Necropolitics in Modern Warfare

In Ukraine, as paramilitaries and private military forces wreak havoc on civilian areas, the horror of modern conflict once again confronts the global community. The role of death squads and paramilitary groups has become disturbingly prominent in today’s wars, revealing how certain states wield power through violent, irregular forces. These groups, with ambiguous ties to their sponsoring governments, execute a shadowy form of power known as necropolitics, where the authority to decide who lives and who dies is outsourced to irregular forces. This dark and often overlooked dimension of contemporary war sheds light on how some governments strategically use paramilitaries and death squads to control populations, sow fear, and skirt accountability.

In 21st-century conflicts, paramilitaries and death squads play increasingly prominent roles. These groups, operating outside formal military structures, are often unleashed to intimidate, terrorize, or eliminate those who oppose the state or challenge its authority. Their actions target specific groups or communities, functioning as tools of terror and suppression. This was seen, for example, in Russia’s use of Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov’s forces and “private” military companies in Ukraine. These forces not only enabled the state to extend its power beyond its borders but also allowed it to intimidate civilians without the direct visibility and scrutiny that conventional military operations would bring.

This type of delegated violence aligns with necropolitics by allowing states to exert control without explicit involvement. As the literature on death squad violence outlines, paramilitary groups such as those deployed by Russia are purposefully detached from formal state structures. By outsourcing violence to these groups, states create a buffer that obscures responsibility. When reports of civilian massacres, such as those in Bucha, Ukraine, emerge, states can redirect blame toward “rogue” forces or “independent” actors, even though the reality is often one of implicit state endorsement.

The detachment is strategic. In Ukraine, as in other places, Russia has faced international condemnation for direct military operations and atrocities. By relying on death squads and paramilitaries, Russian leadership can avoid full accountability while achieving a similar outcome—widespread fear and suppression. This setup allows states to enforce terror without crossing the visible boundaries of international law, showcasing necropolitics at work.

Necropolitics also brings to light a darker side of identity politics in conflict. Paramilitary violence often targets specific groups marked as “the other,” creating a justification for these groups’ subjugation or even extermination. In the case of Ukraine, Russian forces have positioned Ukrainian civilians as part of an “enemy” population, a group whose survival is framed as secondary to Russia’s strategic interests. This aligns with what Mbembe calls the “death-world”—a realm where the line between life and death is blurred, where survival is tenuous, and where civilians live in constant fear of lethal force.

The concept of the “other” also plays into the brutal calculations that characterize necropolitics. Culturalist theories of political violence point to a pattern in which social and cultural differences become tools for justifying death squad violence. For example, local identities, traditions, and allegiances that differ from those of the state or dominant group are often reframed as existential threats. In Ukraine, historical tensions between Eastern and Western ideologies and allegiances can deepen the justifications used by those in power to wield paramilitary violence.

While necropolitics might suggest chaos or arbitrary violence, it is far from random. Rational choice theory, another key perspective, argues that states use these groups in calculated, rational ways. Death squads are mobilized as cost-effective, deniable tools for states that face internal or external pressure. In Serbia, for example, during the Bosnian Civil War, international constraints limited Serbia’s ability to intervene openly. Instead, Serbian leaders opted to “subcontract” violence by using paramilitary units against Bosniaks and Croats, which allowed them to distance themselves from the massacres while achieving their objectives.

In Ukraine, similar rational calculations might explain the increasing reliance on paramilitaries. Faced with international scrutiny, Russian leaders can maintain their influence in the conflict while keeping their hands ostensibly clean. By using paramilitaries, the Russian state avoids the diplomatic and legal repercussions associated with direct military intervention, a clear example of necropolitics operating through rational state interest.

The use of death squads and paramilitary forces, especially under a necropolitical lens, suggests that terror will continue to be a hallmark of modern conflict. Today, the challenge of understanding and addressing these actors lies in recognizing how governments use necropolitics to control populations while distancing themselves from direct violence. As the world watches the situation in Ukraine, it becomes increasingly apparent that necropolitics is not just a theory but a harsh reality shaping the lives of millions. Understanding necropolitics sheds light on this disturbing trend and urges the international community to rethink how it addresses state-sponsored terror in an age where the lines between state and non-state actors blur dangerously.

Matthew P. Arsenault holds a PhD in political science and has worked on issues of political violence across academia, government, and the private sector.