By Angelo Giuliano
The war in Ukraine has created something that will not necessarily disappear when the fighting eventually stops: a large pool of people with battlefield experience, weapons knowledge and practical skills that can be used far beyond the original conflict.
That should concern everyone.
The recent case in India involving an American national and six Ukrainian nationals is a reminder of how complicated this problem can become. According to the allegations surrounding the Myanmar training-camp case, the group was linked to plans involving military training in Myanmar. The individuals have since been granted default bail, their passports released, and permission to travel back to the United States and Ukraine for a limited period.
The legal process must of course be respected. An accusation is not a conviction, and people who have not been found guilty should not be described as terrorists as a matter of fact.
But the broader question is much more serious than one court case.
What happens to the fighters after the war?
Ukraine has been one of the most technologically intensive wars of the modern era. Drones, electronic warfare, reconnaissance, special operations, explosives, battlefield intelligence and small-unit tactics have all become central to the conflict.
Thousands of fighters have gained experience that would have been extremely difficult to acquire anywhere else.
When a war eventually winds down, those skills do not simply disappear.
Some veterans will return to civilian life. Many will go home to their families. Others will join legitimate security companies or military organisations.
But history shows that wars also create mercenary markets.
People with combat experience can become valuable commodities to governments, intelligence services, private military companies, armed groups and criminal organisations. Once that market develops, fighters can move from one conflict to another.
This is where the Ukraine war presents a particularly uncomfortable question.
The danger of an international fighter pipeline
The world has already seen what happens when large numbers of battle-hardened fighters are produced by prolonged conflicts.
After the Soviet-Afghan war, foreign fighters dispersed across the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. Networks that had developed during one conflict were later used in completely different conflicts.
The rise of ISIS demonstrated the extreme version of this phenomenon.
ISIS was not created simply by ideology. It also benefited from people who had acquired military experience in previous wars and knew how to organise, recruit, train and fight.
The lesson is not that Ukrainian fighters are ISIS. That would be an irresponsible and inaccurate generalisation.
The lesson is that battlefield expertise can travel.
And when thousands of people acquire advanced combat skills in a major war, governments should be thinking seriously about where those skills could eventually end up.
From Ukraine to the next battlefield
The Myanmar case is therefore worth examining beyond the immediate legal proceedings.
Why were foreign nationals allegedly interested in military training in Myanmar?
Who recruited them?
Who financed their activities?
Who were they working for?
Were they independent adventurers, ideological volunteers, mercenaries, or part of a larger network?
These are legitimate questions for investigators.
The danger is not necessarily a single organisation. It is the emergence of a global marketplace for military expertise.
A fighter does not have to belong to ISIS, Al-Qaeda or another recognised terrorist organisation to create a security problem. A network of former soldiers and irregular fighters operating for money, political causes or private interests can be destabilising enough.
And unlike conventional armies, mercenary networks can move across borders with considerably less political accountability.
The West cannot ignore the consequences
There is also a larger hypocrisy here.
For years, Western governments have celebrated foreign volunteers travelling to Ukraine to fight against Russia. Some were treated as heroes; others were incorporated into Ukrainian military structures.
But wars have consequences that do not stop at the battlefield.
Once people have learned how to operate drones, conduct reconnaissance, use explosives and organise irregular warfare, those skills can potentially be sold or transferred elsewhere.
The same internationalisation of warfare that governments considered useful during the Ukraine conflict could eventually become a security problem for them.
This is why the issue deserves far more attention.
The war may end. The networks may not.
The eventual end of the Ukraine war will not automatically end the security consequences created by it.
Weapons will remain. Networks will remain. Ideologies will remain. And, most importantly, people with battlefield experience will remain.
The international community should therefore be asking difficult questions now rather than waiting for another terrorist attack or another civil war to expose the problem.
The biggest mistake would be to assume that every foreign fighter is a terrorist.
The second biggest mistake would be to assume that none of them could become one.
The real danger is the creation of a new generation of internationally mobile fighters whose military skills can be transferred from one conflict to another.
That is how a regional war can produce global consequences long after the shooting stops.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Angelo Giuliano:
Opinion | Philippines, China, and the SeaLight Project: Tensions at sea and the funding behind them
Opinion | Churchill was corrupt—and they locked up the man who proved it
Comment