Europe
UK tells OSCE that Russia’s recruitment of foreign fighters is coercive and asks how many serve
In Vienna, a UK military adviser rejected Russia’s “mercenaries” charge against Ukraine and cited Amnesty, US and OSCE reports on deceptive recruitment of foreigners by Russia.
The United Kingdom accused Russia on 21 October of building its foreign recruitment on deception and coercion, telling the OSCE Forum for Security Co-operation in Vienna that Moscow should say how many foreign nationals now serve in its armed forces. The statement was delivered by Colonel Joby Rimmer, the UK Senior Military Advisor to the OSCE, and published by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.
The UK also expressed solidarity with Romania, whose F-16s, it said, shot down two Geran drones that had entered Romanian airspace on Saturday. Geopolitiki reported on that incident earlier: Romanian F-16s shoot down two jet-powered drones over the Black Sea, defence ministry says.
A reply to Russia’s “mercenaries” charge
Colonel Rimmer was answering a statement made by the Russian delegation to the same forum a week earlier. According to the UK, Russia claimed that Ukraine “actively recruits foreign mercenaries in violation of international law”, that more than 20,000 foreign nationals have fought for Ukraine and that strikes against them would continue.
The UK rejected that description. Foreign nationals serving with Ukraine are formally enlisted in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Rimmer said, which makes them lawful combatants under international humanitarian law rather than mercenaries. He added that they are helping Ukraine exercise its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
The UK also noted that, when asked about Russia’s own practices, the Russian delegation had said foreign citizens sign contracts with the Russian Ministry of Defence and in return obtain Russian citizenship.
The evidence the UK cited
Rimmer argued that the Russian model is “coercive and exploitative” despite the offer of citizenship. He cited research published by Amnesty International in September, based on interviews with recruits from Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa and Sri Lanka. According to the UK summary, it documented false promises of civilian work, contracts recruits could not read, confiscated passports, minimal training and threats against people who tried to leave. Amnesty assessed that in many cases the conduct may amount to human trafficking under the UN Palermo Protocol.
He also pointed to the United States’ 2026 Trafficking in Persons Report, which, in his account, describes the fraudulent recruitment of more than a thousand Kenyan men to fight for Russia, and to statements by Kenya’s Foreign Minister and by Botswana warning that citizens are being deceived into combat. The UK further cited the Ninth Interim Report of the OSCE’s human-rights office, ODIHR, which it said identifies the alleged predatory recruitment of foreign nationals by Russia as a new finding.
The statement said Russia was also offering military service to migrants who had overstayed their visas and to people facing criminal charges as an alternative to detention or deportation. Rimmer linked the recruitment drive to a decision by President Vladimir Putin on 28 September to raise the authorised strength of Russia’s armed forces for the fourth time this year, without a public explanation.
Questions put to Moscow
The UK asked the Russian delegation two questions: how many foreign nationals currently serve in Russia’s armed forces, and what measures ensure that recruits give free and informed consent, understand their contracts and can leave service in accordance with the law. Rimmer said these matters go to the heart of the OSCE Code of Conduct on politico-military aspects of security.
He closed by repeating the UK’s call for a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire, the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine’s internationally recognised territory and serious negotiations toward a just and lasting peace. The statement is one side’s position in a diplomatic exchange; no Russian reply to the new questions had been published at the time of writing.
