Eight arguments in favor of private military companies that people are afraid to say out loud
In May, Ukrainians once again defeated an allied army during joint NATO exercises, this time in Sweden. Under the exercise scenario, the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea became a target amid a military buildup near NATO’s eastern borders. Ukrainian troops acted as instructors and "aggressors." As a result, Swedish forces were destroyed by Ukrainian drones ahead of schedule, and commanders were forced to halt the drills three times.
Similarly, a year ago, Ukrainians smashed NATO forces with drones during exercises in Estonia, and earlier this year — in Latvia. According to eyewitnesses, it all happened "like at a shooting gallery."
The combat experience of Ukrainian troops has long since become a strategic resource. It is an entire industry that could exist legally in Ukraine and bring billions of hryvnias into the state budget if we had adopted a law on private military companies (PMCs). There is no need to be afraid of this. Why? I propose considering eight ironclad arguments in favor of adopting legislation on PMCs right now.
1. PMCs are a way to turn military experience into economic and geopolitical power.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine have become "the strongest and most powerful" in Europe, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said just days ago. This is undoubtedly recognition.
I think everyone has noticed how Ukraine’s position in negotiations with its allies has strengthened recently. The reason is simple: the military experience of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has become Ukraine’s new brand in the eyes of its partners. This has already allowed us to relaunch relations with the Middle East, where the experience of our guys is now very much needed to defend against Iranian drones.
To meet such demand, a format is needed through which the experience of the Armed Forces of Ukraine can be legally transferred around the world. Ukraine cannot pull its army away from its main job — defending our borders. Therefore, private military companies could become an alternative format for Ukraine’s presence.
There is also a broader global context: thanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Ukraine is gradually entering the club of global leaders. This is a new role for us, one in which we do not yet have sufficient experience. When establishing its zones of global influence, a state cannot use its official army everywhere, and that is when PMCs come into play. They are one of the tools of such geopolitical influence. It could increase our chances of entering the "gentlemen’s club" of countries that make decisions.
2. After the war, thousands of people with combat experience will be left without jobs, and PMCs are the solution.
Ukraine already has 1.8 million veterans today. Due to family circumstances, health issues, and other reasons, hundreds of thousands of servicemen have already been discharged from the military. These people have unique combat experience, and at the same time, far from all of them have found their place in civilian life. Some went to war at 18, some spent their entire lives in the military, and some had their former workplaces occupied or destroyed. Others simply do not plan to return to their previous profession. Is the state capable of creating 1.8 million non-military jobs for them at the same time?
We talk at every turn about supporting veterans and veteran-owned businesses, but we are not legalizing the most obvious field for veterans — PMCs.
Moreover, unlike the Armed Forces of Ukraine in wartime, there is no compulsory draft into PMCs. It is always a voluntary decision by a veteran. To get into a PMC, he would still have to make an effort. Legalizing such companies would only open an additional opportunity for the guys, one they could use of their own free will, without obliging them to do anything. It would allow those who want it to have a well-paid job in the security sector, apply their experience, and once again be useful to society and the state.
3. Either we legalize PMCs, or our veterans will work for foreign states.
If we do not adopt a law on PMCs, this does not mean Ukrainians will not serve in PMCs. It simply means that the economic and political dividends from the experience of our guys will be reaped by the governments of other states.
Ukrainians are already serving en masse in American, British, and French PMCs, carrying out extremely complex missions around the world. It is no secret that foreign private companies are hunting our veterans right now, while we as a country are simply losing human resources. Therefore, if we do not create our own Ukrainian PMCs, we will lose veterans with combat experience. Among other things, these people are also our first reserve, which can quickly step in to defend the Homeland.
I am not dramatizing in any way when I talk about losing people. Foreign PMCs should not be seen as labor migration, where one can work for a while, earn some money, and leave whenever one wants. Traditionally, foreign PMCs have very strict contracts, which often require mandatory relocation to other countries, sometimes even with a change of citizenship. Then our guys, who gained their experience in Ukraine, will be sustaining myths about the strength of the armies of Britain, the United States, and others with their own hands. Ukrainians will do the fighting, while the glory for the achievements will go to the "great American people."
An additional question for us is this: where will such a veteran pay taxes and spend his money? Into which country’s budget will an American or British PMC pay taxes? Who will profit, and who will permanently lose its citizen with combat experience, someone who could have defended the state in the event of renewed enemy aggression? Ukraine as a state only stands to lose from this.
