3 minutes ago, Slip said:

No.  John would be a soldier of conscience.  Some of the wagner nazis are Russian but it isn't a defining feature, many are not.  They are literally a commercial army.  Have a word with yourself.

I have no idea what a "solider of conscience"  is or means .

I looked the word up and it seems to be a recent movie . 

What is a "soldier of conscience "?

The Wagner group are a private army  , but if they were Russians fighting for Russia , then they wouldn't be mercenaries , although any foreign fighter going to join them would indeed be mercenaries 

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I have no idea what a "solider of conscience"  is or means .

I looked the word up and it seems to be a recent movie . 

What is a "soldier of conscience "?

The Wagner group are a private army  , but if they were Russians fighting for Russia , then they wouldn't be mercenaries , although any foreign fighter going to join them would indeed be mercenaries 

Fighting for Russia in Africa, Syria or Ukraine? What does it mean exactly?

 

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

A mercenary is a person who goes to join an Army in a foreign Country , so John would be a mercenary, the Wagner group are Russians , so they wouldn't be mercenaries if they are fighting on Russia's side of the war

That would only be true if they were wearing Official Russian military uniforms. They are mercenaries, not Russian military but paid from within Russia.

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No. John would not be a mercenary. Nor would a member of the Wagner group if he is a Russian national. (I assume most, if not all, are Russian nationals)

1. 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.

All the criteria (a–f) must be met, according to the Geneva Convention, for a combatant to be described as a mercenary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

 

John is a hypothetical person that we are talking about , he doesnt actually exist  .

   But if this hypothetical person doesn't fit the criteria for being mercenary , no one can say otherwise, because John can be anyone you want him to be  

20 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

A mercenary is a person who goes to join an Army in a foreign Country , so John would be a mercenary, the Wagner group are Russians , so they wouldn't be mercenaries if they are fighting on Russia's side of the war

"Wagner group are Russians , so they wouldn't be mercenaries if they are fighting on Russia's side of the war"

 

Here we go again, more falsehoods, please stop clogging up the thread and derailing it unless you provide links to your claims.

 

The Wagner Group is a Russian mercenary organisation.

Sorcha MacLeod, who heads the UN's working group on the use of mercenaries

 

Here's  Dmitry Utkin, its original nazi founder and in a meeting with Putin

 

 

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"Wagner group are Russians , so they wouldn't be mercenaries if they are fighting on Russia's side of the war"

 

Here we go again, more falsehoods, please stop clogging up the thread and derailing it unless you provide links to your claims.

 

The Wagner Group is a Russian mercenary organisation.

Sorcha MacLeod, who heads the UN's working group on the use of mercenaries

 

Here's  Dmitry Utkin, its original nazi founder and in a meeting with Putin

 

 

What part of my post do you consider to be a "falsehood" ?

What do those photos prove ?

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

What part of my post do you consider to be a "falsehood" ?

What do those photos prove ?

I give up, read the article links, I provided two of them in the post.

 

Now please provide the link to your claim: "Wagner group are Russians , so they wouldn't be mercenaries if they are fighting on Russia's side of the war"

 

 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

I give up, read the article links, I provided two of them in the post.

 

Now please provide the link to your claim: "Wagner group are Russians , so they wouldn't be mercenaries if they are fighting on Russia's side of the war"

 

 

 

You have already posted a link showing that the Wager group is a Russian group , doyou want me to repost the link that you have already posted ?

26 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I have no idea what a "solider of conscience"  is or means .

I looked the word up and it seems to be a recent movie . 

What is a "soldier of conscience "?

The Wagner group are a private army  , but if they were Russians fighting for Russia , then they wouldn't be mercenaries , although any foreign fighter going to join them would indeed be mercenaries 

3 points of ignorance in one post.  Stop trolling.

 

OK, here is a repost of what constitutes being a mercenary and thus shows that the wagner group fighting in Ukraine are not actually mercenaries 

 

• (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, here is a repost of what constitutes being a mercenary and thus shows that the wagner group fighting in Ukraine are not actually mercenaries 

 

• (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

Maybe you again need to read my post and see what the UN says about Wagner and confirming they are a mercenary group. 

27 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

John is a hypothetical person that we are talking about , he doesnt actually exist  .

   But if this hypothetical person doesn't fit the criteria for being mercenary , no one can say otherwise, because John can be anyone you want him to be  

Here's a link to some real "Johns" for you:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/ukraine-russia-war-foreign-fighters-volunteers

You really didn't know that these people existed?

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Maybe you again need to read my post and see what the UN says about Wagner and confirming they are a mercenary group. 

