RUSSIAN ARMY WANTS MERCENARY TROOPS IN SYRIA IN FROM THE COLD

Contractors seek official status as well as medical and financial support from the state

After years of distancing itself from a group of military contractors doing its bidding in Syria, the Kremlin is facing renewed pressure to recognise the existence of covert forces.

But unlike earlier demands to acknowledge the mercenaries, it is Russia’s military establishment urging authorities to come clean.

This month, a group of Russian military leaders addressed a statement to President Vladimir Putin and the country’s Supreme Court arguing that the mercenaries should be recognised by the government so they have access to medical and financial support after they return.

“For three years already, we have been receiving complaints and appeals from Russian citizens who were injured in Syria and cannot undergo medical treatment in Russia,” said the statement, which was signed by retired Col Gen Leonid Ivashov, retired Col Vladimir Petrov and Yevgeni Shabayev, a Cossack leader.

“Soldiers and officers of these combat units have no social, medical or financial support from the state, We demand that the status of combat participants in private military companies be recognised.”

Russia entered the Syrian war in September 2015 to buttress the forces of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad.

The Kremlin’s intervention is credited with turning the tide of the conflict in favour of Mr Al Assad.

But after two costly military interventions in Chechnya and Afghanistan, the Russian public is sensitive to wars in which thousands of Russian military personnel were killed.

In an effort to minimise its presence in Syria, the Kremlin has relied on mercenaries, which is illegal under Russian law, and a small detachment of special forces mainly from the republic of Chechnya.

The mercenary Wagner Group, named after the nom de guerre of its founder Dmitry Utkin, is believed to have been active in Syria since 2013.

Its reported funder, a Kremlin-linked business man named Yevgeny Prigozhin, was added to a US Treasury sanctions list for his business dealings with Russia’s Defence Ministry.

In February this year, a botched mission to capture an oilfield in northern Syria under control of US-allied forces drew attention to the fighters and their links to the Kremlin.

The incident shows why the Russian government may be reticent to give the private military groups legal status, according to Alexey Khlebnikov, a Middle East analyst at the Russian International Affairs Council, which is close to the foreign ministry.

“For one, the defence ministry does not want to lose the monopoly on Russia’s use of military force,” Mr Khlebnikov told The National. “The case of mercenaries being bombed in Syria raised concerns about the level of their professionalism and ability to co-operate with the ministry.”

The failed operation and this lack of co-operation also highlighted how the aims of private mercenary groups have diverged from the Russian government’s objectives since the beginning of its intervention in Syria.

It is yet another reason why recognising or legalising mercenaries could be a problem for Moscow.

In December, AP reported that the Syrian state oil company had offered the mercenary groups 25 per cent of profits from oilfields they liberated from ISIS.

But this contract is precisely the kind of mission that could undermine the contractors’ chances of receiving state help on returning to Russia, Mr Khlebnikov said.

“In Syria, the Russian Defence Ministry finds it problematic when private mercenary companies act in their own or Syrian state interests without consulting with them,” he said. “It puts the ministry’s own calculations and plans in the country at risk.”

Much like the number of Russian servicemen in Syria, how many Russian mercenaries have taken part in the seven-year conflict is unclear. A Reuters investigation this year, relying on data from paramilitary leaders in Russia, estimated the number at between 2,000 and 3,000.

The number of deaths has also been difficult to track. Reuters tallied 40 deaths between January and August last year.

Then the public reporting on the hundreds of casualties suffered during the botched oilfield raid in February left Moscow scrambling for an explanation, amid Kremlin concerns of a public outcry that could have forced the government’s hand on the issue.

“Definitely the incident in February put Kremlin in the very uncomfortable situation,” Mr Khlebnikov said. “On one hand, people were concerned that the Russians were left without help and assistance in the country. On the other hand, the public is concerned that someone except the army might have a say in the conflicts.”

Mr Putin made a surprise visit to Russia’s airbase in Syria in December to declare the mission complete and announce a reduction in Russian troops.

It has not signalled the end the Russia’s Syria intervention. Early last month, Russian media reported that a group called Patriot is now active in Syria.

But the continuing role of Russian mercenaries in Syria is unlikely to bring about a change in their legal status back home, analysts said.

“It’s important to remember that military veterans are those who served in the military and were sent to war,” said Michael Kofman, an expert on Russia at the Centre for Naval Analysis. “These are mercenaries to whom the state does not necessarily owe any obligation, and who signed a commercial contract to go into a conflict zone.”

Russian Defence Ministry finds it problematic when mercenary companies act on their own, without consulting with them ALEXEY KHLEBNIKOV Analyst