BY JED JALECO DEL ROSARIO
AS OF the writing of this article, the Wagner PMC mutinied only hours ago, and were supposedly on their way to Moscow.
Their leader, Prigozhin, claimed that his men were betrayed by Russia’s military establishment, and that their mutiny was meant to correct that.
Fast forward a few days later, and Wagner forces stood down and Prigozhin accepted the deal to live in exile.
Assuming the whole thing was not an elaborate attempt at misdirecting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Ukrainians, Prigozhin’s mutiny was a reminder why Nation-States had eliminated mercenaries.
Any sufficiently large non-state military force can act as alternate loci of sovereignty. If States are defined as a monopoly of force then mercenaries (and sometimes militia) are the semi-legal, semi-recognized alternative.
Although Wagner is partly state sponsored, their recent actions proved why states should avoid working with mercs, let alone subsidizing them.
Many states already have a hard time dealing with their own militaries. Hiring mercs – especially ones with a lot of high-end gear – just makes the entire situation more complicated. If, for whatever reason, the Nation-State model breaks down in the future, leaving a void to filled, I wouldn’t be surprised for mercenary companies returning to fill it.
So, assuming that the mutiny was genuine, what happened with Prigozhin and Wagner is an example of a state losing control of its mercenaries. Russia is not the first to have this problem, and it likely won’t be the last.
A group of armed men marching on a country’s capital is always an important event. Prigozhin’s stunt had reminded many world leaders of that ancient fear./PN
