State run versus private armies: Wagner triggered a risk debate

livemint.com:

The failed ‘mutiny’ by the private military Wagner Group in Russia has generated a debate on the rise of private armies in modern warfare. Tony Barber in Financial Times pointed to a mercenary tradition in Russia that dates back to at least the times of Leo Tolstoy. But the practice was widespread.

Richard Eaton in India in the Persianate Age points to a such a tradition in India, into which all rulers dipped. Rajput warriors fought for the Mughals and soldiers from west Asia were engaged by both Hindu and Muslim Indian rulers. The British Raj also tapped this mercenary tradition to raise forces to subdue the subcontinent.

How does one define a mercenary? A fighter who is fighting for money instead of ideas? Or one who does not fight directly under a sovereign flag? All soldiers before the age of nationalism and standing armies could be said to have been mercenaries and soldiers of fortune who fed off the spoils of war. Modern armies do not feed off such spoils, but they are indeed paid and most recruits see it as a career choice. If fighting for money is the defining feature, they are mercenaries; however, if fighting directly under a sovereign flag is the criterion, they are not.

The 20th and 21st centuries spawned new mercenary trends, where hired hands were only informally linked to the state to enable plausible deniability. The 20th century saw the rise of fascistic paramilitaries that literally enforced the will of the state and an ideology in civil society. Examples include the Freikorps in the Weimar Republic, later Hitler’s storm troopers in Germany, and private paramilitaries in erstwhile Yugoslavia.