Hmmm, loathsome as they and Putin are, I don't think this is right. Wagner are obviously not a non-state group, rather they are a foreign policy arm of the Russian state. For right or wrong, our geopolitical system gives states considerable leeway to take action in other states at the behest of the host Government or in pursuit of the state's foreign policy goals. To start characterising this as 'terrorism' is a back-hand way of starting indirect armed conflict with Russia across the world, particularly when its reciprocated. If that's the intention then that's fine, I don't necessarily disagree with it. But I would rather see that presented to the UK people as a deliberate policy decision in those terms, rather than pretending it's something else, and probably permanently cheapening our definition of what is true 'terrorism' along the way.
To put it another way, if you designate groups as 'terrorists' because you are in geopolitical conflict with their sponsor, rather than because they actually are a non-state group engaged in terrorism, then you not only cast legitimate doubt upon any such designation in the future and allow other states to decline to co-operate on the basis that the designation is being mis-used, you open the door for other states to similarly mis-use the terrorism designation and hold up the Wagner example as justification of what is 'legitimately' allowed.
Interesting to compare with the position taken with the IRGC (which arguably is more like a traditional terrorist group than Wagner but also is much more clearly an organ of the state)
1
0
About time someone shut X Factor down.
1
0
I'm only surprised that it hadn't happened previously.
1
0
Hmmm, loathsome as they and Putin are, I don't think this is right. Wagner are obviously not a non-state group, rather they are a foreign policy arm of the Russian state. For right or wrong, our geopolitical system gives states considerable leeway to take action in other states at the behest of the host Government or in pursuit of the state's foreign policy goals. To start characterising this as 'terrorism' is a back-hand way of starting indirect armed conflict with Russia across the world, particularly when its reciprocated. If that's the intention then that's fine, I don't necessarily disagree with it. But I would rather see that presented to the UK people as a deliberate policy decision in those terms, rather than pretending it's something else, and probably permanently cheapening our definition of what is true 'terrorism' along the way.
To put it another way, if you designate groups as 'terrorists' because you are in geopolitical conflict with their sponsor, rather than because they actually are a non-state group engaged in terrorism, then you not only cast legitimate doubt upon any such designation in the future and allow other states to decline to co-operate on the basis that the designation is being mis-used, you open the door for other states to similarly mis-use the terrorism designation and hold up the Wagner example as justification of what is 'legitimately' allowed.
0
0
Interesting to compare with the position taken with the IRGC (which arguably is more like a traditional terrorist group than Wagner but also is much more clearly an organ of the state)
Join the discussion