Contractors in the Shadows: Out of Sight, Still in Play?

Abstract

This article will examine the role of contractors, offering a historical perspective on the figure of the mercenary and its application to the contemporary world. It will explore the economic impact that mercenaries have had in recent conflicts, highlighting how private security has resurfaced(or not) — especially in an era where many industrialized countries lack militarily ready forces for warfare. The analysis will adopt both a historical and economic approach, with a particular focus on the geoeconomic connections of the private military market.

Freelance is now such a well-known term that it commonly describes someone who works on specific assignments for various organizations, rather than being permanently employed by just one. But where does this widely used word come from? The term freelance has medieval origins: it referred to mercenaries whose lances were “free” — meaning they were available for hire by anyone who could afford them. It stems from the combination of “free” and “lance” and was coined by Walter Scott (1771–1832) in his novel Ivanhoe (1820), where he used it to describe a medieval mercenary warrior — a "free-lance" — whose loyalty was not pledged to any particular lord. By the 1860s, the term had evolved into a figurative noun, and by 1903, it was officially recognized as a verb by authorities such as the Oxford English Dictionary. Some suggest that the word “free”, with roots in the Germanic languages, may also evoke ideas of freedom or even joy in doing independent work. And was that really the case? Apparently, yes. Being a mercenary as work has always followed human history after the modern civilization, and their role has been undeniable, most the one time, geopolitical, geographically central in human social mutaments.

The specialization in warfare and being a soldier, were created at an early date in human history. Trained soldiers were an extra valuable resource in the past, typically associated with tribal or cultural lines. The first data that arrived to us are related to the battle of Kadesh in 1294 BCE, where Ramses II hired Numidian people to fight the Hittites. From the Greek city-states to Persians, Chartagines to the well known Roman foreign troops, the use of mercenaries has deeply impacted the destiny of the world. At the end of the Empire the presence of Gothics and German people was higher than Roman citizens. Vikings hired to protect the Byzantine Emperor, as an elite force. But was the middle ages the golden age of what we call today contractors. Hired soldiers were a necessary part of any mediaeval army. Some leaders of these mercenaries became so powerful to rule areas, cities and regions. Words as "condotta" meaning contract was the document between these forces and their mercenaries or lords, which established the time, the cost and condition of the military service. Contractor could come from the Latin word too, “contractus” always referring to a deal stipulated from two parts. It is undeniable that the roots of the words are similar. The feudal bands became organized and structured organizations through the renaissance centuries, and built military organizations with real marketing strategies based on their cruelty or efficiency. Local enterprise substituted the foreign companies and the “Condottieri” were the mirror of the powerful renaissance families in the late 1400, dominating the social and political scenes particularly in Italy, France & Spain. In the 1600s Swiss and Landsknechts exported their skills around Europe, becoming the most efficient and powerful mercenaries organizations. The Pope is still protected by the Swiss Guard from a contract stipulated in the 1502 AC. Albanians, Scots, Gascons and military entrepreneurs grew till the end of the 1700s. The rise of the large scale of warfare coincided with the need to have more people on the battlefield, creating a centralized apparatus which indeed had to manage a large group of militaries. French revolution, Napoleonic wars, Prussia state-organizations, rationalism and the new nation-state identity, put the mercenaries organization in the shadow, behind the new concept of military, more related to patriotism, instead of profit. The centralization of the citizens and their relation with the state delegitimated the role of the mercenaries. Foreign military organizations served the state also in this period, and the wars in the 1700 - 1800 were still composed by a good percentage of foreign hirings. And the current corporate contractor organisations?

Already in the past, business ventures as the Dutch East India Company or English East India Company act and build their own military protection. The numbers were massive, competing for example with the national British army. But it was only in the 20th century that the word mercenaries and the individualism of the private military ecosystem started to grow again. The first actors were ex-soldiers who decided to build their own path into a warfare zone, specific during the de-colonization period and the Cold War. For sure actors such as the Foreign Legion under the French government, International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War and others remained active during the last century. When the quality is more important than the quantity, it puts the skilled contractors under a lens of growing in power. When a state is weak in its governance, more or less could ask the support of private military organizations keeping security or insecurity.

