close links to Russian mercenary groups, such as Wagner.
Wagner is a mercenary group, known for its ISIS-style acts such as beheading a living soldier with a knife on video. Wagner has been recognized by the US as an international criminal organization, and proscribed by the UK as a terrorist organization.
This group can in no way be compared to any soldiers of the UAF. However, the verbiage hints that Russia also employs mercenaries, like Ukraine – which, I reiterate, is not the case. It’s a lie by implication.
By conflating Russia’s actual use of mercenaries (and terrorists!) with Ukraine’s Foreign Legion instead of contrasting the practices, Politico draws a false equivalence under the guise of talking about “both sides”.
Of course, both sides are fighting in this war. But it’s Russia that uses mercenaries, criminals, and terrorists in this fight – whereas Ukraine does not.
A little detail that, somehow, has slipped the minds of both the author and the editor.
Calling foreign-born servicemen of the Ukrainian Armed Forces “mercenaries” is a staple of Russian firehose-of-falsehood misinformation campaigns; something I’d expect to hear on Russian TV, or see on the pages of their state-controlled media (which is, currently, all media in Russia). They have been using the word наёмники since the start of the invasion. But seeing it used by Politico was a surprise.
There are several layers of deep manipulation in the article text
- The obvious: calling foreign soldiers of Ukrainian Armed Forces mercenaries
- The sleight of hand: even Russia didn’t yet establish these people are mercenaries; they’re merely accusing these people of this. While being a mercenary is a crime in Russia (it’s not explicitly forbidden by the international law), the sham trial is yet to happen. Politico therefore ignores the presumption of innocence by simply using the word mercenary instead of Ukrainian soldiers alleged by Russia of being mercenaries.
- The subtle: this writing normalized substituting Russia’s accusations as facts;
- The linguistic: the article normalizes using Kremlin’s verbiage and tropes (Kremlin always uses the word “mercenaries” this manner), which erodes meanings of words
- Specifically, by openly saying that these two Colombians were serving in Ukrainian Armed Forces, the author creates cognitive dissonance by contradicting the meaning of the word “mercenary” (someone who’s not serving in the military) in case the reader is familiar with the definition, and establishes a new meaning otherwise
- The not-so-obvious: by including a mention of Russia hiring mercenaries and criminal groups “meanwhile” (not “as opposed to Ukraine” — writing which would contrast the sides instead of making it appear that they’re sort of the same), the article implies a “both sides” false equivalence under the guise of being fair and including something negative about Russia which is actually true.
My question to Politico’s editors is: since when has this kind of misinformation become acceptable in Politico?
I used to trust what I read on the pages of that publication, and it was my go-to source for news in Europe. Should I reconsider?
I sincerely hope that I should not, and that this instance was an omission, an willing mistake, an oversight. And that it will be acknowledged and corrected as soon as the editors get to it.
To this end, I need to ask the readers of this article: please help Politico’s editors maintain the integrity of the publication that they are in charge of.
Contact them, and bring their attention to the issue. Send them a link to this post, or, better yet, use your own words. Make noise elsewhere.
Don’t do it for me. Do it for the sake of truth being still worth something today.
And for the sake of the two Colombian soldiers, whom I’m eternally thankful to for their choice to support Ukraine in its fight for existence and freedom.
As they say in Ukraine: Glory to Heroes.
Including, without question, the two Colombians who have answered our call for help – and will now need some from us.
2024/08/31