Sweden has had intrusions into their airspace and waters over the last month and tensions are mounting between the East and the West once again. Ever since the outbreak of the Ukraine Crisis, the West has been sceptical of the Russia and their involvement with the separatists and the annexation of Crimea. Russia is becoming a pariah in western media of recent and with the unidentified intrusion into Sweden’s waters and air, the West is again growing suspicious of Russia. Currently all that is being done in regards to invasion of airspace and waters is a substantial amount of finger pointing. No Swedish officials have confirmed that any of the intrusions were Russian vessels in any capacity. The current question is to what level do foreign militaries need to announce their presence in non-aggressive manoeuvres? If the submarine was a Russian vessel that diverted into Swedish waters by accident should they be forced to divulge their military practices to the Western powers?

This past week Sweden released documents to the public depicting sonar images confirming that a submarine entered Sweden’s territorial waters in October. Sweden had earlier released to the press that they were in search of a submarine vessel that entered their water, yet promptly left the scene. The search was called off after one week with the Swedish military stating “the bulk of ships and amphibious forces have returned to port“, continuing that a couple of ships would remain at sea to patrol the area. Allegations quickly arose that the incident was caused by a Russian submarine. Swedish officials have been careful not to place the blame of the incident on any country in particular, yet the rhetoric has seeped into the public.

The question that this incident poses is to what level are military powers obliged to share military operational knowledge with one another? If the vessel truly was a Russian vessel it has no obligation to inform Sweden of all their military manoeuvres. Especially since Russia is no doubt wholly aware that if they take responsibility for the intrusion, even if it was a mistake, Western countries will chastise their incursion as Russian military negligence. Russia holds such a perilous position in global politics which commonly makes it target of scrutiny for any movement on their part. In fact, just this last week an unidentified plane entered Swedish airspace and the Russians were blamed almost immediately. When in actuality it was later released that it was a French plane that entered their airspace without proclaiming their presence.

With the unidentified intrusion into Swedish waters, it is clear that the media is keen on placing the blame on Russia. This issue has created the issue of the level of military transparency between states that is expected. Currently there is no accountability for states on their military actions and that is what is currently causing the increasing suspicions of Russia infringing on state sovereignty. In actuality the notion of military transparency is new to the international sphere and is not ready to be accepted by many states. Military secrecy is cherished by Russia and many other states and they are not willing to accept transparency to other states.

With the onset of the Iraq and Afghanistan war the world has seen a spike private security companies, expanding from seven to near 700 companies in existence. The documentary Shadow Company, directed by Nick Bicanic and Jason Bourque, analyzes the phenomena and addresses the common misconception regarding PMCs. Shadow Company takes a rather, though not wholly, unbiased approach to the use of PMCs in conflict in comparison to government militaries. Shadow Company does seem to portray more strongly the negative aspect of PMCs and their practices. Through the use of interviews and historical outlook, the directors frame their film to express the positive and negative qualities of private militaries and uses this focus to portray the role that PMCs play in modern conflict. While many of the interviewees regarded PMCs in positive light, the bias of the film came through regarding their concerns over PMCs acting in conflicts.

The main issue that the film introduces to the viewer is the role of private security firms in a global context and what role they should play in security and conflict. I think that the concern of private security firms being active in conflict situations is a valid response to security problems. The film even relates that private military was an active part of conflict basically until the Napoleonic times as the introduction of a state military. As such, I believe that PMCs are a fact of warfare, and the concept of state military is still in its renaissance. Yet the rhetoric of the private military as unconventional and unethical persists, despite the fact that PMCs have been the primary fighting force throughout history.

The bias against PMCs is commonly derived from the concern of the ethical ramifications of a non-state armed force and also the concern that they are merely “soldiers of fortune”, or in other words a corporation focuses primarily on profits. I believe that these concerns are shortsighted and do not accurately reflect the role that PMCs play in global conflict. Firstly, I do not believe that ethics can really apply to the use of PMCs. Condemning PMCs on the grounds of ethics presupposes that state militaries have a greater ethical standing and thus their actions can be justified. These concerns seem to derive from the fact that a private company cannot command the same ethical standing as a government based agency. I would concede that a state military is no more justified in action than a private military, assuming that state is more ethical than private elevates the state to an omnipotent level. A PMCs inclusion in a combat situation does not provide any ethical concerns in conflict, and stating otherwise promotes that a state has more justified in action.

Common rhetoric surrounding PMCs is also that they are soldiers of fortune and that their inclusion in conflict scenarios is all based on profit. I contest that this concept of being a highly capitalist and engaging in conflict just for the profits is misunderstood by the populous. I do agree that certain private military firms exist that concern themselves only with profit, however it is common knowledge that corporations that do not take other factors (risk, morals, etc) into account are not likely to remain in business for long. As such, private militaries that do not take into account all possible factors when considering a contract and merely look at the dollar amount, are less likely to conduct their affairs well and will ward off future business. Just as with companies in other fields, PMCs have to take into account more than just profit in order to keep their company in business.

In conclusion, I would contest that private militaries will play a role in future conflicts and that common bias against such firms is unjustified. PMCs have played a role in conflict throughout the most part of history, yet the stigma of the “for profit” military agencies is still prevalent in society.  I contest that the major concerns the populous has against private militaries, especially in regards to ethics and profiteering, are not rooted in fact. I believe that the world will see a greater role for PMCs in future conflicts and bias against them derives from false logic.