Actually, according to the Geneva convention they are not mercenaries if they are Russian nationals. From what I've been able to glean it seems that at least most of them are.

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Maybe you again need to read my post and see what the UN says about Wagner and confirming they are a mercenary group. 

They would be and are a mercenary group when they fight on behalf of a foreign Government or whoever their paymasters are at the time   , but when they are fighting for the Russian Government , they wouldn't then be mercenaries  because they would be Russians  fighting for Russia . 

   To be a mercenary, you have to be fighting for a country that isn't your own Country

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They would be and are a mercenary group when they fight on behalf of a foreign Government or whoever their paymasters are at the time   , but when they are fighting for the Russian Government , they wouldn't then be mercenaries  because they would be Russians  fighting for Russia . 

   To be a mercenary, you have to be fighting for a country that isn't your own Country

Tell that to the UN who disagree with you

‘Hide the girls’: How Russian soldiers rape and torture Ukrainians

https://kyivindependent.com/national/hide-the-girls-how-russian-soldiers-rape-and-torture-ukrainians/

 

 

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, according to the Geneva convention they are not mercenaries if they are Russian nationals. From what I've been able to glean it seems that at least most of them are.

 

9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They would be and are a mercenary group when they fight on behalf of a foreign Government or whoever their paymasters are at the time   , but when they are fighting for the Russian Government , they wouldn't then be mercenaries  because they would be Russians  fighting for Russia . 

   To be a mercenary, you have to be fighting for a country that isn't your own Country

 

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Tell that to the UN who disagree with you

 

your debate is ridiculous, as the definition of who is a mercenary is clear:

 

Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977), article 47

Article 47 of Additional Protocol I provides a definition of a mercenary.

"A mercenary is any person who:

1. Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
2. Does, in fact, take a direct part in hostilities;
3. 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;
4. Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
5. Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
6. 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.

These requirements are cumulative, which means that they must all be applicable for an individual to be categorized as a mercenary."

 

https://www.ohchr.org/en/node/3383/international-standards

6 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

 

 

your debate is ridiculous, as the definition of who is a mercenary is clear:

 

Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977), article 47

Article 47 of Additional Protocol I provides a definition of a mercenary.

"A mercenary is any person who:

1. Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
2. Does, in fact, take a direct part in hostilities;
3. 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;
4. Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
5. Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
6. 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.

These requirements are cumulative, which means that they must all be applicable for an individual to be categorized as a mercenary."

 

https://www.ohchr.org/en/node/3383/international-standards

I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with. I actually cited above the exact same list you posted here. And it's clear that Russian nationals fighting for the Russian govt can't be defined as mercenaries according to the Geneva Conventions.

4 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

 

 

your debate is ridiculous, as the definition of who is a mercenary is clear:

 

Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977), article 47

Article 47 of Additional Protocol I provides a definition of a mercenary.

"A mercenary is any person who:

1. Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
2. Does, in fact, take a direct part in hostilities;
3. 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;
4. Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
5. Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
6. 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.

These requirements are cumulative, which means that they must all be applicable for an individual to be categorized as a mercenary."

 

https://www.ohchr.org/en/node/3383/international-standards

Yes and point number 4 means that Russians fighting for Russia as part of the Wagner group, would not me mercenaries 

8 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

 

 

your debate is ridiculous, as the definition of who is a mercenary is clear:

 

Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977), article 47

Article 47 of Additional Protocol I provides a definition of a mercenary.

"A mercenary is any person who:

1. Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
2. Does, in fact, take a direct part in hostilities;
3. 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;
4. Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
5. Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
6. 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.

These requirements are cumulative, which means that they must all be applicable for an individual to be categorized as a mercenary."

 

https://www.ohchr.org/en/node/3383/international-standards

Thanks, however the term mercenaries attributed to the Wagner group is commonly used by the UN, the EU, goverments spokespersons  and experts.

 

At the end of the day they are a shadowy group of murderers wanted for war crimes in previous conflicts and are the perfect cover to carry that on in Ukraine.

 

 

48 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, here is a repost of what constitutes being a mercenary and thus shows that the wagner group fighting in Ukraine are not actually mercenaries 

 

• (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

1. The Wagner Group is not exclusively Russian, it contains Serbs. (see your link)

2. Russia has not declared war against Ukraine and has explicitly denied that it is at war with Ukraine so the Wagner Group, even as Russians, are not nationals of a party to the conflict.

3. The UN considers them to be mercenaries - "Erica Gaston, a senior policy adviser at the UN University Centre for Policy Research, says that the group is not predominantly ideologically driven, but rather a network of mercenaries "linked to the Russian security state". Russia denies this and officially the group does not exist."

