Putin said that Russia may seem private military companies
In Russia may seem personal military company. This was stated by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in the Duma on Wednesday, answering the question of the deputy Alexei Mitrofanov. Mitrofanov said that "the Americans almost 350 billion dollars to provide these services," and asked how Putin refers to the role of in the same business.
It is a question of great personal military (PMCs) and security companies (PSCs). In their world a weave, first in the United States, Britain and France. They are engaged in the protection of facilities, training of army and police units, consulting services in the field of security of supply and support for the troops. PMCs and PSCs are working on contracts with governments, ministries of defense, transnational corporations. Several 10-s of these companies are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Does it seem to you that we, too, must be represented at the market, knowing that it is a specific instrument of influence? Are you ready to make, say, a working group that has worked this issue? "- Said the deputy Mitrofanov.
Putin about the idea of benevolence. "I think that it really is an inventory of the public interest without the direct role of the country. I think that you can reflect on it and see ", — said Putin.
Do I need the RF private military companies, says Colonel-General, President of the Academy of Geopolitical problems Leonid Ivashov.
"SP": — Leonid G., and really it's time we catch up with the Yankees on the part of PMCs?
— I agree with Putin — you need to learn everything closely. Hasty decisions here should not be accepted. Yes, the trend is to create a personal military companies in the world have. And Americans — the ancestors of these structures, they began their promotion throughout the world (the British in second place). They make such a structure, funding them through the state order, and use in Iran, Afghanistan and Libya. But why do they do it? To pursue its expansionist policies, but to hide the South American flag. Here we need it or not? Intervene here and there on the side of violence?
"SP": — And you as the answer to this question?
— I think that as long as act in advance. Later, in the case of the creation in Russia private military companies, there will be a lot of legal issues.
"SP": — What, for example?
— For example, if you create a personal military company, but she realizes municipal interests, how will defend the right to life of its employees, as government will likely make up for the injury? What the government will refuse a warranty?
At the Yankees, usually for similar companies are massive monetary and political centers of power. This makes them a good time is rapidly inflated the company facilities, and problems are solved. And we will be able to do so?
And, again, if we should hide their own flag? After all, we do not intend to engage in robbery. And if we have to protect their interests here and there, why it can not make official security forces (their function) or our military?
"SP": — In which situations Our homeland could use private military companies abroad?
— To be honest, I do not see any of these situations. At least, for now. In general, the issue of the creation of private companies — it is a matter of conduct of the country in the international arena. Act if, as Americans that run through Britain and France, his personal military companies, for example, in Syria, there to support the opposition? I think such a policy we do not need.
"SP": — Can be used inside your private military organizations of the Russian Federation?
— Inside the country that they could address a number of problems for security. It is in the Russian tradition. For example, the Cossack formations and land treated and protected the border, and the Caucasus, the situation stabilized. The government helped them subsidies and implement. Here in this area of the PMC can use your loaf.
"SP": — Government by PMC will reduce its spending?
— In Russia now there are security companies. They act to earn money. But I do not know any of the 1st mega-security company. Yes, these structures can keep our big companies, but why are they named? Protect the business, conduct operations that will reduce the harm to owners and earn profits. In principle, it is for the country? I do not think so.
On the other hand, imagine the situation: 500-600 need to send to some nasty point. CHOP, whether that will be sent to organize? No, of course, it will still be engaged in government.
Without the role of the country all PMCs will lie outside the legal framework — as it is now the Yankees. They lower a little own flag, invade other countries, are there illegally, and when they expose — they say: it's a personal company, it makes it wishes.
I think we do not need it. I think we should make a list of tasks that can solve these units on legitimate grounds. That they are not a substitute or intelligence agencies or military units. And only then attend to the creation of tightly PMC …
Nikolay Semin, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow of the Institute of USA and Canada:
— During the last few decades (20-30 years), we have witnessed a striking trend: the state has become profitable to transfer part of its own eternal ability to provide security in private hands. This process is gaining momentum in the world.
We are talking about the so-called military-Contractor firms that provide training, equipment and implementation (where and when required) staff to solve problems, which, in fact, is always decided by the government. With intelligence and counterintelligence situation is slightly different. And they are from the middle of the last century intensively cooperate with transnational corporations.
Under Reagan, in 1980, the budgets of the CIA and the State Security Agency (NSA) have gained high. But in the 1990s, the euphoria of the victory over the Soviet Union is allowed to raise the issue of spending cuts. As a result, the U.S. intelligence budget has been reduced by 14% — up to 28 billion dollars. As new sources of cash CIA and other agencies began to consider more closely with the business. Clinton legalized the sale of disk imaging NSA (which is the most powerful electric exploration in the world) personal company if it "does not harm U.S. security."
The macroeconomic component in the activities of U.S. intelligence so far remains an important value of national security. The Strategy of State Intelligence (2005) refers to the protection of the economic benefits of U.S. commercial puzzles and know-how from attempts of penetration of the enemy. In official documents of the U.S. intelligence says that in the middle of the rest of the counter-intelligence should initiate tougher laws on industrial espionage and "prevent owners of large assets, including non-governmental agents." Now in the current state of U.S. intelligence Strategy (2009) explicitly stated the need to optimize collaboration and business intelligence in the interests of U.S. security. Never before in the official documents of the U.S. administration did not say so openly about such a union.
From the file "joint venture"
The term "private military company" the first fiction and distributed the Englishman Tom Spicer. He, at about 1997, founded his first company to provide military services. One of the first military operations, after which Spicer and company have acquired fame, had surgery "Papua New Guinea". To avoid negative style, perso
nal military companies often refer to themselves as personal security companies (PSCs) because PMCs are created in relation to the role in hostilities and are active, coming temper and PSCs — for personal protection of persons and property and are passive, defensive temper.
Usually, the PMCs are in the advanced industrialized countries, where the higher the level of military know-how. As for the staff, then there are about 1.5 million people. There are a number of office workers one man, and one of the biggest concerns (G4S) staff — 360,000 people.
In 2005, the turnover of all the PMCs was about 200 billion euros. PMCs are building their activities in the criteria of a market economy. All determines supply and demand. Apart from the provision of services PMCs offer special equipment and technology.
In general, we can distinguish four service delivery areas PMCs:
Together with municipal military academies and universities, private military companies are making institutions, which provide training for military and civilian security.
As for logistics, the PMCs are engaged in virtually all of the different varieties of supply of toilet paper in order to provide customers various types of equipment. They will work for food, cleaning odezhki and cleaning of buildings, provision of accommodation — from tents to villas with swimming pools, construction of roads, bridges, air bases, runways and platforms, etc., in other words, all that is required in war and peace time for the existence of the army. The book thoroughly examined and cataloged many PMCs, and the family of their activities.
Whose orders do private military firm?
Regardless of funding, the list looks like this:
1. "Strong in the country" (USA, Germany)
2. Private enterprise
3. "Weak country" (hot point, the conflict regions)
4. Terrorist networks, liberation movements, groups, leading civilian war.
5. International organizations (UN, NATO), non-governmental organizations.
6. Private individuals
After 1989, the rise in demand for PMCs, it is explained by the fact that the rebels, insurgents, terrorists, organized crime groups fall into the legitimate sphere of the country and there are informal shadow economists, and in Third World countries, there is a loss of control over their economies.
(According to the book Ueslera R. "War as a Service").