One huge differentiation with the past is that the current business military ventures are indisputably influenced by the economical organizations, financial structures and they are deeply connected with the multinational environments.

Today, these are integrated in the normal marketplace and offer a specialized package for their services: from logistically and maritime, to security and military skill sets, but also  intelligence gathering, training, cybersecurity, and infrastructure protection. They are efficient and organized and follow the business profitability instead of individual reasons. Modern private military and security companies (PMSCs), in fact, are now embedded in a global market valued at over US$224 billion as of 2020, with projections estimating growth to +US$450 billion by 2030. This industry, which evolved from an estimated US$100 billion in 2003, has become a core component of both international security operations and state-led military interventions.

This market has evolved far beyond its historical roots in personal military service. The large-scale resurgence of PMCs became particularly visible during the Iraq War (2003–2011), where companies like Blackwater (then Academi, Triple Canopy and now Constelling Group), DynCorp (now Amentum), and KBR played crucial roles, supporting U.S. military operations while operating under contracts worth billions. At the peak of the conflict, contractors outnumbered U.S. military personnel on the ground, performing functions once reserved for state militaries. This trend highlighted both the economic and political shifts in the use of force—transforming military outsourcing into a core component of modern warfare not just in Iraq but also in Afghanistan.

To understand the evolution of modern PMCs, it is essential to mention Executive Outcomes (EO), often regarded as the prototype for contemporary private military firms. Founded in 1989 and dissolved in 1998, by former members of South Africa’s special forces, EO operated in several African conflicts during the 1990s, including the civil wars in Angola and Sierra Leone. EO was notable for its ability to achieve rapid military successes with a relatively small number of highly trained personnel. Its operational effectiveness led many states to view PMCs as viable alternatives to national militaries, sparking global debate over sovereignty and accountability. They were experts in clandestine training of forces, equipment, sniper & special force training. The former founder of EO, after its dissolution created STTEP International in 2006, active to support recent Nigeria's governments against Boko Haram in the region.

In more recent years, the model has been expanded and further expanded. The Wagner Group, linked to Russian geopolitical interests, has demonstrated how PMCs can be used as an instrument of state power in regions such as Syria, Libya, the Central African Republic, and Ukraine. These organizations operate in hybrid spaces, blending state-sponsored objectives with commercial interests, often securing access to natural resources in exchange for military services, thereby creating direct geoeconomic impact.

How are PMCs organized internally?

Most leading PMCs today adopt hybrid corporate-military structures, typically organized around five core pillars: Corporate Governance, Business Development & Contracting, Operations & Field Divisions, Training & Recruitment and Logistics & Intelligence Support. At the highest level, PMCs are incorporated as limited liability companies or as multinational holding structures, often registered in jurisdictions favorable to their business models—such as Gibraltar, the UAE, or Cyprus. Their boards frequently include retired senior military officers, legal experts, and corporate executives. This layer is responsible for overseeing compliance, finances, and government relations — all essential elements for navigating the complex and often ambiguous legal landscape in which PMCs operate.

A dedicated contracting unit is central to any PMC’s success. These companies actively compete for tenders issued by governments, international organizations, and private clients.

The scope of these contracts can range widely: from training local police forces to securing critical energy infrastructure, and in some cases, providing direct combat support with field forces. This unit also manages lobbying, public relations, and brand reputation — an industry where perception and trust can directly impact market opportunities; they are totally integrated in the financial market. At their core, PMCs remain operationally structured along military lines. An Operations Directorate plans and commands missions; regional or Project Managers oversee operations in specific theaters; field Commanders and Team Leaders direct contractor teams on the ground. Specialized units — including snipers, UAV operators, intelligence analysts, EOD teams, and more — provide tactical and technical expertise. Former members of special forces units often dominate these divisions, ensuring a consistently high level of tactical capability and operational readiness. Maintaining a continuous pipeline of qualified personnel is a strategic priority. Many PMCs operate their own training academies, with specialized programs tailored to specific client needs and operational environments — from urban warfare to close protection, anti-piracy operations, cyber defense, and beyond: within tailored operations or large scale ones they provide and end-to-end service to their clients.

While recruitment still draws heavily from former military and police personnel, there is a growing trend toward sourcing skilled but lower-cost contractors from non-Western countries, enabling PMCs to remain cost-competitive on the global market.