 

Just now, ozimoron said:

1. The Wagner Group is not exclusively Russian, it contains Serbs. (see your link)

2. Russia has not declared war against Ukraine and has explicitly denied that it is at war with Ukraine so the Wagner Group, even as Russians, are not nationals of a party to the conflict.

3. The UN considers them to be mercenaries - "Erica Gaston, a senior policy adviser at the UN University Centre for Policy Research, says that the group is not predominantly ideologically driven, but rather a network of mercenaries "linked to the Russian security state". Russia denies this and officially the group does not exist."

 

well, yes, they are mercenaries (all of them) in English language by the meaning of the word, i.e. hired soldiers, but mercenary is also a legal status defined by the UN, as well as by other countries which may or may not have the same definition as the UN, which means that some members of Wagner wouldn't be considered mercenaries if they are Russian or if their place of residence is Russia.

 

another thought I had was why missiles aren't used to deliver supplies to Mariupol.

 

a tomahawk transports 450 Kg of payload.

 

or bombs.

with parachutes.

could be launched from super high altitude and use guidance technology to precisely fall where needed - I don't know if Ukraines got the planes though.

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Is it really important or of any significance what these people are labeled as being ?

They could be viewed as freedom fighters, terrorists , Russian Army , Mercenaries or soldiers  of conscience (whatever that means)  , but at the end of the day , its still just  Sergei fighting for Russia in Ukraine . 

   What ever named category he falls into, really is of little significance 

OK, they are war criminals and terrorists.

21 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

1. The Wagner Group is not exclusively Russian, it contains Serbs. (see your link)

2. Russia has not declared war against Ukraine and has explicitly denied that it is at war with Ukraine so the Wagner Group, even as Russians, are not nationals of a party to the conflict.

3. The UN considers them to be mercenaries - "Erica Gaston, a senior policy adviser at the UN University Centre for Policy Research, says that the group is not predominantly ideologically driven, but rather a network of mercenaries "linked to the Russian security state". Russia denies this and officially the group does not exist."

 

Well, if your second point was sound then no Russian soldiers who surrender would qualify under the geneva conventions. They're soldiers, they're acting under the direction of their govt, so they qualiify.

As for the UN considering them to be mercenaries, in most cases they would qualify. But the Geneva Conventions are absolutely clear on who and who can't be considered a mercenary. Russian nationals fighting for their government are not considered mercenaries under the Geneva conventions. The UN doesn't have the authority to abrogate international treaties.

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Is it really important or of any significance what these people are labeled as being ?

They could be viewed as freedom fighters, terrorists , Russian Army , Mercenaries or soldiers  of conscience (whatever that means)  , but at the end of the day , its still just  Sergei fighting for Russia in Ukraine . 

   What ever named category he falls into, really is of little significance 

Maybe it doesn't have much significance for you, but to Sergei, if he is taken prisoner, it matters a great deal.

23 minutes ago, tgw said:

well, yes, they are mercenaries (all of them) in English language by the meaning of the word, i.e. hired soldiers, but mercenary is also a legal status defined by the UN, as well as by other countries which may or may not have the same definition as the UN, which means that some members of Wagner wouldn't be considered mercenaries if they are Russian or if their place of residence is Russia.

 

Ok but this is a forum and articles from UN calling them mercenaries is good enough for me. This all started with one poster bringing up a legal point. Who cares, they are referred to as mercenaries by the media so good enough for me to. Not getting on at you by the way.

 

Wagner are basically Putins private assassins who don’t have to worry about any legal obligations. They’ve not murdered Zelensky as ordered however..lol

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Maybe it doesn't have much significance for you, but to Sergei, if he is taken prisoner, it matters a great deal.

Yes, it may have some significance in some areas of the World , but I did mean to us here on this forum , whether  we label them as being  mercenaries , soldiers , soldiers of conscience (I still have no idea what that means ) , its not that important or significant , as its still the same person doing the same thing  

2 hours ago, Virt said:

One thing is to use those bombs against soldiers hunkering down, since they know they always are a target, but if you use them, when you know there are hundred of civilians at the same place, then it's just murder and a war crime.

There are still civilians at the plant so yes a war crime.

 

okay, Romania won't be using their MiG-21 anymore:

https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/04/romania-suspends-operation-of-its-mig-21-lancer-fighter-jets/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21#Romania

Today, only 36 LanceRs are operational for the RoAF. It can use both Western and Eastern armament such as the R-60M, R-73, Magic 2, or Python III missiles.

They can use Western and Eastern armament.