Mercenaries aren't covered under the Geneva Convention

[DemocratSinceBirth]

If Ukrainians capture members of the Wagner Group they can treat them as they will. Those monsters decapitated a Syrian and displayed the headless body. That being said " Battle not with monsters, less ye become a monster."

[Abnredleg]

1. Private Military Contractors are not Mercenaries

The law surrounding PMCs is murky since they are a relatively new creation but an argument can be made that they come under the “ militia and volunteer corps” language of international law, and are therefore entitled to POW status. There is also language in other parts of the law that seem to indicate otherwise. In short, it’s complicated.

[Torchlight]

2. It depends if current iteration of Ukraine was a signator to the

United Nations Mercenary Convention (1989).

I don't think the Kiev government as it stands now, could be considered a legitimate signatory, as it was the government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic that signed.

[Abnredleg]

5. Both are considered signatories

Based on everything I’ve read. All the republics of the Soviet Union agreed to voluntarily comply with the SU’s treaty obligations when dissolved. Certainly Russia assumed the treaty rights and obligations of the Soviet Union, as well as its debt.

The part of international law governing this is State Succession, and it’s very complicated.

[Torchlight]

7. I think you may be confusing the parameters of economic treaties

as being the same standard as military treaties.

As per 'America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate' by Sarotte, the military and economic treaties signed by Soviet states and satellites no longer part of that system are not bound to compliance in the present.

They may however resign, give consideration or refuse given the establishment of a new government.

(See also, The Gates of Europe Paperback by Serhii Plokh which reinforces Sarotte's assertions)

[Abnredleg]

9. I'm talking about the Geneva Convention

And everything I’ve seen says both sides are considered signatories. As to other obligations, I’m just saying international law on State Succession is very complicated, which is just another way of saying you easily argue both sides of any particular issue. Take the effort to strip Russia of its Security Council seat. It was assumed for 30 years that the seat was properly passed down to Russia. Now, not so much.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. They act like a gang.

More MS13 than conventional soldiers.

[Abnredleg]

6. Just like Blackwater at times

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Not a fan of them but they aren't hired to assassinate foreign leaders.

[Make7]

4. Wouldn't the Fundamental Guarantees in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I apply?

Both Russia and Ukraine have signed them.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=086F4BB140C53655C12563CD0051E027

Seems to set out minimum protections for any persons in custody not covered by other sections of the Conventions.

But IANAL...