Behind every successful operation lies a robust logistical backbone. PMC logistics units are tasked with managing the supply of equipment, transportation, and communications — often in austere or contested environments.

In parallel, intelligence divisions play a vital role in supporting operational planning and risk mitigation. In more advanced PMCs, this now includes sophisticated cyber capabilities and geospatial intelligence, further blurring the lines between military and commercial capabilities. This organizational model is deliberately scalable and modular. PMCs can rapidly expand or contract their operations in response to shifting contract demands and evolving geopolitical circumstances. Adopting corporate structures provides significant legal and financial advantages. It allows PMCs to build partnerships with multinational corporations, engage in complex subcontracting arrangements, and manage risk across multiple jurisdictions — practices increasingly common in this sector.

Why does this matter?

Understanding the internal architecture of PMCs sheds light on their role as true geopolitical-economic actors — not merely military service providers for hire. Their corporate layer facilitates integration into global financial networks and supply chains.

Their operational layer ensures the delivery of highly specialized and adaptable military capabilities. This double structure enables PMCs to shape local conflict economies and to secure contracts that directly tie military power to resource extraction (as exemplified by the Wagner Group), state-building efforts (as seen with STTEP’s engagement in Nigeria), or infrastructure protection (notably by companies such as GardaWorld and G4S).

Conclusion

Globally, PMCs today are embedded in an intricate ecosystem of multinational corporations, financial networks, and political agendas. They not only operate in war zones but also increasingly provide security for critical infrastructure, energy sectors, transport corridors, and maritime routes. Their flexibility and scalability make them attractive to both states and private actors—particularly in an era where many industrialized nations lack large standing armies ready for extended operations. They remain related to their home governments, due to fiscal, logistical, political & economical advantages. This dynamic, however, comes with risks: for client states, the use of PMCs can create dependency and introduce legal and ethical ambiguities; for fragile states, their presence may distort local economies, fuel corruption, and undermine sovereignty.

In fact, the mercenaries of today are a member of a highly sophisticated corporate-military apparatus — one deeply embedded in the fabric of global capitalism, and increasingly influential in the geopolitical landscape. As national armed forces across much of the industrialized world have gradually downsized and professionalized, the relative weight and influence of PMCs in modern conflict scenarios has grown significantly. In an era of limited conscription, aging defense infrastructures, and complex, asymmetric conflicts, private military contractors are increasingly filling critical capability gaps that many state militaries can no longer address alone. Not only are PMCs able to provide logistical support and equipment procurement in highly unstable environments—where state procurement channels often falter—but they also bring something even more valuable: deep operational expertise. In many modern warzones, PMCs are among the only forces on the ground with continuously updated tactical knowledge, an understanding of local anthro-social dynamics, and the ability to operate at an intelligence-grade level across human and technical domains.

This expertise stems from their hybrid identity: PMCs recruit from across military, intelligence, and security sectors globally, creating dynamic teams that often outpace traditional military units in their ability to adapt to fast-evolving conflict theaters; the PMCs can maintain sustained, embedded operations, ensuring that institutional knowledge and local relationships are preserved.

If we look ahead, there is a growing risk—and opportunity—that conflicts may become increasingly privatized. As states seek deniability, flexibility, and cost efficiency, they are likely to outsource more operational roles to private actors. PMCs, in turn, may become indispensable not only for material supply chains, but for the transfer of critical skills and field intelligence that shape the outcome of modern wars. In this evolving landscape, the line between public and private force is likely to blur even further.Ultimately, the modern PMC is not simply a service provider, but a strategic actor whose role in contemporary warfare —both on the battlefield and within the global security architecture — will only continue to grow.

Moreover, the modern contractor is no longer a simple "free-lance" warrior of the medieval type, but a global economic and geopolitical actor — a reflection of how the privatization of military power has reshaped not only the conduct of war but also the economic landscape that surrounds it.

In a Europe struggling to build consensus around the return of conscription — and where current generations show little interest in taking up arms for national causes — will it be the market, with its competitive salaries and promise of a "professional" military career, that ends up recruiting the soldiers of the future? If the draft no longer appeals, but what about private security? Are we ready to accept that European defense may once again shift — not just to citizens, but to mercenaries?