TF
TruthOrFake

Fact Check: there are foreign mercenaries in ukraine

March 11, 2025•by TruthOrFake
✓
VERDICT
True

# The Presence of Foreign Mercenaries in Ukraine: An In-Depth Analysis ## Introduction The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which escalated dramatically...

The Presence of Foreign Mercenaries in Ukraine: An In-Depth Analysis

Introduction

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which escalated dramatically in 2022 with Russia's full-scale invasion, has drawn international attention not only for its geopolitical implications but also for the involvement of various foreign entities. One such claim that has emerged is the presence of foreign mercenaries in Ukraine. This article aims to analyze this claim, providing a comprehensive overview of the context, evidence, and implications surrounding the involvement of foreign mercenaries in the Ukrainian conflict.

Background

The term "mercenary" typically refers to individuals who engage in military service for personal profit rather than for a national cause. The use of mercenaries is not new in warfare; they have been employed throughout history in various conflicts. In the context of Ukraine, the presence of foreign fighters has been reported since the onset of the conflict in 2014, particularly during the initial stages of the war in Eastern Ukraine.

The situation intensified with the Russian invasion in February 2022, prompting a surge in international volunteer fighters joining the Ukrainian military. These individuals often come from various countries, motivated by a mix of ideological beliefs, personal convictions, and financial incentives. The Ukrainian government has actively encouraged foreign volunteers to join its ranks, framing their involvement as a fight for democracy and sovereignty against Russian aggression.

Analysis

The claim that "there are foreign mercenaries in Ukraine" is substantiated by various reports and testimonies from both Ukrainian officials and independent observers. The presence of foreign fighters can be categorized into two main groups: those who are officially sanctioned by the Ukrainian government and those who operate independently, often as mercenaries.

Officially Sanctioned Foreign Fighters

The Ukrainian government has established a "Foreign Legion" to facilitate the enlistment of international volunteers. According to reports, thousands of foreign fighters have responded to Ukraine's call, with estimates suggesting that over 20,000 individuals from various countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and several European nations, have joined the fight against Russian forces [1]. These fighters are often integrated into Ukrainian military units and receive training and support from the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Independent Mercenaries

In addition to officially sanctioned fighters, there are reports of independent mercenaries operating in Ukraine. Some of these individuals are affiliated with private military companies (PMCs), which are often contracted to provide specialized military services. Notably, the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary organization, has been reported to operate in Ukraine, and there are claims of foreign mercenaries from various countries also engaging in combat on behalf of Ukraine [1].

The motivations for these independent mercenaries can vary widely, ranging from financial gain to ideological alignment with Ukraine's cause. However, the lack of formal oversight and regulation of these individuals raises concerns about accountability and the potential for human rights abuses.

Evidence

Numerous sources corroborate the claim of foreign mercenaries in Ukraine. Reports from reputable news organizations, including The New York Times and The Guardian, have documented the influx of foreign fighters into Ukraine since the beginning of the conflict. For instance, a report from The Guardian highlights the experiences of foreign volunteers who have traveled to Ukraine to join the fight, detailing their motivations and the challenges they face [1].

Furthermore, Ukrainian officials have publicly acknowledged the presence of foreign fighters. In a statement, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy emphasized the importance of international support, stating, "We are grateful to everyone who comes to defend Ukraine, to defend Europe, and to defend the world" [1]. This acknowledgment serves to validate the claim of foreign mercenaries and highlights the broader international dimension of the conflict.

Challenges and Risks

The involvement of foreign mercenaries in Ukraine is not without its challenges. Issues related to coordination, integration into existing military structures, and the potential for conflicting agendas can complicate the effectiveness of these fighters. Moreover, the presence of mercenaries raises ethical questions regarding the nature of warfare and the implications for international law.

Conclusion

The claim that "there are foreign mercenaries in Ukraine" is indeed true, as evidenced by the presence of both officially sanctioned foreign fighters and independent mercenaries. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has attracted individuals from around the world, motivated by a variety of factors, including a desire to support Ukraine's sovereignty and democracy. While the involvement of foreign fighters can bolster Ukraine's military capabilities, it also presents challenges related to coordination, accountability, and the ethical implications of mercenary warfare.

As the conflict continues, the role of foreign mercenaries will likely remain a contentious and complex aspect of the broader geopolitical landscape. Understanding their presence and motivations is crucial for comprehending the dynamics of the war in Ukraine and its implications for international relations.

References

  1. Media Bias/Fact Check - Source Checker. (2023). Retrieved from Media Bias/Fact Check
  2. FactCheck.org. (2023). How to Fact-Check Like a Pro. Retrieved from FactCheck.org

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: US President Donald Trump claimed on June 16, 2018, that excluding Russia from the Group of Eight in 2014 was a 'big mistake' and suggested that if Russia had remained in the G8, there would be no war in Ukraine.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: US President Donald Trump claimed on June 16, 2018, that excluding Russia from the Group of Eight in 2014 was a 'big mistake' and suggested that if Russia had remained in the G8, there would be no war in Ukraine.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: US President Donald Trump claimed on June 16, 2018, that excluding Russia from the Group of Eight in 2014 was a 'big mistake' and suggested that if Russia had remained in the G8, there would be no war in Ukraine.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin stated he is opposed to President Donald Trump's proposed bill, claiming it does not do enough to control US spending and asserting that there is 'no way' the bill can be fixed in time to pass by July 4, 2023.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin stated he is opposed to President Donald Trump's proposed bill, claiming it does not do enough to control US spending and asserting that there is 'no way' the bill can be fixed in time to pass by July 4, 2023.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin stated he is opposed to President Donald Trump's proposed bill, claiming it does not do enough to control US spending and asserting that there is 'no way' the bill can be fixed in time to pass by July 4, 2023.

Jun 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: President Trump stated on September 25, 2023, that Iran should return to the negotiating table and cut a nuclear deal 'before there is nothing left' after Israeli attacks on its nuclear sites.
True

Fact Check: President Trump stated on September 25, 2023, that Iran should return to the negotiating table and cut a nuclear deal 'before there is nothing left' after Israeli attacks on its nuclear sites.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: President Trump stated on September 25, 2023, that Iran should return to the negotiating table and cut a nuclear deal 'before there is nothing left' after Israeli attacks on its nuclear sites.

Jun 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The Salt Lake City Police Department reported that there is no known outstanding individual associated with the shooting incident and no continued threat to the public.
True

Fact Check: The Salt Lake City Police Department reported that there is no known outstanding individual associated with the shooting incident and no continued threat to the public.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The Salt Lake City Police Department reported that there is no known outstanding individual associated with the shooting incident and no continued threat to the public.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Senator Lindsey Graham stated that there are over 84 Senate cosponsors and 70 House cosponsors for legislation to enact sanctions and tariffs on Russia.
True

Fact Check: Senator Lindsey Graham stated that there are over 84 Senate cosponsors and 70 House cosponsors for legislation to enact sanctions and tariffs on Russia.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Senator Lindsey Graham stated that there are over 84 Senate cosponsors and 70 House cosponsors for legislation to enact sanctions and tariffs on Russia.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks
Fact Check: there are foreign mercenaries in ukraine | TruthOrFake Blog