Nor should we forget the security aspect. PMCs are always controlled by the intelligence services of the state where they were created, and they always act in the interests of their own state, even though they are independent businesses. Therefore, the key question here is: in whose state interests will a Ukrainian veteran act? If the PMC is foreign, then the state is foreign as well, and the veteran will not be to blame for this — we ourselves did not give him the opportunity to act as part of a Ukrainian company, because we simply do not have any.
4. PMCs are about training, security and technology, not only combat operations.
Because of the name itself, the first association with PMCs is immediately participation in combat operations. But in reality, this is one of the last functions PMCs perform in the world. The first and most common function is intelligence, data collection, and profiling. Training comes second.
There is also the protection of strategic facilities, the protection of vessels at sea, ensuring the security of people and cargo in higher-risk regions, training foreign armies in the use of drones, as well as testing new weapons around the world — Ukrainians are already performing many PMC functions today.
PMC participation in combat operations is, in fact, prohibited by law in many countries. In most European countries, PMCs are restricted in their use of force, especially abroad. For example, in Germany, Italy and Spain, combat functions are completely prohibited; only security functions are allowed. Ukraine will need to define its own model.
5. PMCs already exist, but they operate in a semi-legal field.
In what status are Ukrainian instructors staying abroad and training partners? As servicemen on a business trip? But under Ukrainian law, the use of Ukrainian military personnel abroad is prohibited without a decision by the Verkhovna Rada. And the Verkhovna Rada has not authorized the use of the Armed Forces of Ukraine abroad. How do weapons for training get abroad? Who pays for business trips and related materials? All these issues currently exist in a semi-legal status.
PMCs should not be a "wild field," but a legal force. That is why a special law is needed. It should establish clear regulation, similar to arms export control, define the functions that Ukrainian PMCs will be allowed to perform, create rules of the game, and ensure licensing for different types of activity. Because where there is a "gray zone," as there is now, corruption and crime always emerge.
And on this issue, there is absolutely no need to wait until the war ends; action is needed right now. The global PMC market is already crowded, and a place on it will still have to be fought for. Once PMCs begin to be created in Ukraine, our companies will also need time to build their name and authority among global clients. This will not happen in one day. Right now, we as a country have an advantage while Ukraine’s battlefield glory is resonating around the world, but over time this status will fade. So it is worth reinforcing it now with other instruments of influence, including PMCs.
6. Every day without a law on PMCs means lost tax revenue for supporting our military.
The global market for private military companies is estimated at $200 billion a year. According to Forbes Ukraine estimates, if a full-fledged market for private military contractors is created in Ukraine, the security sector could attract additional investment by developing weapons production worth $12 billion, as well as create at least 10,000 jobs for veterans. In the future, this sector could generate up to 5% of GDP through the export of services.
The global demand for qualified specialists in the defense sector is simply enormous. Such work can be done not only at the level of political agreements, but also in the format of business contracts, for example, for large transnational corporations. Therefore, we have to decide: either we build a security market, or we become a donor of personnel for others.
7. PMCs can be engaged by the state as contractors.
In civilized countries, PMCs not only exist as businesses, but also perform a wide range of tasks for the state. The United States is the global leader in this regard. American companies are engaged by the Pentagon for evacuations, the protection of diplomats, the training of allied armies, logistics in conflict zones, and more. In other words, private military companies are institutionally integrated into the U.S. defense system.
In the United Kingdom, the law allows PMCs to operate abroad. For example, one of the largest British companies, G4S, had more than 9,000 security guards in Iraq alone in 2009. In Ukraine, the perception of PMCs still lags about twenty years behind reality and remains at the level of "scare stories."
8. The choice is simple: a controlled sector or a worsening crime situation.
Legalizing PMCs is about transparency in agreements, the places where PMCs are used, and also about giving veterans themselves a choice. If there is no choice, the risk that thousands of people with combat experience will move into criminal structures is quite serious.
Likewise, it is worth remembering that our veterans will be targeted not only by democratic countries or honest businesses around the world. This cannot be allowed. Therefore, it is better to create legal and controlled working conditions for PMCs now than to deal with the consequences of the absence of choice later.
***
Ukraine has one of the strongest bodies of military experience in the world, but still has no tools to legally share it. A legislative framework for private military companies would make it possible to launch the export of security, while also creating decent jobs for veterans, ensuring additional foreign currency inflows into the country and, ultimately, giving Ukraine additional diplomatic leverage. Not legalizing PMCs is a strategic mistake that other countries will correct, but at our expense.
Halyna Yanchenko, Member of Parliament of Ukraine
